Local and patrimonial land ownership. Votchina is a form of land ownership Formation of votchina as a special form of land ownership

The dominant form of land ownership in the 16th-17th centuries became the estate (derived from the word<отчина>, i.e. paternal property), which could be inherited, exchanged, or sold. The estates are owned by princes, boyars, members of squads, monasteries, and the highest clergy.

Patrimonial land ownership arose during the period of appanage principalities. Patrimony is a piece of land that the owner could dispose of with the right of full ownership (sell, donate, bequeath). The owners of the estates were obliged to provide armed soldiers to the state army. Based on the Council Code of 1649, three types of estates were distinguished: hereditary (ancestral); meritorious - received from the prince for certain merits; purchased - acquired for money from other feudal lords.

Analysis of Art. 3 of “Russian Pravda”, in which “lyudin” was contrasted with “prince husband”, shows that in Ancient Rus' there was a differentiation of society into feudal lords and non-feudal lords, since by the term “people” “Pravda” meant all free persons, mainly communal peasants, who made up the bulk of the population.

The feudal system of Russia grew out of the primitive communal system, as well as from elements of patriarchal slavery - initial form slavery, in which slaves entered the family that owned them as its powerless members who performed the most difficult work. This circumstance left its mark on the process of formation of the feudal system and its further development.

Initially, all private landholdings were subject to enhanced protection. For example, in Art. 34 of the “Russian Pravda” Brief edition established a high fine for damage to a boundary sign, which indicated the concern of the Old Russian state to ensure sustainability land relations.

Then the “best men” are identified - the owners of feudal estates. Since large landownership, which made it possible to use more efficient land tenure, becomes leading, the ruined and impoverished peasants come under its protection. They became dependent on large landowners.

The Old Russian state provided legal status representatives of the feudal class, since they were a more reliable support than community members and free people. So, in Art. 19-28, 33 of the “Russian Pravda” Brief edition was determined special order protection of both feudal landholdings and the servants who worked for them (elders, firemen, etc.).

At the same time, relations between the feudal part of the population and the non-feudal part of the population developed and improved with the strengthening of feudal domination. For example, persons who fell into debt bondage to a feudal lord became purchasers, i.e. obligated by their work on the feudal lord’s farm to return the “kupa” (debt) received from him, for which they were provided with land and means of production. If the purchaser escaped, then he turned into a complete (“whitewashed”) serf (Articles 56-64, 66 of the “Russian Truth”, Long Edition).

The establishment of feudal dependence of the rural population was a long process, but even after its formation, feudalism underwent certain changes characteristic of Russia.

Analysis of this historical material gives reason to believe the following features: legal regulation land relations in Ancient and Medieval Rus'.

IN Kievan Rus feudal relations developed unevenly. For example, in the Kyiv, Galician, and Chernigov lands this process was faster than among the Vyatichi and Dregovichi.

In the Novgorod feudal republic, the development of large feudal land ownership occurred faster than in the rest of Rus', and the growth of the power of the Novgorod feudal lords was facilitated by the brutal exploitation of the conquered population living in the vast Novgorod colonial possessions.

Feudal land ownership gave rise in the Middle Ages to the interconnection of feudal lords through a system of vassal relations such as vassalage-suzerainty. There was a personal dependence of some vassals on others, and the Grand Duke relied on lesser princes and boyars; they sought his protection during frequent military skirmishes.

The high authority of religion in the ancient and middle ages gave rise to the land domination of the church, which received significant land from the state and feudal lords. For example, it was traditional for feudal lords to donate part of the land to the church and monasteries, pledged for the eternal remembrance of the soul; donating lands to them for the construction of temples, monasteries and other needs. There were also cases of land occupation in violation of land rights other persons. Thus, in 1678, the monks of the Trifonov Monastery (now the city of Vyatka) received a complaint from the peasants, whose hayfields and fishing ponds were forcibly taken away. Tinsky A. Repository of history // Kirovskaya Pravda. 1984.

