The boyar patrimony is the ancestral land tenure of the feudal lords. An estate is a form of land ownership What was included in the concept of an estate

The boyar estate is a medieval variety of Russian feudal land ownership with full private property rights. The property of the boyar was: land, buildings and inventory. The landowner also had rights to dependent peasants.

The term "patrimony" - as hereditary property from the father, in the X - XII centuries had three varieties:

1. The princely patrimony, it appeared in the 10th century, was inherited by seniority and was not divided.
2. Boyar estate - first mentioned in the annals of the XI century.
3. The monastic patrimony - arose almost simultaneously with the boyars.

The boyar-patrimony had extensive rights of the manager of his patrimonial property. He could:

• transfer the estate by inheritance (unsubscribe to the monastery);
• perform exchange operations with his fiefdom;
• to buy and sell estates.

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

1. Villages inhabited by serfs and dependent peasants.
2. Arable land and hay meadows.
3. Fishing.
4. Side woods.
5. Orchards and orchards.
6. Hunting grounds, etc.

The center of the patrimony was occupied by a boyar court with residential mansions and household services (pantries, barns, cellars, honeydews, cooks, barnyards, forges, a threshing floor, a current, etc.). Around the central estate settled: firemen, servants and artisans.

Often, the boyar patrimony consisted of several possessions. They were scattered at a great distance and did not have a close economic connection with each other. In times of feudal fragmentation, the votchinniki had the right to hold court and even build fief relations in their domains. Several nobles (children of boyars) could obey the sovereign boyars. On the terms of compulsory service, they received from the master land holdings with peasants.

But in the second half of the 14th century, the grand duke's power increased significantly with the beginning of the process of centralization in North-Eastern Russia. The state-political restrictions of Ivan III and Ivan IV primarily affected the princely estates. It was forbidden to sell them, change them, give them as a dowry. Only sons could inherit the patrimony, and if there were none, like wills, then the princely patrimony went to the treasury.

The boyar estates were also infringed on their rights, but mainly from the need to induce a greater interest in the state and military service of the owners. By the 15th century, the origin of most estates was due to compulsory service. This made the boyar estates the main form of land ownership at that time. But at the same time, the state began to widely introduce the local system of land ownership, as opposed to the boyar patrimony.

Until the beginning of the 18th century, the process of limiting the order of disposal of the boyar estates went simultaneously with the oncoming movement - the expansion of the legal framework for estates. Step by step, the owners of the boyar estates were obliged to perform official duties on a par with the noble landowners. The final merger of the patrimony and the estate into one type - the "estate", occurred under Peter I.

patrimony, a type of feudal land ownership. It arose in the Old Russian state in the 10th-11th centuries as a hereditary tribal (later and family) or corporate property (“fatherland”). The owners of the patrimony were princes, boyars, the church. The formation of Russian principalities and lands from the middle of the 11th century led to the fact that the inviolability of the estates-princes was confirmed by the Lubech Congress of 1097. In the 13th-15th centuries, the patrimony was the main type of land tenure, replenished in the process of developing new territories, as well as due to the seizure of communal black lands, grants, purchases, etc. The formation of the system of patrimonial land tenure in the Novgorod Republic was completed by the middle of the 14th century. From the end of the 14th century, an increase in the number of monastic estates in North-Eastern Russia began. 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 tenure, there was no right of primacy. 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, the Grand Duchy of Tver were deprived of their estates by the Grand Dukes of Moscow. At the same time, the patrimonies of large monasteries grew (Trinity-Sergius, Joseph-Volotsky, Kirillo-Belozersky, etc.). There were patrimonial (“ancient”), purchased, and from the 1610s also served estates. Many estate owners lost their possessions during the period of the oprichnina, sold or mortgaged their estates, wanting to avoid their confiscation by the state. In the 1580s, monasteries were prohibited from buying or receiving fiefdoms from private individuals. In the 17th century, patrimonial land ownership began to grow again. The distinction between manor and patrimony gradually blurred in the 17th century. At the end of the 17th century, patrimonial land ownership significantly exceeded the estate. Decree of Tsar Peter I dated 23.3 (3.4). 1714 on the uniform inheritance legally formalized the final merger of the estate and the estate. Most of the monastic and church estates were liquidated during the secularization of 1764. In the 18-19 centuries, the term "patrimony" was used in relation to any hereditary land property, while maintaining the legal difference between the ancestral and acquired patrimony.

Lit .: Sergeevich V. I. Lectures and research on the ancient history of Russian law. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg, 1903; Veselovsky S. B. Feudal land tenure in North-Eastern Russia. M.; L., 1947. T. 1; Grekov B.D. Peasants in Russia. 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. A large estate of North-Eastern Russia at the end of the 14th - 1st half of the 16th century. L., 1979; Yanin VL Novgorod feudal patrimony: (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; he is. Secular feudal estates in Russia in the second half of the 17th century. M., 1996; he is. 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 XVI-XVII centuries. M., 1996; she is. A large feudal patrimony in Russia at the end of the 16th-17th centuries. (according to the archive of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra). M., 2004; Milov L.V. Great Russian plowman and features of the Russian historical process. 2nd ed. M., 2006.

Votchina is the most important phenomenon that existed in medieval Western Europe and in Russia. This was the name of 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, was the property of the family.

Votchina appeared in Ancient Russia, when the power of princes and boyars was formed. The princes distributed lands to members of their squads and other representatives of the nobility. As a rule, it was an award for service or some kind of outstanding service. There was another category of landowners - the highest church hierarchs and monasteries.

The patrimony was transferred to the owner and his family in full undivided possession, without any conditions whatsoever. It could be inherited, donated, sold. In his fiefdom, the owner was a full owner. He not only enjoyed the results of the activities of the peasants, that is, ensured his existence. Within the boundaries of the estate, the votchinnik repaired the court, resolved disputes, and so on.

Votchina in Ancient Russia

The institution of hereditary landownership played a huge role in the formation of medieval states, including Ancient Russia. In those days, land was the main means of production. The one who owned the land could influence all spheres of society. Thanks to the activities of the ruling nobility, law, legal proceedings, the economy, 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 property. Gradually, the situation in the state changed: Russia was freed from the Mongol conquest, the processes of collecting land and centralizing power in the hands of the Moscow Grand Dukes began. In such a difficult situation, the princes were forced to limit the rights and freedoms of the boyars.


The nobles gradually began to replace the old nobility - people who received their privileges for service and used them only as long as they served. This is how a new form of land ownership appeared - estates.

Estate and estate - what's the difference

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

Initially, the nobleman owned the estate only during 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 with the end of the service.

Subsequently, two parallel processes took place. The Grand Dukes (who, starting with Ivan the Terrible, began to be called Russian Tsars) increasingly actively curtailed the rights of the boyars. Restrictions were imposed on the possession of estates, and the estates were simply taken away from some objectionable 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 benefiting the country.

At the same time, estates became inherited property. So those in power stimulated the nobles to devoted service. In essence, by the beginning of the 18th century, the estate and the estate became one and the same. This issue was finally resolved by Peter the Great, who issued a decree on single inheritance. All lands that were previously called estates or estates from that moment 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 inherited property rights. In the future, the nobles received "freedom": their duty to serve was canceled, and the estates, along with the peasants, remained. The system "land in exchange for service to the Fatherland" was no longer valid, which led to subsequent social upheavals.

Material from ENE

Votchina

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

“Oleg commanded to light the city of Suzhdal, only the courtyard of the monastery of the Pechersk monastery and the church remained, even there is St. Dmitry, Ephraim gave south and from the village».

