Boyar patrimony is the ancestral land tenure of feudal lords. Votchina is a form of land ownership. What was included in the concept of votchina

Boyar patrimony is a medieval type of Russian feudal land ownership with full private property rights. The property of the boyar was: land, buildings and equipment. The landowner also had rights over dependent peasants.

The term “votchina” - as inherited property from the father, in the 10th – 12th centuries had three varieties:

1. The princely estate, it appeared in the 10th century, was inherited by seniority and was not divided.
2. Boyar estate - first mentioned in chronicles in the 11th century.
3. The monastic estate arose almost simultaneously with the boyar estate.

The patrimonial boyar had extensive rights to manage his patrimonial property. He could:

• transfer the estate by inheritance (assign it to the monastery);
• carry out exchange operations with your estate;
• make the purchase and sale of estates.

In return, he had to serve the prince. In the period of the XIII - XV centuries, the boyar estate was the dominant form of land ownership in Rus'. The patrimonial farm of the boyar, who often lived in the capital, near his prince, was a whole economic complex:

1. Villages inhabited by slaves and dependent peasants.
2. Arable lands and hay meadows.
3. Fishing.
4. Side scaffolding.
5. Gardens and vegetable gardens.
6. Hunting grounds, etc.

The center of the estate was occupied by a boyar's courtyard with residential mansions and economic services (storerooms, barns, cellars, medushas, ​​cookhouses, barnyards, forges, threshing floor, threshing floor, etc.). Around the central estate settled: firemen, servants and artisans.

Often, the boyar estate consisted of several possessions. They were scattered over a great distance and did not have close economic ties with each other. During the times of feudal fragmentation, patrimonial owners had the right to create courts and even build feudal relations in their possessions. Several nobles (children of boyars) could be subordinate to the ruling boyars. Under the conditions of compulsory service, they received from the master land holdings with peasants.

But in the second half of the 14th century, the grand ducal power strengthened significantly with the beginning of the process of centralization in North-Eastern Rus'. The state-political restrictions of Ivan III and Ivan IV primarily affected the princely estates. It was forbidden to sell them, exchange them, or give them as a dowry. Only sons could inherit the estate, and if there were none, as well as a will, then the princely estate went to the treasury.

Boyar estates were also infringed upon in their rights, but mainly out of the need to stimulate greater interest in the state and military service of the owners. By the 15th century, the origin of most fiefdoms was determined by compulsory service. This made boyar estates the main form of land ownership at that time. But then the state began to widely introduce the local system of land ownership, as opposed to the boyar estate.

Until the beginning of the 18th century, the process of restrictions on the disposal of boyar estates proceeded simultaneously with a counter movement - the expansion of the legal framework for estates. Step by step, the owners of the boyar estates pledged to perform official duties on an equal basis with the noble landowners. The final merger of patrimony and estate into one type - “estate”, occurred under Peter I.

VOTCHINA, a type of feudal land ownership. It arose in the Old Russian state in the 10th-11th centuries as a hereditary clan (later family) or corporate ownership (“otchina”). The owners of the estate were princes, boyars, and the church. The formation of Russian principalities and lands from the middle of the 11th century led to the fact that the inviolability of fiefdoms was confirmed by the Lyubech Congress of 1097. In the 13-15 centuries, patrimony was the main type of land ownership, replenished in the process of developing new territories, as well as through the seizure of communal black lands, grants, purchases, etc. The formation of the system of patrimonial land ownership in the Novgorod Republic was completed by the middle of the 14th century. From the end of the 14th century, the number of monastic estates in North-Eastern Rus' began to increase. In the 2nd half of the 15th century, a significant part of this territory was also covered by princely and boyar estates. Within the framework of patrimonial land ownership, there was no right of primogeniture. Most of the inherited lands were mortgaged, divided among numerous heirs, or sold and given to monasteries for posthumous commemoration. Votchinniki had a number of privileges (judicial, financial, etc.). In the 15th-17th centuries, along with the estate, there was an estate as a conditional form of land ownership. At the end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century, many large landowners of the Novgorod and Pskov republics and the Grand Duchy of Tver were deprived of their estates by the Grand Dukes of Moscow. At the same time, the estates of large monasteries grew (Trinity-Sergius, Joseph-Volotsky, Kirillo-Belozersky, etc.). There were ancestral (“ancient”), purchased, and, from the 1610s, also venerable estates. Many patrimonial owners lost their estates during the oprichnina period, sold or mortgaged their estates, wanting to avoid their confiscation by the state. In the 1580s, monasteries were prohibited from purchasing or receiving fiefdoms in the form of contributions from private individuals. In the 17th century, patrimonial land ownership began to grow again. The distinction between an estate and a fiefdom gradually became blurred in the 17th century. At the end of the 17th century, patrimonial land ownership significantly exceeded local land ownership. Decree of Tsar Peter I dated 23.3 (3.4). 1714 on single inheritance legally formalized the final merger of patrimony and estate. Most of the monastic and church estates were liquidated during the secularization of 1764. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term “votchina” was used in relation to any hereditary land property, while the legal distinction between the patrimony and the acquired one was maintained.

Lit.: Sergeevich V.I. Lectures and studies on the ancient history of Russian law. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg, 1903; Veselovsky S. B. Feudal land tenure in North-Eastern Rus'. M.; L., 1947. T. 1; Grekov B.D. Peasants in Rus'. 2nd ed. M., 1952-1954. Book 1-2; Cherepnin L.V. Formation of the Russian centralized state in the XIV-XV centuries. M., 1960; Ivina L. I. Large patrimony of North-Eastern Rus' at the end of the 14th - 1st half of the 16th century. L., 1979; Yanin V.L. Novgorod feudal estate: (Historical and genealogical research). M., 1981; Kobrin V. B. Power and property in medieval Russia (XV-XVI centuries). M., 1985; Shvatchenko O. A. Secular feudal estates of Russia in the 1st third of the 17th century. M., 1990; aka. Secular feudal estates in Russia in the 2nd half of the 17th century. M., 1996; aka. Secular feudal estates of Russia in the era of Peter I. M., 2002; Cherkasova M. S. Land ownership of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in the 16th-17th centuries. M., 1996; she is the same. Large feudal estate in Russia at the end of the 16th-17th centuries. (according to the archives of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra). M., 2004; Milov L.V. Great Russian plowman and features of the Russian historical process. 2nd ed. M., 2006.

Patrimony is the most important phenomenon that existed in medieval Western Europe and Rus'. This was the name given to land along with outbuildings and other property, as well as dependent peasants. This word has the same root as in the words “father”, “fatherland”, which indicates to us that the patrimony was inherited and was the property of the family.

The patrimony appeared in Ancient Rus', when the power of princes and boyars was formed. The princes distributed land to members of their squads and other representatives of the nobility. As a rule, it was a reward for service or some outstanding achievement. There was another category of landowners - the highest church hierarchs and monasteries.

The estate was transferred to the owner and his family for complete undivided ownership, without any conditions. It could be inherited, donated, or sold. In his patrimony, the owner was the rightful owner. He not only used the results of the peasants’ activities, that is, he ensured his existence. Within the boundaries of the property, the patrimonial owner held court, resolved disputes, etc.

Patrimony in Ancient Rus'

The institution of hereditary land ownership played a huge role in the formation of medieval states, including Ancient Rus'. In those days, land was the main means of production. Whoever owned the land could influence all areas of society. Thanks to the activities of the ruling nobility, law, legal proceedings, economics, church and state foundations were formed.

During the period of feudal fragmentation, the main owners of estates were boyars and princes. Free peasants also owned land, but only in the form of communal ownership. Gradually, the situation in the state changed: Rus' freed itself from the Mongol conquest, processes began to collect lands and centralize power in the hands of the Moscow grand dukes. In such a difficult situation, the princes were forced to limit the rights and liberties of the boyars.


The old nobility was gradually replaced by nobles - people who received their privileges for their service and enjoyed them only as long as they served. This is how a new form of land ownership emerged - estates.

Votchina and estate - what is the difference

The most important difference between estates and estates is their conditional and impersonal nature. It happened like this: the Moscow princes needed to wage wars, pacify unruly areas and protect their borders. There was a need for a large number of service people. To provide for servicemen and their families, they were allocated estates - land with peasants.

Initially, the nobleman owned the estate only during the period of his service and could not pass it on by inheritance. The estate remained state property - it was given to the servant for use and alienated at the end of his service.

Subsequently, two parallel processes occurred. The Grand Dukes (who, starting with Ivan the Terrible, began to be called Russian Tsars) increasingly actively reduced the rights of the boyars. Restrictions were placed on the ownership of estates, and estates were simply taken away from some undesirable boyar clans. In addition, the boyars were forced to serve without fail. A significant part of the service people were recruited from boyar children, who from now on could not enjoy the privileges of their fathers without bringing benefit to the country.

At the same time, the estates became inherited property. Thus, the powers that be stimulated the nobles to devoted service. Essentially, by the beginning of the 18th century, the patrimony and the estate became one and the same. This issue was finally resolved by Peter the Great, who issued a decree on unified inheritance. All lands that were previously called estates or estates, from that moment on, began to be called estates.


This has had far-reaching consequences in the history of our state. A class of landowners was formed who owned vast lands and as inheritable property. Subsequently, the nobles received “freedom”: their obligation to serve was abolished, but the estates, along with the peasants, remained. The system of “land in exchange for service to the Fatherland” lost its force, which led to subsequent social upheavals.

ENE material

Patrimony

The term of ancient Russian civil law to designate land property with full private ownership rights to it. 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 patrimony 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 judicial power 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. We get this concept of the patrimonial owner of ancient Rus' from letters of grant for patrimonies, of which quite a lot have come to us in the 16th century. These charters do not depict a new order of 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 changes in the political system and regional administration (the 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 the hardships of military service, while 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 the equal obligation of military service from both the estate and the patrimonial land is 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 this right, the buyer of the ancestral patrimony, within a certain time and at a certain price, could be forced to sell it back to the clan 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 general type of grant was established, which, however, did not exclude the possibility of the appearance of grants 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

Votchina is a form of ancient Russian land ownership that appeared in the 10th century on the territory of Kievan Rus. It was during that period that the first feudal lords appeared, who owned large areas of land. The original patrimonial owners were boyars and princes, that is, large landowners. From the 10th century until the 12th century, the estate was the main form of land ownership.

The term itself comes from the Old Russian word “fatherland,” that is, what was passed on to the son from the father. It could also be property received from a grandfather or great-grandfather. Princes or boyars received the estate by inheritance from their fathers. There were three ways to acquire land: redemption, gift for service, family inheritance. Rich landowners managed several estates at the same time; they increased their property through the redemption or exchange of land, and the seizure of communal peasant lands.

A votchina is the property of a specific person; he could exchange, sell, rent out or divide the land, but only with the consent of relatives. If one of the family members opposed such a transaction, the patrimonial owner could not exchange or sell his plot. For this reason, patrimonial land ownership cannot be called unconditional property. Large plots of land were owned not only by boyars and princes, but also by the highest clergy, large monasteries, and members of squads. After the creation of church-patrimonial land ownership, that is, bishops, metropolitans, etc. appeared.

A votchina is buildings, arable land, forests, equipment, as well as peasants living on the territory of the patrimony's land ownership. At that time, peasants were not serfs; they could freely move from the lands of one patrimonial land to the territory of another. But still, landowners had certain privileges, especially in the sphere of legal proceedings. They formed an administrative and economic apparatus to organize the daily life of peasants. Land owners had the right to collect taxes and had judicial and administrative power over the people living on their territory.

In the 15th century, the concept of an estate appeared. This term implies a large feudal estate donated by the state to the military or If the estate is a fief and no one had the right to take it, then the estate was confiscated from the owner upon termination of service or due to the fact that it had an unkempt appearance. Most of the estates were occupied by lands cultivated

At the end of the 16th century, a law was passed according to which the estate could be inherited, but on the condition that the heir would continue to serve the state. It was forbidden to carry out any manipulations with the donated lands, but landowners, like patrimonial owners, had the right to the peasants, from whom they collected taxes.

In the 18th century, patrimony and estate were equalized. This is how a new type of property was created - estate. In conclusion, it is worth noting that the patrimony is earlier than the estate. They both imply ownership of land and peasants, but the estate was considered personal property with the right of pledge, exchange, sale, and the estate was considered state property with a ban on any manipulation. Both forms ceased to exist in the 18th century.