We have all heard about the era of Western slavery, when for several centuries European civilization in a barbaric way built its prosperity on the bones of free slave power. In Russia there were completely different orders, and the cruelty that prevailed in from England to Poland never happened.
I bring to your attention a small excursion into the history of Russian serfdom. After reading, I had only one question: "Was there slavery in Russia?" (in the classical sense of the word).
Well, in our country, from ancient times, there have been forced people - slaves. Prisoners of war, unpaid debtors, convicted criminals fell into this category. There were “purchases” that received a certain amount of money and entered service until they worked it out. There were "ryadovichi" who served on the basis of the concluded contract. The owner had the right to punish the negligent, to find the fugitives. But unlike European countries, did not have power over the life of even the last of the slaves. In Kievan Rus, appanage and grand dukes had the right to the death penalty. In Muscovite Russia - the sovereign himself with the boyar duma.
In 1557-1558, at the same time when tens of thousands of peasants driven from the land were enslaved in England, Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible issued a number of decrees limiting servitude. He pressed the moneylenders, forcibly reduced the interest on loans to 10% per annum. Forbidden to enslave service people for debts (noblemen, children of boyars, archers, service Cossacks). Their children, who became slaves for the debts of their parents, were released immediately, and adults could file claims to return to their free state. The sovereign also protected his subjects from forced enslavement. From now on, a person could be considered a slave only on the basis of "bondage", a special document drawn up in a zemstvo institution. The king limited bondage even for prisoners. They also had to issue bondage in the established order. The children of the "polonyanik" were considered free, and he himself was released after the death of the owner, and was not inherited.
But let us note that it would be incorrect to identify the terms “slave” and “slave” as a whole. Serfs were not only workers, but also key keepers - managers of the princely, boyar, royal estate. There were military servants who made up the personal squads of boyars and princes. They took the oath to the owner and served him, but at the same time they lost their legal independence. That is, this term defined a person's personal dependence.
By the way, in appeals to the tsar, not all people called themselves "slaves", but only servicemen - from an ordinary archer to a boyar. The priests wrote to the king "we, your pilgrims." And the common people, peasants and townspeople - "we, your orphans." The designation "servant" was not self-deprecation, it expressed the real relationship between the monarch and this social group. Those who were in the service really did not act free in relation to the sovereign: he could send them there today, here tomorrow, give some order. From the form of address of the clergy, it is clear that the tsar is obliged to help them: they also support the sovereign with their prayers. And the address of the "orphan" indicates that to the common people the monarch stands "instead of the father", who is obliged to take care of his children.
But the share of slaves in the Russian population and in the economy was extremely insignificant. Usually they were used only in the household. And serfdom did not exist in our country for a long time. The peasants were free. If you don’t like it, they could leave the landowner for another place, paying “elderly” (a certain fee for the use of a hut, inventory, a piece of land - depending on the area and period of residence). Grand Duke Ivan III determined a single period for such transitions - a week before St. George's Day and a week after St. George's Day (from November 19 to December 3).
It was only at the end of the 16th century that Boris Godunov changed the situation. He was by nature a "Westerner", tried to copy foreign orders and in 1593 pushed Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich to accept a decree abolishing St. George's Day. And in 1597 Boris issued a law establishing a 5-year search for fugitive peasants. Moreover, according to this law, any person who served for hire for six months became, together with his family, lifelong and hereditary slaves of the owner. This also hit the urban poor, small artisans, gave rise to a lot of abuse and became one of the reasons for the outbreak of the Troubles.
Boris's law on servitude was soon abolished, but serfdom remained after the Troubles, and was confirmed by the Cathedral Code of Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649. The search for the fugitives was established not at the age of 5, but indefinitely. But it is worth emphasizing that the very principle of serfdom in Russia was very different from that in the West. A certain status was possessed not by man, but by the earth! There were "black-sow" volosts. The peasants living here were considered free and paid taxes to the state. There were boyar or church estates. And there were estates. They were given to the nobles not for good, but for service, instead of payment. Every 2–3 years, the estates were overturned, they could go to another owner.
Accordingly, the peasants provided for the landowner, patrimonial land or worked for the church. They were "attached" to the ground. But at the same time they could completely dispose of their own economy. They could bequeath it by inheritance, donate it, sell it. And then the new owner, together with the farm, acquired the "tax" for the payment of taxes to the state or the maintenance of the landowner. And the former was exempt from the "tax", he could go anywhere. Moreover, even if a person ran away, but managed to make a household or get married, Russian laws protected his rights, categorically forbade him to be separated from his family and deprived of his property.
V In the 17th century, no more than half of the peasants were enslaved in Russia. All of Siberia, the North, significant areas in the south were considered "sovereign estates", there was no serfdom there. Tsars Mikhail Fedorovich and Alexei Mikhailovich also recognized the self-government of the Cossack regions, the law "there is no issue from the Don." Any fugitive who got there was automatically free. The rights of serfs and slaves were defended by the rural community, the Church, they could find protection from the king himself. In the palace there was a "petition window" for filing complaints personally to the sovereign. For example, the serfs of Prince Obolensky complained that the owner forced them to work on Sunday and "barked obscenely." For this Alexei Mikhailovich put Obolensky in prison, and took away the village.
In Europe, by the way, the relationship between the strata of society was much different, because of this there were misunderstandings. It seemed to the Danish high-born ambassadors, returning from Moscow, that the Russian peasants were taking them slowly, they began to urge them on with kicks. The coachmen were sincerely surprised at this treatment, they unharnessed the horses near Nakhabino and said: they were going to complain to the king. The Danes had to apologize, placate the Russians with money and vodka. And the wife of an English general who entered the service in Moscow, hated the servant, decided to brutally deal with her. She did not consider herself guilty - you never know, a noble lady tried to kill her servant! But this was not allowed in Russia. The tsar's verdict read: given that the victim was still alive, the criminal "just" cut off her hand, ripped out her nostrils and sent to Siberia.
