The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Zakrepostitelny actions in the Russian state at the beginning of the 1590th.

v. A. Arakcheev

ZAKREPOSTITELNY ACTIONS IN the RUSSIAN STATE at the beginning of the 1590th

Article is devoted to a debatable problem of enslaving in Russia the beginning of the 1590th. The research of documents on return to former owners of peasants from the city of Yelets in 1592 convinced that in the South Russian cities and counties the regime identical to "reserved years" was in place. There are no traces of application of a new system of enslaving and in documents 1594 Novgorod by origin is 1595. Comparison of systems of investigation of runaway peasants in 1580th and 1590th shows that the basic difference between them was not, so, the hypothesis of the decree of 1592 which allegedly forbade an exit of peasants within the whole country should be considered unproven.


The paper is devoted to the disputable issue of enslavement in Russia of the early 1590s. The research ofdocuments referring to eviction of peasants to their former owners in Yelets city of1592 convinced of the fact that in southern Russian cities and districts (uyezds) procedure, identical to the "forbidden years", was at work. Likewise, there are No traces ofa new enslavement system in Novgorod-based documents of 1594 — 1595. Comparison of search systems for runaway peasants in the 1580s and 1590s reveals no principal difference among them, which means that the hypothesis about the edict of 1592 allegedly prohibiting peasants’ release from the countrywide should be considered not evident enough.

The question of the initial stage of process of enslaving in Russia in historical science cannot be considered as solved so far. The foundation of understanding of this process was laid still by V.N. Tatishchev who introduced for scientific use

texts of the decree of 1597 on five-year fixed litas and "codes" on March 9, 1607. Most of the Russian historians of the 19th century considered that at the end of the 16th century the foundation of serfdom of peasants was laid. However V.O. Klyuchevsky obra-

tit attention that all zakrepostitelny decrees of the end of XVI known to us — the first half of the 17th century, including the Code of 1649, do not contain the formulations which are directly forbidding country transitions. Unambiguously and clearly he wrote about it in 1886: "the legislation did not establish the serfdom on possessory peasants neither directly, nor indirectly; it not only did not attach them to the earth, but did not cancel also the right of an exit, i.e. did not attach peasants directly and certainly to owners" [8, page 173].

V.I. Sergeevich, based on data of the decree of 1597, claimed that the St. George's day was cancelled in 1592 [18, page 224]. After at the beginning of the 20th century acts with mentions of reserved years were introduced for scientific use, the center of attention of researchers was postponed for these sources [5, page 128 — 140]. B.D. Grekov considered that the decree of 1597 was caused by the strengthened escape of peasants generated by the law on reserved years. In disputes of historians on essence of the first decree of Greeks sided with those who considered that the decree of 1597 established five-year limitation period for future time [6, page 872 — 874].

And. A. Novoselsky, without entering polemic with Grekov, stated judgment that fixed years were entered only by Romanov' government in the second decade of the 17th century [15, page 178 — 183].

Outstanding archival finds of V.I. Koretsky formed a basis for the concept of stage-by-stage enslaving of peasants created by him as a result of introduction of reserved years, the publication of the decree of 1592, introduction of fixed years for taken out (1594) and fluent (1597) of peasants [10, page 140 — 153]. Koretsky's concept was subjected to severe and subject criticism to a rhinestone by three large experts in social history XVI—XVII of Russia centuries V.M. Pang-yakh rejected Koretsky's arguments in favor of the decree of 1592 on full prohibition of country transitions reconstructed by it, having inclined to opinion about opredelya-

yushchy value of reserved years [15, page 160 — 163]. G.N. Anpilogov who published three new diplomas with a mention of reserved years and Yelets acts of 1592, also considered that in all materials of the 1590th mentioning the royal decree on the ban of an exit reserved years mean [3, page 161 — 171].

R.G. Skrynnikov created the contradictory concept of enslaving according to which by the beginning of the 1590th the reserved years from a temporary measure began to turn into a constant, but on many regions of the country, for example the southern counties, did not extend. Skrynnikov disproved Koretsky's ideas of the royal decree which prohibited a country exit and abolished the St. George's day, but he assumed that in order to avoid the conflicts of land owners because of peasants since 1594 the government begins to limit prescription of claims for peasants to five-year term. According to him, zakrepostitelny actions of the 1590th came to the end with the decree of 1597 which "confirmed the previous temporary orders for the first time without reference to their temporariness and a possibility of their fast cancellation" [19, page 99 — 129].

As the present article is continuation of the researches of the author devoted to enslaving in the Russian state of the end of the 16th century, we summarize the main conclusions of our published works. As we tried to show, the mode of "reserved years" was applied since 1581 prior to the beginning of the 1590th years on privately owned lands of the northwest, the West and the North of Russia and provided investigation and return on court of peasants whose stay on the tyagly earth was recorded documentary. It is necessary to distinguish the practice of investigation of chernososhny peasants and posadsky people directly copyists which was carried out since 1585 and not assuming judicial proceedings from the mode of "reserved years" [4, page 39 — 69].

Simultaneous application of two specified ways of investigation of the tyaglets which were based upon various principles, porozhda-

the Leningrad Region need to temporarily stop some zakrepostitelny actions in certain regions of the country. The similar collision led to emergence of the known allowing order of the Toropetsky authorized diploma of 1590/91: "tyaglets... which at them with the posad dispersed, in reserved summer to take out on their ancient places." [14, page 147]. The meaning of the order, contrary to opinion of most of researchers, consisted not in the ban of an exit to posadsky people, and in permission of evacuation of the former posadsky people of the ancestral lands and estates, despite of the mode of "reserved years" existing there.

In our article devoted substantially to source study problems the question of essence of the mode of fixed years which is inseparable from a question of whether there was a decree of 1592/93 on cancellation of the St. George's day which is hypothetically reconstructed ^рец-ким was not raised. In this article questions are raised and solutions of two aspects of the discussed scientific problem are proposed long ago: 1) what relationship of decrees no later than 1594 and 1597 with decrees on reserved years;

2) whether the fact of existence of hypothetically reconstructed decree of 1592/93 is confirmed by the data which are in scientific circulation?

Reserved years are mentioned in sources only in 1581 — 1592, being replaced by decrees on the five-year term of investigation of fluent subsequently. V.I. Koretsky considered disappearance of mentions of reserved years the major argument confirming the point of view about existence of the decree of 1592/93 [10, page 118-119, 128-129]. The diploma Dwin to a sudeyka of April 14, 1592 really contains the last on time a mention of reserved years. But, as R.G. Skrynni-kov truly noticed, it is possible to explain disappearance of the term with elimination of the system of reserved years which ceased to answer the purpose [20, page 204]. Created for return privately owned krest-

yan in tyaglo the system of reserved years assumed return fluent regardless of terms of their flight and time of stay on the new place. If the peasant joined in tyaglo at the new land owner, was extremely unprofitable to break him from the place for return to the former landowner for the state.

Whether it means, however, that in 1592/93 the system of reserved years was replaced with a total ban of transitions and cancellation of the St. George's day under the royal decree? Let's analyze the main documentary complexes which were attracted by researchers for justification of own concepts. Chronologically also recently completely issued Yelets acts of 1592 — 1593 are the closest to estimated time of the publication of the decree well-known in science [17]. They were exposed to a research twice, but results of these researches were interpreted differently and caused opposite conclusions.

V. I. Koretsky came to a conclusion that the mode of reserved years did not extend to the southern counties of the state and that there "landowners and peasants continued to be guided to some extent by Article 88 of the Code of laws of 1550 about country refusal", and in 1592 — 1593 the government "extended to the South effect of the decree on universal prohibition of a country exit" [11, page 96 — 116]. G.N. Anpilogov, on the contrary, drew a conclusion that the mode of reserved years extended to tyagly peasants of the southern counties of the Russian state, and the reconstruction of decree 1592 which is carried out by Koretsky — 1593 he recognized as doubtful [3, page 164 — 165]. R.G. Skrynnikov also does not acknowledge the possibility of existence of decree 1592 — 1593, but considers that in the south of "rules of the Code of laws about country transitions formally were not abolished" [20, page 200].

We will analyze Yelets acts regarding reflection in them the current state legislation on a tyagly nase-

lines. Precisely dated documents (their considerable part is dated totally 1592/93) belong to the period from August 10, 1592 to March 29, 1593. In 35 documents data on refusal or escape of 69 peasants issued on service to Yelets by Cossacks, Sagittariuses or gunners were reflected. Obviously, it were only those peasants whose leaving caused legal claims, and most often concerning the left property, families or a harvest. As Koretsky showed, many new tidied up Cossacks who are not satisfied with conditions of service became in tyaglo on posads or drones again. Till June 23

1592 six Cossacks with weapon and ammunition ran away from service and at the time of submission of the petition on September 1, 1592 lived in the villages of five landowners of the Tula County [17, page 57-59].

To what government actions it is possible to correlate the facts of set of peasants on service and conditions of this set? In royal diplomas to Yelets of November 6 and on December 31, 1592 it was categorically recommended "pribirat of other Sagittariuses is free people, but not from arable lands and not is servility under our decree" [17, page 118, 172]. According to notes in other acts it is visible that peasants left on service or not from tyagly places ("the son from the father, the brother from the brother tidied up to Yelets in Sagittariuses"), or left instead of themselves on the tyagly place of other peasants ("in the sovereign the place yaz on tyaglo put Lagutka Vasilyev of the son Choubin") [17, page 25, 30].

An essential difference between the principles of movement of the country population in the northwest of Russia during action there reserved years and in the southern counties are not traced. In the preferential diploma issued to Dukhov to the monastery on the ancestral lands in Derevsky and Obonezhsky pyatina on March 20, 1585 the transitions of peasants are not prohibited, but also caused by participation in them of netyagly people: "And nazyvat to it on that empty on preferential villages of peasants netyagly, z villages from fathers — -

Tay, and from dyad — nephews, and from brotherhood — brotherhood. And with tyagly to it places of peasants on those on preferential villages not of a nazyvata". In obyskny books of the Derevsky pyatina of 1588 the fact of an exit of peasants from a tyagl was also emphasized: "And vs, mister, those peasants because of the prince Bogdan left in monarchic reserved years about tyagly arable lands" [2, page 414, 416]. Thus, there are no bases to consider that in the southern counties of Russia in 1592 —

1593 did not apply the practice identified by researchers with the mode of reserved years.

the Second complex of acts which data were used by Koretsky for the proof of a thesis about zakrepostitelny decree 1592 — 1593 belongs to the Novgorod earth. In July, 1595 — February, 1596 in the Novgorod mandative log hut Panteleymonov's case of the monastery about whitewash of a monastic arable land was considered. In 1588 the monks of two monasteries of the city of Holes which remained on Plussky truce in hands of Sweden were defined on residence in the ancient Panteleymonovy monastery near Novgorod, and as patrimonial lands the become empty monastery villages in the Petrovsky Ramushevsky churchyard of the Derev-sky pyatina were transferred to them "to a privilege for 10 years". "Revival" become empty obezh by "targeting" to the empty yards of peasants was a condition of a privilege. In 1595 when privilege term already came to an end, the monks returned in Holes which was returned to Russia under the Tyavzinsky peace treaty, without having satisfied conditions of granting a privilege.

Panteleymonov's abbot of the monastery Andreyan was concerned by possible sanctions for non-performance of these conditions which could be in that "from that five obezh capture for horomny on-stavleniye on five Rublyov for the yard, both monarchic yamsky and perceptible money and any taxes, and for a staff for last years and forward on them from that five obezh monarchic taxes of an imata according to books" [9, page 313]. Therefore it submitted the petition with a request

"to rehabilitate" — to exempt from taxes — a monastic plowing. Explaining the reasons for which it was not succeeded "to recover" the become empty villages, the abbot and referred to the royal decree which prohibited an exit to peasants and bobylyam: "And a nynecha of a dea to their those preferential five obzha term finds, and to them preferential to five obezh krestyana guide de of that not mochno because nowadays under the monarchic decree to peasants and bobylyam to an exit is not present, and they monastic in that Panteleev the monastery have no treasury of a dea and help of a davata to peasants there is nothing, and the monarchic annual grain and monetary salary of a dea Panteleev the monastery does not go to that nothing, and about a dea of that monastery of an arable land and to ogorodets is not present" [9, page 313].

Koretsky realized that the decree mentioned in the document opened for them could be interpreted as "one of usual decrees on reserved years" and therefore it gave two counterarguments. First, in the act it is about prohibition of transitions bobylyam while decrees on reserved years "extended only to tyagly elements of country people", and, secondly, "if in the 80th it was possible "to call" peasants and solitary men and without providing help to them, then in 1595 it could not already be done — hozyaystvenno independent peasants and solitary men had no right of an exit any more" [10, page 129]. These reasons of Koretsky can be taken away by criticism them even only by methods of formal logic. Indeed, how to agree on the statements contradicting each other what decrees on reserved years of the 1580th extended only to tyagly elements of country people and that in the same time it was possible to perezyvat peasants without providing help to them? From the remained poryadny diplomas it is known that tyagly peasants whose transition however in the 1580th was forbidden did not need help.

The facts disproving Koretsky's creation contain also in the text of documents which key phrase yav-

a turn about absence of monastic treasury for providing help to natives lyatsya. Means if the monastery had the means sufficient for granting a loan to natives, he would occupy the become empty obzh and consequently, transitions of the villagers who are not responsible taxpayers ("from fathers — children, from brotherhood — brotherhood"), were possible also in the 1590th. As appears from the business of the Novgorod mandative log hut published by Koretsky, similar transitions were carried out in abbey-steads on the eve of submission of the claim by the aged man Andreyan. On December 12, 1595 the lip head sent the patrol book of abbey-steads from which follows that to 102 (1593/94) g to the village of Lipits about which desolation the aged man complained three peasants came from Ladoga, the Gorodensky churchyard and the Holmsky County [9, page 314]. Means, conditions of transitions of peasants after

1592 did not change towards their bigger toughening in any way.

As essential differences in practice of country transitions in 1580th and 1590th are not observed, the most economical way of an explanation of such order of things is recognition of that fact that the mode of reserved years in the 1590th turned into the settled order. Transition since 1594 to restriction of terms of claims for the taken-out peasants with five years led to disappearance of the term "reserved years". However, use of this expression in official documentation sporadically continued up to 1608. Then in the appointed diploma of Vasily Shuysky to the Kazan Zilantov Monastery the quote from the appointed diploma to the same monastery of 1574 appeared: "To which peasant of luchitets to go for the monastery because of whom - @-awake in an exit in not reserved summer, and from those peasants of duties and elderly imat from gate from the peasant on half-ooze yes on two three-copecks pieces". However in the text of the diploma of 1574 of a phrase about "not reserved litas" is not present, so, it

it was inserted in 1608 to emphasize difference between reserved in the past and output years [12, by page 14 — 15].

The above-stated arguments convince that documentary data by which Koretsky proved the reasons about a possibility of existence of the decree of 1592 cannot be used for characteristic of forward process of the enslaving reconstructed by Koretsky. Let's take a closer look at those lines which were marked out by the researcher for characteristic of possible contents of the decree. According to Koretsky, the decree: 1) forbade an exit to peasants and bobylyam throughout the Russian state; 2) record in government books began to be considered as a legal ground of fortress;

3) the decree proclaimed the principle of obligatory registration of peasants in government documents; 4) concerning the taken-out peasants the 5-year term of claim petitions was established, and concerning fluent termless investigation is kept [10, page 145].

However all characteristic features of the hypothetical decree which are marked out with the researcher easily are found in the famous administrative practicians of the end of the 16th century. Judging from the fact that the regime of reserved years was in place in 1592 — 1593 and in the southern counties of the state (Yelets, Tula and other counties), with some share of convention it is possible to claim that it covered all that part of the territory of Russia where there were resident country people and posads. At such statement of question the need to refer action of the mode of reserved years to the lands of the Cis-Urals, the Lower Volga and the North Caucasus where no conditions and need to adhere to similar practice simply existed disappears. Some doubts are raised at us by a mention of solitary men in Panteleymonov's documents of the monastery as in the known diplomas with mentions of reserved years it is not told about investigation of this category of the population. However, quite perhaps, investigation

solitary men it was provided in the decree issued before June 5, 1594 about a five-year term of claim petitions in country export [7, page 84]. Therefore, the first of the lines of hypothetically simulated decree noted by Koretsky was peculiar earlier and after existing to administrative practice.

Record in government books which Koretsky considered qualitatively new line of the estimated decree — very late phenomenon of zakrepostitelny practice created in full only in the 1620th. However, judging from the fact that entry in official inventories was required for the proof of possessory accessory of peasants in the 1580th, an innovation for the 1590th this order was also not what still G.N. Anpilogov wrote about. The line noted by Koretsky for the end of the 16th century. The third anakhronistichna, because as Anpilogov noted, in "the 80th of the 16th century only heads of the country and bobylsky families belonging to landowners and watchinnik were registered" [3, page 165]. In general the principle of registration of all male population of the country yard was approved only from the moment of the census of 1678; even in census books of 1646, not to mention pistsovy books of the 1620th only heads of families, or sometimes adult men were fixed [13, page 184 — 186].

At last, the five-year term of investigation of the taken-out peasants was entered by the decree issued no later than June 5, 1594. Thus, contents of hypothetical decree 1592 — 1593 V.I. Koretsky designed from the known phenomena enslave-telnoy practicians in the Russian state of 1580th and 1590th — reserved and fixed years. If to consider one of the main requirements imposed to modeling methods in social sciences economy, i.e. use of smaller number of assumptions and reconstruction, then the model created by Koretsky in the 1960th had no qualities of economy. To explain known to us on

to sources of change in position of tyagly people, it is quite enough known to us on mentions of decrees on reserved litas and fixed years 1594 and 1597. Hypothetically reconstructed decree 1592 —

1593 in such model of enslaving is superfluous.

So, in our opinion, folding of a system of zakrepostitelny actions concerning privately owned peasants happened by the adoption of practice of reserved years. The way of investigation and return accepted in this system fluent

it was extremely bulky and inconvenient in application as assumed submission of the legal claim of land owners, "search" of local community and legal proceedings. Performance of decisions of the courts was also accompanied by many obstacles, beginning from the open resistance of the taken-out and their neighbors. Accumulation of legal claims of land owners led the government to a thought of restriction of term of investigation of peasants which was undertaken in the northwest of Russia in the decree issued before May 3, 1594


1. The historical acts collected and issued by the Arkheografichesky commission. — SPb., 1841. — T. 1.
2. G.N. Anpilogov. New documents on Russia of the end of XVI — the beginning of the 17th century — M., 1967.
3. G.N. Anpilogov. To a question of law 1592 — 1593, cancelled an exit to peasants, and fixed litas//the History of the USSR. — 1972. — No. 5. — Page 161 — 171.
4. V.A. Arakcheev. From the history of enslaving in Russia: attachment to a tyagl at the end of XVI — the beginning of the 17th century//Essays of feudal Russia. — Issue 5. — M, 2001. — Page 39 — 69.
5. V.A. Arakcheev. "Reserved years" in the Northwest of Russia a historiography, sources, research methods//National history. — 2004. — No. 3. — Page 128 — 140.
6. B.D. Grekov. Peasants in Russia. — M.; L., 1946.
7. Acts of the Russian state of the second half of XVI — the first half of the 17th century. Texts. — L., 1986.
8. V.O. Klyuchevsky. Collected works in nine volumes. — M, 1990. — T. 8.
9. V.I. Koretsky. The Novgorod affairs of the 90th years of the 16th century with references to unknown decrees of the tsar Fedor Ivanovich on peasants//Arkheografichesky the year-book for 1966. — M, 1968. —

S. 306 — 310.

10. V.I. Koretsky. Enslaving of peasants and class fight in Russia in the second half of the 16th century — M., 1970.
11. V.I. Koretsky. Formation of the serfdom and the first peasant war in Russia. — M, 1975.
12. G.Z. Kuntsevich. Diplomas of the Kazan Zilantov Monastery. — Kazan, 1901.
13. Mankova. G. Development of the serfdom in Russia in the second half of the 17th century — M.; L., 1962.
14. Namestnichya, lip and territorial authorized diplomas of the Moscow state. — M, 1909.
15. New rural A.A.K to a question of value of "fixed years" in the first half of the 17th century//Academician to B.D. Grekov by day of the seventieth anniversary. — M, 1952.
16. Paneyakhv. M. Enslaving of peasants in the 16th century: New materials, concepts, prospects of study//History of the USSR. — 1972. — No. 1. — Page 160 — 163.
17. The Russian fortress at the southern boundaries: Documents on construction of Yelets, settling of the city and vicinities in 1592 — 1594 — Yelets, 2001.
18. Sergeyevich V.I. Russian legal antiquities. — SPb., 1903. — T. 1.
19. R.G. Skrynnikov. Reserved and fixed years of the tsar Fedor Ivanovich//History of the USSR. — 1973. — No. 1. — Page 99 — 129.
20. R.G. Skrynnikov Russia after oprichnina. — L., 1975.
21. Shumakov S.A. New lip and territorial diplomas.//ZhMNP. — 1909. — October.
Richard Sims
Other scientific works: