Szlachta, noble class in Poland. Szlachta - noble class in Poland

20.09.2019

Read also

Why do you dream of applause?

“Why do you dream about ruins?

Why do you dream of being a cleaner?

Why do you dream of a jug in a dream - interpretation by day of the week

Why do you dream of mercury in the mouth of a living person?

In Polish historiography, there are two theories for resolving the issue of the origin of the gentry:

theory of the conquest of Poland by a foreign tribe of Polabian Slavs (Professor Pekosinsky) at the end of the 8th or beginning of the 9th century (so-called Sarmatism) One of the arguments in favor of this hypothesis is the presence of runes in the coats of arms of the Polish gentry.
the theory of the natural evolution of socio-political relations in the life of Polish tribes, which denies the fact of conquest from the outside. State organization preceded, like all primitive peoples, by the clan, and the clan represented and economic union on the basis of collectivity. A further form of social integration was the group of clans, which corresponded to the South Slavic brotherhood and laid the foundation for the territorial union, which was later called “opole”. The affairs of the opole were managed by a council of elders who stood at the head of the individual clans that made up the opole. From the connection of opoles, tribes arose, ruled by princes. The war strengthened the princely power and contributed to the separation from the general mass of free people of a special permanent class of warriors, which formed the core from which the gentry class gradually developed (see. military democracy ).

Story

The 11th century is the first mention of the custom of knighting. Kings from (Boleslav I the Brave) awarded knighthood for some merit or service to people of ignoble origin, even slaves. The noble class was also called “lords”, elders of knightly families, former princes tribes that had lost their political independence, and the descendants of these princes constituted an aristocratic element in this class, which over time developed and grew into a special class of rich landowning nobility, the so-called “mozhnovladstvo”. Pekosinsky claims that the Polish knighthood until the end of the 11th century was dependent on the sovereigns and did not have its own lands,
XII century - under Prince Boleslav Kryvost, the Polish knighthood was endowed with land holdings and only then turned into a landowning class.
- inviting Teutonic knights to fight the Prussian pagans.
- Lithuanian and Ukrainian boyars join the gentry.
- introduction of local self-government. The king is obliged to coordinate his decrees with the will of the local gentry.
- the nobility elects a king for the first time.
- the Sejm, assembled every two years from 54 ambassadors of the gentry communities, began working.
- establishment of a gentry republic (“golden liberty”).
- participation of the Polish gentry in the Russian Troubles.
- Battle of Klushino and the capture of Moscow.
- disappearance of the Polish state.
- - Duchy of Warsaw in alliance with Napoleon.
- anti-Russian uprising.
- anti-Russian uprising.
- - Second Polish Republic. The end of the gentry's dream of Greater Poland from sea to sea.

Nobility and knighthood

Typically, szlachta refers to the Polish knighthood, but there was a distinction between them that arose in the 14th century:

The gentry had immunity: they owned property, were exempt from certain duties, and had judicial power over the peasants. According to the Kosice privilege, the gentry were freed from all state duties, with the exception of payment of land taxes in the amount of 2 groschen per fief, and received the exclusive right to occupy the positions of governor, castellan, judges, sub-comories, etc. Knighthood could be ordinary (miles medius, scartabellus); In addition, there were knights who came from peasants and Soltys (miles e sculteto vel cmetone). The price for killing a nobleman was set at 60 hryvnia, for a private knight 30 hryvnia and for a knight of the last category - 15 hryvnia.
The gentry possessed coats of arms.
The gentry was an exponent of the national consciousness of the Poles.
The gentry was imbued with a strong corporate spirit, feelings of class solidarity and energetically defended their class interests, which were often in conflict with the interests of other classes.

Ukrainian gentry

Ukrainians very often fraternized with Poles, which led to the Polonization of magnate families. At the same time, the small gentry, which dominated the entire Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was always quite close to the peasants.

Ruthenian nobles were often oppressed on religious grounds, which resulted in a gradual cultural and then military confrontation with the Catholic (Polish) nobility. A significant part of the Ukrainian gentry joined the ranks of the Zaporozhian Army: some went to the registered Cossacks, and others to the Sich. IN different time The leaders of the Sich Cossacks were the gentry Bogdan Zinovy Khmelnitsky, Kryshtof Kosinsky, Nedashkovsky, Dmitro Baida Vishnevetsky, Yuras Khmelnichenko, Timush Khmelnitsky, Ivan Vygovsky, Petro Konashevich Sagaidachny, Ivan Mazepa. Less well-known gentry from the Ruthenian nobility, but playing a certain role in the history of the Zaporozhye Sich, were, for example, Korobki, Loboda and Volevachi. Such a gentry was often called “show-off”, but later they began to call it “Cossack foreman” to distinguish it from ordinary Cossacks who merged with the authorities.

It should be noted that the Ukrainian nobility did not play a significant role in the popular consciousness of Ukrainians, but the Cossack authorities, who were mostly of the gentry family, were the core of the national elite.

Noble self-government

The form of organization of the gentry was the sejmik, a meeting of the entire Sh., which belonged to the same local community (communitas), as one social whole. Neshava legislation put Sh. on the same level as the rulers: in order to issue a new law, establish a new tax or convene a zemstvo militia, the king was obliged to apply to the gentry sejmiks for permission. At the same time, Sh. acquired important privileges even earlier that guaranteed the property and personal integrity of the nobleman (see Tserekvitsky Privilege). This political growth of the class depended on economic reasons. Poland was an agricultural country, therefore, Poland, as a landowning class, was an important factor in the state life of the country.

Nobility and peasantry

In the XIV and XV centuries. The acquisition of Chervonnaya Rus and the annexation, at least partial and temporary, of Podolia and Volyn, opened up vast spaces for Polish colonization, since these lands were sparsely populated. Huge latifundia of Polish magnates were formed here, who, feeling a shortage of workers, tried to attract peasants to their estates with various benefits. The emigration of the peasant population from Poland had a detrimental effect on the economy of the gentry class. It was in his interests to detain the peasants on the spot. In addition, general economic development Europe, by the end of the Middle Ages, expanded markets for the sale of Polish agricultural products, which encouraged the Polish landowner to intensify the exploitation of the land, but this could be achieved, of course, only through changes in farming and by increasing the exploitation of peasant labor. Having political power in her hands, Sh. first limited the self-government of peasant communities, subordinating them to her control, which she achieved

acquisition of the position of Soltys, who stood at the head of the peasant community. The Warta Statute of 1423 contains a resolution on the basis of which the landowner could deprive the Soltys of his position for disobedience and take this position himself. Having severely constrained peasant self-government, Sh. then limited the freedom of peasant migrations, established corvée and, finally, reduced the peasant to a state of serfdom. According to the Petrokovsky Statute of 1496, only one peasant had the right to leave the landowner’s village, and a peasant family had the right to send only one son to education; The law allowed the landowner to pursue, seize and return a fleeing peasant. The diets of Bydgoszcz (1520) and Torun (1521) established corvée at the rate of one day per week, and the Warsaw Confederation of 1573 gave the landowner power over even the lives of serfs. Economic interests prompted Sh. to also issue restrictive laws in relation to the urban class. The above-mentioned Petrokovsky Statute prohibited the bourgeoisie from acquiring land estates under the pretext that the bourgeoisie did not take part in military campaigns and tried in every possible way to evade military service, and yet it was on land property that military service gravitated. The philistinism tried to fight Sh., but was unsuccessful. In the second half of the 16th century, city representation was already excluded from participation in the country's legislation, although representatives from some cities sometimes appeared at the diets back in the 17th century. Moreover, Sh. subordinated industry and trade to the power of governors and elders, which completely killed the city’s well-being. From the beginning of the 16th century. Sh. was already the all-powerful master in the state and remained such a master until the end of the existence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. She legislated, judged, elected kings, protected the state from enemies, waged wars, concluded peace agreements and treaties, etc. Not only political and social organization Poland was gentry - the gentry worldview reigned supreme in the mental life of the country. See Chinsheva S., Polish Sejm, Poland, Four-Year Sejm.

Noble culture

Literature

M. Bobrzyński, "Geneza społeczeństwa polskiego na podstawie kroniki Galla i dyplomatów XII w.";
Fr. Piekosiński, "O powstaniu społeczeństwa polskiego w wiekach średnich i jego pierwotnym ustroju";
St. Smolka, “Uwagi o pierwotnym ustroju społecznym Polski Piastowskiej” (these three works are included in “Rozprawy i sprawozd. wydz. histor. filozof. Akad. Um.”, vol. XIV);
A. Małecki, "Studja heraldynne" (Lviv, 1890, 2 vols.);
A. Balzer, "Rewizja teorji o pierwotnem osadnictwie w Polsce" ("Kwart. Hist.", 1898, vol. XII);
Fr. Piekosiński, "Rycerstwo polskie wieków średnich" (vol. I-III);
A. Prochaska, "Geneza i rozwój parlamentaryzmu za pierwszych Jagiellonów" ("Rozpr. Akad. Um. wydz. hist. filozof.", vol. XXXVIII);
Fr. Piekosiński, "Wiece, sejmiki, sejmy i przywileje ziemskie w Polsce wieków średnich" (ib., vol. XXXIX);
A. Pawiński, "Sejmiki ziemskie" (Warsaw, 1895);
Wł. Smoleński, "Szlachta w świetle w łasnych opinji" ("Pisma historyczne", Krakow 1901, vol. I);
R. Hube, "Prawo polskie w w. XIII" (Warsaw, 1874);
his, "Sądy, ich praktyka i stosunki prawne w Polsce etc." (Warsaw, 1886).

The word "gentry" comes from the Middle High German Geschlecht (kind, breed), or fromSchlaht (battle). From German language VXIII century, it, along with many other terms from the field of state-legal relations, penetrated first into Czech, and then into Polish language. In Poland inXIII -In the 14th century, the word “gentry” began to be used to describe the military service class that was emerging at that time.

With the conclusion of the Union of Krevo in 1385 and the beginning of the publication of the first zemstvo privileges, this term also spread to the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). Here at this time other terms were in use to designate the military service class, among which the most important role belonged to the “boyars.” DuringXV -In the 16th century, various terms existed in parallel in state legal documents. But with the evolution of the political structure of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the formation of the gentry as a single class, a gradual unification of terminology occurred.

Origin of the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

In the process of formation of the gentry class on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, several stages can be distinguished. The first corresponds to the period from the mid-13th to the end of the 14th centuries. At this time, continuing the tradition Old Russian state Princely warriors and warriors who came from the territory of the Polotsk, Turov and Smolensk principalities were still called “balyars” or “boyars”. From the second half of the 13th century, the warriors of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, as well as the warriors of appanage princes and even large landowners, were also called.

Battle scene on one of the miniatures of the Radziwill Chronicle of the 15th century

The belonging of all these people to general group was determined by the common duty for all to serve their prince, which, in turn, gave them the right to receive feeding from him and the opportunity to acquire and hold land property. This category included persons of various social and property backgrounds. Among them were the descendants of small Lithuanian princes, as well as the senior druzhina nobility, who were rich hereditary owners-patrimonial owners of their lands, and the prince’s servants who were personally dependent, who received from him table, allowance, clothing, weapons and gifts for their service, as well as part of the war booty.

Research shows that the vast majority of boyars were poor people in terms of their property status. As a rule, they owned only a small estate and one or two dependent servants, or did not have their own land property at all.

The second stage dates back to the time between the end of the 14th and the first half of the 16th centuries and is associated with the legal registration of the military service class. This process began in 1387 with the publication by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jagiello of the first zemstvo privilege to commemorate the conclusion of the Krevo Union with Poland. It states that military service in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania applies not only to “men bearing arms, or boyars” (armigeri sive boyarines), but to all men capable of it.

