What does the word smerd mean in ancient Russia. Who are the dead
IN modern world most people are well aware of the old word "smerd". For the majority, such a phrase is associated with a curse, however, not everyone knows exactly what the word “smerd” meant in ancient times. Meanwhile, about its origin, as well as questions regarding the classes that received just such a name, disputes have not subsided so far. That is why today we will try to understand the origin of the word "smerd", consider different, authoritative points of view, and also touch on the historical component.
So, according to the well-known periodical Russkaya Pravda, smerds in Ancient Russia- these are the classes of peasants of the 9th - 14th centuries, who were landowners and were initially free, unlike serfs. Subsequently, as the landlord system developed in Russia, they began to depend on the masters and gradually became enslaved. However, the well-known historian Grekov gives a slightly different interpretation of the concept of "smerd". In his opinion, smerds in Ancient Rus were members of a rural community, but throughout the whole time they depended directly on the prince of Kievan Rus. However, the validity, however, as well as the groundlessness of such a point of view, is extremely difficult to prove (refute). The only authoritative opinion, in contrast to Grekov's statement, is the text of Russkaya Pravda, which does not give any reason to believe that the smerds depended solely on the prince of Kievan Rus. The fact is that in the publication, members of the community who belonged to the family were called "people." At the same time, Russkaya Pravda claimed that the escheated property of the smerd went to the prince. And if this category of peasants belonged to the community, then the escheated property would be divided precisely between the members of this community. It is also worth mentioning that for the murder of a smerd, the fine was only 5 hryvnias, while for the murder of any free person (man), the perpetrator would have to pay 40 hryvnias.
In the Novgorod Republic, smerds from time immemorial were subordinate to the state. The concept of smerda there included the entire category of the lower strata of the population, who were subordinate to the prince. They worked on their own land plots, paid a large tax to the treasury. But at any moment the prince could resettle the smerds, donate them to the church. In addition, smerds in the Novgorod Republic served natural duties and were obliged to supply horses and feed soldiers in wartime. Unlike ordinary communal peasants (they lived in villages), smerds lived in villages.
The term, which appeared in the period from the 11th to the 14th centuries, is also curious. "To stink" - meant to capture the villages and the population of the enemy principality during the princely internecine wars. After the 15th century, the category of smerds passed to the peasantry, but the term itself continued to be used and meant the unofficial appeal of the tsar to the lower strata of the population. Subsequently, the term "smerd" was used by the landowners to insult the delinquent servants or peasants. In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the etymology of the word. The fact is that in some parts of the European part of Russia, houses were heated in a black way (that is, without the use of pipes), so all the smoke and cinders were removed through the portage windows of the huts. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine how terrible it smelled from all the stinks, given that this disgusting smell of burning was mixed with sweat.
The word smerd (“smerd”, “smurd”, “smord”, “smordon”) is of Indo-European origin in the meaning of “man”, “addicted person”, “ordinary person”.
According to some historians, smerds were free peasants and constituted the lowest group of the free population. They had their own land and farmed on it, had to pay taxes to the prince and serve natural duties.
Other historians see in smerds the population dependent on the prince, and in tribute - rent in favor of the prince. The prince could donate smerds to the church, resettle them.
Due to these discrepancies between historians long time the question of the "smerd serf" mentioned in Russkaya Pravda was discussed. In the first case, historians recognized the possibility of serfs owning serfs, in the second they denied such a possibility and insisted on an approximately equal legal status of serfs and serfs.
During the period of feudal fragmentation, the principalities became smaller, which increased the personal dependence of the smerds on the princes. The term "to stink" meant the capture of the population of a neighboring principality during princely strife. In the Novgorod Republic, the communal smerds were collectively dependent on the state (in fact, on the inhabitants of Novgorod)
Subsequently, smerd is a contemptuous designation of a serf (in the mouth of a landowner, a representative of power), a commoner, an ignoble person. And the word "stink" also meant "to stink."
12. And for the remestvenik and for the remestvenitsa, then 12 hryvnias.
Craftsmen work on the estate of the feudal lord as dependent people: their life is valued higher than the price of a ryadovich or "stink serf" (see Art. 13), who do not possess the art of a particular craft, but lower than the life of a free community member ("man") .
13. And for stink serfs 5 hryvnias, and for a robe 6 hryvnias.
A serf serf - unlike artisans or persons who served the feudal lord as tyuns or breadwinners (see Art. 14), performing simple work, like smerd community members.
Roba is a female servant who was in the same position as a male serf. Translation. 13. And for a stinky serf you pay 5 hryvnias, and for a robe 6 hryvnias. The robe is worth more because it gives the feudal lord "offspring". The same "lesson" for a serf 5 1 riven, and for a robe b 1 riven appointed Art. 106.
Already buy runs
52. Even buy to run away from the Lord, then obel; whether to look for a kun, but it is revealed to walk, or to run to the prince or to the judges to judge your master, then do not shy him about it, but give him the truth. (...)
Zakup is a smerd, which is in feudal dependence on the master for a loan. Obel is a complete jerk. Rob - turn into a slave. Date the truth - to give judgment.
Translation. 52. If the purchase runs away from the master (without paying him for the loan), then he becomes a complete slave; if he goes to look for money with the permission of the master or runs to the prince and his judges complaining of an insult on the part of his master, then for this he cannot be made a slave, but he should be given a trial.
According to the church law "Justice of the Metropolitan", a "purchase hireling" who did not want to stay with the master and turned to the court could gain freedom by returning the "double deposit" to the feudal lord, which was tantamount in practice to the complete impossibility of breaking with the master, since he determined and the size of his "deposit" purchase (see: Old Russian princely charters of the XI-XV centuries. M. 1976. P. 210).
71. Even a stink to torment a stink without a prince of the word, then 3 hryvnias of sale, and for flour hryvnia kun.
Torment - torture, torture, beating.
Translation. 71. If a smerd tortures a smerd without a princely court, then he will pay 3 hryvnias of sale (to the prince) and a hryvnia of money to the victim for the flour.
72. Even to torment the fireman, then 12 hryvnias for sale, and hryvnia for flour. (...)
Translation. 72. For the torture of the fireman, pay 12 hryvnias of sale and a hryvnia (to the victim) for flour. An equal payment "for flour" to a smerd and a fireman (prince's servant) was appointed because it means a servant-serf, for the murder of which 12 hryvnias were charged (Article II), while for the murder of a fiery tiun or a horseman they charged double vira - 80 hryvnia (Article 10).
Already die mord
85. Even if it stinks to die, then back to the prince; if there are daughters in his house, then give a part for him; if they are after a husband, do not give them a share.
Ass - inheritance, property left after the death of a person.
Translation. 85. If a smerd dies (without leaving sons), then the ass will be given to the prince; if unmarried daughters remain after him, then allocate (part of the property) to them; if the daughters are married, then they should not be given part of the inheritance.
Procurement- smerds who have taken a loan ("kupa") from another landowner with livestock, grain, tools, etc. and must work for the lender until they repay the debt. Before that, they had no right to leave the owner. The owner was responsible for the purchase in case of theft, etc.
Ryadovichi- smerds who have concluded an agreement ("row") with the landowner on the conditions of their work for him or the use of his land and tools.
In science, there are a number of opinions about smerds, they are considered free peasants, feudal dependents, persons of a slave state, serfs, and even a category similar to petty chivalry. But the main controversy is conducted along the line: free dependents (slaves). Two articles of Russian Pravda have an important place in substantiating opinions.
Article 26 of the Brief Pravda, which establishes a fine for the murder of slaves, in one reading reads: “And in a smerd and in a serf 5 hryvnias” (Academic list).
In the Archaeographic list we read: “And in the stink in the slave there are 5 hryvnias.” In the first reading, it turns out that in the case of the murder of a smerd and a serf, the same fine is paid. From the second list it follows that the smerd has a serf who is killed. It is impossible to resolve the situation.
Article 90 of the Long Truth reads: “If the smerd dies, then the inheritance to the prince; if he has daughters, then give them a dowry ... ". Some researchers interpret it in the sense that after the death of a smerd, his property passed entirely to the prince and he is a man of a "dead hand", that is, unable to transfer the inheritance. But further articles clarify the situation - we are talking only about those smerds who died without sons, and the removal of women from inheritance is characteristic at a certain stage of all the peoples of Europe.
However, the difficulties of determining the status of a smerd do not end there. Smerd, according to other sources, acts as a peasant who owns a house, property, and a horse. For the theft of his horse, the law establishes a fine of 2 hryvnia. For the "flour" of a smerd, a fine of 3 hryvnias is set. Russkaya Pravda nowhere specifically indicates the restriction of the legal capacity of smerds, there are indications that they pay fines (sales) that are typical for free citizens.
Russian Pravda always indicates, if necessary, belonging to a particular social group(druzhinnik, serf, etc.). In the mass of articles about free people, it is precisely free people that are implied, smerds are discussed only where their status needs to be specially highlighted.
Now we come to the smerds who formed the backbone of the lower classes in the countryside. As I have already mentioned, the term smerd is to be compared with the Iranian tagi ("man"). It is very likely that he appeared in the Sarmatian period of Russian history.
Smerdy were personally free, but their legal status was limited, since they were subject to the special jurisdiction of the prince.
The fact that the power of the prince over the smerds was more specific than over the free ones is clear from Russkaya Pravda, as well as from the annals. In Pravda Yaroslavichi, smerd is mentioned among people who are dependent on the prince to one degree or another. According to the extended version of Russkaya Pravda, the smerd could not be arrested or restricted in any way in his actions without the sanction of the prince. After the death of a smerd, his property was inherited by his sons, but if there were no sons left, then the property passed to the prince, who, however, had to leave a share for unmarried daughters, if any. This seems to be the right of the "dead hand" in Western Europe.
It seems important that in the city-states of Northern Russia - Novgorod and Pskov - the supreme power over the smerds belonged not to the prince, but to the city. So, for example, in 1136 the Novgorod prince Vsevolod was criticized by the veche for the oppression of smerds. In the Novgorod treaty with the King of Poland, Casimir IV, it is directly stated that the smerds are in the jurisdiction of the city, and not the prince. This agreement is a document of a later period (signed around 1470), but its terms were based on ancient tradition.
Taking into account the status of smerds in Novgorod, we can assume that in the south, where they were subordinate to the prince, the latter rather exercised his power as head of state than landowner. In such a case, smerds can be called state peasants, with due reservations. Keeping in mind that the term smerd most likely appeared in the Sarmatian period, we can attribute the appearance of smerds as a social group to this period. Presumably, the first smerds were Slavic "people" who paid tribute to the Alans. Later, with the emancipation of the Ants from Iranian guardianship, power over them could pass to the Ants leaders. In the eighth century, the smerds had to submit to the authority of the Khazar and Magyar governors; with the emigration of the Magyars and the defeat of the Khazars by Oleg and his heirs, the Russian princes eventually established control over them. This sketch of the history of smerds is, of course, hypothetical, but, in my opinion, is consistent with the facts; in any case, it does not contradict any known data.
Whether the land they cultivated belonged to themselves or to the state is a moot point. It turns out that in Novgorod, at least, smerds occupied state lands. In the south, there must have been something like co-ownership of a prince and a smerd on the land of the latter. At a meeting in 1103, Vladimir Monomakh mentions "the economy of the smerd" (his village). As we have already seen, the son of a smerd inherited his property, that is, his household. However, considering that the smerd owned the land he cultivated, it should be noted that this was not full ownership, since he was not free to bequeath the land even to his daughters; when after his death there were no sons left, as we have seen, the land passed to the prince. Since the smerd could not bequeath his land, he probably could not sell it either.
The land was in his permanent use, and the same right extended to his male descendants, but it was not his property.
Smerdy had to pay state taxes, in particular the so-called "tribute". In Novgorod, each group of them registered at the nearest churchyard (tax collection center); apparently they were organized into communities in order to facilitate the collection of taxes. Another duty of the smerds was the supply of horses for the city militia in the event of a big war.
At the princely meeting of 1103, mentioned above, the campaign against the Polovtsy was discussed, and the vassals of Prince Svyatopolk II noted that it was not worth starting hostilities in the spring, because taking their horses, they would ruin the smerds and their fields, to which Vladimir Monomakh replied: "I surprised, friends, that you are concerned about the horses on which the smerd plows Why don't you think that as soon as the smerd begins to plow, the Polovtsian will come, kill him with his arrow, take his horse, come to his village and take away his wife, his children and his property? Are you concerned about the smerd horse or about him?"
The low level of the social status of the smerd is best demonstrated by the following fact: in the event of his murder, only five hryvnias, that is, one-eighth of the fine, were to be paid to the prince by the killer. The prince was supposed to receive the same amount (five hryvnias) in the event of the murder of a slave. However, in the latter case, the payment was not a fine, but compensation to the prince as the owner. In the case of the smerd, compensation to his family was supposed to be paid by the killer in addition to the fine, but its level is not specified in Russkaya Pravda.
With the passage of time, the term smerd, as I mentioned, acquired the derogatory meaning of a person belonging to the lower class. As such, it was used by high aristocrats to refer to commoners in general. So, when Prince Oleg of Chernigov was invited by Svyatopolk II and Vladimir Monomakh to attend a meeting where representatives of the clergy, boyars and Kiev citizens were supposed to be, he arrogantly replied that "it is not fitting for him to obey the decisions of the bishop, rector or smerd" (1096 .).