The position of the serfs began to deteriorate under Peter I. The redistribution of estates between the nobles ceased, they turned into permanent property. And instead of "household" taxation was introduced "capitation". Moreover, each landowner began to pay taxes for his serfs. Accordingly, he acted as the owner of these "souls". True, it was Peter who was one of the first in Europe, in 1723, to ban slavery in Russia. But his decree did not touch the serfs. Moreover, Peter began to ascribe entire villages to factories, and factory serfs had a much harder time than landowners.
The trouble came during the reign of Anna Ioannovna and Biron, when laws on serfs from Courland spread in Russia - the same ones where the peasants were equated with slaves. It was then that the infamous peasant retail trade began.
What was, what was. The atrocities of Daria Saltykova are also known. It was no longer the times of Alexei Mikhailovich, and the lady for 7 years managed to hide the crimes. However, something else can be noted: after all, two serfs managed to file a complaint with Catherine II, an investigation began, and the maniac was sentenced to life imprisonment in the "penitential" cell of the Ivanovsky monastery. Quite an adequate measure for the mentally abnormal.
"The liberation of the peasants." Artist B. Kustodiev.
However, Saltychikha became "notorious" because in our country, only one, she sunk to atrocities that are quite common on the same American plantations. And the laws protecting the property rights of serfs in Russia have not been canceled. In 1769, Catherine II issued a decree calling on peasants to start private trades, for this they had to buy for 2 rubles. a special ticket to the collegium of manufactures. Since 1775, such tickets have been issued free of charge. Enterprising peasants took advantage of this, quickly made fortunes, redeemed themselves, and then began to buy villages from their landowners. Serfdom began to loosen up. Already during the reign of Nicholas I, its abolition was gradually being prepared. Although it was abolished only by Alexander II in 1861.
Following Columbus, slave ships began to cross the ocean.
But let us emphasize again: for the 18th - 19th centuries, such phenomena remained common. England, which is traditionally portrayed as the most "advanced" power, in 1713, after the War of the Spanish Succession, considered the main gain not by any means the conquest of Gibraltar, but the "haciento" - the monopoly on the sale of Africans to Latin America. The Dutch, French, Brandenburgers, Danes, Swedes, Courlanders, and Genoese also actively traded in the slave trade. The total number of slaves taken from Africa to America is estimated at 9.5 million. About the same number died out along the way.
The French Revolution in 1794 loudly abolished slavery, but in reality it flourished, French ships continued to trade in slaves. And Napoleon restored slavery in 1802. True, he forced the abolition of serfdom in Germany (to weaken the Germans), but he kept it in Poland and Lithuania - here his pans were his support, why offend them?
Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833, Sweden in 1847, Denmark and France in 1848 - not so far ahead of Russia. By the way, it is not superfluous to remember that the criteria of "freedoms" in and of themselves are by no means indicators of prosperity. So, in 1845, the potatoes were not born in Ireland. The peasants, who were unable to pay the rent because of this, began to be driven from the land and their farms were destroyed. For 5 years about a million people died of hunger! Has anything like this ever happened in feudal Russia? Never…
But this is so, by the way I had to. If we return to the chronology of the abolition of slavery, it turns out that not all Western powers in this respect have overtaken the Russians. Some have fallen behind. The Netherlands abolished it in 1863, the United States in 1865, Portugal in 1869, and Brazil in 1888. Moreover, among the Dutch, Portuguese, Brazilians, and even in the American southern states, slavery took much more cruel forms than Russian serfdom.
It is worth remembering that in the American war between the North and the South, the northerners were supported by Russia, and the southerners - by England. And if in the USA slavery was liquidated, then in the 1860s - 1880s it was widely practiced by landowners in Australia. Here, sea captains Hayes, Lewin, Pease, Boyes, Townes, and Dr. Murray were actively involved in hunting for slaves. Townsville was even named after Towns. The feats of these "heroes" consisted in the fact that they depopulated entire islands in Oceania, smashed and captured the inhabitants, stuffed them into the holds and brought them to Australian plantations.
By the way, even in England itself the first full-fledged legal act, officially prohibiting slavery and serfdom and recognizing them as a crime, was adopted ... three years ago! This is the Coroners and Justice Act, which came into effect on April 6, 2010. So why blame the Russians then?
Yes, the peasants of Russia worked hard, but they lived poorly, however, they were not slaves either, for the sovereign's power defended their human rights to life and not violence against them. The bondage was mainly economic and that the peasant was assigned to the land of a particular landowner, on which he lived and he had to work off the allotted quitrent, this did not allow the peasant to raise materially. These heavy burdens of landlords, imposed on the peasants, and in the city on the workers (a somewhat different situation), accumulated revolutionary potential in the soul of the people, which they easily managed to scorch with promises better life Bolsheviks.
Life of a peasant around the 18-19th century
There are many pages in the history of mankind that I would like to forget. And slavery is one of them. But at a certain stage it was a necessary stage in the development of society, and in one form or another existed in all parts of the world. And what were the slaves called in different countries?
First stage
Slavery arose during the time of a patriarchal society, when captured enemies became powerless family members and lived with the owner. Gradually, they began to turn into slaves not only foreigners, but also fellow tribesmen for debts, grave crimes.
In ancient Egypt, prisoners were killed and called accordingly "killed". With the development of agriculture and crafts, they became the prey of the leaders - "the living slain".
In Babylonian society, slaves were called vardum, East African slaves in southern Mesopotamia were called zinji. In China, a male slave was denoted by the word well, a slave - bey, slaves - well-bei.
Saying things
In the ancient world, with the final division into free citizens and slaves, physical labor became the lot of only non-citizens, that is, captured foreigners.
They were considered a thing, a "talking tool," as the slaves were called in Rome. The Latin name for a slave is servus. The development of slavery in Rome led to the emergence of different categories of slaves: belonging to a family of urban (familia urbana), rural (familia rustica), gladiators, etc.
In Turkey, slaves were called Mamluks. Slaves of the Anglo-Saxons are lettu, the Vikings have thralls.
In ancient Russia, prisoner slaves became servants, and from the local population - serfs. Gradually, these words acquired a different meaning.
That is, at certain periods, slavery was developed almost everywhere.
Slavery in Russia undoubtedly existed, but it (more precisely, serfdom itself) should not be equated with slavery in Ancient world or in the South of the USA: Russian serfdom had completely different roots. In ancient Russia, one could become a slave by selling oneself, taking a debt (purchase) or being in captivity (servant, servant). At the same time, the purchase was not the property of its creditor and was rather a dependent than a slave. The bulk of the peasants were initially free personally, and to work on the landowner's plot they entered into an agreement with him. A peasant could at any time leave the landowner by paying him for the use of the land. It was this right that was limited by the Code of Law of Ivan III: after 1497, the peasant could leave the landowner only on St. George's Day (December 9).
Over the next century and a half, the peasants were finally attached to the land (the right to leave the landowner on St. George's Day was canceled at the end of the 16th century). The final point on this issue was put by the Soborno Code of 1649. But the peasants still had some personal rights: this changed during the 18th century. - by 1783 the landowner was sworn in for the peasants, who had the right to sell and buy them, to exile them to Siberia and to hard labor, and also to resort to physical force. Beginning in 1803, the situation of the peasants began to slowly improve, and from 1861 slavery in Russia ceased to exist. The details of its gradual cancellation are a separate story: for the sake of a catchphrase, it is worth noting that in the bowels of the central institutions Russian Empire at different times there were 11 (!) committees to resolve the peasant question, and the reform project of only the latter was implemented.
Slavery is also called (rightly) the position of prisoners in the Gulag and collective farm peasants in the Stalinist USSR. In the course of collectivization, their lands were united into collective farms, the owner of which was the labor collective, but the production rate was set by the state. Domestic animals were also selected for the collective farm fund (where a significant part quickly died; in general, the famine of 1932-33 is a direct consequence of collectivization). Simultaneously with collectivization, a passport system, obligatory for all city dwellers, was introduced. Administrative liability was provided for being in the city without a passport. In fact, the peasants were reattached to the land. They received freedom of movement only in 1976, and full certification was completed ten years before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Russian truth
Cathedral Code of 1649
Zayonchkovsky P.A. Abolition of serfdom in Russia.
Fitzpatrick Sheila. Stalin's peasants. Social history of Soviet Russia in the 1930s: the village.
Nikita Belykh. The Gulag Economy as a System of Forced Labor.
For the sake of fairness, it is worth noting that although the Slavs did not use slaves in the economy, they actively and did not hesitate to trade in slaves, selling captured foreigners to merchants in cities on the coast of the Euxine Pontus - Greek historians have this.
To answer
Comment on
Since when do we mean bondage to the earth by slavery? Collective farmers in the USSR could in no way be considered slaves. A slave is a completely powerless person who is in personal and economic dependence on another or on the state. The prisoners of the GULAG, with a certain degree of convention, can be considered slaves of the state, "speaking tools," as Varro used to say.
Whether to consider serfs as slaves is also a rather controversial issue. Along with the serfs until 1723, the same serfs existed. Slavery means a complete lack of rights, the condition of a serf does not mean this. Perhaps one of the most common myths about them is that landowners could torture and kill peasants with impunity. The nobles, who deliberately killed their serfs, were subjected to criminal punishment, up to the death penalty or hard labor. Those. in fact, the master had no right to the life of his servant. And considering the fact that serfs could be witnesses and plaintiffs in court? Even in the later periods of the existence of the Roman state (with the most developed institution of slavery, it is better to be silent about other countries altogether) the local slave masters were not subject to criminal punishment, which allows many to question the fact that slaves = serfs.
Closer to the slaves in their traditional understanding, there were naturally slaves who were the property of the masters. Serfs are difficult to recognize as such. The Roman institution of the colonate was close to serfdom, as well as other similar institutions that had developed in many European countries.
Ancient Russia is a state, with all its features that correspond to their time. Therefore, the same social laws of the development of society acted in it as in other countries. Accordingly, there was also such a stratum of the population as slaves. True, slavery in Russia was somewhat specific. Historians note that this is the result of Slavic customs, centuries-old way of life and traditions that differed significantly from the states of Western Europe or the East.
And so, let's turn to the original definition: people who performed forced labor are usually called slaves. In the ancient Russian territories there were slaves, smerds, servants. This is the stratum that in one way or another had a certain relation to slavery.
Serfs in Russia
Let's start with the servants. This concept appeared a long time ago and over time has somewhat changed its meaning. Initially, prisoners were called servants. Indeed, in ancient times, our ancestors were extremely warlike, raided and captured the population from other territories. As a result, prisoners who became servants were deprived of all rights. They could be sold or exchanged at any time. In addition, those people who were forced to work off their debts also fell into the category of servants.
Later, when Christianity was introduced, slaves were called slaves. And the servants now were those who served the boyars and princes. Poor relatives of a wealthy owner also belonged to them, if they lived in his house and were fully supported by him.
Execution of a slave in his arms
In ancient Russia, slaves were a special form of slavery. According to the legal norms of that time, they were attributed not to subjects, but to objects. Serfs were equated with yard buildings, cattle. If someone encroached on the life of someone else's slave and killed him, then a fine was imposed for this, in the same amount as for damage to clothing.
The owner of the slave was free to dispose of him at his own discretion, even to kill, while remaining unpunished.
Slaves
How did you become slaves, that is, slaves? First of all, these were the prisoners. And since the period of feudal fragmentation in Russia was rich in internecine wars, there were a lot of prisoners, so they were often sold for next to nothing.
But in addition to this most common way in the whole world, there was another - a debt hole or bondage. If a person could not return the borrowed funds, then he became a slave, lost all his rights and became completely dependent on his creditor.
In addition, criminals and their families became slaves; the children of slaves were already slaves from birth. There was also voluntary servitude in Russia, this is such a phenomenon when free people, for one reason or another, themselves entered slavery for a year, and then left it again. But this phenomenon was not widespread.
If a free girl married a servant, she also became a bondage, and vice versa, if a rich owner married a servant, then on the terms of a special contract she became free.
Serfdom was abolished by the decree of Peter I, and it was replaced by such a phenomenon as "smerds". These were none other than forced farmers. They largely depended on the princes and boyars. They, when the peasants were permanently attached to the land, became serfs.
Serfs in the Russian Empire
From all of the above, we note that signs of slavery can be traced in all designated categories, but it is still clearly visible that only slaves were slaves in the full sense of the word. Moreover, the Slavs took care of their slaves, they could entrust them with hard, dirty or unworthy work of the owner, but they did not lead to exhaustion and did not cause injury. In addition, in most cases, the owner worked on a par with the slave.
How the slave trade developed
We remember that there was no shortage of slaves in Russia. That is, the subject of sale has always been and, moreover, this business was considered profitable, but did not receive active distribution. Russian merchants preferred to trade mainly in sables, wax, tin, and only along the way in slaves.
The profound socio-economic and political changes currently taking place in Russian society have caused an upsurge in the historical consciousness of our people. Once again, as more than once before, the question arose about the ways of development of Russia, its role and significance in world history. Historians who debate this issue, solve it ambiguously, offering two essentially different approaches. Some of them, discussing the modernization of Russia, associate it with the introduction to Western European civilization, with the stages that Western society went through. They talk about Russia's return to capitalism after the failed Bolshevik experiment of building socialism and communism "in a single country." Other researchers show specifics Russian history are striving to find Russia's own place in world development. They see the future of Russia not through primitive copying of Western models, but through the revival of age-old national traditions, in which not individual, but collective values prevail, where the fundamental is not private property that separates people, but communal-state property that contributes to their unification. Among these researchers is I. Ya. Froyanov, whose works on the history of medieval Russia have become widely known in science.
With his scientific work, I. Ya. Froyanov partly anticipated the changes that are now taking place in the historical consciousness of Russian society. He entered the science of history brightly and distinctively, with an arsenal of ideas destroying the stereotypes habitual in Soviet historiography related to the early history of Russia, which opened up the possibility of a non-standard understanding of the Russian historical process in general. In defending his scientific convictions, he had to endure many difficulties, attacks and even persecutions. The very first book he wrote, "Kievan Rus: Essays on Socio-Economic History", met with active rejection in protective academic circles. But I.Ya. Froyanov resisted the struggle, responding to his dignified enemies with new and new labors, the fate of which, however, was sometimes dramatic.
Quite recently, in 1995, his major book "Ancient Russia: An Experience in Researching the History of Social and Political Struggle" was published, which is, over the past forty years (after the publication of the famous book of Academician M.N. Tikhomirov in 1955), the first and so far the only generalizing scientific research on the history of social and political struggle in Russia in the 9th and early 13th centuries. The main pathos of this book by I.Ya. Froyanov is directed against the overly exaggerated ideas about the role of the class struggle in the development of ancient Russian society, rooted in the Soviet historiography of Kievan Rus. And now we have before us another work of the historian, dedicated to slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs of the 6th-10th centuries. and filling a significant gap in historical science, since it still does not have a monographic study on this topic. There is another circumstance that attaches great importance to the real work of I. Ya. Froyanov.
Modern historians' view of the social structure of the Eastern Slavs and Ancient Rus is largely due to their understanding of the problem of slavery and especially tributary ties. It was on the basis of the interpretation of tribute as feudal rent that the theory of state feudalism was formed, which allegedly prevailed in Russia. I. Ya. Froyanov convincingly refutes this theory, showing its inconsistency.
Very interesting and scientifically promising is the author's desire to bring slavery and tributary work beyond the framework of industrial and social relations into the sphere of spiritual and moral life, or into the mental area. This gives the author's research a more voluminous, comprehensive and systemic character, raising it to a new, higher, scientific level corresponding to modern requirements. Quite curious are the observations concerning the origin of wars as actions that have a direct connection with the religious beliefs of ancient people.
I have no doubt that the book of I. Ya.Froyanov, sustained in the best stylistic traditions of Russian historical science, will be read by the reader with keen interest and will become a noticeable milestone in knowledge national history.
Prof. V. T. Pulyaev, scientific advisor state program"Peoples of Russia: Revival and Development"
Introduction
This book is devoted to slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs of the 6th-10th centuries. - questions are by no means new in Russian historiography. What is the reason for our appeal to these questions, it would seem, are sufficiently developed in science? The answer here cannot be unambiguous.
First of all, it should be noted that cognition of the past is a constantly renewing process, if, of course, we are talking about large historical phenomena covering relatively long periods of time, and not about isolated and obvious facts. It is precisely these phenomena that include the East Slavic institutions of slavery and tributary.
The study of these institutions allows us to see the most archaic forms of domination and exploitation dating back to the preliterate era of the Eastern Slavs, and thereby observe the emergence of collective and then individual wealth, which later became a source of brutal wars, social injustice, social troubles and upheavals. In other words, we are dealing with institutions that played an important role in the life of East Slavic society. Hence their appeal to the historian. Certain historiographic circumstances also prompt us to turn to them.
As for the problem of slavery among the Eastern Slavs, in pre-revolutionary historical science, it was hardly just touched upon. There was an opinion according to which the slaves of the Eastern Slavs were negligible and slavery did not have any serious social significance. SM Soloviev, for example, wrote: “The desire to have slaves and keep them as long as possible in this state is strong, first, among peoples whose economic and social functions are complex, luxury is developed; secondly, slaves are needed by peoples, albeit wild ones, but warlike, who consider occupation as war and its semblance, hunting for beasts, the only decent for a free man, and all household chores are laid on women and slaves; Finally, the people must get used to both every phenomenon and the phenomenon of slavery in the midst of themselves, for this the people must either be educated and acquire slaves through purchase, or be warlike and acquire them as prey, or must be a conqueror in a country whose former inhabitants have turned into slaves. "
SM Solov'ev did not find all these properties and qualities among the Eastern Slavs. He believed that “the Slavs lived under the simplest forms of life, family life, their economic functions were not difficult and uncomplicated, the absence of any luxury prevailed in clothing and dwellings; with all this and with a constant struggle with their own and others, with a constant readiness to leave their place of residence and escape from the enemy, the slaves could only hinder the Slavic family, and therefore did not have much value. Then it is known that militancy was not the dominant feature of the Slavic folk character and that the Slavs did not at all disdain agricultural pursuits. Among the people, living in the simplicity of the tribal way of life, the slave does not have too much difference from the members of the family, he is also its younger member, small, young; the degree of his obedience and duties to the head of the family is the same as the degree of obedience and duties of the younger members to the ancestor. "
East Slavic slavery seemed small and relatively easy to NA Rozhkov. “Until the 10th and even up to the 11th century,” he said, “there were few slaves, and their position was not difficult: all the writers who provided us with information about the primitive Slavs — these are mainly Byzantine writers — left us a whole series of evidence that the Slavs had few slaves, they treated these slaves well and soon set them free. "
According to some historians, the Eastern Slavs did not have "real slavery" at all. So, BN Chicherin asserted that "real slavery appears with us together with the Varangian retinue, and, probably, was brought by it." Similar judgments were expressed by M.K. Lyubavsky, according to whom “among the Eastern Slavs, with the arrival of the Varangian princes, a special society, separated from the rest of the population, was formed, which had its own special organization - a society that can be called princely. In addition to princes, it included princely men - boyars and firemen, greedy, youths, children, princely slaves ”. But MK Lyubavsky attributed the appearance of the slave class proper to the times of Ancient Rus, linking it with the growth of land tenure by princes and boyars: “... an important social consequence of the development of princely and boyar land tenure was the deposition of a significant class of slaves in Russian society and the legal development of the institution of slavery. In the X century, the servants were exported for the most part abroad. But from the time when a business was found for her and at home, the servants more and more accumulated in Russia. " From the arguments of the historian, it is clear that before the arrival of the Varangian princes, slavery among the Eastern Slavs (if any) meant little.
And yet, we must pay tribute to some representatives of pre-Soviet historiography, who were able not only to assess the extent of the spread of East Slavic slavery, but also to see in it an effective means of establishing personal power in local society, which means property differentiation and the prerequisites of social inequality.
M.D. Zatyrkevich, discussing the "way of life of wandering peoples", including "Slavic tribes", noted the existence of inequality "in the state and social status between families." The scientist believed that “this inequality appeared by itself as an inevitable consequence of the incessant wars that reigned between the wandering peoples. As a rule, all prisoners of war among wandering peoples, if they were not freed from captivity by means of ransom, turned into slaves as victors, entered their direct disposal and were obliged to work for the benefit of their masters and their neighbors. Thus, persons distinguished by courage and physical strength always had the opportunity to acquire wealth (which at that time consisted mainly of movable property) and prisoners of war slaves who were at their immediate disposal. This alone made it possible for individuals to rise above their relatives and all neighboring families in general. " Unfortunately, these thoughts were thrown by the author in passing, as if in passing, without becoming the basis for a more or less detailed study. In addition, MD Zatyrkevich did not show the proper consistency and succumbed to the influence of the idea of the external origin of ancient Russian slavery, which arose as a result of the appearance in Eastern Europe of the "Varyagorussians". Part of the population of "Varangian-Russian" origin, settled in the "cities of the Old Slavonic", formed the "courtyard people" of the prince. These "courtyard people, who were called at first in the general aggregate, now a family, now a home ... consisted almost exclusively of persons of an unfree, slave state - servants, people." The number of courtyards was enormous. Even at the first princes of Rurikov's house, it "reached many thousands."
Thus, it can be argued that in the pre-Soviet historical science (if we take it as a whole), slavery among the Eastern Slavs (before the arrival of the Varangian princes) remained insufficiently studied and did not receive a proper assessment.
In Soviet historiography, the situation changed, which was associated with the class approach to the study of the past, which was prescribed by the Marxist theory of the knowledge of history. The decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of a class society in Russia are becoming the leading themes of Soviet historical science. The turn to these topics was already evident in the 1920s. It is quite understandable that East Slavic slavery is now seen as a factor in class formation. According to PI Lyashchenko, “the main element of the decomposition of the primitive communist economy was slavery. The urban indigenous Slavic population, apparently, has long ago identified such a privileged class for which slavery acquired a production link with the primitive economy. " In the sources, this privileged class, according to P. I. Lyashchenko, is called "firemen". Its economic basis was trade, as well as land tenure based on the labor of servants, or slaves.
The issue of slavery among the Eastern Slavs arose with particular urgency during discussions about the social structure of Kievan Rus in the 1930s. The dispute then revolved around the problems of slavery and feudalism, linked with the task of studying history in the spirit of the Marxist-Leninist theory of socio-economic formations. In polemical discussions, the issue of slavery among the Eastern Slavs was also touched upon. Some of the participants in the discussions characterized the East Slavic society of the 9th-10th centuries. as a slave. Among them was V.V. Mavrodin, who believed that Yaroslav's Pravda, which reflected the phenomena of the 9th-10th centuries, depicts a society divided into classes of slaves and slave owners. According to II Smirnov, in the 10th century the Eastern Slavs had a "developed class society" of slave owners and slaves. Yaroslav's Truth captured this very society, and the so-called Yaroslavich Truth stood on the verge of two epochs, breaking in itself "the initial feudal relations" and "very strong traces of the previous system-slavery." II Smirnov argued from a theoretical point of view that the slave-owning formation was inevitable as a stage of social development earlier than feudalism. M.M. Tsvibak also spoke about East Slavic slavery, from which the feudal system grew in Kievan Rus. While not supporting the idea of the existence of a slaveholding formation in Russia, he nevertheless considered it historically incorrect to try to “diminish the role of slaveholding relations in ancient Russia”. The point is not that “there was no slavery. It was and was very widespread, it was very difficult ... The point is not to deny slavery, but to show how it turns into a source of feudalization, servage. " Even B.D. Grekov, who stubbornly pursued the idea of the feudal nature of social relations in Kievan Rus, was forced to partly agree with those historians who saw in the era reflected by Yaroslav's Truth, clear features of a slave-owning society. Other scholars also discussed the importance of slavery in the life of the Eastern Slavs, especially in the 9th-10th centuries.
This position in historiography did not last very long. Already by the end of the 30s. was given a clear tilt towards feudalism. The aging of its origins began. As a result, a view emerged according to which Russia passed to the feudal formation directly from the primitive communal system, bypassing the slaveholding formation. Unfortunately, it was established in historical science as a monopoly, which led to negative consequences: a certain weakening of the interest of researchers in slavery among the Slavs of the 6th-10th centuries. and underestimation of the role of slavery in the life of the East Slavic society of the specified time. BD Grekov was proclaimed the head and the highest authority of Soviet historical science associated with the study of Russian history. Naturally, under these conditions, his concept was recognized as the only correct one. This was very much like the cult of B. D. Grekov among Russian historians, as well as among others.
However, the idea of the importance of slavery among the Eastern Slavs and in Ancient Russia made its way. Back in the late 1930s, A.V. Shestakov appeared in the Uchitelskaya Gazeta with an article that affirmed the idea of the slave-owning nature of ancient Russian society, which provoked a heated discussion that took place at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. An essential role in the development of social relations among the Eastern Slavs of the 9th-10th centuries. assigned to slavery S. V. Yushkov. Pointing to the absence of prerequisites for the transition of East Slavic society into a "slave-owning socio-economic formation", he nevertheless argued that at the designated time "on the basis of the decomposition of the rural community, the first classes of slaves and slave owners arise", and "slavery in this period has bright patriarchal features ".
During the war years, A.I. Yakovlev's book "Serfdom and servants in the Moscow state of the 17th century" was published. XII centuries. The researcher's appeal to the problems of early slavery is not accidental: “In order to navigate in a number of tasks arising from the study of the columns of the Order of the Servant Court, the observer studying this material had to develop a certain general understanding of the history of servitude in Russian conditions in general and in order to delve into the distant past X and XI centuries A.D. e., since the basic concepts of serfdom were formed precisely in the era of Yaroslav and Yaroslavichi ”. Going deeper into the distant past, A.I. Yakovlev found in Ancient Russia a rather ramified servitude, "the top of the slave-owning society", and among the Eastern Slavs, a rather developed slave trade. At the same time, the historian denied the presence in Kievan Rus of a "slave-owning formation of the ancient type", believing that its formation "was prevented by the communal system of the Slavs."
P.P. Smirnov wrote about the slave system in Kievan Rus. B. A. Romanov pointed out the important role of slaves in ancient Russian society. According to his observations, slavery, penetrating deeply into social life, had a tangible effect on the life and customs of the population of Ancient Russia. According to the researcher, “a free husband is somehow not conceived without a slave (and robe), a slave is an indispensable part of the life of the free. And those who did not have slaves tried to acquire them by hook or by crook. " BA Romanov drew attention to the democratization of the composition of the ancient Russian slave owners, noting that slavery in the "XII century. becomes available to the broadest strata of “free” husbands from among the “unimovite”, who, under conditions of extreme aggravation of contradictions in the emerging feudal society, on occasion, themselves tumbled into the abyss ... of the yoke of labor. " Speaking about the wide spread of slavery in Russia in the XII century, about the feudal society that was just emerging at this time, B. A. Romanov broke thus with the dominant Greek concept, according to which slavery was outdated at that time, and feudalism entered a mature phase of its development. an indicator of which was the feudal fragmentation. However, he tried to smooth out the impression that his book should have made on the scientific community, primarily on BD Grekov and the Grekovites. “The works of my predecessors (and especially B. D. Grekov),” wrote B. A. Romanov, “saved me from the need to raise and revise in any way the question of a social formation, in the depths of which those“ people "and those" morals "that are the subject of my study and show during the XI-XIII centuries. (before the Mongol invasion). I could proceed from the position firmly established by Soviet historiography that ancient Russia of the XI-XIII centuries. going through the process of class formation, inherent and characteristic of the feudal formation. "
It was naive to expect that such curtsies would satisfy the aforementioned "predecessors (and especially BD Grekov)", since the thoughts of BA Romanov regarding the process of class formation in Russia in the 11th-13th centuries. and the widespread development of slavery in ancient Russian society resolutely contradicted the ideas of B. D. Grekov about the presence among the Eastern Slavs (starting from the 9th century) of a "feudal mode of production", a "formalized feudal basis", of slavery in Kievan Rus, going to a "reduction" and "Destruction". Unfortunately, B. D. Grekov chose non-academic means of struggle, having specially arrived in Leningrad to prevent the publication of B. A. Romanov's book. He urged the dean of the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University V. V. Mavrodin to refuse to publish it, citing his insistence by the fact that B. A. Romanov allegedly wrote not a scientific study, but something similar to the Decameron. And yet the book was published. But this brought BA Romanov more bitterness than joy.