Those boyars who accepted the Catholic faith, as well as their heirs, received the rights to own, hold, sell, donate, and change their lands of their own free will. The peasants living on these lands had to perform in his favor those duties that were supposed to be performed in favor of the prince. They were also exempt from performing all other forced labor, with the exception of castle duty. Priviley guaranteed these rights both in relation to the boyars themselves and their direct heirs, and in relation to their widows.

In 1413, the Gorodel Privilege was issued, the addressee of which was “lords, nobles and boyars” (nobiles, barones, boyares) of the Catholic faith. Priviley confirmed their old ownership rights and provided new ones: to occupy zemstvo and court positions, to participate in meetings of the Grand Duke's Rada and in the activities of general diets, to manage income from the Grand Duke's estates received as grants, i.e. the same rights that by that time the Polish lords and gentry already enjoyed. In order to strengthen the military brotherhood, the Poles gave their coats of arms to the Lithuanian boyars. Families sharing the same coat of arms were considered relatives of each other.

Although the above rights were initially granted only to Catholic boyars, as a result internecine war 1430 - 1434 in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania they were also extended to the Orthodox. The corresponding decisions were carried out in the privileges of Jogaila in 1432 and Sigismund Keistutovich in 1434.

Casimir IV Jagiellon, Grand Duke Lithuanian in 1440 - 1492, Polish king in 1447 - 1492

The privileged nature of the military service class of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was consolidated in the privilege of Casimir IV Jagiellon, published in 1447. This document confirmed the rights of the boyars to lands and property granted to them by Casimir’s ancestors; the basic rights to ownership, inheritance, sale, pledge and exchange of estates were guaranteed. After the death of a boyar, his possessions could not be confiscated, but were transferred to his heirs. In addition, the daughters and relatives of the boyars could get married without the knowledge of the prince or his governor.

One of the most important provisions The privilege was the release of dependent peasants living in the possessions of the boyars from paying any duties in favor of the state authorities with the transfer of the right to receive the corresponding income to their owner. Boyar estates were also subject to the rights of judicial immunity, which made their owner the only judge for his peasants. Priviley confirmed the personal freedom and integrity of the boyars, guaranteed the principle of personal responsibility in judicial conflicts, and provided the boyars with a number of other privileges, including the freedom to travel abroad for service.

Rights and obligations of the gentry

The legal status of the gentry class, created by the grand ducal privileges of the 14th - 16th centuries and which received final formalization in the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1529, 1566 and 1588, was sharply different from the legal status of other categories of the population. The gentry could own land as personal property, had the right to trade the products of their estates duty-free, including exporting them abroad, were exempt from paying customs duties on goods purchased abroad for personal use, as well as from all other taxes and duties, in addition to the obligations of military service during the war and the payment of funds for military needs, which were collected by decision of the general council.

Shlyakhtich had the right to leave the service of one tycoon and move to another, as well as to freely travel outside the country. He retained his freedom no matter how long he was in the service of a particular magnate or lived on land rented from him. Legislative acts proclaimed the inviolability of the personality of the nobleman, who could not be imprisoned before trial. He could only be judged by other nobles equal to him. Only the gentry had the right to hold government positions and participate in council meetings. To protect common interests, the gentry had the right to unite in political unions-confederations.

The main occupation for most gentry in peacetime was hunting, feasting and dancing, which formed a special type of gentry culture in the 16th - 18th centuries.

The main duty of the gentry was military service. In 1502, at the Sejm in Novogorodka, it was established that every landowner must register his people and give the lists to the Grand Duke under oath that he had not hidden anything. From every ten services (peasant households) he had, the nobleman had to field with him a warrior in a “zbro” (armed - editor’s note), on a horse and with a spear. Beginning in 1528, a warrior in full armor had to be deployed from every eight services. Those who only had eight had to go out themselves. In the documents they were called “horse-mounted boyars who don’t toil like people,” or “foot gentry.” Those who had fewer people or none at all had to equip a warrior from the corresponding number of peasant households in their property.

It was established that those who did not show up at the assembly point on time were subject to a fine of 100 groschen, those who did not leave a week later lost their property, and the death penalty was imposed for desertion. In 1528, it was established how a warrior should be equipped on a campaign: “on a good horse in the wild, with an ensign on which there would be a panzer, a prylbita, a sword, or a cord, colored cloth, a paveza and two forts.” In the same year, a list was drawn up of who and how many horsemen should be sent to the militia. The largest number of soldiers was fielded by the Vilna Voivodeship (3,605 people, of which 466 horsemen from all his estates should be fielded by the Vilna Voivode Goshtovt), the Troka Voivodeship (2,861 people, of which the Troka Voivode put up 426 horsemen), as well as the Zhmud land (1,839 people, of which 371 horsemen were exhibited by the Samogitian elder). The total number of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth could reach 10,178 soldiers.

These and other data from censuses of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania troops in 1528, 1565 and 1567 clearly show a huge difference in property between different representatives of the same class. At a time when large feudal lords could field entire cavalry detachments into the army, representatives of the small gentry did not even have the required weapons. Based on the number of warriors fielded by the gentry, they can be divided into five main categories depending on the size of land holdings. The first group includes the smallest gentry (1 horseman), then small (2 - 10 horsemen), medium (11 - 50 horsemen), large (60 - 100 horsemen), magnates (more than 100 horsemen).

The absolute majority of gentry liable for military service belong to the group of the smallest and smallest landowners. In 1528, they amounted to 2,562 people, or 81 percent of all nobles who came to the review from Belarusian povets (districts). At the same time, they exhibited 53.6 percent of all (3873) horses from Belarusian povets, or 10.5% of all (19817) horses of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Categories of gentry

The most noticeable group of the ruling class was the highest nobility, which included the descendants of appanage Russian and Lithuanian princes and senior warriors, wealthy patrimonial owners, and large landowners, the largest hierarchs of the church. From about the middle of the 15th century, the term “lords” began to be used to designate it in state legal acts. The Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and other documents distinguish the following categories:

“Rada lords” - the highest nobility, whose representatives held court positions and sat as part of the Rada of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania;
“Pan banners” - the largest landowners who went on campaigns under their own banners (banners) at the head of their own detachments;
“Panyata” were rich landowners who went to war under a special banner as part of a special detachment, separate from the povet militia of the gentry.

