patrimony

(redirected from patrimonial)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal.

patrimony

the endowment of a church

Patrimony

 

(Russian, votchina).

(1) The aggregate of feudal landed property (land, buildings, livestock, and dead stock) and land-related rights over feudal dependent peasants. Synonyms of “patrimony” include “seigneury,” “manor,” the German Grundherrschaft, and “estate” (in its broad sense). The patrimony was an organization for the appropriation by the feudal patrimonial landowner of the surplus labor of dependent peasants and the products of this labor, and it was the basis of the power of feudal lords in medieval society. The basic components of the patrimony were a feudal economy (demesne) and peasant holdings. To maintain his rights to a patrimony, the proprietor depended on his own apparatus of coercion and on the central power. The economic structure of patrimony was characterized by one or another relationship of the demesne and the holdings and a varied combination of the principal forms of exploiting serfs under the patrimonial system (corvee, quitrent in kind, and monetary quitrent). During various periods of feudalism different economic structures of the patrimony prevailed, depending on general socioeconomic conditions. Thus, in Western Europe during the eighth through tenth centuries, on a significant number of patrimonies (primarily the large ones), extensive use of the corvee to cultivate the demesne was typical, and most of the patrimonial lands (at least two-thirds) were in the hands of serf-tenants who were obliged to pay a quitrent in kind or some-times in money. Beginning in the 11th and 12th centuries, with development of internal colonization and the growth of cities and trade, the portion of land occupied by serf-tenants began to increase, and the extent of the demesne and the role of corvee, to diminish. As a result, the patrimony without demesne appeared in the 14th and 15th centuries in Western Europe and became typical in the 16th and 17th centuries. The feudal lord kept only the right to receive from the peas-ants a fixed payment (usually monetary). In the countries of Central and Eastern Europe until the 14th-15th centuries, patrimonies prevailed in which the basic form of exploitation of the serfs was the levying of monetary quitrents or quitrents in kind. In the 14th and 15th centuries, a form of large or medium-sized patrimony appeared and predominated by the 16th-18th centuries. Most of the land was occupied by a noble owners’ economy, using corvee labor by peasants. In the Scandinavian countries and the majority of the eastern countries the privately owned patrimony did not exist, or where it did, a demesne economy as such was not wide-spread.

REFERENCES

Skazkin, S. D. Ocherkipo istorii zapadnoevropeiskogo krest’ianstva v srednie veka. Moscow, 1968.
Kosminskii, E. A. Issledovaniia po agrarnoi istorii Anglii XIII v. Moscow-Leningrad, 1947.
Duby, G. L’Economie rurale et la vie des campagnes dans L’Occident médievale, vols. 1-2. Paris, 1962.
Slichter van Bath, B. H. The Agrarian History of Western Europe: A.D. 1500-1850. London [1966].
(2) A type of feudal land property in Russia. The votchina could be transferred by inheritance, exchanged, sold, and so forth. The term votchina is derived from the word otchina— father’s property. The first records of princely patrimony in Kievan Rus’ date from the tenth century. Boyar and monastery patrimonies were known from the 11th-12th centuries. The votchiny were served by the labor of dependent smerdy (peasants) and kholopy (male slaves). During the 11th and 12th centuries the feudal rights of the votchinniki (owners of patrimonial estates) found their written expression in the code of laws Russkaia pravda. In the period of the fragmentation of feudalism, in the 13th-15th centuries, the votchina became the dominant form of feudal land tenure. In addition to the princes and boyars, those who held votchiny included members of their retinues, monasteries, and the higher clergy. Separate princedoms, which had been received by a prince as an inheritance from his father, became votchiny. The quality and size of the votchiny increased by means of the seizure of communal peasant lands, and by reward, purchase, exchange, and so forth. In addition to their general patrimonial rights, votchinniki had special immunity privileges in the courts and in the collection of state taxes, the payment of trade duties, and so forth.
An important period in the history of the votchina began in the late 15th century with the formation of a unified Rus-sian state. Several appanage princes and a part of the hereditary nobility opposed the expansion and strengthening of the centralized state. Therefore, in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, when the territories of Novgorod, Tver’, and Pskov were united with the Muscovite principality, many large votchinniki in several of these regions were deprived of their holdings. Their lands were transferred to the dvorianstvo (nobility or gentry), on whose support the power of the grand prince depended. Patrimonial rights and immunities were increasingly limited. In the 1550’s the votchinniki were given the same status as the dvorianstvo in regard to military duties, and the right of patrimonial redemption was limited. In the late 16th century many large votchinniki, who were unable to adapt to the developing money exchange relations, sold or mortgaged their lands. Consequently, in the late 16th century the pomest’e (fief) became the prevailing form of feudal land tenure.
Patrimonial land tenure increased again beginning in the early 17th century. The government rewarded nobles for loyal service, distributing land to them as votchiny. The judicial rights of pomest’e owners were broadening, and the process of making the pomest’ia equivalent to the votchiny was going on. In the late 17th century patrimonial land tenure already predominated over pomest’ia in the central regions of the country. By the decree of Mar. 23, 1714, on uniform inheritance, the pomest’ia were legally given equal status with the votchiny. Later, the term votchina was used to signify any feudal landed property.

REFERENCES

Grekov, B. D. Krest’iane na Rusi s drevneishikh vremen do XVII v., 2nd ed., books 1-2. Moscow, 1952-54.
Cherepnin, L. V. Obrazovanie russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV-XV vv. Moscow, 1960.
Veselovskii, S. B. Issledovanii po istorii klassa sluzhilykh zemlevladel’tsev. Moscow, 1969.

I. A. BULYGIN

References in periodicals archive ?
According to this law, if, by means of disloyal acting and facts there are "caused patrimonial or moral damages, the injured party is entitled to address to the competent court an appropriate civil action" (art.
On peut considerer le << paysage patrimonial >> comme << une plus grande formation >>, un << paysage >> a part, qui existe principalement comme un produit de l'imagination meme s'il plonge ses racines dans le monde physique.
Their transitional actor traveling haltingly on the rocky trajectory from early forms of political order toward a modern, inclusive state is the armed, rent-seeking cartel rather than Fukuyama's group based on patrimonial lineage.
Conforme se vai da direita para esquerda do espectro ideologico, a porcentagem de deputados nas faixas de valor patrimonial mais elevado tende a decrescer no interior das bancadas.
Our paper aims to analyze the convergence, respectively the divergence of some evaluation values that are determined on a sample of three companies in the medicine production field witch are having different patrimonial and financial structures (Table 1) and the financial results presented in their dynamics over the last four years (Table 2).
Davidson traces the evolution of the patrimonial monarchical system from its tribal origins in the 18th century through its consolidation by the 1920s.
Political conflict of the seventeenth century pushed the state out of the economy and sheared its patrimonial attributes.
In a traditional patrimonial system, all ruling relationships are personal relationships and the difference between the private and public spheres is nonexistent.
Throughout the book, Tripp examines three themes: the use of patrimonial links by various Iraqi regimes to maintain power, the effect of oil on the political economy, and the use of violence in achieving political goals.
It was asked last year to look at which relatives of a deceased person can claim damages for grief, distress and sorrow - known as non- patrimonial loss.