Economic development of Rus'. Local land tenure system

The local system is the order of service land ownership that was established in the Moscow state of the 15th and 16th centuries. This order was based on estate. An estate in Muscovite Rus' was a plot of state-owned, state-owned land given by the sovereign for personal ownership to a serviceman under the condition of service, i.e. as a reward for service and together as a means for service. Like the service itself, this possession was temporary, usually for life. In its conditional, personal and temporary nature, local ownership differed from fiefdoms, constituting the full and hereditary property of its owner.

Local land ownership began to develop into a harmonious and complex system from the reign of Ivan III. Then precise rules began to be developed for the distribution of state-owned lands into local ownership of service people. These rules became necessary with the increased recruitment of people and with the increased distribution of state-owned lands to them for local ownership. In the 16th century Service people were sometimes massacred in droves. The most famous case of such placement dates back to 1550. For various services at the court, the government then recruited 1000 service people from different counties - city nobles and boyar children. Service people, whom their service tied to the capital, needed estates or estates near Moscow for their economic needs. The government distributed estates in the Moscow and nearby districts to the thousands of servicemen recruited from the districts for the capital's service, adding to this mass several higher ranks, boyars and okolnichy, who did not have estates and estates near Moscow. In total, 176,775 acres of arable land were distributed to 1,078 service people of various ranks that year. Soon after the conquest of Kazan, the government put the local ownership and land service in order, compiled lists of service people, dividing them into categories according to the quality of weapons, also according to the size of patrimonial and local ownership and the salaries that service people received in addition to their land income . Since that time, local land ownership has been harmonious and complex system, based on precisely defined and constant rules. These are the main features of this system.

The land management of service people was managed by a special central institution - Local order as an order Bit was in charge of their official affairs. Service people owned land at their place of service, just as they served at the place where they owned the land. The service tied service people either to the capital or to a well-known region. Therefore, service people were divided into two categories: the first included Moscow ranks along with Duma officials, the second included county or city nobles and boyar children. Moscow officials, in addition to estates and estates in distant districts, also had estates or estates near Moscow. District nobles and boyar children received estates where they served, i.e. where they were supposed to defend the state by forming a local landowning militia. The official duties of a serving man fell not only on his estate, but also on his patrimony. In the half of the 16th century. the very standard of service from the ground was precisely determined, i.e. the amount of military service that fell on a serving person on his land. According to the law drawn up during the reign of Ivan the Terrible in the 1550s, for every 100 acres of good arable land in one field, i.e. with 150 acres in three fields, one warrior must appear on a campaign “on horseback and in full armor,” as the decree puts it, and on a long campaign with two horses. Landowners who had fiefs or estates containing more than 100 acres of land, accordingly, took with them or sent out on a campaign, if they could not go themselves, a certain number of armed courtyard people.

Local salaries were extremely varied, depending on rank and service. Moreover, they usually did not give the entire salary at once, but only part of it, with subsequent increases in service. That's why salaries differed from dacha People of higher ranks, boyars, okolnichi and Duma nobles, received estates of 1000 chety or more; provincial nobles and boyar children received salaries from 100 to 300; however, there were salaries higher and lower than this. The local salary was combined with a monetary salary in a known, but, however, changing proportion. Orderly person of the half of the 17th century. Kotoshikhin says that the salary was assigned at 1 ruble. for every 5 people in one field, i.e. 7.5 tithes, local salary. However, this proportion was often violated. Moreover, cash salaries were usually issued only before large campaigns or after a certain number of years, for example, after two years on the third.

Landowners who served from estates and estates, if there were any, kept them with them until they were old enough to prepare their sons for service. Nobleman of the 16th century usually began his service at the age of 15. Before that he was listed in undergrowth. Having arrived for service, he received the name novika. Him then typesetting, those. endowed with local and monetary salary newbies which we visited later additions for service. The layout of new recruits was twofold: the eldest sons, who were in time for service when their father still retained the strength to serve, were laid out to the challenge, gave them special estates; the youngest son, who was in time for service when his father was already decrepit, allowed to his estate so that upon the death of his father, he would inherit his official duties along with the land. Over time, rules were established to provide for the families left behind by serving people. When a serviceman died, certain land shares were allocated from his estate for living(in pension) to his widow and daughters: for the widow - until death, until remarriage or tonsure, for daughters - until they were 15 years old, when they could get married. Upon reaching the age of 15, the daughter was legally deprived of her subsistence allowance. However, when she got married, she could spend her living with her groom. The amount of "living" depended on how the landowner died. If he died a natural death at home, his widow was allocated 10% of his estate salary from his estate, and his daughters 5% each; if he was killed on a campaign, his subsistence was doubled.

