Votchina is a form of land ownership. The history of the origin of the first estates: from Kievan Rus to the 19th century. When did the estate appear in Rus'

Patrimony is the most important phenomenon that existed in medieval Western Europe and Rus'. This was the name given to land along with outbuildings and other property, as well as dependent peasants. This word has the same root as in the words “father”, “fatherland”, which indicates to us that the patrimony was inherited and was the property of the family.

The patrimony appeared in Ancient Rus', when the power of princes and boyars was formed. The princes distributed land to members of their squads and other representatives of the nobility. As a rule, it was a reward for service or some outstanding achievement. There was another category of landowners - the highest church hierarchs and monasteries.

The estate was transferred to the owner and his family for complete undivided possession, without any conditions. It could be inherited, donated, or sold. In his patrimony, the owner was the rightful owner. He not only used the results of the peasants’ activities, that is, he ensured his existence. Within the boundaries of the property, the patrimonial owner held court, resolved disputes, etc.

Patrimony in Ancient Rus'

The institution of hereditary land ownership played a huge role in the formation of medieval states, including Ancient Rus'. In those days, land was the main means of production. Whoever owned the land could influence all areas of society. Thanks to the activities of the ruling nobility, law, legal proceedings, economics, church and state foundations were formed.

During the period of feudal fragmentation, the main owners of estates were boyars and princes. Free peasants also owned land, but only in the form of communal ownership. Gradually, the situation in the state changed: Rus' freed itself from the Mongol conquest, processes began to collect lands and centralize power in the hands of the Moscow grand dukes. In such a difficult situation, the princes were forced to limit the rights and liberties of the boyars.


The old nobility was gradually replaced by nobles - people who received their privileges for service and enjoyed them only as long as they served. This is how a new form of land ownership emerged - estates.

Votchina and estate - what is the difference

The most important difference between estates and estates is their conditional and impersonal nature. It happened like this: the Moscow princes needed to wage wars, pacify unruly areas and protect their borders. There was a need for a large number of service people. To provide for servicemen and their families, they were allocated estates - land with peasants.

Initially, the nobleman owned the estate only during his service and could not pass it on by inheritance. The estate remained state property - it was given to the servant for use and alienated at the end of his service.

Subsequently, two parallel processes occurred. The Grand Dukes (who, starting with Ivan the Terrible, began to be called Russian Tsars) increasingly actively reduced the rights of the boyars. Restrictions were placed on the ownership of estates, and estates were simply taken away from some undesirable boyar clans. In addition, the boyars were forced to serve without fail. A significant part of the service people were recruited from boyar children, who from now on could not enjoy the privileges of their fathers without bringing benefit to the country.

At the same time, the estates became inherited property. Thus, the powers that be stimulated the nobles to devoted service. Essentially, by the beginning of the 18th century, patrimony and estate became one and the same. This issue was finally resolved by Peter the Great, who issued a decree on unified inheritance. All lands that were previously called estates or estates, from that moment on, began to be called estates.


This has had far-reaching consequences in the history of our state. A class of landowners was formed who owned vast lands and as inheritable property. Subsequently, the nobles received “freedom”: their obligation to serve was abolished, but the estates, along with the peasants, remained. The system of “land in exchange for service to the Fatherland” lost its force, which led to subsequent social upheavals.

), which, along with the obligatory hereditary nature of ownership, distinguished patrimony from benefice, manor and estate.

The votchina differed in economic structure (depending on the role of the domain, the type of feudal duties of the peasants), in size, and in the social affiliation of the votchinniki (secular, including royal, church).

In Ancient Rus'

During the times of Kievan Rus fiefdom was one of the forms of feudal land ownership. The owner of the estate had the right to pass it on by inheritance (hence the origin of the name from the Old Russian word “otchina,” that is, paternal property), sell, exchange, or, for example, divide it among relatives. Patrimonies as a phenomenon arose in the process of formation of private feudal land ownership. As a rule, their owners in the 9th-11th centuries were princes, as well as princely warriors and zemstvo boyars - heirs of the former tribal elite. After the adoption of Christianity, church patrimonial land ownership was formed, the owners of which were representatives of the church hierarchy (metropolitans, bishops) and large monasteries.

There were various categories of estates: patrimonial, purchased, granted by the prince or others, which partially influenced the ability of the owners to freely dispose fiefdom. Thus, ownership of ancestral estates was limited to the state and relatives. The owner of such a fief was obliged to serve the prince on whose lands it was located, and without the consent of the members of his clan, the fief could not sell or exchange it. In case of violation of such conditions, the owner was deprived of his estate. This fact indicates that in the era of the Old Russian state, ownership of a patrimony was not yet equated with the right of unconditional ownership of it.

During the specific period

Also term fatherland(with a possessive pronoun) was used in princely disputes over tables. The emphasis was placed on whether the applicant’s father reigned in the city-center of a certain fiefdom or whether the applicant was an “outcast” for this principality (see Ladder law).

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

After a significant part of the western Russian lands came under the rule of Lithuania and Poland, patrimonial land ownership in these territories not only remained, but also increased significantly. Most of the estates began to belong to representatives of the ancient Little Russian princely and boyar families. At the same time, the Grand Dukes of Lithuania and the Polish kings granted lands “for the fatherland” and “for eternity” to the Lithuanian, Polish and Russian feudal lords. This process became especially active after 1590, when the Sejm of the Rzecz and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth followed the war of 1654-1667. On the Left Bank in the second half of the 17th century there was a gradual process of formation of land ownership of the Ukrainian Cossack elders.

In the Grand Duchy of Moscow

In the XIV-XV centuries, estates were the main form of land ownership in North-Eastern Rus', where there was an active process of forming the Moscow Principality and then a single centralized state. However, due to the growing contradictions between the central grand-ducal power and the liberties of the boyars-patrimonial lands, the rights of the latter began to be significantly limited (for example, the right of free departure from one prince to another was abolished, the right of trial of the feudal lord in patrimonial lands was limited, etc.). The central government began to rely on the nobility, which enjoyed land ownership according to local law. The process of limiting estates was especially active in the 16th century. At that time, the patrimonial rights of the boyars were significantly limited (laws of 1551 and 1562), and during the oprichnina, a large number of patrimonial estates were liquidated, and their owners were executed. At the end of the 16th century in Russia, the main form of land ownership was no longer estates, but estates. The Service Code of 1556 actually equated patrimony to estate (“service for the fatherland”). In the 17th century, the process of legal rapprochement between the votchina and the estate continued, which ended with the issuance by Peter I of a decree on single inheritance on March 23, 1714, which united the votchina and the estate into a single concept of estate. Since then the concept Patrimony sometimes used in Russia in the 18th-19th centuries to designate noble land ownership.

See also

Write a review about the article "Patrimony"

Literature

• Ivina L. I. A large patrimony of North-Eastern Rus' at the end of the 14th - first half of the 16th century. / L. I. Ivina; Ed. N. E. Nosova; Leningr. Department of the Institute of History of the USSR of the USSR Academy of Sciences. - L.: Science. Leningr. department, 1979. - 224 p. - 2,600 copies.(region)

Excerpt characterizing Votchina

Princess Marya postponed her departure. Sonya and the Count tried to replace Natasha, but they could not. They saw that she alone could keep her mother from insane despair. For three weeks Natasha lived hopelessly with her mother, slept on an armchair in her room, gave her water, fed her and talked to her incessantly - she talked because her gentle, caressing voice alone calmed the countess.
The mother's mental wound could not be healed. Petya's death took away half of her life. A month after the news of Petya’s death, which found her a fresh and cheerful fifty-year-old woman, she left her room half-dead and not taking part in life - an old woman. But the same wound that half killed the countess, this new wound brought Natasha to life.
A mental wound that comes from a rupture of the spiritual body, just like a physical wound, no matter how strange it may seem, after a deep wound has healed and seems to have come together at its edges, a mental wound, like a physical one, heals only from the inside with the bulging force of life.
Natasha’s wound healed in the same way. She thought her life was over. But suddenly love for her mother showed her that the essence of her life - love - was still alive in her. Love woke up and life woke up.
The last days of Prince Andrei connected Natasha with Princess Marya. The new misfortune brought them even closer together. Princess Marya postponed her departure and for the last three weeks, like a sick child, she looked after Natasha. The last weeks Natasha spent in her mother’s room had strained her physical strength.
One day, Princess Marya, in the middle of the day, noticing that Natasha was trembling with a feverish chill, took her to her place and laid her on her bed. Natasha lay down, but when Princess Marya, lowering the curtains, wanted to go out, Natasha called her over.
– I don’t want to sleep. Marie, sit with me.
– You’re tired, try to sleep.
- No no. Why did you take me away? She will ask.
- She's much better. “She spoke so well today,” said Princess Marya.
Natasha lay in bed and in the semi-darkness of the room looked at the face of Princess Marya.
“Does she look like him? – thought Natasha. – Yes, similar and not similar. But she is special, alien, completely new, unknown. And she loves me. What's on her mind? All is good. But how? What does she think? How does she look at me? Yes, she is beautiful."
“Masha,” she said, timidly pulling her hand towards her. - Masha, don’t think that I’m bad. No? Masha, my dear. How I love you. We will be completely, completely friends.
And Natasha, hugging and kissing the hands and face of Princess Marya. Princess Marya was ashamed and rejoiced at this expression of Natasha’s feelings.
From that day on, that passionate and tender friendship that only happens between women was established between Princess Marya and Natasha. They kissed constantly, spoke tender words to each other and spent most of their time together. If one went out, then the other was restless and hurried to join her. The two of them felt greater agreement among themselves than apart, each with herself. A feeling stronger than friendship was established between them: it was an exceptional feeling of the possibility of life only in the presence of each other.
Sometimes they were silent for whole hours; sometimes, already lying in bed, they began to talk and talked until the morning. They talked mostly about the distant past. Princess Marya talked about her childhood, about her mother, about her father, about her dreams; and Natasha, who had previously turned away with calm incomprehension from this life, devotion, humility, from the poetry of Christian self-sacrifice, now, feeling herself bound by love with Princess Marya, fell in love with Princess Marya’s past and understood a side of life that was previously incomprehensible to her. She did not think of applying humility and self-sacrifice to her life, because she was accustomed to looking for other joys, but she understood and fell in love with this previously incomprehensible virtue in another. For Princess Marya, listening to stories about Natasha’s childhood and early youth, a previously incomprehensible side of life, faith in life, in the pleasures of life, also opened up.
They still never spoke about him in the same way, so as not to violate with words, as it seemed to them, the height of feeling that was in them, and this silence about him made them forget him little by little, not believing it.
Natasha lost weight, turned pale and became so physically weak that everyone constantly talked about her health, and she was pleased with it. But sometimes she was suddenly overcome not only by the fear of death, but by the fear of illness, weakness, loss of beauty, and involuntarily she sometimes carefully examined her bare arm, surprised at its thinness, or looked in the mirror in the morning at her elongated, pitiful, as it seemed to her , face. It seemed to her that this was how it should be, and at the same time she became scared and sad.
Once she quickly went upstairs and was out of breath. Immediately, involuntarily, she came up with something to do downstairs and from there she ran upstairs again, testing her strength and observing herself.
Another time she called Dunyasha, and her voice trembled. She called her again, despite the fact that she heard her steps, called her in the chest voice with which she sang, and listened to him.
She didn’t know this, she wouldn’t have believed it, but under the seemingly impenetrable layer of silt that covered her soul, thin, tender young needles of grass were already breaking through, which were supposed to take root and so cover with their life shoots the grief that was crushing her that it would soon not be visible and not noticeable. The wound was healing from the inside. At the end of January, Princess Marya left for Moscow, and the Count insisted that Natasha go with her in order to consult with doctors.

After the clash at Vyazma, where Kutuzov could not restrain his troops from the desire to overturn, cut off, etc., the further movement of the fleeing French and the Russians who fled after them, to Krasnoye, took place without battles. The flight was so fast that the Russian army running after the French could not keep up with them, that the horses in the cavalry and artillery became weak and that information about the movement of the French was always incorrect.
The people of the Russian army were so exhausted by this continuous movement of forty miles a day that they could not move faster.
To understand the degree of exhaustion of the Russian army, you only need to clearly understand the significance of the fact that, having lost no more than five thousand people wounded and killed during the entire movement from Tarutino, without losing hundreds of people as prisoners, the Russian army, which left Tarutino numbering one hundred thousand, came to Red in the number of fifty thousand.
The rapid movement of the Russians after the French had just as destructive an effect on the Russian army as the flight of the French. The only difference was that the Russian army moved arbitrarily, without the threat of death that hung over the French army, and that the backward sick of the French remained in the hands of the enemy, the backward Russians remained at home. The main reason for the decrease in Napoleon's army was the speed of movement, and the undoubted proof of this is the corresponding decrease in Russian troops.
All of Kutuzov’s activities, as was the case near Tarutin and near Vyazma, were aimed only at ensuring, as far as was in his power, not to stop this movement disastrous for the French (as the Russian generals wanted in St. Petersburg and in the army), but assist him and facilitate the movement of his troops.

the oldest type of feudal land ownership in Russia. Inherited family or corporate ownership. Arose in the X-XI centuries; in the XIII - XV centuries - dominant. feudal form land tenure. From the end of the 15th century. opposed the estate (conditional feudal land tenure), with which gradually. got closer in the beginning. XVIII century united under the general term estate (real estate).

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

patrimony

from “fatherland”, i.e. inherited from the father) - in Ancient Rus' and the Muscovite state, land property with full private ownership rights to it. In the Old Russian state, it sometimes acquired the role of a state-legal term, denoting the territory of the princely appanage and even the right of the prince to own any region. In ancient times, the patrimonial owner had the widest range of rights: patrimonial property meant not only ownership of the land, but also administrative and judicial power over the entire population of this land (which at that time was not yet enslaved). The rights of the patrimonial owner were enshrined in grants, benefits and charters of the 15th-16th centuries. In the Moscow state, patrimonial lands gradually turned into princely vassals and were deprived of the right to judge and govern on their land, primarily in cases of murder, robbery and red-handed theft. V. served the same compulsory service as those on the estate (from 1556). Transferring to the service of another sovereign was punishable as treason, with confiscation from the criminal of V. - temporary land ownership, conditioned by service to the prince. There were three types of patrimonial land ownership: ancestral (actually “patrimony”), earned (“salary”), purchased (“purchase”). The main difference between them was the scope of the right and command. In relation to patrimonial V., this right was limited both by the state and by the patrimonial owners themselves. It was forbidden for V. to be given to a monastery according to his liking, or to be passed on as an inheritance to strangers. The relatives of the patrimonial owner enjoyed the right of ancestral redemption only within a certain period and at a certain price. Approximately the same restrictions applied to veterans who had served, although usually all their rights and restrictions were stipulated by a letter of grant. The most extensive right of disposal existed for those purchased by V. The Decree on Single Inheritance of 1714 established a general legal status for all “real estates”, significantly limiting the right to dispose of land and establishing a uniform procedure for inheritance of real estate. Lit.: Blumenfeld G.F. On the forms of land ownership in Ancient Rus'. Odessa, 1884; Lakier B. About estates and estates. St. Petersburg, 1848. L.E. Laptev

In the 10th century, the first feudal lords appeared on the territory of Kievan Rus, who owned large plots of land. At the same time, the word patrimony appears in Russian documents. This is a special legal form of ancient Russian land ownership. Until the end of the 13th century, patrimony was the main form of land ownership.

Origin of the term

In those distant times, land could be acquired in three ways: buy, receive as a gift, or inherit from your relatives. The patrimony in Ancient Rus' is the land obtained in the third way. The word comes from the Old Russian “otchina,” which meant “father’s property.” Such land could not be transferred to uncles, brothers or cousins ​​- only inheritance in a direct line counted. Thus, votchina in Rus' is property transferred from father to son. The inheritance of grandfathers and great-grandfathers in a direct line fell under the same category.

Boyars and princes received patrimony from their ancestors. Wealthy landowners had several fiefdoms under their control and could increase their territories through redemption, exchange, or the seizure of communal peasant lands.

Legal aspects

Patrimony is the property of one specific person or organization. Community and state lands did not have patrimonial rights. Although public ownership was of little significance at that time, it provided an opportunity to live for millions of peasants who cultivated these lands without the right to them.

The owner of the estate could exchange, sell or divide the land, but only with the consent of his relatives. For this reason, the owner of the estate could not be called a full owner. Later, the clergy joined the class of private landowners.

Owners of patrimonial lands had a number of privileges, especially in the field of legal proceedings. Also, patrimonial owners had the right to collect taxes and had administrative power over the people living on their lands.

What was included in the concept of patrimony

One should not think that the land passed on by inheritance was only land suitable for agriculture. A patrimony in Ancient Rus' consisted of buildings, arable land, forests, meadows, livestock, equipment, and most importantly, peasants living on the patrimony land. In those days, serfdom as such did not exist, and peasants could freely move from the land plots of one patrimonial estate to another.

Boyar estate

Along with private and church land property, there was also a boyar estate. This is land given as a reward by the king to his personal servants - the boyars. The granted land was subject to the same rights as a simple estate. The boyar estate quickly became one of the largest in Rus' - the land wealth of the boyars increased through the expansion of the state's territories, as well as through the distribution of the confiscated property of the disgraced boyars.

Feudal fiefdom

This form of land ownership, known as an estate, arose in the 13th century. The reason why the estate has lost its meaning is of a legal nature. As you can see, during the fragmentation of Rus', service under the prince was not connected with land ownership - a free servant could own land in one place and serve the boyar in another. Thus, the approximate position of any landowner did not in any way affect the amount of his land. Only the land paid, and only people performed the service. The feudal estate made this clear legal division so widespread that boyars and free servants, if they did not properly care for the land, lost their right to it, and the land was returned to the peasants. Gradually, patrimonial land ownership became the privilege of servicemen subordinate to the tsar himself. This is how the feudal estate was formed. This land tenure was the most common type of land ownership; state and church lands began to expand their territories much later.

The emergence of estates

In the 15th century, a new form of land ownership emerged, which gradually changed the outdated principles of land ownership, such as fiefdom. This change primarily affected landowners. From now on, their right to own and manage estates was restricted - only a narrow circle of people were allowed to inherit the land and dispose of it.

In 16th-century Muscovy, the word “votchina” practically never appears in civil correspondence. It disappeared from usage, and persons who were not in public service ceased to be called patrimonial people. The same people who served the state had the right to a land plot, called an estate. Service people were “placed” on the lands for the sake of protection or as payment for service to the state. With the end of the service period, the land returned to the royal property, and later this territory could be transferred to another person for services to the king. The heirs of the first owner had no rights to the estate land.

Two forms of land tenure

Votchina and estate are two forms of land ownership in Muscovy of the 14th-16th centuries. Both acquired and inherited lands gradually lost their differences - after all, the same responsibilities were imposed on landowners of both forms of ownership. Large landowners, who received land as a reward for service, gradually achieved the right to transfer estates by inheritance. In the minds of many land owners, the rights of patrimonial owners and service people were often intertwined; there are cases when attempts were made to transfer estate lands by inheritance. These judicial incidents led to the state becoming seriously concerned about the problem of land ownership. Legal confusion with the order of inheritance of estates and patrimony forced the tsarist government to adopt laws equalizing both of these types of land ownership.

Land laws of the mid-16th century

The new rules of land ownership were most fully set out in the royal decrees of 1562 and 1572. Both of these laws limited the rights of owners of princely and boyar estates. Private sales of patrimonial plots were allowed, but not more than half of them, and then only to blood relatives. This rule was already spelled out in the Code of Laws of Tsar Ivan and was supported by numerous decrees that were issued later. A patrimonial owner could bequeath part of his lands to his own wife, but only for temporary possession - “for subsistence.” The woman could not dispose of the given land. After the termination of ownership, such patrimonial land was transferred to the sovereign.

For peasants, both types of property were equally difficult - both the owners of the patrimony and the owners of estates had the right to collect taxes, administer justice, and draft people into the army.

Results of the local reform

These and other restrictions stated served two main purposes:

• support “their” service names and stimulate their readiness for public service;
• prevent the transfer of “service” lands into private hands.

Thus, the local reform practically abolished the legal meaning of patrimonial land ownership. The patrimony became equal to the estate - from legal and unconditional ownership, the possession of land property turned into conditional property, directly related to the law and the desire of the royal power. The concept of “patrimony” has also transformed. This word gradually disappeared from business documents and colloquial speech.

Development of private land ownership

The estate became an artificial incentive for the development of land ownership in Muscovite Rus'. Huge territories were distributed to the sovereign's people thanks to local law. At present, it is impossible to determine the exact relationship between local and patrimonial lands - accurate statistics of land plots have not been maintained. The addition of new lands made it difficult to account for existing holdings, which at that time were owned by private individuals and the state. Votchina is an ancient legal land tenure, at that time it was significantly inferior to the local one. For example, in 1624, the Moscow district contained about 55% of all available agricultural land. This amount of land needed not only legal, but also administrative management apparatus. County noble assemblies became a typical local body for the protection of landowners.

County societies

The development of local land ownership caused the birth of district noble societies. By the 16th century, such meetings were already quite organized and acted as a significant force in local self-government. Some political rights were also assigned to them - for example, collective petitions to the sovereign were formed, local militia were formed, petitions were written to the tsarist authorities about the needs of such societies.

Estate

In 1714, the royal decree on single inheritance was issued, according to which all land property was subject to single rights of inheritance. The emergence of this type of land ownership finally united the concepts of “estate” and “patrimony”. This new legal formation came to Russia from Western Europe, where at that time a developed land management system had long existed. The new form of land ownership was called “estate”. From that moment on, all landed property became real estate and was subject to uniform laws.

”, as possession on a broader title.

During the time known to us from documents (XV - XVII centuries), patrimonial ownership was gradually limited, finally merging at the beginning of the 18th century with local ownership. The patrimonial possessions of princes are the first to be subject to restrictions. Already Ivan III forbade the princes of the appanages of North-Eastern Rus' (Yaroslavl, Suzdal and Starodub) to sell their estates without the knowledge of the Grand Duke, and also to give them to monasteries. Under Ivan the Terrible, by decrees of 1562 and 1572, all princes were generally forbidden to sell, exchange, give, or give their estates as dowries. By inheritance, these estates could only pass to sons, and in the absence of them (in the absence of a will) they were taken to the treasury. Princes could bequeath their estate only to close relatives and only with the permission of the sovereign.

If these restrictions on the ruling princes stemmed from state-political considerations, then the main motivation for limiting simple patrimonial landowners was the interest of military service. By their very origin, part of the estates has long been determined by the obligation of service. When Muscovite Rus' began to introduce quite conditional estate ownership on a large scale for the same purpose, it imposed military service on all estates in the same amount as estates. According to the decree of 1556, for every 100 quarters (50 acres in one field) of land, the patrimonial owner, along with the landowner, had to assign one armed horseman. Further, simultaneously with the princely estates, but to a lesser extent, the right to dispose of service estates was also limited (1562, 1572). Women received only the “how to live” part of them, and men inherited no further than the 4th generation.

Village yard. Painting by A. Popov, 1861

Since, despite all this, service estates could be sold and given to monasteries, then, with constant financial difficulties caused by the landowning crisis of the 16th century, a significant part of them left the hands of the estate owners. The government tried to fight against this by establishing in law the right of family redemption and by prohibiting the giving of estates to monasteries. The rules of ancestral ransom were established by the law courts of Ivan the Terrible and Feodor. In 1551 it was forbidden to sell estates to monasteries, in 1572 it was forbidden to give souls to rich monasteries for commemoration; in 1580, relatives were given an unlimited right of redemption, “even though some are far in the family,” and in the absence of them, it was determined to buy back the estates from the monasteries to the sovereign. In the 17th century The government is beginning to monitor even more closely “so that the land does not go out of service.” Service from the estates was strictly regulated: those who failed were threatened with the confiscation of part or all of the estate; Those who desolated their estates were ordered to be beaten with a whip (1621).

Estates differed according to the method of acquisition generic or ancient, well-served (granted by the government) and purchased. The disposal of the first two categories of estates was limited: women could not inherit patrimonial and granted estates (1627); By decree of 1679, the right to bequeath estates, including children, to brothers, relatives and strangers, was taken away. Since the decrees of the 16th century. about the non-transfer of estates to the monastery were not fulfilled, then in 1622 the government recognized the estates of the monasteries that had not been redeemed before 1613; It was allowed to continue to give estates to monasteries, not only conditionally until the ransom, but in 1648 it was absolutely forbidden for monasteries to accept estates, under the threat that if relatives did not immediately redeem them, they would be taken into the treasury for free.

By the decree of Peter I on single inheritance on March 23, 1714, it was henceforth determined that “both estates and votchinas should be called the same thing, immovable estate votchina.” The ground for such a merger was prepared both by the described restrictions on the disposal of estates and by the opposite process - the gradual expansion of the right to use estates.

Literature about fiefdoms: S.V. Rozhdestvensky, Serving land ownership in the Moscow state of the 16th century. (St. Petersburg, 1897); N. Pavlov-Silvansky, The Sovereign's Service People (St. Petersburg, 1898); V. N. Storozhev, Decree Book of the Local Order (movement of legislation on the issue of estates; M., 1889).