Patronage land tenure is the oldest form, in comparison with local land tenure. The scope of the rights of the most ancient patrimony seems to be extremely extensive; in his fiefdom, he was almost the same as the prince was in his reign - he was not only the owner of the land, but also the person who had administrative and judicial power over the population living on his land; such an estate was itself under the jurisdiction of the prince alone. However, the (peasant) population living on his land was by no means serfs, but completely free, having the right to move from the land of one patrimony to the land of another. We get such a concept of the patrimony of ancient Russia from letters of grant for patrimonies, of which enough have come down to us during the 16th century. These letters do not draw a new order of things, but serve as an echo of antiquity, which begins to disappear in the Moscow Grand Duchy, where the indicated scope of patrimonial rights is significantly narrowed and the right to land ownership is accompanied by the judicial and administrative power of the patrimony only as exception, and even then with the removal of murder, robbery and red-handed tatba; they are new only in the sense that the usual order is reduced to the level of exception. This is the first major change that patrimonial law has suffered - a change that chronologically coincided to a certain extent with changes in the political system and regional administration (the replacement of the patrimonial court by the feeder's court). The second change that old Russian patrimonial law had to experience coincides with the intensified development of landownership, which has taken rapid steps forward, especially since the time of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. If the beginning of patrimonial landownership, not without reason, coincides with the retinue (military service) element, then there is no difficulty in outlining the emergence of an estate among a non-military service element, among a semi-free class of so-called servants “under the courtier”, to whom the princes on certain conditions (payment of dues in kind and in-kind duties) gave land in conditional, temporary and personal possession. The first trace of such a dacha of land is usually sought in the spiritual writing of the Moscow Grand Duke Ivan Kalita (beginning of the 14th century), which, indeed, seems to allude to the estate (without using, however, the term itself), when it speaks of the Rostov village of Bogoroditsky, given to which something to Boris Vorkov. For the first time we meet the term "estate" in Russian acts in one document written between 1466-1478 (in Lithuanian-Russian acts - a little earlier). When the old writers on the history of Russian law attributed the emergence of the estate to the time of Ivan III, they were only half wrong: the estate arose much earlier than Ivan III, but, as a service estate (in the military service class), it arises only in the second half of the 15th century and develops under influenced by a number of political and financial reasons. Since the middle of the 16th century, the class of landlords has been growing 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 the estate, and on the other hand, the population is given the opportunity, by paying double taxes to the government, to buy off feeders, who in such cases were replaced by elected zemstvo authorities. The old writers vaguely felt some connection between the estate and the feeding, when they made a major legal mistake, mixing both of them: 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 XV century. two forms of service landownership stand side by side: patrimonial and local; in the second half of the 16th century, the interaction of both forms is already noticeable. The transformation of the Moscow Grand Duchy into the Moscow Tsardom, the dissolution of the feeder into the landowner and his replacement by elected Zemstvo power, and the rapid development of the local system are noticeably reflected in the patrimonial law. It is in Moscow that the concept of service land 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 would not go out of service." Here, the word "land" equally means both the estate and V.; in the Moscow kingdom, the same obligatory service, as well as from the estate, is a major step that V. was forced to take towards the estate. The government is undertaking a reshuffling of land ownership, for 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 (c) fatherlands in the services." Here, not only the same duty of military service both from the estate and from the patrimony is emphasized, but, apparently, a hint is expressed at the desirability, in the interests of service, of a certain correlation in the possession of one person of the estate and patrimonial land. The mere possibility of holding estates and patrimonies in the same hands, combined with compulsory service from both, gave rise to an actual and, perhaps, theoretical rapprochement between them; even a system of awards was established from the estate to the patrimony, equally applicable to those who served on the Moscow list, and to those who served from the cities. Leaving aside the details of the question of the rapprochement of the estate and the estate, which ended with a decree on March 23, according to which "from now on ... both estates and estates will be called equally one real estate estate", it is necessary to point out the main types of estate land tenure; there are three of them: 1) the actual "patrimony" (generic, ancient); 2) "purchase"; 3) "salary" (state tribute). The essential difference between these three types lies in the rights of disposal. The rights to dispose of tribal estates were limited by both the state and the estates (the restrictions imposed by the state on princely estates were especially strong). The state tried to convert V. between persons of the same region and one service class and carried out a ban on giving votchinas to the monastery to their liking. Votchichi enjoyed the rights of tribal redemption and tribal inheritance. Some writers on the history of Russian law (see, for example, the course of M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov) outline an era when votchinniks did not at all have the right to alienate, with a reward, votchinas without the consent of the patrimonials. K. A. Nevolin quite soundly spoke out against such a view, recognizing the right of ancestral redemption as an institution that had grown on state soil (although, let us add, it was not at all in the exclusive interests of maintaining noble families). According to this law, the buyer of the ancestral patrimony, within a certain period and at a certain price, could be forced to sell it back to the gens at the request of one of the estates. The terms of the patrimonial ransom, known from acts from the 16th century, were subject to various modifications. We 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, defining the redemption at the price of the merchants, in practice sometimes leading to the impossibility of the redemption itself, since the price of the estate in the bill of sale could be indicated too high compared to the actual the value of the estate. With regard to the ancestral inheritance of estates, the legislation has developed this issue very carefully (see Inheritance Law). The most extensive amount of disposal rights belongs to the owners of the "baptismal font". Purchase - real estate acquired by purchase from aliens. Historians of Russian law unanimously admit that the purchased estates were not at first subject to the right of tribal redemption. From the conciliar verdict of the city, it is clear that the purchased V., which was not subject to redemption from private individuals, from that moment, along with the ancestral one, became subject to redemption from the monasteries; and in letters of grant for estates from the city we find an expression that makes us assume the existence of a ransom of purchased estates. Here is this curious expression: “but if he sells (the patrimony) to someone else’s family, and whoever wants to redeem that patrimony, and he will redeem according to the previous code, as their family and purchased estates are redeemed. In general, estates bought from the treasury should be distinguished from purchased estates from private individuals. As for the granted estates, the rights to dispose of them are subject to the conditions set forth in the grant letters, and are not stable: one can note, however, the process of approaching them to the tribal estates. Initially, letters of commendation did not have one specific pattern; in the 17th century, one general type of letters of commendation was established, which, however, did not exclude the possibility of the appearance of letters of commendation of an extraordinary nature. For the seventeenth century it is possible to note four samples of letters of commendation, successively replacing each other: 1) the time of the kings Basil and Michael before the city; 2) from year to year; 3) from yr to yr; 4) before

Votchina is a form of ancient Russian land ownership that appeared in the 10th century on the territory of Kievan Rus. Just at that time, the first feudal lords appeared, who owned large areas of land. The original estate owners were boyars and princes, that is, large landowners. Starting from the 10th and up to the 12th century, the patrimony was the main form of land ownership.

The term itself comes from the old Russian word "fatherland", that is, what passed to the son from the father. It could also be property received from a grandfather or great-grandfather. Princes or boyars received patrimony by inheritance from their fathers. There were three ways of acquiring land: redemption, gift for service, and ancestral inheritance. Wealthy landowners managed several estates at the same time, they increased their property by buying out or exchanging lands, seizing communal peasant lands.

An estate is the property of a particular person, he could exchange, sell, rent or divide the land, but only with the consent of relatives. In the event that one of the family members opposed such a transaction, the votchinnik could not exchange or sell his allotment. For this reason, patrimonial land tenure cannot be called unconditional property. Large land plots were owned not only by boyars and princes, but also by the higher clergy, large monasteries, and members of squads. After the creation of church-patrimonial land tenure, that is, bishops, metropolitans, etc. appeared.

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

In the 15th century, such a thing as an estate appeared. This term implies a large feudal estate donated by the state to the military or if the patrimony is and no one had the right to take it, then the estate was confiscated from the owner upon termination of service or because it had a 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 make any manipulations with the donated lands, but the landlords, like the estate owners, had the right to the peasants, from whom they levied taxes.

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