Russia.
XII
APPANAGE RUSSIA: ECONOMICS, SOCIETY, INSTITUTIONS
Thus our medieval boyardom in its fundamental characteristics of territorial rule; the dependence of the peasants, with the right of departure; manorial jurisdiction, limited by communal administration; and economic organization, characterized by the insignificance of the lord's own economy: in all these characteristics our boyardom represents an institution of the same nature with the feudal seigniory, just as our medieval rural commune represents, as has been demonstrated above, an institution of the same essence with the commune of the German Mark.
… the 'service people' was the name of the class of population obligated to provide service (court, military, civil) and making use, in return, on the basis of a conditional right, of private landholdings. The basis for a separate existence of this class is provided not by its rights, but by its obligations to the state. These obligations are varied, and the members of this class have no corporate unity.
Here, of course, you have in fact the process of a certain
Whereas the controversy continues concerning the relative weight of commerce and agriculture in Kievan Russia, scholars agree that tilling the soil represented the main occupation of the appanage period. Rye, wheat, barley, millet, oats, and a few other crops continued to be the staples of Russian agriculture. The centuries from the fall of Kiev to the unification of the country under Moscow saw a prevalence of local, agrarian economy, an economic parochialism corresponding to political division. Furthermore, with the decline of the south and the Mongol invasion, the Russians lost much of their best land and had to establish or develop agriculture in forested areas and under severe climatic conditions. Mongol exactions further strained the meager Russian economy. In Liubavsky's words: 'A huge parasite attached itself to the popular organism of northeastern Russia; the parasite sucked the juices of the organism, chronically drained its life forces, and from time to time produced great perturbations in it.'
* Italics in the original. Struve's statement refers to a particular development during the period, but I think that it can also stand fairly as the author's general judgment on the issue of feudalism in Russia.
The role of trade in appanage Russia is more difficult to determine. While it retained great importance in such lands as Galicia, not to mention the city and the principality of Novgorod, its position in the northeast, and notably in the princedom of Moscow, needs further study. True, the Moscow river served as a trade route from the very beginning of Moscow's history, and the town also profited commercially from its excellent location on the waterways of Russia in a more general sense. Soviet historians stress the ancient Volga trade artery, made more usable by firm Mongol control of an enormous territory to the east and the southeast; and, as already indicated, they also link closely the expansion of the Muscovite principality to the growth of a common market. In addition to the Volga, the Don became a major commercial route, with Genoese and Venetian colonies appearing on the Black Sea. Around 1475, however, the Turks established a firm hold on that sea, eliminating the Italians. The Russians continued to export such items as furs and wax and to import a wide variety of products, including textiles, wines, silverware, objects of gold, and other luxuries. Yet, although the inhabitants of northeastern Russia in the appanage period did retain some important commercial connections with the' outside world and establish others, and although internal trade did grow in the area with the rise of Moscow, agricultural economy for local consumption remained dominant. Commercial interests and the middle class in general had remarkably little weight in the history of the Muscovite state.
Other leading occupations of the period were hunting, fishing, cattle raising, and apiculture, as well as numerous arts and crafts. Carpentry was especially well developed, while tannery, weaving, work in metal, and some other skills found a wide application in providing for the basic needs of the people. Certain luxurious and artistic crafts sharply declined, largely because of the poverty characteristic of the age, but they survived in some places, principally in Novgorod; with the rise of Moscow, the new capital gradually became their center.
The question of the social structure of appanage Russia is closely tied to the issue of feudalism in Russian history. Traditionally, specialists have considered the development of Russia as significantly different from that of other European countries, one of the points of contrast being precisely the absence of feudalism in the Russian past. Only at the beginning of this century did Pavlov-Silvansky offer a brilliant and reasonably full analysis of ancient Russia supporting the conclusion that Russia too had experienced a feudal stage. Pavlov-Silvansky's thesis became an object of heated controversy in the years preceding the First World War. After the Revolution, Soviet historians proceeded to define 'feudal' in extremely broad terms
and to apply this concept to the development of Russia all the way from the days of Kiev to the second half of the nineteenth century. Outside the Soviet Union, a number of scholars, while disagreeing with Pavlov-Silvansky on important points, nevertheless accepted at least a few feudal characteristics as applicable to medieval Russia.
Pavlov-Silvansky argued that three traits defined feudalism and that all three were present in appanage Russia: division of the country into independent and semi-independent landholdings, the seigniories; inclusion of these landholdings into a single system by means of a hierarchy of vassal relationships; and the conditional quality of the possession of a fief. Russia was indeed divided into numerous independent principalities and privileged boyar holdings, that is, seigniories. As in western Europe, the vassal hierarchy was linked to the land: the
Pavlov-Silvansky's opponents, however, have presented strong arguments on their side. They have stressed the fact that throughout the appanage period Russian landlords acquired their estates through inheritance, not as compensation for service, thus retaining the right to serve whom they pleased. The estate of an appanage landlord usually remained under the jurisdiction of the ruler in whose territory it was located, no matter whom the landlord served. Furthermore, numerous institutions and even entire aspects of Western feudalism either never developed at all in Russia, or, at best, failed to grow there beyond a rudimentary stage. Such was the case, for example, with the extremely complicated Western hierarchies of vassals, with feudal military service, or with the entire phenomenon of chivalry. Even the position of the peasants and their relationship with the landlords differed markedly in the East and in the West, for serfdom became firmly established in Russia only after the appanage period.
In sum, it would seem that a precise definition of feudalism, with proper
