Led by Moscow, two centuries passed before complete enslavement. It all started with St. George’s Day in the first Code of Laws, then reserved summers, lesson years. These are links of one chain, and each must be considered in connection with the others.
St. George's day
St. George's Day is the holiday of St. Yuri at the end of November. Since the time of the first Code of Law of 1497, the transfer of peasants to another landowner was limited to the week before and the week after this day. The cycle of agricultural work ended, money was paid for the use of outbuildings, and the families of the cultivators could leave to look for lighter bread from another owner. The fact is that there was a labor shortage in Russia. The sovereign gave land for service, but there was no one to work on it. Therefore, patrimonial owners and landowners competed with each other, attracted peasants to themselves, and provided better conditions for life and work.
Reserved summers
By the end, the economic sphere was in complete ruin. The losing Livonian War and oprichnina policies undermined the country's budget, and the desolation of landowners' and patrimonial lands was observed. Under these conditions, population migration increased, peasants more often moved from place to place in search of a better life. Therefore, at the end of his reign, Ivan responded to the petitions of his service people by introducing the so-called reserved years, which preceded the lesson years. These were periods when peasants were prohibited from using the right of St. George's Day. This decision was taken as temporary, but, as they say, there is nothing more permanent than temporary.
Summer lessons
Another step that reduced the freedom of the peasants was the introduction of scheduled appearances, which were not fully determined. Preliminarily, this is the reign of the last Rurikovich, Fyodor Ivanovich, but in fact, the Tsar’s brother-in-law Boris Godunov was in charge of running the state. The decrees of that era do not use the term “scheduled summers.” The year 1597, however, is defined in most textbooks on Russian history as the date of introduction of the search period for peasants who left their owners during the forbidden summers. That is, during the period when transitions were prohibited. This was the only way for the peasants to change something in their lives. So, they ran away to another landowner without permission. The host was interested in this, so he hid the defectors. Lesson years are the period in which the owner of the peasants could appeal to the executive power with a statement about the disappearance of his people. If the peasants were found within the prescribed period (lesson), they were returned to their previous owner.
Time frame for finding peasants
The tsar's first decrees introduced a five-year period for searching peasants, then this period increased to seven, ten and fifteen years. At the beginning of the 17th century, in some areas, due to famine, reserved summers, and therefore lesson years, were canceled. This, however, did not mean that the process of enslavement was stopped; rather, it was suspended in the turbulent events of the troubled times. Under the first tsars of the Romanov dynasty, a policy was pursued of maneuvering between the interests of various layers of society, including landowners of different levels. Some demanded that the tsar reduce the period of search for fugitives, others demanded an increase. In the interests of settling the southern lands, the government even went to the extent of abolishing school years. But gradually life got better, the interests of landowners came closer together, the feudal mode of production required legalized serf relationships.
Cancellation of lesson years
During the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich there were several major riots. Popular discontent was associated with the establishment of new state and church orders and the deterioration of the standard of living of the population. As often happens, the state became stronger and richer, while the people became poorer. In 1648, the first of a series of subsequent disturbances occurred. Frightened by the uprising, the young tsar convened a Zemsky Sobor. It revealed many of the contradictions of the feudal state. And yet the result was the adoption of a new set of laws of Russia called the “Conciliar Code”. As for the peasants, they were considered the property of the feudal lords, their private property. Everyone who sheltered runaway peasants was punished. And for the fugitives themselves, any deadlines after which they could hope to receive freedom from the owner were canceled. Thus, the abolition of lesson years, recorded in 1649, meant the final registration. Now, throughout his life, everyone who left the owner risked being caught and returned to the owner, who could punish him at his discretion. This did not mean that the escapes had stopped, but the peasants were no longer fleeing to another owner, but to the south, to the Cossack lands. The state was also destined to wage a long struggle with this.
History of the introduction of lesson years (stages of enslavement of the peasantry)
On the twenty-fourth of November (fourth of December according to the current calendar), 1597, a decree of the Russian Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich was issued entitled “On Prescribed Summers,” according to which a five-year period was established for the search, as well as the return of fugitive peasants to their owners. This Decree stated that peasants who ran away from their owners “before this... year for five years” were subject to investigation, trial, and also return back to their owners. At the same time, this Decree did not apply to those who escaped six years ago or earlier.
The process of peasant enslavement in Russia was quite lengthy and took place in several separate stages. According to the Code of Law of 1497, the period for a peasant to leave and transfer to another landowner was two weeks (a week before St. George’s Day and another one after it).
Such fixation by law of a certain short transition period testified to the actual desire of the state and feudal lords to limit the rights of peasants, and also showed their inability to assign a peasant to a specific feudal lord. This norm was also contained in the new Code of Laws of 1550, but in 1581, in the conditions of the total ruin of the state and the flight of its inhabitants, Ivan the Terrible introduced the so-called “reserved summers”, which prohibited the peasants from leaving the territory that was heavily damaged by disasters. This measure was positioned at that time as temporary.
The compilers of the Decree of 1597 actually relied on scribal books when compiling it. This law established “scheduled summers.”
According to the Code of 1607, the period for searching fugitive peasants was now increased to fifteen years, but already under Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, a five-year detective period was again introduced. In the 1630s, the “lesson summer” was again increased to a nine-year period, and in the 1640s, the period of investigation for fugitive peasants was ten years for fugitive peasants, as well as a fifteen-year period of investigation for peasants who were forcibly taken away by other landowners.
It should also be noted that by 1649, an indefinite period of fugitive peasants was introduced, which actually meant the complete legalization and final formalization of the so-called serfdom in the Russian state, which brought a lot of grief to ordinary residents.
One of the most important problems solved by the Discharge on the southern borders turned out to be a problem that, it would seem, was not directly within the competence of this department - the search for fugitive serfs and slaves, as well as the investigation of cases of service people registered as serfs, but who considered themselves free.
So, on September 5, in Razryad, books of deportation of Ostrogozh residents to the regiment G.G. were received from the Ostrogozh governor I. Sas. Romodanovsky. In the accompanying letter, I. Sas informed the Discharge that the soldier K. Rezantsev was not sent to the regiment, since in 182 the former Ostrogozh governor A. Sokovnin gave him to the peasantry. V.G. Semenov demanded to interrogate A. Sokovnin, and he was taken to the Discharge. In addition to the interrogation of A. Sokovnin, extracts from the collapsible books of 183 were prepared in the Discharge, after which V.G. Semenov made a decision: to send a letter to the Ostrogozh governor I. Sas, so that he would immediately send the court case and other documents to the Discharge969. As often happened in the administrative practice of the 17th century, a particular case revealed and “pulled” a major problem, which was supposed to be resolved on a larger scale.
The problem of manning the garrisons of the southern borders has been acute for the government for a long time. The borders of the state were steadily moving south and needed to be strengthened - not only by building new fortresses and towns, but also by populating them with permanent residents who were ready to guard the new frontiers. In resolving this issue, the government as a whole made a choice in favor of the benefit of the entire state, and not its individual class groups. To keep the borders strong, it was necessary to retain the population already there and attract new ones.
Ostrogozhsk fortress. Reconstruction.
(Karishov G.A. Fortresses of Korotoyak and Ostrogozhsk in the 17th century // Voronezh region on the southern borders of Russia (XVII-XVIII centuries) Voronezh, 1981).
Until the mid-30s of the 17th century. Claims in the peasantry against service people in the homeland and in the apparatus were considered and resolved according to “letters of judgment”, which were issued to the plaintiffs in the Discharge, by the governors of Ukrainian cities and only in controversial cases were sent to Moscow. Local courts without a decree from Moscow were regarded as arbitrariness. According to the law, the voivode had to arrest a runaway peasant or slave and not hand him over to a serviceman until a decree from the Discharge. On the spot, the service person had more opportunities to influence the resolution of the case in his favor. From this time, when the construction of new cities began in the south of Russia, the previous procedure for considering and resolving cases of peasantry and serfdom could have slowed down or even nullified the government’s efforts to strengthen the southern border of the state, since a significant part of the population of the outlying towns came from precisely these categories of people. Therefore, the practice of transferring cases about the peasantry from the localities to Moscow gradually developed. Consideration of such cases in the Rank, of course, did not mean resolving them only against service people. However, in general, service people and children of the boyars of Ukrainian cities were protected by the new legislation from being “separated” into the peasantry and servitude. It is this circumstance that explains the large number of petitions from Ukrainian servicemen of lower categories about the transfer of their cases to the Rank - in this they saw a guarantee of their immunity. A.A. Novoselsky dates the approval of these laws to the end of 1649 or the beginning of 1650.970 Three years later, on March 5, 1653, the return of fugitives in the cities of the Belgorod region was generally prohibited if they fled there before the Code, that is, before 1649. The basis is in the decree was stated directly: “so as not to empty the lines.” In 1656, the date for the return of fugitives from Ukraine was pushed back even further, to 1653 (according to the old calculation, 7161).
From the second half of the 50s, under pressure from service people in the fatherland, the government’s attitude towards the peasants and slaves who fled to the south began to change in favor of their owners. however, in connection with the emergence of a new threat in the south - the expected war with Turkey, the government had to once again become concerned about strengthening human resources on the southern border. Therefore, the particular case of the soldier K. Rezantsev being given to the peasantry became a precedent for strengthening the government’s activities in this area. In the letter of I. Sasu V.G. Semenov ordered the voivode to send “that court case” and all documents related to it to the Discharge “immediately”, and the decree on this procedure for resolving the case was to be written down in the Ostrogozh administrative hut in the notebook. If new similar situations arise, litter
V.G. Semenova ordered the governors of Ukrainian cities to return people of such “unclear” origin to the service, transporting them on their own carts, and to double the losses of these people who were handed over to peasants or slaves on the governors and clerks who exiled them971. Based on the model of I. Sasu’s letter, letters were drawn up for almost all the cities of the Belgorod region. They ordered that no one from the service and from the taxation be sent to slavery or to the peasantry without the sovereign's decree and letters, and that trial for slavery and the peasantry should be given only in Moscow.
The cities of the Belgorod region were under the jurisdiction of the Moscow table of the Discharge, and all the documentation on the case of K. Rezantsev was prepared there. In order to more clearly imagine the volume of work of the desk employees and the number of cities within the Belgorod region covered by the order, we present a list of the cities where letters of trial for serfdom and peasantry over the instrumental service people of Ukrainian cities were to be passed on by relay. The painting clearly describes the scheme for sending letters and names the couriers responsible for each stage. After the letter to Ostrogozhsk, another, exemplary letter was written to one of the main cities of the Belgorod region, Kozlov, to the governor S.S. Koltovsky. Its essence was the same as in the letter of I. Sasu. The decree to S. Koltovsky was signed four days after the letter to I. Sas, but all the letters were sent at the same time: “Such as the great sovereign’s letters were sent to the Belogorodsky regiment to the cities: from the Chuguevsky grape gardeners and Fedka Sitnikovs to Mtsenesk, Oboyan, Karpov , Bolkhov, Kharkov, Chuguev; ordered to be exiled from Tula to Epifan, from Mtsensk to Novosil, from Kursk to Borovl, to Mirpol, to Krasnopolye, to Sudzha, from Belgorod to Nezhegolsky, Khotmyshsky, Volny, Korocha, Oleshnya, Yablonov. Orlova town with dragoon Konstantin Glotov in Efremov, Yelets, Voronezh, Orlov; exiled from Yelets to Donkov, Lebedyan, Chernavsky, Taletsky; from Voronezh to Korotoyak, Usmon, Sokolsky, Kostensky, Zemlyansky, Uryv, Ostrogozhsky, Olshansky, User. With Kurchenina Poluekhta Framing on Chern, Saltov. From Kozlov with the boyar children Dmitreesh Zherdevysh, Ignatiesh Kokrevysh in Kozlov, Dobroye, Belokolotskoy. With voluiskish pushkaresh Wall Potemkinysh on Livny, Stary Oskol, Novy Oskol, Verkhososenskaya, Voluyku”972.
It is difficult to name the exact date from which some of the cases on the peasantry and serfdom were transferred to the Rank Order, but in 185 the competence in this area of the Rank and other orders was already strictly delimited: if the plaintiff or defendant in the court case on enslavement were by class or are territorially subordinate to the Discharge Order, then the case was considered there. This state of affairs is clearly illustrated by a set of internal documents of the Rank Order - extracts on unresolved cases of enslavement, compiled by the clerk for himself or for presentation to the rank leadership. The extracts are separate sheets of paper headed by the name of the main person involved in the case: “Yelchenin small Oska Vasilyev”973, “Yelchenin and son of the boyar Kiprian Nichenikov”974, “Yelchenin and Luchka Stepanov son of Ochkasov”975, “Mitka Leontyev”976. The extracts concisely, but with the necessary completeness of information, set out the essence of the case and its state at the time of drawing up the extract, for example: “Yelchanin Malom Oska Vasiliev. Taken from the Inozemsky courtyard by order of the clerk from Afanasy Dekhterev, following a petition from the Yerevan resident Philip Kuzmin among the peasantry. And he, as a clerk in the Rozryad in that case, according to many memories from the Ynozemsky order, was not sent and did not put Malov on the fortress”977. As is clear from the headings of most of the extracts, one of the litigants in these court cases were residents of Yelets - a city that was known in the Discharge in all respects. Obviously, for this reason, L. Ochkasov, who considered himself a Yelets serviceman, and the okolnichy B.G. Yushkov declared his serf, was sent to the Discharge from memory from the Moscow Court Order, where the case was started. In the document dedicated to the case of M. Leontyev, it was written that this man was sent to the Discharge from the order of the Slave Court, since “the Torop resident Mitrofan Bolshev was caught for him in servitude.” Toropets, a city of the Novgorod category, was led in the Novgorod table of the Discharge order only by military service people and defensive structures, but this was sufficient grounds for transferring the case of servitude from the “profile” order of the Serf court to the Discharge.
Cases of runaway peasants and serfs fell into the Discharge not only in connection with replies from the governors of Ukrainian cities, but also through petitions from landowners and patrimonial owners with requests to issue a letter about the search for serfs who had fled from them. The Discharge either sent such letters to the governor of those places where, according to the information of the owner of the peasants, the serfs fled (and the letter could be sent either by the Discharge itself or through the Detective Order), or gave it to the petitioners themselves so that they could present it (letter with a reading) city governors or clerks.
Petitions received by the Discharge were recorded in a special petition notebook and thereby received the status of an official request; From the date of entry in the book, the countdown of time began for the decision of the case in the order. That is why some landowners, reporting to the Discharge about the flight of their serfs, limited themselves to asking that the petition be recorded in order documents. So, in the petition of R.M. Selivanov that on January 16 a slave ran away from him with all the household archives and jewelry, there is only a request to record the petition in the Discharge, which was ordered by the discharge clerk P.I. Kovelin: “Record the petition”978.
The decision on petitions to search for fugitives was made in the usual manner. If no questions arose, then the decision to send the corresponding letter to the cities indicated by the petitioner was made immediately979. For example, on the petition of the steward S.E. Almazov about the search for his peasants in Sevsk V.G. Semenov wrote down his conclusion: “On the 185th of March, on the 29th day, the sovereign granted him, ordered him to give his sovereign’s letter to Sevesk to the steward to Levonty Neplyuev and to the clerk, orders them to give him a trial against those people in the peasantry, and from the court search and the decree will be issued on the fortress, according to the Code, it will not be written in the service”980.
If it was necessary to clarify the situation, the petition was marked with instructions to make an extract, on the basis of which the final decision was made. So, according to the petition of Lebedyan Maltsev to find two of his peasants who fled to Uryv, and to give him a letter of recognition for Uryv to the clerk, an extract was made, and based on it, a decision was made to give the petitioner a letter to find his fugitive peasants981. Also, after drawing up the extract, the case of the fugitive peasants of the Rylsky St. Nicholas Monastery was resolved982. The questions that the Rank could resolve, based on its documents, related to those cases when a runaway peasant or slave declared that he was forcibly enslaved and previously belonged to another social category - service people (by service or by fatherland). Information of this kind could only be verified against category archives, for example, against city collapsible books and lists983, census dragoon books of 154 (even 31 years ago!), examined lists of 166984, as well as by requests that, if necessary sent the Rank to other Moscow orders, for example, the Local Order, which contained information about peasants attached to the land985, the Principality of Smolensk, where lists of Cossacks of the cities of the Smolensk Rate986 were kept, etc. It was on the basis of these materials that extracts were made.
Most of the documents that the plaintiff was required to submit to the court were documents of a private law nature, as well as materials from an investigation conducted by the local administration. All steps to prepare for the trial were strictly listed in the Discharge’s letters to the local authorities: to carry out a search (that is, to find escaped peasants and slaves), to identify “fortresses, why they are strong for him”987, lists from the service bondage of a fugitive peasant or slave at the hand of the petitioner (the original was also submitted to the Discharge, with which the list was checked; the original was returned to the owner988), lists from local documents, for example, from extracts from the Ryazan books of measure and patrol989 - that is, documents that the owner had to submit for the right to have the people named in the petition in serfs. The investigation sometimes also included interviewing witnesses from the places where fugitive peasants lived before or now live. Finally, according to the collected information and documents of the local authorities, the order of the Discharge allowed a trial, guided by clear instructions written in the then legislative code and decree 164/1656 on the search for fugitives990.
Some cases of the return of fugitive peasants could not be resolved locally due to the complexity of the matter, which went beyond the competence of the local authorities. So, at first, the request of the okolnichy M.B. Miloslavsky's efforts to find his runaway peasant woman did not cause any complications. By order from the Discharge, the Voronezh governor was ordered to “find” her, and less than a month later the governor reported to the Discharge that the peasant woman had been found, but it turned out that she was married to a Voronezh boyar’s son, that is, a representative of the upper, service class. The local government was at a dead end and turned to the central government with a request to give instructions in the then existing constant formulation: “Whatever the sovereign will indicate.” The Sovereign, represented by the head of the Discharge V.G. Semenov ordered the Voronezh governor to “free the little woman from behind the bailiff and give her to her husband with a signature, and give her husband bail; and when they ask for her, he should put her in, and not keep her behind the bailiff”991, that is, he actually freed the former serf M.B. Miloslavsky.
In rare cases, the supreme authorities became involved in cases of searching for fugitives. One of these cases was associated with the declaration of “words and deeds” to a runaway serf. However, it turned out that the walking man Fyodor Shat started such a dangerous game so that he would not be kept for a long time in the sheltered hut of Zemlyansk. His business was that he was a serf prince. F.I. Gagarin, having fled from him, staggered, served with the Cossacks and boyar children. The Boyar Duma, to which the case was transferred from the Discharge, sentenced F. Shat to be whipped “for theft” (he said “the sovereign’s word and deed”) and released. But on the same day, the case came to the sovereign, and he, “to commemorate” his father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, ordered the convict to “beat the batogs” and release him to Zemlyansk, giving his letter of release from the fortress to F.I. Gagarin. The latter was asked to document in the Discharge the serfdom of F. Shat and his family (wife, children and grandchildren) “and give him, Prince Fyodor, bail, and send a letter to the great sovereign to Pereslavl Rezansky about his deportation to Moscow to the governor,” which was done992.
Petitions with a request to investigate the case of enslavement came to the Discharge not only from landowners, but also from the fugitives themselves.
Such cases were almost always decided by the central institution, the Discharge, even if local authorities took over the matter first. This was partly explained by the complexity and intricacy of such cases, partly by the fact that the petitioners in these cases often did not have any documents with them and all their hope was in the archives of the Discharge.
In the 17th century a free man often fell into serfdom through the indirect fault of the Tatars and other nomads who attacked the southern borders of the state. Most often this happened to children: young captives were taken from the Tatars, brought to one of the Russian border cities, and on the way home, taking advantage of their defenselessness, one of their compatriots enslaved them by deception and force. This happened, for example, with Alexei Ermolaev. At the age of six in 167/1659-59. he was captured near Livni by the Crimean Tatars. He spent a year in captivity and was recaptured by the Cherkasy (Ukrainian Cossacks) near Perekop and brought to Belgorod. Apparently, the Russian people repulsed from captivity had to appear before the governor of the city where the liberators brought them. Voivode of the Belgorod Regiment G.G. Romodanovsky sent A. Ermolaev home to his father, the Livny son of the boyar I.P. Ermolaev. But on the way, in Karpov, the Livny boyar’s son I. Nevzorov took the boy, ostensibly to take him to Livny to his father, but brought him to his estate and kept him in captivity for 16 years, changing his name (“called him Demkoya”) and by forcibly marrying his serf. Somehow, father and son found out about each other and turned to the local Liveni authorities for help, but the governor and clerk were on the side of the young man’s shelter. Then the father, I.P. Ermolaev, involved the governor of Chernavsk, M. Bestuzhev, in deciding the case, perhaps as an independent judge, and perhaps because the Chernavsk governor was higher in position than the Liven one.
The matter, already not a simple one, was complicated, apparently, by the problem of the territorial jurisdiction of the petitioners. Therefore, M. Bestuzhev turned to Moscow for help: “What will the sovereign indicate?”993. Judging by the documents, this was not the first time that the participants in the conflict wrote to the Discharge, and the implementation of the Discharge’s decision, taken in favor of the Ermolaevs, was sabotaged by the Liven authorities, and especially by the clerk of the order hut994. M. Bestuzhev’s reply was taken over by one of the people most interested in it, I.P., to deliver M. Bestuzhev’s reply to the Discharge - and, obviously, to take care of the matter. Ermolaev995. The measure of punishment for official offenses of the local authorities was determined by the rank of the Duma clerk: for failure to comply with the previous orders of the order - on the reunification of father and son - the Livensky voivode was ordered to “add a fine of ten rubles, and the clerk, whom he had reprimanded tosh, should be taken to Chernav- skom and, having questioned and searched for the truth, and for that trickery, will, upon discovery, announce that he did this (sheltered the defendant from punishment. - O.H.), inflict punishment, beat the batogs instead of a whip and leave the hut from the case, so that in the future It was inappropriate for anyone else to do that”996.
A similar incident occurred with the son of a dragoon, taken prisoner in Sevsk in 169/1660-61. at the age of eight, captured from the Tatars, but captured by the Krapivensky landowner, who registered him as his serf and subsequently married him to his courtyard girl, and then resold him to the Livensky landowner. The petitioner asked to be taken with a bailiff to Moscow, where he would be confronted with the landowner, and also to make inquiries in the dragoon books, so as not to remain in bondage “forever” and “not to serve.” By order of V.G. Semenov’s petitioner’s request was granted997.
In the Discharge itself, any cases of enslavement of people in the cities of southern “Ukraine” were, with rare exceptions, submitted to the head of the order, Duma clerk V.G. Semenov998, which emphasizes the importance of this problem for the state. Sometimes the decision on petitions received by the Discharge to search for fugitives could be made independently by other clerks of the Discharge: P.I. Kovelin (prepare an extract from the petition)999, L.A. Domnin (give a letter to the city governor about the investigation of the case) 1000.
Further conduct of the case, the direction of which was determined by V.G. Semenov, was entrusted to the discharge clerks, and all the comrades of the Duma clerk took part in this area of the discharge’s activities equally. They supervised the preparation of extracts and made decisions based on them (P.I. Kovelin1001, F.L. Shaklovity1002, L.A. Domnin1003), supervised the preparation of letters to the local administration (P.I. Kovelin1004, F.L. Shaklovity1005). The decision on discharge was recorded by V. Semenov in rare, most important cases, for example, in the case of F. Shat1006.
In the Discharge, documents related to cases of searching for fugitives and enslaving free people - extracts1007 and letters to local authorities1008 - were prepared by clerk Agafon Piminov. In 185, A. Piminov apparently served in the Order Table. This is evidenced by the internal documents of the order available in the archives - “letters” that were exchanged between the tables. As usual, they are short, informal notes on small pieces of paper. For example, in connection with the drawing up of a letter to Sevsk according to the petition of the steward S.E. Almazov about the search for runaway peasants, the following request was sent: “He will write off the Prikazny table, who is the governor and clerk in Sevsk.” Below on the same piece of paper, in a different handwriting and ink, the answer is written: “the steward and governor Leontem Ramanov, son of the Neplyuevs, and the clerks Aleksem [...]skov1009, Klii Sudemkin”1010. Since the request was submitted to the Prikazny Desk and, together with the answer, pasted to other documents on the search for fugitives, it can be assumed that these cases were conducted specifically in Prikazny. It is also logical that from the Order Table the question about city governors was addressed to the Moscow table - the lists of city governors were carried out in its first reign. In addition, in the same case there are materials about rewarding the wounded, which was the undoubted prerogative of the Order Desk. And finally, many of the cases presented about the search for fugitive peasants include documents about the trial in these cases, and the judicial activity of the Discharge was also concentrated in its Order Desk. Thus, it is obvious that the old clerk on the right, A. Piminov, served in 185 in the Order Table1011.
It is difficult to restore in full the deadlines for the execution of cases by the Discharge and local authorities to search for runaway peasants and slaves, since in the administrative office practice the dating of documents, as already noted, was adopted in three cases: mandatory - when recording a decision on a case, almost always - upon receipt an incoming document and, less often, when sending an outgoing document on a draft document remaining in the archive. However, such discrete time indicators are enough to present a general picture of the time frame within which these cases were resolved in the order.
Naturally, the fastest way to resolve the matter was by declaring the “sovereign’s word and deed” by F. Chatom - an extract to represent the supreme power was prepared in an order in 4 days1012. The only equally quick resolution of the case, not related to state affairs, took place according to the petition of the steward S.E. Almazov - a letter to the local governor was prepared the next day after the decision on the petition. This may be explained by the fact that orders have already been sent to local authorities, to which they have not responded1013.
In cases of forced enslavement of former Polonyanniks, the time frame for their resolution was approximately the same: in the case of A. Ermolaev, two weeks passed from filing the petition to the response letter to the city governor1014; the discharge of the petition of the dragoon's son, also a former prisoner, took two weeks to prepare in Razryad; the place where the date is indicated on the draft letter to the city governor is torn off, so it can be assumed that a little more than two weeks passed from the filing of the petition to the drawing up of the letter.
Letter of petition for the search for fugitive books. M.Ya. Cherkassky was ready a week after the decision on the petition was made, but for some reason she was detained in Razryad for two months1016. Also, a week later, a decision was made on an extract to search for the runaway peasants of the Lebedyan landowner Maltsev1017. It took a little more time to prepare an extract from the petition from the Rylsky St. Nicholas Monastery - almost three weeks, and the same amount of time was spent preparing the letter of decision on the extract1018. Thus, the total period for resolving the monastery’s case from filing a petition to sending the letter to the local authorities was one and a half months. Perhaps this was explained by the complexity of the matter - the serf peasants of the monastery fled to many cities of Ukraine: Kursk, Rylsk, Oboyan, Khotmyshsky, Sevsk, Kromy, Orel, and the Discharge employees did not immediately decide how best to organize the matter on the spot. Initially, a letter with a reading was prepared for the governors of all the listed cities, but then they decided to centralize supervision of the matter, so to speak, on a local scale and transferred all powers to the military and administrative head of the region, the governor of the Belgorod regiment G.G. Romodanovsky1019. About a month passed from filing the petition to taking action on it in the case of S.V. Satine about a yard man who ran away from him1020. The extract from Ostrogozhsk governor I. Sas was drawn up a little over two weeks later, the letter to Ostrogozhsk was sent from Razryad another week later, and the letters to local authorities were sent out a week and a half after the decision on the discharge1021.
Unlike the governor, who was entrusted with the task of finding the serfs, the steward S.E. Almazov, the Voronezh governor carried out the assignment to find the fugitive peasant deviant M.B. Miloslavsky quickly - his reply was delivered to the Discharge a little less than a month after the letter was sent to Voronezh. The preparation of a letter of response to this reply from the moment of the decision on it took three weeks in the Discharge, and the matter was not simple (see above). It should be noted that the letter to Voronezh in the case of M.B. Miloslavsky was instructed to take it to the discharge clerk S. Batashev (May 3)1022 - perhaps with opportunity, since S. Batashev was given an assignment from the Discharge to Voronezh.
Thus, resolving cases of finding runaway peasants and slaves in Razryad took on average from two weeks to a month.
Every year, the Discharge compiled one of its main documents - a review of the cities led by the order (that is, practically all of European Russia) in relation to their defense capabilities. To do this, in early September, the Discharge sent out orders to the governors of “their” cities to prepare and send to the Discharge the so-called city estimate lists - a detailed description of the state of the city fortifications, garrisons, and combat and food supplies. The preparation of paintings in different cities took on average from a week to three,1023 perhaps, among other things, this depended on the number of clerks in the city's administrative hut - with their large forces they coped with the task faster.
In principle, to compile the city’s annual budget, there was a certain general form that included all possible points to describe the military-administrative state of the city. The estimate had to list the city’s fortifications, artillery with ammunition, “strategic” food supplies (grain and/or flour bread, crackers, salt), the personnel of the local administration, which included not only officials (they included The lists also included city notaries - area clerks), but also elected managers - customs and zemstvo heads, etc. The estimate list, of course, should have included the personnel of the garrison, indicating the weapons available to the people. Residents of the city were also considered from a military point of view - as those liable for military service in the “reserve”, and after listing the inhabitants, tax and housing people, a separate figure indicated the number of armed people who could actually take part in the possible defense of the city with their own weapons. So, in Yaroslavl, “people from the battle, except for the small ones,” there were 3,520 people, “and they had in battle” 778 arquebuses, 1,918 spears and reeds1024.
However, in reality, all these sections were not always included in the annual estimates. Thus, in the list “with a notebook of Rostov annual estimates” information was indicated only about the treasury stored in the meeting hut, and incomplete data about the city garrison - retired nobles and representatives of the local administration were listed, including four clerks of the meeting hut and ten messengers “ with squeaks”1025. In some cases this depended on the diligence and qualifications of the people in charge, in others - on objective circumstances. For example, the new Kostroma governor
A. Tushin himself pointed out that the estimate list lacks a section containing information about the personnel of the city corporation, and named the reason: in the administrative hut there is no list of Kostroma servicemen, which is why the governor and clerk cannot conduct an inspection of them1026.
In the Discharge, city estimates were taken into consideration, apparently, by all clerks of the order. The usual resolution was an order to take the document “for release,” that is, send it to the discharge archive, and enter
data from the sent document in the consolidated annual estimate: “For vacation and write in the annual estimate”1027, “For vacation and about the city from this unsubscribe, and about people from books write in the annual estimate”1028, “For vacation, and write lists in annual estimate”1029. Perhaps V.G. Semenov considered those city paintings that required solving a problem. Thus, in A. Tushin’s painting, in addition to the indication “for vacation,” V.G. Semenova contained an order to the rank officials “to write down how many Kostroma nobles and children of retired boyars are on the list”1030.
According to the “economical” style adopted in ordered clerical work, on the same incoming document, that is, the formal statement accompanying the annual budget list, the clerk made a note about the execution of the clerk’s order: “recorded in the book”1031, “written in the book”1032, “in the book writing.”1033, “in the book of writing.”1034 “in the book of writing.”1035. These notes, as usual, do not indicate either the date of execution or the person responsible for it. For the leadership of the Discharge, for the correct operation of the order, only the essence was important - the order was executed, the information from the list was entered into the corresponding order document and is being processed.
From the point of view of the administrative order, and, therefore, clerical logic, the document should have indicated the date of its receipt - the starting point of its presence in the order, and the person who submitted the document - as responsible for its safety and timely delivery. For control, the sender himself often noted on the unsubscribe the date of its sending and the name of the courier. Usually these were city service people by appointment or by country - gunners1036, bailiffs1037, messengers1038, archers1039, clerks of the city council hut1040, boyar children1041, less often - Moscow service people, for example, tenants1042. From these records it can be seen that sometimes, apparently at the last moment, the courier was replaced. Thus, in the reply from Pereslavl Zalessky it is said that the painting was sent on September 27 with the Pereslavl “rozsylshchikosh” A. Mikulin. But in the Discharge they noted that it was submitted on October 3 by the bailiff of Pereslavl Zalessky “Sidorkoi Yurovysh”1043. In the reply from the Galician governor V.A. Ordina-Nashchokina noted that the documents from Galich were sent on November 3 with the Galician bailiff “Tishka Savinysh”, and this phrase was written into the reply later, in different ink. On November 24, the “Galician dispatcher” S. Mikhailov1044 submitted a reply to the Discharge.
Serfdom in Russia assigned peasants to a plot of land and its owner (landowner). Belonging to a serf was inherited, which was confirmed by state laws since 1649. The peasant did not have the right to change the landowner on his own; he could only be sold or donated by one landowner to another. The cruel treatment of the serfs provoked their flight. By the middle of the 17th century, the scale of peasant flight had reached global proportions, and landowners demanded from the state more severe measures for flight than the Detective Orders.
Detective orders
For several decades in the first half of the 17th century, the state established special Detective orders. Each of the orders carried out temporary activities within one or several counties. The investigation was led by district order by a detective, originally from the nobility, appointed by the central government. To conduct detective work, upon arrival in the district, a detachment of Cossacks, gunners or archers was at the disposal of the detective. A clerk was assigned to the detective to keep records of the search.
Such measures were ineffective, because the number of escaped enslaved people increased. The reason for this was the inability of the detectives to find all the fugitives. If the peasant was not found during the period of the “lesson years” (introduced under), he received freedom.
Detective orders existed until 1649. By that time, the flight of serfs had become widespread and introduced an open-ended search for fugitive peasants.
Indefinite investigation
The introduction of an indefinite search for escaped peasants in 1649 was the final stage of their complete enslavement. According to the Council Code, Chapter 11, “The Court of Peasants,” serfs were forever attached to the landowner’s land and passed on from generation to generation. "Lesson summers" were cancelled. This measure significantly stopped the flight of the enslaved, but did not completely eradicate it. The peasants ran away in the hope that they would never be found.
At the same time, aiding fugitives became severely punishable. Hiding escaped serfs was strictly prohibited. For this, it was possible to collect “possession”, according to the Code, in the amount of 10 rubles, and the fugitives could be “beaten mercilessly with a whip.”
The Council Code made the search for runaway peasants unlimited. Now the landowner could rightfully return the runaway serf if he could prove that he served him. And also the enslaved could not change their place of residence. They were completely assigned to the estate on which the 1620 census found them.
Results of the introduction of unlimited investigation
The indefinite search completely worsened the already difficult situation of the serfs. The oppression of the enslaved by the landowners gained momentum and became increasingly harsh. In turn, peasant labor became ineffective, and labor productivity decreased. Moral humiliation and physical violence greatly reduced the incentive to work efficiently. The serfs raised uprisings, which over time acquired the scale of real wars. In turn, the new orders gave the feudal lords a free hand, stimulating permissiveness, developing laziness and the absence of any initiative.
SUMMER LESSONS
the period during which the owners could bring a claim for the return of fugitive serfs to them. Introduced in the 90s. 16th century after the suspension of the "St. George's Day" (1581) and the introduction of reserved years, when the description of lands began and scribe books began to be considered as an act that attached peasants to those lands on which they were found in reserved years. By decree of November 24. In 1597, a 5-year period was established for the search and return of fugitive peasants to their owners. According to Code 1607, a 15-year period of investigation was introduced. Cross. early war 17th century somewhat delayed the process of enslavement. Under the reign of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, a relatively short 5-year period was again in effect, beneficial not only to large landowners but also to ordinary service people in the south. counties where in the 10-50s.
17th century many peasants fled.
According to the norms of the legislation on land management, in order to return a runaway peasant, his former owner had to file a petition, having previously learned about the fugitive’s new place of residence and owner. The old owner did not lose the right to return his serf even after the expiration of the U.L., if the petition was filed within this established period and the case had not yet been considered. For a fugitive peasant, living with a new owner for a period of U.L. created a new serfdom instead of the old one. By decrees of the government, this rule was sometimes violated (for example, for the purpose of settling southern cities).
In the 1st half. 17th century service people have repeatedly submitted collective petitions asking for the abolition of the U.L. and in 1639 the search period was increased to 9 years, and in 1642 - to 10 for fugitives and 15 for those taken away by other owners. According to the Council Code of 1649 U. l. were canceled and an indefinite search for fugitive peasants was introduced, which meant the end. legal registration of serfdom. In the 2nd half. 17th century in some cases, implementation of the abolition of U. l. delayed (for example, in the southern and eastern border strips).
Lit.: Grekov B.D., Peasants in Rus' from ancient times to the 17th century, 2nd ed., book. 2, M., 1954; Novoselsky A. A., On the question of the meaning of “lesson years” in the first half of the 17th century, in the collection: Academician B. D. Grekov on his seventieth birthday, M., 1952; Koretsky V.I., On the history of the formation of serfdom in Russia, "VI", 1964, No. 6.
V. I. Buganov. Moscow.. Soviet historical encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1973-1982 .
Ed. E. M. Zhukova
In Russia, 16-17 centuries, 5, 15 years and other periods during which landowners could bring a claim for the return of runaway serfs to them. Introduced in the 90s. 16th century The Council Code of 1649 established an indefinite investigation... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
LESSON SUMMERS, IN 16-17 CENTURIES. 5, 15 year and other periods during which landowners could bring a claim for the return of runaway serfs to them. Introduced in the 90s. 16th century The Council Code of 1649 established an indefinite investigation, which meant legal... ... Russian history
In Russia, 16-17 centuries, 5, 15 years and other periods during which landowners could bring a claim for the return of runaway serfs to them. Introduced in the 90s. 16th century The Council Code of 1649 established an indefinite investigation. Political Science: Dictionary... ... Political science. Dictionary.
In Russia XVI-XVII centuries. 5, 15 years and other periods during which landowners could bring a claim for the return of runaway serfs to them. Introduced in the 90s. XVI century The Council Code of 1649 established an indefinite investigation, which meant... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
Timed summers, in Rus', the period during which owners could file a lawsuit for the return of runaway peasants to them. Scheduled summers were introduced in 1597 after the suspension of St. George's Day and the introduction of reserved years. By decree of November 24... ... Wikipedia
In Russia, this is the period during which owners could bring a claim for the return of runaway serfs to them. W. l. introduced in the 90s. 16th century after the suspension of St. George’s Day (See St. George’s Day) and the introduction of reserved years (See... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia