Russia under the Old regime

THE GENESIS OF THE PATRIMONIAL STATE IN RUSSIA

father. At a time when there were no firm legal definitions of property or courts to enforce one's claim to it, acquisition by inheritance was regarded if not as the only then certainly as the best proof of ownership. 'This thing my father left me' meant 'this is incontrovertibly mine'. The language was readily understood in a society in which the patriarchal order was still very much alive, especially among the lower classes. No distinction was drawn between the various forms of property; an estate was votchina, so were slaves, and valuables, and fishing or mining rights and even one's very ancestry or pedigree. But so too, more significantly, was political authority which was treated as if it were a commodity. This is not in the least surprising if one considers that political authority in early Russia was essentially the right to levy tribute exercised by a body of foreign conquerors, that is, that it was an economic prerogative and little else. Quite naturally, therefore, the testaments of the northeastern princes, many of which have survived, read like ordinary business inventories in which cities and volosti are indiscriminately lumped with valuables, orchards, mills, apiaries or herds of horses. Ivan 1 of Moscow in his last will referred to the principality as his votchina, and as such felt free to bequeath it to his sons. Ivan's grandson, Dmitry Donskoi, in his will (1389) defined as votchina not only the principality of Moscow but also the title of Great Prince. The testaments of the Russian princes fully conformed in their formal, legal aspect to ordinary civil documents, even to the extent of being witnessed by third parties.

As private property, the principalities in the north-east (and in the north-east only) were bequeathed in accord with the traditions of Russian customary law pertaining to property, that is after provisions had been set aside for the women and usually also for clerical establishments, they were divided into shares of approximately equal value for distribution among the male heirs. This practice may appear odd to the modern mind, accustomed as it is to regard the state as indivisible and the monarchy as subject to succession by primogeniture. But primogeniture is a relatively modern phenomenon. Although occasionally practised by primitive societies, it was unknown to antiquity; neither the Romans nor the German barbarians knew of it, and it also remained uncommon among Islamic peoples. It first appeared where property was intended to do more than merely furnish the personal support of the owner, i.e. where its function - to enable him to render military or other services - meant that it could not be reduced below a certain effective minimum. The popularity of primogeniture dates back to the grants of benefices made by Charlemagne. With the spread of feudalism and conditional land tenure it gained wide acceptance in Europe. The connection between conditional tenure and primogeniture is quite striking in the case of England, where alodial property was the least developed