As a rule, the rada lords and banner lords were representatives of the same families. In the second half of the 16th century, this group, following the Polish model, began to be called “magnates”. The “Popis Troops of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” of 1528 numbered 23 magnate families, a similar document of 1567 - already 29 families, each of which owned more than a thousand peasant smokes.

Magnates of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the first half of the 17th century. Fragment of a painting by Tomasz Dolabella

At a lower level in comparison with this group were the “noble boyars”, or from the second half of the 16th century - simply “gentry” - who were also internally a very heterogeneous group. Its backbone consisted of medium and small owners who were well settled and owned one or more estates with their own lands and dependent peasants cultivating them. They, as a rule, had hereditary coats of arms, or were endowed with them after receiving the nobility from the king. Subsequently, in the XVII - XVIII centuries, this group was called the “farm gentry.”

An even lower level was the largest group of poor gentry, who owned only 5 - 10 hauls of land (volokas - 21.36 hectares), which, in the absence of dependent peasants, they cultivated on their own. Not at all different from the peasantry in terms of property, the land-poor gentry enjoyed all the basic privileges of their class and had a characteristic corporate culture. Often entire gentry settlements were formed, the so-called “dungeons” or “outskirts”, which were isolated from neighboring peasant settlements. Their population is known as the “closet”, “outlying” or “corral” gentry.

Finally, at the very bottom were the landless gentry (“golota”), who lived by renting state or magnate lands on the terms of paying quitrent (“Chinsheva gentry”), or from service (“service gentry”).

“The nobleman on the fence is equal to the voivode.” Poor nobleman, drawing from the 18th century

A special feature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the presence of a significant intermediate group, occupying a position between the gentry and the peasants. Such an intermediate status, for example, was possessed by the “armored boyars” or “armored servants”, who were recruited from free people, peasants and townspeople and settled in areas bordering the Moscow Empire. Under the conditions of free use of allotments and a number of other privileges, they had to participate in campaigns “from their estates with the boyars”, as well as perform border and garrison service. Between campaigns they had to obey the local castellan.

Another similar group were the “good boyars” (“good servants”, “rural travelers”), who performed “good service”, i.e. trips on behalf of the administration and for this they received similar rights to use the land plot received from the Grand Duke. While the borders of the gentry remained open, these peasants liable for military service often sought, and in most cases they actually succeeded, to join its ranks. However, opposite cases are also known, when boyar-servants who could not fulfill their duties were transferred to the category of dependent peasants.

Literature:

Lyubavsky M.K. Essay on the history of the Lithuanian-Russian state up to and including the Union of Lublin. - Mn.: Belarusskaya Navuka, 2012, - 397 p.
Loika P. A. Nobles of the Belarusian lands in the towns of the city of Rechy Paspalitay of the other fells of the XVII - first century of the XVIII century. - Mn., 2002. - 99 p.
Saganovich G. M. Troops of the Vyalikag of the Principality of Lithuania in the XVII - XVIII centuries. - Mn.: Navuka and technology, 1994. - 79 p.
Selitsky A.I. Polish gentry in the social and legal system of the Russian Empire // Poles in Russia: XVII - XX centuries: Materials of the International scientific conference. - Krasnodar: “Kuban”, 2003. - p. 105-128.
Gritskevich A.P. Formation feudal class in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its legal foundations (XV - XVI centuries). // First Lithuanian Statute of 1529, Vilnius, 1982.
Grytskevich A.P. Nobles. // Encyclopedic histories of Belarus, vol. 6, book. 2. - Mn.: Belarusian Encyclopedia, 2003. - pp. 220 - 223.
Grytskevich A.P. Bayars. // Encyclopedic histories of Belarus, vol. 1. - Mn.: Belarusian Encyclopedia, 2003. - p. 338.
Tkacho M. A. Armored Bayars. // Encyclopedic histories of Belarus, vol. 1. - Mn.: Belarusian Encyclopedia, 2003. - p. 339.

In the Russian Empire, persons of the Jewish faith had the opportunity to obtain Russian nobility in several ways:

A grant from the emperor (including those with titles - usually barons); length of service of the relevant ranks; receiving a Russian order; confirmation of the right to use foreign nobility or a noble title.

<...>Jews were not known in historical (pre-imperial) Russia, since back in 1113, by a joint decision of the Russian princes, the lives and property of Jews were deprived of all protection, and they were forced to leave our land until the 18th century.

But the memory of them remains. Neither Peter the Great, nor Anna Ioannovna, nor Elizaveta Petrovna, caring for the interests of the nation as they understood them, did not allow Jews to settle or even do business in Russia, despite all the efforts of Jewish enterprise.

As for the new territories in the West acquired by Peter, the Jews there, on the contrary, were known quite well, and therefore they also took protective measures against them.

As informed V.S. points out. Mandel, “at that time, and much later, until the forties of the 19th century, the Riga-German burghers, who had a European appearance, fought to prevent the settlement of Jews in Riga and to allow Jews who came to Riga for a while to live “only in one visiting house" on the Moscow outskirts."

In the age of Catherine the Second, this prudent protective tradition was, however, violated due to the territorial acquisitions of the Russian crown.

It didn't happen right away. Catherine was not knowledgeable about the Jewish question and did not have an expert on it near the throne. When, shortly after the coup of 1762, they tried to persuade her to allow Jews to enter Russia, she said that “to begin the reign with a decree on the free entry of Jews would be a bad way to calm minds; It is impossible to recognize entry as harmful.

Then Senator Prince Odoevsky suggested looking at what Empress Elizabeth wrote in the margins of the same report. Catherine demanded a report and read: “I do not want selfish profit from the enemies of Christ.” Turning to the prosecutor general, she said: “I wish this case to be postponed.”

Elizabeth’s textbook phrase, steadfastly expressed in response to yet another round of exhortations (the commercial “benefits” of Jewish activity came to the fore, as usual), alas, did not serve for long as a beacon for Catherine. The conquest of New Russia and Poland put an end to her hesitation.

“Soon after her accession to the throne, Catherine II decided to invite colonists to Russia, especially for the southern provinces, in order to revive trade, industry and agriculture. For this purpose, by a personal decree of June 22, 1763, the “Office of Guardianship of Foreigners” was created, at the head of which the Empress put the person closest to her, Grigory Orlov. And so, in defiance of all the prejudices that existed in her time, she decided to include Jews among these “foreigners.” However, she was afraid to say it openly...

As a result, only much later, in November 1769, in a decree of the Kyiv General Voeikov, Jews were officially allowed to settle in the newly created Novorossiysk province for the first time. Moreover, this intention of the Empress to let Jews into Russia was expressed, so to speak, in a conspiracy with her close associates, reflected in correspondence with the Riga Governor General Brown, in which the whole matter was given a conspiratorial character.

The letter delivered to Brown by Major Rtishchev stated: when some foreign merchants of the Novorossiysk province are recommended by the guardianship office, they will be allowed to reside in Riga to carry out trade on the same basis as is allowed by law to merchants of other Russian provinces in Riga.

If, further, these merchants send their clerks, commissioners and workers to settle in Novorossiya, then issue them with the proper passports for a safe journey, “regardless of their religion,” and give them guides. If, finally, three or four people arrive from Mitava who wish to go to St. Petersburg due to demands on the treasury, then issue them passports, “without indicating their nationality and without making inquiries about their religion,” and indicate only their names in the passports. To verify their identity, these people will present a letter from the merchant Levin Wulf, who is located in St. Petersburg.

In this mysterious way the settlement of Jews in Russia began. Even the word “Jew” is carefully avoided in the letter. However, Brown obviously understood Catherine’s desire, or Rtishchev explained it to him in words. The latter was immediately sent to Mitava to the Russian envoy at the ducal court von Simolin on a secret mission and on May 7, 1764 returned from Simolin with seven Jews.”

Jewish baked Polish pie

The situation changed radically after the first and second partitions of Poland and the annexation to Russia of the ancient lands of Kievan Rus, which had long been under the rule of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, fairly polarized and Catholicized, and thoroughly infiltrated by Jews.

After the partitions of Poland in 1772, 1793 and 1795, over 800 thousand Jews found themselves under Russian citizenship. Living en masse in Poland since 1098 (according to the Czech chronicles of Cozma of Prague), Jews managed to achieve many benefits and privileges for themselves. At one time they even minted their own coins, and in the end they achieved the right to acquire real estate on an equal basis with the Polish nobility.

In the lands that passed to Russia, Jewish power was established long ago; she kept mainly on farming, renting, usury and tavern.

The master was not as terrible for a farm laborer or serf as a Jew - a tenant, tax farmer, moneylender.

Gabriel Derzhavin, who inspected the annexed lands, wrote a lengthy note about this to the Tsar and the highest dignitaries (“Opinion about the aversion to the shortage of grain in Belarus by curbing the selfish trades of the Jews, about their transformation, etc.”).

He accused the Jews of being " they bring the villagers into poverty, and especially when they return the borrowed bread from them... of course they must pay it back twice: whoever fails to do this is punished... all the ways for the villagers to be prosperous and well-fed are taken away ».

Modern Jewish historian Israel Shahak describes the situation even more uncompromisingly: “Before 1939, the population of many Polish cities east of the Bug was at least 90% Jewish, and this was even more true in the areas that fell to Tsarist Russia during the partition of Poland.

Outside the cities, many Jews throughout Poland, and especially in the east, served as direct overseers and oppressors of the serf peasantry. They managed entire estates (having full power of the landowners) or rented individual monopolies of feudal lords, such as a mill, a distillery, a tavern (with the right of armed searches of peasant houses in search of moonshiners), or a bakery.

They collected feudal payments of all kinds. In short, under the rule of magnates and feudal clergymen, who also descended from the nobility, Jews were both direct exploiters of the peasants and practically the only townspeople.”

In the specialized literature one can find the following assessment: on the eve of the first partition of Poland, over a third of Polish Jews were in one way or another connected with tenant farming. Furthermore. Since in the primordially Russian western lands the ruling stratum - the Poles - professed Catholicism, they, pursuing their own benefits, transferred to the Jews the right to collect even fees for church ceremonies - christenings, weddings, funerals, etc. from the forced Orthodox population (Little Russians, Belarusians). In this connection, appeared in local folklore expressive image Jewish tenant holding the keys to the church in his hand.

The special position of the Jews in Poland entailed very important consequences. As Mikhail Menshikov, who studied this issue, wrote: “ The Jews were only tenants, but since they were given the right to the land and to the people assigned to the land, they were the real nobility of Poland. While access to the nobility was closed to Christian subjects, a Jew had to be baptized in order to acquire gentry rights.

A single listing of Polish families descended from Jewish crosses takes up two entire volumes.

And since at the same time the Polish gentry married rich Jewish women, within five hundred years the Jews managed to significantly spoil the very race of the Polish nobility. Take a closer look at the common Polish people and the gentry - there are still two races, noticeably different.”

This conclusion is shared by Israel Shahak, arguing that Polish nobles of the 18th century continuously intermarried with baptized Jews. The abundant admixture of Jewish blood with Polish noble blood, just as it happened in Spain and Portugal under the rule of the Moors, is a fact long established by science.

So, it should be noted and emphasized that the position of Jews in the lands annexed to Russia during the partition of Poland, their actual influence and power over the local population is not the result of Russian orders established by the authorities. No, before us is only the order of things inherited by the Russian conquerors, established under the wing of the Polish White Eagle.

For Poland, the inclusion of Jews in ruling class, interbreeding with the Polish nobility and acquiring noble status had long been neither news nor a rarity at the time of its first partition.