Probably, at the suggestion of B. D. Grekov or his supporters in the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), a distorted idea of B. A. Romanov's book as "pornographic" was formed. It is clear that the reviews about it in the department of science of the Central Committee (in particular, of a certain Udaltsov) were unflattering. Accusations of excessive attention to sexual, intimate moments were brought against B.A. Romanov during a discussion of his book (April 1949) in the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The main speaker I. I. Smirnov, assessing the work of B. A. Romanov from the point of view of the generally accepted concept of B. D. Grekov, said that it “radically changes our understanding of the nature of the process of feudalization, of the ways and methods of development of serf dependence of the peasantry, on the nature of the legislation of Kievan Rus, on the policy of state power and the role of the church in the Kiev era ”. B. A. Romanov's book did not satisfy I. I. Smirnov "in any way." Later, however, I.I. he has the art of historical research. " These admissions, made during the period of warming of the scientific climate in our country, clearly betray the inspired, opportunistic character of II Smirnov's speech at the April 1949 discussion of BA Romanov's book. His concrete historical research testifies to the same. We know that in the 30s he persistently argued the existence of a slave-holding formation in Kievan Rus. In the late 50s - early 60s. I.I.Smirnov came out with extensive articles on the history of smerds and slaves, and then published a book on socio-economic relations in Russia in the XII-XIII centuries. The preface to it said: “In his work, the author relied on the colossal work that Soviet historical science did in the study of the history of ancient Russia. Among these studies, the author considers it necessary to highlight the classic work of BD Grekov "Kievan Rus", where BD Grekov outlined the foundations of the concept of Kievan Rus as an early feudal state, which has now received universal recognition and which served as a prerequisite for the author of this book. in the study of Russia in the XII-XIII centuries. "
I. I. Smirnov's statement about his commitment to the legacy of B. D. Grekov turned out to be essentially declarative when the researcher began to comprehend the factual material. Unlike BD Grekov, who considered the VI-VIII centuries. as “the time of the formation of feudal relations and the emergence of feudal property among the Eastern Slavs”, and the 9th century as the final edge of the creation of the “feudal mode of production” and the design of the “feudal basis”, II Smirnov attributed the completion of the process of feudalization to the 11th century. He wrote: “The initial period in the development of feudal relations in Ancient Rus, the period of the genesis of feudalism, basically ends within the 11th century. By this time, the basis of the economy of a feudal society - the feudal fiefdom ... was already taking shape and exists.
II Smirnov completely disagreed with BD Grekov on the issue of ancient Russian slavery - servitude. If BD Grekov spoke about the extinction of slavery in Russia in the 11th-12th centuries, then II Smirnov, like BA Romanov, noted the rapid development of servitude at the indicated time. Serfs-slaves cease to be the only property of the "princely domain", joining the servants of other owners, especially the boyars. They are becoming the most important category of the dependent population in Ancient Rus and are turning, one might say, into the main group of the working people of the Old Russian patrimony. Without entering into an open polemic with B. D. Grekov on the problem of slavery in Ancient Russia, I. I. Smirnov, nevertheless, actually refuted it.
A. P. Pyankov expressed direct disagreement with the "head of Soviet historians", who questioned the thesis about the withering away of slavery in medieval Russia and its allegedly patriarchal character only. According to the scientist, "the development of the feudal system did not reduce the scope of the use of slave labor, but, on the contrary, expanded it."
A.P. Pyankov's thought about the groundlessness of the assumption that slavery was withering away in Russia was shared by A.A. Zimin, who, challenging B.D. in the spiritual letters of the indicated period, there is no evidence of "an increase in the release of slaves to freedom." He even suggested that at the end of the 15th century, "the absolute number of slaves (due to the growth of feudal land tenure and population) increased slightly." At the same time, “ specific gravity By the end of the period under study, the number of retained servants in the feudal lord's economy obviously decreased. "
An important milestone in the knowledge of the history of East Slavic and Old Russian slavery was the book by A. A. Zimin "Serfs in Russia". Speaking about slavery among the Eastern Slavs, the historian emphasizes its patriarchal nature. Slaves in East Slavic society were brought in mainly for the purpose of obtaining a ransom and sale on the foreign market. In Russia, XII-XIII centuries. slaves are losing a significant role in the "trade balance" and are increasingly closely associated with the "economic life of the growing feudal fiefdom."
AA Zimin assigns a very significant role to slaves in the process of "forming a class of feudally dependent peasants." On the one hand, this class was formed "due to the gradual elimination of the free rural population", and on the other, as a result of "the transformation of slaves into serfs." This last social phenomenon, according to AA Zimin, "was noted in the works of Soviet historians, but the researchers did not attach any serious importance to it." And so he tried to fill this gap. But, as sometimes happens, he got too carried away and almost all the feudal elements of the patrimonial population (smerds, purchases, ryadovichs) were brought out of slavery - servantship, or servitude. A. Zimin thus more than fulfilled the long-standing wish of M. M. Tsvibak: to show how slavery "turns into a source of feudalization, servage." At the same time, the historian in no way rejected "the Marxist concept of the transition of Russia directly to the feudal system from the primitive communal system, bypassing the slaveholding formation." However, the revision of this concept did not mean a departure from the Marxist theory of the historical process. Therefore, some researchers, remaining on the basis of Marxism, nevertheless tried to interpret the social system of the Eastern Slavs from a different point of view.
NL Rubinstein, peering into the contours of social organization, emerging in the Ancient Truth, discovered “only two main social categories - the husband and the servant. The husband is a free community member ... The patriarchal slave - servant is opposed to a free community member-husband ”. Even more decisive in their conclusions were A.P. Pyankov and V.I. Goremykina: the first insisted on the existence of an early slave-owning society among the Ants, and the second - in Kievan Rus X-XI centuries. However, the majority of Soviet historians rejected such bold attempts, maintaining the old opinion that the transition of East Slavic society to feudalism was accomplished directly from the primitive communal system without any intermediate slaveholding stages.
What conclusions follow from our brief excursion into the field of Russian historiography of East Slavic slavery that we have done, of necessity? The first conclusion is that the problem of slavery among the Eastern Slavs still remains debatable in modern historical science and therefore requires further research. It must also be said that the study of the processes of the emergence and development of slavery in the social life of the Eastern Slavs is very important in the field of knowledge of the social evolution of our ancestors. Finally, without a study of slavery among the Eastern Slavs, it is impossible to correctly understand the history of slavery in the era of Ancient Rus.
A closer examination of the institution of East Slavic slavery reveals its close connection with tributary, due to the common origin of these social phenomena. War, military coercion is a single source of slavery and tributary. That is why a successful study of the problem of slavery without recourse to tributary is hardly achievable, and vice versa. However, from the side of public relations, tributary relations in themselves are of great interest to the historian.
In pre-revolutionary historical science, tribute attracted the attention of researchers in terms of financial policy and the satisfaction of the material needs of the prince and his squad. To this it must be added that everything written about tributes in the noble and bourgeois historiography is fragmentary statements, at best, brief sketches.
Soviet historians attribute tribute to the most important elements of the formation of a class organization in Russia. In modern historical literature, different approaches have been outlined in the coverage of tribute as the beginning of a feudal society. According to one of them, “tributes, virs, sales, polyudye and other extortions undermined the foundations of the community, ruined the economically weak community members. To pay tribute or for that. in order to somehow survive after the ruinous collection of tribute, they had to go into bondage to their already rich accomplices, to the tribal nobility, all sorts of "best people", "old" or "deliberate children", "elders", to "every prince" , besides the prince or his boyars-warriors. This is how debt bondage grew - one of the sources of the formation of a feudal-dependent people. "
Tribute here, therefore, is presented as a reason for the impoverishment of the communes, which drove them into feudal captivity. But the most widespread was the view of tribute as a feudal rent. According to the supporters of this view, the establishment of tributary relations among the East Slavic tribes was accompanied by "persecution" - the establishment of the supreme property of the prince or the state on the lands of the tributaries, which informed the tribute received by the rent character: the tribute from that moment acted as a centralized feudal rent levied by the corporation of feudal lords from " personally free direct producers ". Before us is the concept of state feudalism in Kievan Rus, some carriers of which claim the last word in historical science, without sufficient grounds for that.
"Oknyazhenie" tribal territories with the resulting tributary are considered by the latest researchers as factors in the construction of ancient Russian statehood. And they refer to the “oknenie” and the collection of tribute as one of the main features of the state.
Thus, the history of tributaryism among the Eastern Slavs has acquired the significance of a problem of paramount importance in modern historical science. But, oddly enough, the adherents of the theory of state feudalism in Russia have not yet bothered to bring together the whole complex of news at their disposal about tributary among the Eastern Slavs, to reveal the origin of this institution, to follow the evolution of tributary relations since their inception (or, in in any case, from the first mention of them in sources) until the 9th-10th centuries, when tributary became the main engine of the feudalization development of East Slavic society and an important element in the formation of the state. In other words, tributary, tributary relations in East Slavic society have not really been studied yet. There is, therefore, a discrepancy between the conclusions about the feudal nature of tribute in Russia in the 9th-10th centuries, its state essence and the research base on which they were built. There is only one way out of this situation: a monographic analysis of tributary relations among the Eastern Slavs throughout the entire era of their existence, accessible to the review of a modern historian.
We believe that what has been said above fully motivates our appeal to the history of East Slavic slavery and tributary rule of the 6th-10th centuries.
See: Yu. Afanasyev. I must say this. Political journalism during perestroika. M., 1991. S. 13; Kobrin V. To whom are you dangerous, historian? M., 1992. S. 180-183.
See, for example: Academician L.V. Cherepnin. Once again about feudalism in Kievan Rus // From the history of economic and public life Russia. Collection of articles dedicated to the 90th anniversary of Academician Nikolai Mikhailovich Druzhinin. M., 1976. pp. 15–22.
See: Medieval and New Russia. Collection of scientific articles dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Professor Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov. SPb., 1996. P.9, 760–818.
Rozhkov N. Review of Russian history from a sociological point of view. Part one. Kievan Rus (from the 6th to the end of the 12th century). M., 1905.S. 62.
Zatyrkevich M. D. On the influence of the struggle between peoples and estates on the formation of the system of the Russian state in the pre-Mongol period. M., 1874. P.37–38.
Lyashchenko P.I., History of the Russian national economy. M., 1926.S. 43. Lyashchenko expressed similar thoughts, however, in slightly different expressions and with a slight shift in emphasis much later. He considered slavery "an element that contributed to the more rapid decomposition of the primitive pre-class society." “Primitive slavery itself usually arises within the boundaries of the primitive economy and the tribal system long before their destruction. But here it has a special, mostly so-called "home" character, not yet having deep production bases". According to PI Lyashchenko, slavery acquired a significant "significance for the decomposition of primitive society among the Slavs only when it began to combine with the economic exploitation of slaves." The desire to " economic use"Slaves arise with the" disintegration of the tribal life, with the emergence of land inequality and territorial community, with the seizure of land by the leading clan and tribal groups. " - Lyashchenko PI History of the national economy of the USSR. Vol. 1. Pre-capitalist formations. M., 1956, p. 88.
See: Danilova JI. V. Formation of the Marxist trend in the Soviet historiography of the era of feudalism // Historical notes. 76. M., 1965. S. 100-104; Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus: Essays on Russian historiography. L., 1990. S. 230–246.