The development of feudal relations was facilitated by such circumstances as the almost two-century domination of the Old Russian state by the Golden Horde. Systematic payment of tribute was required, but in the routine state of feudal technology, the efficiency of agriculture could only be achieved through open violence against the personality of the peasant. These two circumstances, with the strengthening of feudal tendencies, contributed to the long and lasting dominance of peasant law in Russia, until 1861.

The emergence, formation and strengthening of feudal relations in Old Russian state had progressive significance at a certain stage of its development, since it helped to form and strengthen regional (princely) formations, the centralized unification of which made it possible to create a powerful Russian state.

At the same time, feudal fragmentation was a brake economic development regions, since it restrained the exchange between them (commodity, information, etc.). This had a negative impact on the development of agriculture, Agriculture, crafts, culture and other areas of public life.

Since the upper strata of the feudal lords represented the main opposition to the power of the sovereign, by the end of the 15th century. There was a pronounced tendency towards limiting their privileges and the formation of a new class - landowners-nobles.

Landowners-nobles were given land under the condition of serving the sovereign, and the first large-scale mass transfer of land to Moscow service people occurred at the end of the 15th century. after the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow (1478) - Ivan III granted them confiscated Novgorod lands, and in the 16th century. Landownership became an important form of economic management.

The distribution of land to the noble army intensified the exploitation of the peasantry, which encouraged the peasants to go in search of places where feudal oppression was not so severe. The rise of the migration wave has created a need to limit such movements. Restrictive measures were carried out first through the conclusion of inter-princely agreements, and then legal intervention was applied: a ban was established on the transfer of peasants from princely lands to private lands; the right of a peasant to move only once a year - on St. George’s Day (November 26) and for a week after it; the obligation to pay a high fee for leaving the feudal lord, etc.

The distribution of lands to the noble army preserved the feudal system, but it could not be stopped, since there were no other sources of strengthening the army.

In 1565, Ivan the Terrible divided the lands of the state into zemstvo (ordinary) and oprichnina (special), including in the latter the lands of the opposition princely-boyar aristocracy. Some of the small princes and boyars died during the oprichnina years, others received new lands in the neo-oprichnina districts from the hands of the tsar as a grant under the condition of fidelity and service. As a result, not only was a blow dealt to the old feudal nobility, but it was also undermined economic basis, since the distributed lands went to the serving people.

At the beginning of the 16th century. an attempt was made to limit the growth of church-monastic land ownership, which occupied up to 1/3 of all feudal estates in the country. In some areas (for example, Vladimir, Tver) the clergy owned more than half of all lands.

Since this attempt was initially unsuccessful, in 1580 the Church Council made a decision prohibiting the metropolitan, bishops and monasteries from buying estates from service people, accepting lands as a mortgage and for the funeral of the soul, or increasing their land holdings in any other way.

In the second half of the 16th century. a widespread inventory of patrimonial lands was carried out, information about which was entered into scribe books, which contributed to the streamlining of financial and tax systems, as well as the official duties of feudal lords. Subsequently, the government carried out a widespread description of the land, dividing it into salary units (“plows”) depending on the quality of the land.

At the same time, the information received and documented was a circumstance that contributed to the creation of a system of serfdom in Russian agriculture; fortunately, the state found a way to get rid of St. George’s Day. Thus, from 1581, “reserved summers” began to be introduced, i.e. years when St. George's Day did not operate, and in 1649 the peasants were finally assigned to the feudal lords - serfdom was introduced.

Now let's look at local land ownership.

“Votchina” (from the word “father”) in medieval Russian documents could be called any inheritance. But more often this word was used in a specific context, and this is how it is used by medieval historians. As a legal term, the concept of patrimony was used until the 18th century, and for another century - as a conventional name.

Let everyone keep his fatherhood...

This formulation is given in the decision. It was about the inviolability of neighboring properties. Accordingly, by “patrimony” the princes meant the lands controlled by each of them at that time along with the people inhabiting them.

The word has been used in various editions of Russian Pravda before. From these documents one can understand that the patrimony is the possession of a large feudal lord (prince or boyar), which he received as an inheritance from his ancestors and which is assigned to his family.

This concept includes not only the land plot, but also the subjects living on it. The patrimonial owner has in relation to them special rights– receives payments, demands duties, carries out court proceedings.

