Tuesday, 1 October 2019

Great Social Revolution of 1848

Andrew Stepanenko
June 07, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/06/8.html>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

Discourse about the replacement of feudal legal norm with bourgeois norms.

In China slavery abolition and peasantry liberation happened in 221-206 BC, however the blind trust to such evidences is inappropriate. In practice, the most events, characteristic for the end of the feudalism epoch took place in 1848-1869. Only the “Spring of Nations” in 1848 raised the question about change of legal bases for the first time.

Thus, Russia did not stay behind – neither for 300 years, even nor for 20. Moreover, Austria which had already twice released the serfs, in 1862 still observes the act of serfs liberation in Russia with horror.

Land-owning aristocracy of all part of Austria were worried with the peasantry reform being prepared and carried out in Russia at that time (1859-1862). Austrian reactionary circles loudly argued about revolutionary but not historical” character of the Russian reform and were greatly afraid of total and free of charge liquidation of feudal survivals kept in Austria after 1848.

Taking into consideration that the last Czech knights-vassals - in the most developed region of Europe - got freedom only in 1869, it is not surprising. The process had not come to the end yet, and last trial of the nobleman who had performed his feudal seigneur’s right, happened in 1875.

1. Abolition of inalienability of patrimony
2. Abolition of patrimonial courts
3. Abolition of personal dependence without redemption
4. Abolition of feudal duties (corvee, tithe) for redemption

Not specified:
1. Abolition of the seigneur’s right (composers got embarrassed)
2. Abolition matrilinial status inheritance (it directly concerns succession to the throne that is why it was entirely removed from the history)
3. Change of the order of property inheritance from matrilinial to patrilineal
4. Polygamy prohibition
5. Cancelation of such inheritance form as nepotism - from the uncle to the nephew

In practice, only the basic social changes constituted the list of more than forty positions. We will also go directly to the points - in the real order of importance.

In matrilinial relations owing to the old Roman doctrine Partus sequitur ventrem the child inherits the mother’s status. It is classical matriarchy, and in 1662 it reigned not only in Virginia, but also in other states. It means that in 1662 in the North America still there were no translations of the Old Testament corrected from the patriarchal positions. It not an idle statement; protests about new translations were fixed by Llorente.

The patrilineal doctrine is legally fixed in “Liberties of nobility” of 1785: the nobleman transferred the nobility to his children … the noblewoman … did not transfer their nobility … to her husband and children. It is the direct opposite to the ancient Roman doctrine Partus sequitur ventrem, valid in America, at least, till 1662. It is important that the new doctrine was directly connected with the granted liberties to nobility.

The Old Testament, persistently promoting patriarchy, is impregnated with the matriarchal society organization. It is necessary to search for change of translation of the Old Testament in connection with polygamy prohibition and matriarchy remainders.
1768 Scotland. James Watt got Glasgow citizenship thanks to his marriage
1768 Spain. Inquisitors tried to take hold of processes of polygamy cases
1769 Russia. All copies of the Old Testament were ordered to be destroyed
1771 Spain. Inquisitors took hold of processes of polygamy cases
It is also possible to date later terms; the main idea here is logic coherence of the events.

Inheritresses of the woman - her daughters, inheritors of the man - nephews, children of his uterine sisters. James Watt was introduced into the science world by his uncle in 1750. Transfer of the Holy See from the uncle to his nephew existed until Napoleon's intrusion into Rome, that is, till 1798. To Vsevolod Alekseevich Vsevolozhskiy (the Rjurikovs’ family) bequeathed all his wealth to his nephew in 1796. Yevgeny Onegin came into a fortune from the uncle (instead of his father) n about 1819. Up to the middle of 19 century, the dowry was inviolable: the father and the husband of the woman managed it, but it was not in their full dispose.

The distinct evidences specifying on patrilinial character of inheritance, are closely connected with giving liberties to nobility and the redemption of feudal duties in the middle of 19 century.

In tribal communities the male and female property is mutually tabooed, and the situation developed in such a way so that the real estate (the house and lands) are mainly female and movable are mainly male. Both types of property are inherited matrilinially, but man's one, transferred from the uncle to the nephew, is liquid, alienated, that is why it rarer becomes the crediting subject. As a result, the man's property did almost not get to usurious schemes and the cattle in Russia Concerning draft animals the landowner depended on peasants, as peasants depended from the landowner in the question of the land.
Pay attention, feudalism was known in fishing and cattle tribal communities, and redemption operation - not. The reason: boats and cattle were man's property.

The war happened in Britain when the authorities encroached not only on the tenth part of crop, but also on the tenth of livestock. In the considered above scheme of relations all is clear: cattle is man's property separated from the female part, which was pledged - the lands.

The main thing in female property (land, constructions) is that it needs attraction of resources from the outside. It is the basic moment. The land requires working hands, draft animals, and sowing material in lean years as well. Moreover, the owner of land is doomed to bear losses every lean year while the owner of movable liquid resources, following the conjuncture, flexibly changes the policy and regularly benefits even in case of the fiercest hunger. In such situation, the land was simply obliged to follow the personal estate status.

The inalienability of patrimony was the main obstacle in the capitalism way. The father had no right to waste the dowry of the daughter. The husband could not redeem his loss by sale of his wife’s house. The creditor could not withdraw the land from the run into debt community. The patrimonial right did not contain self-destruction procedure that is why it was possible to transfer fixed capital only together with souls.
Thus, there was need in repartition of fixed capital; operations were just carried out under the existing legal norms. Werner von Bolland was the vassal of 43 various sovereigns from whom he received more than 500 fees, including 15 counties, and himself, in turn, had more than 100 vassals. In practice, alienation and rotation of fixed capital took place, but had some veiled character.

The main gravedigger of the out-of-date rules is crisis. Each economic collapse in the history generates repartition, but in a case with tribal system, such repartition meant rearrangement of marriages, and repartition of statuses of already born noble posterities. As a rule, the emperor castrates tens princes, depriving their right to the power, then the sultan already castrates three hundreds princes, but then repartition happens in Europe, and it was hundred thousands of small and large fees.
In 1833 in Russia there were 127103 owners of people, that is, in Europe - more than 500 thousand total, and in the existing matrilinial system it meant several millions applicants for the power. It was necessary to break the link between matrilinial relationship and formal rights.

Synchronously there were two hierarchies: patrimonial and financial and economic, imposed on the first one from the top, however, it was arranged according to patrimonial rules. In the Church sphere, these two pyramids confidently coincided: monasteries were also the largest usurers of that epoch, and, simultaneously, objects of the feudal property. In the situation of several series of hungry years, followed by transition of the third of the property to the Church and the legal right of a monastery to prohibit marriages (this was a really important advantage) the Church could successfully dictate its prices to the other two thirds.

The word combination "God's servant" definitely had a literal sense, however termless enslaving created a new problem: stably unprofitable agricultural industry ruled by financiers threatened to collapse the system. Monasteries confidently managed such large social spheres as medicine and formation, but nobody could accept for support 95 % of chronically starving population. Slaves on continuing basis were an unprofitable sector from the first day of enslavement.

The usurer who has received pledge (people and their inalienable lands) does not hold it, and will try to sell it off somehow. To give all it to the redemption via the loan is an expected method of realization, just because this method is typical.

The debtor was not only the peasant, but also the majority of those who were above him. Each businessman owed to his seigneur and demanded debts from his vassals. The redemption scheme was necessary not only to vassals who were the bottom link above peasants; in this pyramid, everyone paid off from the mister. Class obstacles did not exist: peasants could redeem themselves as well - if there was money to pay and understanding how it worked. As a result, the redeemed person became the full legal owner of those who were under him. For example, the head of the family became the legal mister for his wife and children - for the first time.

The debt together with pledge could be sold, the trade began on the first day of the redemption, and in 1848-1853, and the principle of patrimony inalienability was abolished. There was only one level where the principle of pledge inalienability from the debtor was preserved up to 1880 - level of the peasant. It also created illusion of serf trade.

In practice, the serfdom is slavery - in original historical sense of the term: debt bondage without the loss of legal capacity. The community remained a legal subject – of the feudal law indistinguishable from family law, where the younger relative totally subordinated to the senior one. However, there was a nuance: in practice, the landowner sold the related right to his manor and people, not the manor and the people.

The law of the Russian empire of first half of 19 century was the written law - publicly announced, but for 91 % of the population there was absolutely other law in force – the common law, and only it determined the peasant’s life.
We will not find exact texts of norms of this common law. Those accessible fragments of the law are modified: so, they write that the Buryats had the penalty for the woman murder twice lower than for the man murder, but it should be vice versa. We consulted the expert person who explained that nowadays the law is vice versa at the Caucasus region and it is correct.
Owing to the common law, there were no penal servitude for a long time Russia, - there was nobody to imprison, and the community solved all problems. The horsestealer was trampled to death by all village, and in case of poor harvest, they could bury an old woman - alive. There is an evidence for 1855. The landowners did not hesitate to use the right of the seigneur, and that communities seemed not to object to it: the mechanism to hold birth rate under the strict control was still necessary.
Here is a question: how the procedure of the landowner change passed following the results of the manor sale? How was this owner change affirmed in the common law? The community was simply obliged to confirm such change. The answer: according to standard feudal norms: for example, through "civil" marriage with the main princess of the community.
Let us remember such "bad custom" as arsia - breast feeding of the children landowner by peasants that made the peasants and their new misters relatives. Here again it is necessary to remember that there were also procedures of living the family - for the landowners selling the manors. The common law since ancient times contained the norms, allowing bypassing patrimony inalienability, and the very bottom of the social pyramid used them not less skilfully than the top.

This data concern only Russia.
1875 The last seigneur right court
1875 The earliest date of fixing snokhachestvo in a village (the seigneur right passed downwards)
1876 The splash of notes about illegitimate children in Google Ngram Viewer
1876 The first idea about the peasantry redemption with the help of state credits
1876 Confirmation of the landowners’ rights to the land (not yet redeemed)
1877 The process of "193th" revolutionaries going to the people
The same must occur everywhere and at the same time.

Patrimonial courts were mostly cancelled following the results of the “Spring of Nations” in 1848. The reason: the change of legal norms simply left no place for these forms of judicial authority. Peasants solved current problems within the common law, but vassals, having signed contracts with banks, were not under the control of the seigneurs any more. Oaths on fidelity given by vassals during the homage lost their sense.
Thus, besides patrimonial judicial structures, there had to be matrimonial ones solving women's problems. The most probable place of their existence were female monasteries. Abbesses solved number of questions.

Lavoisier’s spouse, rather high-ranking person possessing the part of the French East Indian company property, was brought up in a monastery. The reason: the monastery could give system education and, surely, preserved the wards against risk of casual conception. In a situation when the father of the child got the right to the dowry, the elite had to be careful.
It is necessary to remind that the matriarchal society did not impose prohibitions on sex. In such situation, monastic severity was not useless. In Poland female monasteries were mostly liquidated in 1860th, and then the control over the daughters’ affairs laid down on the families shoulders. Puritanism and the Family Tyranny were early bourgeois models, which were typical just because the feudal model of the moral behaviour control, including personal check of the bride virginity by the seigneur, were destroyed by the bourgeoisie.

That fact that the Catholic church (unlike Orthodox) does not know the concept of divorce, specifies the extreme youth of the present version of the Catholic church. At least until 1730, the right to divorce in Russia was ordinary, and it is necessary to notice that encyclopedic articles carefully avoid exact dates of acts of the right to divorce abolition. There are only dates of this right renewal, and in Germany it was 1874 - 2 years after crash of the Viennese stock exchange (1872), basing on the calculation (1848 + 24 = 1872) coinciding with the end of fees redemption.
The main interested party in legal firmness of marriage is the usurer who had lent money to the vassal signing the agreement on the pledge redemption of the total property of his spouse. The largest usurer who possessed the third of the property in his regions was the Church, and so the Church prohibited divorce.
In Europe the laws concerning divorces prohibition should chronologically coincide with the corvee and tithe redemption laws in 1848-1852.

I have just understood, what exactly I have written. Amicable schemes of the redemption of a manor from pledge is possible like that: the husband signs the paper and pays off the pledge, though the manor formally belongs to his wife as her dowry. Such strictly family schemes certainly existed.

In tribal communities first-borns often belonged to seigneurs or monasteries who, in practice, conceived them. This social stratum of first-borns was extremely important for the society: it was impossible to find better state employees, as they were not connected with their matriarchal families that is why were not inclined to family corruption. This approach was applied even later: the elder children were sent to build civil service career, and younger ones remained with old their parents: daughters got estates, and nephews - barns and ships.
This postremogeniture scheme was the best for the tribal structure, first of all, because it allowed to rejuvenate the membership of senior parantelas. A 14-year-old teenager was legally equal to his 36-year-old brothers that is why he sat with them at meetings with full right and when they died, continued to keep the power belonging to him as the eldest in the family.
Since the middle of 19 century, the eldest son became the inheritor more often. The reason is obvious: in case of death of the father, there should be a person in the family, mature enough to undertake continuation of the redemption procedure, and it was better, if this person was not restrained in his rights by his much younger brothers and sisters. Here we have the usurer’s interest of the middle of 19 century time, which was included in the Old Testament as an ancient, so sacred norm.

It is an individual question. When the primogeniture was accepted, some part of the first-borns who were conceived from the seigneur and were brought up out of the mother’s family, got undeserved rights to the family inheritance. Those who didn’t recognize these rights, I think, got under inquisition tribunal - with all following consequences. In France they introduced a strict formula, cutting all ways for the maneuver: “the father of the child is the husband of his mother”. It meant that all children from seigneurs after death of the legal fathers became heads of their families.
So it happened not everywhere: in the Ottoman Empire the janizaries were simply butchered - in order to avoid tensity growth in the vassal provinces.

It is a part of the law of succession: the seigneur could choose from the dead’s inheritance everything that he wished. As a matter of fact, this is a parental right, existing now in the changed form: parents can inherit for the dead the same as their children. Earlier the parental right extended on seigneurs too, as the eldest in their families. Patrilineal character of the inheritance, introduced by "the Spring of Nations”, threw out the seigneur from the group of inheritors.

The husband and the wife were not blood relatives, it is common nowadays as well. The wife’s parents can inherit for her but her husband’s parents cannot do it. Earlier on, such relationship meant that the wife, having killed the husband, did not commit an inexcusable blood crime, and had to pay a common penalty. Therefore, the tradition to bury the husband-killer alive is extremely young (the same period of the middle of 19 century) and it did not exist for a long period: the state hastened to interfere. It is curious that the murder of the wife by her husband was regarded as less serious crime, here again, we see the interests of the usurer: the husband paid the loan that is why he had to live.

Violent replacement of elder parantela by the following one according to the rank is actual only in a tribal community. The murder of old men is clearly fixed in the isolated communities, including, those in Russia and at the Caucasus. Now it has remained only in Africa. “The Spring of Nations” de facto liquidated the rotation, and matrilinial parantelas as well, and the revolution together with regicide lost any sense. Surely, the tsars were killed in the second half of 19 century, but it was not already connected with parantelas in any way. The tsar was replaced with his son, instead of one of his nephews the mother’s side.

In 1418, the famous French lawyer Jean de Terrevermeille stated: the elder son of the king or other inheritress cannot be named actually by the inheritor of the one whose inheritor he is; it is common but not hereditary succession.
In 1830 Isabella, the daughter of the Spanish king Ferdinand VII had already the right to inherit her father’s throne.
Commentators focus attention on the sex of the inheritor, however the unique significant aspect is the right of succession from the father: not from mother, or the uncle on the mother’s side, or the uterine brother or sister, but from his/her own father (who is legally of the other blood). In 1418, it was legally impossible.

Bourgeois revolution resulted in adoption loosing any sense. The adopted person inherited the property of the foster mother, nothing more. The throne together with the status was already transferred patrilinially, and the monarch of the masculine gender physically could not feed the potential son with his breast.
The last possible adopted prince in Russia was Konstantin. He aspired to the Ottoman throne and died early together with his spouse in 1831.

Entirely lost its sense.

The great Social revolution princes’ castration in case of turnover devoid of sense. The throne could be occupied by the daughter of the monarch, but the main thing was that lands concentration had already been finished and the government started to work in a different, not matrilinial sense. The last live eunuchs were fixed in the second half of 19 century.

It is a specific topic, which needs investigation, but it is typical, that exactly in 19 century tsarinas stopped to rush to end their days in monasteries and preferred to enjoy themselves at secular balls and parties.

It is interesting that in Russia tsars-impostors disappeared together with the old version of the Old Testament and polygamy. I will remind that I do not trust to the dates, but here are the logic links.

The number of records concerning parliaments greatly increases in two epoch: the reception of Ekaterina's liberties by noblemen and the first liberation of peasants and during the period of the "Spring of Nations» (in Germany they brought up the question of the tithe redemption in 1830-1832). The reason of growth of evidences is obvious: all who signed the obligation to redeem the fee became legal subjects in the eyes of the law, so they had the right to expression of their political will.

I will remind here that I do not trust dates, and again I will emphasize that dates are unimportant: logic link with other social changes - that is important.

It is clear that the governing top agreed about polygamy abolition - not at once, there were also obstacles from the Spanish king in 1768, but they finally came to the agreement. My today's answer: polygamy did not disturb anything; it just became unnecessary. Concentration of resources moved via other channels. However, of course, it is possible to assume that the monarchs, who managed to collect the lands of their countries thanks to the resources of their wives, simply cut off that possibility for all others.

The matrilinial doctrine predetermines joint liability of the family and legally results in enslaving of all tribe: if the princess could not pay off the credit, all young and old members of the family got under the power of the usurer.
The patrilineal doctrine is more progressive, as the chief of the family bears responsibility for his debts himself. The family of a merchant, for example, has the right to know, how many money the head of the family has, but not to aspire to participation in business. The son enters into the business, only when the father allows, anyway, the signboards say “Ivanov and son”. One person responsibility is very high concentration of responsibility: yesterday's vassals, stealing and shirking because they don’t care who is at the top, are trying now as much as they can, that is important for loan repayment.
In the history there is a short period of debt prisons popularity, mainly in 1848-1849. This is the period of paradigm change: families deny joint liability, leaving formal heads of business to rot in a pit - when it is worth it. A bit later, they found means to cope with this category of non-payers, and before 1880, the permanent conflict with non-payers would be mostly settled.

In Poland, the clergy property got into the treasury of the Russian empire in 1864 – that was rather late. In England and France, secularization of national education passed in 1880 - even later. But it is all - not that. Secularization must be closely be connected with the tithe redemption, and this period of 1848-1849 is not noted for secularization acts.
How did it occur in practice? The Church’s vassals redeemed their pieces of land, and banks, accepting payments, simply transferred the required some of money to the Church - minus the commission fee. Actually, here is all scheme. A question, what all these serious money sums (the third of all property) were spent on, is better to be put in front of conspirologists.

The scheme shows the acts legally destroying the feudal norms and notes about stock exchanges, trading fixed capital, and correlation here is very rigid.

Stock exchanges worked in earlier times, - it was required sell the property confiscated by the inquisition from adherents of a different faith and heretics, but also in this case alienation of fixed capital was often conjugated with legal destruction of the community which had got into trouble.

From the very beginning, the Inquisition contradicted the usual patrimonial right as it applied innovative law norms to the matrilinial society. There was a certain person under charge, and this person could not pay off with the penalty, which was pinned on all community.
Legally it is possible only in the direct link with liquidation of feudalism and introduction of bourgeois rights, which calls into question the dating of the inquisition actions. I have no ideas about dating at present.

Here we have the Great Social Revolution, officially happened in 1768-1883, (mainly in 1848-1849), and this revolution is seriously underestimated, thus, all necessary facts are available, and these facts are strictly official.

For donors: Pay Pal: a.g.stepanenko@gmail.com

24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna

No comments:

Post a Comment