Transcript

1 SV MILEVICH PRINCES GREAT, SPECIFIC, SERVANTS: GENEALOGICAL COMPOSITION AND POLITICAL STATUS Princes are great. Until the beginning of the XIII century. in Russia, in contrast to Western Europe, there was no ramified title system. There was only one title - prince, which underwent a long evolution from the designation of a tribal leader to the title of the supreme ruler, head of state. Op was generic, inherited and reflected the sovereign and political rights of its bearer. With the emergence of the ancient Russian state, its head began to be called the Grand Duke, which emphasized his seniority among the princes. Until the end of the XII century. the title of the greats was borne by the Kiev princes, but already from the XII century. the number of grand dukes is increasing, which was associated with the appearance during the period of feudal fragmentation of state formations (principalities), including vassal appanages. Great principalities in the XII XV centuries. were: Vladimir-Suzdal, Moscow, Tverskoe, Yaroslavl, Ryazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Chernigov and others. The first among equals was the Grand Duke of Vladimir. In genealogical terms, all Russian princes had one ancient ancestor, who, according to the official endorsement of the origin of the grand ducal dynasty, recorded in the middle of the 16th century. In the Sovereign's genealogy, there was Rurik. In the historical literature, for more than one hundred years, there have been disputes about the clan and ethnic origin of the ancient Russian princely house and Rurik himself, deriving its genealogy from the biblical Noah, then from Caesar Augustus, then from the Novgorod elder Gostomysl. In addition to the Russian princes, the title of greats in the XIV XVI centuries. were worn by the feudal owners of Lithuania from the Gediminas clan. In the same title already from the XIII century. the word "Rus" was present,

2 and in the XIV XV centuries. The East Slavic lands accounted for 9/10 of the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, whose ruler from 1385 was called “the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Russian and Zhomoitsky” 1. Since 1569, the title “Grand Duke of Lithuania” officially entered the Polish royal title. As the lands around Moscow were gathered, the great reigns of North-Eastern Russia were liquidated: in 1389 і Vladimirskoye, in 1392 Suzdal-Nizhegorodskoye, in; 1463 Yaroslavskoe, 1474 Rostovskoe, 1485 J Tverskoe, 1514 Smolenskoe, 1521 Ryazanskoe This process was accompanied by the deprivation of their princes of the right to bear] the title of great. Thus, by the end of the reign of Iva- on III, the gathering of power took place in the hands of the Moscow prince, who single-handedly retained this right. Since 1547, the name "Grand Duke" is included in the royal title, and in 1721 - in the imperial title. The emperor's descendants were called the institution of the imperial family as grand dukes and princesses "(in the years up to and including great-grandchildren, after 1885, only the emperor's sons and grandsons). Specific princes. A more numerous stratum, in comparison with the grand dukes, were the appanage princes. Their political status was lower, but the landownership rights were the same. Genealogically, the appanage princes were associated with the clans of Rurik and Gedimin. The Rurikovichs "sat" in their lands since the time of Kievan Rus, Kievsky, Dmitry Bryansky, Konstantin Chernigovsky) established themselves when, after the entry of the East Slavic territories into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the descendants of the previous dynasties were expelled from the Kiyazhe-A thrones of Russia (the princes from Rurikovich were preserved in the Verkhovsky principalities, Odoevsky, etc.) as a rule, the eldest son (the eldest branch of the clan) became the Grand Duke, the rest were appanages). The term "inheritance" comes from the word "deeds" share, part and designates part of the state lands bequeathed by the Grand Duke to his direct descendants. The estates in Russia appeared during the time of Svyatoslav and their tendency to turn into estates was immediately determined, which was legally formalized by the Lyubech congress of princes in 1097. During the period of feudal fragmentation, the disintegration of Kievan Rus

3 state formations took place initially along the borders of the "patrimonies" of the descendants of the great Kiev princes. In the subsequent period, appanages were formed in the great princes by distributing to the sons of the sovereign master. It was during this period that the concept of an appanage prince was formed, whose political status was enshrined in contractual charters. Often, the reigns were fragmented to such an extent that they no longer differed from the large boyar estates either in the size of their possessions, or in the essence of landownership rights, or in the degree of immunity enshrined in tarkhanno-non-conviction letters (Ukhtomskoe, Kemskoe, Andozhskoe, Yukhotskoe and others). The opposite tendency can be traced on the example of the Moscow principality: which in 1263 was allocated as an inheritance, and already in 1428 it became a grand principality, recognized by the Horde and leading the centralization. The sovereign rights of specific princes in the territories subject to nm were great. They judged land and "robbery" affairs, issued tarkhan and non-conviction certificates to their boyars, had palace villages for distribution to "served" lands, their own courtyard with a management apparatus, their own customs and orderlies, their own duma "with introduced" boyars. In a number of specific towns, governors are known, and in volosts, volostels. The appanage prince was considered the head of the appanage army, which took part in the all-Russian campaigns, and the Grand Duke took it upon himself to protect the territorial integrity of their lands. The boundaries of the estates were organized by the will of the supreme ruler, then they were regulated by contractual letters, special patrols monitored their observance. The participation of appanage princes in general Russian affairs was limited, they were invited to the council of the grand duke formally, since he preferred to conduct business, relying on his court. In the Russian centralized state, two tendencies are quite clearly traced in relation to appanages: the allocation of new ones only to the direct descendants of the ruling person with a clear advantage in favor of the eldest son and the desire to annul the previously allocated ones. By the end of his reign, Ivan III eliminated the specific system that had developed before him, but created a new one, the territorial and political rights of which were stipulated in his 1503 will3 and were incomparable with the rights of the previous period. This duality led to the fact that the inheritance could be liquidated, then restored with a new owner and sleep

4 wa to be liquidated. So, Dmitrov's inheritance was abolished in 1472 and 1533, Uglitsky in 1492, 1521, 1591, Staritsky in 1537 and 1539, etc. 4. In the XV XVI centuries. representatives of the Moscow grand-ducal house became appanage princes. The last inheritance of North-Eastern Russia, which did not belong to a direct descendant of the reigning person (but still within the Moscow house) was the inheritance of Vladimir Andreevich Staritsky, allocated in 1490 by Ivan III, and finally liquidated by Ivash IV in 1569. The last Russian inheritance was Uglitsky , formed for Tsarevich Dmitry, and after his death in 1591, abolished and included in the general Russian lands. The specific nobility of the period of centralization mainly consisted of the same clans as the Moscow one, since the principle was in force: the younger brothers of the princes were served by the younger branches of the princely families located at the State Court. Service in the appanages was not a pristzhioy, since it excluded from the composition of the Grand Ducal Court. Thus, Prince V.V. Romodanovsky, a descendant of the "sovereign princes Starodubsknh, served as a boyar for the appanage prince Mikhail Andreevich in the Vereysko-Belozersky estate, after whose liquidation in 1486 he ended up in Moscow service as a provincial boyar. In addition to him, the Kolychevs served in this inheritance. In the Volokolamsk inheritance in the middle of the 16th century, the children of the Khovansky served from among the princely aristocracy; in the Vologda inheritance in the 15th century, the Shakhovsky princes (three brothers) served ; in the Kaluga inheritance at the beginning of the 16th century representatives of the Obolensk and Yaroslavl princes, their younger branches (A.P. Okhlyabp, children of I.M. Mortknia), as well as the prince S.D.Dashkov of their Smolensk princes, several Boryatinsky from the Mezets At the court of the Staritsk princes there were representatives of well-known Nkiazhe families: three brothers Obolensky, princes Drogobuzhskie, Khovansky, the youngest children of Prince V. K-Volkonsky, key positions were occupied by the princes Pronsky5. a feature of the Staritsky appanage court, like a number of others during the period of centralization, was that the entourage often helped the Grand Duke in the struggle against his suzerain in the hope of subsequent privileges. It is no coincidence that among the guardsmen of Ivan IV, a significant place was occupied by a group of 176

5 from the Old inheritance: princes PD and SD Pronsky, Khovansky, NR Odoevsky, VI TemkshRosovsky 6. The title of appanage prince existed until the end of the 16th century. and disappeared along with the inheritance. Servant princes. The most difficult, both socially and politically, is the category of service princes, which appeared in the process of centralization and existed until the end of the 16th century. In pre-Soviet historiography, the problem of serving princes was not considered. Soviet historians, under the service princes, meant the princes of the southwestern region, who transferred to Moscow service at the turn of the 16th XVI centuries. However, in his latest work, A. L. Zimin gives a broader interpretation of this concept, including all the princes who came under the patronage of the Moscow prince in the process of centralization and identifies three main layers in their composition: the old Moscow princes; princes of North-Eastern Russia; princes of South-Western Russia 8. LA Zimin conventionally calls the Old Moscow princes those who, at the end of the XIV century. moved to the Moscow service and managed to become part of the Grand Ducal Court during its formation. Among them: Gednminovichi (princes Khovansky, Patrikeevs, Bulgakovs, Golitsins, Kurakins, Shchenyatevs, Kolyshkovs, etc.); Starodubskne (princes Romodapovsky, Krivoborodsky, Khimsov, Pozharsky, Gagarin, Ryaboiolovsky, etc.); Obolensky (princes Repnins, Shcherbatye, Trostenetsky, Peking, Teleppii, Nagie, Kurlyatev, Dolgoruky, etc.); Zvenigorodsky (princes Nozdrovaty, Tokmakov, etc.) 9. In the second half of the 15th century, when the mass transition of the princes of the northeastern and southwestern lands began, they had already firmly merged with the boyar aristocracy of the grand ducal court, which was reflected in the name of this layer ... From the service princes of the second half of the 15th century. at the beginning of the 16th century, they were distinguished by a more solid socio-political position, an earlier inclusion in the Sovereign Court, and then the Grand Duke Boyar Duma, as well as the absence of large land holdings in North-Eastern Russia (except for the Starodub kiyazi). The second group of service princes was formed by immigrants from the former great princes of North-Eastern Russia. These are the princes of Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Rostov. Some stand apart, but in principle they are 177

6 to this group are the Tver and Ryazan princes. Unlike the previous layer of the old Moscow princes, the descendants of the princes of this group had territorial possessions in Overo and Eastern Russia and for a long time retained sovereign rights in their lands (except for foreign policy relations), which somewhat removed them from the Sovereign Court, which slightly included representatives of the older branches of this layer ... The Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod princes gave two main branches of the Shuiskys and the Humpbacks, whose clans disappeared after 1638. The Rostov princes gave birth to the Golenins, Shchepins, "Puzhbolsky, Gruhatykh, Bakhteyarovs, Khokholkovs, Gvozdevs, and others; , Kubensky, Shakhovsky, Shekhonskph, Prozorovsky, Ushaty, Yukhotsky, Chulkov and others.10 The Tver princes include the clans Tslyatevsky, Mnkulnneky, Chrenyatnsky, Dorogobuzhsky, Kholmsky (the latter are in a special position). Zyuzins, Nashchokins, Nagie.11 The Ryazan lands officially became part of the Russian state in 1521, when the formation of the main composition of the top echelon of the grand ducal administration was completed, which explains their weak political role on a national scale. The most famous princes Pronskne, who were in a special position in Ryazan principality, and then at the court of Andrey Staritsky. m, nz princes of North-Eastern Russia the highest political position was occupied by the Rostov and Suzdal branches. By the end of the 15th century. in the composition of the Tsar's Court, three elements are quite clearly distinguished: 1. The princes who were in Moscow service since the XIV century. (Gedimnovichi, Obolensky, Ryapolovsky and "their offshoots.) 2. Boyars, who have long been associated with Moscow (Koshkins, Morozovs, Chelyadnny, Lame and others), untitled old Moscow nobility. 3. Boyar children (representatives of lateral branches of the same clans, local landowners Serving princes of the southwestern regions, who went into service at the turn of the 16th century, could no longer get into these elephants.They retained a special political and social status in the state throughout the 16th century, which is why the definition of the concept serving prince in the narrow sense, bearing in mind the characteristic features inherent in this social

7 ally * to a political group: approximately the same time and conditions for the transition to Moscow service, close historical connection with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, common land prana and region of belonging, political fate and time of inclusion in the highest echelons of state power, lack of formal rights to the grand ducal table. Determining the general socio-political status of this group in the Russian centralized state, it should be noted that it occupied an intermediate position between the appanage princes, princes of North-Eastern Russia and the old Moscow princes and boyars, and its land rights and the place of the parochial hierarchy were higher than those of the boyars , and real power in public affairs is lower. The dynamics of the transition of the service princes of the southwestern lands to Moscow service was directly related to the Russian-Lithuanian relations of the late 15th "early 16th centuries and looked as follows: Odoevskie 70s of the 15th century; Velsk from the early 80s of the 15th century. ; Vorotynsky from the fall of 1487; Belevsky - from 1489; Vyazemsky from 1492; Mezetsky from 1493; Trubetskoy from 1500; Mosalsky - from 1500; Mozhaisk and V. II. Shemyachich from 1500 .; Glinsky since 1508; Mstislavsky 1514 13. Of these, the princes Velsky, Trubetskoy, Mstislavsky belonged to the Gedimnnovich family; the Belevsky, Vorotynsky, Odoevsky, Mosalsky, Mezetsky princes to the Chernihiv princes' line; to the old princes of Mozhaisk and Shemyachychis origin were Glinskys, whose clan was founded by a descendant of Mamai, who became a Western Ukrainian land magnate, prince Glinsky, equal to Rurikovich and Hednminovpcham. The serving princes did not represent a single corporation, but in their environment there was a special hierarchy due mainly to the the onomic and military-political significance of their possessions for the Russian state. At the beginning of the XVI century. this hierarchy looked as follows: 1. V. S. Shemyachich, 2. S. p. V. Mozhaiskie, 3. Velsky and Glinsky, 4. Mstislavsky, 5. Trubetskoy and Odoevsky. This hierarchy did not reflect real political power on a national scale. At the Court of the Grand Duke at the beginning of the 16th century. of the service princes strengthened. Glinsky and Velsky, who went to the service without their possessions and received "salaries" in the central regions of the country. The entire period of childhood Ivan IV was characterized by 1.79

