The government was aware of their necessity and valued them very much, especially because they made it difficult for the Tatars to invade, by distributing privileges for settling towns and various benefits; it often mentioned as a motive that these cities would settle “on the roads, on the Tatar crossings, on the very turn” from the WILD POLES Blogorodekikh, “where the non-destroyer was accustomed to go to our lordships and repair the great place, on which everything would be solid, awakened and the place would be planted, so that all the speeches would be well-watered and the peace of these lands would be.” 1). But the government avoided taking on the construction and maintenance of new castles and left this to the population. The construction of these Ukrainian captivity, therefore, one might say, did not proceed ahead of colonization, but simultaneously with it or behind it. In the steppe zones they appeared in significant numbers only in the 9th half of the 16th century, with the increase in the population, which was attracted here by natural wealth and a favorable life, forcing them to forget the fear of devastation and settle on the Tatar ashlyakhs themselves." In the first half of the 16th century, in many southern elderships, the district rulers' castles remained the only ones fortifications and strongholds of the population.
From the middle of the KHUT century. Detailed descriptions of the southern Russian “gospodarsky” castles, compiled by government auditors in 1545 and 1552, have reached us; The previously published descriptions include the following castles: Vladimirsky (inventory of 1545), Lutsy (inventory of 1545 and 1550), Eremenetsy (1545), Vinnitsey (1545 and 1552), Braslav (1545), Zhitomrey (1545 and 1552), Ovrutsky, Mozyrsy 2), Chernobylsy, Eevsvy, Kanevsy, Cherkassy and Ostersky - later described in 1559 > in general, these inventories cover almost the entire populated South Russian territory, which was then part of the Russian-Lithuanian state 3). These inventories amount to precious r) A similar motive is given, for example, in the tramotakh of Brusilov (1574), Korsun (1585), Vaeilkov (1586), Chigirina (1589), Bykov (1605), Erylov (1616), Lysanka (1622). Arch. Yu.-3. R.ch Ut t No. 22, 24. 35. Acts Zap. R. Sh. No. 148, 162. Acts of the South. p Zap. Rossi P. No. 18. Antonovich. Monographs vol. T, p. 157.
2) Mozyr also once belonged to the Klevek land. for the 19th century Ipatiev. tbtopis e. 341; in the Lithuanian period Mozyremy tale, as well as Ostersvy, was part of the Bievsky principality and voivodeship, see Monograph B; B. Antonovich, vol. 1.6. 945.
3) “Popis of Castles” of 1545 was published by the entire Alex. Yablonovskiy_Itb@b atleolte, 6. UT. Magai, 1377, with an appendix of an essay on the state of Volyn in the half of the KHUT century. From this "By
6 M. GRUSHEVSKGI.
a source for studying the administration, legal and economic life of the country, and from this side it has been studied more than once by scientists. In this essay, I will try to group the data they present regarding the structure of the “gospodarsky” castles throughout Southern Rus', their condition and means of defense, adding from time to time data from some other modern sources. Such a general review, as far as I know, does not yet exist, but this question is not without interest: half of the described castles had important colonization significance, the remaining castles - Volyn and Severny - although they did not have the same significance for the population as the southern ones, because these povets were less often subjected to Tatar invasions and, along with state ones Private fortifications also had castles, so no less, the structure and composition of these state fortresses are also significant among other aspects of the zemstvo system of Southern Rus'.