“Russian Truth” - as a source of law of the Old Russian state.
1. Lists and editions of “Russian Truth”. Sources, reasons and time of creation of the three main editions of “Russian Truth”: Brief, Long and Abridged.
2. Legal status of the population. “Russian Truth” and the processes of social differentiation: free and dependent population.
3. Princely land ownership and domain economy according to the Yaroslavich Truth:
· reasons for the formation of the princely estate;
· main features of the princely domain economy;
· administrative apparatus of the princely domain.
4. Civil law according to “Russian Truth” (system of contracts, personal and property rights).
5. Criminal law: the concept of a crime, the elements of a crime, the system of crimes and punishments.
6. Judicial system (bodies administering justice, judicial process: system of evidence, fees)
1. Valk S.N. Selected works on historiography and source studies. St. Petersburg, 2000, pp. 189–411.
2. Grekov B.D. Kievan Rus. M., 1953. pp. 158–190.
3. Zimin A.A. Serfs Ancient Rus'// History of the USSR. 1965. No. 6.
4. Zimin A.A. Serfs in Rus'. M., 1973.
5. Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.N. On the language of ancient Slavic law (to the analysis of several key terms) // Slavic linguistics. XIII International Congress of Slavists. M., 1978. pp. 221–240.
6. Isaev I.A. History of Russia: legal traditions. M., 1995. pp. 6–17.
7. Kisterev S.N. A.A. Zimin about Russian Truth // Essays on feudal Russia. M., 2004. pp. 213–223.
8. Lebedev V.S. Comments on Article I of the Russian Pravda, Brief Edition // Genesis and development of feudalism in Russia. M., 1987.
9. Milov L.V. About the “Extermination before 12 people” of Pravda Yaroslav // Milov L.V. Research on the history of monuments of medieval law. M., 2009. pp. 153–161.
10. Milov L.V. On the ancient history of Helmsmen's books in Rus' // Milov L.V. Research on the history of monuments of medieval law. M., 2009. pp. 233–260.
11. Milov L.V. Yaroslav's Charter (to the problem of typology and origin) // Milov L.V. Research on the history of monuments of medieval law. M., 2009. pp. 261–274.
12. Molchanov A.A. On the social structure of Novgorod at the beginning of the 11th century. // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series "History". 1976. No. 2.
13. Novoseltsev A.P., Pashuto V.T., Cherepnin L.V. Ways of development of feudalism. M., 1972. pp. 170–175.
14. Russian truth. T. 2. Comments / Comp. B.V. Alexandrov and others. Ed. B.D. Grekova. M.–L., 1947. P. 15–120.
15. Repina L.P., Zvereva V.V., Paramonova M.Yu. History of historical knowledge: a manual for universities. 2nd ed. – M., 2006. – P. 131–132, 150–152, 153–157, 163–165,178–180, 221–225.
16. Rogov V.A., Rogov V.V. Old Russian legal terminology in relation to the theory of law (essays from the 11th to the mid-17th centuries). M., 2006. pp. 29–56.
17. Sverdlov M.B. Genesis and structure of feudal society in Ancient Rus'. L., 1983. pp. 149–170.
18. Sverdlov M.B. From Russian Law to Russian Truth. M., 1988. P. 8–17, 30–35, 74–105.
19. Rural Rus' in the 9th–16th centuries. M., 2008.
20. Semenov Yu.I. The transition from primitive society to class society: paths and options for development // Ethnographic Review. 1993. No. 1, 2
21. Timoshchuk B.O. The beginning of class relations among the Eastern Slavs // Soviet Archeology. 1990. No. 2.
22. Tikhomirov M.N. A manual for studying Russian Truth. M., 1953. Florya B.N. “Service organization” and its role in the development of early feudal society among the Eastern and Western Slavs // History of the USSR. 1992. No. 1. Florya B.N. “Service organization” among the Eastern Slavs // Ethnosocial and political structure of early feudal Slavic states and nationalities. M., 1987. pp. 142–151.
23. Froyanov I.Ya. Princely land ownership and economy in Rus' in the 10th–12th centuries. // Problems of the history of feudalism. L., 1971.
24. Froyanov I.Ya. Smerdas in Kievan Rus // Bulletin of Leningrad University. Series "History". 1996. No. 2.
25. Cherepnin L.V. From the history of the formation of the class of feudal-dependent peasantry in Rus' // Historical notes. T. 56. M., 1956. pp. 235–264.
26. Cherepnin L.V. Rus': controversial issues of feudal land ownership in the 9th–15th centuries. // Novoseltsev A.P., Pashuto V.T., Cherepnin L.V. Ways of development of feudalism. M., 1972. pp. 176–182.
27. Chernilovsky Z.M. Russian Truth in the light of other Slavic legal codes // Ancient Rus': problems of law and legal ideology. M., 1984. P. 3–35.
28. Shchapov Ya.N. Princely charters and the church in Ancient Rus'. XI–XIV centuries M., 1972. pp. 279–293.
A) Legal status of the population. “Russian Truth” and the processes of social differentiation: free and dependent population.
B) Princely land ownership and domain economy according to the Yaroslavich Truth:
· reasons for the formation of the princely estate;
· main features of the princely domain economy;
· administrative apparatus of the princely domain.
4. Civil law according to “Russian Truth” (system of contracts, personal and property rights).
5. Criminal law: the concept of a crime, the elements of a crime, the system of crimes and punishments.
6. Judicial system (bodies administering justice, judicial process: system of evidence, fees)
1. Valk S.N. Selected works on historiography and source studies. St. Petersburg, 2000, pp. 189–411.
2. Grekov B.D. Kievan Rus. M., 1953. pp. 158–190.
3. Zimin A.A. Slaves of Ancient Rus' // History of the USSR. 1965. No. 6.
4. Zimin A.A. Serfs in Rus'. M., 1973.
5. Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.N. On the language of ancient Slavic law (to the analysis of several key terms) // Slavic linguistics. XIII International Congress of Slavists. M., 1978. pp. 221–240.
6. Isaev I.A. History of Russia: legal traditions. M., 1995. pp. 6–17.
7. Kisterev S.N. A.A. Zimin about Russian Truth // Essays on feudal Russia. M., 2004. pp. 213–223.
8. Lebedev V.S. Comments on Article I of the Russian Pravda, Brief Edition // Genesis and development of feudalism in Russia. M., 1987.
9. Milov L.V. About the “Extermination before 12 people” of Pravda Yaroslav // Milov L.V. Research on the history of monuments of medieval law. M., 2009. pp. 153–161.
10. Milov L.V. On the ancient history of Helmsmen's books in Rus' // Milov L.V. Research on the history of monuments of medieval law. M., 2009. pp. 233–260.
11. Milov L.V. Yaroslav's Charter (to the problem of typology and origin) // Milov L.V. Research on the history of monuments of medieval law. M., 2009. pp. 261–274.
12. Molchanov A.A. On the social structure of Novgorod at the beginning of the 11th century. // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series "History". 1976. No. 2.
13. Novoseltsev A.P., Pashuto V.T., Cherepnin L.V. Ways of development of feudalism. M., 1972. pp. 170–175.
14. Russian truth. T. 2. Comments / Comp. B.V. Alexandrov and others. Ed. B.D. Grekova. M.–L., 1947. P. 15–120.
15. Repina L.P., Zvereva V.V., Paramonova M.Yu. History of historical knowledge: a manual for universities. 2nd ed. – M., 2006. – P. 131–132, 150–152, 153–157, 163–165,178–180, 221–225.
16. Rogov V.A., Rogov V.V. Old Russian legal terminology in relation to the theory of law (essays from the 11th to the mid-17th centuries). M., 2006. pp. 29–56.
17. Sverdlov M.B. Genesis and structure of feudal society in Ancient Rus'. L., 1983. pp. 149–170.
18. Sverdlov M.B. From Russian Law to Russian Truth. M., 1988. P. 8–17, 30–35, 74–105.
19. Rural Rus' in the 9th–16th centuries. M., 2008.
20. Semenov Yu.I. The transition from primitive society to class society: paths and options for development // Ethnographic Review. 1993. No. 1, 2
21. Timoshchuk B.O. The beginning of class relations among the Eastern Slavs // Soviet Archeology. 1990. No. 2.
22. Tikhomirov M.N. A manual for studying Russian Truth. M., 1953. Florya B.N. “Service organization” and its role in the development of early feudal society among the Eastern and Western Slavs // History of the USSR. 1992. No. 1. Florya B.N. “Service organization” among the Eastern Slavs // Ethnosocial and political structure of early feudal Slavic states and nationalities. M., 1987. pp. 142–151.
23. Froyanov I.Ya. Princely land ownership and economy in Rus' in the 10th–12th centuries. // Problems of the history of feudalism. L., 1971.
24. Froyanov I.Ya. Smerdas in Kievan Rus // Bulletin of Leningrad University. Series "History". 1996. No. 2.
25. Cherepnin L.V. From the history of the formation of the class of feudal-dependent peasantry in Rus' // Historical notes. T. 56. M., 1956. pp. 235–264.
26. Cherepnin L.V. Rus': controversial issues of feudal land ownership in the 9th–15th centuries. // Novoseltsev A.P., Pashuto V.T., Cherepnin L.V. Ways of development of feudalism. M., 1972. pp. 176–182.
27. Chernilovsky Z.M. Russian Truth in the light of other Slavic legal codes // Ancient Rus': problems of law and legal ideology. M., 1984. P. 3–35.
28. Shchapov Ya.N. Princely charters and the church in Ancient Rus'. XI–XIV centuries M., 1972. pp. 279–293.
TEXT
RUSSIAN TRUTH IN A BRIEF EDITION
1. If a husband kills his husband, then brother takes revenge on brother, or son on father, or son on brother, or son on sister; if no one takes revenge, then 40 hryvnia for the person killed.
If the person killed is a Rusyn, or a Gridin, or a merchant, or a snitch, or a swordsman, or an outcast, or from Slovenia, then 40 hryvnia must be paid for him.
2. If someone is beaten to the point of blood or bruises, then he does not need to look for a witness, but if there are no marks (of beatings) on him, then let him bring a witness, and if he cannot (bring a witness), then the matter is over. If (the victim) cannot take revenge for himself, then let him take 3 hryvnia from the perpetrator for the offense, and payment to the doctor.
3. If someone hits someone with a stick, pole, palm, bowl, horn or the back of a weapon, pay 12 hryvnia. If the victim does not catch up with the one (the offender), then pay, and that’s the end of the matter.
4. If you hit with a sword without taking it out of its sheath, or with the hilt of a sword, then 12 hryvnia for the offense.
5. If he hits the hand and the hand falls off or withers, then 40 hryvnia, and if (he hits the leg) and the leg remains intact, but begins to limp, then the children (of the victim) take revenge. 6. If anyone cuts off any finger, he pays 3 hryvnia for the offense.
7. And for a mustache 12 hryvnia, for a beard 12 hryvnia.
8. If someone draws a sword and does not hit, then he pays a hryvnia.
9. If the husband pushes the husband away from him or towards himself - 3 hryvnia - if he brings two witnesses to the trial. And if it is a Varangian or a kolbyag, then he will be sworn in.
10. If a slave runs and hides with a Varangian or a kolbyag, and they do not bring him out within three days, but discover him on the third day, then the master will take away his slave, and 3 hryvnia for the offense.
11. If anyone rides someone else’s horse without asking, then pay 3 hryvnia.
12. If someone takes someone else’s horse, weapon or clothing, and the owner identifies the missing person in his community, then he should take what is his, and 3 hryvnia for the offense.
13. If someone recognizes (his missing thing) from someone, then he does not take it, do not tell him that it is mine, but tell him this: go to the vault where you took it. If he does not go, then let him (provide) a guarantor within 5 days.
14. If someone collects money from another, and he refuses, then he will go to court with 12 people. And if he, deceiving, did not give it back, then the plaintiff can (take) his money, and for the offense 3 hryvnia.
15. If someone, having identified a slave, wants to take him, then the master of the slave should lead him to the one from whom the slave was bought, and let him lead him to another seller, and when he reaches the third, then tell the third: give me your slave, and you look for your money in front of a witness.
16. If a slave hits a free husband and runs into the mansion of his master and he begins not to give him up, then take the slave and the master pays 12 hryvnia for him, and then, where the slave finds the hit man, let him beat him.
17. And if someone breaks a spear, shield, or spoils clothing, and the one who spoiled it wants to keep it for himself, then take it from him in money; and if the one who damaged it begins to insist (on the return of the damaged item), pay in money, how much the item is worth.
The truth laid down for the Russian land when the princes Izyaslav, Vsevolod, Svyatoslav and their husbands Kosnyachko, Pereneg, Nikifor of Kiev, Chudin, Mikula gathered.
18. If a fireman is killed intentionally, then the killer will have to pay 80 hryvnia for him, but people don’t pay; and for the princely entrance 80 hryvnia.
19. And if a fireman is killed like a robber, and people are not looking for the killer, then the vira is paid by the rope where the murdered person was found.
20. If they kill a fireman near a cage, near a horse, or near a herd, or when a cow is dying, then kill him like a dog; the same law applies to tiun.
21. And for the princely tiun 80 hryvnia, and for the senior groom of the herd also 80 hryvnia, as Izyaslav decreed when the Dorogobuzhites killed his groom.
22. For a princely village headman or a field headman, pay 12 hryvnia, and for a princely rank and file 5 hryvnia.
23. And for a killed scum or serf - 5 hryvnia.
24. If a slave-nurse or breadwinner is killed, then 12 hryvnia.
25. And for a princely horse, if it has a spot, 3 hryvnia, and for a stinking horse 2 hryvnia.
26. For a mare 60 kn, for an ox 40 kn, for a cow 40 kn, for a three-year-old cow 15 kn, for a one-year-old half a hryvnia, for a calf 5 kn, for a lamb nogat, for a ram nogat.
27. And if he takes away someone else’s slave or slave, then he pays 12 hryvnia for the offense.
28. If a husband comes bleeding or bruised, then he does not need to look for a witness. 46
29. And whoever steals a horse or an ox, or steals a cage, if he was alone, then he pays a hryvnia and is cut 30; if there were 10 of them, then each of them pays 3 hryvnia and 30 rez.
30. And for the prince’s side 3 hryvnia if they burn it or break it.
31. For torturing a stinker, without a princely command, for insult - 3 hryvnia.
32. And for a fireman, tiun or swordsman 12 hryvnia.
33. And whoever plows a field boundary or spoils a boundary sign, then 12 hryvnia for the offense.
34. And whoever steals a rook, then pay 30 rezan (to the owner) for the rook and 60 rezan for the sale.
35. And for a pigeon and chicken 9 kunas.
36. And for a duck, goose, crane and swan you pay 30 rez, and 60 rez for sales.
37. And if someone else’s dog, or hawk, or falcon is stolen, then 3 hryvnia for the offense.
38. If they kill a thief in their yard, or at a cage, or at a stable, then he is killed, but if the thief is kept until dawn, then bring him to the prince’s court, and if he is killed, and people saw the thief tied up, then pay him .
39. If hay is stolen, then pay 9 kunas, and for firewood 9 kunas.
40. If a sheep, or a goat, or a pig is stolen, and 10 thieves steal one sheep, let each one pay 60 rez for the sale.
41. And the one who captured the thief receives 10 rez, from 3 hryvnia to the swordsman 15 kunas, for a tithe 15 kunas, and to the prince 3 hryvnias. And out of 12 hryvnias, the one who caught the thief gets 70 kunas, and for the tithe, 2 hryvnias, and the prince gets 10 hryvnias.
42. And here is the virnica rule: for the virnik, take 7 buckets of malt for a week, also a lamb or half a carcass of meat, or 2 nogata, and on Wednesday, cut for three cheeses, on Friday the same. same; and as much bread and millet as they can eat, and two chickens per day. And put 4 horses and give them as much food as they can eat. And take 60 hryvnia for the virnik and 10 rez and 12 vereveritsa, and first the hryvnia. And if fasting happens, give the virnik fish, and take him 7 rez for the fish. All that money is 15 kunas per week, and they can give as much flour as they can eat until the virniks collect the virins. Here's Yaroslav's charter for you.
43. And here is the rule for bridge workers: if they pave a bridge, then take a nogat for the work, and from each abutment of the bridge one nogat; if the dilapidated bridge is repaired by several daughters, 3, 4 or 5, then the same.
(Tikhomirov M.N. A manual for the study of Russian Pravda M., 1953. P. 75-86.)
In the middle of the 11th century in Rus', large expanses of land became private property. Primacy belonged to the princes and members of their large family. Using power and influence, they appropriated communal lands and used the labor of prisoners on free lands. Under the control of the managers, mansions were built and their own household was organized.
Free community members fall under the patronage of the prince and become dependent workers. Like European countries, a princely domain is created. This is the name given to a land complex inhabited by people who belong directly to the head of the dynasty and state. Similar possessions appear among the prince's relatives.
The prince acted as the supreme owner of all the land in the principality. He owned part of the territory as a personal possession (domain), and disposed of the remaining lands as the head of state. There were domain church possessions, lands of the boyars and their vassals in conditional holding.
The emergence of the domain led to the complication of the structure and activities of the princely court. Senior warriors become firemen, then perform the position of butler in the princely house. The “old” (senior) groom, who later received the position of groom, enjoyed great influence. The combat effectiveness of the princely cavalry depended on his activities.
Defense of the prince's possessions
The heirs of Yaroslav the Wise formed a procedure for punishment for attempts on the property of the prince and his servants. About half of the articles established the size of the fine for the theft of grain, livestock, fodder and firewood, entry into the prince's hunting ground, theft of a boat, and destruction of an apiary.
One of the main provisions is issues of border violations. For this a fine of 12 hryvnia was imposed. The same fine was imposed for violating the honorable name of a prince’s warrior. The Yaroslavichs equated non-compliance with borders and an insult to honor and measures of violence against the prince's assistants.
Along with other property, rulers owned servants. This document established the procedure for the return of fugitive slaves.
The emergence of such land holdings indicated that a new society had arisen in the Kiev state. It was based on the ownership of land by feudal lords and the oppression of dependent peasants who lived and worked on estates that did not belong to them.
The first fortified estates, isolated from the simple dwellings surrounding them and sometimes towering above them on a hill, date back to the 8th-9th centuries. From the meager traces of ancient life, archaeologists are able to establish that the inhabitants of the estates lived a slightly different life than their fellow villagers: weapons and silver jewelry are more often found in the estates.
The main difference was the construction system. The estate-fortification was built on a hill, the foot of which was surrounded by 100-200 small dugout huts, scattered around in disorder. The castle was a small fortress formed by several wooden frames placed close to each other in a circle; the circular dwelling (mansion) also served as walls bordering a small courtyard. 20-30 people could live here. Whether it was a clan elder with his household or a “deliberate husband” with his servants, collecting polyudie from the population of the surrounding villages, it is difficult to say. But it was in this form that the first feudal castles should have been born, and this is how the first boyars, the “best men” of the Slavic tribes, should have distinguished themselves from the ranks of farmers. The castle fortress was too small to shelter all the inhabitants of the village within its walls in times of danger, but it was quite sufficient to dominate the village. All Old Russian words denoting a castle are quite suitable for these small round fortresses: “mansions” (a structure built in a circle), “yard”, “grad” (fenced, fortified place).
Thousands of such mansion courtyards spontaneously arose in the 8th-9th centuries. throughout Rus', marking the birth of feudal relations, the material consolidation by tribal squads of the advantage they had achieved. But only several centuries after the appearance of the first castles do we learn about them from legal sources - legal norms never get ahead of life, but appear only as a result of life’s demands.
In the 11th century Class contradictions clearly emerged, and the princes made sure that their princely courts, mansions and barns were reliably fenced not only by military force, but also by written law. Throughout the 11th century. the first version of Russian feudal law, the famous Russian Truth, is created. It was formed on the basis of those ancient Slavic customs that had existed for many centuries, but new legal norms born of feudal relations were also woven into it. For a long time, the relationship between feudal lords and peasants, the relationship of warriors among themselves and the position of the prince in society were determined by oral, unwritten law - customs, supported by the real balance of power.
As far as we know this ancient customary law from the records of ethnographers of the 19th century, it was very ramified and regulated all aspects of human relationships: from family affairs to border disputes.
For a long time, inside the small closed boyar estate there was no need to record these established customs or those “lessons” - payments that were annually made in favor of the master. Until the 18th century. the overwhelming majority of feudal estates lived according to their internal unwritten laws.
The recording of legal norms had to begin first of all either in the conditions of some kind of external relations, where the “Russian pokon” encountered the laws of other countries, or in the princely economy with its lands scattered across different lands, with its extensive staff of collectors of fines and tribute , who continuously traveled to all the subject tribes and judged there on behalf of their prince according to his laws.
The first fragmentary records of individual norms of “Russian law” arose, as we have already seen in the example of the Charter of Yaroslav to Novgorod, on special occasions, in connection with any special need and did not at all set themselves the task of fully reflecting all Russian life. Once again we have to note how deeply wrong were those bourgeois historians who, comparing parts of Russian Pravda at different times, mechanically drew direct conclusions from the comparisons: if a phenomenon is not yet mentioned in the early records, then it means that the phenomenon itself has not yet been it was in reality. This is a major logical error, based on the outdated idea that state and social life is formed in all its manifestations only as a result of laws issued by the supreme power as an expression of the will of the monarch.
.
In fact, the life of society is subject to the laws of internal development, and laws only formalize long-existing relationships, consolidating the actual dominance of one class over another.
By the middle of the 11th century. Sharp social contradictions emerged (primarily in the princely environment), which led to the creation of a princely domain law, the so-called Yaroslavich Pravda (approximately 1054-1072), which outlines the princely castle and its economy. Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125), after the Kiev uprising of 1113, supplemented this law with a number of broader articles designed for the middle urban strata, and at the end of his reign or during the reign of his son Mstislav (1125-1132) another was drawn up a broader set of feudal laws - the so-called Extensive Russian Truth, reflecting not only princely, but also boyar interests. The feudal castle and the feudal estate in general appear very prominently in this legislation. Through the works of Soviet historians S.V. Yushkova, M.N. Tikhomirov and especially B.D. Grekova reveals in detail the feudal essence of Russian Truth in all its historical development for more than a century.
B.D. Grekov, in his famous study “Kievan Rus,” characterizes the feudal castle and estate of the 11th century as follows:
“...In the Truth of the Yaroslavichs, the life of the princely estate is outlined in its most important features.
The center of this patrimony is the “prince’s courtyard”... where one imagines, first of all, the mansions in which the prince sometimes lives, the houses of his high-ranking servants, premises for minor servants, various outbuildings - stables, livestock and poultry yards, a hunting lodge, etc. ...
At the head of the princely estate is the prince's representative - the boyar-fireman. He is responsible for the entire life of the estate and, in particular, the safety of the princely estate property. With him, apparently, there is a collector of all kinds of revenues due to the prince - “the access prince...” one must think that the fireman has tiuns at his disposal. In Pravda, the “old groom” is also named, that is, the head of the princely stables and princely herds.
All these persons are protected by an 80-hryvnia vira, which indicates their privileged position. This is the highest administrative apparatus of the princely estate. Next come the princely elders - “rural and military.” Their life is valued at only 12 hryvnia... Thus, we get the right to talk about the true agricultural physiognomy of the estate.
These observations are confirmed by the details that are scattered in different parts of Pravda Yaroslavich. Here they are called a cage, a stable and a complete assortment of working, dairy and beef cattle, as well as poultry, which is usual in such farms. There are princely and stinking (peasant) horses, oxen, cows, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, pigeons, ducks, geese, swans and cranes.
Not named, but clearly referring to meadows where cattle and princely and peasant horses graze.
Next to rural farming, we also see here borti, which are called “princes”, “and in a prince borti are 3 hryvnia, either burn or rip.”
Pravda also names for us the categories of direct producers who serve the estate with their labor. These are rank and file, smerda and serfs... Their life is valued at 5 hryvnia.
We can say with confidence that the prince visits his estate from time to time. This is evidenced by the presence in the estate of hunting dogs and hawks and falcons trained for hunting...
The first impression from the Yaroslavich Pravda, as well as from the Extensive Pravda, is that the owner of the estate depicted in it with a host of his servants of different ranks and positions, the owner of the land, lands, yard, slaves, livestock and poultry, the owner of his serfs , concerned about the possibility of murder and theft, seeks to find protection in the system of serious punishments imposed for each of the categories of acts directed against his rights. This impression does not deceive us. Indeed, “Pravda” protects the feudal lord from all kinds of attacks on his servants, on his land, horses, oxen, slaves, slaves, peasants, ducks, chickens, dogs, hawks, falcons, etc.”
Archaeological excavations of authentic princely castles fully confirm and complement the appearance of the “princely court” of the 11th century.
Expedition B.A. Rybakova spent four years (1957-1960) splitting the 11th century castle. in Lyubech, built, in all likelihood, by Vladimir Monomakh at the time when he was the prince of Chernigov (1078-1094) and when the Truth of the Yaroslavichs had just begun to act.
A Slavic settlement on the site of Lyubech already existed in the first centuries of our era. By the 9th century. a small town with wooden walls arose here. In all likelihood, it was precisely this that Oleg was forced to take in battle on his way to Kiev in 882. Somewhere here there should have been the court of Malk Lyubechanin, Dobrynya’s father and grandfather of Vladimir I.
On the shore of the Dnieper backwater there was a pier where the “monoxides” mentioned by Konstantin Porphyrogenitus were collected, and nearby, in a pine ship grove, there was the “Korablishche” tract, where these one-trees could be built. Behind the ridge of hills is a burial mound and a place with which legend connects a pagan sanctuary.
Among all these ancient tracts rises a steep hill, which still bears the name Castle Hill. Excavations have shown that the wooden fortifications of the castle were built here in the second half of the 11th century. Mighty walls made of clay and oak frames surrounded the entire city and castle in a large ring, but the castle also had its own complex, well-thought-out defense system; he was like the Kremlin, the child of the whole city.
Castle Hill is small: its upper platform occupies only 35x100 m, and therefore all the buildings there were placed closely, close to each other. Exceptionally favorable conditions for archaeological research made it possible to clarify the foundations of all buildings and accurately restore the number of floors in each of them based on the earthen ceiling fills that collapsed during the fire of 1147.
The castle was separated from the city by a dry moat, over which a drawbridge was thrown. Having passed the bridge and the bridge tower, the visitor to the castle found himself in a narrow passage between two walls; A road paved with logs led up to the main gate of the fortress, to which both walls enclosing the passage adjoined.
The gate with two towers had a fairly deep tunnel with three barriers that could block the enemy's path. Having passed the gate, the traveler found himself in a small courtyard, where, obviously, the guards were stationed; from here there was a passage to the walls, here there were rooms with small fireplaces on elevations for heating the frozen gate guards and near them a small dungeon, which was obviously a “prison” - a prison. To the left of the paved road there was a remote tyn, behind which there were many storage cages for all kinds of “readiness”: there were fish warehouses, and “medushas” for wine and honey with the remains of amphorae-pots, and warehouses in which no traces remained products stored in them. In the depths of the “courtyard of the guard” stood the tallest building of the castle - the tower (vezha). This separate structure, not connected with the fortress walls, was like a second gate and at the same time could serve in the event of a siege as the last refuge of the defenders, like the donjons of Western European castles. In the deep basements of the Lubech donjon there were storage pits for grain and water. (See plan on page 424).
The vezha-donjon was the center of all paths in the castle: only through it was it possible to get into the economic area of the cellars with ready-made goods; The path to the prince's palace also lay only through the vezha. Anyone who lived in this massive four-story tower saw everything that was happening in the castle and outside it; he controlled all the movement of people in the castle, and without the knowledge of the owner of the tower it was impossible to get into the princely mansions.
Judging by the magnificent gold and silver jewelry hidden in the dungeon of the tower, its owner was a rich and noble boyar. One involuntarily comes to mind of articles by Russkaya Pravda about the fireman, the chief manager of the princely household, whose life is protected by a huge fine of 80 hryvnia (4 kg of silver!). The central position of the tower in the prince's court corresponded to the place of its owner in its management. Behind the donjon there was a small front courtyard in front of the huge princely palace. In this courtyard there was a tent, apparently for the honor guard; there was a secret descent to the wall, a kind of “water gate”.
The palace was a three-tiered building with three high towers. The lower floor of the palace was divided into many small rooms; Here there were stoves, servants lived, and supplies were stored. The front, princely, floor was the second floor, where there was a wide gallery - “canopy”, the place of summer feasts, and a large princely chamber, decorated with majolica shields and antlers of deer and aurochs. If the Lyubech Congress of Princes of 1097 met in the castle, then it should have met in this chamber, where tables could be placed for about a hundred people.
The castle had a small church covered with a lead roof. The walls of the castle consisted of an inner belt of residential cages and a higher outer belt of fences; The flat roofs of the dwellings served as a fighting platform and fences; gentle log ramps led to the walls directly from the castle yard. Along the walls, large copper cauldrons were dug into the ground for “pitch” - boiling water, which was used to pour on the enemies during the assault. In each internal compartment of the castle - in the palace, in one of the "medushas" and next to the church - deep underground passages were discovered that led in different directions from the castle. In total, according to rough estimates, 200-250 people could live here. In all rooms of the castle, except for the palace, many deep holes were found, carefully dug in the clayey soil. I remember the Russian Truth, which punishes “living in a hole” with fines for theft. Some of these pits could, indeed, serve to store grain, but some were also intended for water, since no wells were found on the territory of the castle. The total capacity of all storage facilities is measured in hundreds of tons. The castle garrison could survive on its supplies for more than a year; judging by the chronicles, the siege was never waged in the 11th-12th centuries. more than six weeks, therefore, the Lyubech castle of Monomakh was supplied with everything in abundance.
Lyubech Castle was the residence of the Chernigov prince and was fully adapted to the life and service of the princely family. The artisan population lived outside the castle, both inside the walls of the settlement and outside its walls. The castle cannot be considered separately from the city.
We learn about such large princely courts from the chronicle: in 1146, when a coalition of Kiev and Chernigov princes pursued the troops of the Seversk princes Igor and Svyatoslav Olgovich, near Novgorod-Seversky the village of Igorevo with the princely castle was plundered, “where the good court was built. There is a lot of prepared food in the Bretyanitsa and in the wine and honey cellars. And that heavy goods of all kinds, including iron and copper, were not burdensome to take out because of the multitude of them all.” The winners ordered to load everything onto carts for themselves and for the squad, and then set the castle on fire.
Lyubech fell to archaeologists after exactly the same operation carried out by the Smolensk prince in 1147. The castle was robbed, everything valuable (except for what was hidden in hiding places) was taken away, and after all it was burned. Moscow was probably the same feudal castle, to which in the same 1147 Prince Yuri Dolgoruky invited his ally Svyatoslav Olgovich to a feast.
Along with the large and rich princely castles, archaeologists also studied more modest boyar courtyards, located not in the city, but in the middle of the village. Often in such fortified castle courtyards there are dwellings of simple plowmen and a lot of agricultural equipment - ploughshares, plow knives, sickles. Such courtyards of the 12th century. reflect the same trend of temporary enslavement of indebted peasants as the Long Russian Pravda, which speaks of “purchases” using the master’s equipment and being in the master’s yard under the supervision of a “ryadovich” or “ratai elder”, from where it was possible to leave only if went to the highest authorities to complain about the boyar.
We must imagine all of feudal Rus' as a collection of several thousand small and large feudal estates of princes, boyars, monasteries, estates of the “young squad”. All of them lived an independent life, economically independent from each other, representing microscopic states, little connected with each other and to a certain extent free from state control. The boyar court is a kind of capital of such a small power with its own economy, its own army, its own police and its own unwritten laws.
Princely power in the XI-XII centuries. to a very small extent could unite these independent boyar worlds; it wedged itself between them, building its courtyards, organizing graveyards for collecting tribute, placing its mayors in cities, but still Rus' was a boyar element, very weakly united by the state power of the prince, who himself constantly confused state concepts with a privately owned feudal attitude towards his extensive domain.
Princely virniks and swordsmen traveled around the land, fed at the expense of the local population, judged, collected income in favor of the prince, made money themselves, but to a very small extent united feudal castles or performed any national functions.
The structure of Russian society remained largely “fine-grained”; in it the presence of these several thousand boyar estates with castles was most clearly felt, the walls of which protected not so much from an external enemy as from their own peasants and boyar neighbors, and sometimes, perhaps, from too zealous representatives of the princely power.
Judging by indirect data, the princely and boyar households were organized differently. The scattered possessions of the princely domain were not always permanently assigned to the prince - his transfer to a new city, to a new table, could entail changes in the prince’s personal estates. Therefore, with the frequent movements of the princes from place to place, they treated their estates as temporary owners: they sought to take as much as possible from the peasants and boyars (ultimately also from the peasants), without caring about the reproduction of the unstable peasant economy, ruining it. The executors of the prince's will felt themselves to be even more temporary persons - "podezdniki", "ryadovichi", "virniks", "swordsmen", all those "young" (younger members of the princely squad), who were entrusted with the collection of princely income and entrusted with part of the power of the prince himself. Indifferent to the fate of the smerds and to the entire complex of estates they visited, they cared first of all about themselves and, through false, invented reasons for fines (“created virs”), enriched themselves at the expense of the peasants, and partly at the expense of the boyars, to whom they appeared as judges as representatives of the main government in the country. The rapidly growing army of these princely people scoured all over Rus' from Kyiv to Beloozero, and their actions were not controlled by anyone. They had to bring the prince a certain amount of quitrents and tribute, but no one knew how much they took for their benefit, how many villages they destroyed or brought to death by starvation.
If the princes greedily and unreasonably exhausted the peasantry through personal detours (polyudya) and travels of their virniks, then the boyars were more careful. Firstly, the boyars did not have such military strength that would allow them to cross the line that separated ordinary extortion from the ruin of the peasants, and secondly, it was not only dangerous for the boyars, but also unprofitable to ruin the economy of their estate, which they were going to transfer to their children and grandchildren. Therefore, the boyars had to manage their farm more wisely, more prudently, moderate their greed, moving at the first opportunity to economic coercion - “kupa”, that is, a loan to the impoverished stinkers, which tied the “purchase” peasant more tightly.
The princely tiuns and ryadovichi were terrible not only for communal peasants, but also for the boyars, whose patrimony consisted of the same peasant farms. One of the scribes of the late 12th century. gives advice to the boyar to stay away from the princely places: “Do not have a courtyard near the prince’s courtyard and do not keep a village near the prince’s village: his tivun is like fire... and his rank and file are like sparks. Even if you are careful from fire, you cannot protect yourself from sparks.”
Each feudal lord sought to preserve the inviolability of his microscopic state - the patrimony, and gradually the concept of “zaborona”, feudal immunity arose - a legally formalized agreement between the younger and senior feudal lord on the non-interference of the elder in the internal patrimonial affairs of the younger one. In relation to later times - the 15th-16th centuries, when the process of centralization of the state was already underway, we consider feudal immunity to be a conservative phenomenon, helping to survive the elements of feudal fragmentation, but for Kievan Rus, the immunity of boyar estates was an indispensable condition for the normal development of a healthy core of feudal land ownership - many thousands of boyar estates, which formed the stable basis of Russian feudal society.
Notes
Grekov B.D. Kievan Rus, p. 140-143.
The princely property was represented by various settlements - cities and villages, as well as agricultural territories that gravitated towards them.
First of all, one can think that every city built on the initiative of the prince and at his expense belonged to him by special right.
How did princely cities arise? Perhaps the cities were organizing
princes in an empty or sparsely populated place, and the princes either brought people from other parts of Kievan Rus to them (for example, the city of Belgorod arose), or settled captives there (for example, cities along Russia or the city of Polonny, then granted by the princes to the metropolitan). The chronicle reports the following about the construction of princely cities in Russia, founded by Prince Yaroslav and inhabited by captives (“full”) captured in the war with Poland: “Yaroslav and Mstislav had many brothers, they fought against the Poles, and they captured the towns of Cherven again and fought I brought and divided the land of Lyadskaya a hundred, and I brought and divided many Lyakhs; Yaroslav planted (his own) in Russia, and the essence is to this day. In the summer of 6540, Yaroslav began to build cities as far as Russia” (Laurentian Chronicle, under 1031). .
When organizing the city, the princes attracted merchants and artisans and, possibly, peasants there as settlers by providing them with benefits. This is indirectly confirmed by some chronicle data. The cities, newly organized by the princes, were feudal centers, around and under the protection of which the urban (trade and craft) population grew in number and developed quite quickly.
The princes not only created new cities, but also acquired cities by seizing them from other feudal lords and then securing them as their own possession. This method was especially applicable to border cities.
The emergence and development of the prince's own cities was very important for the growth of princely land ownership. Having these strongholds, the princes took possession of the surrounding territory and developed it. The princely villages and volosts gravitated directly towards the cities.
The monuments speak a lot about the princely volosts. For example, the chronicle testifies that Prince Yaropolk Izyaslavich gave the Pechersk Monastery “his whole life, Nebolskaya volost, Derevskaya and Luchskaya and near Kiev” (Ipatiev Chronicle, under 1158). Consequently, before this grant, these volosts belonged to the prince himself. According to chronicles and other monuments, a fairly large number of volosts owned by church institutions previously belonged to the princes and were then transferred by them to the church.
Princely volosts could be formed by uniting adjacent princely villages and possessions into one administrative unit, and it is possible that some interstriated lands that were not part of the Kiev possessions were included in the territory of the volost. It is also possible that the volosts became princely due to simple seizure from other princes. One can also assume that the volost could have been organized and populated by the prince in a completely new place, unoccupied by anyone.
The cities were not only military-administrative, but also administrative and economic strongholds of princely rule in the volosts. One might think that the city also housed warehouses for agricultural products.
The chronicle, for example, speaks of a honey warehouse (medushah) in the city of Belgorod, which belonged to the prince (Laurentian Chronicle, under 997).
Being possessions that were not part of the general administrative system, the prince's own cities and volosts could be alienated and inherited under the right of feudal ownership. Moreover, their inheritance could be separated from the inheritance of princely power and title. For example, the volosts of Prince Yaropolk as objects of property are called his “life” in contrast to the “table” (throne), i.e. power, and their disposal was different. In the will of Vladimir Vasilyevich, dating back even to a later time, the volosts that belonged to him were directly separated from the reign and transferred to heirs other than the reign itself. Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1159, according to the commandment (testament) of his father, gave the Pechersky Monastery the city of Vasilyev on the river. Stugne and the town of Michesk on the river. Mike.
The princes carried out various transactions with their property. They exchanged cities for volosts, and possibly for other possessions. Thus, Mr. Polonny was exchanged by the metropolitan from the prince for a volost.
It is very characteristic that princes could own cities and volosts in someone else's reign. This is evidenced, for example, by the fact that Andrei Bogolyubsky gave the Pechersky Monastery in 1159 his cities of Vasilyev and Michesk, which were located on the territory of the Kiev principality, although at that time Andrei did not own the Kiev region.
The princely domain grew rapidly. The truth of the Yaroslavichs recorded the presence of large complexes of princely possessions, a very strong and developed princely agricultural administration, the strongholds of which were cities. And the chronicles contain a number of details about the significance of the princely possessions and the abundance of food and livestock in them. Thus, the chronicle (Ipatiev Chronicle, under 1146) speaks of the huge household of Svyatoslav Olgovich, in whose Putivl court there were 700 servants; there were storerooms, cowsheds, cellars; they contained 500 berks of honey and 80 pots of wine. It was also noted that in the village his brother Igor Olgovich had 900 haystacks. And in another place in the chronicle it is noted that near Novgorod-Seversk, the princes who fought with the Olgovichs captured 3,000 mares and 1,000 horses that were in their villages.
Further development of the princely domain followed the line of gradual consolidation of princely cities and volosts with cities and volosts located in the general administrative system of the princely land. The princes sought to transfer the system of domination established in their own cities and volosts to all other administrative units of their principality. The princes in this case could exploit all possessions in the same way and dispose of them at their own discretion.
At the same time, there was a gradual involvement of the boyars, who were not part of the druzhina organization, into the domain system. This was achieved by strengthening vassalage and extending the service to the entire boyars.
It must be borne in mind that during the period of the decline of the Kyiv center and the strengthening of princely separatism, the process of development of the princely domain had its own characteristics in each reigning land.
In some lands, the princely domain included most of the territory of the reign; the prince had many villages and other lands, many of his own cities and volosts; The prince managed to gradually extend domain rights to all other lands. Such, for example, lands were Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Novgorod-Seversk, Ryazan and especially Suzdal.
In other lands, the prince was unable to seize a large territory for his domain at the right time and had to expand it with great difficulty, encountering resistance from local feudal lords. Such, for example, was the land of Galician Russia.
Finally, there was a land where the princes were deprived of any opportunity to form a domain - the Novgorod land. According to the agreements concluded by the Novgorod authorities with the prince, he was forbidden not only to buy land in Novgorod, but also to acquire it in other ways. The acquisition of land was prohibited not only to the prince himself, but also to the princess, his boyars and nobles. The prince was also forbidden to accept mortgagees, since this could entail the development of their lands by the princes.