8 the struggle between the Shuiskys and the Belskys, which was largely explained by the rivalry between the old princely aristocracy of North-Eastern Russia and the serving princes. In relation to the latter, some general methods of the Moscow government can be distinguished: replacing old possessions with new ones, where there were no connections; - distribution of land not for fiefdoms, but for feeding; the attraction of "servants" to military service with the participation of Moscow governors in their regiments, which contributed to the elimination of elements of political isolation from them; vigilant control of the center over the political situation in the lands of the service princes; frequent disgrace, to which all the largest servants were subjected "(V. Shemyachich, V. Mozhaisky, F. Mstislavsky, M. Glinsky, I. Velsky, I. Vorotynsky), limited their power, even if the disgrace was safely dispensed with; ... with a financial guarantee of the "non-departure" of the princes (29 boyars vouched for Prince Velsky I.D., for Prince D. Kholmsky 8, who took upon themselves the obligation to pay huge sums in the event of their departure 14; dynastic marriages of servant kishchzes with representatives of the old Moscow nobility and even the Grand Duke The inclusion of the servant princes of the southwestern region in the Duma began with the appointment of Prince DF Velsky as the Duma boyar in 1528 and stretched over the entire first half of the 16th century, and by the end of this century the term “servant prince” fell out of use. Outcast princes, emigrant princes In the process of creating the Russian centralized state, complex socio-political processes took place, which led to the emergence of such categories as outcast princes and emigrant princes. are called people who "emerged" (or "survived") from their usual social position. A frequent reason for the outcast of princes was the lack of land in the growing princely families. Among the representatives of the well-known surnames, the outcasts who lost ties with the ancestral lands were the princes Pronskiy (from the Ryazan princes), Daniel Kholmskiy (from the Tver princes). The Kholmsk inheritance was inherited by his elder brother, and Daniel in the 60s of the 15th century drove to the grand ducal court, where he was accepted, participated in the campaign against Kazan (1469), actually led the campaign against Novgorod (1471), and in 1474 swore allegiance to Ivan 111, swearing an oath of kisses of the cross not to leave. His son Vasily was even a larger

9 literary figure, which was emphasized by the fact that in 1500 Ivan III was hovering to marry his daughter. As a rule, outcasts were loyal to the Grand Duke, since their position and status in the state were determined by personal service. In the period of centralization, common reasons are quite clearly traced.! emigration: disagreement with the annexation of their lands to the all-Russian territories (unwillingness to recognize the supreme power of the Moscow princes over their ancestral lands, the impossibility of settling with the land; - participation (or accusation) in a conspiracy against the Moscow princes. The place of emigration of the Russian princes was Lithuania. In 1483 g The son of the last prince of Vereysko-Belozersk, Vasily Mikhailovich, fled to Lithuania when the restriction of the sovereign rights of his father began in 1486. \u200b\u200bBy will it was transferred to the disposal of the Moscow prince In the mid-80s of the 15th century, the last prince of Tver became an emigrant Mikhail Borisovich, who in 1484 recognized himself as a "young" brother15, and in 1485 was caught in a conspiracy and fled, after which Tver finally became part of the all-Russian lands. The fate of the last Ryazan prince Ivan Ivanovich, who in the 80s of XV in. admitted himself "young" 16, and in 1521 he was accused of having relations with the Tatars and was "caught", soon fled. There are cases when the princes, earlier departed who came with the lands to Lithuania, then returned with them. Interesting is the fate of Vasily Shsmyachnch, the grandson of the disgraced Dmitry IIIemyaka, one of the leaders of the last feudal war i t., After the defeat passed with all lands to Lithuania. In the spring of 1500, Vasily Shemyachich, together with the Mozhaiski, Trubetskoy, Mosalski cues, returned to the rule of the Moscow lands and became the main political figure in the region, covering the southern borders. He had a high political status in the state, but in 1523 he was accused of treason, imprisoned, where he died. By the end of the 16th century, when the management system was formed, new state institutions appeared in Russia, corresponding to a higher level of development of statehood and taking into account the socio-political structure of society at the feudal level, the differences in the composition of the Sovereign Court and the Boyar Duma disappear, the concepts of appanage and servicemen disappear. princes and takes on a new meaning of the title of Grand Duke. 181

10 NOTES 1. Dumits S. V. Another Rus (Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia -) // History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, solutions. Essay on the history of Russia in the IV early XX century. M., C Ibid. С Spiritual and treaty letters of the great and appanage princes. XIV XVI centuries. M.-L., S (hereinafter D D G). 4. Zimin AA Appanage princes and their yards in the second half of the 15th century. the first half of the 16th century / / history and genealogy: S. B. Veselozsky and problems of historical and genealogical research. Sat. Art. M., With Him. Decree. op. S. 172; Veselovsky, S. B, Study on the History of the Service Landowner Class. M., S. Kobrin VB The social composition of the oprichnaya yard. Abstract of the thesis for the degree of candidate of historical sciences .. M, S Veselovsky SB The last destinies of North-Eastern Russia // Istornicheskie zapiski KN. 22. C; Tikhomirov M. N. Russia in the XVI century. M., C; Zimin A.A. Serving princes in the Russian state at the end of the 15th century. the first third of the XVI century. Nobility and serfdom in Russia in the XVI century. XVIII century. M., S. Zimin A. A. Formation of the boyar aristocracy in Russia in the second half of the 15th century. first third of the 16th century M., p. 28, Ibid. C Ibid. With Him: The feudal nobility of the Tver and Ryazan great principalities and the Moscow boyars of the late 15th century. the first third of the 16th p. // history of the USSR With Him: The formation of the boyar aristocracy ... With Him: Serving princes in the Russian state ... With Pavlov-Silvansky N. P. Sovereign servants. The descent of the Russian nobility. SPb., With DDG. C Ibid. FROM,

Section 4. FROM ANCIENT RUSSIA TO THE RUSSIAN STATE Topic 4.3. Formation of a unified Russian state. Topic of the lesson: The beginning of the rise of Moscow. Formation of a unified Russian state. Plan: 1. Reasons

MATERIALS OF SCIENTIFIC READINGS dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Vasilyevich Adamov PRINCE CORPORATIONS IN THE STATE YARD IN XV-XVI centuries M.M. Benzianov (Yekaterinburg) Traditional structure

At the time of the dismemberment of the ancient Russian state on the lands between the Neman and. Separate Lithuanian political land unions (Aukštaitija, Zemaitija, ... Russian lands occupied and partially colonized by Lithuania

Section "History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century" The lot of the Grand Duke of Tver Simeon Bekbulatovich Kutakov Sergey Sergeevich Postgraduate State Academic University of Humanities

The beginning of the unification of the Russian lands. MATERIALS for the site. Russian history. 6 classes. Topic: "On the way to a unified state (XIV XVI century)" Teacher: Morar N.P. TOPIC To know To know: the reasons for the formation of common

Topic: Towards a unified state 1. Expansion of the Moscow principality 2. The Kulikovo battle. 3. Accession of the Yaroslavl principality to the Muscovite state Grand Duke Daniel. Fresco of the Assumption Cathedral

The rise of new Russian centers and the beginning of the gathering of lands around Moscow Lecturer Kiyashchenko A.A. The fate of the Russian lands in the post-battle time 1. Southern and South-Western Russia (Kiev, Chernigov, Galicia-Volynskoe

Quiz "Old Russian state" Quiz "Old Russian state" - 1/6 1. Where was the Old Russian state located? In Eastern Europe In Western Europe In Central Asia 2. In what century did

1 (26) C4. Name at least three factors contributing to the process of unification of Russian lands in the XIV and early XVI centuries. List at least three names of the princes with whom this process is associated. 1. Can be named

Class Last name, first name (in full) Date 2014. Part 1 For each of tasks 1-10, 4 possible answers are given, of which only one is correct. Circle the number of this answer. Work instructions

Formation of the Russian state Reasons for the rise of Moscow The first Moscow princes. Ivan III the founder of the Russian state 2 Prerequisites for the unification of the Russian lands The invasion changed the political and geographical

Russian history test Option 1 1. The Moscow principality was allocated to Daniil Alexandrovich 1) 1247 2) 1276 3) 1325 4) 1327 2. The transformation of Moscow into the center of the unification of Russian lands is connected

BOYARIN 1) feudal landowner 2) the highest official rank in the Russian state of the XIV XVII centuries, as well as the person bestowed with this rank. In everyday life, all the feudal landlords in the 17th century. for the addict

Department of Education of the Yaroslavl Region All-Russian Olympiad for schoolchildren of the 2017/2018 academic year History, grade 7, municipal stage Completion time 1.5 hours Historical chronology 1. Perform

Moscow Olympiad for schoolchildren 2018 2019 academic year Full-time stage 6th grade Task 1. Carefully examine the image of a famous architectural monument and complete the proposed tasks .. 1.1. What is the name of

Russian history test Unification of Russian lands around Moscow Grade 6 Option 1 1. Indicate the dates of the reign of the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich (Donskoy). 1) 1325-1340 2) 1340-1353 3) 1353-1359

History test Grade 7 Municipal entity Locality Educational organization Class Profile Surname, first name (in full) Date 2014 Test instructions To complete the test on

Topic: Yaroslavl Territory as a part of the Vladimir-Suzdal principality 1. Board of Yuri Dolgoruky and Andrey Bogolyubsky. 2. Vsevolod III, nicknamed "Big Nest". 3. The emergence of the Yaroslavl principality.

The first Russian princes Rurik 862-879 Rurik (862-879) - the son of the Norman king Gadliv, the grandson of the Novgorod head of Gostomysl. He was invited by some of the residents of Novgorod to "volode" them. According to

Tasks 3. Testing knowledge of historical terminology 1. With which of these events (processes) is the word "Varangians" associated? Write down the letter, which Explain the meaning of the word "Varangians". A) Hundred Years War B) Education

The topic of the lesson is “The old fortune and its fate. The purpose of the lesson: To acquaint students with the history of the formation of the Staritsa inheritance, to trace the confrontation between the central government and the old princes. Lesson Objectives: - Consider

Contents Chapter 1. Primitive communal system in our country. Eastern Slavs in antiquity The population of our country in antiquity ... 3 The most ancient information about the Slavs ... 6 Eastern Slavs and their

Test: "". Tested: Date: Reason for the rise of Moscow Task 1 Union of Moscow princes with the church refusal to pay tribute to the Golden Horde support of the Moscow prince by the prince of Tver 4) use of iron

Demo version. Intermediate certification in history in grade 6 is carried out in accordance with Article 58 of the Federal Law "On Education in the Russian Federation" 273-FZ of December 29, 2012, the Basic General

Plan. 1. The origin of the Old Russian state. 2. Rostov land at the end of the X-beginning of the XI century. 3. Yaroslav the Wise. Foundation of Yaroslavl. 4. Socio-economic development of the region in the XI century. Nestor IX century

SUPPORTING KNOWLEDGE FOR LESSON 2 1. Key dates and events 1359-1389 - the reign of Dmitry Ivanovich (Donskoy) in Moscow. 1380 - Battle of Kulikovo. 1462-1505 - reign of Grand Duke Ivan III. 1480 - the end of addiction

CONTENTS IV-X centuries Pre-state period Antique, oriental, western European .. 4 X-XI centuries. Kievan Rus Zlatniki, silver coins ... 6 XII-XIII centuries Coinless period Hryvnia-ingots ... 8 XIV-XVI centuries. Feudal period

Section 5. RUSSIA IN THE XVI-XVII CENTURIES: FROM THE GREAT PRINCIPALITY TO THE KINGDOM Topic 5.1. The Russian state in the 16th early 17th century. Topic of the lesson: Russia during the reign of Ivan the Terrible. Time of Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century.

EXPLANATORY NOTE (History of the Fatherland Grade 7) The program is designed for 68 academic hours, covers the main events of the history of Russia from the most ancient period to the creation and strengthening of the Moscow state.

REASONS OF FEUDAL DISTRIBUTION AND FEATURES. FEATURES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GALITSK-VOLYN PRINCIPLE AND ITS CULTURE. and new cities turned into economic and political centers .. state

Political fragmentation of Russia Lecturer Kiyashchenko A.A. Russia after the death of Mstislav the Great Course of events: The Kiev throne is occupied by Mstislav's brother Yaropolk. The fight between Yaropolk and Yuri Dolgoruky for the Pereyaslavskys

Methodological materials for the transfer certification of 10th grade students in history (profile level) In the 2015-2016 academic year. Teacher Rozhkova Elena Yurievna Explanatory note. Translation

ALL-RUSSIAN VERIFICATION WORK HISTORY 11 CLASS Option 15 Instructions for performing the work The verification work includes 12 tasks. The history work takes 1 hour 30 minutes (90

"Kievan Rus" Aleshin L.I. Consideration of any historical event or object is almost always associated with the need to carefully study the available data, as well as the opinions of various specialists.

The program of the course "History of the Fatherland" is designed for 192 hours (64 hours in each class) (2 hours per week). In the 7th grade, students get acquainted with the life, work, culture of the peoples of our country from the most ancient

Section 3. HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES Topic 3.2. From Ancient Rus to the Muscovite State Lecture 3.2.3. The beginning of the rise of Moscow and the formation of a single Russian state. Plan 1. Fragmentation in Russia: reasons

Russian history. Part 1. L.V. Selezneva Testing time 25 min Number of questions 30 Number of questions per 5 26 Number of questions per 4 21 Number of questions per 3 15 1. Central government strengthened

Practice test in history Choose the correct answer: 1. The ancestors of Russians are A) Eastern Slavs * B) Ukrainians C) Belarusians 2. In ancient Byzantine books, they wrote for the first time about Eastern

Test on the history of Russia Strengthening the Moscow principality Grade 6 Option 1 1. Which prince was considered the main one among the Russian princes of North-Eastern Russia in the XIV-XV centuries? 1) Moscow 2) Vladimir 3) Smolensk

Rurik (? (Date of birth unknown) 879) the first prince of Ancient Rus, the founder of the Rurik dynasty, which ruled until 1598 Nestor (c. 1056 1114) monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, the first Russian

CALENDAR-THEME PLANNING Grade 6 of the lesson in the subject Topic of the lesson Number of hours Date of the lesson according to the plan in fact Note Introduction. Our Motherland is Russia. The subject of national history. Topic

Tasks for offset 1. Expand the content of the concept of "civilization". Name and describe the types of civilizations. 2. Expand the content of the concept of "civilization". Give a description of the civilization of the Ancient East.

Municipal educational institution "Secondary school 16" Podolsk, Moscow Region Working program on history (Basic level) Grade 6 Compiled by: Sulaimanova M.B.,

The coat of arms is a symbolic image approved by the supreme power, expressing the history, geography and economic life of the city in a strict graphic form. The basis of the coat of arms is a shield, in the field of which are placed

Objective and subjective prerequisites for the unification of Russian lands around Moscow .. Completion of the political unification of Russia (2nd half of the 15th - early 16th centuries). The struggle of the Russian principalities with the Golden Horde yoke

Explanatory note The working program on the history of the Fatherland was compiled on the basis of the author's program of V.V. Voronkova for special (correctional) educational institutions of the VIII type Publishing house

Municipal budgetary educational institution "Baskakov secondary educational school" WORKING PROGRAM OF THE SCHOOL "History of Russia" (name of the course, subject, discipline,

Explanatory note The work program was drawn up on the basis of the state program edited by Voronkova V.V., (by O.I. Borodin, V.M. Mozgova), Moscow publishing house, "Vlados", 2014, and educational

FUND OF EVALUATION FUNDS FOR INTERMEDIATE CERTIFICATION OF STUDENTS ON THE DISCIPLINE (MODULE). B1.B.22 History of public administration Approximate test assignments Option 1 1. Veche in Ancient

Explanatory note to the working program on the History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 16th century. (Grade 6) Textbook: Danilov A. A., Kosulina L. G. History of Russia. - M .: Education, 2008. A, A, Danilov, L, G,

Lecture 4 Russian principalities in the XIV XV centuries. Formation of a unified Russian state. Plan 1. Features of the Golden Horde yoke. 2. The main approaches to the study of the problem of the formation of the Russian state in the XIV

Tasks 3. Testing knowledge of historical terminology 1. With which of these events (processes) is the word "Varangians" associated? Write down the Explain the meaning of the word "varyagi". B) Formation of Old Russian A) Centenary

Russian principalities during the period of political fragmentation Vladimir-Suzdal principality Vladimir-Suzdal principality - during the period of feudal fragmentation it was in Russia - one of the centers of all all-Russian

State treasury educational institution "Special (correctional) boarding school" in Buzuluk, Orenburg region Considered and adopted by the pedagogical council of the school Minutes 32 of

GKOU LO "Kirishskaya boarding school" Work program on the history of the Fatherland for 7th grade students of the Kirishskaya boarding school for the 2016 2017 academic year Compiled by teacher L.V. Davydkina 2016 EXPLANATORY

Localism - a system of service relations that grew out of customs in the reign of Ivan III and his son Vasily. Place (genealogical) - the level occupied by each member of the surname on the family ladder of seniority by its distance from the ancestor. Place (official) - the initial concept was formed among the boyars at the princely table, where they were seated in the order of official and genealogical seniority. Then it was transferred to all service relationships, to government positions. The system of parochialism was consolidated in 1556 by the sovereign's genealogy, where the "place" of up to 200 noble surnames was written. Thus, when appointing to positions in the state, not abilities and merits were taken into account, but "breed", origin. The descendants of the great dukes became higher than the descendants of the appanage princes, the descendants of the appanage prince - higher than the simple boyar, the Moscow grand-ducal boyar - higher than the service prince and the appanage boyar. The service life of surnames at the Moscow court was also taken into account. Among the noble families are the descendants of the great Russian princes Penkovs, Shuisky, Rostov, Belsky, Mstislavsky, Patrikeevs, Golitsins, Kurakins; from the oldest untitled boyars - Zakharyins, Koshkins, descendants of appanage princes - Kurbsky, Vorotynsky, Odoevsky, Belevsky, Pronsky, Moscow boyars - Velyaminovs, Davydovs, Buturlins, Chelyadnins. Localism was the support and guarantee of the political position of the boyars, it hindered the development of society, and was abolished in 1682.

Swordsman - a princely servant of the warriors, armed with a sword, and also a servant of the princely court - the holder of the sword as a symbol of justice. In addition, the swordsmen were also entrusted with conducting diplomatic negotiations. So, in 1157 Andrey Bogolyubsky sent his swordsman as an ambassador to the Rostislavichi. Was present during the tests of the suspect with iron and received payment for this.

Metropolis - in the Christian Church - an area that is in the canonical authority of the metropolitan. Usually it represents several dioceses, united in the so-called metropolitan district.

Monastery - (Greek μοναστήριον, from Greek μόνος - one, lonely) - a religious community of monks or nuns, which has a single charter, as well as a single complex of liturgical, residential, outbuildings belonging to it.

Monotheism -(lit. "monotheism" - from the Greek. μονος - one, θεος - God) - a religious idea of \u200b\u200bthe existence of only one God or the uniqueness of God.

Civil uprising - in ancient times - all men capable of carrying weapons. Together with the princely squad - professional warriors, they constituted the army of one or another principality or land. During the Troubles at the beginning of the 17th century. - a voluntary association of representatives of different classes to solve the problems of liberating the country from foreign invaders.

Non-covetous- this term usually refers to the monastic movement in Russia at the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries, which opposed monastic land tenure. However, this concept is broader and is not limited to the question of monastic estates. Likewise, the difference in views between non-possessors and the Josephites opposed to them is not limited to property issues. In particular, differences in views related to the attitude towards repentant heretics, attitude to local (national) and church tradition, and a number of other issues. As for the monastic vow of non-acquisitiveness, the non-acquisitiveness of the monks of large communal monasteries (including Joseph-Volokolamsk) was, perhaps, more radical than the skete monks. Therefore, a number of authors are in favor of the conventionality of this term. However, since the end of the 19th century, when this term was introduced into use, it has become established and familiar.

Norman theory - a trend in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters considered the Normans (Varangians) to be the founders of statehood in Ancient Rus. Formulated in the 2nd quarter of the 18th century. G. Z. Bayer, G. F. Miller, and other N. t. Were rejected by M. V. Lomonosov, D. I. Ilovaisky, S. A. Gedeonov, and others).

One of the sources of knowledge about the origin of the Old Russian state is the "Tale of Bygone Years", created by the monk Nestor at the beginning of the 12th century. According to her legend, in 862 the Varangian prince Rurik was invited to rule in Russia. Many historians believe that the Varangians were Norman (Scandinavian) warriors, hired to serve and swore an oath of loyalty to the ruler. A number of historians, on the contrary, consider the Varangians to be a Russian tribe that lived on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea and the island of Rügen.

According to this legend, on the eve of the formation of Kievan Rus, the northern tribes of the Slavs and their neighbors (Ilmen Slovenes, Chud, all) paid tribute to the Varangians, and the southern tribes (glades and their neighbors) were dependent on the Khazars. In 859, the Novgorodians "expelled the Varangians across the sea," which led to civil strife. Under these conditions, the Novgorodians gathered for the council sent for the Varangian princes: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order (order) in it. Come to us and rule us. " Power over Novgorod and the surrounding Slavic lands passed into the hands of the Varangian princes, the eldest of whom, Rurik, laid, as the chronicler believed, the foundation of the Rurik dynasty.

In 882, another Varangian prince Oleg (there is evidence that he was a relative of Rurik) seized Kiev and united the territory of the Eastern Slavs, creating the state of Kievan Rus. This is how, according to the chronicler, the state of Russia (also called by historians Kievan Rus). Thus, the cities of Kiev and Novgorod the Great became the centers of the unification of the Slavic tribes into a single state.

The legendary chronicle story about the vocation of the Varangians served as the basis for the appearance in the 18th century. the so-called Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state. Its authors are German scientists Miller and Bayer. MV Lomonosov opposed this theory. The dispute over the origin of the Russian state between historians continues to this day.

Customary law - customs enshrined by the state as legal norms. O. p. Appears during the formation of a class society and state. In the primitive communal system, the behavior of members of the clan was regulated by the decrees of the tribal self-government bodies (elders, council of elders) - and customs. The earliest systems of law are based on. from customs reworked in the interests of the ruling class. Only those customs that protect the foundations of the existing social system become the legal norms of the social order. O. p. Is typical for both slaveholding and feudal society. Examples of O. p. Are such codes as "Laws of Twelve Tables", "Russian Truth", "Saxon Mirror". Often, the most vile customs (for example, the right of the first night) were sanctioned as the norms of O. p. With the victory of the bourgeois revolutions, the most obsolete and savage customs were excluded from legal norms. However, striving for a compromise with the nobility, the bourgeoisie retained separate norms of the O. p. In modern times. In bourgeois states, the norms of public law are applied, albeit to an insignificant extent, by the courts when deciding specific cases. O. plays a certain role in international trade relations. The legislation of socialist countries in rare cases recognizes the importance of legal norms for customs (in the division of property, inheritance of property of a peasant household, and in some others). Customs, in which harmful remnants of the past are reflected, are prosecuted by law.

Onischanin - (from the word fire-hearth, yard), originally a junior warrior of the ancient Russian prince, who stood at the head of the prince's economy. In the XI-XIII centuries. senior warrior, "prince's husband", boyar. O. was responsible for the safety of the prince's patrimonial property. O. had tiuns at his disposal.

Ocolnic - court rank and position in the Russian state of the 13th - early 18th centuries. Initially, O.'s functions were, apparently, the arrangement of the prince's travels and participation in reception and negotiations with foreign ambassadors. In the XIV-XV centuries. O. was a member of the Duma of the Grand Dukes, was the second most important (after the boyar) Duma rank. O. were appointed heads of orders, regimental commanders, and participated in the organization of court ceremonies.

Oprichnina - a period in the history of Russia (from 1565 to 1572), marked by state terror and a system of emergency measures. Also "oprichnina" was called a part of the territory of the state, with special management, allocated for the maintenance of the royal court and the oprichniki ("The Tsar's oprichnina"). Oprichnina - in the allocation of part of the land in the kingdom exclusively for the needs of the royal court, its servants - nobles and the army. Initially, the number of guardsmen - "thousand oprichnina" - was one thousand boyars. Oprichnina in the Moscow principality was also called an inheritance allocated to a widow when dividing her husband's property.

Youths - junior princely warriors in Russia X-XII centuries. They took part in campaigns and collecting tribute, carried out individual orders of the prince, including in court cases, tax collection, etc. Among the youths there were also not free people (slaves).

Parchment - (in works on history and source study, usually pergamene) (German Pergament, from the Greek Πέργαμον, Pergamon) - material for writing from rawhide rawhide of animals (before the invention of paper). Also an ancient manuscript on such material. 1) Specially treated animal skin, used as the main material for writing before the invention of paper. 2) Manuscript, document written on such material. 3) Thick paper, grease and moisture resistant.

Relocation - a primitive farming system, in which, after several years of use, the land was left untreated for 8-14 years to restore soil fertility and moved to a new site.

Wagon - conscription in Russia. "Carts to carry", "to carry carts to the sovereign" - the duty of the peasants to deliver the products of agriculture and crafts to the master's yard and, by order of the owner - a boyar or landowner, to the market and on a campaign.

Churchyard - 1) place of collection of tribute in Ancient Russia; were introduced by Princess Olga in the middle. X century. 2) an administrative and economic unit in medieval Russia; 3) rural cemetery; a church with a cemetery located far from the village.

Elderly - the duty in Russia at the end of the XV-XVII centuries, which the peasant paid when leaving his owner a week before and a week after St. George's day of autumn.

Polytheism (from the Greek πολύς, “numerous, many” + Greek. θεός, “God, deity” - “polytheism”) - a belief system, a religious worldview based on belief in several deities, usually collected in a pantheon of gods and goddesses.

Polyudye - in Kievan Rus, a detour by the prince and the squad of lands to collect tribute. The tribute was of indeterminate size. Polyud usually took place in winter or autumn, after the harvest. Princess Olga, after the tragic death of her husband, Prince Igor, established lessons and churchyards during the gathering of polyudye (945). 11th - 12th centuries instead of polyudya, a fixed monetary service was introduced everywhere.

Estate appeared at the beginning of the XIV century. - conditional holding of land, i.e. land ownership of service people, nobles, landowners, given for service by princes. Unlike the fiefdom, it was not inherited until 1714. The decree of Peter the Great on the unanimity of 1714 equalized the rights of the patrimony and the estate. From now on, the estate could be inherited. In fact, this was the beginning of the rise of the nobility as the main support of the autocracy.

Posad - community of traders and artisans; a legal rather than a territorial unit in Russia. Therefore, every third city in Russia did not have a settlement. Posad, on the other hand, often existed in rural areas or near monasteries. There were heavy duties on the posad; he was not a privileged corporation as in the West.

Often a suburb, or an unfortified part of the city, is considered a posad, thus narrowing the concept.

The planter - originally the governor of the prince in the lands that are part of the Old Russian state. The term "posadnik" was first encountered in the Tale of Bygone Years under 997. Later, the term "posadnik" began to mean the name of the highest state Lukinich (1354) instead of one posadnik, it introduced six who ruled for life ("old" posadniks), from among whom a new one was elected annually - "sedate" mayor. The reform of 1416-17 increased the number of mayors threefold, and "power" mayors began to be elected for six months. In Pskov from 1308 to 1510, 78 posadniks were counted. With the annexation of Novgorod and Pskov to Moscow, the posadniks were eliminated.

Postelnichiy- an old position of a courtier, whose duties included to monitor the cleanliness, decoration and safety of the royal bed. Boyars who were close to the tsar were usually appointed as bed-workers. Under Tsar Ivan III, the sons of the boyars served as bed-makers: Eropkin, Afanasy Ivanovich; Karpov, Fyodor Ivanovich (who later became a famous diplomat).

When taking office, the bed-bed was sworn to keep the sovereign's bed from witchcraft and magic. Bed linens were in charge of sleeping bags and all the people who served in the sovereign's bedroom.

Orthodoxy (from Greek - true + opinion) - one of the most important denominations of Christianity. Initially, the entire dominant Christian church was called Orthodox and Catholic. After the division of the churches, the name Catholic remained for the Western (Roman), Orthodoxy - for the Eastern Church. Formally, the date of separation is 1054, when the Roman cardinal and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. The beginning of the formation of the Orthodox trend in Christianity dates back to the 3rd - 5th centuries. This is due to the division of the Roman Empire into Western and Eastern. The most important differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism were gradually formed. For example: the Orthodox Church rejects the addition of the Western Church to the “creed” “and from the son”, ie considers “holy spirit” to come only from God the Father; in the Orthodox Church there is no celibacy (obligatory celibacy of the clergy), the laity receive communion with both bread and wine. First, Byzantium and its capital Constantinople became the center of Orthodoxy. Gradually, several autocephalous churches (administratively independent) churches arose. The baptism of Rus' was undertaken under Vladimir Svyatoslavovich in 988, when Orthodoxy became the state religion. An independent Russian Orthodox Church has been operating since 1448.

Orders - bodies of central government in the Russian state, in charge of a special kind of state affairs or individual areas of the state. Orders were called differently chambers, huts, courtyards, palaces, thirds or quarters.

Ralo -(from yelling - to plow) - 1) Farmer. a tool similar in type to a primitive plow. R. with iron tips appeared in the east. Slavs in the 1st millennium AD In the 9-10th centuries. a plow appeared. In dep. localities nek-ry types of arable farmers. guns groove. R. to the beginning. 20th century (in Ukraine - a tool in the form of a deck with 3-4 teeth, etc.). 2) Unit of taxation of princes. tribute to dr. Russia, edge of paradise existed until about the 14th century. In the end. 13 - early. 14th century R. replaced the duty, to-paradise called. poppy. The term "R." mentioned for the first time in the "Tale of Bygone Years" when describing the events of the 10th century.

Tribal community -the more close-knit collectives of people that have come to replace the human herd, whose members were linked by blood ties and faith in a common ancestor. Kindred (members of the tribal community) kept a common household. At the head of the community was an elder, chosen from among the most experienced and respected relatives. Each member of the community was involved in the general labor process and received from the community a part of the public output. The sick and the elderly were supported by the community.

Ryadovichi - 1. In Kievan Rus - people who were dependent on the lord on the "row" (agreement). In terms of their position, the ryadovichs were close to purchasing. According to Russkaya Pravda, the fine for the murder of a Ryadovich was equal to the fine for the murder of a slave and a stinker. Historian L.V. Cherepnin believes that in Russia there was no special category of peasants-ryadoviches, and puts forward a hypothesis that the term "ryadovichi" in Russian Pravda is used to denote ordinary smerds and slaves. 2. In Russian cities of the XIV-XVI centuries. members of the corporation of shopkeepers of one profession in the city market ("row"). The ryadovichs jointly owned the territory set aside for the shops, had their own elected heads, and had special rights to sell their goods. In Novgorod and Pskov during the period of independence, the ryadovichs also enjoyed certain judicial rights, which were limited during the transition of these cities to the grand ducal power.

Syncretism (from the Greek συγκρητισμός - union, unification) - a combination of heterogeneous doctrinal and cult positions in the process of mutual influence of religions in their historical development.

Servant princes (service princes, assistants) - in medieval Russia, a class of princes in the service of the sovereign princes. One part of them was landless, usually forcibly deprived of land holdings (since the 10th century). The second part was itself small patrimonials, forced to resort to the patronage of the Grand Dukes of Moscow and Lithuania (from the XIV century), after which they retained in their hands the court, administration and hereditary ownership. The news about the service princes has been found since the middle of the XIII century. Previously, to denote a similar position of one prince in relation to another, the word "assistant" was used (such a relationship could be associated with the payment of tribute), in contrast to a son (could be associated with military service) and brother. In the era of Dmitry Donskoy (1363-1389), the henchmen of the Grand Duke of Moscow are, in particular, the Belozersk princes, whose possessions were bought by Ivan Kalita from their ancestors. Subsequently, with the formation of the Russian centralized state, most of the appanage princes turned into servicemen. Also, the service princes, having lost many of their privileges, lost that leading position at the Moscow court, which they occupied in the XIV-XV centuries, yielding to the boyars.

Service people in the Russian state XIV - early. XVIII century. persons in government (military or administrative) service. From the middle of the XVI century. were divided into service people "according to their fatherland" (boyars, noblemen, boyar children) and service people "according to the device" (Cossacks, archers, collars, gunners, city guards, etc.). Service "in the fatherland" was hereditary, determined by origin. Service people "according to the device" were recruited from peasants and townspeople, who at the same time received monetary, grain and land salaries and were exempt from state taxes and duties.

Service Tatars - an ethnic group of the Tatar population in the Moscow principality, the Russian Kingdom and the Russian Empire in the XIV-XVIII centuries. Initially, they were formed from representatives of the Tatar feudal nobility, who switched to Russian service from the Golden Horde and the Tatar khanates, then, after the conquest of the Kazan Khanate (1552), from the yasak (as a result of the transformation of their own allotments into estates), as well as those who lived in those given to them for "feeding »Russian cities (Kashira, Serpukhov, Romanov, Yuryev-Polsky, Borovsk, etc.). The "transfer" of Russian lands to the Tatar princes meant only that they would receive funds from these cities to support themselves and their soldiers in exchange for military service on the Russian side. They stipulated the protection of the Russian population from any encroachments on the part of the service Tatars and severe punishments for attempts at such encroachments.

They carried out irregular military service. Participated in the Livonian War (1558-1583), military campaigns of Russia, guarded the borders. They also served as interpreters, scribes, ambassadors, etc. For the service they received land, cash and grain salaries.

Service Tatars retained their national division system and obeyed their khans, murzas and beks (princes). Their cavalry units usually joined the regiments where they were needed at the moment.

Smerd (plural smerds) - a category of the population according to "Russian Truth", a peasant in Russia in the 9th-14th centuries, a farmer. Initially free (in contrast to slaves), as the local system developed, they were gradually enslaved. Smerds were directly dependent on the prince.

The word - a social stratum, a group whose members differ in their legal status: their composition, privileges and duties are determined by law. Belonging to estates, as a rule, is inherited.

Sagittarius - a serviceman "by the device" in the 16th - early 18th centuries; a rider or infantryman armed with a "fiery battle". Archers in Russia made up the first regular army.

Strigolism (strigolniki, strigolnikov disciples) - a religious movement of the XIV century that arose in Pskov and then spread to Novgorod; one of the most famous, along with the Judaizers, religious movements in medieval Russia. It is considered by Orthodox church historians as a split in the Russian Church. The strigolniks rejected the church hierarchy, expressed dissatisfaction with the practice of "placing pastors on a bribe" (that is, selling church positions).

Tiun - a representative of the patrimonial administration in Ancient Rus. There were various categories: a tiun horseman ran a princely or boyar stable; the warrior tiun was in charge of agricultural work in the master's field; the rural tiun supervised the work in the princely village of farmers and slaves.

Temnik (from darkness - ten thousand) - the Russian name for the military rank of tumenbashi in the Golden Horde. In English, the term temnik is also conveyed by the words general, emir. Temnik commanded ten thousand soldiers, was under the direct command of the khan. Some of the temniks played an important role in the history of the Horde, for example, Nogai, Mamai, Edigei, Burundai. Military advisers Subudai-bagatur and Jebe-noyon were also temniks.

The theory "Moscow-Third Rome" - political theory of the 15-16th centuries, which affirmed the historical significance of the capital of the Russian state - Moscow as a world political and ecclesiastical center. Moscow tsars were proclaimed the successors of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. Formulated in the letters of Philotheus to the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III.

Trizna - mourning the deceased. The day established in memory of the deceased included several ritual actions. The funeral games of the warriors, also called "funeral", reminded of the earthly affairs of the deceased and that a person equally belongs to three worlds: heavenly, earthly and underground (hence the sacred "three"). Then there was the funeral (which is sometimes incorrectly called "funeral feast"). The funeral rite is also associated with the touching images of the female deities of mortal sorrow Karna (cf .: carnate, punishment befell) and Jeli, which are found in the "Word of Igor's Host", Kruchina and Zhurba (in other tribes), who embody boundless compassion. It was believed that the mere mention of their names (pity, pity) relieves souls and can save them from many disasters in the future. It is no accident that there are so many laments and laments in the folklore of the Slavs. The root "three" with the sacred meaning of negation of "odd", as a symbol of misfortune, is often found in spells. Yaroslavna cries: "Bright and brilliant sun!"

Tysyatsky - a military leader who led the ancient Russian city militia ("thousand"). In the Novgorod Republic, the tysyatsky was chosen at the veche from the boyars for a certain period (most often for a year) and was an assistant to the mayor. He led the citizens of Novgorod and observed the condition of the fortifications; was also a commercial judge. Tysyatsky, who fulfilled his duties, was called a power tysyatsky, and after choosing another tysyatsky at the veche, he received the title of an old tysyatsky. In cities that did not have veche government, the thousand were appointed by the princes; in Moscow and Tver - from among the noble boyars, and their position became hereditary. Fearing their strengthening, Vol. Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy after the death of V.V. Velyaminov (1374) abolished the post of tysyatsky in Moscow and executed Velyaminov's son Ivan (1379), who sought to restore it. Tysyatsky began to be replaced by governors, and by mid. XV century tysyatsky's position is gradually disappearing.

Lot - the share of a member of the princely family in the ancestral possession. In the XII-XVI centuries. an integral part of the grand duchy, ruled by a member of the grand ducal family - the appanage principality.

Specific princes - passing into the service of the Grand Duke of Moscow, U.K. did not break ties with their inheritance, keeping it often as their own fiefdom or being appointed governors of the grand duke. They served at the Moscow court as serving princes or boyars. The right to transfer from one prince to another and to transfer their inheritances by inheritance was lost under Ivan III, who began to take records of the fidelity of the service. In the XVI century. destinies ceased to exist, the former U. to. went into the service of the Grand Duke of Moscow and became part of the court aristocracy, merging with the boyars. They were in charge of the court on "land" and "robbery" cases, and their tributaries collected levies and duties in the specific treasury. In the foreign policy sphere - complete subordination to the Moscow Grand Duke. As for the territory ruled by the service prince, it became an administrative-territorial unit in the system of all-Russian government - the county.

Ulus - in Mongolian dialects this word has several meanings, of which the most common are: 1) U. - a tribal group belonging to the same generic root; 2) hereditary possession of one of the members of the ruling dynasty, territory and its population. Sometimes U. grew into a large nomadic state, usually through the forcible annexation of neighboring peoples. So the original U. Jochi, Genghis Khan's son, under the next Khan Batu in 1240 spread from Central Asia to all the steppes of Eastern Europe, subjugating the Cossack ancestors of the Black Klobuk and Brodniki.

Florentine union - the agreement on the unification of the Catholic. and Orthodoxy churches at the Cathedral in Florence in July 1439. F. y. was concluded on the basis of the adoption of Catholic dogmas by Orthodoxy. creeds while maintaining the orthodoxy. rituals, Greek. language during divine services, the marriage of priests and the communion of all believers, that is, bread and wine. The papacy sought to subordinate Orthodoxy through union. church and "Orthodox. countries "to their influence. Greek. clergy and Byzantine. Emperor John Palaeologus agreed to union, hoping to get help from Zap. Europe in the fight against the Turks. The Union Act was also signed by Russian. Metropolitan Isidore, Greek by nationality. However, Russian. the clergy and Grand Duke Vasily II the Dark refused to accept F. u .; Isidore was deposed. Only in some south-west. regions of Russia, subordinate at that time lit. prince, F. at. was accepted. Refusal rus. church. and the secular authorities recognize F. at. crossed out the plans of the papacy regarding the subordination of Russia to its politician. influence. This was of great importance for strengthening international, the position of Russian. state-va. Soon F. at. was rejected in Byzantium: the Jerusalem Cathedral of Orthodoxy. Church 1443 betrayed her curse.

Serfs are people whose right of ownership was not limited by the masters (in fact, they were slaves in the Russian feudal society). Known in Russia since the 10th century. The slaves did not have their property and at any time could be sold or given to any person. The master was responsible for the actions of the slave. At the same time, in contrast to the ancient slaves, slaves could be “planted” on the ground as serfs. They became slaves as a result of captivity, self-sale, sale for debts or for a crime, through marriage or marriage to a slave or servant. In real life, slaves consisted of two categories: servants of the feudal lord, who were part of his personal servants and squads (from their midst came the princely administration and even prominent representatives of the ruling class)); the second category consisted of plowed slaves ("strangers"), artisan slaves. Throughout the 16th century, due to the spread of serfdom, the role of slaves diminished. From the 17th century. the most widespread is "service" servitude. Part of it, receiving land in a conditional holding for "service", merged into the ruling stratum, becoming, as it were, the slaves of the Grand Duke. Another part in the 17th - 18th centuries. was "put in the tax" (ie, taxes, taxes in kind, or duties of peasants and townspeople in the 15th and 18th centuries), merging with the mass of serfs.

Feudal lords. As the process of state consolidation deepened, the class of feudal lords broke up into the following groups: service princes, boyars, free servants and children of boyars, "servants under the court."

Servant princes were at the top of the class of feudal lords. These are former appanage princes, who, after the annexation of their estates to the Muscovite State, lost their independence, but retained the right of ownership of land. They occupied leading positions in the army and came to war at the head of their own squads (later merged with the top of the boyars).

Boyars, or princes, constituted the economically dominant group within the class of feudal lords. The middle and small feudal lords were free servants and boyar children. Both those and others served the Grand Duke.

The feudal lords had the right to leave, i.e. they had the right to choose their overlord at their own discretion. Since in the XIV-XV centuries. there were many more different principalities; the feudal lords had quite wide opportunities for choice. The departing vassal did not lose his fiefdom. Therefore, it happened that the boyar's lands were in one principality, and he served in another, sometimes at war with the first. Boyars sought to serve the most powerful and influential prince, able to protect their interests.

In the XIV - early XV century. the right to leave was beneficial to the Moscow princes, as it contributed to the collection of Russian lands. But as the centralized state strengthened, it began to interfere with them: the service princes and the top of the boyars tried to use this right in order to prevent further centralization and even achieve their former independence. Therefore, the great Moscow princes are trying to limit the right to leave, and then completely cancel it. The way to fight the departing boyars was to deprive them of their estates. Later, they began to look at the departure as treason.

The lowest group of feudal lords were "servants under the court", who were often recruited from the princely lackeys. Over time, some of them began to occupy more or less high posts in the palace and state administration. At the same time, they received land from the prince and became real feudal lords. "Servants under the court" existed both at the grand ducal court and at the courts of appanage princes.

In the XV century. in the position of the feudal lords there are noticeable shifts associated with the strengthening of the process of centralization. The composition and position of the boyars changed. In the second half of the century, the number of boyars at the Moscow court quadrupled due to the appanage princes who came to the service of the Moscow Grand Duke along with their boyars. The princes were relegated to the background of the old Moscow boyars. As a result, the meaning of the term "boyar" itself changes. If earlier it meant only belonging to a certain social group - large feudal lords, now the boyars are becoming a court rank, which was granted by the Grand Duke (introduced by the boyars). This rank was assigned mainly to service princes. The second court rank was the rank of roundabout. It was received by the bulk of the former boyars. The boyars who did not have court ranks merged with the boyar children and free servants.

The change in the nature of the boyars influenced his attitude towards the Grand Duke. The former Moscow boyars linked their fate with the prince's successes and therefore helped him in every way. The current boyars - yesterday's appanage princes - were in a very oppositional mood. The grand dukes begin to look for support in a new group of the feudal class - the nobility. The nobles were formed primarily from "servants under the court" at the court of the Grand Duke, appanage princes and large boyars. In addition, the grand dukes, especially Ivan III, gave land as an estate to many free people and even slaves, subject to military service. The nobility depended entirely on the Grand Duke, and therefore was his faithful support. For their service, the nobility hoped to receive new lands and peasants. The influence of the nobility grew as the influence of the boyars diminished. The latter is from the second half of the 15th century. greatly shaken in their economic positions, unable to adapt to the new socio-economic situation.

The church was still a major feudal lord. In the central regions of the country, monastic land tenure is expanding due to awards from local princes and boyars, as well as by virtue of wills. In the northeast, monasteries occupy undeveloped and often black-moored lands. The Grand Dukes, worried about the impoverishment of the boyar families, even take measures to limit the transfer of their lands to monasteries. An attempt is also made to take away the land from the monasteries in order to distribute it to the landowners, but this attempt fails.

Peasants. The rural feudal-dependent population was called orphans. In the XIV century. this term is gradually being replaced by a new one - peasants (from "Christians"), although along with it is used such as "smerds". The peasants were divided into two categories - black-grained and possessive.The proprietor peasants lived on the lands that belonged to the landowners and patrimonials, the black-grained peasants - on the rest, not yet given over to any feudal lord. This category of land was considered to belong directly to the prince. Consequently, the black-grained peasants lived in the domains of the great and appanage princes. In the XV century. there is an attachment of the black-grained peasants to the land and the enslavement of the proprietors.

The establishment of feudal dependence presupposes the economic compulsion of the peasant to work for the feudal lord, who seized the main means of production - the land. With the development of feudalism, measures of political, legal coercion are required. But the peasants still have the right to transfer from one owner to another. Mostly small feudal lords suffered from such peasant transitions. It was they who strove to enslave the peasants. Organized enslavement began with the fact that the grand dukes assigned certain groups of peasants to individual landowners with special letters. The old residents were among the first to be attached.

Old-timers are people who have lived with one or another feudal lord from time immemorial and carried the usual feudal duties, as well as tax in favor of the state. Old-timers were opposed by new orderlies (newcomers). Feudal lords, interested in an influx of labor, willingly accepted the peasants their estates and estates. The new orderly was exempt from state tax, and sometimes from feudal duties. At times, the new orderlies received help or a loan from the new owner. They could go to another feudal lord only after paying off the previous one. If a new orderly lived on the same lands for many years, he was considered an old resident.

The next group of dependent people consisted of silversmiths. These were the people who took the "silver" from the feudal lord, i.e. money in debt and obligated to work it out. Paying off debts was often difficult due to high interest rates. The silver man could not change the owner until the debt was paid.

One of the groups of addicted people were ladles - poor people who did not have their own plow. They plowed the land of the master, giving half of the harvest for the use of it.

At the end of the 15th century. another category of dependent people appears - beans who received housing from the feudal lord, and sometimes non-taxable (not taxed) land. Beans were available not only among secular feudal lords, but also in the church. There were even beans that lived in the black lands. In this case, they depended not on the master, but on the peasant community. Code of Law 1497laid the foundation for the general enslavement of the peasants. He established that from now on the peasants can leave their masters only on St. George's Day (November 26), a week before him and a week after him. In this case, the peasant had to pay a certain amount - the elderly.

Serfs. The Tatar-Mongol yoke led to a reduction in the number of slaves in Russia. Captivity as a source of servitude has lost its significance.

Serfs were divided into several categories. There were large, full and reporting slaves. Big slaves are the top of the servants, princely and boyar servants, who sometimes held high posts. So, until the XV century. the princely treasury was in charge of officials from the slaves. In the XV century. some slaves receive land for their service to the prince. Full and reporting slaves worked in the economy of the feudal lord as servants, artisans and farmers. The economic disadvantage of servile labor is becoming more and more obvious. Therefore, there is a tendency towards a relative reduction in servitude. According to the Code of Law of 1497, in contrast to the Russian Pravda, a free person who entered the key keepers in the city was no longer considered a slave. The transformation of a feudal-dependent peasant into a slave for fleeing from the master was also canceled. The number of slaves was also reduced due to their release. Over time, this becomes quite common. Most often, slaves were released by will. Freed their slaves and monasteries. A slave who escaped from Tatar captivity was considered free.

During this period, a process of gradual blurring of the line between slaves and peasants, which began in Ancient Russia, is developing. Serfs receive some property rights, and enslaved peasants are losing them more and more. Among the slaves differed sufferers, those. slaves planted on the ground.

Along with the relative reduction in the number of slaves, a new category of people similar to them in position is emerging - cabal people. Bondage arose out of debt bondage. The debtor had to work off the interest. Most often, bondage became life-long.

Urban population. Cities were usually divided into two parts: the city itself, i.e. a walled place, a fortress and a trade and craft settlement surrounding the city walls. The population was divided accordingly. The fortress (Detinets) was inhabited mainly by representatives of the princely power, the garrison and the servants of local feudal lords. Craftsmen and merchants settled on the settlement. The first part of the urban population was free from taxes and government duties, the second belonged to the tax "black" people.

An intermediate category was the population of settlements and courtyards that belonged to separate feudal lords and located within the city limits. These people, with their economic interests connected with the posad, were nevertheless free from the city tax and bore duties only in favor of their master. The economic upsurge in the 15th century, the development of crafts and trade strengthened the position of cities, and, consequently, raised the importance of the townspeople. In the cities, the wealthiest circles of the merchant class stand out - guests engaged in foreign trade. A special category of guests has appeared - the Surozhans, who trade with the Crimea (with Surozh-Sudak). Somewhat below were the cloth makers - cloth merchants.

PRINCES SERVANTS, a status category of titled persons from Rurik and Gediminids in the last quarter of the 14th - mid-16th century, within which the former capital princes and appanage princes were integrated into a single nobility (titled and untitled) of the emerging Russian state and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (ON); direct vassals of the ruling sovereigns. The term and synonymous concepts ("princes whom God has entrusted", "princes of service", "princes who serve from the fatherland") are recorded in official and legislative documents, while they are actually absent in the annals and other narrative texts (in the annals of the middle of 16 century the term "princes" is close to them in meaning). According to this information, contemporaries referred to the princes as servants titled persons who were not in direct blood relationship with representatives of the ruling dynasties and retained their ancestral estates (with power prerogatives in relation to the taxable population) as awards of the ruling princes with the condition of compulsory military service. In historiography, the concept of "serving princes" does not have a strict definition: according to some researchers, only the princes of the Verkhovsk principalities in the first half of the 16th century (M.E.Bychkova; partly Zimin) belonged to them, others saw them as a special corporation with more a wide genealogical composition (Zimin), others brought them closer to the appanage princes in a number of powerful characteristics (VB Kobrin), etc. Servant princes are also often considered mercenary princes (Rurikovich and Gediminovich) in military service in Novgorod and Pskov in the 14-15th centuries (despite the fact that the term is not even found in the official Novgorod and Pskov texts).

In North-Eastern Russia, the princes of the service began to play a noticeable role in socio-political life in the 1380-1450s, when the tendencies for the absorption of previously independent principalities by the Moscow Grand Duchy, primarily within the boundaries of the Vladimir Grand Duchy, intensified. Such changes were sanctioned by the Horde, as they involved changes in the system of labels and tribute payments. Accordingly, both the senior princes and their blood relatives lost their supreme sovereignty over the territory of the principality and a number of power prerogatives (including the right of grants), which passed to the grand dukes of Moscow. Thus, the status of the former "capital" and appanage princes changed radically - they became service princes of the great princes of Moscow.

Two types of service princes are documented - with individual status and as part of local territorial clan corporations. Servant princes of both types owned ancestral estates, but already as a “salary” (both real and formal) of the Moscow rulers, of which they were now vassals. The departure of a servant prince to another prince (grand or appanage) entailed the automatic confiscation of his land property. In the articles of treaties between the grand dukes among themselves or between the ruling princes and appanage princes, in which a mutual or one-sided (only appanage princes) ban on admitting service princes "with their fathers" was formulated, the service princes acted only as an object of inter-princes agreements. Also, the princes of the service were not subjects of relations with the Horde. Only in possible agreements with other princes, servants from their own clan, regarding the clan possessions, as well as in private-law transactions under the control of the Grand Duke and members of a kind, did the servants act as subjects of law. The military service of the princes themselves did not depend on whether the Grand Duke personally participated in the hostilities - they were obliged to "mount a horse" or send their troops according to the order of the Grand Duke. The differences between the service princes with individual or group status consisted in the size of their ancestral estates, in the volume of their power prerogatives to these lands and the taxable population, in the number of vassals (among the service princes with the individual status of the patrimony were noticeably larger, the scope of rights was much wider, and service boyars, boyar children, etc. persons in their service were much more). The procedure for formalizing their relations with the Grand Duke was different (for the princes of servicemen with an individual status, this is a contractual document - "letter of gratitude to the end"; with the princes serving as part of territorial clan groups, most likely, traditional oral agreements were concluded, sometimes supplemented by private-law transactions of the princes servicemen with members of the grand ducal family).

In accordance with legal norms, the appanage princes were not supposed to have service princes, however, as a result of the transfer of the main part of the Belozersk principality to the inheritance of Prince Andrei Dmitrievich, the service princes from Belozersk Rurikovich were in the service of him, and then of his son, Prince Mikhail Andreevich. Due to various circumstances (social, international and domestic), in the 1390-1450s, service princes with individual status prevailed among the Suzdal Rurikovichs. The Starodub Rurikovichs (the princes of Starodub on the Klyazma) formed a local territorial clan corporation with separate service princes with individual status; some of the Yaroslavl and Rostov Rurikovichs, as well as the bulk of the Obolensky princes, formed similar groups. From the middle of the 15th century, service princes could be part of the Boyar Duma of the princes in whose service they were. In the 2nd half of the 15th century, a group of service princes with individual status gradually disappeared, while the category of service princes was regularly replenished, including at the expense of the bulk of the Yaroslavl Rurikovichs and part of Rostov, the status of local clan corporations of service princes was unified and their registration The sovereign's court (entered it no later than the 2nd quarter of the 15th century).

According to the will of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan III Vasilyevich, the servants' princes of the "Moscow land and Tver" retained their ancestral estates only on condition of service to the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III Ivanovich. Serving princes with individual status who immigrated from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the late 15th and early 16th centuries were also supposed to serve him: princes Starodub Seversky Semyon Ivanovich and his son Vasily Semyonovich Starodubsky (son and grandson of the appanage prince of Mozhaisky Ivan Andreevich), as well as Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shemyachich - the grandson of Prince Dmitry Yuryevich Shemyaka (their possessions in terms of the size of the territory, the number of vassals, the volume of power prerogatives approached the principalities of the appanage princes of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, which was also facilitated by the distant kinship of these princes with the Grand Duke of Moscow); the Verkhovsky princes from the Novosil branch of the Chernigov Rurikovichs (princes Belevsky, Vorotynsky, Odoevsky); from the Gediminovichi - the Trubetskoy princes, the Belsk princes; Prince M.L. Glinsky (1508-14). These persons retained their ancestral estates already as awards of the Grand Dukes of Moscow and Grand Dukes of Lithuania of the 2nd half of the 15th century (in the territories that became part of the Russian state after the Russian-Lithuanian wars of the late 15th - 1st quarter of the 16th century). Some of them received new lands from the Moscow sovereigns "for the patrimony and for the inheritance", which fixed their legal status as service princes with individual status. The massive influx of persons who received the status of service princes into the Russian state significantly contributed to the further existence of the category of service princes. In 1526, F.M.Mstislavsky, a former appanage prince in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, left for the Russian service, on the same rights granted possessions in the Russian state and the position of a servant prince with an individual status.

From the end of the 15th century, there was a transition from vassal ties to citizenship, corporate forms of military service of princes of servicemen became obsolete, personal office appointments of princes of servicemen gradually began to prevail, their ancestral estates were eroded (including under pressure and under the control of the supreme power); thanks to marriages, purchases, exchanges and other transactions, or from the Grand Duke, the servants received possessions outside the ancestral territories (estates and estates). Traditionally, the records of service princes in some documents of the court of the mid-16th century according to the lists of service princes with individual status, as well as according to the lists of service princes as part of territorial clan corporations, with their parallel recording in other documentation on the status-official groups of court members (Duma ranks and the so-called Moscow). All this meant that the category of service princes in the second third of the 16th century as a form of integration of previously independent and appanage princes of North-Eastern Russia into the emerging nobility of the Russian state lost its relevance. The decisive blow to the tribal land tenure of the princes of servicemen was dealt by the land policy of the oprichnina. The last time the list of princes served as an undoubted relic of the former division of the nobility appeared in the boyar list of 1588/89 when Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich was restored at the beginning of the reign of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich the additional structure of the Tsar's court.

In the course of the conquest and the annexation of the former Old Russian principalities to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 14-15th century, the previously independent princes of Rurikovich moved there to the position of service princes. They turned out to be vassals of both the Grand Dukes of Lithuania and the appanage princes of the Gediminids. Servant princes with individual status were dependent on the Grand Duke of Lithuania. These were the princes of the Verkhovsky principalities (until the end of the 15th century), immigrants from the Moscow Grand Duchy (Prince of Mozhaisk Ivan Andreevich with children, Prince Ivan Vasilyevich Yaroslavich from Serpukhov-Borovsk appanage princes, Prince Ivan Dmitrievich Shemyachich, Prince of Verei Vasily Mikhailovych, son of Andreevich and others), who were promoted in the Lithuanian service of an individual from among the local Rurikovich.

Servant princes with group status existed, first of all, in the eastern, partly southwestern borderlands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while maintaining special clan principalities within the framework of the gradually unified administrative division into voivodships. The most famous princes Drutskiy (see in the article Drutsk principality; back in the 15th century they gave a number of princely families and surnames in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia - princes Babichev, Drutsk-Sokolinskiy, Drutsk-Ozeretskiy, Drutsk-Konopli, etc.), princes Oginskiy and Mosalskiy (from the Karachev-Kozelsky branch of the Chernigov Rurikovichs), the Ostrog princes (most likely from the Chernigov Rurikovichs), the Vyazemsky, Kroshinsky, Kozlovsky princes and others (all from the Smolensk Rurikovichs), etc. With a few exceptions, the category of princes did not disappear. later than the 1st quarter of the 16th century.

Traditionally, in domestic and foreign historiography, service princes also include a number of similar categories of nobility, which, however, do not satisfy all the conditions that determine service princes. Firstly, these are princes in the service of the great princes of Moscow and appanage princes in the 15th - mid 16th centuries, who did not preserve their ancestral estates. Similar examples existed earlier, even in pre-Mongol times (for example, Prince Ivan Rostislavich Berladnik, future prince of Turov Yuri Yaroslavich before 1157), as well as in the 13-14 century. During this period, those were emigrants from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Khovansky, Patrikeevs, Bulgakovs, Shchenyatevs and others from the appanage princes of the Gediminovichs; princes Babichevs from the Drutsk family of princes), the departure of princes from other principalities of North-Eastern Russia (Prince D. D. Kholmsky from Tver appanage princes; princes Pronskiy from Ryazan Rurikovichs, etc.), who did not receive possessions from the grand dukes of Moscow and appanage princes "to the patrimony and inheritance". They were joined by immigrants from the princely houses of Rurikovich, who completely or significantly lost their ancestral lands and official ties with relatives at the end of the 15th - 1st third of the 16th century [the Gagarins princes, the senior line of the Romodanovsky princes, etc. from the Starodub Rurikovich princes (the Starodub princes on Klyazma), princes Golenin and others from the Sretensky branch of the Rostov Rurikovichs, a number of surnames from the Yaroslavl Rurikovichs and princes Obolensky]. Some of them had very significant real estate and were outstanding state (Prince I. Yu. Patrikeev) and military (Prince D. D. Kholmsky) figures.

Secondly, according to a number of signs, in the 2nd half of the 15th - early 17th centuries, people from the dynasties of Kazan, Crimean, Astrakhan and Siberian Chinggisids were close to the princes with individual status, who received possession (as a rule, urgent, non-hereditary) those or other cities with a district, which really gave them the right to various incomes from taxable people (most often complained about Kashira, Zvenigorod, Serpukhov, sometimes Yuryev-Polskaya, etc.). These princes, at the head of their detachments, took an active part in the military campaigns of the Russian army and were often used as Moscow henchmen in the struggle for the khan's throne in Kazan and Astrakhan. The most famous are Muhammad-Emin, Abd al-Latif, Shah Ali, Jan-Ali, Dervish-Ali, as well as the baptized Kazan prince Kudai-Kul (Khudai-Kul; baptized from 21.12.1505 Peter Ibrahimovich), married from 25.1. 1506 on the sister of the Grand Duke of Moscow Vasily III Ivanovich - Evdokia Ivanovna, as well as the last Kazan Khan Yadgar-Mukhammed (baptized Simeon Kasayevich). The princes and tsars who owned the Kasimov kingdom had a special status.

Thirdly, princes of Rurikovich and Gediminovich, who were in the service in Novgorod and Pskov, are sometimes referred to as serving princes. They did not have hereditary rights to the cities and rural districts allocated to them "for feeding" ("bread-feeding"), having only administrative and judicial rights over taxable people and the right to collect a number of incomes. True, the arrival in Novgorod in 1333 of the first mercenary prince, the Lithuanian prince Narimant Gediminovich, was accompanied by the transfer to him of the cities (Ladoga, Oreshka, Korela), the Korelian land and half of the Koporye "in the fatherland, and in the grandfather, and we will child him", but this the order was not fixed. Subsequently, depending on the political and military conjuncture, as well as on the nobility of the prince, the size and preparedness of his army, the number of cities complained to the prince varied (the last Grand Duke of Smolensk, Yuri Svyatoslavich, received 13 cities in 1404). The procedure included preliminary negotiations and the conclusion of a formal agreement by the decision of the veche. In the second half of the 14th century and until the middle of the 15th century, a system of two princes-mercenaries existed in the Novgorod Republic, and the second princes usually received half of Koporye, or Yama (now Kingisepp), and in some cases - other suburbs in the western borderlands. Belozersk (possibly from the beginning of the 14th century), Smolensk, and in the 1440s-70s - the Suzdal Rurikovichs, who fought together with the Novgorodians against the Moscow troops (1456, 1471, 1478), often found themselves in this role. In Pskov, mercenary princes have been known since the last decades of the 14th century (mainly the Gediminovichi, partly the Smolensk Rurikovichs), from the beginning of the 15th century this function was performed, as a rule, by representatives of the Rostov and Suzdal Rurikovichs, the Obolensky princes, etc., put on the recommendation or with the consent of the great dukes of Moscow. According to the procedure, the procedure for the selection and approval of the Pskov princes was close to the Novgorod one.

Lit .: Veselovsky S. B. Last destinies in North-Eastern Russia // Historical notes. M., 1947. T. 22; Mordovina S.P. Serving princes at the end of the 16th century. // Proceedings of the Moscow State Historical and Archival Institute. M., 1970. T. 28; Zimin A.A. Serving princes in the Russian state at the end of the 15th - first third of the 16th century. // The nobility and serfdom of Russia in the XVI-XVIII centuries. M., 1975; he is. Formation of the boyar aristocracy in Russia in the second half of the 15th - first third of the 16th century. M., 1988; Kobrin V. B. Power and property in medieval Russia (XV-XVI centuries). M., 1985; Bychkova M.E. The composition of the class of feudal lords in Russia in the 16th century. M., 1986; she is. The ruling class of the Russian state // European nobility of the XVI-XVII centuries: the boundaries of the estate. M., 1997; Krom M.M. Between Russia and Lithuania. M., 1995; Bentsianov M.M. (princes Obolensky, Rostov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, Starodub, Mosalsky in the middle of the 16th century) // Historical genealogy. 1995. No. 8; Yanin V.L. Novgorod and Lithuania. Border situations of the XIII-XV centuries M., 1998; Nazarov V.D. About the titled nobility of Russia at the end of the 15th century. (Rurikovich and Gediminovich according to the list of the court in 1495) // The most ancient states of Eastern Europe. 1998. M., 2000; he is. The end of the Shuisky princes with Prince Dmitry Shemyaka and the fate of the Nizhny Novgorod-Suzdal principality in the middle of the 15th century. // Archive of Russian history. M., 2002. Issue. 7; he is. Princely tribal land tenure in Russia: traditional law and the verdict of 1551 // Land tenure and land tenure in Russia (social and legal aspects). Kaluga, 2003; he is. Princes Romodanovskiy in the era of the formation of the Russian centralized state (family portrait in the family interior and socio-political context) // Gosudarev Dvor in the history of Russia in the XV-XVII centuries. Vladimir, 2006; he is. "The Lord, the Great Prince", the serving princes and the Tsar's court in Russia in the 15th century. // The most ancient states of Eastern Europe. 2005. M., 2008; Antonov A.V. To the history of the inheritance of princes Odoevsky // Russian diplomat. M., 2001. Issue. 7; Florea B.N. // Archive of Russian history. M., 2002. Issue. 7; Kuchkin V.A.Create letters of the Moscow princes of the XIV century. Foreign policy treaties. M., 2003; Strelnikov S. V. On the peculiarities of the political history of the Rostov land in the XIV-XV centuries. // History and culture of the Rostov land. 2002. Rostov, 2003; Stanislavsky A.L. Proceedings on the history of the sovereign's court in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries. M., 2004; E. Gudavičius. History of Lithuania from ancient times to 1569, M., 2005; Gryaznov A.L. Belozersk princely family at the end of the XIV-XV centuries. // History and culture of the Rostov land. 2005. Rostov, 2006; Belyakov A.V. Chinggisids in Russia XV-XVI centuries. // Archive of Russian history. M., 2007. Issue. 8.

Having cast a cursory glance at the fate of southwestern Russia in the period under study, we let it out of sight for a long time in order to focus all our attention on the northeastern half of the Russian land, on the upper Volga region of the Suzdal Vsevolodovichi. This limitation of the field of observation is an inevitable concession to the conditions of our studies. We can only follow the dominant movements of our history, sail, so to speak, in its channel, without deviating to the coastal currents. In the area of \u200b\u200bthe Upper Volga, they concentrated from the XIII century. the strongest forces of the people, and there it is necessary to look for the ties of the foundations and forms of people's life, which later gained dominant importance. We have already seen the direction in which social life here began to change under the influence of the ebb of popular forces in this direction. The old established way of life was upset. In the new environment, under the yoke of new external misfortunes, everything here was localized, isolated: broad social ties were broken, major interests were fragmented, all relations were narrowed. Society blurred or disintegrated into small local worlds; each went to his own close compatriot corner, limiting his thoughts and relationships to narrow interests and closest neighbors or casual ties. The state, based on stable common interests, on broad social ties, with such a fragmented and disordered life becomes impossible or assimilates forms and methods of action unusual for it: it also disintegrates into small bodies, in which, with naive indifference, elements of the state order merge with the norms of civil rights. Feudalism emerged from this state of society in the West; the same condition on the Upper Volga served as the basis for the specific order. When studying history, one is reluctant to focus on such eras that provide too little food for the mind and imagination: it is difficult to extract any big idea from unimportant events; dull phenomena do not add up to any vivid image; there is nothing amusing or instructive. Karamzin's more than 300-year period since the death of Yaroslav I seemed like a time, "meager deeds of glory and rich with insignificant strife of numerous rulers, whose shadows, stained with the blood of poor subjects, flicker in the darkness of distant centuries." In Solov'ev, however, the very feeling of heaviness, which the historian endured from studying the meager and colorless monuments of the 13th and 14th centuries, was clothed in a short but vivid description of the period. “The characters act in silence, fight, reconcile, but they will not say themselves, nor will the chronicler add from himself what they are fighting for, as a result of which they reconcile; in the city, in the courtyard of the prince, nothing is heard, everything is quiet; everyone sits shut and thinks to themselves; doors open, people come out on stage, do something, but do it in silence. However, such epochs, so tedious to study and, apparently, so fruitless for history, have their own and important historical significance. These are the so-called transition times, which often fall in wide and dark stripes between two periods. Such epochs transform the ruins of the lost order into elements of the order that arises after them. Our specific ages also belong to such transitional periods, transitional historical stages: their significance is not in themselves, but in their consequences, in what came out of them.

The specific order, the consequences of which we have to study, was itself one of the political consequences of the Russian colonization of the Upper Volga region with the participation of the nature of the region. This colonization brought to that region the same social elements that made up the society of Dnieper Rus: those were the princes, their squads, the urban commercial and industrial class and the mixed rural population from different old regions. We know their mutual relationship in old Russia: the first three elements were dominant and fighting forces with the participation of the clergy, usually appeasing. The regional veche cities, led by their "molded husbands", the nobility of the merchant capital, isolated the regions into local worlds, and the squads, the aristocracy of weapons, with their princes glided over these worlds, with difficulty maintaining communication between them. Questions are posed: what relationship was established between these social elements under the roof of the appanage order and what part did each of them take in the operation of this new political form? These questions will guide us in studying the consequences of the specific order. In this study, we will consider the lot in itself, without its relationship to other destinies: we will touch on these relations in the history of the Moscow principality. The consequences of this order become noticeable already in the XIII century, even more in the XIV.

First of all, this order was accompanied by an ever-increasing specific fragmentation of northern Russia, a gradual crushing of estates. Old Kievan Rus was divided into princely possessions according to the number of adult princes available, sometimes even with the participation of minors; thus, in each generation, the Russian land was redistributed among the princes. Now, with the disappearance of the next order, these redistributions began to stop. Members of the princely line, too multiplying, did not have the opportunity to occupy free tables in other principalities and had to increasingly split their hereditary fiefdom. Thanks to this, in some places the princely estates fell apart between the heirs into microscopic shares. I will briefly review this specific fragmentation, limiting myself to only the first two generations of Vsevolodovich. After the death of Vsevolod, his Upper Volga patrimony, according to the number of his sons, fell into 5 parts. Under senior Vladimirsky the principality, which was considered the common property of the Vsevolodov tribe, had 4 inheritances: Rostov, Pereyaslavsky, Yurievsky (with the capital city of Yuryev Polsky) and Starodubsky on the Klyazma. When Vsevolod's grandchildren took the place of their fathers. Suzdal land was divided into smaller parts. The Vladimir principality continued to be inherited in turn of seniority, but 3 new destinies emerged from it: Suzdal, Kostroma and Moscow. The Rostov principality also disintegrated into parts: from it the younger appanages separated Yaroslavsky and Uglitsky. The Pereyaslavsky inheritance also split into several parts: next to the older Pereyaslavsky inheritance, two younger ones arose, from which they separated, Tverskoy and Dmitrovo-Galitsky. Only the principalities of Yuryevskoe and Starodubskoe remained inseparable, for their first princes left only one son each. So, the Suzdal land, which was disintegrated into 5 parts under the children of Vsevolod, with his grandchildren was split into 12. In a similar progression there was a specific fragmentation in further generations of the Vsevolod tribe. For clarity, I will count for you the parts into which the oldest of the original appanage principalities - Ostovskoe - was successively divided. At first, as I said, the principality of Yaroslavl and Uglitsk was separated from this principality, but then the rest of the Rostov principality split into two more halves, Rostov, in fact, and Belozersk. During the XIV and XV centuries. Belozerskaya half, in turn, breaks up into the following destinies: Kemsky, Sugorsky, Ukhtomsky, Sudskoy, Sheleshpansky, Andozhsky, Vadbolsky other. Yaroslavl principality during the XIV and XV centuries. also subdivided into appanages Molozhsky, Shekhonsky, Sitskoy, Zaozersky, Kubensky next to the previous one, Kurbsky, Novlensky, Yukhotsky, Bokhtyuzhsky other. As you can see from the names of these estates, most of them consisted of small districts of the Trans-Volga rivers City, Suda, Mologa, Kema, Ukhtoma, Andogi, Bohtyugi, etc.

Another closely connected with this consequence was the impoverishment of the majority of the crumbling appanage princes of northern Russia. As some lines of the Vsevolodov tribe multiplied, the heirs received from their fathers ever smaller parts of their family estates. Thanks to this fragmentation, most of the appanage princes of the XIV and XV centuries. is in an environment not richer than that in which the mediocre private landowners of later times lived. The principality of Zaozerskoye (along the northeastern shore of Lake Kubenskoye) belonged to the Yaroslavl lands. At the beginning of the 15th century. this principality was owned by the appanage prince Dimitri Vasilievich. One of the sons of this prince went to the Stone Monastery on the island of Kubenskoye Lake and tonsured there under the name of Joasaph. In the old life of this prince-monk, we find a pictorial picture of the residence of his father, the prince of Zaozersk. This capital consisted of a lonely princely court, not far from the confluence of the Kubena river into the lake. Near this princely estate there was a church in the name of Dimitri of Thessaloniki, apparently by the same prince and built in honor of his angel, and at a distance was the village of Chirkovo, which served as a congregation to this church: "... all the call of Chirkov to his parishioner." That's the whole residence of the appanage "sovereign" of the early 15th century.

The specific order of princely possession by its very essence introduced mutual alienation among the princes, which did not exist among the princes of old Kievan Rus. Accounts and disputes about seniority, about the order of ownership in turn of seniority, maintained close solidarity between those princes: all their relations were based on how one prince was brought to another. Hence their habit of acting together; even the enmity because of the honor of seniority, because of Kiev, brought them closer together than alienated them from each other. Among the appanage princes of northern Russia, on the contrary, no one cared about another. With the separation of ownership between them, strong common interests could not exist: each prince, shutting himself up in his fiefdom, got used to acting alone, in the name of personal gain, remembering a relative-neighbor only when he threatened him or when there was a chance to profit at his expense ... This mutual disunity of the appanage princes made them incapable of amicable and dense political alliances; princely conventions, so frequent in the 12th century, become rare and accidental in the 13th and almost cease in the 14th century.

Together with this possessive isolation of the princes, their political significance also falls. The political significance of the sovereign is determined by the degree to which he uses his sovereign rights to achieve the goals of the common good, to protect common interests and public order. The value of the prince in the old Kievan Rus was determined mainly by the fact that he was primarily the guardian of the external security of the Russian land, an armed guard of its borders. It is enough to cast a cursory glance at social relations in the appanage principalities to see that the appanage prince had a different meaning. As soon as the notion of the common good disappears in society, the thought of the sovereign as a generally binding power dies out in the minds, and in the lot such a concept had nothing to attach itself to. It was neither a clan nor a land union; it was not even a society at all, but a random bunch of people who were told that they were within the space belonging to such and such a prince. In the absence of a common, uniting interest, the prince, ceasing to be a sovereign, remained only a landowner, a simple owner, and the population of the inheritance turned into separate, temporary inhabitants, nothing but neighborhood, not connected with each other, no matter how long they sat, at least even hereditarily sat in their places. Only the prince's lackeys were tied to the territory of the appanage principality; free inhabitants had only temporary personal ties with the local prince. They fell into two classes: servicemen and black people.

The service people were boyars and free servants, who were in the personal service of the prince by agreement with him. They recognized his authority over themselves while they served him; but each of them could leave the prince and go into the service of another. This was not considered treason to the prince. The districts were not closed political worlds with stable, inviolable borders, they narrowed and expanded, seemed to be random parts of some broken, but not yet forgotten whole: wandering around them, the population had little difficulty in their borders, because they remained in the Russian land, among their own, under the rule of the same Russian princes. The princes in their mutual agreements for a long time did not dare to encroach on this everyday remnant of the unity of the Russian land, which, having ceased to be a political fact, still remained a popular memory or sensation. Having left the prince, his free servants retained even their rights to the lands acquired by them in the abandoned principality.

The same was the relationship of the black, i.e. taxable people to the specific prince. As the relationship of service people was personal-service, so the relationship of blacks was personal-land. A black man, urban or rural, recognized the power of the prince, paid him tribute, submitted to his jurisdiction only while he was using his land, but he could also move to another principality when he found the local conditions for using the land inconvenient, and then all his ties with the previous one were broken. prince. So, as a serviceman was a military-hired servant of the prince, so the black man was a tax-consuming tenant of his land. You can understand what importance the appanage prince received in such a relationship. In his lot he was, in fact, not a ruler, but an owner; his principality was for him not a society, but an economy; he did not rule over it, but exploited it, developed it. He considered himself the owner of the entire territory of the principality, but only the territory with its economic lands. Individuals, free people, were not legally part of this property: a free person, whether a servant or a black man, came to the principality, served or worked and left, was not a political unit within the local society, but an economic accident in the principality. The prince did not see in him his subject in our sense of the word, because he did not consider himself a sovereign in this sense. In the specific order, these concepts did not exist, and the relations arising from them did not exist. In a word sovereign then the personal power of a free person over the unfree, over the slave was expressed, and the appanage prince considered himself a sovereign only for his servants, which was also the case with private landowners.

Not being a sovereign in the true sense of the word, the appanage prince was not, however, a simple private landowner, even in the then sense. He differed from the latter in sovereign rights, only he used them in a specific way. They did not follow from his ownership of the inheritance, nor were they the source of this right. They went to the appanage prince by inheritance from the unlucky ancestors of the time when each prince, not considering himself the owner of the reign temporarily owned by him, was a participant in the supreme power over the Russian land belonging to the Yaroslavichs. When the unity of the princely family collapsed, the sovereign rights of the appanage princes did not lose their former dynastic support, which had already become part of the political custom, which received popular recognition; only their meaning and popular view of them have changed. The appanage prince was recognized as the bearer of supreme power by origin, because he prince, but he owned a certain lot, precisely that, and not that, not as a shareholder of the all-earth supreme power, which belonged to the entire princely family, but by the personal will of his father, brother or other relative. His hereditary power could not find a new, purely political basis in the idea of \u200b\u200bthe sovereign, the guardian of the common good as the goal of the state: such a thought could not be established in the appanage principality, where public order was built on the private interest of the owner-prince, and the relationship of free persons to him was determined not by a general binding law, but by a personal voluntary agreement. Therefore, as soon as the idea of \u200b\u200bthe ownership of the inheritance to the prince on the right of ownership was established, his sovereign power relied on this right and merged with him, became part of his specific economy. Then a combination of relations was obtained, which is possible only where no boundaries are drawn between private and public law. The supreme rights of the prince-votchinnik were considered as income items of his patrimonial economy, and the same methods of use were applied to them, they were split up, alienated, bequeathed; government positions were given for temporary possession, for feeding or at the mercy, were sold; in this respect, the position of a judge of a rural volost did not differ from the palace fishing that was there. Thus, the private right of ownership to the inheritance became the political basis of the sovereign power of the appanage prince, and the agreement was a legal intermediary linking this power with the free inhabitants of the appanage. The prince-kinsman of the 12th century ... left without a volost, did not lose "communion in the Russian land", the right to sovereign possession of a part of the land, which followed him according to his position in the princely family. The appanage prince-votchinnik of the XIV century, having lost his patrimony, also lost all sovereign rights, because the appanage princes, while remaining relatives, did not constitute a clan. a kindred union: the unruly prince could only enter the service of his own relative or the Grand Duke of Lithuania.

The character of the personal owner of the inheritance with sovereign rights was expressed in the relationship of the prince to the three categories of lands, of which his specific patrimony consisted. These were the lands palace, black and boyar; the latter are generally understood as the lands of private owners, secular and ecclesiastical. The difference between these categories stemmed from a purely economic reason, from the fact that the owner applied various methods of economic exploitation to different parts of his specific property. The palace lands in the princely land economy are similar to what the lordly plowing was on the private landowner's economy: the income from them in kind went directly to the maintenance of the prince's palace. These lands were exploited by the obligatory labor of the prince's unfree people, courtyard slaves planted on arable land, sufferers, or were given to the use of free people, peasants, with the obligation to put on the palace a certain amount of bread, hay, fish, carts, etc. The original and distinctive feature of this category of lands was sharecropping, natural work for the prince, delivery to the palace for the use of the palace land. Black lands were rented out or for rent to individual peasants or entire peasant societies, sometimes to people of other classes, as did private landowners; they, in fact, were called quitrent. The relationship of the prince to the third category of lands in the inheritance seems more complicated. The whole lot was the hereditary property of his prince; but the latter shared the actual ownership of it with other private estates. In every significant inheritance, it happened that the first prince, who sat on it, already found in it private landowners, secular or ecclesiastical, who settled here before the region became a special principality. Then the first prince or his successors themselves ceded other lands in their inheritance to the patrimony of persons and church institutions that they needed for service or prayer. Thus, other private estates appeared in the estate of the Grand Duke. With the merger of the rights of the sovereign and the patrimonial in the person of the prince, such a combination of the rights of several owners was legally possible. The prince, of course, renounced the rights of private disposal of the estates of private owners and retained only the supreme rights to them. But since these sovereign rights were considered proprietary and, on an equal basis with others, were included in the legal composition of the specific princely property, the appearance of land belonging to a private owner in the estate did not prevent the prince from considering himself the owner of the entire estate. So, under the influence of complicating relations, elements of different nature in the mixed composition of the specific princely property were separated and the concept of the general supreme owner of the inheritance in relation to private and partial owners was developed. The prince sometimes yielded to the boyar, the patrimony in his inheritance, along with the right of ownership to his patrimony and part of his sovereign rights to it.

Relations arose that resembled the feudal order of Western Europe. But these are not similar phenomena, but only parallel ones. In the relationship of boyars and free servants to the appanage prince, much was lacking for such a resemblance, there were, among other things, two main feudal features: 1) the connection of service relations with the land and 2) heredity of both. In the estates, land relations of free servants were strictly separated from service ones. This separation is persistently carried out in the princely treaties of the XIV century. Boyars and free servants freely passed from one prince to service to another; serving in one inheritance, they could have estates in another; the change of place of service did not concern the patrimonial rights acquired in the abandoned inheritance; serving under a contract wherever he wanted, a free servant "pulled by court and tribute on land and water," served land duties at the place of land tenure; princes pledged to other people's servants who owned the land in their inheritance, to look after them as their own. All these relations were reduced to one general condition of the princely agreements: "... and the boyars and servants of the border between us are free will." The feudal moment can be seen only in the legal meaning of the appanage prince himself, who united in his person the sovereign and the supreme owner of the land. In this he looks like a seigneur, but his boyars and free servants are not at all vassals.

Feudalism, schematically speaking, was built from two ends, by two counter processes: on the one hand, regional rulers, taking advantage of the weakness of the central government, mastered the governed areas and became their sovereign hereditary owners; on the other hand, large proprietors, allodial landowners, became royal vassals by means of commendation and, taking advantage of the same weakness, acquired or assumed government power as hereditary commissioners of the king. Both processes, splitting state power geographically, localizing it, breaking the state into large seigneurs, in which the sovereign prerogatives merged with the rights of land ownership. These lords, on the same grounds, fell apart into large baronies with minor vassals who owed the hereditary jury service to their baron, and this entire military-landholding hierarchy was kept on the immovable soil of the rural population of villans, who were strong on the earth or hereditarily obsessed with it. We were doing things a little differently. The changeable temporary reigns of Kievan Rus were replaced by the Upper Volga Suzdal estates, hereditary principalities, which, under the supreme authority of the distant Lower Volga Khan, became in the XIV century. independent of the local grand dukes. A significant appanage prince ruled his lot by means of boyars and free servants, to whom he distributed in feeding, in the temporary revenue administration, cities with districts, rural volosts, individual villages and profitable economic items with government powers, judicial and financial rights. Some boyars and servants, moreover, had estates in their inheritance, for which the appanage prince sometimes provided the patrimonials with certain privileges, immunities, in the form of exemption from certain duties or in the form of certain rights, judicial and financial. But the districts of the breeders never became their land property, and the sovereign rights granted to privileged patrimonials were never inherited by them. Thus, no baronies were developed either from feeding or from the boyar estates. In the history of the Moscow principality, we will see that in the 15th century. some grand dukes strove to put their appanages in relations as if they were vassal, but this desire was not a sign of feudal fragmentation of power, but a harbinger and a means of state concentration of it. In the specific order, you can find many features similar to feudal relations, legal and economic, but, having a different social basis, a mobile rural population, these similar relations form other combinations and are moments of completely different processes. Signs of similarity do not yet speak of the identity of orders, and similar elements, especially at the beginning of the process, being unequally combined, form completely different social formations in the final warehouse. It is not these elements that are of scientific interest, but the conditions of their various formations. With the formation of feudalism, we see something similar to our feeding and to the patrimonial privileges, but in our country both did not add up, as there, into stable general norms, remaining more or less random and temporary awards of a personal nature. In the West, a free person, securing his freedom, protected himself like a castle wall with a chain of permanent, hereditary relations, became the focus of the lower local social forces, created a tight world around him, guided and supported by him. A free servant of specific ages, not finding elements for such a durable environment in a mobile local society, he looked for support for his freedom in a personal contract for a while, in the right to always break it and go to the side, to go to serve in another destiny where he did not have long-standing ties.

The foregoing historical comparison will help us imagine what kind of society has assumed within the framework of the specific order. Here, first of all, attention is drawn to the boyars and free servants, the prince's squad. Among the specific society of the XIV century. this upper class is largely a social and political anachronism. In his social position we find features that did not at all go to the specific order, to the general direction of specific life. The strict delimitation of service and land relations of free servants, which is carried out by the contractual letters of the princes of the 14th and 15th centuries, did not agree well with the natural desire of the specific princely economy to combine the personal service of free servants with land ownership in the inheritance, to consolidate the first to the latter and thereby ensure the satisfaction of an important and expensive need of the prince farms, the need for military people. The opportunity for a free servant to combine service in one principality with. in another way, land tenure contradicted the desire of the appanage princes to isolate themselves as much as possible, to isolate themselves from each other politically. From this side, boyars and free servants stood out noticeably from the specific civil society. The position of the rest of the classes in the inheritance was determined most of all by the land relations with the prince, the patron of the inheritance. Although land ownership was now increasingly becoming the basis of social status for the boyars, however, they alone continued to maintain purely personal relations with the prince, arising from a service contract with him and formed at a time when the social significance of this class was not based on land ownership. Such peculiarities in the position of service people could not have been created from the specific order of the 13th-14th centuries: they, obviously, were the remnants of the previous time, when neither the princes nor their squads were firmly connected with the local regional worlds; they did not go to the Upper Volga Rus, which with each generation was subjected to more and more specific fragmentation. The very right to choose a place of service, recognized in the treaty letters of princes for boyars and free servants and which was one of the political forms in which the zemstvo unity of Kievan Rus was expressed, has now become untimely: this class in the north still remained a walking representative of the political order, already destroyed, continued to serve as a connecting thread between parts of the earth, which no longer constituted a whole. Ecclesiastical teaching of the XIV century. expresses the view of his time, persuading the boyars to serve faithfully to their princes, not to pass from inheritance to inheritance, considering such a transition to be a betrayal, contrary to the continuing custom. In the same contractual princely letters, which recognize the right of the boyars and servants as free to serve in a different principality where they have lands, we meet a completely different condition, which better expressed specific reality, at odds with the custom inherited from the previous time: this condition made it difficult for princes and their boyars, the acquisition of land in other people's estates and forbade them to keep mortgages and quitters there, i.e. forbade the inhabitants of the county to enter into personal or property dependence on someone else's prince or boyar. On the other hand, life at the northern princely courts of the XIV century. was filled with far from those phenomena that prevailed at the courts of the former southern princes and on which the fighting spirit of the then squads was brought up. Now the course of affairs gave the squad few opportunities to seek honor for themselves, and glory for the prince. The princely strife of the specific time was no less difficult for the civilian population, but did not have the previous combat character: they had more barbarism than militancy. And the external defense of the land did not give the former food to the fighting spirit of the squads: because of the Lithuanian border until the second half of the XIV century. there was no energetic offensive to the east, and the Horde yoke for a long time removed from the princes and their servicemen the need to defend the southeastern outskirts, which served for the southern princes of the 12th century. the main nursery of warlike servants, and even after the Kulikovo massacre, more money went from Russia to this direction than military people. But the force of actual conditions overcame belated concepts and habits. We already know that in the XII century. servicemen received a monetary salary from the princes - a sign that foreign trade accumulated abundant circulating assets in the hands of the princes. In the Upper Volga region since the XIII century. this source became scarce and subsistence economy began to dominate again. In the XIV century. at the princely courts there, the main way of rewarding servicemen was "feeding and argument", taking up lucrative judicial and administrative positions in the central and regional administration. Studying the structure of the Moscow principality in those centuries, we will see how difficult this administration was and what a significant number of people it gave them a grain job. But feeding was not a sufficiently reliable source either, sharing the then general fluctuation of political and economic relations. At that time, the princely fortunes were changing rapidly, and, with a few exceptions, changed for the worse: some specific farms were barely starting up, others were already collapsing, and none of them stood on a solid foundation; no source of the prince's income seemed reliable. This variability of social conditions forced the servants to seek security in an economic source that was more reliable than others, although together with others it experienced the effect of the disorder of social order, in land tenure: it, at least, made the position of the boyar less dependent on economic accidents and whims of the prince, rather than a salary and administrative feeding. So the service class in the north assimilated the interest that prevailed in the specific life, the desire to become farmers, acquire land property, inhabit and clear the wastelands, and for success in this matter to work and enslave people, start villages of agricultural slaves on their lands, beg landowning privileges and by them to lure free peasants to the land. And in the former Kievan Rus there were people in the squad who owned the land; there was formed the initial legal type of the boyar-landowner, the main features of which lived for a long time in Russia and had a strong effect on the development and nature of later serfdom. But it is likely that boyar land ownership there did not reach significant proportions or was hidden by other interests of the squad, so that it did not have a noticeable effect on its political role. Now it acquired an important political significance in the fate of the service class and over time changed its position both at the prince's court and in local society.

And the rest of the society of Upper Volga Rus was in many ways unlike the former Dnieper. First, this society is poorer than the former, South Russian. The capital, which was created and supported by the lively and long-standing foreign trade of the Kiev south, in the Suzdal north in those centuries is so insignificant that it ceases to have a noticeable effect on the economic and political life of the people. In proportion to this, the amount of people's labor that was caused by the movement of this capital and brought such industrial revival to the cities of the Dnieper and its tributaries decreased. This reduction in economic turnover, as we have seen, was manifested in a gradual rise in the price of money. Agriculture, with its branches and agricultural industries, now remained, if not completely alone, then more than before, the dominant economic force of the country; but for a very long time it was a mobile, semi-nomadic economy on Novi, moving from one barely habitable place to another, untouched, and a number of generations had to cut and burn the forest, work with a plow and carry manure in order to create a suitable soil on the Upper Volga loam for durable, sedentary agriculture. In connection with this change, it seems that one can explain the phenomenon that I have already noted when analyzing Russian Pravda, which seems to be unexpected. In monetary Kievan Rus, capital was very expensive: with a long-term loan, Monomakh's law allowed an increase of 40%, but in reality the lenders charged much more. In specific ages, church preaching taught to take “easily” - 12% or 14% each. One might think that such a cheapness of money capital was the result of a strong drop in demand for it, when subsistence farming prevailed.

At the same time, the social forces in the north lost the formation of a class that mainly worked as commercial capital - the class that consisted of industrial inhabitants of the large volost cities of the past. In Suzdal Russia, he was not lucky since the very time when Russian life began to noticeably pour here from the Dnieper south-west. Old township towns of the local region. Rostov and Suzdal, after the political defeat that they suffered in the struggle with the "new" and "small" people, i.e. immediately after the death of Andrei Bogolyubsky, they did not rise economically with the newcomers and the lower population of the Zalesye Zaokie; from the new cities for a long time not one took their place in the economic life of the country and not one ever took over it in political life, did not become an original zemstvo center and leader of the local regional world, because in none of the townsfolk did not converge at the veche, as in a thought , and by virtue of the seniority of their city, they did not make decisions binding on the junior cities of the region. This serves as a clear sign that in Suzdal Rus XIII and XIV centuries. the sources from which the senior rural municipality had drawn up its economic and political strength dried up. Along with the withdrawal of the regional city from the active forces of society, the number of interests that had previously been created by the relations of the inhabitants of the volost city to other social forces disappeared from the circulation of public life. So, from the XIII century. the society of northeastern Suzdal Rus, formed under the influence of colonization, became poorer and simpler in composition.

Finally, the level of his civil development also corresponded to the political significance of the appanage prince. An imperfect social order is more successful in directing morals and feelings in its spirit than it itself improves when they rise. Personal interest and personal contract, the basis of the appanage order, could be bad educators in this regard. The specific order was the reason for the decline of the zemstvo consciousness and moral and civic feeling in the princes, as well as in society, extinguished the idea of \u200b\u200bthe unity and integrity of the Russian land, of the common national good. From the Poshekhonsky or Ukhtomsky world outlook, was it really easy to rise to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Russian land of Vladimir the Saint and Yaroslav the Old! The very word Russian land rather rarely appears on the pages of the annals of specific centuries. Political fragmentation inevitably led to a fragmentation of political consciousness, to a cooling of zemstvo feelings. Sitting in their specific nests and flying out of them only to prey, with each generation getting poorer and wilder in loneliness, these princes gradually weaned from thoughts that rose above caring for chicks. Under the difficult external conditions of the princely possession and with the possessive loneliness of the princes, each of them became more and more accustomed to acting according to the instinct of self-preservation. The appanage princes of northern Russia are much less militant in comparison with their southern Russian ancestors, but in terms of their social concepts and mode of action, they are mostly more barbarous than those. Such properties make it understandable for us the admonitions with which the chroniclers of that time addressed the appanage princes, persuading them not to be captivated by the vain glory of this world, not to take away someone else's, not to be cunning with each other, not to offend younger relatives.

These were the main consequences of the specific order. They can be summarized in the following short formula: under the influence of the specific order, northern Russia was politically fragmented ever smaller, losing the former weak ties of political unity; as a result of this fragmentation, the princes became poorer and poorer; becoming poorer, they locked themselves in their estates, alienated from each other; being alienated, they turned, in their notions and interests, into private farmers, lost their importance as guardians of the common good, and with this loss the zemstvo consciousness fell into them. All these consequences were of great importance in the further political history of northern Russia: they prepared favorable conditions for its political unification. When one strong owner rose from among the impoverished and crumbling appanage princes, he, firstly, did not meet with amicable opposition to his unifying aspirations from the appanage neighbors, fought with them one-on-one, taking advantage of their mutual alienation, the habit of acting together; secondly, this unifier-prince also met in the local appanage societies complete indifference to their crumbling and feral rulers, with whom they were tied with such weak threads, and, removing them one by one, did not cause a friendly uprising in these societies in favor of the appanage princes. All this determines the importance of the specific order in our political history: with its consequences, it facilitated its own destruction. Old Kievan Rus did not arrange a lasting political unity, but established strong ties of the zemstvo unity. In appanage Russia these ties were strengthened; local features mixed by colonization merged into a dense Great Russian tribe; but the political unity was finally destroyed. But the specific order, which destroyed this unity, by its nature was much less capable of defending itself than the next order that preceded it, and it was easier to destroy it in order to restore state unity on its ruins. Therefore, the specific order became a transitional political form, through which the Russian land from national unity passed to political unity. The history of this transition is the history of one of the appanage principalities - Moscow. We now turn to the study of the fate of this principality.