Корисник:Dunja011/песак
The Sebri[уреди | уреди извор]
The Sebri were members of sumbissive class of people in a medieval Serbia[1]. The term ,,sebar“ has got more massive use in the time of emperor Dušan[1] regency, and there are also different teories about which categories of residents were implied by it. One part of an autors consideres that the sebri were the entire unprivileged population, including dependent population and also inhabitants of city which were inside the Serbia[2]. Modern interpretation says that the term sebri marks overall non- authoritive population except inhabitants in the city (traders and craftsman) and they represented special class. In Dušans Code sebars juristic position is precisely determined. Later on term sebri has become synonym for peasant and vulgar. Both terms sebri and Serbs are mentioning in Dušan's Code and they are not synonyms.[2]
Devision[уреди | уреди извор]
According to the type of relationships and jobs they did, in class of sebars have been included:[2]
- The Meropsi- dependent population(peasants , farmers);[3]
- The Vlachs - dependent population of cattleman;[4]
- The Sokalnici and village craftman - also dependent population but with less chores then others;[5]
- The Otroci - most deprived of any rights (slaves);[6]
- The Village priesthood- belongs only in parts to sebar class;[7]
The Meropsi[уреди | уреди извор]
Precisely: the meropah
The meropsi were dependent peasants (farmers) in medieval Serbia. For term merops are also used terms as zemljanin (earthen man), Srbljin, or just people.[8]Relative to they master there are three types of meropaha: Rulers meropah, nobleman meropah, a church meropah.[3] Most saved sources are from church meropahs. The meropahs obligations weren't equal. They were obligated to work for their master and to give him natural rent. Teodor Taranovski says there were three systems used to dereminate meropahs intique:[3]
- Amount of an earth which meropahs had to cultivate;
- Amount of time they worked for the master
- System of impost
The third system was used in cases when master’s parcel was small, but if it was a bigger parcel, then the other two systems were in use. Secondary obligations of meropahs considered repairing the city constructions, guarding the roads and securing accommodation and nutrition for the master or feudal lord if needed. [2]
According to different position of meropahs, Dušan’s Code tried to unifies they’re obligations.[2] Dušan’s Code determinated next obligations: To work for master two days a week , to mow his hay, to dig up a vineyard, to give him once a year ,, the king's perper’’ (money), and nothing more can't be taken from them other than what Dušan’s Code says.
The meropah couldn’t abandon the lot he was working on.[3] On the other hand, the Code allows them to have a trial with an emperor and lord, if emperor needs ( working for him , giving him rent) are bigger than the Code says.
The Vlach's[уреди | уреди извор]
Don’t mix it with homonymous nation
In the medieval Serbia, vlachs were nomadic nation which number one activity was cattle breeding. They had the same position in society as meropsi, like depending on their feudal lord and being attached to him, but their obligations were different, and that comes from nature of the job they have done.
The primary obligation they had was grazing lord herds.[9] Right next to this obligation, they also had to give impost which was named travnina.[9] Travnina find it’s place in paragraph 197. of Dušan’s Code, and it says: “to whoever lord a man come’s to spend the winter, need’s to give travninu", in other words, from one hundred mares, one mare goes to him, from one hundred sheeps, one sheep and lamb goes to him and last but not least from one hundred ox’s, one also goes to him”. In the case of need, vlachs had to give their own cattle to feudal lord, so he can use them for transport (food for exmp.)[9] The vlachs who grazed lords herd, were rewarded not with money but with cattle. This type of fee was called mark or moonlight. It is possible that the vlachs were in better position then meropsi.[9] Many farmers have tried to change their profession and become cattlemans. Feudal lords have tried to end this type of thing in fear of losing the farmers work power.[9]
SOKALNICI AND THE VILLAGE CRAFTSMAN[уреди | уреди извор]
Their place in world of law is not possible to determinate looking just at the sources we have.[5] Dragoš Jevtić and Dragoljub Popović think that sokalnici and the village craftsman had same obligations as meropsi, but they say that the obligation’s they had were less in quantity.[5] There are different opinions about what was the exact profession of the village craftsman. Stojan Novaković and Aleksandar Solovjev considered that sokalnici were servants on a big property’s that have done kitchen chores, and by the time they could’ve got some other duty’s.[2] Jevtić and Popović say that sokalnici, have done some other professional jobs, other than just working on the plantation, and because of that their obligations were lower.[5]
The Otroci[уреди | уреди извор]
In more detail: The term for the poor class of villagers in the medieval Serbia.
The otroci were type of villagers with least rights in the medieval Serbia.[6] The paragraph 72. of the Dušan’s Code predicts that : “to anyone who comes to emperor palace unwilling, needs to be treated with justice except otrocima.[6][2] Otroci were subject of ownership to their lords. The lord could sell or give them in heritage. There are two regulations in Dušan’s Code, which give protection to otrocima, and they represent limitation of property rihgts over them, that are paragraph 44. which forbids to give otroka as part of the dowry, and paragraph 21. which forbids selling a christian to an infidel.[6]
In the professional literature, for a very long time, was a dispute about if position of otroci was same as position of the slaves. Antagonists of this paragraph, usually quote paragraph 67. of Dušan’s Code who makes no difference between otroka and meropaha in terms of their obligations to feudal lord, and that’s the case when otroci lived and worked in the same village as meropsi.[6] Among the conspirators who claim that otroci were slaves, was also Teodor Taranovski. Dragoš Jevtić I Dragoljub Popović also claim the same opinion, that the position of the otroka was:”very much like slavery”.[6]
The paragraph 46. of Dušan’s Code predicts that otroci could be set free only by the hand of the lord (his master), lords wife, or the lords son.[6]
The village priesthood[уреди | уреди извор]
The village priesthood( general name for church people who are empowered for doing church ceremonies and worship God) belonged to sebarskoj class only in parts. Paragraph 31. of Dušan’s Code has defined three types of village priests:[7]
- Heritage priests;
- Priests who have “three fields by the law”;
- Priests who have more than three fields;
Heritage priests were free and didn’t had any feudal obligations, so they don’t belong to the sebarskoj sort.[7] If priest doesn’t have his own heritage, the lord was obligated to give him three fields. Teodor Taranovski consideres that these priests were free from all types of personal work, but that they had to give specific rent to lord, which meant they belonged to sebarskoj sort.[7] The last but not least type of village priests were those who had more than three fields. For everything above that, they were obligated to work, so they had similar position as meropsi.[7]
See more[уреди | уреди извор]
- ^ а б [1]
- ^ а б в г д ђ е Biljana Marković:„O Dušanovom Zakoniku“ Arhivirano na sajtu (29. oktobar 2013.), guskova.ru, pristupljeno na dan 25. 10. 2013.
- ^ а б в г Jevtić & Popović 2003, стр. 45.
- ^ [2]
- ^ а б в г Jevtić & Popović 2003, стр. 47.
- ^ а б в г д ђ е Jevtić & Popović 2003, стр. 47–48.
- ^ а б в г д Jevtić & Popović 2003, стр. 48–49.
- ^ Jevtić & Popović 2003, стр. 44.
- ^ а б в г д Jevtić & Popović 2003, стр. 46–47.