At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the term smerd was in use to refer to the rural population as a whole. Describing one of the battles in Galicia in 1221, the chronicler notes: "A boyar should take a boyar as a prisoner, a smerd - a smerd, a city dweller - a city dweller."
Although, as such, there was no slavery in Russia, but there was a clear distinction between classes. The people referred to by the word "smerd" belonged to this estate. The word itself belongs to the Indo-European branch of languages and is translated as "simple person".
At the very beginning of its appearance, ordinary free villagers were considered smerds. But with the advent of serfdom, they became the property of the princes. Nominally, smerds were considered the lower class, but still possessing some rights. The smerds had their own land, but this did not exempt them from working on the owner's lands. The cost of living a serf and a serf was estimated at 5 rubles. So much had to be paid to the treasury if a representative of the lower class was killed.
With the advent of Christianity, the word smerd is gradually replaced by "peasant". Over time, ordinary commoners began to be called smerds, and it acquired a negative meaning.
Smerdy were obliged to serve in the army. But they had the right to pay off. And since many of them were quite rich, it was not difficult to pay off the army with a horse or a pair of pigs. Smerdy led a communal way of life and if one of them died, then the property was divided among the entire community. If the smerd had a family, then the property could be transferred to his sons.
Kholops actually had no rights. They were essentially real slaves.
If smerds lived only in villages, then there were serfs in cities as well.
Interestingly, their slave position was abolished by Tsar Peter I in 1723.
There was another disenfranchised stratum of society, these were servants. During the seizure of new lands, noble people brought or bought the inhabitants of these territories. Such people did not even have the status of a person. Rather, they were treated like things.
Slaves were forbidden to have property. Owners could easily kill and sell slaves. But one of the noble citizens sat down and killed someone else's serf, then when a fine was due. They became slaves for various reasons. It was possible to be born from a serf, it was possible to get into serfs for debts or some crimes. A woman who married a serf immediately became a serf. Unlike smerds, serfs were allowed to learn various simple professions. The more education was a slave, the higher was its price. The prince was free to release the serf and he could become a stink.
Remember the famous quotes from the beloved “Ivan Vasilyevich”, who changes his profession: “Why did you offend the noblewoman, stink?”, “Oh, you tramp, mortal pimple, stink!”? We laugh together at the bewilderment of Yakin (Mikhail Pugovkin), admire the Terrible (Yuri Yakovlev), but when we undertake to reread Bulgakov's immortal comedy, we also pay attention to the wonderful language in which the work is written.
Smerd stink strife
A modern reader who quickly forgets lessons on such a school subject as history will probably not immediately say what a smerd is, or rather, who it is. But the inquisitive, of course, will be interested to find out that the inhabitants of the ancient Russian state were called this way, with the exception of the nobility (boyars) and the clergy. Those. this concept meant merchants, merchants and artisans, wandering buffoons and townspeople, as well as peasants. So what is a commoner, a person of diverse origins. However, over time, the word acquires a different semantics.
Peasant question
Now some clarifications. The peasants in Russia were once free farmers. Then, as they became enslaved, they began to be divided into three categories: “people”, “serfs”, “smerds”. "People" were called citizens of low birth without owners-boyars. According to Russkaya Pravda (a test legal document of the 11th-16th centuries), if someone kills a free man and is caught, he must pay a fine of 40 hryvnias. And what is a smerd if his life was worth no more than the life of a slave (serf) - 5 hryvnias? Also, it turns out, a slave. Whose? Prince, i.e. boyar.
The category of smerds gradually began to include those free peasant farmers who became enslaved as social stratification and the growth of landlord lands. This meaning of the word is typical for the times of Kievan Rus.
Smerd "in Novgorod"
The Novgorod Republic was a special territory. And there were rules. What is a smerd according to local laws? This is a farmer dependent on the state, and not on a private owner. Then, in general, all peasants began to be attributed to this category. In Russia, it was the plowmen who were the most numerous category of citizens. The state gave them plots of land, for which the smerds paid taxes to the treasury, and the princes - a duty "in kind": food, linen, domestic animals, etc. Such peasants were obliged to live in villages (from the word "village", i.e. e. "sedentary"). Around the 15th century, the term "smerdy" was replaced by "peasants". And since the army was recruited from the common people, at times and a little later, service people were called this word.
In documents (orders, letters, letters, petitions) of that time, this is the officially accepted form when the king addresses the soldiers. A few centuries later, the concept of "smerd" turned into a contemptuous, almost abusive designation of serfs and commoners. By the way, during the time of princely strife, there was a specific, then obsolete word “to stink”: to capture the subjects of an enemy prince.
And more about etymology and word usage
If we talk about it, it belongs to the Indo-European language group. We have considered lexical transformation. It remains to be said about the additional semantic meaning obtained in the process of use. From the word "smerd" the verb "stink" was formed, i.e. "smell bad". The fact is that in the huts where the poorest peasants and serfs lived, the windows were covered with air that did not let in at all. The stoves were heated "in black", the smoke barely left the premises, smoking through everything. And in late autumn, winter and early spring, together with people, poultry and cattle kept in the huts. It is clear that the "aroma" of stink could be smelled a mile away. Therefore, over time, the word "smerd" instead of "serf" began to denote a dirty, untidy, stinking person. A modern synonym is "homeless".
One of the most confusing issues in the history of pre-Mongol Rus is the content of the term "smerd", the status of this category of the population. Without going into the historiography of the issue (it can be found in the works of I.Ya. Froyanov, who dealt with it a lot), we can briefly say that at the moment there are two interpretations of the concept of "smerd". The first is an analogue of the later "peasant", a farmer, sometimes dependent on the landowner, but at the same time personally free. The second interpretation considers the smerds as landed slaves-captives from non-Slavic tribes, and tributaries - also non-Slavs (in the "Tale of Bygone Years" subordinate to the Russian princes, Rurikovich, the peoples are very clearly divided into two categories - "Slovene language in Russia" and " inii yazytsЂ, i.e. a tribute to give to Russia "- while the "Slovenian language" was incorporated into the concept of "Rus", the rest of the population of Eastern Europe remained outside, perceived as tributaries, and nothing more). I.Ya. also belongs to the supporters of the latter point of view. Froyanov.
The very existence of two points of view on this issue suggests that the data of the surviving chroniclers and other documents do not give an unambiguous answer to the question of the status of smerds. The annalistic data are especially unclear, where the use of this term may be not of a legal, but of a rhetorical nature.
In the summer of 6604. Svyatopolk and Volodimer were sent to Olgovi, saying to the mother: “Go to Kiev, let’s make a row about the Russian land before the bishops, abbots and before our fathers, and before the townspeople, so that they defend the Russian land from the filthy.” Oleg, however, we take the meaning of the buoy and the words are majestic, saying: “There is no way to judge [me] by a bishop and black, or smerdom”
According to the context, here “husbands” are also called smerds, that is, boyars and a squad of princes, and “townspeople”. It is clear that this is a rhetorical turn, but the possibility of introducing them into the chronicle makes her data on this issue less weighty than we would like.
Unfortunately, so far such a group of sources as birch-bark writings has been involved very little to resolve the issue of smerds. For half a century of studying them, the number of letters found has exceeded a thousand, and many of them are business notes or legal documents, that is, it is in them that we can count on the maximum correctness of the use of the term.
The first mention of a smerd here is charter No. 247, the first half of the 11th century. A certain smerd was accused of breaking into the amount of forty cuts, the author of the letter reports that the lock and doors are intact, the owner (apparently, the premises, which the smerd was accused of breaking into) does not want to initiate a case, therefore a fine should be collected from the slanderer, and the smerd owes something to pay the "Vladyka", the Bishop of Novgorod (obviously, a fee for legal proceedings). At the end of the letter, it is said that the beating of the slanderer with stinks is either possible or not possible.
The only thing that can be said about the status of a smerd is that he clearly does not look like a slave. A slave - a servant, a serf - neither in the treaties of pagan Russia with Byzantium, nor in Russkaya Pravda - does not act as a party to the process, his master is responsible for it. Smerd, according to this charter, appears to be legally independent.
Less successfully ended for a representative of the social group of interest to us, the story described in the charter 607, dated at the end of the 11th century. Here it is said about the murder by some Sycheviches of a Novgorod smerd named Zhiznobud, they also seized the legacy of Zhiznobud.
Note that, apparently, Zhiznobud was not very poor. The Slavic name of the character of the charter is also noteworthy. Finally, he was somehow especially connected with Novgorod - "Novgorod smerd".
About the extremely complicated case of theft (or thefts) is reported by letter No. 907 from a certain Tuk Gyuryate (obviously, the then mayor Gyuryate Rogovich). In particular, one of the defendants is accused of receiving three hryvnias from "Ivankov Smerd" for silence. Here we can talk about dependence, although it is completely unclear of what nature, this stink from the unknown Ivanko. Whether he handed over his money or money to Ivanko is also unclear. In Ivanko they see the posadnik Ivanko Pavlovich, who took his place after Gyuryata.
Letter 724 reflects the clash of interests when collecting tribute from the population of Zavolochye at the end of the 12th century, and the mention in it seems to fit into Froyanov's version. However, both “people” and “villagers” are mentioned here, but smerds come “from Andrei” (Bogolyubsky?) and it is not clear whether we are talking about the local population or about some people who came to Zavolochye from Suzdal lands.
Letter 935, at the turn of the XII-XIII centuries, is a list of debtors or participants in some kind of pooling. Among the listed names there is a certain "smerd", the share of which is the same as that of Fedor, Gavrila and a certain Grechin, in which commentators see the well-known Novgorod icon painter of those times Olisey Grechin. This, coupled with the fact that the name of the smerd is not indicated, suggests that this is not about smerd, but about Smerda - a nickname or worldly name that the owner of a higher status received (in the "Dictionary of Old Russian Personal Names" N.M. Tupikov, we find personally free peasants with the names Kholuy and Kholop, as well as nobles (!!) named Peasant, there is also the name Smerd, also noble).
The most interesting is letter No. 410, dating from about the same time as the previous one. Among a number of debtors, three smerds are mentioned in it. The name of one of them is not readable due to a defect in the birch bark, the rest are called Doman and Bratsha. Their names in a number of others, the amounts associated with them, apparently do not correlate in any way with their status. On the other hand, the mere mention that they are smerds in this series makes the widespread identification of a smerd with a peasant or a villager in general very vulnerable. Finally, he draws attention to the fact that both of the surviving names of smerds are again Slavic, as in the already mentioned Zhiznobud.
This is the last mention of smerds in birch bark documents.
What emerges from the information about smerds in the birch-bark letters of Novgorod?
On the one hand, based on these data, smerds cannot be called just another name for the peasantry - otherwise they would not have been singled out in 410 letters
On the other hand, the diplomas also do not allow unequivocally joining Froyanov's version. First, as we have already seen in the case of the wrongfully accused smerd, smerds could act as a party in court. We also see their legal capacity in the fact that they (and not their owners) are given money on credit and are waiting for a return (410) - serfs or servants never act either as a party to a lawsuit or as a debtor.
The names of smerds make this version even more doubtful. In all three cases, as we have seen, these were Slavic names - Zhiznobud, Doman, Brother. Of course, this in itself may not mean anything, the less developed tribes neighboring the Slavs often adopted Slavic anthroponyms (one of the earliest examples of such borrowing is the Liv elder Dabrel from the chronicle of Henry of Latvia, in whose name it is difficult not to recognize the Russian Dobril), but it is strange that there are simply no other names for smerds! Indeed, the same Henry of Latvia, along with Dabrel, mentions many Livs with their own tribal names. Many letters have been preserved that directly or indirectly mention the non-Slavic neighbors and tributaries of the Novgorodians. From the 12th century to the 14th century, there are an abundance of names such as Nustui, Oyavelge, Tadui, Vigar, Igolaid, Munomel, Ikagal and others, others, others. So, never, not one of the carriers of the Finnish name is called a smerd. The carriers of Baltic anthroponyms such as Domant, Omant, Rimsha, Kulba are also not called smerds. Enigmatic "wild people" and "vezhniki" found in letters of the 12th century, in which A.A. Zaliznyak suggests Karelians or Lapps, also not classified as smerds. It seems very unlikely, given this, that the term "smerd" refers to slaves or tributaries of non-Slavic origin.
What is the general conclusion?
The data of birch bark letters about smerds do not fit into either the first or the second version of the explanation of this social term. Smerdy cannot be considered as a generalizing name for the peasantry, otherwise Bratsha, Doman and their unnamed comrade, who remained for us, would not have been marked as smerdy among other characters of the debt record. On the other hand, the fact that smerds could act as a litigating party or a debtor makes it difficult to classify them as personally dependent. The version about the connection of smerds with any other ethnic element does not find confirmation either.
Unfortunately, the study of birch-bark letters did not give an answer to the question about the basis on which people were attributed to the social group "smerdy".
The work of A.A. Zaliznyak Old Novgorod dialect, M .: Languages of Slavic culture 2004