Initially, only possessions were called patrimony Kyiv princes. That is, the concept essentially approached the “territory of the state.” Then the possessions of rich boyars and appanage princes began to be called the same. Thus, the estate was a state within a state, and the owner received the right to exercise part government functions. Among other things, he could distribute part of the lands to his servants “for feeding,” that is, as a reward for service. But such ownership did not become patrimonial - it could be passed on by inheritance, but only on the condition that the heir would suit the overlord and also serve him.

The patrimony could be obtained in other ways: received as an inheritance, as a gift, bought or conquered.

Not quite property

Most historians indicate that the estate was already the private property of the boyar in the 11th century. This is not entirely true. Possession belonged not to a person, but to a clan. It could be disposed of (up to and including sale and donation), but only with the consent of the family. The law stipulated the rights of heirs (wife, children, brothers) to patrimonial ownership. But it is true that a boyar could have several estates at a considerable distance from each other, and his possessions could be on the land of one prince, while he served under another. This differs from a feudal estate, which could also be passed on by inheritance, but only on the condition of serving in favor of the highest suzerain of the land.

Patrimonial rights reached their maximum in the era of feudal fragmentation. The strengthening of the central government almost immediately came into conflict with these rights. In the 16th century, restrictions on the rights of patrimonial property began in the Moscow state. acted even simpler - he reduced the number of patrimonial boyars, subjecting them to repression and confiscating their possessions in favor of the crown. During

In the 10th century, the first feudal lords appeared on the territory of Kievan Rus, who owned large plots of land. At the same time, the word patrimony appears in Russian documents. This is special legal form ancient Russian land tenure. Until the end of the 13th century, patrimony was the main form of land ownership.

Origin of the term

In those distant times, land could be acquired in three ways: buy, receive as a gift, or inherit from your relatives. The patrimony in Ancient Rus' is the land obtained in the third way. The word comes from the Old Russian “otchina,” which meant “father’s property.” Such land could not be transferred to uncles, brothers or cousins ​​- only inheritance in a direct line counted. Thus, votchina in Rus' is property transferred from father to son. The inheritance of grandfathers and great-grandfathers in a direct line fell under the same category.

Boyars and princes received patrimony from their ancestors. Wealthy landowners had several fiefdoms under their control and could increase their territories through redemption, exchange, or the seizure of communal peasant lands.

Legal aspects

Patrimony is the property of one specific person or organization. Community and state lands did not have patrimonial rights. Although public ownership was of little significance at that time, it provided an opportunity to live for millions of peasants who cultivated these lands without the right to them.

The owner of an estate could exchange, sell or divide a plot of land, but only with the consent of his relatives. For this reason, the owner of the estate could not be called a full owner. Later, the clergy joined the class of private landowners.

Owners of patrimonial lands had a number of privileges, especially in the field of legal proceedings. Also, patrimonial owners had the right to collect taxes and had administrative power over the people living on their lands.

What was included in the concept of patrimony

One should not think that the land passed on by inheritance was only land suitable for agriculture. The patrimony in Ancient Rus' consisted of buildings, arable land, forests, meadows, livestock, equipment, and most importantly, peasants living on the patrimony land. In those days, serfdom as such did not exist, and peasants could freely move from the land plots of one patrimonial estate to another.

Boyar estate

Along with private and church land property, there was also a boyar estate. This is land given as a reward by the king to his personal servants - the boyars. The granted land was subject to the same rights as a simple estate. The boyar estate quickly became one of the largest in Rus' - the land wealth of the boyars increased through the expansion of the state's territories, as well as through the distribution of the confiscated property of the disgraced boyars.

Feudal fiefdom

This form of land ownership, such as an estate, arose in the 13th century. The reason why the estate has lost its meaning is legal nature. As you can see, during the fragmentation of Rus', service under the prince was not connected with land ownership - a free servant could own land in one place and serve the boyar in another. Thus, the approximate position of any landowner did not in any way affect the amount of his land. Only the land paid, and only people performed the service. The feudal estate made this clear legal division so widespread that boyars and free servants, if they did not properly care for the land, lost their right to it, and the land was returned to the peasants. Gradually, patrimonial land ownership became the privilege of servicemen subordinate to the tsar himself. This is how the feudal estate was formed. This land tenure was the most common type of land ownership; state and church lands began to expand their territories much later.

The emergence of estates

In the 15th century a new form of ownership appeared land plots, which gradually changed outdated principles of land ownership, such as fiefdom. This change primarily affected landowners. From now on, their right to own and manage estates was restricted - only a narrow circle of people were allowed to inherit the land and dispose of it.

In 16th-century Muscovy, the word “votchina” practically never appears in civil correspondence. It disappeared from usage, and persons who were not in public service ceased to be called patrimonial owners. The same people who served the state had the right to a land plot called an estate. Service people were “placed” on the lands for the sake of protection or as payment for service to the state. With the end of the service period, the land returned to the royal property, and later this territory could be transferred to another person for services to the king. The heirs of the first owner had no rights to the estate land.

Two forms of land tenure

Votchina and estate are two forms of land ownership in Muscovy of the 14th-16th centuries. Both acquired and inherited lands gradually lost their differences - after all, the same responsibilities were imposed on landowners of both forms of ownership. Large landowners, who received land as a reward for service, gradually achieved the right to transfer estates by inheritance. In the minds of many land owners, the rights of patrimonial owners and service people were often intertwined; there are cases when attempts were made to transfer estate lands by inheritance. These judicial incidents led to the state becoming seriously concerned about the problem of land ownership. Legal confusion with the order of inheritance of estates and patrimony forced the tsarist authorities to adopt laws equalizing both of these types of land ownership.

Land laws of the mid-16th century

The new rules of land ownership were most fully set out in the royal decrees of 1562 and 1572. Both of these laws limited the rights of owners of princely and boyar estates. Private sales of patrimonial plots were allowed, but not more than half of them, and then only to blood relatives. This rule was already spelled out in the Code of Laws of Tsar Ivan and was supported by numerous decrees that were issued later. A patrimonial owner could bequeath part of his lands to his own wife, but only for temporary possession - “for subsistence”. The woman could not dispose of the given land. After the termination of ownership, such patrimonial land was transferred to the sovereign.

For peasants, both types of property were equally difficult - both the owners of the estate and the owners of the estates had the right to collect taxes, administer justice, and draft people into the army.

Results of the local reform

These and other restrictions stated served two main purposes:

• support “their” service names and stimulate their readiness to public service;
• prevent the transfer of “service” lands into private hands.

Thus, the local reform practically abolished the legal meaning of patrimonial land ownership. The patrimony became equal to the estate - from legal and unconditional ownership, the possession of land property turned into conditional property, directly related to the law and the desire of the royal power. The concept of “patrimony” has also transformed. This word gradually disappeared from business documents and colloquial speech.

Development of private land ownership

The estate became an artificial incentive for the development of land ownership in Muscovite Rus'. Huge territories were distributed to the sovereign's people thanks to local law. At present, it is impossible to determine the exact relationship between local and patrimonial lands - accurate statistics of land plots have not been maintained. The addition of new lands made it difficult to account for existing holdings, which at that time were owned by private individuals and the state. Votchina is an ancient legal land tenure, at that time it was significantly inferior to the local one. For example, in 1624, the Moscow district contained about 55% of all available agricultural land. This amount of land needed not only legal, but also administrative management apparatus. Typical local authority County noble assemblies became the protection of landowners.

County societies

The development of local land ownership caused the birth of district noble societies. By the 16th century, such meetings were already quite organized and acted as a significant force local government. Some political rights were also assigned to them - for example, collective petitions to the sovereign were formed, local militia were formed, petitions were written to the tsarist authorities about the needs of such societies.

Estate

In 1714, the royal decree on single inheritance was issued, according to which all landed property was subject to single rights of inheritance. The emergence of this species land ownership finally united the concepts of “estate” and “patrimony”. This is new legal education came to Russia from Western Europe, where at that time a developed land management system had long existed. New form land ownership was called "estate". From that moment on, all landed property became real estate and was subject to uniform laws.

ENE material

Patrimony

Old Russian term civil law, to designate land property with full rights private property on him. In the Moscow kingdom, V. is opposed estate, as land property with the rights of conditional, temporary and personal ownership. The term V. retains such a well-defined meaning in Russian law until the beginning of the 18th century, when Peter’s legislation, having first introduced the term “immovable estate,” confused estate and votchina under the same name “immovable estate votchina.” According to its grammatical origin, the term V. means everything inherited from father to son (“my father’s purchase is my fatherland,”) and can absorb the concepts of “grandfather” and “great-grandfather.” Losing its private law character, votchina in princely usage rises to the term of state law, when they want to designate the territory of a certain appanage or the abstract right of a prince to own some region: thus, Moscow princes and tsars call Novgorod the Great and Kyiv their patrimony. Traces of private land ownership become obvious in our country in the 12th century. and are planned, it seems, back in the 11th century. In the initial chronicle according to the Laurentian list there is the following place under 6694:

“Oleg commanded that the city of Suzhdal be lit, only the courtyard of the monastery of the Pechersky monastery and the church where St. Dmitry is there will remain, Ephraim went to the south and from the village».

Patrimonial land ownership is the oldest form, compared to local land ownership. The scope of the rights of the most ancient patrimonial owner seems extremely extensive; in his estate he was almost the same as the prince was in his reign - he was not only the owner of the land, but also a person who had administrative and judiciary over the population living on his land; such a fief himself was subject to the jurisdiction only of the prince. However, the population (peasants) living on his land was by no means serfs, but completely free, having the right to move from the land of one patrimonial land to the land of another. This concept of a patrimonial owner ancient Rus' we receive from letters of grant for estates, of which enough came to us during the 16th century. These letters are not drawn new order things, but serve as an echo of antiquity, which is beginning to disappear in the Moscow Grand Duchy, where the indicated scope of patrimonial rights is significantly narrowed and the right of ownership of land is accompanied by the judicial and administrative power of the patrimonial owner only as exception, and even then with the removal of murder, robbery and red-handed theft; they are new only in the sense that the previously usual order is reduced to the level of exception. This is the first major change that patrimonial law has undergone - a change that chronologically coincided to a certain extent with the changes political system and the regional administration (replacement of the patrimonial court with the court of the feeder). The second change that ancient Russian patrimonial law had to experience coincides with the intensified development of local land ownership, which has taken rapid steps forward, especially since the time of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. If the beginning of patrimonial land ownership, not without reason, is dated to the druzhina (military service) element, then there is no difficulty in identifying the emergence of the estate among the non-military service element, among the semi-free class of so-called servants “under the court”, to whom the princes receive certain conditions (payment of dues). in kind and in-kind duties) gave land for conditional, temporary and personal possession. The first trace of such a dacha of land is usually sought in the spiritual letter of the Moscow Grand Duke Ivan Kalita (beginning of the 14th century), which, indeed, seems to hint at an estate (without using, however, the term itself) when it speaks of the Rostov village of Bogoroditsky, given to which - to Boriska Vorkova. For the first time we encounter the term “estate” in Russian acts in one document written between 1466-1478 (in Lithuanian-Russian acts - somewhat earlier). When old writers on the history of Russian law attributed the emergence of the estate to the time of Ivan III, they were only half mistaken: the estate arose much earlier than Ivan III, but, as a service estate (in the military service class), it arose only in the second half of the 15th century and developed under influenced by a number of political and financial reasons. From the middle of the 16th century, the class of landowners grew rapidly, estate becomes a very common reward for hardship military service, meanwhile feeding little by little recedes into the background: for feeding, on the one hand, is successfully replaced by an estate, and on the other hand, the population is given the opportunity, by paying double taxes to the government, to buy off the feeders, who in such cases were replaced by elected zemstvo authorities. Old writers vaguely felt some connection between estate and feeding when they made a major legal mistake by confusing both: both the being and the object of power of the feeder and the landowner rest on completely different foundations. So, from the second half of the 15th century. two forms of service land ownership become side by side: patrimonial and local; in the second half of the 16th century, the interaction of both forms was already noticeable. The transformation of the Moscow Great Reign into the Muscovite Kingdom, the dissolution of the feeder into the landowner and his replacement by elected zemstvo authorities, and the rapid development of the local system are noticeably reflected in patrimonial rights. It is in Moscow that the concept of serving the earth and a number of government measures appear, the whole purpose of which is to ensure that “there is no loss in the service and the land does not go out of service.” Here, the word “land” equally means both estate and land; in the Muscovite kingdom the same is served from the estate mandatory service, as with the estate, is a major step that V. was forced to take towards the estate. The government is undertaking a reshuffle in the ownership of lands, because it turned out to be service people who took possession many lands and impoverished by service, “they are not against the sovereign’s salary (that is, estates) and their (in) fathers in the services.” Here, not only is the equal obligation of military service from both the estate and the patrimonial land emphasized, but also, apparently, a hint is expressed about the desirability, in the interests of the service, of a certain ratio in the ownership of the estate and patrimonial land by one person. The very possibility of holding an estate and a patrimony in the same hands, combined with compulsory service on both sides, gave rise to an actual and, perhaps, theoretical rapprochement between them; Even a system of awards from estates to votchina was established, equally applicable to those who served on the Moscow list and to those who served from the cities. Leaving aside the details of the issue of the rapprochement of the estate and votchina, which ended with a decree on March 23 of the year, according to which “from now on... both estates and votchinas are called equal to one immovable estate votchina,” it is necessary to point out the main types of patrimonial land ownership; there are three of them: 1) the “patrimony” itself (ancestral, ancient); 2) “purchase”; 3) “salary” (state tribute). The significant difference between these three types is the disposition rights. The rights to dispose of patrimonial estates were limited by both the state and the patrimonial estates (the restrictions imposed by the state were especially strong regarding princely estates). The state tried to ensure the conversion of V. between persons of the same region and the same service class and carried out a ban on giving estates to a monastery according to one's soul. Votchichi enjoyed the rights of ancestral redemption and ancestral inheritance. Some writers on the history of Russian law (see, for example, the course by M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov) outline an era when patrimonial owners did not have the right to alienate, with the receipt of compensation, patrimonies without the consent of the patrimonial owners. K. A. Nevolin quite thoroughly spoke out against such a view, recognizing the right of patrimonial redemption as an institution that grew up on the basis of the state (although, we add, not at all in the exclusive interests of maintaining noble families). According to said right the buyer of the ancestral estate, at a certain time and at a certain price, could be forced to sell it back to the family at the request of one of the patrimony. The conditions of the ancestral ransom, known from acts from the 16th century, were subject to various modifications. Let us note the fundamental change made by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: the Code abolished the redemption fee, which had recently been legalized by the act of the city, determining the redemption at the price of the deed of sale, which in practice sometimes led to the impossibility of the redemption itself, since the price of the estate in the deed of sale could be indicated too high compared with the actual the cost of the estate. As for the patrimonial inheritance of estates, the legislation has very carefully developed this issue (see Inheritance Law). The most extensive amount of disposal rights belongs to the owners of the “font”. Purchase - real estate acquired by purchase from strangers. Historians of Russian law unanimously admit that purchased estates were initially not subject to the right of patrimonial redemption. From the council’s verdict it is clear that the purchased V., which was not subject to redemption from private individuals, from that moment on, along with the ancestral one, became subject to redemption from monasteries; and in the letters of grant for estates from the city we find an expression that makes us assume the existence of a redemption of purchased estates. Here is this curious expression: “if he sells (the patrimony) to someone else’s family, and whoever wants to buy back that patrimony for their family, he will be redeemed according to the previous code, like their ancestral and purchased estates are redeemed." In general, estates purchased from the treasury should be distinguished from estates purchased from private individuals. As for the granted estates, the rights to dispose of them are subject to the conditions set out in the granted charters, and are not stable: one can note, however, the process of bringing them closer to the ancestral estates. Initially, charters granted did not have one specific model; in the 17th century one was installed general type letters of grant, which did not exclude, however, the possibility of the appearance of letters of grant of an extraordinary nature. For the 17th century. One can note four examples of letters of grant, successively replacing each other: 1) from the time of Tsars Vasily and Michael to the city; 2) from year to year; 3) from year to year; 4) up to