Features of the social structure of medieval society. The social structure of medieval society: Europe and Russia. Crisis of the 14th century

During the first century and a half, the social structure of society was dual. The indigenous inhabitants, former Roman citizens, lived according to the laws of the no longer existing state, retained their social and partially political (at the level of local self-government) institutions. The newcomers-Germans began to structure a loose tribal organization: the king and his entourage, tribal nobility, a permanent squad, whose members had a higher social status than other warriors, stood out.

Gradually, society moved towards achieving internal unity. The Germans adopted Catholicism, which brought them closer to the Romans, the prohibitions on German-Roman marriages were lifted, legislation appeared that was equally binding on both the Romans and the Germans. The Germans begin to pay taxes, which they did not do before, and the Romans begin to serve in the army, where before they were allowed only in exceptional cases. Finally, the achievement of internal unity by society can be said in the 6th - 7th centuries.

Around this time, the process of establishing stronger ties between the king and vigilantes began. If the latter, according to tradition, received a war horse, weapons and refreshments at feasts for their service, now land is being transferred to them. The new practice was brought to life by the action of the following factors: 1) the exhaustion of the land fund that was at the disposal of the king, and the difficulty in connection with the distribution of land on the rights of allod; 2) the transition in the formation of the troops from the foot people's militia to heavily armed cavalry detachments, which showed their high efficiency in battles with the Arabs.

It was the heavily armed horsemen who began to receive from the king for their service land grants for lifelong possession - beneficiaries. The beneficiary could be deprived of the land in the event of an act of felony, i.e. avoidance of their duties. After the death of the beneficiary, the land returned to the former owner, but could also be transferred to the son of the deceased, subject to a separate oath and the performance of paternal service. Over time, the magnates began to get themselves beneficiaries.
The new form of land tenure did not immediately enjoy the trust of the beneficiaries. This is connected with their desire to improve the economic situation of their allods at the expense of the received lands.

If the upper strata of society acquired an internal hierarchy based on personal service and receiving benefits for it, then the lower strata formed a relatively homogeneous group of dependent peasants. The middle layer - allodists - was eroded: some of them passed into the category of beneficiaries, some fell into land or personal dependence on magnates or the church.

The class structure of medieval society took shape by the 11th century. There are three divisions:
- speakers (prayers), that is, the clergy;
- bellatores (fighting), that is, chivalry;
- laboratores (workers), that is, citizens.
The free peasantry, as a rule, was included in the third estate, and the dependent peasantry was outside the estates. Belonging to estates meant belonging to a certain set of rights and privileges. Initially, the estates were characterized by openness. The estate of the clergy could include younger sons in knightly families who did not have the right to inherit property. The clergy also absorbed the excess part of the townspeople and peasants. The class of chivalry was replenished at the expense of the annobled stratum of the townspeople, who acquired the knighthood for service or money, as well as at the expense of the free peasantry, who were recruited for military service. In England, the rule was that every peasant who had 20 shillings of income a year was obliged to apply to the king for a knighthood. The class of townspeople was replenished as a result of resettlement from the agricultural district. Even fugitive unfree peasants, having lived in the city for one year and one day, turned into free citizens. True, in the future, by the 15th century, there was a tendency for the isolation of estates, especially chivalry.

Each estate, in turn, had a complex hierarchical structure. At the head of the clergy was the pope, who was elected for life at the conclave of cardinals. Below him stood the archbishops and bishops, who led the monasticism in church districts - dioceses, and cities; they were appointed by the pope. Below the archbishops and bishops were the abbots and priors, who led the monasticism in the monasteries and priories. Finally, the lower step was made up of ordinary monks, clerics and parish priests.

The estate of chivalry was headed by the emperor, who was elected by the Diet of Electors. Below him were the kings, whose power was determined by the will of the nobility and hereditary rights. Below were the dukes, earls, barons who received these titles and the corresponding insignia from the kings. All of them constituted the highest feudal hierarchy, possessed sovereignty and were called overlords. The lowest level of the hierarchy was formed by ordinary knights, who had the lowest jurisdiction over the dependent peasantry. This hierarchical structure of chivalry generally looked like this: each knight had the right to a fortification, a castle, a coat of arms and a standard. Each knight had a squire, or a squire in England, or a jack in France. The squires were not included in the hierarchy and estate, but for special merits they could be awarded knighthood.

The class structure of the townspeople was also hierarchized. In cities that had the status of civitas, there were three levels of citizenship: cives, burgenses, and habitatores. The cives had full rights; they served on city councils, held elective office, had the right to engage in international trade, had tax immunities and other privileges. Burgenses could be elected, engage in business and trade, except for international ones, and did not have tax immunities. Habitatores could only vote, had the right to vote, could engage in crafts and retail trade. In addition, the merchants of the cities united in guilds, and artisans - in workshops. Only masters had full rights in the workshop: they participated in workshop meetings, elected its governing bodies, courts, developed workshop regulations - statutes. Apprentices and apprentices did not have these rights. An apprentice became a master only after a long period of perfection in the craft; the end of the preparation was the manufacture of a product, which the masters at their meeting recognized as a masterpiece; after that, the apprentice had to arrange a treat, a feast, and was recognized as an equal master. Each shop had its coat of arms, standard, church, special holidays, ceremonies.

Peasants were also divided into several categories. The upper stratum of the peasantry was made up of free peasants, who were called Villans in France, freeholders in England, and Meyers in Germany. In some lands, for example, in Scandinavia, England, Switzerland, free peasants had the right to bear arms and participate in military campaigns; they received their land holdings in the ritual of investiture, like knights. The lowest stratum consisted of unfree, dependent peasants; in France they were called serfs, in England they were called copyholders. Dependent peasants were subject to the greatest duties: they paid a poll tax - shevage, a raised tax - focage, a tax for the right to marry - formarage, a tax for the right to transfer property by inheritance - manmort; they worked out the corvée. In some countries, there were other duties, for example, to give the first born animal to the feudal lord, to yield the newlywed to the master on the first night.

Estates received the right to participate in the bodies of estate representation in the conditions of the formation of centralized monarchies. The earliest such organs arose in Castile and Aragon in the 60s and 70s of the 12th century. They were called cortes and consisted of four chambers - brazo:
1) ricos ombros;
2) hidalgo;
3) clergy;
4) townspeople.
The Cortes were led by a justitia major who could criticize the king and blame him; it was the justitia major who took the oath from the newly ascending king. He addressed the new monarch with the words: “Here we are, who are no worse than you, recognize you, who are no better than us, our king on terms of loyalty to the Cortes and Fueros. And if not, then no!” The Cortes passed laws, approved taxes.

The Social Structure of Medieval Society: Europe and Russia Written version of the speech by I. Danilevsky and P. Uvarov in the program "Not so!" Pavel Uvarov: An equestrian warrior is a knight, of course. For the most part, its social functions are related to war, the use of weapons and the protection of the population. This is the first. He has a special status, not like everyone else, and is quite privileged and independent. It has its own idea of ​​honor, its own culture. Associated with special official - as a rule, contract type - relations with his overlord, a superior boss. From a social point of view, chivalry is an elite that, as a rule, uses peasant labor for its maintenance. ID: In Ancient Russia, for those whom we could conditionally call "knights", this set is clearly not suitable. "Equestrian warrior", for whom war is the main craft, this is still understandable. A privileged position to some extent, too. But here a problem immediately arises in Russia: estates appear very late. Estate, if in a nutshell, is a legal concept. On the one hand, there must be a legal basis in order to formalize and consolidate quite certain relations. On the other hand, there must be a certain social group whose rights are enshrined in law. In Russia, this practice appears only in the XVIII century. I mean the law "On the Liberty of the Nobility". Until that time, the law does not define any social group by rights. It has always been difficult for us with legislation, and even worse with the legal basis. But nevertheless, there were still some grounds for the allocation of knighthood. And until some rather late time, this fell under the definition, which always amazed me, it was believed that in Russia there was feudalism without an overlord. It's like vodka without a degree, tobacco without nicotine, a book without letters. A strange notion of chivalry and feudalism! But its roots are clear. Relations between those whom we can conditionally call overlords in Russia, and those whom we also conditionally call knights, were not at all the same as they were in Western Europe. There are fundamental differences, and they are very clear geographically. And somehow it was necessary to designate them, hence the "feudalism without overlord." In Russia there were an older squad and a younger one. The eldest is, of course, a privileged part of the warriors. But their privileges are rather strange. I don’t know how the first knights, relatively speaking, how they were defined in Western Europe by their kinship, that is, whether their status was inherited. In Russia, this is very difficult to determine. And above all, because we often attract a very complex and even dangerous source for early periods - epics. Why dangerous? Because this is an oral transmission, but not an epic, which, as a rule, is very clearly maintained in structure and content, but epics. In the epic, the narrator is its creator himself. The main characters are heroes. A hero and a knight are about the same thing. The word "hero" comes to us along with the Mongols. The first hero who is mentioned in written sources is Subedei-Baatur. This is a Turkic name, which folk etymology made more Russian - a hero. Who are they by name? Ilya, Alyosha - that is, Alexei or Alexander - and Dobrynya. As for Ilya and Alyosha, this is already a late time, because the names are clearly baptismal, and baptismal names begin to be used as the main ones only from the 15th century. I'm talking about early epics, epics of the so-called Kyiv cycle, in which Prince Vladimir the Red Sun is mentioned. Where is all this audience? They either sit at the feast of Prince Vladimir, or at the heroic outposts. Bogatyr outposts is a concept that was formed in the 15th century. That is, no matter how we take any sign, it throws us back to the 15th century, to the 16th century, to the 17th century. And besides the name Vladimir the Red Sun and the fact that he is sitting in Kyiv, there are no other dating signs, although we attribute him to the Kyiv period. In general, Vladimir the Red Sun is an almost mythical figure, some kind of “mixture” of Arthur and Charlemagne. Charlemagne with his paladins, and Arthur with his knights. Some distant, distant memories of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, because after all the Baptist, and he is remembered regularly. Then Vladimir Monomakh, but the figure is also extremely obscure. And therefore it is impossible to draw a conclusion about what the social composition of the knights was, where these heroes came from. Let's say they could be peasant children. I would not dare to draw such a conclusion. There are more reliable sources. Let's say "The Tale of Bygone Years". But this is also a semi-mythical genealogy about several generations of close people surrounding the prince! The story of Yana Vyshatich, Vyshat Ostromirich. All these are relatives of the prince to some extent, and Ostromir is a Novgorod mayor, he is a relative of Izyaslav Yaroslavich, the eldest son of Yaroslav the Wise. In addition, it is quite clear that there are genealogical stretches in the Tale. And that's what's important. It must be remembered that until the 15th century we had no idea of ​​surnames. No one really cares about pedigree. At best, grandfathering is mentioned, that is, it says who the grandfather was. Anything further is unimportant. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to say that chivalry in Russia - and these are certain rights and obligations that pass from generation to generation by inheritance. However, at first, until the XII century, everything was very similar to Western Europe. And in the XII century, the emergence of independent states on the territory of Kievan Rus leads to the formation of different types of statehood, and the role of mounted warriors is changing. But until that time, the southern and southwestern principalities are very reminiscent of Western Europe. These are Kyiv, Galich, Volyn, to some extent Polotsk. And a completely different picture in the northeast. With the appearance on the historical stage of Andrei Bogolyubsky, the whole system of social relations in general changes dramatically. In the south and southwest, senior squads, which are called the word "boyars", play a very prominent role, influence the prince, the prince is forced to coordinate with them all his actions, up to the one to whom the principality will be transferred. They have land holdings and consider them theirs, and in fact keep the city veche meetings under their control. And in the northwest, the boyars are local, these are not warriors, this is a local aristocracy with large land holdings, and it does not depend on the prince in any way. The prince depends on them! They expel the prince, they can invite another, and he can come to them on a contractual basis, say, for the duration of hostilities. And the northeast, where another system of boyars is taking shape, although the term is the same. After Andrey Bogolyubsky expels his father's squad, he remains with the same ministerials, with the same service organization, the "junior squad", which is not equal to him. He is not the first among equals, but an order of magnitude higher. They are serfs - in the 15th century they will write that Andrei Bogolyubsky was killed by his serfs. Although they were called boyars and were boyars. Thus, in the southwest, in the northwest, in the northeast of Russia there were completely different types of boyars. And with Western Europe, it seems, only the southwestern boyars can be compared. PW: But by this time, if we're talking about the 12th century, it's the same in the West. In England conquered by the Normans - one, in North-East France - another, and in Italy - the third. And the lack of unification was no less, if not greater, than in Russia. But what happened in Europe? And what didn't happen to us? Firstly, there was no Mongol invasion in Europe, which radically solved the problem of the boyars, at least in the northeast. And the second, perhaps no less important, is that in the West there was a codification of legal thought that had already been born after the “reception” of Roman law. People who learned to think legally wanted to codify certain rules so that interactions became possible. The result is a completely different reality. A genealogical canon is being formed. A treatise was written, which proves the piety of the practice of "shedding blood in certain cases." There is a tradition according to which knights are perceived as protectors of widows and orphans. This is especially strong where there is a lack of power. That is, the XII century for Europe is the time of creation, folding of the social system, some unification of the rules, as a result of which the exchange of information and codes of conduct becomes possible. Since the end of the 12th century, there has already been some unity of territories and different regions. And the crusades played a huge role in this, the role of a kind of catalyst and melting pot in which the system of values ​​begins to crystallize. Further, this process will only gain strength, grow stronger. Legal norms will be improved, national states will be formed. But all the same, until the 15th century, aristocratic knightly youth from all over Europe would gather and, say, go hunting for Lithuanians. We know how these wonderful guys, familiar to us from the chronicles of Shakespeare, children, grandchildren of the Black Prince and Richard II, are expelled from the Lithuanian border by special papal instructions for the riot and disgrace they cause. Two more words about the Crusades. There is an opinion that this is a huge worldwide project of social and political reorganization of the whole of Europe. If so, then there will be many such knightly projects. And under Charles V and VI, and the Dubois project under Philip IV. And in general, all the first utopias will be painted in knightly tones. But after a while it will all be over. And there is a very simple functional explanation - to maintain a knightly army, this colossus, is becoming more and more difficult. And insanely expensive, of course. And Eastern Europe is a sparsely populated, and, in general, poor society. There is no such concentration of wealth, human material and resources as in Western Europe to support chivalry, which, by the way, is another reason for its absence in Russia. Plus, a specific form of land use. Let's not forget that practically before the 15th - even the 16th century, a turning point occurs. The population was forced to leave the old land and develop new areas. This largely determines why in Russia there was feudalism without vassalage. Because it was impossible to give one piece of land for life - it was developed at an incredible speed. That is, it was necessary either to give fishing, saltworks - anything - or wait until a normal land use system appears. And this is the 16th century. Then the process of formation of local land use is completed. But this is no longer knighthood. Obviously, it could be, but time is lost. The princely power is already strong enough, and then the royal one. It was at this time that there was a sharp increase in the power of the Grand Duke, and soon the appearance of a king, absolutely sacred, who stands outside any social structures. Plus the heavy legacy of the Mongols. Because the relationship between the sovereign and the serf is transferred to the entire system of relations. There were no barons here! At one time, they tried to say in our country that the struggle against the reactionary boyars was waged by the progressive nobility. But ... they did not differ in their essence! It was only a rank, only a status determined by the position under the monarch, who alone had unlimited power. Let's see where else chivalry could be, and whether it was. Or is it a purely European phenomenon? Samurai come to mind, Indian Rajputs who kept the penetration of Islam into the central regions. There was something similar in Iran. And even in China. But the nomadic society solved this problem in a different way. ID: European chivalry has not always been successful. For example, the clash at Shaio, the battle of Legnica, where the Mongols won unconditional victories. PW: Maybe if they moved on, the lock system could hold them back. They did not know how to take castles in a mountainous area. But in open battle, chivalry had no chance, that's for sure. So where does the border between West and East lie, where is the border of Western European chivalry in the East? There were no such knights as in Europe, for example, in the Baltics. ID: And in Lithuania, Poland - constant contacts with Europe, which are due, in particular, to the struggle against the Mongol invasion. And this is the great merit of Danila Romanovich Galitsky, who established such contacts. It is he who begins to be actively involved in the process, as a result of which an entity will emerge, which we will call Lithuania. But the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is a colossal territory with a population of different ethnic composition. And the fact that, in spite of everything, this principality is closer to the West than to the East, leads to the fact that later, much later, Lithuania concludes a Union with Poland, the Rzeczpospolita arises. And what we find in these territories is much closer, say, to European chivalry in essence and in terms of forms of relations than to the northeast. And the Polish-Lithuanian gentry can be called chivalry. But where do we see the easternmost presence or even a mention of chivalric legends? ID: In the northeast, at best, we find novels about Alexander the Great. P. W: And yet, if you look for common roots, you can find them. After all, this is in Greek traditions - an equestrian saint. And we meet him both in the Eastern Christian tradition and in the West. This is a rider, or a spearman. And at first, of course, this is not St. George, but just a rider, a rider. It is interesting that even for North-Eastern Russia in the XIV-XV centuries there was a choice, as in the West, there was a plurality of services. The horseman could leave for some time or permanently move from one prince to another. And this is up to the 16th century. Now let's look at the knightly legends. Such a legend is called "The Tale of Igor's Campaign". It is usually compared to "The Song of Roland". However, as far as I understand, they have only one thing in common - a completely ordinary case, about which a brilliant, amazing work was created, which is generally outside of any genre. Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev wrote clearly and clearly: this work stands outside the genre structure. Which, by the way, led to sad reflections about when it was created. The complete absence of information about the existence of this work led to the same question. This was out of the question, although Likhachev boldly spoke of the existence of the "Tale of Igor's Campaign", similar to that of the "Song of Roland". It is not clear what he based this assertion on. The development of such a specific thing as heraldry is associated with chivalry. ID: And this was categorically excluded in Russia! Because - I repeat! the idea of ​​tribal affiliation, the appearance of surnames is connected, apparently, with only one thing - the appearance of localism. This is the formation of a layer of service people in a certain rank, ranked by when a person came, what position his ancestors occupied. That is, it was a prince, or a Moscow boyar, or a boyar of a serving prince, in order to ensure their status and the status of their descendants. Only from now on! Moreover, I am not alone in coming to this conclusion, studying the material from the 11th century to the end of the 15th century, but, for example, Alexander Kamensky, looking through this material from the 15th century to the 18th century. Our heraldry appears in the 17th century, and this is urban heraldry. And in the 18th century, it will already be tribal heraldry, which has a completely different status and other functions. But it doesn't change anything in principle. Today, in our ideas, the coat of arms is a symbol of honor. For that time, apparently, it was just a system of behavior that would allow progress. Because in Russia there is no canon, that is, a designation of behavior that would be read as a concept of honor. I could not see such words anywhere: "he acted dishonestly." Because it is possible to determine the “availability” of honor when you are “caught in a dishonorable act, that is, when you go beyond this canon. What conclusions can be drawn? The existence of chivalry in Western Europe was of great importance for its development. This institution greatly influenced the emergence and establishment of individual rights, the attitude towards women, the creation and observance of the rules of civilized warfare, and the attitude towards prisoners. So many features of democracy largely come from there. It can even be said that to some extent the foundation of the modern legal system was laid precisely then and thanks to chivalry. YU: In Russia, there were some elements common with European ones, from which chivalry could develop, but, apparently, for some complex, internal reasons, this did not take place.

4. The social structure of late medieval society

Hungary, including the territory of Slovakia, was still a typical medieval kingdom in the 15th century; political, economic, social structures, despite some new elements, remained unchanged. It was still an agrarian country, the overwhelming majority of the population was the feudal-dependent peasantry, the nobility was the determining social force.

The population of all Hungary, according to the latest demographic studies, ranged from 3-3.5 million at the beginning of the 15th century. to about 4-4.5 million people at the end of the century (together with Slavonia and Transylvania), the population of Slovakia is about 500-550 thousand people. These data, however, are very approximate, their sources are the lists of duties (urbaria), which have survived only in very rare cases and in fragments, moreover, they only record the number of taxable units in a given area, and not the population. The vast majority of the population lived in rural areas, the number of inhabitants of cities and towns was presumably about 8.2% of the total population (in Western Europe, a slightly larger percentage, as well as in neighboring countries - Poland, the Czech Kingdom - about 15% of the inhabitants). Even the most significant and largest free royal cities (for example, Kosice, Bratislava) by European standards were cities of medium size (5-10 thousand inhabitants). In general, in Slovakia at the end of the 15th century there were about 200 urban-type settlements.

Assumptions regarding the population density in the Kingdom of Hungary range from 10 to 32 people per square kilometer on average. km, but these are very approximate data, in the elevated regions of Slovakia, inhabited mainly by Vlachs who were engaged in cattle breeding, the population density is much lower, for example, in the Liptovska and Orava zhupas - up to 5 people per square meter. km, in most of the territory of Slovakia 5-12, in Gontska and Abovska (in the vicinity of Kosice) zhups even 15 people per sq. km. km. The numerical composition of households, that is, the number of people living in one house, within the borders of Hungary, was supposedly about 6.3 souls. Compared to the neighboring Czech kingdom, the population of Hungary (and hence Slovakia) was rarer, as evidenced by some surviving monuments: for example, in 1471, the Hungarian embassy, ​​which defended the right of Matthias Korvin to the Czech crown in the elections in the Sejm in Kutna Hora , compared both kingdoms in her speech; Hungary was drawn by them as a country famous for the abundance of all things, and the Czech Republic - a country of outstanding population and fertility.

Population density was determined by various factors, during the XV century. commonplace was the depopulation and even the complete desolation of some settlements or entire regions. The number of estates that paid taxes (taxes were paid from one “gate”, from one “entrance”), from the time of King Sigismund to the end of the 15th century, decreased by 1/3. The decrease in population was caused by various reasons - mass death from starvation due to sudden changes in weather conditions, for example, a long winter or excessive heat and drought (which befell Hungary, in particular, in 1473). The reason for the decline in the population was also plague epidemics that recurred several times over a decade, limited opportunities to earn a livelihood (if, for example, too little land belonged to a single estate), violent actions and civil strife of individual landowners, invasions of foreign troops (for example, Hussite invasions troops on the territory of Slovakia in the first third of the century or the attacks of Polish troops at the end of the 15th century). Despite all these negative factors, the demographic development in Slovakia in the XV century. tended to moderate growth.

The determining force of social development in medieval society was its elite - the nobility, although it was only a minimal percentage of the population. According to the latest hypotheses, within the whole of Hungary it was less than 5% of the total population, of which the wealthy (middle and upper) nobility made up about 1.5% of the total population. The basis of the foundations of the nobility was land ownership, the nobleman lived on his own land and his only duty was military service. Thus, as the owner (homopossessionatus) he was different from the rest of the population (homines impossessionati). In addition to owning land (at least a piece of land or even just a manor), the nobles also enjoyed complete personal freedom, tax exemption and other privileges, of which the most important was the fact that without a legal order, trial and sentence, a nobleman could not be sent to prison. , moreover, the nobles were subject only to the king (they had the right to be judged only by the king himself or his dignitaries, i.e., the judge of the region or the palatine).

The structure of the nobility throughout the 15th century did not undergo significant changes. Only the most powerful or richest group, often referred to as the aristocracy, oligarchy, magnates or nobles, played the decisive role. Although formally all the nobles were equal among themselves (this principle was formulated in the decree of King Louis of Anjou in 1351), in reality the situation was not at all like that, the nobility as a class was divided into certain, relatively isolated layers. The middle and especially the most numerous petty nobility in that period were not allowed almost any participation in power. The fate of the country was decided by a group of aristocracy or its top - barons, who, together with church hierarchs - prelates - made up the royal council. The title of baron originally belonged exclusively to holders of the highest ranks in the royal service, formally the barons were separated from the rest of the magnates by title magnificus, magnificus dominus or dominus. During the reign of the Angevin dynasty there was a group of magnates, almost identical to the category of barons and prelates. Subsequently, however, there was an increasing number of rich and powerful magnates who did not get positions of high rank, so there was an increasing tendency to expand the circle of barons. Already from the end of the XIV century, but especially in the XV century. with added title magnificus the descendants or members of the family of the barons began to be named. During the reign of Matthew Korvin, such barons were called "barons by name" or "by birth", in contrast to "real" barons, i.e. dignitaries. Increasingly, the designation "tycoons" began to be used, which eventually prevailed. Thus, the decisive factor in belonging to this group was not dignity, but the size of the estate; during the reign of King Matthew Corvinus, this group of magnates began to stand out as a special stratum of the nobility, which also differed in formal features (for example, the use of a red seal).

Most of the representatives of the middle and petty nobility found a use in the service of high-ranking feudal lords as familiars. The institution of familiars to a certain extent resembles the Western European fief system. Nobles - familiars of some feudal lord (in familiaritate et comitiva, in sequela et familiaritate), like vassals in the countries of Western Europe, they served in the military with their lord, fought in his banderia (sub eius vexillo), were his castellani, clerks, podzhupans, exercised judicial power over his serfs during his absence, and so on. To the category of the most serious crimes of the Middle Ages - betrayal, treason (nota infidelitatis), for which the punishment was applied in the form of deprivation of the head and property, included not only treason to the king, but also the betrayal of his master. Each nobleman sought to find for himself the richest and most influential master, because through the family led the way up. The top of the aspirations was service at the royal court, there were unlimited opportunities, and from a representative of the petty nobility (under Matvey Korvin even from the ranks of the feudal-dependent peasantry) one could become a magnate. For the most part, however, this path was only open to more or less wealthy nobility. At the royal court, men from childhood began their careers, becoming pages, later - court knights. But the group of court knights was not homogeneous either. In addition to ordinary knights, among the nobles there was a group of close associates, royal familiars, advisers, companions at feasts, zhupans (heads of committees), castellans, as well as representatives of prominent magnate families who were still just waiting for their appointment to the post. These people called themselves strenuus miles or strenuus vir, from the 15th century very often used and the title egregius. This group of nobles could be attributed to the middle and higher nobility, and in the sources it is sometimes referred to as proceres. As a rule, they owned 10-25 villages and one castle as a residence and administrative center.

The most numerous stratum of the nobility (about 2/3 of the total number) had one estate and several dependent peasants. For this reason, the vast majority of the nobles led the same way of life as the feudal-dependent peasants, their position was better in the sense that they did not pay taxes to their master. The impoverishment of many noble families was due to the principle of inheritance (aviticitas), which operated in Hungary and according to which all male descendants of the family inherited (not only the eldest son, as was customary in other countries). The complete loss of the estate, this basis of the nobility, meant living under someone else's roof, therefore, falling into the category of non-nobles and living on the land of their master in the position of a worker, in complete dependence on him. The solution to the problem was to become hired soldiers, to trade, to seek fortune in the city, and the like. In the worst case, such impoverished nobles became robbers, as evidenced by the lists of criminals, the so-called proscriptions, compiled at meetings of various committees, where nobles are represented in large numbers.

The greatest opportunities for the petty and middle nobility opened up during the accession to the throne of the new king. In most cases, he first had to win a power struggle with influential magnate families, so he looked for allies and created his own aristocracy devoted to him. This situation developed with the accession of Sigismund of Luxembourg, as well as Matthew Corvinus. Many representatives of the petty nobility and even philistinism then penetrated into the relatively closed layer of the aristocracy; under Matvey Korvin, this path was not closed even for feudal-dependent peasants.

The fifteenth century gave birth (not only in Hungary) to a new type of nobleman, the entrepreneurial nobleman. A good example of such nobility was the Thurzos. Juraj Turzo, a nobleman from Betlanovec in Spis, said goodbye to the lifestyle of a village nobleman and settled in Levoča, where he achieved great success in trade. His son Jan became a businessman and entrepreneur on a European scale. First, he founded a branch of the company in Krakow (he himself became a tradesman from Krakow) and gradually turned it into an international company with branches in Lewoča and Košice. Abroad, he was successfully engaged in new technologies for pumping water from mines, so he received permission for similar activities in Hungary. Over time, Thurzo managed to lease copper mining in the vicinity of Banska Bystrica from the king, he teamed up with the South German banking house of the Fuggers from Augsburg and created the Thurzo-Fugger company, which exported Bansko Bystrica copper to many European countries. But most of the nobles in their way of thinking and lifestyle belonged to the Middle Ages. In that era, one of the attributes of the nobility was still the castle. In addition to the defensive and economic function (ownership of villages and land was associated with the castle), the castle also performed a representative function, served as a symbol of the status of its owner. But only the richest could own the castle, the vast majority of the nobility lived in small castles or in noble estates. The number of castles during the XV century. did not change much, but the number of small castles (castellum - a fortress) and fortresses grew with amazing speed, which was due to the turbulent period of the civil war.

The nobility and the clergy were the two fundamental estates that made decisions about the fate of the country. The hierarchy of the clergy was almost identical to the hierarchy of the nobility, representatives of the upper stratum - prelates, i.e. archbishops and bishops, and rectors of some order communities - almost always came from magnate families (this situation changed only during the reign of Matthew Korvin), the middle stratum - the canons and priests of the profitable parishes actually coincided with the average nobility, and even their way of life was the same. The lowest layer was represented by village priests, chaplains, who often came from families of dependent people or from impoverished nobles.

The third estate, the formation of which began during the 15th century, was the inhabitants of cities. However, their political significance did not match the pace of their evolution. The number of cities grew rapidly during the 15th century, but for the most part they were feudal towns, and they received their privileges through the petitions of their landowners. At the end of the XV century. 90% of all towns and cities were in the hands of the feudal lords. In legal terms, only free royal cities remained cities in the full sense of the word.

The urban population was also differentiated, but it did not reach more or less serious conflicts and struggle for power. The upper layer of the bourgeoisie was a wealthy patriciate - merchants and property owners. The members of the city council and the burgomaster were elected exclusively from their ranks. Craftsmen and small traders made up the middle layer, the very bottom of the urban population consisted of very heterogeneous elements, this included apprentices who were waiting for an opportunity to become masters, servants, day laborers, those whose occupation was considered unworthy (executioners, comedians), as well as marginal elements ( prostitutes, thieves, vagabonds). The number of urban lower classes (plebs) presumably amounted to about 1/3 of the urban population. The fifteenth century was still a period of internal stability in the cities, power was firmly held in the hands of the patriciate, there were no internal struggles and unrest. The exception was probably only inter-ethnic tensions in some cities, due to the dominance of the German patriciate (for example, under 1468, a message was preserved about the rivalry between Slovaks and Germans for the place of burgomaster in Trnava).

The vast majority of the population (as much as 80%) were not free. These were those whose destiny, according to the medieval political doctrine of people of the threefold kind, was to work (people of the threefold kind are those who fight, bellatores,- the nobility, those who pray, oratores,- the clergy and the working people - laboratores). But the category of the dependent population was not homogeneous, in legal terms, they included residents of privately owned towns, as well as the rural population from wealthy peasants to farm laborers who did not have any land ownership. According to studies by Hungarian historians, for every 100 dependents there were 25 laborers, 10 of them had a house, 15 did not have their own housing. The rural population also included servants who worked on the estate of a feudal lord or a more or less prosperous peasant. Among the dependents were also free, who were exempted from paying taxes to the feudal lord - for merits in the master's service, millers of feudal lords, etc.

There was also a significant property stratification between the dependents. Each feudal lord was interested in keeping as many successful dependent people as possible, because each dependent brought him income. Throughout the Middle Ages, the main problem was the lack of population, so the feudal lords tried, on the one hand, to keep their own dependents, on the other hand, to lure residents of other regions to them. Housekeeping by the feudal lord himself, that is, on his own estate, in the 15th century. not yet widespread, the economic activity of the landowner consisted in the fact that he gave the land to his dependents for use on certain conditions. Until the middle of the fifteenth century. dependent peasants had the right to freely move from one feudal lord to another (in those days, amendments to laws sometimes appeared that limited the resettlement of dependents for one year), that is, in case of dissatisfaction with their position, they could, having paid a certain amount, go to where they were more terms acceptable to them. it the circumstance could entail serious economic consequences, especially for low-income nobles. Therefore, disputes between feudal lords over dependent people in that period were one of the most frequent causes for conflicts.

Despite the fact that there were also wealthy peasants - dependent, the majority of the population was forced to get their piece of bread in a hard struggle. The harvest itself, on which the dependent still had to give the obligatory shares of the church and his feudal lord, was not enough to feed the family. Weather conditions, on which medieval man was completely dependent, often left without a harvest and became the cause of general famine. Therefore, the peasants also found other ways to earn a livelihood - they raised livestock, uprooted new lands, on which (if natural conditions allowed) they cultivated grapes, planted orchards or grew vegetables. An important source of food near the rivers was fishing, in the forests - the gifts of the forest, and almost everywhere - hunting. The fact is that the feudal-dependent peasants in Hungary, unlike other countries, until the beginning of the 16th century. (1504) had an unrestricted right to hunt.

So, neither in the structure of the population, nor in the economic and political structure of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 15th century, more or less noticeable changes occurred. Despite the quantitative growth of urban-type settlements, Hungary still remained an agrarian country with relatively underdeveloped trade and crafts. This does not mean that the development process has completely stalled; simply quantitative, let alone qualitative, growth in production was not able to saturate domestic markets (during the 15th century, their network expanded significantly, almost all more or less large settlements and towns had the right to trade). Therefore, exports were minimal, only about 10% of the total foreign trade, while imports accounted for almost 90%. First of all, cattle, sheep, animal skins were exported, after the creation of the Turzo-Fugger company - copper. Wine was also an important export item, in the 15th century. viticulture gained significant momentum. An important role in the production of wine was played by cities (in Slovakia - in the southwestern region: Bratislava, Trnava, Pezinok, Modra, and Kosice in the southeast), which rented vineyards outside their territories. In southwestern Slovakia during this period, about 100 thousand barrels of wine were produced per year, part of the wine was exported (to Poland, the Czech Kingdom and Northern Germany), but most went to the domestic market, because wine was the main drink of the medieval a person (especially in cities - for hygiene reasons, drinking water was rarely used).

Quality handicrafts and luxury items had to be imported into Hungary. These were primarily high-quality cloth and other fabrics, iron products, clerical supplies - parchment and paper, spices and fruits of southern plants. The largest centers of foreign trade throughout the 15th century were the cities of Bratislava and Kosice.

From the book History of Germany. Volume 1. From ancient times to the creation of the German Empire author Bonwetsch Bernd

From the book History of Germany. Volume 1. From ancient times to the creation of the German Empire author Bonwetsch Bernd

From the book History. Russian history. Grade 10. Deep level. Part 2 author Lyashenko Leonid Mikhailovich

§ 70. The social structure of Russian society Although the social life of Russia remained quite traditional, new moments appeared in it, indicating future changes. Increasing the marketability of agriculture, increased in connection with this requirement

From the book History of Public Administration in Russia author Shchepetev Vasily Ivanovich

Personalization of power and the social structure of Soviet society The social structure of Soviet society in the 60–70s. 20th century changed significantly compared to previous periods. This was primarily due to the rapid pace of urbanization: if in 1939

From the book Ancient Sumer. Cultural essays author Emelyanov Vladimir Vladimirovich

The social structure of the Sumerian society Until recently, it was customary in science, describing the ancient society, to point to the periods when the craft separated from agriculture and when the priesthood separated from the artisans. However, such a scheme does not work for Sumer: already in the most

From the book History of Russia in the XX - early XXI century author Milov Leonid Vasilievich

§ 4. The population of the Russian Empire in the late XIX - early XX century. The social structure of Russian society General population dynamics. The population of Russia (excluding Finland) within the country according to the 1897 census was 126.6 million people, of which 73% lived in

author Katasonov Valentin Yurievich

1.17. The social structure of ancient Roman society Let us recall that in the Roman Empire the social structure of society was extremely simplified, and the property polarization of society reached an extreme degree.

From the book From Slavery to Slavery [From Ancient Rome to Modern Capitalism] author Katasonov Valentin Yurievich

7.1. The Social Structure of Slave Society We have already made many comparisons between ancient Rome and the modern world in previous chapters. Here are some more comparisons and reflections on this topic. The tendency to form a social structure of society, similar to the structure

author Andreev Yury Viktorovich

2. The social structure of Greek society Accelerated development of the Greek economy in the VIII-VI centuries. BC e., the inclusion of all segments of the population in certain sectors of production created conditions for the formation of different classes and social groups with their own economic and

From the book History of Ancient Greece author Andreev Yury Viktorovich

Chapter XII. The social structure of Greek society The economic system that developed in the trade and craft policies and Greece as a whole could not exist without the involvement of large masses of slaves in labor, the number and proportion of which in Greek society in the 5th-4th centuries. BC e.

author Bonwetsch Bernd

The social and demographic structure of German society German society in the 16th - early 17th centuries. characterized by significant differentiation, multicomponent nature, the presence of feudal and early capitalist elements, the ambiguous role of each

From the book From Ancient Times to the Creation of the German Empire author Bonwetsch Bernd

3. Social structure not only in Germany, but throughout Europe, there was a conservation of social relations that had developed in the era of the early modern era. But in Germany, because of political isolation and economic weakness, it manifested itself most strongly.

From the book Medieval Iceland author Boyer Regis

Social structure The original feature of Icelandic society is the absence of classes. Of course, as elsewhere, the environment had a certain imprint on it. The social stratum of free peasant-fishermen-landowners, or bonds, holds in their hands

From the book World History. Volume 2. Bronze Age author Badak Alexander Nikolaevich

The social structure of society There is no doubt that the Laws of Hammurabi defended the interests of slave owners, protected them from the "obstinate" slave. The average Babylonian family could have from two to five slaves. Much less often, their number reached several dozen.

From the book Domestic History: Cheat Sheet author author unknown

24. CRAFTS AND TRADE UNDER FEODALISM. THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY The development of small-scale crafts and the growth of commodity specialization prepared the ground for the emergence of manufactories. If Western European manufactory acted on the basis of

From the book The Missing Letter. The unperverted history of Ukraine-Rus the author Wild Andrew

Social Structure Formally, all the Cossacks were equal, but in reality this equality was only on paper and in words. Social stratification and the creation of groups of wealthy Cossacks in fact gave all power into the hands of these "noble" or "old" Cossacks,

The social structure of medieval society was quite simple. In the "dark" ages, more than 90% of the population were peasants (colons, villans, litas, serfs), more or less personally dependent on the owner of the land - a spiritual or secular feudal lord. The share of the middle strata (artisans, soldiers, monks, servants, officials, merchants) was about 7-9%. The upper stratum (feudal lords, nobles, higher clergy) did not exceed 1.5-2%. For simplicity, we can assume that one hundred peasants could feed ten artisans and two idlers.

During the period of communal revolutions, the proportion of the middle strata rapidly increases and reaches 15-20% of the population, while the proportion of peasants decreases to 80%. By the end of the Middle Ages, the share of peasants in the most developed countries was reduced to 75%, while the share of the middle strata increased to 25%. True, in the middle urban strata there is a significant stratification. A significant part of them gradually passes into the state of paupers - hired workers, whose situation is in some ways even worse than that of the peasants.

The social structure in the Middle Ages was very rigid. A person's position was determined by birth. It was extremely difficult to move from the peasant class to the handicraft class, and to the upper stratum it was almost impossible. Mixed marriages were practically excluded, especially since marriages were concluded, as a rule, within a workshop, guild or community. The only career ladder that a commoner could climb was the church hierarchy, and such cases were isolated.

medieval life

The German emperors, from the Carolingians to the Franconians, remained faithful to Frankish customs and dress. On the other hand, as the heirs of the Roman Empire, they adopted the Roman-Byzantine dress of late Antiquity for solemn occasions. Late antique elements in men's clothing are, first of all, a long, to the heel, tunic or dalmatic with rich decorations, for women - a semi-long or freely falling tunic, and under it - a long and wide undershirt. Traditionally, Germanic men's clothing was a wide, mostly belted jacket in the form of a long-sleeved blouse and long trousers tied at the calves - windings went further to the feet. In itself, quite modest clothing among the nobility was made from expensive, brightly colored fabrics with decorative trim along the edges. The shoes were leather “peasant shoes” without heels, tightened with straps.

Hats were strictly different: married women covered their hair with a scarf or veil; girls walked around with their heads uncovered.

Knightly poetry and the norms of behavior of the era of the Crusades, brought sophistication to personal and social relations. Religion, the honor of weapons and the cult of the lady - these are the three shrines that the knight served. It was considered especially important to master the seven knightly arts: horseback riding, swimming, archery, fisticuffs, birding, playing chess and writing poetry.

The combat equipment of a warrior and a knight complemented the picture of medieval male attire. Before the Crusades, the Normans had scaly shells and ring shells. In the XII century. chain mail appeared: thin iron rings were not sewn to each other, but were woven into one another and fastened so as to form a dense, elastic mesh, more convenient and reliable. The costume was complemented by helmets of various shapes and camisoles with coats of arms.

In the middle of the XIV century. fundamental changes in clothing take place, a genuine “domination of scissors” sets in. The new trend was to shorten, narrow and lace up clothes. Since the clothes that used to be worn over the head became very narrow, they had to be cut in front and provided with a clasp. The jacket appeared - tight-fitting outerwear with sleeves and fasteners, barely reaching the hips. Shoes became long beyond measure, therefore, to facilitate walking, they wore wooden shoes - clogs.

No sooner had the new fashion become ubiquitous than the first dress laws were introduced to curb the passion for fashion and luxury, and especially to preserve class distinctions.

The architecture was distinguished by a harsh, "serf" character. The use of stone as a building material has become almost universal. The weight of the stone vaults was supported by thick walls with narrow windows sparingly cut through. According to their plan, the church buildings reproduced the cruciform type of the Roman basilica with its longitudinal and transverse naves and a portal at the western end. The new architectural style was called Romanesque.

In France, the most consistent process was the formation of Romanesque art, primarily architecture, especially monastic. The monasteries took care of the construction of bridges, the laying of new roads and the restoration of old roads, along which there were monastery shelters and church bell towers. It was the monasteries that were the centers of education. In monastic schools, ancient disciplines were taught, called the “seven liberal arts”: grammar, rhetoric and dialectics (the first stage of education); arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music (second level). They learned to read by memorizing prayers, the psalter and the gospel. The medieval school did not know the age limit, children were taught to read and write along with adult boys. The merchants brought up their children separately, as church moralists condemned trade and credit practices. The widespread spread of literacy led to the appearance in the XII century. the first major private libraries. One of these libraries belonged to Robert de Sorbon, who donated it in 1253 to the college named after him.

The medieval city was characterized by tightness, overcrowding of buildings, unsanitary conditions and the constant danger of fires. Sewage and garbage, which were mostly dumped into rivers or city ditches, were a source of infectious diseases. Plague, cholera, gastrointestinal diseases throughout the Middle Ages remained primarily urban diseases.

Urban houses differed little from rural ones. They were erected from willow covered with clay, wood plastered on top or poorly hewn stone. Wooden buildings of the "shtenderbau" type were widely distributed from portable elements: pillars, from which the building's foundation was made, and beams. Such a house was considered movable property, because in the event of termination of the land lease agreement, the structure could be dismantled and taken away by the tenant. However, in large cities such as Paris, London or Cologne, stone houses of 4-5 floors were also built. On the ground floor there was a workshop, a craftsman's or merchant's shop, on the second - a living room, a refectory, above the master bedroom, even higher - rooms for servants, apprentices, guests, closets and pantries.

From the 12th century cities become poles of attraction for pilgrimage - this "medieval prototype of tourism" (in the words of Le Goff). Pilgrims rushed to the city to venerate the holy relics kept in the city's cathedrals and churches, as well as to gawk at city sights, various buildings and monuments.

The people of the Middle Ages had a lot of free time, loved and appreciated the holidays and amusements timed to coincide with numerous church holidays, on which it was impossible to work, like on Sunday.

The nobility regularly arranged knightly tournaments, feasts and balls, with the participation of musicians and minstrels, which lasted 3-5 days. The common people were content with fisticuffs, archery, performances by comedians and circus performers, gratuitous food and drink offered by the workshop or guild. Church processions and services attracted the entire population of the city, without distinction of class, sex and age.

Ladies and gentlemen, sometimes for 36 hours did not get up from the festive table. Behind him (and under him) they slept, relieved themselves, had sex. The smells in the castle were very strong - a mixture of aromas of kitchen, sweat, urine, leather, dogs roaming freely through the halls and chambers, as well as perfumes specially invented to somehow drown out this bouquet. However, the people of the Middle Ages were not squeamish. They rarely bathed - from twice a month to twice a year. Cleanliness was generally under suspicion - after all, Muslims and Jews - non-Christians often and thoroughly washed. In the late Middle Ages, however, public baths came into fashion, in which men, women and children washed both separately and together. In the latter case, we are dealing with the prototype of a visiting house.

Morality in the Middle Ages was low, in today's sense of it. Men, of course, sought to limit the sexual freedom of their wives, in order to ensure “legitimate” offspring, but they themselves enjoyed a fair amount of freedom. Ladies from the upper stratum could have official lovers, especially after the “invention” of courtly love.