Friend alexandr_tx3 proposed a hypothesis that sale of peasants could be sale of labour duty, that is, work sale, not people sale.Only one scan of bill of serfs’ sale was found for the period of 1832-1861. It was for 1844, moreover, impossible to read and without decoding. However, there were numerous inquiries about collecting of arrears from serfs for 1855-1858. The problem is, those arrears mean that the serf can be in debt, and the debt means legal personality: a thing can not be in debt.
Here the bill of sale of 1762 (http://tarhany.ru/). They sell not people, but a real estate where people live. Realtors name a similar sort of sale as sale “with encumbrance”.
1762 года марта в 26 день капитана князь Якова князь Петрова сына Долгорукова жена его вдова княгиня Анна Михайлова дочь, в роде своем не последняя, продала она комнатного стольника Ивана Ивановича Нарышкина жене его вдове Настасье Александровне her serfdom-based real estate в Пензенском уезде в Завальном стану село Никольское Яковлевское тож, да в Верхоломовском уезде в селе Веденском Ворона тож, in those villages there are 300 male peasants, according to the second revision, да четвертные пашни к тем селам: по купчим действительного тайного советника и сенатора графа Андрея Артемоновича Матвеева от жены его вдовы графини Настасьи Ермиловны Матвеевой в Саранском уезде по реке Кевде и по другим урочищам двести пятьдесят четвертей, от стольника князь Стефана княж Иванова сына Путятина в Саранском уезде, что ныне в Пензенском уезде на вершинах реки Леплейки и на реке Кевде и иных реках и урочищах триста четвертей, в Верхоломовском уезде лейб-гвардии Измайловского полку отставного капрала Леонтья Дмитриева сына Верхоглядова в степи за Виловыми крспостьми и по реке Вороне с прочими урочищи в селе Веденском Ворона тож двадцать пять четвертей, да в том же уезде от капитана Ивана Алексеева сына Беркина от жены ево вдовы Афросиньи Ивановой дочери Беркиной в селе Веденском Ворона тож земли двадцать две четверти в поле а в дву потому же. <…> А взяла она княгиня Анна с нее Настасьи за все her abovementioned real estate, except the above stated people and peasants, и со всеми к тому принадлежностями денег восемь тысяч рублев. <…> Та купчая писана в Московской крепостной конторе за ее продавщипою и за свидетелевыми руками.
ЦГАДА, ф. 1326, оп. 2, д. 1864, л. 142 — 143 об. Публикация [42, 163 — 164].
The same situation I with the bill of sale for 1794 (http://tarhany.ru/). There is no direct indication on peasants as goods on sale; there is a sale of a real estate. Serfs, except removed, remain in the real estate, but is not a word that they are on sale or somehow transferred to the buyer.
Лета тысяча семьсот девяносто четвертого ноября в трети на десять день двора ее императорского величества действительный камергер экспедиции о ревизии в государстве щетов советник лейб гвардейского полку ротмистр и ордена святого равноапостольского князя Владимира второй степени большого креста кавалер Иван Александров сын Нарышкин в роде своем не последний продал я лейб гвардии Преображенского полку прапорщика Михайлы Васильева сына Арсеньева жене Елисавете Алексеевой дочери her real estate доставшееся мне по наследству после покойной бабки моей комнатного стольника Ивана Ивановича Нарышкина супруги его Настасьи Александровны и по купчей от брата моего родного лейб гвардии сержанта, что ныне подпорутчика Петра Александрова сына Нарышкина состоящее Пензенского наместничества Чембарской округи село Никольское Яковлевское тож where, according to the fourth revision, there are 430 male house-serfs and peasants, with their wives,children, brothers, nephews, grandchildren, newborn babies and fugitives of both sexes with all their families и со всяким их крестьянским хоромным и гуменным строением со скотом и со птицы с пашенною землею с хлебом стоячим, молоченным и в земле посеянным с лесы с лесными покосы рыбными ловли и со всеми принадлежащими угодьи не оставливаю за собою в показанном селе ничего на все без остатку except the excluded house-serfs whom I leave or myself, а именно Анику Петрова сына Воробьева з женою Агафьею Никитиною, Петра Иванова сына Попова, Никифора Петрова сына Воробьева, Ивана Павлова сына Корсакова з женою Катериною Ивановою з детьми Иваном Никифором и з дочерью Настасьею Прокофия Семенова сына Качитгулова з женою Авдотьею Михайловою и с патчерицею девкою Аксиньею Дмитриевою Петра Афанасьева сына Курова з женою Настасьею Ивановою з детьми Иваном и Матреною Гаврила Ефимова сына Галанина з женою Наталиею Петровою з детьми Кузьмою и Настасьею Фрола Васильева сына Галанина з женою Акулиною Ивановою з детьми Иваном и Матреною вдову Авдогыо Иванову дочь Федосью Алексееву дочь Устинью Логинову дочь Безменову з дочерью Прасковьею девку Татьяну Федотову дочь которых всех дворовых людей для платежа казне всех податей причислить мне Нарышкину к другим моим деревням да взятых ис крестьянских дворов Никиту Тимофеева сына Воробьева Захара Андреева сына Азова холостых а сверх того и на ниже писанных при сказе в прошлом 1791-м году означенного недвижимого имения землею во отказные книги в том же селе Никольском с положенных в подушный оклад в других моих деревнях дворовых же людей Сергея Астафьева сына Некрасова з женою Марфою Григорьевою дочерью и з дочерми девками Авдотьей и Марией Филиппа Трифонова сына холостого Степана Григорьева сына Колчина з женою ево Настасьею Ивановой и дочерью Натальею Максима Осипова сына Кисловского Дмитрия Осипова сына Жукова холостого Родиона Карпова вдового з дочерьми девками Прасковьей и Аграфеной вдову Прасковью Иванову дочь Злынину и з дочерью девкой Марьею Александровой Марфу Степанову девок Варвару и Арину Ларионовых дочерей а взял я Иван с нее Елисаветы за то свое недвижимое имение денег пятьдесят восемь тысяч рублей а на перед той купчей то мое недвижимое имение иному никому кроме ее Елисаветы не продано не заложено и ни у кого на владении в крепостях не укреплено и ни за что не описано а буде кто в то мое имение по иску к ней станет вступаться то мне Ивану и наследникам моим ея Елисавету и наследников ея от тех вступщиков очищать и убытка в то никакова ей не доставлять а по написании всей договорной цены без утайки 752 году указ при сем объявлен и подлинной купчей ея императорского величества действительный камергер экспедиции о ревизии в государстве щетов советник лейб гвардии конного полку ротмистр и ордена святого равноапостольского князя Владимира большого креста второй степени кавалер Иван Александров сын Нарышкин в том что я вышеписанное недвижимое свое имение со всем означенным кроме выговоренных из сей продажи дворовых людей крестьян написанных в сей купчей и о числе их продал и денег пятьдесят восемь тысяч рублей взял и руку приложил, у подлинной купчей свидетели были и руку приложили действительный статский советник и кавалер Николай Михайлов сын Сушков статский советник и кавалер Иван Карпов сын Борщев артиллерии подполковник Василий Иванов сын Сверчков коллежский советник и кавалер Василий Васильев сын Хотинцев коллежский советник Василий Петров сын Косушкин коллежский советник и кавалер Кирила Дмитриев сын Тозлуков статский советник и кавалер Дмитрий Иванов сын Алымов статский советник и кавалер Петр Сергеев сын Реганцов коллежский советник и кавалер Фома Максимов сын Еновкин надворный советник и кавалер Григорий Григорьев сын Пшеничный надворный советник и кавалер Семен Тихонов сын Овчинников надворный советник Иван Иванов сын [неразб.] надворный советник Христиан Христианов сын Паули коллежский советник барон Никита Карлов сын Гурьев надворный советник и кавалер Поликарп Тимофеев сын Поярков титулярный советник Николай Андреев сын Краснов коллежский секретарь Василий Михайлов сын Аврамов коллежский советник секретарь Илья Дмитриев сын Тверской титулярный советник Гаврила [неразб.] сын Комаров титулярный советник Андрей Егоров сын Дюнин коллежский секретарь Михайла Николаев сын Лосев надворный советник Сергей Иванов сын Подобедов правительствующего сената регистратор Михайла Тихонов сын Овчинников надворный советник Никита Иванов сын Аникин лейб гвардии Семеновского полку капитан Александр Александров сын Нарышкин губернский секретарь Григорий Иванов сын Чепелев титулярный советник Алексей Григорьев сын Латышев подпорутчик Никита Алексеев сын Стуленков подпорутчик Никита Алексеев сын Зимин титулярный советник Николай Павлов сын Дружинин капитан Осип Иванов сын Декриард секунд майор Петр Алексеев сын Асеев подпорутчик Михайла Михайлов сын Рятнов коллежский секретарь Давыд Николаев сын Николаев Санктпетербургского нижнего надворного суда из 2-го департамента секретарь Данила Никитин сын Фоголов. Подлинную купчую писал Санктпетербургского верховного надворного суда 2-го департамента писец Павел Крапивин. Запрещения нет. 1794 года ноября в 13 день. Буде подлинно нет запрещения совершил по указу секретарь Иван Марков 1794 года ноября в 13 день сия купчая в том департаменте в сенате записана пошлин две тысячи девятьсот рублей взято совершил надсмотрщик Иван Давыдович. Листы подписал Санктпетербургского Верховного суда 2-го департамента секретарь Иван Инсарский. <…> 1795 года февраля 19 дня таковую подлинную купчую дому господина порутчика Алексея Емельяновича Столыпина служитель Савелий Петров к доставлению госпоже лейб гвардии Преображенского полку подпорутчице Елисавете Арсеньевой принял и расписался.
ГАПО, ф.34, оп.2, д.870, л. 2 — 3.
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
In the Internet, there are newspaper announcements about by the piece serfs’ sales and especially fugitives, easily borrowed by historical collections, but it is necessary to consider that many of these announcements especially reprinted in the late collection, are not document in fact. Here it is necessary to be careful as practice of newspaper issues replacement is well known and in wide practice.
They write that in РГАДА, Ф.615 «Крепостные книги местных учреждений 16-18 в.в.» («Serf books of local aythorites of 16-18 centuries»), Оп.1, bills of sale for peasants were ordinary. However, the greatest number of bills of sale belong to the period of 1850-1860 when landowners owed banks great sums of money, and there are no any references to these bills of sale.
There were a lot of bills of sale for peasants of ХVIII-ХIХ centuries in I.N. Elchaninov’s collection, an archivist from Yaroslavl, but in 1918 there was a fire in his house, and materials concerning his region’s history were lost.
Considering that ideological meme about backward serf-based Russia is the base of the country history, serfs’ bills of sale have enormous value. Unfortunately, there is a huge gap here, and two decoded bills of sale, which are presented here because they are connected with M.Y. Lermontov’s relatives show that they did not sell serfs in Russia.
SLAVES AND SERFS
They write that slaves in Russia merged with serfs. They write as that enslaving of peasants had some enslaving, i.e., debt character. It is reasonable to agree with both arguments. Besides, it is known that not all peasants in Russia got into villeinage, and at times it happened so that nearby there were villages with peasants with a different status: free and dependent. How it was possible?
The answer is in difference between the enslaved serfs and serfs: the enslaved serf, without losing personal liberty, could pay off the debt and go on living independently, and the serf was personally not so free. Those communities that managed to pay off their debt in time, did not get a villeinage status. We even have circumstances when it happened: cancellation of Yuri’s day.
YURI’S DAY
Friend xenumgate <https://xenumgate.livejournal.com/> suggested to connect Yuri’s day with a Latin root juris (law) and the concept of the Doomsday. It is quite logical. The bible word combination «Doomsday» as a meme of huge value hardly appeared for no reason; it must have some cultural basis. Surely, the community could punish the thief themselves, but there might be disputes demanding arbitration decision, for example, hereditary cases. For this purpose, there was one specially appointed day in a year when the community was visited by the main landlord (or the main tribal chieftain, the boyar) with his judicial apparatus.
On this day the community, which got into the enslaving status, could gather harvest results and pay off the whole debt to the external landlord. For the community it meant returning of the power of their own chieftain. It is clear, that peasants did not move from place to place on Yuri’s day, but the owner changed … well, not without reason during Saturnalia slaves had the right to wear a pilleus hat (a symbol of civil freedom) and became equal to their misters. That is presented us as a relic of pagan orgies, obviously had actual peasant pragmatic sense.
CANCELLATION OF YURI’S DAY
Cancellation of Yuri’s day was not simply imperial despotism. Such measure meant that debts of some communities passed into a hopeless category: interest on the prolonged indebtedness rose faster, than crops. To create such situation was possible either in case of long periods of poor harvests, or change of payment rules. The first variant seems to be more probable.
ROLE OF MONASTERIES
It is known that monasteries from antiquity carried out the role of loan offices, and in 17 century, they were the largest usurers both in Europe, and in Russia. As the result of peasants’ enslaving, Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Coptic Orthodox churches possessed one third of all property in the regions under control. Theoretically, monasteries should push peasantry in the state of uncollectable debt. However, the situation is even more interesting.
So, monasteries were an ancient mechanism of adjustment of people quantity inside a community, and in Africa they were already created on the most primitive, even preliterate level. Thus, the ratio of mouths and hands in monastic communities is three or four times more favorable, than in the secular world: monks work without thinking about their children. As a result, constant surpluses of provision appeared in monasteries in history for the first time.
CONSEQUENCE № 1
Owing to free resources access monasteries become natural sources of new technologies, in particular (and especially) technologies of long food storage. Surpluses should be kept safe, and monks were the first to learn to protect grain from decay and burning, and to salt and smoke fish and meat.
CONSEQUENCE № 2
Monasteries become “a fatty layer” of the society: in case of hunger, monasteries had excessive provisions and sowing material. When village suffer from crop failure or hunger, monasteries allowed cities not to die out because of short deliveries, and lent sowing material to villages.
CONSEQUENCE № 3
Monasteries became the first trading platforms working on a constant basis. If one monastery had superfluous oats, and the second — superfluous spelt or salt, so why not to exchange?
CONSEQUENCE № 4
In monasteries appeared a necessity of adjustment of constant transport corridors: from a village to a city, from one city to another, from one river basin to the other one. Igor Shkurin, the author of the book “Logistic theory of the civilization” regularly specifies that monasteries, as a rule, located in key transport points and were in one day of travelling one from another. These are the first rudiments of a universal civilization.
Let’s make a summary: monasteries carried out a lot of important social functions, and the bases of the system success was prohibition on marriage relations and children birth. Comparing low productivity holding peasants in severe poverty, the ratio of number of mouths and hands allowed advancing rural communities in monasteries for the whole epoch.
MONASTERIES AS USURERS
Loan interest for a long mortgage loan was 6 %; however, such credits appeared only in the middle of 19 century. In antiquity, credits were short-term and were given, at least, at 12 % annual interest. Let us remember that money did not exist, only coin-like tokens matching certain consignments of goods. That is, the usurer worked not with money, but with the goods, and, more often, with grain. What loan percent in case with grain and other food is reasonable? The answer is in density of population of cities.
The total amount of townspeople physically cannot be exceed the amount that village can support on the current level of rural technologies. According to the records, the minimum share of townspeople of the total population in Russia in 1825-1856 was 9 %. It means that generally the village produced goods 9 % more than it was necessary for the village survival. It was also profit in village reasonable at that time.
Obviously, some part of resources was spent also for trade with a city servicing — storage and transportation. In this situation, 12 % loan interest was not excessive; it was, more likely, even the bottom threshold. Within the limits of these rates, monasteries seemed to work as well.
ESTIMATION OF ENSLAVING CONDITIONS
If the crop perished entirely throughout three years (and it might happen) for complete repayment of the three-year credit at 12 % interest, it would be necessary to pay out 45 % of the crop for 15 years. If to pay less than 45 % annually, the debt would accumulate and become uncollectable. However at average 9 % crop profit, village could not give 45 %. It was possible to collect 12 % with effort, but to pay off 45 % of crop for 15 years seams unbearable. Enslaving was inevitable.
WHO IS GUILTY?
The chief guilty was the Catastrophic crash which generated a long hunger period. The social mechanisms created by man (including loan) did not include long force majeure. At the first stage the Christian forgiveness of debts definitely worked, but to repeat such operation 5-7 times was unreasonable.
EXTERNAL MANAGEMENT
In this situation, three basic Churches simultaneously received in management about the third part of all property of their regions. Obvious task № 1 in such situation was emergency birth rate decrease, and monasteries appeared based on villages, whole generations of single people became novices. Other methods to cope with hunger for that time simply did not exist.
NEW STABILITY
In the situation of uncollectable debt the status of country communities changes, and there was public stability of new type — stability when 30 to 90 percent of the population were deprived of most personal rights. Here appeared the idea about an ideal society — absolute power from the top. Here again for the first time appeared there the idea about estates as parts of a public body — invariable and entirely adequate to their position. Someone was hands, someone was a head, and it seemed to people that it was forever.
TITHE
In this situation, all old debts lose meaning owing to obvious irrevocability, and there appeared the first constant tax — tithe, in some places — ninth. These were those 9 % interest for return, typical amount for a village of that epoch, but that time it belonged to the external managing director — sometimes to the Church, sometimes to the secular seigneur. The debt which before was the result of a free and equal treaty, became a burden which due to legality of the primary agreement was impossible to throw off.
NEW ELITE
In such situation, the elite position took only those communities that had experience of loan operations or possessed liquid resources (salt, metal, drugs). All military-tribal nobility (in Russia they were boyars), resting upon country communities, immediately lost their importance and took second roles.
NEW STAGE OF THE CAPITAL CONCENTRATION
If in antiquity work was the main means of payment, that time it was the results of work as the tithe. Pros of the new system: rhythm of payments income and interest of payers in the increase of work productivity. It is an undeniable progress.
At this stage, for the first time cities had an opportunity to grow without thinking about requirements of villages. There appeared a stable surplus — in the Church stocks, first of all. Communication «city-village», forcing to counterbalance produced food, became much obscure, and nonrural communities (intermediary, first of all) had an opportunity to spend resources for their own purposes.
NEW PURPOSES
Only at this stage there was a possibility to put resources into other resources in large quantities, for example, in mining or drug-dealing. People got engaged in it, and quickly enough there appeared socially significant excess of universal payment equivalents — salt, metal, opium and etc. Accordingly, there was need in the investment of these payment equivalents. Thus, there were no adequate purchasing equivalents. In addition, the stimulating role of tithe lost its importance.
RIGHTS AS NEW GOODS
The basic idea undoubtedly was born in the world of loan capital. The usurious networks which received control over many thousands of diverse objects scattered across Europe, managed them with the help of vassals. It was a feudal variant of hired managing directors. Obviously, they stole most part of the tithe. Moreover, production management is not the basic sphere for the loan capital; crediting is more clear for the usurers.
So fees arrived to hired managing director for the redemption. As ensuring for bank commitment were popular among people payment equivalents — copper, silver, opium which were reproduced resources. If a vassal did not want to be involved in it, he was easily replaced.
LEGAL SITUATION
This is one of the most dark spots in the history.
There is only one clear fact: the community remained in the status of an eternal debtor lacked for the rights forever, and there is no logic or law break. Here is a convenient point to place the second cancellation of Yuri’s day: a vassal who signed the loan with bank, became constant. Here again is the next opportunity to underline the fact of attachment to the land. Henceforth peasants were the assets carefully estimated by the bank. If peasants ran away, it calls into question the payment of the landowner’s credit.
Andrew Stepanenko
June 01, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/06/6.html>
Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna