… From the history of the Bank of Russia
The idea of monasteries as bankers of Ancient Russia (1) was formed in Russian historical science at the end of the 19th century, despite the fact that in Russia merchants, wealthy townspeople and nobility were also creditors. At the present time, we have numerous evidences that it was the loan operations of monasteries that were received in Russia in the XIV-XVII centuries. wide use.
A rich selection of such documents is contained, for example, in the fund of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery? one of the largest Russian medieval monasteries? Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. The fund of letters of the Collegium of Economics of this archive also has a large number of documents testifying to the lending operations of Russian monasteries, including the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, which was the largest patrimony of medieval Russia. Acts concerning his activities are also kept in the fund of the monastery in the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library. Some of these documents have been published (2).
Due to the fact that many documents were lost, now it is not possible to determine the total volume of monastic lending in the XIV-XVII centuries, however, according to the surviving acts, it is possible to trace its development and features on the example of individual monasteries. Thus, thanks to a unique collection of documents on loan operations of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, it has become a favorite subject of study for researchers of this problem (for example, A. A. Zimin, K. N. Schepetov, G. A. Pobedimova) (3).
Despite the fact that usury was condemned by Holy Scripture (4) and the Rules of St. Apostles (5), cases when priests resorted to growth were not uncommon in Russia. Back in 1274, a church council convened in Vladimir issued a decree on a thorough examination of priests and deacons taking orders? are they not sinful by fornication, murder, violence, and also usury.
At the same time, prominent representatives of the clergy condemned not so much the fact of giving money in growth, as extortionate interest on loans. According to the charter of Vladimir Monomakh, the percentage should not have exceeded 50% of the borrowed amount (6). This norm was preserved in the XIV-XV centuries. Over time, the legal interest decreased, and in the XVII century. the usual growth was already considered five-sixth (that is, 20%). However, in the 16th century, according to the testimony of the German diplomat Sigismund Herberstein, large monasteries were lent at 10% (7).
Were both money and natural products lent? wheat, rye, oats, etc. In the latter case, was interest often charged in kind? in an embankment for grain. In the XV-XVI centuries. payments in money and income from estates, as well as debt repayment by the service at the creditor, were practiced. It is known that, due to the growth, small feudal lords were hired to serve. The Code of Law of 1550 limited the amount of such loans to 15 rubles (8).
Usually, the loan was given for a period of up to one year, and its return was timed to coincide with some religious holiday.
Promotional video:
Have the loans been documented using leveraged bondage or its shortened version? extra memory. This function could also be performed by mortgage and service bondage. The mortgage was registered as a pledge of land, land, and other property for the period of repayment of the debt and interest on it, and in the service bondage, the working off of the debt by the service of the creditor was recorded. In contrast to them, borrowed bondage and borrowed memory fixed the loan transaction and stipulated the payment of interest on it in cash or food.
The form of drafting the cabal was developed no later than the XIV century. This is indicated by the published N. V. Kalachev in 1864 the mortgage bondage of this time, written on parchment. According to her, Obroshim and Lavrenty Vasiliev borrowed ten forty bels from Fedor Makarov (9). Does the mortgage already contain a norm known from later acts,? in the event of the borrower's insolvency, a bill of sale was drawn up for the pledged property (10). Since the 15th century. for brevity, in borrowed bondage they made a reservation that if the loan was not paid, it would become a deed for the mortgaged land (bondage and a deed of purchase).
From the XV century. mortgage bonds issued for monasteries (including Trinity-Sergiev and Simonov) reached (11). In one of them, dated to the middle of the 15th century, it is said that a certain Vasyuk Noga Esipov borrowed 2 rubles and a quarter from Elder Gerontiy of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and pledged the Lukinskaya wasteland that belonged to him, and for the growth of Gerontius that wasteland Lukinskaya Kositi (12) … A similar practice, when when receiving a loan, they mortgaged land and stipulated the receipt of interest through the exploitation of land, became widespread. She, in particular, is mentioned in the mortgage bondage of 1462-1463: the landowner Andrei Ivanov Loginov borrowed 5 rubles from the cellar of the Simonov monastery on the security of the village of Mikhailovskaya in the Dmitrov district? and for the growth of the settlement Simonovsky mows hay in that village (13).
In the XVI-XVII centuries. Servant bondages became widespread, according to which borrowers were hired to work for a lender to work off a debt. Were they already known in the first half of the 16th century? they were mentioned in the article of the Code of Laws of 1550, dedicated to bonded servitude (bondage for the growth of service) (14).
Kabbalah was drawn up according to a template. It was drawn up by a scribe on behalf of the borrower indicating the name, class and place of residence. The loan repayment period and interest on it must be indicated. Other conditions could also be negotiated, in particular, payment by the borrower of legal costs in the event of a bondage trial. As it is said in one of the cabals (1641), under which the court will not be for this bondage after making the judgment? give, and for this money to pay growth, and the judgment is all in full (15). On the back, the borrower put his hand to certify his agreement to the terms of bondage. Was the presence of witnesses (rumors) obligatory at the conclusion of the transaction? this norm has been known since the time of Russkaya Pravda (16).
As an example of the compilation of this document, we cite the bondage of 1600 from the archives of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery (17).
Se az Evdokim Ivanov, son of Litvinov, borrowed from Vasily Vasilyevich Rzhevsky, from Grigory Ivashkin, son of Shablakin, sovereigns of silver three rubles of money of Moscow walking August from the 25th to that day for a year. And for my growth with the sovereigns and with Vasily Vasilyevich to serve in his court all the days. And the money will fall on time, and I have the sovereigns, Vasily Vasilyevich, for my growth, and then serve in the yard all days. And then the rumor Bezson Ivanov, son of Kozin
Kabbalah was written by Vaska Stepanov, son of July on the 20th day of summer 7108 (18).
As can be seen from the bondage, the borrower worked off the interest by servicing the lender, becoming a slave. Most likely it was bought out by the monastery? and the bondage ended up in the monastery archives. The document was drawn up on the eve of the hungry years. It is known that during the terrible famine of 1601-1603. the owners drove out the slaves, issuing them letters of leave, which was enshrined in a decree of August 16, 1603 (19).
Did the monasteries have representatives of different categories of the population? from nobility to peasants. The loans taken were secured by their property, which, in the event of default, replenished the wealth of the monastery. Depending on the situation, usurious operations could pursue different goals: to gain the favor of one or another prince, to increase their possessions or master them, and, finally, to rationally use the available resources, ensuring their growth.
It is interesting that the money itself (which in the Middle Ages was designated by the word silver) was called in the acts either efficient or growth-oriented, that is, usurious. With the help of salable silver, workers were attracted to feudal and monastic farms. Real silver was sometimes also called summer silver, since the loan was repaid by working off by years (years).
If the debt, along with the growth, was returned on time, the bonded record was given to the borrower. However, this did not happen often (it was not for nothing that the expression to get into bondage was fixed in the Russian language). In the XV century. enslaving servitude was widespread. Debtors were entered into special lists, from which copies were made, which were kept in the parish administration. Metropolitan Alexei's will, written around 1377, mentions debtor slaves who fell into bondage for the silver. The head of the Russian Church does not exclude the possibility of giving them free rein on condition that the debt be returned (20), but the latter was unlikely. The debtor slaves who passed on to the Kremlin Chudov Monastery by bequest turned into peasants dependent on the monastery.
Is there a rare document in the fund of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery? Debt book of 1532-1534, in which the debts of the peasants were recorded (it was published by A. A. Zimin in 1948) (21). Apparently, this practice was widespread in large monasteries, which, with the help of credit (expressed both in cash and in kind), attracted peasants into their estates and kept them behind.
In total, the Debt Book lists 670 debtor peasants from 24 villages, 3 villagers, 18 repairs and 157 villages. Moreover, the loan records include not only the debtor himself, but also his entire family (22). Most of the loans issued were long-term, designed to maintain the long-term dependence of the peasants on the monastery. These are the so-called loan loans, which were returned only when the peasants left the estate. Their sizes reached 1.5 rubles (23).
Such books were compiled, apparently, throughout the entire 16th century (24) and in the first half of the next century, when the monastery continued to actively use credit to attract workers. So, on the basis of a loan (loan) record compiled in 1642, a free man Yevseviy Yuriev, nicknamed Druzhina, with his family for a debt of 10 rubles began to live in the monastery estate and work for the monastery on an equal basis with other peasants (25).
Noble borrowers were loans for a different purpose? for rounding off monastic possessions. A. A. Zimin, who studied the land ownership of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, calculated that from the time of its foundation until the death of Joseph Volotsky, that is, from 1479 to 1515, the monastery concluded 60 transactions, of which 27 deposits, 10 exchanges, 1 purchase, and only one patrimony was acquired for debts (26). This was the village of Buzhirovskoe with villages, received in 1512 from Princess Irina, the wife of Prince Semyon Romanovich, for a debt of 500 rubles and interest due (27).
In practice, however, the share of land acquired by monasteries through usury was much higher. Although, according to the charters, lands and lands were given to the monastery as a gift (according to the souls of their parents as a legacy of eternal blessings), the real reason for parting with their property was the insolvency of the feudal lords. So, in the years 1425-1427. Kuzma Yakovlevich Voronin handed over his patrimonial land to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery for the commemoration of the soul. It also contains the obligation of the monastery to pay Voronin's debt (10 rubles) to a certain Treparev (28). Obviously, under the guise of a gift deed, the deed of sale was made (29).
According to another dedication dated by historians in 1474-1478, Anna Kuchetskaya transferred a number of her possessions to the Trinity-Sergiev Monastery, for which he removed her husband's debt in the amount of 5 rubles (30). On similar conditions, Semyon Vasiliev Shevyakov in the middle of the 16th century. transferred a quarter of the village of Shevelevo to the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery? the abbot undertook to pay the debt of ours from that homeland in two bondages 5 rubles and 10 altyn per height (31).
When studying documents on the history of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, researchers found that its land holdings increased significantly during the internecine war of 1425-1453, and of the 50 villages acquired during this time, 9 got the monastery in an unknown way. The same can be said about 4 out of 5 villagers and 10 out of 50 villages that passed to the monks (32). It is significant that the monastery, as a rule, tried to get rid of the dubiously acquired possessions, exchanging them for other villages and lands (33). At the same time, the monastery began to distribute money on loans against the mortgage of land (34). As a result, it was the period of internecine war of the second quarter of the 15th century. became the time of the formation of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery as a large patrimony (35).
The feudal lords offered the villages, villages and other lands they owned as collateral to the creditor, and was it practiced to collect income from these estates at the expense of interest? to plow for growth, to be in charge of the peasants, and to have all sorts of income from the peasants, to mow meadows and to cut forests, and to own all sorts of land, as stated in one of the mortgages of the 16th century. (36) According to B. D. Grekov, usurious capital played a fatal role in the destinies of many noble Russian families (37).
By the XVI century. the monasteries already owned significant land ownership. At the end of the reign of Ivan III (in 1503), an attempt was made to secularize monastic and church lands, but it was not crowned with success (38). It is known, in particular, that Ivan III wanted to request all the land documents of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery for verification to the treasury (39).
Under his successor Vasily III from the 20s of the XVI century. new acts appear in the monastery archives? the so-called de-signatures (purification), letters confirming the lack of balance of the sold lands. According to researchers, this indicated the ever-increasing value of land, the desire to secure it in ownership, as well as the spread of its acquisition through loan operations (40).
By the middle of the XVI century. usury of monasteries became such a widespread phenomenon that it led to the impoverishment of many villages and hamlets. Ivan the Terrible was alarmed by the excessive strengthening of monasteries, and he, like many of his contemporaries, advocated the prohibition of church usury. The church council was forced to agree with the decision of the ruler, which is motivated in an official document by the Holy Scriptures. One of the chapters of Stoglava in 1551 instructed: henceforth, according to the sacred rules, saints and all monasteries give money to their villages to their peasants without growth and bread without an embankment in their villages so that Christians will be behind them, and their villages would not be empty (41). It was ordered to compile books of loans with an indication of the debtors and keep these books in the monastery or saint's treasury. By the verdict of the Church Zemsky Sobor in 1580 to the Metropolitan,bishops and monasteries were forbidden to buy land or keep mortgages on them (42).
Restrictions on the arbitrariness of the usurers have affected the secular population? the decree of October 15, 1557 established that in grace years (for example, in a lean year) the loan interest was either not charged, or decreased by half against the usual? to 10%.
The main security of the creditor's rights was the law. The Code of Law of 1550 contained an article on bonded servitude (Article 78), which indicated the prevalence of this phenomenon (in an earlier code of law of 1497, such an article was absent, although the phenomenon itself had existed since the end of the 15th century) (43). The Cathedral Code of 1649 (Chapter 12, Articles 39 and 40) stipulated the procedure for working off the debt with the head before redemption, when, in case of non-payment of the loan, the debtor with his family had to work for the plaintiff to repay the amount. Such a return to life is reflected in the legal norms of Kievan Rus, which provided for the transition to the service of the creditor for debts. However, if in Russkaya Pravda the rate of working off the debt was not stipulated, then in the Code of 1649 it was extremely concretized: 5 rubles. for a year of work of an adult man, 2.5 rubles? for a woman's work year and 2 rubles? for the child's work year (44).
The cathedral code of 1649 prohibited the issuance of loans at interest (45). But this norm was observed formally. For late payments, interest was charged at the same rate (20%). As it is said in one of the borrowed cabals in 1657, for the term without growth, but the money will fall on the term [after the term.? AB] and that money will grow, as it goes in people, at the rate of five-sixth (46). Otherwise, there would be no point in giving loans to monasteries? and monasteries continued to lend money, as evidenced by the surviving borrowed bondage and memory.
At this time, the clientele of the monasteries still included representatives of the nobility, estates and landowners. So, according to the text of the surviving borrowed memory of 1681, Prince P. F. Meshchersky borrowed 280 rubles from the Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery on the security of various jewelry? stones, gold and silver (47).
What about another large category of borrowers? peasants, then in the XVII century. monasteries continued to lend them money and agricultural products. The borrowed wheat, rye and oats could be used as a sowing fund. If the peasants could not pay in grain, the monastic records indicated the monetary equivalent: But if they didn’t pay rye, they would be paid for that rye in money at the trade price (48). These norms were usually applied by monasteries not only to foreign peasants, but also to their own, as well as to monastic servants. However, as the borrowed memories of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery of the 17th century show, they could lend to their own people without interest (49). During the Time of Troubles, the monastery did not even set restrictions on the repayment of the debt? having lent in 1609 (during the siege of the monastery by the Tushins) the black priest Alexander of the osmin rye,he indicated that she should be returned to the monastery granary as God will give it away (50).
In the XVII century. monasteries, as before, actively used credit to attract workers to the farm. According to the preserved documents from the archives of the Resurrection (New Jerusalem) Monastery, the conclusion of a lease or loan was used for this. In both cases, commoners worked for the monastery for loaned or given money. At the same time, in case of non-fulfillment of the contract, the monastery demanded the return of the trust money with the payment of a penalty. In addition, hiring was accompanied by a number of enslaving conditions that limited the freedom of the worker. There were cases when the latter were completely deprived of their mortgaged property, becoming farm laborers. The monastery used them for the transportation of firewood, logging and other works (51).
In the process of studying the cabals of the XVI-XVII centuries preserved in the Russian archives. historians have noticed that only a small number of them were supplied with postscripts about at least partial payment of the debt. According to V. O. It was Klyuchevsky's peasant indebtedness to feudal lords (including monasteries) that gave rise to the formation of serfdom of the peasants (52)? according to the Cathedral Code of 1649.
Thus, the result of the loan operations of monasteries in the XV-XVII centuries. there was an increase in their land holdings, the attraction of labor and the development of the acquired land. Since the time of V. O. Klyuchevsky became a generally accepted fact that monasteries played a significant role in the internal colonization of Russia. In this regard, the usury of Russian monasteries, apparently, should be viewed not only as a form of acquisitiveness, but also as one of the tools for the development of vast areas of the country.
Author: A. V. Bugrov
Used Books:
1 P. Milyukov Essays on the history of Russian culture. Part 1. SPb., 1900. S. 118.
2 Among the numerous publications of documents on the history of the Trinity-Sergiev and Joseph-Volokolamsk monasteries on our topic, the following editions are of interest: The book of keys and the debt book of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery of the 16th century. M. L., 1948; Acts of the socio-economic history of North-Eastern Russia at the end of the XIV? early XVI century (hereinafter? ASEI). T. 1. M., 1952; Acts of feudal land tenure and economy. Part 2. M., 1956.
3 See: Book of Keys and Debt Book of the Volokolamsk Monastery of the 16th century. M. L., 1948; Zimin A. A. Large feudal patrimony and socio-political struggle in Russia (late 15th - 16th centuries). M., 1977; Shchepetov K. N. Agriculture in the estates of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery at the end of the 16th century. // Historical notes. T. 18. M., 1946. S. 92-147; G. A. Pobedimova On some forms of lending to the peasants of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery in the first half of the 16th century. // Proceedings of the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Issue 9: The peasantry and the class struggle in feudal Russia. L., 1967. S. 91-97.
4 Give to everyone who asks of you, and do not demand back from him who has taken yours? Gospel of Luke, 6:30.
5 As stated in the Rules of St. Apostles (rule 44), a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, who is more demanding from the debtors, either cease or be thrown out (Book of the rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Councils of the ecumenical and local and holy father. Sergiev Posad, 1992. S. nineteen).
6 Yushkov S. V. Russian truth. M., 1950. S. 213.
7 Herberstein Sigismund. Notes about Muscovy. M., 1988. S. 129.
8 Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. T. 2. M., 1985. P. 116.
9 Bela? medieval Russian monetary unit.
10 Acts relating to the legal life of ancient Russia, issued by the Archaeographic Commission. T. 2. SPb., 1864. S. 3.
11 See: Acts relating to the legal life of ancient Russia, issued by the Archaeographic Commission. T. 2. SPb., 1864. S. 4-5; Acts of the socio-economic history of North-Eastern Russia of the XIV-XVI centuries. (hereinafter? ASEI). T. 2. M., 1958. S. 362.
12 Acts relating to the legal life of ancient Russia, issued by the Archaeographic Commission. T. 2. SPb., 1864. S. 5; ASEI. T. 1. M., 1952. S. 151.
13 ASEI. T. 2. M., 1958. L. 362.
14 Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. T. 2. M., 1985. P. 116.
15 State Historical Museum. Department of written sources. F. 440. Op. 1. D. 361. L. 1.
16 Tikhomirov M. N. A guide for the study of Russian Truth. M., 1953. S. 58, 97.
17 RGADA. F. 1192. Op. 1. D. 2247. Sheet 1.
Punctuation and spelling when reproducing text are modernized.
18 7108 from the creation of the world corresponds to 1600 from the birth of Christ.
19 Monuments of Russian law. Issue 4. Moscow, 1956. S. 375.
20 ASEI. T. 3. M., 1964. S. 50-51.
21 Book of keys and debt book of the Volokolamsk monastery of the 16th century. M. L., 1948.
22 Pobedimova G. A. On some forms of lending to the peasants of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery in the first half of the 16th century. // Proceedings of the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Issue 9: The peasantry and the class struggle in feudal Russia. L., 1967. S. 92.
23 Ibid. P. 93.
24 On loan operations of the Joseph-Volokolamsk monastery in the last quarter of the 16th century. see: Shchepetov K. N. Agriculture in the estates of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery at the end of the 16th century. // Historical notes. T. 18. M., 1946. S. 92-147.
25 RGADA. F. 1192. Op. 1. D. 2249. Sheet 1.
26 Zimin A. A. Large feudal patrimony and socio-political struggle in Russia (late 15th - 16th centuries). M., 1977. S. 172.
27 Acts of feudal land tenure and economy. Ch. 2. M., 1956. S. 54-55.
28 Ibid. P. 50.
29 Pronshtein A. P. Methodology of historical source study. Rostov-on-Don, 1976. S. 321.
30 ASEI. T. 1. M., 1952. S. 329.
31 Acts of feudal land tenure and economy. Ch. 2. M., 1956. S. 216; Zimin A. A. Large feudal patrimony and socio-political struggle in Russia (late 15th-16th centuries). M., 1977. S. 197.
32 Kruglik G. M. Land tenure of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery during the period of the feudal war (1425-1453) // Agrarian system in feudal Russia XV? early 18th century Digest of articles. M., 1986. S. 6.
33 Ibid. P. 19.
34 Ibid. P. 20.
35 Ibid. P. 23. MS agrees with this assessment. Cherkasova: By 1462, the number of newly acquired villages and villagers (the most important agricultural objects) increased in the Trinity estate almost 4.5 times, reaching 63 (Cherkasova M. S., 1996. S. 69).
36 Monuments of Russian business writing of the 15th-16th centuries. Ryazan Territory. M., 1978. S. 113.
37 Grekov B. D. Peasants in Russia. T. 2. M., 1954. S. 56.
38 Ivina L. I. Large patrimony of North-Eastern Russia at the end of the XIV? first half of the 16th century L., 1979. S. 128.
39 Cherkasova M. S. Land ownership of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery in the 15th-16th centuries M., 1996. S. 99-100.
40 Ivina L. I. Large patrimony of North-Eastern Russia at the end of the XIV? first half of the 16th century L., 1979. S. 132.
41 Russian legislation of the XX-XX centuries. T. 2. M., 1985. S. 354.
42 Ibid. T. 3. M., 1985. S. 28.
43 Ibid. T. 2. S. 116, 161-163.
44 Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. T. 3. M., 1985. S. 214.
45 Ibid. S. 135, 146.
46 Acts relating to the legal life of ancient Russia, issued by the Archaeographic Commission. T. 2. SPb., 1864. S. 2.
47 RGADA. F. 1192. Op. 1. D. 2276. Sheet 1.
48 Ibid. D. 2556. Sheet 2.
49 See: RGADA. F. 1192. Op. 1. D. 2526.
50 Ibid. D. 2526. L. 3.
51 Baklanova N. A. Forms of exploitation in the economy of the Resurrection Monastery in the II half of the 17th century. // Agrarian system in feudal Russia XV? early 18th century Digest of articles. M., 1986. S. 143-144.
52 Klyuchevsky V. O. Collected works: In 9 volumes. T. 8. M., 1990. S. 120-193.