The local system of land tenure had a diverse and profound influence on the state and economic structure of Russian society. Its most important consequences were as follows. Local ownership was gradually equalized with patrimonial ownership. The equation went in two ways: 1) and patrimonial owners, like landowners, began to serve from the land, and thus the personal military service of serving people turned into land; 2) estates, initially lifelong land tenures, gradually, like estates, became hereditary, first in fact, through the transfer of the estate to the children or relatives of the landowner with permission or by order of the government, and then legally, when in the 18th century. the law of 1714 on single inheritance recognized the estate as the full property of the landowner with all rights of disposal, and thus the local system contributed to the artificial development of private land ownership in Rus', turning a huge amount of state land, which was allocated to the landowners, into their full property. Further, under the influence of the local system, urban service landowners were organized into estate district societies, or corporations, bound by the guarantee of members for each other in the proper performance of service, with periodic congresses and elected estate stewards.

Based on materials from the works of the great Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky

A plot of government (state) land given by the sovereign for temporary (for the duration of his service or for life) personal possession to a service man under the condition of service, both as a reward for service and a source of material income from which the owner of the estate equipped himself for campaigns. By its conditional, personal and temporary nature, local ownership differed from votchina, which constituted the full and hereditary property of its owner.

Estate ownership began to develop into a coherent and complex system from the reign of Ivan III. Then precise rules began to be developed for the distribution of state-owned lands into local ownership of service people. These rules became necessary with the increased recruitment of service people and with the increased distribution of state-owned lands to them for local ownership. In the 16th century, there was sometimes a massive distribution of estates. The most famous case of such a distribution dates back to 1550, when about a thousand service people, city nobles and boyar children were called up from different counties to serve, and they were given estates in Moscow and nearby counties with a total area of ​​176,775 acres of arable land. All this made it possible to form a large local army.

Soon after the conquest of Kazan, the government compiled lists of servicemen, dividing them into categories according to the quality of weapons, the size of the patrimonial and local ownership and the salaries. The local system had a diverse and profound influence on the state and economic structure of Russian society.

Local ownership was gradually equalized with patrimonial ownership. Firstly, the owners of the estates began to serve on the same grounds and according to the same principles as the landowners. Secondly, estates gradually began to be inherited. At first, they were transferred to the heirs of the landowner with the permission or by order of the monarch, and the heirs were obliged to serve, then service ceased to be a prerequisite for inheritance. In the 18th century, the estate was recognized as the full property of the landowner with all rights of disposal. Thus, the manorial system contributed to the development of private land ownership in Russia, turning a huge amount of state-owned land, which was allocated to landowners, into their private property.

Literature

• Klyuchevsky V. O. About the local system in Russia

Wikimedia Foundation.

2010.

See what the “Local system” is in other dictionaries: Providing land holdings (estates) for military administrative service in Russia at the end of the 15th century. 1714 ...

Legal dictionary Providing land holdings (estates) for military administrative service in Russia in the end. 15th century 1714. Originated in the Novgorod land, towards the middle. 16th century throughout the main territory of the state...

Big Encyclopedic Dictionary Providing land holdings (estates) for military administrative service in Russia in the end. 15th century 1714. Originated in the Novgorod land, towards the middle. 16th century throughout the main territory of the state. Political science: Dictionary reference book. composition...

Political science. Dictionary. Providing land holdings (estates) for military administrative service in Russia at the end of the 15th century. 1714. Originated in Novgorod land, by the middle of the 16th century. throughout the main territory of the state. * * * LOCAL SYSTEM LOCAL… …

encyclopedic Dictionary Feudal distribution system. state land in Russia to nobles (landowners) under the condition of their military service. and adm. services. P.S. developed during the formation of the Russian centralized state on the basis of various types of conditional land ownership... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Wikipedia

Number systems in culture Indo Arabic number system Arabic Indian Tamil Burmese Khmer Laotian Mongolian Thai East Asian number systems Chinese Japanese Suzhou Korean Vietnamese Counting sticks... ... Wikipedia

Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "State University of Land Management" History of the development of land management science and technology
Accession during the XIII – XV centuries. appanage principalities to the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the centralization of power led to the complication of the functions of land management. It was necessary to make a new distribution of taxes to the treasury, as a result of which censuses were resumed and the redistribution of land began. Censuses were carried out by special officials called “chislenniks”, “tax officers” or scribes. They described and calculated not only the territory of the principalities, but also the land holdings of private individuals. The boundaries of land holdings were marked with various signs.

The contents of statutory and judicial documents, “deeds of sale”, “invoices”, “landmarks” and other legal documents indicate that the boundaries of the estate were established mainly by mutual agreement of landowners or at the direction of the authorities in the presence of their representative and passed mainly along natural boundaries (rivers, streams, roads, forest edges, etc.). These same “conditional” boundaries fixed the boundaries of other land holdings.

Evidence has been preserved of the establishment of boundaries not only of land plots, but also of the boundaries of principalities. There is a known document of divorce, which defined the boundaries between the Novgorod possessions of Grand Duke Ivan III and the Rzhev possessions of his brother, Prince Boris Vasilyevich Volotsky. The postscript to the letter indicated the date: “summer 92, October 20,” from which it follows that the demarcation of the Novgorod and Rzhev lands took place around October 20, 1483. The initial segment of this border is described in the divorce letter of Ivan and Boris Vasilyevich as follows : “And the border of the lands and waters is from the cross from the Mezhnik stream from the mouth to Lake Seliger, and Lake Seliger between the islands of Razboinika and

Prisensky winter shades, to the right are the lands and waters of the Grand Duke Novugorod Berezovsky volost, and to the left are the lands and waters of Prince Borisov Vasilyevich Rzhevsky Klichensky volost. Yes, between the thine of Rogatsky and Khotsky winter, and at the end of the Khotynsky island and at the end of Trestenets island, and from Trestenets, between the two islands of Somovik and Kanina, the nests of Kostrov x Komarov, and from [the] island from Komarov straight to the Khotenov bow , to the right are the lands and waters of the Grand Duke of Novugorod, the Berezovsky volost, and to the left are the lands and clans of Prince Borisov Vasilyevich of the Rzhev Klichensky [volost. Yes] from Khotenova bows through the forest in Gryzkovsky moss, and with Ogryzkovsky moss to the spindle to the yamskoye and on the spindle on the wolf, and next to the spindle to the old pit, and on two pines on the old cliffs, and on the holly, and to the blessed Christmas tree, to the right - the lands and waters of the Grand Duke of Novugorod, the Berezovsky volost, and to the left - the lands and waters of Prince Borisov Vasilyevich, the Rzhev Klichensky volost. Yes, on the dry pine, on the Maksimovskaya mowing, and on the Maksimovskaya arable land on the stone, and from the stone through the road to the Toropovsky sides and to the broken spruce trees, and near the Nefedovsky Niva and near the Toropovsky Niva with the mob, and on the Butovo Niva with the mob, and between the Nepreskoi Niva and Butov to the Black Stream down to Esina Niva near Krivskoe Lake, to the right are the lands and waters of the Grand Duke of Novugorod, the Berezovsky volost, and to the left are the lands and waters of Prince Borisov Vasilyevich of the Rzhev Klichensky volost. Yes to the Zarubsky forest, and to the Dolgogo moss, and from the Dolgogo moss through the Krasnoi streams and forest to the Glushitsa river below Mikhalev Pond, and Glushitsa up to the Mikhalev pond to the Sterzhsky border of the Arkazh monastery, to the right - the lands and waters of the Grand Duke of Novugorod Berezovsky volosts, and to the left - lands and waters of Prince Borisov Vasilyevich Rzhev Klichensky volost".1

From the second third of the 15th century. a new stage in the organization of land surveying begins, associated with the beginning of the formation of a local land tenure system.

Estates were provided by the state to servicemen, mainly military men, for the duration of their service and under certain conditions. This term first appears in one of the grants of 1470.

The extensive distribution of such possessions by Ivan III (1462-1505) began after the conquest of Novgorod on the newly annexed lands. In 1478-1479 The Moscow prince evicted all the wealthy Novgorodians and sent seven thousand “living people” to Moscow2. The chronicle called this event the “withdrawal” of the Novgorodians. A census was carried out in the Novgorod lands and a massive allocation of estates was carried out to soldiers. Lands that had previously belonged to patrimonial owners, as well as lands of blacks and state volosts, were distributed to the nobles. By the end of the 15th century, about 67% of the lands of Novgorod were in the hands of private landowners.

In the Pskov land, under Vasily III (1505-1533), the transfer of patrimonial lands to local law was carried out, small local land ownership was established in the region, for which descriptions of these vast territories were carried out.

Vasily III, continuing the policy of his father, tried to deprive the nobility of its privileges and ensure the expansion of the land fund for local distribution. Having ascended the Moscow throne, he did not confirm the rights to the estates of a significant number of boyars, dealing another blow to large hereditary land ownership. After this, only relatively few monasteries, boyars and princes retained tax immunities. 3. The German diplomat and traveler Sigismund Herberstein testifies that the boyars’ children were

included in lists by region and were called up for service almost every year; Before the campaign, the needy were paid a salary, but those who had sufficient estates were obliged to equip themselves at their own expense4.

At the end of the 80s. XV century descriptions of the lands in the former Belozersk inheritance, recently annexed to the lands of the Grand Duke, were continued. Experts note that during the census in the Belozersky region, ownership certificates were checked, and many lands were confiscated to the treasury. In the 1490s. censuses spread to other lands: in 1491 - the lands of the Tver principality were described (Tver, Staritsa, Zubtsov, Klin, Kholm, Kashin), during 1498 and 1505 - Kostroma, in 1503 - Vologda lands and etc.

In the 15th century The tithe was established as a unit of land measurement in Rus'. The land was measured in “economic” tithes: (3200 sq. fathoms), “hundredth” (10,000 sq. fathoms), etc. Later, the most common tithe was 2400 sq. m. fathoms5. In one of the instructions to the scribes it is said: “It is appropriate to know that in the Moscow state the scribes are given a measured rope 80 fathoms in length, and 30 across, that is, also a rope. And in both of them there are 2400 fathoms of coal, that is, I sow 2 quarters of good land in one field, and that’s called tithe.”6

The lands of black-sown peasants (black lands) were, as a rule, in communal use. Areas of arable land and haymaking were distributed between individual yards and were subject to periodic redistribution. The pastures were used communally. When redistributing land, especially arable land, the community sought to more accurately take into account the quality of individual plots (both in terms of fertility and

and by distance from the village) and provide each yard with equal quality land. Therefore, communal land ownership was organically characterized by such shortcomings as striped land, small and narrow striped land, and distant lands.

In the XIII-XIV centuries. peasants were free to move from one landowner to another throughout the year. In 1497, Ivan III, in the Code of Laws, the first national code of laws since the times of Ancient Rus', established a certain date for such a transition - the autumn St. George's Day (November 26, old style). Later during the 16th and especially at the beginning of the 17th century. The state took increasingly strict measures to attach peasants to the land (even to the point of searching for them and forcibly returning them).

Monastic and church land ownership occupied a large share in the Moscow state; With the development of central power, palace and state lands were allocated.

The palace lands were the feudal property of the princely family, and the corresponding income went to maintain the court of the Grand Duke (Tsar). On the contrary, revenues from state lands went to the national treasury. A large economy was carried out on the palace lands. Thus, in the estates of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich there were about 11 thousand peasant households. In addition, a large number of courtyard peasants were assigned to them, performing various jobs on the royal estates.7

The effective use of “black” lands was determined by the interests of the black-growing peasantry, striving to provide themselves with food as best as possible.

Already by the middle of the 16th century. land ownership, land use and land relations in Russia turned out to be very confusing. There was a lack of clarity in

the quantity and quality of lands of estates and estates, palace, state, monastic, church, peasant lands; The vast lands annexed to Russia in the first half of the 16th century were not described and distributed. It was necessary to establish who owned what lands and on what basis, what areas could be provided to service people, and how to replenish the treasury through the redistribution of lands.

This determined the urgent need for the state authorities to carry out a special type of land management and land accounting work, which in the history of Russia was called scribe surveys.

Thus, scribal surveys (descriptions) are the first and main type of land management activity, which was organized by the state, financed from the state treasury and reflected the land policy of Russia in the field of strengthening local land ownership.

See also:
Land management in the Moscow state

The spread of foreign languages ​​in the Moscow state in the XIV-XVI centuries

§16. Feudal war in Rus' option a

Entrance test program in management 081100. 68 “State and municipal management”

The study of social composition in the Moscow state in these centuries presents great difficulties; their main reason is the extreme fragmentation of social division

The fate of the individual in a totalitarian state

Program name of discipline reclamation

P. A. Stolypin A careful study of the history of the revolution of 1905 completely destroys the black legend about the weak-willed sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich. Suppressing the revolution, the emperor began reforms in the state

“Who will live to see retirement in Russia?”, held on Tuesday at the Moscow press center

Gulnara Galavinskaya: how is the theme of love revealed in the play “Orpheus and Eurydice”? The premiere of the play “Orpheus and Eurydice” took place at the Moscow Luna Theater

Rules for remote banking services for individuals in the Moscow branch of OJSC Bank

Liberalization of private property rights in a democratic state

We call the local system the order of servants, i.e., those obliged to military service, land ownership, established in the Moscow state of the 15th and 16th centuries. The basis of this order was the estate. An estate in Muscovite Rus' was a plot of state or church land given by a sovereign or a church institution for personal ownership to a serving person under the condition of service, that is, as a reward for service and together as a means for service.

Like the service itself, this possession was temporary, usually for life. By its conditional, personal and temporary nature, local ownership differed from votchina, which constituted the full and hereditary land property of its owner.

Opinions on the origin of local law

The origin and development of local land ownership is one of the most difficult to study and most important issues in the history of Russian law and government. It is clear that our historians and lawyers have dealt with this issue a lot. Of the opinions they expressed, I will cite two of the most authoritative.

Nevolin in his History of Russian Civil Laws admits the existence of such conditional land ownership and even ruled for it until the half of the 15th century, before the reign of Ivan III. But the foundations of local law, in his opinion, appear only from the time of this Grand Duke, when the word estate itself came into use, and in the development of the local system from these foundations, Nevolin considers possible the participation of Greek influence, Byzantine state law, the conductor of which in the Moscow state life was the marriage of Ivan III with a Greek princess. “At least,” says Nevolin, “the word estate is composed following the example of the Greek: this was the name in the Byzantine Empire for plots of land that were given to persons from the government under the condition of military service and passed under the same condition from father to children.” But the adjective from the word estate appears in the Old Russian language before the appearance of Princess Sophia in Rus'; in the district letter of Metropolitan Jonah of 1454, appanage princes are called local, as opposed to great. Therefore, it is unlikely that the term and concept of Russian estate were an imitation of the word and institution of Byzantine state law.

Another historian, Gradovsky, gives the question a more complex solution. Manorial ownership presupposes a supreme owner to whom the land belongs as an inalienable property. Russian state life in the first period of our history could not develop the idea of ​​such a supreme landowner: the Russian prince of that time was considered a sovereign, but not the owner of the land.

Local system

The concept of the prince as the supreme landowner arose only in the Mongol period. The Russian princes, as representatives of the khan's power, enjoyed in their destinies the rights that the khan had throughout the entire territory under his control.

Then the Russian princes inherited these state rights from the khan as their full property, and this inheritance shook the beginning of private property. But Gradovsky, like Nevolin, explaining the origin of the local system, actually speaks about the origin of local law, the idea of ​​local, conditional ownership of land. But law and the system of social relations based on it are two completely different historical moments. Without going into an analysis of the controversial issue of the origin of law, I will focus your attention only on the facts that explain the development of the system.

The local system is the order of service land ownership that was established in the Moscow state of the 15th and 16th centuries. The basis of this order was the estate. An estate in Muscovite Rus' was a plot of state-owned, state-owned land given by the sovereign for personal ownership to a serviceman under the condition of service, i.e. as a reward for service and together as a means for service. Like the service itself, this possession was temporary, usually for life. By its conditional, personal and temporary nature, local ownership differed from votchina, which constituted the full and hereditary property of its owner.

Local land ownership began to develop into a coherent and complex system from the reign of Ivan III. Then precise rules began to be developed for the distribution of state-owned lands into local ownership of service people. These rules became necessary with the increased recruitment of people and with the increased distribution of state-owned lands to them for local ownership. In the 16th century Service people were sometimes massacred in droves. The most famous case of such placement dates back to 1550. For various services at the court, the government then recruited 1000 service people from different counties - city nobles and boyar children. Service people, whom their service tied to the capital, needed estates or estates near Moscow for their economic needs. The government distributed estates in the Moscow and nearby districts to the thousands of servicemen recruited from the districts for the capital's service, adding to this mass several higher ranks, boyars and okolnichy, who did not have estates and estates near Moscow. In total, 176,775 acres of arable land were distributed to 1,078 service people of various ranks that year. Soon after the conquest of Kazan, the government put the local ownership and land service in order, compiled lists of service people, dividing them into categories according to the quality of weapons, also according to the size of patrimonial and local ownership and the salaries that service people received in addition to their land income . Since that time, local land ownership has been a harmonious and complex system based on precisely defined and constant rules. These are the main features of this system.

The land management of service people was managed by a special central institution - the Local Prikaz, just as the Rank Prikaz was in charge of their official affairs. Service people owned land at their place of service, just as they served at the place where they owned the land. The service tied service people either to the capital or to a well-known region. Therefore, service people were divided into two categories: the first included Moscow ranks along with Duma officials, the second included county or city nobles and boyar children. Moscow officials, in addition to estates and estates in distant districts, also had estates or estates near Moscow. District nobles and boyar children received estates where they served, i.e. where they were supposed to defend the state by forming a local landowning militia. The official duties of a serving man fell not only on his estate, but also on his patrimony. In the half of the 16th century. the very standard of service from the ground was precisely determined, i.e. the amount of military service that fell on a serving person on his land. According to the law drawn up during the reign of Ivan the Terrible in the 1550s, for every 100 acres of good arable land in one field, i.e. with 150 acres in three fields, one warrior must appear on a campaign “on horseback and in full armor,” as the decree puts it, and on a long campaign with two horses. Landowners who had fiefs or estates containing more than 100 acres of land, accordingly, took with them or sent out on a campaign, if they could not go themselves, a certain number of armed courtyard people.

Local salaries were extremely varied, depending on rank and service. Moreover, they usually did not give the entire salary at once, but only part of it, with subsequent increases in service. Therefore, salaries differed from dachas. People of higher ranks, boyars, okolnichi and Duma nobles, received estates of 1000 chety or more; provincial nobles and boyar children received salaries from 100 to 300; however, there were salaries higher and lower than this. The local salary was combined with a monetary salary in a known, but, however, changing proportion. Orderly person of the half of the 17th century. Kotoshikhin says that the salary was assigned at 1 ruble. for every 5 people in one field, i.e. 7.5 tithes, local salary. However, this proportion was often violated. Moreover, cash salaries were usually issued only before large campaigns or after a certain number of years, for example, after two years on the third.

Landowners who served from estates and estates, if there were any, kept them with them until they were old enough to prepare their sons for service. Nobleman of the 16th century

Local land tenure

usually began his service at the age of 15. Before that, he was listed as a minor. Having arrived for service, he received the title of novice. It was then made up, i.e. They were given a local and new salary, to which there were later additions for service. The selection of new recruits was twofold: the eldest sons, who entered the service when their father still retained the strength to serve, were assigned to the allotment, and were given special estates; the youngest son, who was ready for service when his father was already decrepit, was allowed to join him on the estate so that upon his father’s death he would inherit his official duties along with the land. Over time, rules were established to provide for the families left behind by serving people. When a serviceman died, certain land shares were allocated from his estate for subsistence (pension) to his widow and daughters: for the widow - until death, until a second marriage or before tonsure, for daughters - until they were 15 years old, when they could get married. Upon reaching the age of 15, the daughter was legally deprived of her subsistence allowance. However, when she got married, she could spend her living with her groom. The amount of "living" depended on how the landowner died. If he died a natural death at home, his widow was allocated 10% of his estate salary from his estate, and his daughters 5% each; if he was killed on a campaign, his subsistence was doubled.

The local system of land tenure had a diverse and profound influence on the state and economic structure of Russian society. Its most important consequences were as follows. Local ownership was gradually equalized with patrimonial ownership. The equation went in two ways: 1) and patrimonial owners, like landowners, began to serve from the land, and thus the personal military service of serving people turned into land service; 2) estates, initially lifelong land tenures, gradually, like estates, became hereditary, first in fact, through the transfer of the estate to the children or relatives of the landowner with permission or by order of the government, and then legally, when in the 18th century. the law of 1714 on single inheritance recognized the estate as the full property of the landowner with all rights of disposal, and thus the local system contributed to the artificial development of private land ownership in Rus', turning a huge amount of state land, which was allocated to the landowners, into their full property. Further, under the influence of the local system, urban service landowners were organized into estate district societies, or corporations, bound by the guarantee of members for each other in the proper performance of service, with periodic congresses and elected estate stewards.

Based on materials from the works of the great Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky

So, I repeat, local ownership developed from the land ownership of palace servants under appanage princes and differed from this land ownership in that it was determined not only by palace, but also by military service. This difference becomes noticeable from the middle of the 15th century; no earlier than this time the estate acquires the significance of a means of providing both palace and military service - however, at the same time both of these types of services merge and lose their legal distinction. Since then, the legal idea of ​​an estate has arisen as a plot of land that provides public service for a service person, military or palace - it makes no difference.

A. Vasnetsov. Streletskaya Sloboda

Since that time, i.e., from the second half of the 15th century, local land ownership has developed into a harmonious and complex system, and precise rules for the allocation and distribution of lands into local ownership have been developed. These rules became necessary when the government, having created a large armed mass through increased recruitment, began to organize its maintenance with land dachas.

Traces of the intensified and systematic distribution of state-owned lands into local ownership appear already in the second half of the 15th century. The census book of the Votskaya Pyatina of the Novgorod land, compiled in 1500, has reached us. In two districts of this Pyatina, Ladoga and Orekhovsky, according to this book we already meet 106 Moscow landowners, on whose lands there were about 3 thousand households with 4 thousand peasants living in them and yard people. These figures show how hastily the removal of service people proceeded and what development the Moscow estate reached on the northwestern outskirts of the state, in the Novgorod land, within some 20 years after the conquest of Novgorod.

In the named districts of the Votskaya Pyatina, according to the indicated book, almost more than half of all arable land was already in the possession of landowners transferred from central Moscow Rus'. We find traces of the same intensive development of manorial ownership in the central counties of the state. From the first years of the 16th century. Several land survey documents have been preserved, delimiting Moscow and the counties closest to it from one another. Along the borders of these districts, charters indicate many small landowners next to the patrimonial lands: these were clerks with clerks, huntsmen, grooms - in a word, the same palace servants who in the 14th century. the princes gave land for use in exchange for service. In the XIV century. service people were sometimes accommodated in whole masses at the same time.

The most famous case of such placement dates back to 1550. For various services at the court, the government then recruited from different districts a thousand of the most efficient service people from city nobles and boyar children. Service people, whom their service tied to the capital, needed estates or estates near Moscow for their economic needs. To this thousand servicemen recruited from the districts for the capital's service, the government distributed estates in the Moscow and nearby districts, adding to this mass several people of the highest ranks, boyars and okolnichi, who did not have those near Moscow.

The sizes of local plots were unequal and corresponded to the ranks of landowners: boyars and okolnichy received 200 quarters of arable land in a field (300 acres in 3 fields); nobles and boyar police children, divided into several articles or categories, received 200, 150 and 100 quarters in each field. Thus, 176,775 acres of arable land in 3 fields were distributed to 1078 service people of various ranks that year.

Soon after the conquest of Kazan, the government put the local ownership and land service in order, compiled lists of service people, dividing them into articles according to the size of the local ownership and according to the salaries, which from the same time was brought into correct proportion to the size of the military service. Excerpts of these lists, compiled around 1556, have reached us. Here, under the name of each service person, it is indicated how many estates and estates he has, with how many servants he is obliged to appear for service and in what weapons, and how large the salary assigned to him is. Since that time, estate ownership has been a harmonious and complex system based on precisely defined and constant rules. I will outline in schematic form the foundations of this system, as they were established by the beginning of the 17th century.

A plot of state-owned (state) land given by the sovereign (grand duke, tsar) (for a period of service or for life) into the personal possession of a service person (nobles) under the condition of service, both as a reward for service (state, mainly military) and a source of material income, from which the owner of the estate equipped himself for hiking. By its conditional, personal and temporary nature, local ownership differed from votchina, which constituted the full and hereditary property of its owner.

Story

Estate ownership began to develop into a coherent and complex system from the reign of Ivan III. Then precise rules began to be developed for the distribution of state-owned lands into local ownership of service people. These rules became necessary with the increased recruitment (selection) of service people and with the increased distribution of state-owned lands to them for local ownership. In the 16th century, there was sometimes a massive distribution of estates. The first mass distribution of land to service people, in the form of estates, was carried out in Novgorod and other lands (territories) under the Grand Duke Ivan III Vasilyevich. The most famous case of such a distribution dates back to 1550, when about a thousand service people, city nobles and boyar children were called up from different counties to serve, and they were given estates in Moscow and nearby counties with a total area of ​​176,775 acres of arable land. All this made it possible to form a large local army and discharge regiments.

Soon after the conquest of Kazan, the government compiled lists of service people, dividing them into categories according to the quality of weapons (type of weapon), the size of the patrimonial and local ownership and the salaries. The local system had a diverse and profound influence on the state and economic structure of Russian society.

Local ownership was gradually equalized with patrimonial ownership. Firstly, the owners of the estates began to serve on the same basis and according to the same principles as the landowners. Secondly, estates gradually began to be inherited. At first, they were transferred to the heirs of the landowner with the permission or by order of the monarch, and the heirs were obliged to serve, then service ceased to be a prerequisite for inheritance. In the 18th century, the estate was recognized as the full property of the landowner with all rights of disposal. Thus, the manorial system contributed to the development of private land ownership in Russia, turning a huge amount of state-owned land, which was allocated to landowners, into their private property.

Under Tsar Peter I, in accordance with his Decree on Single Inheritance, dated 1714, which legally secured the merger of estates with patrimonies into a single type of noble land ownership, the local system ceased to exist.

Write a review about the article "Local system"

Literature

• Klyuchevsky V. O. About the local system in Russia.
• S. V. Rozhdestvensky Serving land tenure in the Moscow state in the 16th century. - St. Petersburg, 1897;
• Yu. V. Gauthier Zamoskovny region in the 17th century., 2nd ed. - M., 1937;
• S. B. Veselovsky Feudal land tenure in North-Eastern Rus'." T. 1. - M.-L., 1947;
• A. A. Zimin From the history of local land ownership in Rus' // “Questions of History”. - 1959. - No. 11;
• L. V. Cherepnin Formation of the Russian centralized state in the XIV-XV centuries. - M., 1960;
• // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.

Evolution Wars Monarchy Political system Estate organization Rat Economy

Excerpt characterizing the Local system

Her face suddenly flushed, expressing desperate and cheerful determination. She stood up, inviting Pierre, who was sitting opposite her, to listen, and turned to her mother:
- Mother! – her childish, chesty voice sounded across the table.
- What do you want? – the countess asked in fear, but, seeing from her daughter’s face that it was a prank, she sternly waved her hand, making a threatening and negative gesture with her head.
The conversation died down.
- Mother! what kind of cake will it be? – Natasha’s voice sounded even more decisively, without breaking down.
The Countess wanted to frown, but could not. Marya Dmitrievna shook her thick finger.
“Cossack,” she said threateningly.
Most of the guests looked at the elders, not knowing how to take this trick.
- Here I am! - said the countess.
- Mother! what kind of cake will there be? - Natasha shouted boldly and capriciously cheerfully, confident in advance that her prank would be well received.
Sonya and fat Petya were hiding from laughter.
“That’s why I asked,” Natasha whispered to her little brother and Pierre, whom she looked at again.
“Ice cream, but they won’t give it to you,” said Marya Dmitrievna.
Natasha saw that there was nothing to be afraid of, and therefore she was not afraid of Marya Dmitrievna.
- Marya Dmitrievna? what ice cream! I don't like cream.
- Carrot.
- No, which one? Marya Dmitrievna, which one? – she almost screamed. - I want to know!
Marya Dmitrievna and the Countess laughed, and all the guests followed them. Everyone laughed not at Marya Dmitrievna’s answer, but at the incomprehensible courage and dexterity of this girl, who knew how and dared to treat Marya Dmitrievna like that.
Natasha fell behind only when she was told that there would be pineapple. Champagne was served before the ice cream. The music started playing again, the count kissed the countess, and the guests stood up and congratulated the countess, clinking glasses across the table with the count, the children, and each other. Waiters ran in again, chairs rattled, and in the same order, but with redder faces, the guests returned to the drawing room and the count's office.

The Boston tables were moved apart, the parties were drawn up, and the Count's guests settled in two living rooms, a sofa room and a library.
The Count, fanning out his cards, could hardly resist the habit of an afternoon nap and laughed at everything. The youth, incited by the countess, gathered around the clavichord and harp. Julie was the first, at the request of everyone, to play a piece with variations on the harp and, together with other girls, began to ask Natasha and Nikolai, known for their musicality, to sing something. Natasha, who was addressed as a big girl, was apparently very proud of this, but at the same time she was timid.
- What are we going to sing? – she asked.
“The key,” answered Nikolai.
- Well, let's hurry up. Boris, come here,” Natasha said. - Where is Sonya?
She looked around and, seeing that her friend was not in the room, ran after her.
Running into Sonya’s room and not finding her friend there, Natasha ran into the nursery - and Sonya was not there. Natasha realized that Sonya was in the corridor on the chest. The chest in the corridor was the place of sorrows of the younger female generation of the Rostov house. Indeed, Sonya in her airy pink dress, crushing it, lay face down on her nanny’s dirty striped feather bed, on the chest and, covering her face with her fingers, cried bitterly, shaking her bare shoulders. Natasha's face, animated, with a birthday all day, suddenly changed: her eyes stopped, then her wide neck shuddered, the corners of her lips drooped.
- Sonya! what are you?... What, what's wrong with you? Wow wow!…
And Natasha, opening her big mouth and becoming completely stupid, began to roar like a child, not knowing the reason and only because Sonya was crying. Sonya wanted to raise her head, wanted to answer, but she couldn’t and hid even more. Natasha cried, sitting down on the blue feather bed and hugging her friend. Having gathered her strength, Sonya stood up, began to wipe away her tears and tell the story.