Smerdas as a category of the ancient Russian population
So, according to the ancient Russian periodical called “Russian Truth”, in Rus' it was customary to call the class of peasants who were initially free landowners, in contrast to the same serfs, as smerds. As the landowner system develops in the Russian lands, the smerds become dependent on the masters, as a result of which they become enslaved. But the famous historian Grekov B. gives a slightly different interpretation this concept"smerd."
Thus, in his opinion, the ancient Russian smerds were part of the rural community, but throughout the entire time they were dependent on the prince of Kievan Rus. But the validity, as well as the unfoundedness of this point of view, is very difficult to refute or prove. The text of “Russkaya Pravda” can be considered as the only authoritative opinion in contrast to Grekov’s theory, according to which it is not mentioned anywhere that the smerds were dependent only on the Prince of Kyiv.
Smerds could inherit land, and if they had no children, then all property went to the prince. It should also be noted that for the murder of a smerd, the culprit was assigned a rather meager (as for human life) a fine of five hryvnia, while for the same crime committed against any other person the fine amount was forty hryvnia.
At the same time, in the Novgorod principality the smerds were always completely subordinate to the state. It was customary there to refer to the concept of “smerd” as the entire category of the lower strata of the population subordinate to the prince. At the same time, they carried out activities on their own land plots, and also paid a considerable tax to the state treasury. However, at any time the prince was allowed to resettle the smerds or donate them to the church. In addition, in Novgorod Republic Smerds served duties in kind and were obliged to supply horses, as well as feed the soldiers in war time. It should also be noted that, unlike ordinary communal peasants who lived in villages, smerdas had to live in villages.
A curious fact is that the term appeared between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries. “To disgrace” - that is, to actually capture the population and villages of an enemy principality during princely feuds and internecine wars. After the fifteenth century, the category of smerds passed to the peasantry, but the term itself continued to be used and meant an unofficial address to the lower strata of the population of the king.
The section is very easy to use. In the field provided, just enter the right word, and we will give you a list of its values. I would like to note that our site provides data from various sources - encyclopedic, explanatory, word-formation dictionaries. Here you can also see examples of the use of the word you entered.
Meaning of the word smerd
stink in the crossword dictionary
stinks
Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. D.N. Ushakov
stinks
stink, m. (historical).
In ancient Rus' - a peasant farmer.
Subsequently - he will despise. designation of a serf peasant (in the mouth of a landowner, a representative of the authorities).
A commoner, an ignorant person, in contrast. prince, warrior.
Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. S.I.Ozhegov, N.Yu.Shvedova.
stinks
A, m. B Ancient Rus': peasant, farmer. Free scum. Enslavement of the smerds.
New explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova.
stinks
Peasant, farmer (in Rus' 9th-13th centuries).
trans. A man of humble birth.
Wikipedia
Smerd
Smerd- category of the population according to “Russian Truth”, peasant in Rus' of the 9th - 14th centuries, farmer. Initially free (as opposed to serfs), as the local system developed, they were gradually enslaved. The Smerdas were directly dependent on the prince.
Examples of the use of the word smerd in literature.
The world needs the splendor and beauty of shrines, so that everyone stinks touched the great and sensed the goodness of his native antiquity and the sweetness of the spiritual faith of his fathers!
Dressed in velvet, they walked around in their felt hats and their heads only resembled the former slaves and stinkers.
But not only the eyes, but also the prince’s heart now saw and heard every movement, every exclamation of the last, seedy stink among this crowd ready to rage.
Hardened in serious battles with Lithuania, Nikita’s three marks, who escaped death many times, were worth more than the entire crowd of hastily collected Zabolotskys Smerdov.
There is a history of power and rulers, infinitely important, because life and work depend on power Smerdov, prosperity or ruin of the country and land.
Egin no longer doubted that he was bald stinks Crusta Gutulana is not a murderer and cannot be a murderer.
Father, to tell the truth, he was a tough guy - he hit someone with a stick: don’t shout, they say, stinkers.
Rybkin pressed forward to immediately begin to take the black forest from everyone Smerdov in the volost, and put your people on the roads and turn duty-free convoys to the governor’s court.
To whom more is given, more is demanded: from an adult - not from a child, from a boyar - not from stink, from a prince - more than a boyar, from a faithful one - more than a pagan and a weakling, from an honest one - more than a rogue.
To the one who serves the Lord truthfully, whether he is a monk or a layman, stinks or a prince, all one must reject selfishness, forget about one’s majesty, for no one is higher heavenly father, and work for your neighbor, forgetting yourself!
Thought stinkers, that they were not giving away a piece of their land to the first fireman, but they didn’t have the strength to argue - the hungry children began to cry endlessly.
Not wanting to get through, Ivan took a detour along the riverside strands of the city wall, from where, behind the living yard and the Bertyanitsa, he got out to the Borovitskaya Tower, where they were also rushing out of the city, there was incredible abuse, screaming and tears, flints and fists were thrown up, the horses neighed, and when he was next grabbed by the floor, Ivan, without reasoning, raised the Tatar belt whip over his head in order to cross stink.
One of the boyars said: - Let's say stink to violence - otherwise we’ll see!
Ushitsa is contrasted with an ambush, a princely squad: the latter fought hard against Berladnik, and stinkers ran over to him.
Every now and then, breaking through the ranks of the military, they reached out to him stinkers, artisans and merchants.
In Rus' in the 9th-14th centuries, ordinary peasant cultivators were called smerds. The word "smerd" is of Indo-European origin. It is a slightly modified version of the lexeme “smurd” (or “smord”), which meant “simple person” or “dependent person.”
Smerds' rights
Smerdas are initially free village residents. Later they were enslaved and began to belong to the princes. Smerdas belonged to the lower strata of Russian society, but were not as powerless and dependent as serfs. They could have their own land plot, but were also obliged to cultivate the landowner's land. At the same time, the price of life for both stinkers and serfs was the same. The official fine for killing any of these people is 5 rubles.
After Russia adopted Christianity, another name for smerd appeared - “peasant”, which literally means “Christian”. Smerd is a more pagan concept. At the same time, it was used in Rus' for a very long time and gradually began to acquire a negative character. This is how they began to contemptuously call commoners.
Smerds carried out military service. They could either personally participate in a military campaign as foot soldiers or horsemen, or “pay off” by supplying horses for the cavalry. The Smerds owned property, so the wealthiest could afford it. They were also part of the rural community. If one such farmer was killed, everything he owned was divided among the members of the community (according to Russkaya Pravda).
Smerds could pass on their property by inheritance to their sons. In the absence of the latter, after the death of the smerd, the land plot passed to the prince. In the Novgorod Republic, smerdas were state-owned, so they cultivated state land. The prince could donate them to a church or monastery, then the peasants would have to work for the clergy.
Slaves and their rights
The most powerless population of not only villages, but also cities (villages) was called serfs. The serf, therefore, could live not only in rural areas (like smerd), but also in urban areas. Unlike the smerd, the serf had absolutely no rights. He was practically a slave. The slave status of slaves was abolished only by Peter I in 1723.
Serfs were slaves from the local population. The princes acquired another category of slaves - servants - during their campaigns of conquest in neighboring or distant lands. Chelyadin is a foreigner slave. He was even more powerless than a slave. Almost equated to a thing.
The slave position of the slave was reflected in many legal aspects. Such a person belonged entirely to the landowner. The latter had every right to kill his slave for some offense. No one dared to condemn him for this. If the feudal lord killed someone else's slave, he paid a fine, as for damaging someone else's property. Also, the slaves did not have land plots or any other valuable property.
Serfs became slaves for misdeeds, crimes, debts, by right of birth or as a result of marriage. If the prince was seriously angry with a peasant for something, he could take away all his property and, together with his family, transfer him to the rank of serfs (“Russian law”). The embezzler merchant, unable to pay his debt in full, “sold himself as a slave.” And of course, the children of a slave were slaves from the first day of their lives. Free woman, having married such a person, she became a servant.
These people did all the work in the masters' houses and cultivated their land along with the stinkers. They were assigned all the dirtiest, “menial” work in the house. But sometimes slaves also learned crafts, which did not happen with smerds (they were purely cultivators). Slaves were traded with all their might. The more skillful such a worker was, the higher the price for him. If the slave was useful to the master and performed his service well, the owner could, if he wished, give his slave a separate home or even give him freedom (set him free).
Classes of serfs
The master's servants were divided into classes according to the skills and abilities they possessed. The so-called “great slaves” were, in a sense, privileged slaves. They performed more responsible work (key holders, managers) and could manage “smaller” slaves. The latter performed all grunt work: were bakers, fine spinners, grooms, shepherds, carpenters, etc. They were also domestic servants. “Small” serfs with some useful profession were called “business people.”
A separate category consisted of the so-called “combat slaves.” They accompanied the master on a military campaign and were selected from among the “big” slaves. This category of the population made up the bulk of the army and armed guard of the prince. Compared to other classes of slaves, she was quite privileged, something between peasants and nobles.
The number of fighting serfs often included the children of impoverished boyars, so this category of “servants” had more rights than serfs-laborers and managers. Among their property, warriors could have a horse (sometimes two) and full combat equipment.
Transfer to another class
After the abolition of serfdom (starting in 1861), the new class- philistinism. This word was used to describe the urban population of the lowest rank. Freedmen, thanks to the peasant reform, became philistines and military serfs who, for some reason, were released from their military duties (for example, for long selfless service).
The bourgeoisie were not only free, but also taxable citizens. They could have a shop, engage in crafts, sell the fruits of their labor on the market, but were obliged to pay taxes. Catherine II officially consolidated the status of philistinism in the “Charter of Grant to Cities” of 1785. The bourgeoisie stood a step lower than the merchants, but were also considered “correct” city dwellers. They owned most of the city's real estate.
The bourgeois class was also constantly undergoing changes. Some townspeople did not want or could not pay taxes, so they became peasants. Others received an education and rose a step higher - they moved into the category of commoners. Thus, Russian society gradually became more and more stratified, and many representatives of the lower strata of the country's population received new opportunities.
There are a number of opinions about smerds; they are considered free peasants, feudal dependents, persons in a slave state, serfs, and even a category similar to petty knighthood. But the main debate is conducted along the line between free and dependent.
Smerd acts as a peasant who owns a house, property, and a horse. For the theft of his horse, the law establishes a fine of 2 hryvnia. For the “flour” of stink, a fine of 3 hryvnia is established. Russian Pravda does not specifically indicate the limitation of the legal capacity of smerds; there are indications that they pay fines (sales) characteristic of free citizens. Extensive Russian Truth. (according to the Trinity list of the second half of the 14th century) paragraph 41 //http://www.bg-znanie.ru/article.php?nid=3052
Russian Truth always indicates, if necessary, belonging to a specific social group (combatant, serf, etc.). In a number of articles about free people, free people are precisely what is meant; smerds are discussed only where their status needs to be specifically highlighted.
Perhaps there were two types of smerds - free (state) and dependent (lordly). Russian Truth speaks mainly about dependent stinkers. They are sued by the owner, their murder is considered as property damage to the owner, and the right of a dead hand arises. Extensive Russian Truth. (according to the Trinity list of the second half of the 14th century) paragraph 85 //http://www.bg-znanie.ru/article.php?nid=3052
When analyzing the role of smerd in the communal and patrimonial life of Ancient Rus', it is necessary to turn to the meaning of the term itself. The time of his appearance is unknown. Apparently, the term “smerd” means the same thing as “people” - community villagers. Like the later term “peasant,” the word “smerd” had several meanings in ancient Rus'. Smerd was the name given to a free community farmer, obliged only to pay tribute to the prince and perform certain duties. In general, any subject was called a stinker, literally “being under tribute,” subordinate, dependent. In the recent past, a still free tributary was called a smerd, now by princely command, i.e., through non-economic coercion, which became labor force princely or boyar estate. This diversity in the meaning of the term “smerd” is due to the fact that as feudal relations developed, the position of those categories of the rural population that acted under this name became more complicated. Mavrodin V.V. Popular uprisings in Ancient Rus' XI-XIII centuries..//http://lib.rus.ec/b/154628/read
The analogy between “smerd” and “peasant” goes further. Like in the 18th century. the term “peasant” denotes various categories of peasants: privately owned, landowner (serfs) and palace peasants belonging to the tsar, monastic (also serfs) and state, who were not formally serfs, and in the times of Kievan Rus the term “smerd” also denoted the rural population in general, and a certain group of it, and at the same time perhaps the most numerous, representing the bulk of the feudal-dependent and exploited people.
Later, the term “smerd” in the mouths of the feudal elite acquired a connotation of disdain. Even later it will be replaced by the word "man". Thus, smerds are communal tributaries, from whom the prince’s warriors collect all sorts of taxes during the “polyudye”. Later, with the settling of the squads on the earth, the boyars turned the smerds from tributaries into dependent people, i.e. now they were interested not in the tribute from the smerds, but in the smerds themselves, in their economy. Smerd is a person dependent on the prince. This is evidenced by the reward for the murder and for the “torment” of the smerda, going in favor of the prince, the transfer of the property of the deceased smerda to the prince, if the deceased had no sons. Extensive Russian Truth. (according to the Trinity list of the second half of the 14th century) paragraph 71 //http://www.bg-znanie.ru/article.php?nid=3052, fine for killing a smerd, equal to the price paid to the prince for killing his slave, herding Smerd's cattle along with the prince's cattle, etc. Smerd is attached to the land, so it is donated along with it. He can change his condition only by leaving the community, running away and thereby ceasing to be a stinker. Smerd is obliged to pay quitrent, that is, tribute, which has turned into feudal rent. Having left the community, the ruined smerd was forced to look for income on the side or become enslaved. In this case, he turned into a rank-and-file worker, a purchaser, a “hireman.” Turned into a slave, he becomes a serf. Mavrodin V.V. Popular uprisings in Ancient Rus' XI-XIII centuries.. //http://lib.rus.ec/b/154628/read
Here, too, we can draw an analogy with the peasant, who is a direct producer, owning his own means of production necessary for the implementation of his labor and for the production of his means of subsistence, independently conducting his own farming and other production. The general trend in the legal fate of the peasant during the period of feudalization of society is his transformation from free into subject, paying quitrent, serving corvee, or even becoming a serf.
Thus, we present the structure of society during the formation of the feudal system in its complexity and diversity of legal provisions in the peasant environment.
Regarding the term “smerd”, the question also arises: did its meaning coincide in different settlements of Rus', i.e. for example, the Novgorod smerd and the Kiev smerd are people of the same social status or not.
Smerds are the main population of Novgorod churchyards, judging by the well-known texts of the contractual letters of Novgorod with their princes (“who is a merchant, he is a hundred, and whoever is a smerd, he will be drawn to his graveyard: this is how it went in Novgorod”). The certificates say that it’s “common”, that is, it’s antiquated. When they want to name the entire Novgorod population, rural and urban, in their charters, they use two terms “smerd” and “kupchina”, by smerd, undoubtedly, meaning the entire mass of the rural population. Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. State publishing house of political literature, 1953. P. 88.
But knowing that a graveyard in the 11th century was a name given to a large fortified settlement, we can assume that a smerd was a craftsman, and that it was the smerds who made up the bulk of the population of the cities. Craftsmen settled in groups based on similar professions and occupied entire areas of the city, for example, the Goncharsky end or Shitnaya street in Novgorod, the Kozhemyaki quarter in Kyiv.
Grekov believes that there were two main groups of smerds: 1) tributaries who did not fall into private feudal dependence on landowners, and 2) smerds mastered by feudal lords, who were to one degree or another dependent on their masters.
The question arises about the nature of the dependence of the smerds on the feudal lords. Feudal society is characterized primarily by the presence of large landholdings and a peasantry dependent on the landowners. The quality of this dependence can be very diverse.
Based on the fact that slavery precedes serfdom, it is likely that the slave owner, seeking to subjugate the peasant, was little inclined to make any great difference in the degree of his power over the slave and the serf, considering both of them to be his people. But the presence of a peasant community, this stronghold of peasant independence, was supposed to play a certain role in relation to the mass of free smerds, delaying the pace of the feudalization process and softening the forms of peasant dependence. How the enslavement took place is unknown. In any case, if we take the statement that initially the smerd was free, then “Russkaya Pravda” says that this free smerd, through non-economic and economic coercion, began to become dependent on the feudal lords.
Tribute, often in furs, was the main form of exploitation of the smerds. This tribute was degenerated into labor and in-kind land rent in connection with the process of land development various types feudal lords and together with the transformation of the smerd into a dependent, semi-serf or serf. A free smerd, who fell under the direct power of the feudal lord, could, of course, be involved in all sorts of work at the boyar’s court and for this court and at the same time was not completely freed from tribute, which gradually turned into rent in products. Finally, both forms of rent, in kind and labor, usually live nearby. Thus, the transition to the next stage of feudal relations was being prepared.
Under these conditions, the two main types of smerds - not yet mastered by the feudal lords and already falling into their direct dependence - are an inevitable fact.
In "Russkaya Pravda" in one row of tributaries there are serfs, then people dependent on the owner under contracts ("row", hence "ryadovich", "rank-and-file"), as well as smerds. However, a smerd can work in a lord’s yard in a lord’s estate, in a lord’s farm in general, but he does not lose his specific characteristics of a direct producer who owns the means of production, although sometimes not all of them, necessary for running an independent farm. Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus. State publishing house of political literature, 1953. P. 108.
IN in this case the appearance of stench next to serfs and people working under contracts should be considered as a symptom that threatens the very existence of servants as the basis of the lordly economy. This is a symptom of the transition to a new, more progressive way of farming, therefore, to the next, new stage in the development of the entire society. Smerdas ultimately made servants unnecessary.
However, on initial stage statehood, the smerd existed in the lordly household next to the old servants. Under these conditions, the smerda sometimes acquired traits characteristic of servants, which significantly related him to the position of a patriarchal slave.
The word smerd (“smerd”, “smurd”, “smord”, “smordon”) is of Indo-European origin in the meaning of “man”, “dependent person”, “ordinary person”.
According to some historians, smerds were free peasants and constituted the lowest group of the free population. They had their own land and farmed on it, had to pay taxes to the prince and serve in-kind duties.
Other historians see in smerds a population dependent on the prince, and in tribute as rent in favor of the prince. The prince could give the smerds to the church and resettle them.
Due to these differences between historians for a long time The issue of “Smerdiev’s slave” mentioned in “Russkaya Pravda” was discussed. In the first case, historians recognized the possibility of smerds owning slaves; in the second, they denied such a possibility and insisted on an approximately equal legal status of smerds and slaves.
During the period of feudal fragmentation, the principalities became smaller, which increased the personal dependence of the smerds on the princes. The term "disgrace" meant the capture of the population neighboring principality during the princely strife. In the Novgorod Republic, communal smerds were collectively dependent on the state (in fact, on the residents of Novgorod)
Subsequently, smerd is a contemptuous designation for a serf peasant (in the mouth of a landowner, a representative of the authorities), a commoner, an ordinary person. And the word “to stink” also meant “to make a stench.”
12. And for a craftsman and for a craftswoman, then 12 hryvnia.
Craftsmen work on the feudal lord's estate as dependent people: their life is valued higher than the price of a common man or a “dead slave” (see Art. 13), who do not possess the skill of this or that craft, but lower than the life of a free community member (“lyudina”).
13. And for the death of a slave it is 5 hryvnia, and for a robe it is 6 hryvnia.
Smerdy serf - performing, in contrast to artisans or persons who served the feudal lord as tiuns or breadwinners (see Art. 14), simple work, like community members-smerda.
Roba was a female servant who was in the same position as a male serf. Translation. 13. And for a stinking slave you pay 5 hryvnia, and for a robe 6 hryvnia. The robe is worth more because it gives the feudal "offspring." The same “lesson” for a serf was 5 1riven, and for a robe she assigned 1riven. 106.
Already the purchase is running
52. If you buy something to flee from the Lord, then you will buy it; whether to look for the kunn, but it is revealed to go, or to run to the prince or to the judges to deceive his master, then do not shy him about this, but give him the truth. (...)
Zakup is a smerd who is in feudal dependence on the master for a loan. Obel is a complete serf. Robbed - they turn into a slave. Date the truth - give justice.
Translation. 52. If the purchase runs away from the master (without paying him for the loan), then he becomes a complete slave; if he goes to look for money with the permission of his master or runs to the prince and his judges with a complaint about the insult on the part of his master, then for this he cannot be made a slave, but he should be given justice.
According to the church law "Metropolitan Justice", a "purchased hirer", who did not want to stay with the master and went to court, could gain freedom by returning "double the deposit" to the feudal lord, which was tantamount in practice to the complete impossibility of breaking with the master, since he determined and the size of your “deposit” for the purchase (see: Old Russian princely charters of the 11th–15th centuries. M. 1976. P. 210).
71. Even if the stink is tormented by the stink without the prince’s word, then 3 hryvnias are sold, and for the flour one hryvnia is kun.
Torment - torture, torment, beating.
Translation. 71. If a smerd subjects a smerd to torment without a princely court, then he will pay 3 hryvnias of sale (to the prince) and the victim for the torment of a hryvnia of money.
72. If you torment a fireman, then you sell it for 12 hryvnias, and for the flour you pay one hryvnia. (...)
Translation. 72. For torturing a fireman, pay 12 hryvnia for sale and a hryvnia (to the victim) for flour. Equal payment “for torment” to the smerd and ognishchanin (prince’s servant) was assigned because this refers to a serf servant, for whose murder 12 hryvnia were charged (Art. II), while for the murder of a thiun ognishchanin or equerry, a double fee was charged - 80 hryvnia (Article 10).
It stinks to die
85. Even if it stinks to die, the prince is ashamed; Even if he has daughters at home, he will give a share; Even if you are behind your husband, do not give them a share.
Ass - inheritance, property left after the death of a person.
Translation. 85. If the smerd dies (without leaving sons), then the prince will get his ass; if unmarried daughters remain after him, then allocate (part of the property) to them; if the daughters are married, then they should not be given a part of the inheritance.
Purchases- smerdas who took a loan (“kupa”) from another landowner with livestock, grain, tools, etc. and must work for the lender until they repay the debt. They had no right to leave the owner before this. The owner was responsible for the purchase if he committed theft, etc.
Ryadovichi- smerdas who have entered into an agreement ("row") with the landowner on the conditions of their work for him or the use of his land and tools.
In science, there are a number of opinions about smerds; they are considered free peasants, feudal dependents, persons in a slave state, serfs, and even a category similar to petty knighthood. But the main debate is conducted along the line: free dependents (slaves). Important place in substantiation of opinions they have two articles of Russian Pravda.
Article 26 of the Brief Truth, which establishes a fine for the murder of slaves, in one reading reads: “And in the stink and in the slave 5 hryvnia” (Academic List).
In the Archaeographic List we read: “And in the stink of a serf there are 5 hryvnia.” In the first reading, it turns out that in the case of murder of a serf and a serf, the same fine is paid. From the second list it follows that the smerd has a slave who is killed. It is impossible to resolve the situation.
Article 90 of the Extensive Truth states: “If the smerd dies, then the inheritance goes to the prince; if he has daughters, then give them a dowry...” Some researchers interpret it in the sense that after the death of the smerd, his property passed entirely to the prince and he was a man of a “dead hand,” that is, unable to pass on an inheritance. But further articles clarify the situation - we're talking about only about those smerdas who died without sons, and the exclusion of women from inheritance is characteristic at a certain stage of all the peoples of Europe.
However, the difficulties of determining the status of a smerd do not end there. Smerd, according to other sources, appears as a peasant who owns a house, property, and a horse. For the theft of his horse, the law establishes a fine of 2 hryvnia. For the “flour” of stink, a fine of 3 hryvnia is established. Russian Pravda nowhere specifically indicates a limitation on the legal capacity of smerds; there are indications that they pay fines (sales) characteristic of free citizens.
Russian Truth always indicates, if necessary, belonging to a specific social group (combatant, serf, etc.). In the mass of articles about free people, it is free people who are meant; smerds are discussed only where their status needs to be specially highlighted.
Now we come to the smerds, who formed the backbone of the lower classes in rural areas. As I already mentioned, the term smerd should be compared with the Iranian tagi ("person"). It is very likely that it appeared during the Sarmatian period of Russian history.
The Smerds were personally free, but they legal status limited because they were subject to the special jurisdiction of the prince.
The fact that the prince’s power over the smerds was more specific than over the free is clear from the “Russian Truth”, as well as from the chronicles. In the Yaroslavich Pravda, smerd is mentioned among people dependent on the prince to one degree or another. According to the expanded version of Russian Pravda, the smerd could not be subject to arrest or restrictions in any way in its actions without the sanction of the prince. After the death of the smerd, his property was inherited by his sons, but if there were no sons left, then the property passed to the prince, who, however, had to leave a share for unmarried daughters, if any remained. This seems to be the law of the "dead hand" in Western Europe.
It seems important that in the city-states of Northern Rus' - Novgorod and Pskov - the highest power over the smerds belonged not to the prince, but to the city. So, for example, in 1136, the Novgorod prince Vsevolod was criticized by the veche for the oppression of the smerds. The Novgorod treaty with King Casimir IV of Poland directly states that the smerds are under the jurisdiction of the city, not the prince. This treaty is a document of a later period (signed around 1470), but its terms were based on ancient tradition.
Taking into account the status of the smerds in Novgorod, we can assume that in the south, where they were subordinate to the prince, the latter rather exercised his power as head of state than as a landowner. In this case, the smerds can be called state peasants, taking into account due reservations. Bearing in mind that the term smerd most likely appeared in the Sarmatian period, we can attribute the appearance of smerds to this period as social group. Presumably the first Smerds were Slavic “people” who paid tribute to the Alans. Later, with the emancipation of the Ants from Iranian tutelage, power over them could pass to the Ant leaders. In the eighth century, the smerds had to submit to the authority of the Khazar and Magyar governors; with the emigration of the Magyars and the defeat of the Khazars by Oleg and his heirs, the Russian princes eventually gained control over them. This sketch of the history of the Smerds is, of course, hypothetical, but, in my opinion, it is consistent with the facts; in any case, it does not contradict any known data.
Whether the land they cultivated belonged to them or to the state is a controversial issue. It turns out that in Novgorod, at least, smerds occupied state lands. In the south there must have been something like co-ownership between the prince and the smerd on the latter’s land. At a meeting in 1103, Vladimir Monomakh mentions the “smerda farm” (its village). As we have already seen, the son of Smerd inherited his possession, that is, his farm. However, taking into account that the smerd owned the land he cultivated, it should be noted that this was not full ownership, since he was not free to bequeath the land even to his daughters; when after his death there were no sons left, as we saw, the land passed to the prince. Since the smerd could not bequeath his land, he may also not have been able to sell it.
The land was in his permanent use, and the same right extended to his male descendants, but it was not his property.
Smerds had to pay state taxes, especially the so-called “tribute”. In Novgorod, each group registered at the nearest pogost (tax collection center); apparently they were organized into communities in order to simplify the collection of taxes. Another duty of the Smerds was to supply horses for the city militia in the event of a major war.
At the princely meeting of 1103, mentioned above, the campaign against the Polovtsians was discussed, and the vassals of Prince Svyatopolk II noted that it was not worth starting military operations in the spring, since by taking their horses they would ruin the Smerds and their fields, to which Vladimir Monomakh replied: “I I'm surprised, friends, that you are concerned about the horses on which the smerd plows. Why don't you think that as soon as the smerd begins to plow, a Polovtsian will come, kill him with his arrow, take his horse, come to his village and take away his wife, his children and his property? Are you concerned about Smerd’s horse or about him himself?”
Low level of social status of the smerd the best way demonstrates the following fact: in the event of his murder, only five hryvnia, i.e. one-eighth of the fine, had to be paid to the prince by the killer. The prince was supposed to receive the same amount (five hryvnia) if a slave was killed. However, in the latter case, the payment did not represent a fine, but compensation to the prince as the owner. In the case of the murderer, compensation to his family should have been paid by the killer in addition to the fine, but its level is not specified in Russkaya Pravda.
Over time, the term smerd, as I mentioned, acquired a derogatory meaning of a person belonging to the lower class. As such, it was used by high aristocrats to refer to commoners in general. Thus, when the Chernigov prince Oleg was invited by Svyatopolk II and Vladimir Monomakh to attend a meeting where representatives of the clergy, boyars and Kyiv citizens were supposed to be present, he arrogantly replied that “it is not proper for him to obey the decisions of a bishop, rector or smerd” (1096 .).
At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the term smerd was in use to refer to the rural population in general. Describing one of the battles in Galicia in 1221, the chronicler notes: “A boyar must take a boyar as a prisoner, a smerd must take a smerda, a townsman must take a townsman.”
Related information.
