Smerda year. How smerds differ from slaves. According to another version

Arable land in the time of Russia was the main wealth, the main means of production. The most popular variation of the production organization was the patrimony - the boyars and princes owned the patrimony, they received it from their fathers and passed on to their sons. Peasants - peasants, slaves, purchasers, ryadovichs worked on this land.

In Kievan Rus, along with the capital and boyar estates, there was a large number of communal farmers who were not yet dependent on the feudal lords. Such independent communities of peasants paid taxes in favor of the country to the prince.

The first of the named most popular categories of dependent peasants, I suggest you consider the smerds. As you know, smerds are free peasant farmers who cultivate state land and pay a special tax in favor of the state. Smerda, in comparison with other groups of dependent peasants, were in a rather advantageous position - they had personal freedom, their own land, these people worked honestly and received remuneration, they did not have problems with the local princely power, if they regularly paid tax, from the prince they received a protectorate and had certain civil and human rights. According to various sources, the conscription of smerds is direct participation in campaigns in the infantry, or the supply of horses and food for the army. In addition, this category was the most numerous in Russia. It is the smerds that are the main constituent of the rural population of Kievan Rus in the 9-12 centuries. The very notion "smerd", according to one version, means "man", "free peasant". Gradually, these free communal peasants fell into dependence on the feudal lords, lost their personal freedom and independence, "attached" to the land, and over time, the bulk of free peasants turned into serfs. The development of socio-economic attitudes has led to the fact that the previously free part of the population has turned into a mass without rights.

The next of the categories we are considering are slaves. This social stratum was not so numerous, but slaves also constituted an impressive share among the rural population of the ancient Russian state. Directly - slaves - a dependent part of the population of Kievan Rus. This is a part of the population, in its position close to a slave. Serfs, for the most part - prisoners of war. Serfs who already existed in the 9-12 centuries in Russia are also called slaves. According to the most widespread theory, the word "slave" means "attached to the land", "fixed peasant". The situation of the slaves was terrible - complete lack of rights and slave labor. Historians argue that Kievan Rus belongs to those states that, in their development, practically missed the period of the slave system, however, in the conditions of life of the ancient Russian state, it can be stated that in it the slave system quietly existed alongside the feudal one, which is typical for most Slavic peoples. And this is not unusual - some part of the population in any case will be endowed with less rights than others.

Further, I suggest that you consider such a category of the population as purchases. Procurement - peasants who are in a difficult material and social situation, close to that of a slave. Procurements are also called hirelings. This is not to say that these are people selling their labor, rather they are debtors, according to a special agreement (the text of which can be found in Russkaya Pravda) fall into personal dependence on the so-called employer. Procurement rights are severely limited, but they are more protected than slaves who do not have any social rights at all. It is the falling into personal dependence under a certain contract that distinguishes the purchase from the ordinary proletarian of the times of capitalism, although both sell their labor power. The social rights of procurement include a very dubious right not to be tortured “not for business”, but “just like that”. The purchase has the right to assert its rights in court and the ability to leave the owner, subject to certain conditions stipulated in the signed contract. Procurements also have a right to their own property, which they cannot be deprived of forcibly. Besides rights, there are obligations. For example, purchases are required to comply with all the terms of the contract and are responsible for the owner's property, inventory and livestock. Only in this case can they count on the observance of all prescribed rights and freedoms.
Usually, peasants who did not have a livelihood went to the purchases, or hirelings, and becoming dependent was their chance to survive and feed their families. The purchases did various work in the courtyard of the feudal lord, on this basis they are divided into several subcategories. If the purchase runs away from the owner, he turns him into a slave.

The category of the dependent population of Ancient Rus, which is very similar to the purchases - ryadovichi. Until now, historians, studying the written sources of the times of the ancient Russian state, have not determined who the Ryadovichs are. According to one of the theories, confirmed by extracts from Russkaya Pravda, the ryadovichs are part of the servants, small employees in the house of the feudal lord. Another version says that these are smerds who entered into a special agreement ("row") with the feudal lord, according to which they fell into a kind of feudal dependence and served the owner for payment, food and shelter. This definition brings ordinary people closer to purchasing.

From all this, we can conclude that the smerds are the largest in number and the most prosperous category of the population of Kievan Rus, because they possessed personal freedom, in contrast to the purchases and the rank and file, who lost it in order to survive, and even more so from completely disenfranchised slaves. Just slaves - people whose position was actually slave and are the lowest social category of the ancient Russian state.

In the modern world, most people are well aware of the old word "smerd". For the majority, such a phrase is associated with a curse, however, what exactly the word "smerd" meant in ancient times is not known to everyone. Meanwhile, about its origin, as well as questions regarding the classes that received just such a name, controversy does not subside to this day. That is why today we will try to understand the origin of the word "smerd", consider different, authoritative points of view, as well as touch on the historical component.

So, according to the well-known periodical Russkaya Pravda, smerds in Ancient Rus are the classes of peasants of the 9th-14th centuries who were landowners and were initially free, in contrast to slaves. Subsequently, as the landlord system developed in Russia, they began to depend on the masters and gradually became enslaved. However, the famous historian Grekov gives a slightly different interpretation of the concept of "smerd". In his opinion, the smerds in Ancient Rus were members of the rural community, but throughout the entire time they depended directly on the prince of Kievan Rus. However, the validity, however, as well as the unfoundedness of such a point of view, is extremely difficult to prove (refute). The only authoritative opinion, in contrast to Grekov's statement, is the text of Russkaya Pravda, which does not give any reason to believe that the smerds depended exclusively on the prince of Kievan Rus. The fact is that in the publication, members of the community who belonged to the family were called “people”. At the same time, "Russkaya Pravda" argued that the escheat property of the smerd went to the prince. And if this category of peasants belonged to a community, then escheat property would be divided precisely between the members of this community. It is also worth mentioning that for the murder of a smerd, the fine was only 5 hryvnias, while for the murder of any free person (lyudin) the guilty person would have to pay 40 hryvnias.

In the Novgorod Republic, the smerds from time immemorial were subordinate to the state. The concept of stinkers there included the entire category of the lower strata of the population, who were subordinate to the prince. They worked on their own land plots, paid a large tax to the treasury. But at any moment the prince could resettle the smerds, donate them to the church. In addition, the smerds in the Novgorod Republic served in-kind duties and were obliged to supply horses, feed the soldiers in wartime. Unlike ordinary peasant communes (they lived in villages), smerds lived in villages.

The term, which appeared in the period from the 11th to the 14th century, is also curious. To "mortify" - meant to capture the villages and population of the enemy principality during the princely internecine wars. After the 15th century, the category of smerds passed to the peasantry, but the term itself continued to be used and meant the tsar's unofficial appeal to the lower strata of the population. Subsequently, the term "smerd" began to be used by landowners to insult guilty servants or peasants. In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the etymology of the word. The fact is that in some parts of the European part of Russia, houses were heated in black (that is, without the use of pipes), so all smoke and fumes were removed through the trailing windows of the huts. Therefore, it's easy to imagine how awful all the stinkers smelled, given that this disgusting smell of burning mixed with sweat.

Remember the famous quotes from everyone's beloved "Ivan Vasilyevich", who changes his profession: "Did you almost offend the boyaryn, smerd?" We laugh together at the bewilderment of Yakin (Mikhail Pugovkin), admire Grozny (Yuri Yakovlev), but when we undertake to re-read Bulgakov's immortal comedy, we pay attention to the wonderful language in which the work was written.

Smerd stink

A modern reader, who quickly forgets lessons on such a school subject as history, will probably not immediately say what a smerd is, or rather, who it is. But the curious, of course, will be interested to find out that the inhabitants of the ancient Russian state were called in this way, with the exception of the nobility (boyars) and the spiritual class. Those. this concept meant merchants, merchants and artisans, wandering buffoons and townspeople, as well as peasants. So what is a commoner, a person of different origins. However, over time, the word acquires a different semantics.

The peasant question

Now some clarifications. Peasants in Russia were once free farmers. Then, as they became enslaved, they began to be divided into three categories: "people", "slaves", "smerds". Citizens of low origin who did not have boyar owners were called "people". According to Russkaya Pravda (a test legal document of the 11th-16th centuries), if someone kills a free person and is caught, he must pay a fine of 40 hryvnias. And what is a stinker if his life was worth no more than the life of a slave (servant) - 5 hryvnia? Also, it turns out, a slave. Whose? Prince, i.e. boyar.

The category of smerds gradually began to include those free peasant farmers who became enslaved as social stratification and the growth of landlord estates. This meaning of the word is characteristic precisely for the times of Kievan Rus.

Smerd "in Novgorod"

The Novgorod Republic was a special territory. And the rules were different there. What is a smerd according to local laws? He is a farmer dependent on the state, not on a private owner. Then all peasants began to be referred to this category in general. In Russia, it was the tillers who were the most numerous category of citizens. The state gave them land plots, for which the smerds paid taxes to the treasury, and the princes - a duty "in kind": food, linen, domestic animals, etc. e. "sedentary"). By about the 15th century, the term "smerds" was replaced by "peasants". And since the army was recruited from the common people, in times and a little later this word was called service people.

In documents (orders, messages, charters, petitions) of that time, this is the officially accepted form when the king addresses the soldiers. Several centuries later, the term "smerd" became a contemptuous, almost abusive designation of serfs and commoners. By the way, during the time of princely strife there was a specific, then obsolete word "mortify": to capture the subjects of the enemy prince.

And more about etymology and word usage

If we talk about it, it belongs to the Indo-European language group. We have considered lexical transformation. It remains to say more about the additional semantic meaning obtained in the process of use. From the word "stink" was formed the verb "stink", ie "Smell bad". The fact is that in the huts, where the poorest peasants and slaves lived, the windows were tightened by completely blocking the air. Stoves were fired "in black", the smoke barely left the premises, smoking everything through and through. And in late autumn, winter and early spring, poultry and livestock kept together with people in the huts. It is clear that the "aroma" of the smerd could be smelled a mile away. Therefore, over time, the word "smerd" instead of "serf" began to denote a dirty, unkempt, stinking person. The modern synonym is "bum".

smurdi, smardones) - a social stratum of fame. society of the early Middle Ages. In the sources of the 11-12 centuries. S. are noted in Kievan Rus (Russkaya Pravda and other sources), in Poland, among the Polabian Slavs; The S. may have also been to the Balkans. On the question of what kind of social stratum OE. society was designated by the term "S.", there are three basic. points of view: 1) S. - designation of the entire mass of the rural population: initially S. - free communes, then with the development of the feud. relations, they gradually lose their freedom and for a long time free and dependent S. coexist (B. D. Grekov, I. I. Smirnov). 2) S. - peasants who were in state. land and taxed, later with the development of the feuds. relations from their environment, a group of S., who were in the immediate vicinity, is allocated. dependence on the prince-votchinnik (L. V. Cherepnin). 3) S. - a special group of dependent semi-free population, close in position to the Western European. litam (S. V. Yushkov) or formed from the slaves planted on the ground and close to them in its law. regulations (A.A. Zimin). According to the supporters of the first two points of view, the norms of Russian Truth reflect Ch. arr. the position of the most oppressed groups of the S., and not of the entire stratum of S. as a whole. S.'s position was ambiguous. Unlike a slave, S. had his own family and property, paid a fine for misdemeanors. At the same time, he was legally incomplete; S.'s murder was punished with the same fine as the murder of a slave. His escheat property was inherited by the prince (it is even possible that initially the right of "dead hand" was applied to S.). The prohibition to "torture" (torture in court. Proceedings) S. "without the prince's word" indicates the special attitude of S. Russkaya Pravda to the prince. From the beginning. 12th century the lands inhabited by S. are transferred to the ownership of the dep. feudal lords. During the 12-13 centuries. mentions of S. have survived in sources describing events in the Galicia-Volyn and Novgorod lands. In some cases, the term "S." during this period, apparently, the entire rural population of a particular locality was designated. S. Novgorod and Pskov lands of the 14-15 centuries. appear in the sources as peasant-owners who own land collectively (entire communities) or individually and have the right to freely alienate their allotments. But their personal freedom is limited: they are prohibited from moving to someone else's territory. or under the patronage of the prince, and the prince is forbidden to accept complaints from S. against the "lord". S. also had to perform certain duties ("tribute", "work") in favor of the city as a collective feud. senora. Information about S. among the Polabian Slavs, ch. arr. Lusatian Serbs, and in Poland are much more scarce. According to some researchers, S. among the Polabian Slavs is a layer of semi-free people that has existed for a long time; in the opinion of others, - originally DOS. a lot of free glories. community members who gradually lost their property and freedom as a result of the conquest. S. among the Polabian Slavs are mentioned in the charters already in the composition of the population of certain possessions, to-rye bestowed on the department. feudal lords germ. emperors. They distinguish S. from slaves, equating them with semi-free - litas or called. columns. In Poland, in letters of the 12-13 centuries. S. are also mentioned in the population of the deputies granted. the feudal lords of the possessions. In addition to them, the prince's smerds are also mentioned, to-rykh called. by his serfs. According to a number of researchers, in Poland the term "S." served originally to designate DOS. masses of free community members, the Polish historian K. Buchek believes that S. - this is the slaves, planted on the ground. Lit .: Yushkov S. V., On the question of smerds, "Uch. Zap. Saratov. State University", 1923, v. 1, v. 4; Pravda Russkaya, t. 2, M.-L., 1947; Grekov B.D., Kievan Rus, (M.), 1953; Cherepnin LV, From the history of the formation of the class of the feudal-dependent peasantry in Russia, IZ, t. 56, M., 1956; Zimin A. A., About smerds Dr. Rus XI - early. XII centuries, in the book: Istoriko-archeologich. sb., (M., 1962); Smirnov I.I., Essays on socio-economic. relations of Russia XII-XIII centuries, M.-L., 1963; Marasinova L.M., New Pskov letters of the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1966; Ryskin B., Smerdy in the regions of it. colonization of the XI-XIII centuries, "VI", 1948, No 3; K? Tzschke R., Zur Sozialgeschichte der Westslaven, in collection: Jahrb? Cher f? R Kultur und Geschichte der Slaven, Bd 8, Hl 1, Breslau, 1932; Tymieniecki K., Uwagi o smerdach (smardach, smurdach) Slowianskich, in: Studia historica, Warsz., 1958; his, Smardowie polscy, Poznan, 1959.BN Florea. Moscow.

One of the most confusing questions of the history of pre-Mongol Rus is the content of the term "smerd", the status of this category of the population. Without going into the historiography of the issue (it can be found in the works of I. Ya. Froyanov, who studied him a lot), in a nutshell, we can say that at the moment there are two interpretations of the concept of "smerd". The first is an analogue of the later "peasant", a farmer, sometimes dependent on the landowner, but at the same time personally free. The second interpretation considers the smerds as slaves-captives planted on the ground from non-Slavic plmen, and tributaries - also non-Slavs (in the "Tale of Bygone Years" the peoples subordinate to the Russian princes, the Rurikovichs, are very clearly divided into two categories - "Slovo-nesk language in Rusі" and " inii yazyts - others like giving tribute to Rus "- while the" Slovenian language "was incorporated into the concept of" Rus ", the rest of the population of Eastern Europe remained outside, being perceived as tributaries, and nothing more). I. Ya. Belongs to the supporters of the latter point of view. Froyanov.

The very existence of two points of view on this question says that the data of the surviving chronicler and other documents do not give an unambiguous answer to the question of the status of the smerds. The chronicle data are especially unclear, where the use of this term may not be legal, but rhetorical.

It is 6604. Svyatopolk and Volodymer were sent to Olgovi, saying: "Go to Kyev, we will make a row about the Rus land - before the bishops, abbots, and present our fathers, and before the townspeople, in order to defend the land of Rus." Oleg, however, will make sense of the buoy and the words are majestic, in the speech: "it is necessary to judge [me] by the bishop and chernets, or smerdom"

According to the context, here are also called smerds "men", that is, boyars and the squad of princes, and "townspeople". It is clear that this is a rhetorical turn, but the possibility of introducing such into the chronicle makes its data in this matter less weighty than we would like.

Unfortunately, so far such a group of sources as birch bark letters has been involved in solving the problem of smerds. For half a century of studying them, the number of letters found has exceeded a thousand, and many of them are business notes or legal documents, that is, it is in them that we can count on the maximum correctness of the use of the term.
The first mention of the smerd here is letter No. 247, the first half of the 11th century. A certain smerd was accused of burglary in the amount of forty rezan, the author of the letter reports that the lock and the doors are intact, the owner (apparently, the premises in which the smerd was accused) does not want to initiate a case, therefore a fine should be collected from the slanderer, and the smerd must do something pay the "lord", the Novgorod bishop (obviously, the fee for the proceedings). At the end of the letter, it is said about the not that possible, or the fact that the slanderer was beaten by smerds.
The only thing that can be said about the status of the smerd is that he clearly does not look like a slave. A slave - a servant, a slave - neither in the treaties of pagan Rus with Byzantium, nor in "Russkaya Pravda" - does not act as a party to the process, his master is responsible for him. Smerd, according to this charter, looks legally independent.
The story described in Charter 607, dating from the end of the 11th century, ended less fortunately for a representative of the social group of interest to us. Here it is said about the murder by some Sychevichs of a Novgorod smerd named Zhiznobud, they also seized the inheritance of Zhiznobud.
Note that, most likely, Zhiznobud was not very poor. Also noteworthy is the obvious Slavic name of the character of the letter. Finally, he was somehow especially connected with Novgorod - "Novgorod smerd".
An extremely complicated case of theft (or thefts) is reported by the letter No. 907 from a certain Tuq Gyuryat (apparently to the then mayor Gyuryat Rogovich). In particular, one of the defendants is accused of receiving three hryvnias from "Ivankov Smerd" for silence. Here we can talk about dependence, although it is completely unclear of what nature, the given stinker from the unknown Ivanko. Whether he gave his money or money to Ivanko is also unclear. In Ivanko, they see the mayor Ivanko Pavlovich, who took his place after Gyuryat.
Charter 724 reflects a clash of interests in collecting tribute from the population of Zavolochye at the end of the 12th century, and the mention in it seems to fit into Froyanov's version. However, both "people" and "villagers" are mentioned here, but the stinkers come "from Andrey" (Bogolyubsky?) And it is unclear whether it is about the local population or about some people who came to Zavolochye from the Suzdal lands.

Charter 935, at the turn of the XII-XIII centuries, is a list of debtors or participants in some kind of pooling. Among the names listed there is a certain "smerd", whose share is the same as that of Fedor, Gavrila and a certain Grechin, in which commentators see the famous Novgorod icon painter of those times, Olisey Grechin. This, coupled with the fact that the name of the smerd is not indicated, suggests that we are not talking about a smerd, but about Smerda - a nickname or a worldly name that the holder of a higher status received (in the "Dictionary of Old Russian Personal Names" N.M. Tupikov, we find personally free peasants with the names Kholui and Kholop, as well as noblemen (!!) named Peasant, the name Smerd itself is also found there, also noble).

The most interesting is the letter dated about the same time as the previous one, letter No. 410. Among a number of debtors, it mentions three smerds. The name of one of them is not readable due to a defect in birch bark, the rest are called Doman and Brother. Their names in a whole series of others, the amounts associated with them, apparently, do not correlate in any way with their status. On the other hand, the very mention that they are in this series of smerds makes the widespread identification of a smerd with a peasant or a villager in general very vulnerable. Finally, he draws attention to the fact that both of the surviving names of the smerds are again Slavic, like those of the already mentioned Zhiznobud.

This is the last mention of smerds in birch bark letters.

What is clear from the information about the smerds in Novgorod's birch bark letters?

On the one hand, based on these data, the smerds cannot be called simply by another name of the peasantry - otherwise they would not have been singled out in the 410 letter

On the other hand, the letters also do not allow to unambiguously adhere to Froyanov's version. First, as we have already seen in the case of the unjustly accused smerd, the smerds could act as a party in the court. We also see their legal capacity in the fact that they (and not their owners) are given money on credit and are expected to be returned (410) - slaves or servants never act as a party to a litigation or as a debtor.

The names of the smerds make this version even more doubtful. In all three cases, as we have seen, these were Slavic names - Zhiznobud, Doman, Bratsha. Of course, this in itself may mean nothing, the less developed tribes neighboring with the Slavs often adopted Slavic anthroponymics (one of the earliest examples of such borrowing is the Livonian elder Dabrel from the chronicle of Henry of Latvia, in whose name it is difficult not to recognize the Russian Dobril), but strange that the smerds simply do not have other names! After all, the same Henry of Latvia, along with Dabrel, mentions many Livs with their own tribal names. Many letters have survived, directly or indirectly mentioning the non-Slavic neighbors and tributaries of the Novgorodians. From the 12th century to the 14th century, there are many names in letters such as Nustui, Oyavelge, Tadui, Vigar, Igolaid, Munomel, Ikagal and others, others, others. So never, not one of the bearers of the Finnish name is called a smerd. The carriers of Baltic anthroponyms such as Domant, Omant, Rimsha, Kulba are equally not named smerds. The mysterious "wild people" and "vezhniki" found in the documents of the 12th century, in which A.A. Zaliznyak suggests Karelians or Lapps, also not classified as smerds. Given this, it seems highly unlikely that the term "smerd" would refer to slaves or tributaries of non-Slavic origin.

What is the general conclusion?

The data of birch bark letters about smerds do not fit into either the first or the second version of the explanation of this social term. Smerds cannot be considered as a generalized name for the peasantry, otherwise Brothers, Doman and their companion who remained anonymous for us would not have been noted among other characters in the debt record precisely as smerds. On the other hand, the fact that the smerds could act as a litigant or debtor makes it difficult to classify them as personally dependent. Nor does it find confirmation of the version about the connection of smerds with any other ethnic element.
Unfortunately, the study of birch bark letters did not give an answer to the question about the grounds on which people were attributed to the social group of "smerds".

The work of A.A. Zaliznyaka Drevnenovgorod dialect, M .: Languages ​​of Slavic culture 2004