When annexing new lands to Russia, Catherine the Second did not take such circumstances into account. It is not surprising that the old order was preserved in the new Russian territories. First in Russia legislative act, regulating Jewish land ownership was only the “Regulation on Jews” of 1804, which officially allowed Jews to purchase, own and inherit land. Without serfs, of course.

But as far as the ownership of serfs in Russia is concerned, the law was quite harsh and definite. The empress’s personal decree of February 22, 1784 imposed an unequivocal ban: “ No one in the empire, not being in Christian law, can enjoy the right to buy, acquire and own serfs" This provision cannot be interpreted in two ways.

It is known that Jews in Russia constantly tried to torpedo this law. They not only made efforts to legalize and strengthen Jewish land ownership, but also proposed to grant Jews the right to own serfs.

Let me emphasize: rich, influential Jews in the newly annexed territories tried to exploit at least someone, even their own fellow tribesmen at worst. Thus, the Minsk Kahal in 1804 sent his proposals on Jewish land ownership to the inter-ministerial Jewish Committee, established by Alexander I to prepare new legislation on Jews. Kahal proposed “allowing enough Jewish merchants to buy land” and establish factories on them where poor Jews would work. It was assumed that when they “got used to work” and “improve their condition,” they could be transferred to agricultural work there.

In essence, as the researcher notes, “ in fact, a class of a kind of “Jewish nobles” is distinguished, while the status of the lower strata of Jewish society declines even more - to the point of possible enslavement ».

The Jews also tried to achieve the right to own serfs in general, regardless of nationality. Thus, in 1799, the merchant of the second guild Getzel Leizarovich from Belitsa, in petitions to the Senate and to the highest name, sought permission to purchase two hundred peasants to work in a tannery.

However, of all such attempts, no one succeeded, and the same Leizarovich was refused precisely on the basis of the above-mentioned decree of 1784.

The only exceptions were those mentioned by Miller (and after him by Solovyov and Sergeev) Nota Notkin (aka Nathan Shklover) and Joshua Tseytlin (aka Tsetlis), as well as a few more lucky ones, which are discussed below.

"Potemkin Jews"

What was the matter? Both named were Jews specifically from Shklov, representatives of the most Jewish of all Jewish loci on the lands of the Polish crown newly acquired by Russia. It was, in the full sense of the word, a national Jewish center on Belarusian soil, with its own traditions and orders and with its own relationships with the Polish royal court. Even Georg Korb, secretary of the Austrian embassy at the court of Peter I, in a note dating back to 1699, noted that Shklov Jews constituted “the richest and most influential class” in the city.

Both Tseytlin and Notkin, wealthy merchants, received the rank of court councilor from the Polish king even before the partition of Poland. Then the Polish government changed to Russian, but the rank of these Jews, which formally gave Russian nobility and with it the right to acquire land, remained.

As the reader understands, for the peasants of the Mogilev province, annexed to Russia precisely during the reign of Catherine, no changes in the situation occurred. The traditional power and influence of Jews in this specific region, separated from all of Russia by the Pale of Settlement established by Catherine, did not change. She just changed the format a little.

Both Notkin and Tseytlin actually owned estates and peasants here, succeeding in this thanks, firstly, to their careers made in advance, and secondly, to a special relationship with His Serene Highness Prince Grigory Potemkin - Tauride. Such relations, however, did not apply to all the Jews Potemkin knew: both named businessmen remained almost the only exception both among the Russian nobles and among the newly acquired Jewish residents of Russia.

What was this relationship? Both Notkin and Tseytlin were large contractors who became very rich from supplies to the army, from the laying out and construction of Kherson and the general development of Novorossiya. All this was under the direct control of Potemkin and contributed to the growth of his personal fortune, which explains his supernatural closeness from the very beginning.

Here is what the Jewish historian B. Klein writes in a text with the characteristic title “Potemkin Jews”: “A key role at the Potemkin court was played by a personality noted by researchers long ago, but whose significance, apparently, has yet to be fully assessed. Joshua Zeitlin, a prominent merchant and learned Hebraist, traveled with the prince, managed his estates, built cities, entered into loans to supply the army, and even managed a mint in the Crimea.

According to descriptions of contemporaries, he “walked with Potemkin as his brother and friend,” proudly maintaining traditional clothing, piety, and in front of others, he had conversations with rabbis. Sometimes His Serene Highness personally participated in Talmudic discussions. True, there were also a priest and a mullah with him. Such a spectacle was amazing not only for Russia, but also for Europe, which received reports from informants about what was happening around one of the most unpredictable rulers.”

In the Russian Empire, persons of the Jewish faith had the opportunity to obtain Russian nobility in several ways:

Jews were not known in historical (pre-imperial) Russia, since back in 1113, by a joint decision of the Russian princes, the lives and property of Jews were deprived of all protection, and they were forced to leave our land until the 18th century.

As for the new territories in the West acquired by Peter, the Jews there, on the contrary, were known quite well, and therefore they also took protective measures against them.

In the age of Catherine the Second, this prudent protective tradition was, however, violated due to the territorial acquisitions of the Russian crown.

As a result, only much later, in November 1769, in a decree of the Kyiv General Voeikov, Jews were officially allowed to settle in the newly created Novorossiysk province for the first time. Moreover, this intention of the Empress to let Jews into Russia was expressed, so to speak, in a conspiracy between her and her close associates, reflected in correspondence with the Riga Governor General Brown, in which the whole matter was given a conspiratorial character.

In this mysterious way the settlement of Jews in Russia began. Even the word “Jew” is carefully avoided in the letter. However, Brown obviously understood Catherine’s desire, or Rtishchev explained it to him in words. The latter was immediately sent to Mitava to the Russian envoy at the ducal court von Simolin with a secret mission and on May 7, 1764 returned from Simolin with seven Jews.”

Jewish baked Polish pie

After the partitions of Poland in 1772, 1793 and 1795, over 800 thousand Jews found themselves under Russian citizenship. Living en masse in Poland since 1098 (according to the Czech chronicles of Cozma of Prague), Jews managed to achieve many benefits and privileges for themselves. At one time they even minted their own coins, and eventually achieved the right to acquire real estate on an equal basis with the Polish nobility.

In the lands that passed to Russia, Jewish power was established long ago; it relied mainly on farming, renting, usury and tavern farming.

The master was not as terrible for a farm laborer or serf as a Jew - a tenant, tax farmer, moneylender.

He accused the Jews of the fact that the Jews “bring the villagers to poverty, and especially when returning the borrowed bread from them... of course they must pay back twice: whoever does not do this will be punished... all the ways for the villagers to be prosperous and well-fed have been taken away "

In the specialized literature one can find the following estimate: on the eve of the first partition of Poland, over a third of Polish Jews were in one way or another connected with tenant farming. Furthermore. Since in the primordially Russian western lands the ruling stratum - the Poles - professed Catholicism, they, pursuing their own benefits, transferred to the Jews the right to collect even fees for church ceremonies - christenings, weddings, funerals, etc. from the forced Orthodox population (Little Russians, Belarusians). In connection with this, an expressive image of a Jewish tenant holding the keys to the church in his hand appeared in local folklore.

The special position of the Jews in Poland entailed very important consequences. As Mikhail Menshikov, who studied this issue, wrote: “The Jews were only tenants, but since they were given the right to the land and to the people assigned to the land, they were the real nobility of Poland. While access to the nobility was closed to Christian subjects, a Jew had to be baptized to acquire gentry rights.

A single listing of Polish families descended from Jewish crosses takes up two entire volumes.

For Poland, the entry of Jews into the ruling class, interbreeding with the Polish nobility and acquiring noble status had long been neither news nor a rarity at the time of its first partition.

When annexing new lands to Russia, Catherine the Second did not take such circumstances into account. It is not surprising that the old order was preserved in the new Russian territories. In Russia, the first legislative act regulating Jewish land ownership was the “Regulations on Jews” of 1804, which officially allowed Jews to purchase, own and inherit land. Without serfs, of course.

But as far as the ownership of serfs in Russia is concerned, the law was quite harsh and definite. A personal decree of the empress dated February 22, 1784 imposed an unequivocal ban: “No one in the empire, not being in Christian law, can exercise the right to buy, acquire and have serfs.” This provision cannot be interpreted in two ways.

In essence, as the researcher notes, “a class of a kind of “Jewish nobles” is actually distinguished, while the status of the lower strata of Jewish society is reduced even more - up to possible enslavement.”

However, of all such attempts, no one succeeded, and the same Leizarovich was refused precisely on the basis of the above-mentioned decree of 1784.

"Potemkin Jews"

) One of the arguments in favor of this hypothesis is the presence of runes in the coats of arms of the Polish gentry.

the theory of the natural evolution of socio-political relations in the life of Polish tribes, which denies the fact of conquest from the outside. The state organization was preceded, as among all primitive peoples, by the clan, and the clan also represented an economic union on the basis of collectivity. A further form of social integration was the group of clans, which corresponded to the South Slavic brotherhood and laid the foundation for the territorial union, which was later called “opole”. The affairs of the opole were managed by a council of elders who stood at the head of the individual clans that made up the opole. From the connection of opoles, tribes arose, ruled by princes. The war strengthened the princely power and contributed to the separation from the general mass of free people of a special permanent class of warriors, which formed the core from which the gentry class gradually developed (see. military democracy ).

Story

The 11th century is the first mention of the custom of knighting. Kings from (Boleslav I the Brave) awarded knighthood for some merit or service to people of ignoble origin, even slaves. The noble class was also called “lords”, the elders of knightly families, former princes of tribes that had lost their political independence, and the descendants of these princes constituted an aristocratic element in this class, which over time developed and grew into a special class of rich landowning nobility, the so-called “ "You can take control." Pekosinsky claims that the Polish knighthood until the end of the 11th century was dependent on the sovereigns and did not have its own lands,
XII century - under Prince Boleslav Kryvost, the Polish knighthood was endowed with land holdings and only then turned into a landowning class.
- inviting Teutonic knights to fight the Prussian pagans.
- Lithuanian and Ukrainian boyars join the gentry.
- introduction of local self-government. The king is obliged to coordinate his decrees with the will of the local gentry.
- the nobility elects a king for the first time.
- the Sejm, assembled every two years from 54 ambassadors of the gentry communities, began working.
- establishment of a gentry republic (“golden liberty”).
- participation of the Polish gentry in the Russian Troubles.
- Battle of Klushino and the capture of Moscow.
- disappearance of the Polish state.
- - Duchy of Warsaw in alliance with Napoleon.
- anti-Russian uprising.
- anti-Russian uprising.
- - Second Polish Republic. The end of the gentry's dream of Greater Poland from sea to sea.

Nobility and knighthood

Typically, szlachta refers to the Polish knighthood, but there was a distinction between them that arose in the 14th century:

The gentry had immunity: they owned property, were exempt from certain duties, and had judicial power over the peasants. According to the Kosice privilege, the gentry were freed from all state duties, with the exception of payment of land taxes in the amount of 2 groschen per fief, and received the exclusive right to occupy the positions of governor, castellan, judges, sub-comories, etc. Knighthood could be ordinary (miles medius, scartabellus); In addition, there were knights who came from peasants and Soltys (miles e sculteto vel cmetone). The price for killing a nobleman was set at 60 hryvnia, for a private knight 30 hryvnia and for a knight of the last category - 15 hryvnia.
The gentry possessed coats of arms.
The gentry was an exponent of the national consciousness of the Poles.
The gentry was imbued with a strong corporate spirit, feelings of class solidarity and energetically defended their class interests, which were often in conflict with the interests of other classes.

Ukrainian gentry

Ruthenian nobles were often oppressed on religious grounds, which resulted in a gradual cultural and then military confrontation with the Catholic (Polish) nobility. A significant part of the Ukrainian gentry joined the ranks of the Zaporozhian Army: some went to the registered Cossacks, and others to the Sich. At different times, the leaders of the Sich Cossacks were the gentry Bogdan Zinovy Khmelnitsky, Kryshtof Kosinsky, Nedashkovsky, Dmytro Baida Vishnevetsky, Yuras Khmelnichenko, Timush Khmelnitsky, Ivan Vygovsky, Petro Konashevich Sagaidachny, Ivan Mazepa. Less well-known gentry from the Ruthenian nobility, but playing a certain role in the history of the Zaporozhye Sich, were, for example, Korobki, Loboda and Volevachi. Such a gentry was often called “show-off”, but later they began to call it “Cossack foreman” to distinguish it from ordinary Cossacks who merged with the authorities.

Noble self-government

Nobility and peasantry

In the XIV and XV centuries. The acquisition of Chervonnaya Rus and the annexation, at least partial and temporary, of Podolia and Volyn, opened up vast spaces for Polish colonization, since these lands were sparsely populated. Huge latifundia of Polish magnates were formed here, who, feeling a shortage of workers, tried to attract peasants to their estates with various benefits. The emigration of the peasant population from Poland had a detrimental effect on the economy of the gentry class. It was in his interests to detain the peasants on the spot. In addition, the general economic development of Europe by the end of the Middle Ages expanded the markets for the sale of Polish agricultural products, which encouraged the Polish landowner to intensify the exploitation of the land, but this could be achieved, of course, only through changes in farming and by increasing the exploitation of peasant labor. Having political power in her hands, Sh. first limited the self-government of peasant communities, subordinating them to her control, which she achieved

acquisition of the position of Soltys, who stood at the head of the peasant community. The Warta Statute of 1423 contains a resolution on the basis of which the landowner could deprive the Soltys of his position for disobedience and take this position himself. Having severely constrained peasant self-government, Sh. then limited the freedom of peasant migrations, established corvée and, finally, reduced the peasant to a state of serfdom. According to the Petrokovsky Statute of 1496, only one peasant had the right to leave the landowner’s village, and a peasant family had the right to send only one son to education; The law allowed the landowner to pursue, seize and return a fleeing peasant. The diets of Bydgoszcz (1520) and Torun (1521) established corvée at the rate of one day per week, and the Warsaw Confederation of 1573 gave the landowner power over even the lives of serfs. Economic interests prompted Sh. to also issue restrictive laws in relation to the urban class. The above-mentioned Petrokovsky Statute prohibited the bourgeoisie from acquiring land estates under the pretext that the bourgeoisie did not take part in military campaigns and tried in every possible way to evade military service, and yet it was on land property that military service gravitated. The philistinism tried to fight Sh., but was unsuccessful. In the second half of the 16th century, city representation was already excluded from participation in the country's legislation, although representatives from some cities sometimes appeared at the diets back in the 17th century. Moreover, Sh. subordinated industry and trade to the power of governors and elders, which completely killed the city’s well-being. From the beginning of the 16th century. Sh. was already the all-powerful master in the state and remained such a master until the end of the existence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. She legislated, judged, elected kings, protected the state from enemies, waged wars, concluded peace agreements and treaties, etc. Not only was the political and social organization of Poland gentry, but the gentry worldview reigned supreme in the mental life of the country. See Chinsheva S., Polish Sejm, Poland, Four-Year Sejm.

Noble culture

Literature

M. Bobrzyński, "Geneza społeczeństwa polskiego na podstawie kroniki Galla i dyplomatów XII w.";
Fr. Piekosiński, "O powstaniu społeczeństwa polskiego w wiekach średnich i jego pierwotnym ustroju";
St. Smolka, “Uwagi o pierwotnym ustroju społecznym Polski Piastowskiej” (these three works are included in “Rozprawy i sprawozd. wydz. histor. filozof. Akad. Um.”, vol. XIV);
A. Małecki, "Studja heraldynne" (Lviv, 1890, 2 vols.);
A. Balzer, "Rewizja teorji o pierwotnem osadnictwie w Polsce" ("Kwart. Hist.", 1898, vol. XII);
Fr. Piekosiński, "Rycerstwo polskie wieków średnich" (vol. I-III);
A. Prochaska, "Geneza i rozwój parlamentaryzmu za pierwszych Jagiellonów" ("Rozpr. Akad. Um. wydz. hist. filozof.", vol. XXXVIII);
Fr. Piekosiński, "Wiece, sejmiki, sejmy i przywileje ziemskie w Polsce wieków średnich" (ib., vol. XXXIX);
A. Pawiński, "Sejmiki ziemskie" (Warsaw, 1895);
Wł. Smoleński, "Szlachta w świetle w łasnych opinji" ("Pisma historyczne", Krakow 1901, vol. I);
R. Hube, "Prawo polskie w w. XIII" (Warsaw, 1874);
his, "Sądy, ich praktyka i stosunki prawne w Polsce etc." (Warsaw, 1886).

Links

Official website of the international noble club "SZLACHTA"
Official website of the noble club "Szlachta" version 2009
Official website of the noble club "Szlachta" version 2006

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Polish gentry” is in other dictionaries:

Belsky ... Wikipedia

I. Literature of the gentry of Poland. 1. Medieval Poland (X-XV centuries). 2. Noble Poland (late 15th and 16th centuries). 3. Decomposition of the gentry (XVII century). 4. Decomposition of the gentry state (XVIII century). II. Polish literature of modern times. 1.… … Literary encyclopedia

Stanislav Anthony Shchuka, Vice-Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Sarmatian portrait of the Nobles (Polish S ... Wikipedia

Coordinates: 52°08′49″ N. w. 19°22′41″ E. d. / 52.146944° n. w. 19.378056° E. d. ... Wikipedia

Szlachta, noble class in Poland. Szlachta - noble class in Poland

Read also

Story

Nobility and knighthood

Ukrainian gentry

Noble self-government

Nobility and peasantry

Noble culture

Literature

Origin of the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Rights and obligations of the gentry

Categories of gentry

Story

Nobility and knighthood

Ukrainian gentry

Noble self-government

Nobility and peasantry

Noble culture

Literature

See also

Links

See what “Polish gentry” is in other dictionaries: