SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE
It should be noted that the social structure of the Old Russian state was complex, but the main features of feudal relations already emerged quite clearly. Feudal ownership of land was formed - the economic basis of feudalism. Accordingly, the main classes of feudal society took shape - feudal lords and the feudal-dependent population.
The largest feudal lords were princes. Sources indicate the presence of princely villages, where dependent peasants lived, working for the feudal lord under the supervision of his clerks, elders, including those who specifically supervised field work. The boyars were also major feudal lords - the feudal aristocracy, which grew rich through the exploitation of peasants and predatory wars.
With the introduction of Christianity, the church and monasteries became the collective feudal lord. Not immediately, but gradually the church acquires land, the princes grant it “tithe” - a tenth of the income from the population.
The lowest stratum of the feudal class consisted of warriors and servants, princes and boyars. They were formed from free people, but sometimes even from slaves. By currying favor with the master, such servants sometimes received land from the peasants and became exploiters themselves. Article 91 of “Russian Pravda” equates the vigilantes in order of succession to the boyars and contrasts both with the smerds.
The main right and privilege of the feudal lords was the right to land and exploitation of the peasants. The state also protected other property of the exploiters. The life and health of the feudal lord were subject to enhanced protection. For encroachment on them, a high penalty was established, differentiated depending on the position of the victim. The honor of the feudal lord was also highly guarded: insult by action, and in some cases by word, also entailed serious punishment.
The bulk of the feudal-dependent population were peasants - dependent and free.
The most significant group of the peasant population was occupied by the smerds. The Smerdas lived in communities - ropes, which grew out of the clan system, but in the Old Russian state they no longer had a consanguineous, but a territorial, neighborly character. The rope was tied mutual guarantee, mutual aid system.
This category included both free and dependent peasants; all smerds paid tribute. During the period of development of feudal relations in Rus', there was a process of transition of smerds into a dependent state. "Russian Truth" indicates the presence of two categories of smerds: free and dependent. The free smerd himself is responsible for his crimes: “Then you must pay the smerd to sell the kiyazh” (Article 45 of “Long-Range Pravda”). However, the majority of the peasants were dependent smerds, who, due to their powerless position, were close to serfs: “And for the murder of a smerd or serf, pay 5 hryvnia”; “If a smerd dies, then his inheritance goes to the prince, if he has daughters in his house...” (v. 90).
In the Old Russian state, the figure of a typical feudal-dependent peasant appears - the zakup. Zakup has his own farm, but need forces him to go into bondage to his master. He takes a kupa from the feudal lord - a sum of money or assistance in kind and, because of this, is obliged to work for the owner. The labor of purchasing does not go towards paying off the debt; it acts as if only paying interest on the debt. Therefore, he cannot work off the coupa and practically remains with the master for life. In addition, the purchaser is responsible for damage caused to the owner due to negligence. In case of escape from the master, the purchaser automatically turns into a slave. Theft committed by procurement also leads to servitude. The master has the right of patrimonial justice in relation to the purchase. For example, a feudal lord has the right to beat a careless purchaser. At the same time, the purchaser, unlike the slave, has some rights. He cannot be beaten “for no reason”, he can complain about his master to the judges, he cannot be sold as a slave (if this happened, then he was automatically released from his obligations towards the master), his property cannot be taken away from him with impunity.
Articles 56–62, 64 of Prostransnaya Pravda contain the so-called “Procurement Charter”. Assigning the purchase to the master is determined by Art. 56 of “Russian Pravda”, which indicates that the purchase is “strong for its master.” In Art. 62 of Prostransnaya Pravda says: “Even if the master beats the purchaser about the matter, then there is no guilt,” that is, the decision on the issue of the guilt of the purchase is left to the master himself. At the same time, unlike a slave, procurement was recognized as a subject of rights and obligations, and under Art. 57, 58 he was responsible for the owner’s equipment if he lost it in the field, for the cattle if he did not drive it into the yard or stable. The purchase had its own property (Article 59), it could not be given to another owner for work (Article 60), or sold as a slave (Article 61). IN the latter case the purchase received freedom, and the gentleman who sold it paid the sale of 12 hryvnia. In a small claim, the purchase was allowed by hearing (witness).
From among the dependent population "Brief Truth" in Art. 11 and 16 mentions “servant”. There are several opinions about the legal status of this category of people. The closest to the truth is the explanation of the concept of “servants” given by V.D. Grekov. Comparing the contents of Art. 13 and 16 of the “Brief Truth” and Art. 27 and 28 of “Metropolitan Justice”, he convincingly proved that the word “servant” is a general designation of two types of dependent people: “Both monuments speak of a slave and a purchase, and in “Metropolitan Justice” slaves and purchases are considered varieties of one generic concept - servants". Thus, “Russkaya Pravda” calls an unfree man a serf or servant, and an unfree woman a slave, uniting both of them with the common concept of “servant.”
The servants were almost completely powerless. “Russkaya Pravda” equates it to cattle: “the fruit comes from the servants or from the cattle,” says one of its articles. In this respect, the servants of the Old Russian state resembled ancient slaves, who in Rome were called “talking instruments.”
The most correct explanation of V.D. Grekov also gives another concept - “ryadovich”, which causes controversy among historians. A person who entered into a “row” with a master in the cases provided for in Art. 110 "Russian Truth".
The most powerless group of the feudal-dependent population were slaves. An entire section of the “Extensive Truth” is devoted to the legal status of slaves (Articles 110–121). All articles about slaves indicate their powerless position. A slave was not a subject of law, he was a thing that could be sold, bought, beaten, and even the murder of a slave (Article 89) was not a crime: the person guilty of murder only compensated for the cost of the slave - 5 hryvnia (for a slave - 6 hryvnia). A serf could not even be a mere listener. (v. 66).
However, in Rus', slaves did not form the basis of production; slavery was predominantly patriarchal, domestic. It is no coincidence that “Russkaya Pravda” identifies categories of slaves whose lives were protected by higher punishment. It's all kinds service staff princely and boyar court - servants, children's educators, artisans, etc.
Over time, the process of transforming serfs into feudal-dependent peasants develops. They became the first serfs. Let us note that in Rus' at that time there was no enslavement of peasants.
Along with slaves, purchases, and stinkers, the documents mention hirelings. The term "hire" was used in Ancient Rus' to different categories of people and was used in three meanings: 1) A person who has undertaken to perform certain work for a fee; 2) Tenant; 3) Mortgage person (hire - purchase). In all cases, employment is understood as an agreement between a person who undertakes to work and a person who will use the results of the work.
In the Old Russian state there were large, numerous cities. Already in the 9th–10th centuries. there were at least 25 of them. In the next century, over 60 more cities were added, and by the time of the Mongol-Tatar invasion in Rus' there were about 300 of them. Merchants, who were a privileged category of people, stood out among the urban population. Skilled artisans also lived in Kyiv, Novgorod and other cities, who built magnificent temples and palaces for the nobility, made weapons, jewelry, etc.
Cities were centers of culture. If the ancient Russian village was illiterate for a long time, then in the cities literacy was widespread, not only among merchants, but also among artisans. This is evidenced by both numerous birch bark letters and author’s inscriptions on household items.
As we see, in the Old Russian state, classes are already taking shape, i.e. large groups people united by a unified legal status.
Considering the political system of the Old Russian state, it is necessary, first of all, to dwell on the organization of its state unity. This problem caused great controversy, both in pre-revolutionary and modern literature. Some authors even argue that in the 9th century. there was no single Old Russian state at all, but only a union tribal unions. More cautious researchers believe that from the 9th to the middle of the 10th century. we can talk about a union of local principalities, i.e. states Some people believe that federation took place, although this institution is not characteristic of a feudal state, but arises only in bourgeois and socialist society. At the same time, there are claims that the federation existed not only at the initial stage of development of the Old Russian state, but throughout its history.
It seems that a more convincing point of view is that it is believed that the Old Russian state is characterized by a system of suzerainty-vassalage relations typical of early feudalism, which assumes that the entire structure of the state rests on the ladder of the feudal hierarchy. The vassal depends on his lord, who depends on a larger lord or supreme overlord. Vassals are obliged to help their lord, first of all, to be in his army, and also to pay him tribute. In turn, the lord is obliged to provide the vassal with land and protect him from the encroachments of neighbors and other oppression. Within the limits of his possessions, the vassal has immunity. This meant that no one, including the overlord, could interfere in his internal affairs. The vassals of the great princes were local princes. The main immune rights were: the right to levy tribute and the right to hold court with the receipt of appropriate income.
So, speaking of state mechanism The Old Russian state can be described as a monarchy. At its head was the Grand Duke. The supreme legislative power belonged to him. So major laws are known, published by the great princes and bearing their names: “The Charter of Vladimir”, “The Truth of Yaroslav”, etc.
Grand Duke concentrated in your hands and executive branch, being the head of administration. The princes carried out judicial functions. The Grand Dukes also performed the functions of military leaders; they themselves led the army and personally led the army into battle. Vladimir Monomakh recalled at the end of his life about 83 of his big hikes. Some princes died in battle, as happened, for example, with Svyatoslav.
External functions The grand dukes carried out states not only by force of arms, but also by diplomatic means. Ancient Rus' stood on European level diplomatic art. It concluded various kinds of international treaties - military, trade and other nature. As was customary then, contracts had oral and written forms. Already in the 10th century. Ancient Russian state entered into treaty relations with Byzantium, Khazaria, Bulgaria, Germany, as well as with the Hungarians, Varangians, Pechenegs, etc. Diplomatic negotiations were often headed by the monarch himself, as was the case, for example, with Princess Olga, who traveled with an embassy to Byzantium.
Having become the head of state, the Grand Duke transfers his power by inheritance, in a straight line downlink, i.e. from father to son. Usually the princes were men, but there is a known exception - Princess Olga.
Although the great princes were monarchs, they still could not do without the opinion of those close to them. So Council formed under the prince, not legally formalized, but had a serious influence on the monarch. This council included those close to the Grand Duke, the top of his squad - the “princes of men.”
Sometimes in the Old Russian state convened so-called feudal Congresses- congresses of the top feudal lords, which resolved inter-princely disputes and some other important matters.
In the Old Russian state there was also Veche, which grew out of an ancient folk assembly.
Considering control system in the Old Russian state, we note that initially there was decimal, numerical control system. This system grew out of a military organization, when the heads of military units - tens, sots, thousand - became leaders of more or less large units of the state. Thus, Tysyatsky retained the functions of a military leader, while Sotsky became a city judicial and administrative official. At the same time, the decimal system did not yet separate central government from local government. However, later such differentiation arises.
IN The central administration develops the so-called palace-patrimonial system. It grew out of the idea of combining the management of the grand-ducal palace (court) with state administration. In the grand-ducal household there were various kinds of servants who were in charge of satisfying certain vital needs: butlers, equerry, etc. Over time, the princes entrust these persons with any areas of management, one way or another connected with their initial activities, and provide them with the necessary funds for this. Thus a personal servant becomes statesman, administrator.
System local government was simple. In addition to the local princes, who sat in their appanages, representatives of the central government were sent to the places - governors and volostels. They received “food” from the population for their service. So a feeding system has developed.
The basis of military organization The Old Russian state consisted of a grand ducal squad - relatively small in composition. These were professional warriors who depended on the favors of the monarch, but on whom he himself also depended. They usually lived in or around the princely court and were always ready to go on any campaigns in which they looked for booty and entertainment. The warriors were not only warriors, but also advisers to the prince. So, the senior squad represented the top of the feudal lords, which to a large extent determined the prince’s policy. The vassals of the Grand Duke brought with them squads, as well as a militia from their servants and peasants. Every man in Ancient Rus' knew how to wield a weapon, albeit a very simple one at that time. Boyar and princely sons already in three years old They were put on horses, and at the age of 12 their fathers took them on a hike.
Cities, or at least their central part were fortresses - castles, defended, if necessary, not only by the princely squad, but also by the entire population of the city. For this purpose, as noted earlier, princes often resorted to the services of mercenaries - first the Varangians, and later the steppe nomads (Karakalpaks, etc.).
In Ancient Rus' there were no special judicial bodies yet. Judicial functions were performed by various representatives of the administration, including, as already mentioned, the Grand Duke himself. However there were special officials who assisted in the administration of justice. Among them are, for example, Virnikov– persons who collected criminal fines for murder. The Virnikovs were accompanied by a whole retinue of minor officials. Judicial functions were also carried out by church bodies. Acted also patrimonial court- the right of the feudal lord to judge the people dependent on him. The judicial powers of the feudal lord were integral part his immune rights.
Public administration, wars, and the personal needs of the princes and their entourage required, of course, a lot of money (investments). In addition to income from their own lands, from the feudal exploitation of peasants , the princes also established a tax system, tribute.
The tribute was preceded by voluntary gifts from tribe members to their prince and squad. Later, these gifts became a mandatory tax, and the payment of tribute itself became a sign of subordination, which is where the word “subject” was born, i.e. under tribute.
Initially tribute was collected by polyudya, when princes, usually once a year, traveled around their subject lands and collected income directly from their subjects. But the sad fate of Grand Duke Igor, killed by the Drevlyans for excessive extortions, forced his widow, Princess Olga streamline the system of collecting state revenues. She established so-called graveyards, i.e. special tribute collection points. (Later, other ideas about graveyards appeared in science).
A system of various direct taxes, as well as trade, judicial and other duties, has developed. Taxes were usually collected in furs, but this does not mean that they were only taxes in kind. Marten fur, squirrels were certain monetary unit . Even when they lost their marketable appearance, their value as a means of payment did not disappear if they retained the princely sign. These were, as it were, the first Russian banknotes. Because Rus' at that time did not have its own deposits precious metals– from the 8th century Along with furs, foreign currency (dirhams, later denarii) comes into circulation. This currency was often melted down into Russian hryvnia (about 204 g of silver).
An important element political system ancient Russian society was church closely associated with the state. Initially, Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich streamlined the pagan cult, establishing a system of six gods led by the god of thunder and war - Perun. Then he baptized Rus', introducing the most convenient Christian religion for feudalism, preaching divine origin the power of the monarch, the obedience of workers to the state, etc.
At the head of the Orthodox Church was the Metropolitan, who was appointed initially from Byzantium, and then by the Grand Dukes. In some Russian lands the church was headed by a bishop.
The head of the Old Russian state was the Grand Duke of Kiev, who was at the same time the head of the feudal hierarchy, legislator, military leader, recipient of tribute and supreme judge. Such a wide range of his powers gave grounds for a number of authors (N. Karamzin) to claim that he was an autocratic monarch. However, most historians (N. Kostomarov, V. Klyuchevsky, M. Tikhomirov, A. Kuzmin) believe that the power of the great Kyiv prince was significantly limited: first by the council of the tribal nobility and people's meeting, and later - the senior princely squad and the Boyar Duma. At the same time, a number of modern authors (I. Froyanov, A. Dvornichenko) generally deny the monarchical nature of the Old Russian state and argue that the main political role in pre-Mongol Rus' it belonged to the people's council.
The power of the Great Prince of Kyiv was hereditary and passed on according to the ladder principle, that is, to the next most senior appanage prince (younger brother or eldest nephew). However, it must be said that this principle was violated quite often, and the struggle for the grand-ducal throne between the appanage princes of the “Rurik house” was characteristic feature political system of Ancient Rus'.
The backbone of princely power in Ancient Rus' was the princely squad. The question of its origin and functions still causes the most heated debate. But traditionally, this term itself served to designate a small but very influential social group of ancient Russian society. In the early stages of its existence, the princely squad lived mainly due to military campaigns, foreign trade and tribute collected from the subject population (polyudye), and then (from the middle of the 11th century) took an active part in the process of the formation of feudal land ownership.
The princely squad itself was divided into two parts: senior and junior. The senior squad (gridis, ognishchans, tiuns and boyars) not only participated in all military campaigns and diplomatic relations with foreign powers, but also took an active part in managing the princely domain economy (tiuns, ognishchans) and the state as princely posadniks and volostels. The younger squad (children, youths) was personal guard the prince, who also participated in all military campaigns and carried out individual orders of the prince to manage his domain economy and the state as guards of public order, swordsmen (bailiffs), virniks (collectors of fines), etc.
According to the majority of historians (B. Grekov, B. Rybakov, L. Cherepnin, A. Kuzmin) from the middle of the 11th century. the process of disintegration of the princely squad as a purely military organization begins and the formation of boyar patrimonial land ownership takes place, which was formed:
1) through the grant of state land into private inalienable possession (allod or patrimony);
2) either through the grant of land from the princely domain to private but alienable possession (flax or fief).
3. Dependent population of Ancient Rus'
We can judge the various categories of the dependent population of Ancient Rus' from the same “Russian Pravda”, but since this source is clearly not enough, in historical science there are still ongoing disputes in the assessment social status various categories of dependent population Kievan Rus.
a) Smerda. B. Grekov divided all smerds into two main groups: communal smerds, independent of private owners and paying tribute only to the state, and sufferer smerds, who were land dependent on the feudal lords and bore feudal duties in his favor - corvee and quitrent. I. Froyanov argued that the smerds were divided into “internal”, i.e. prisoners planted on the land of the feudal lord, and “external”, i.e. conquered tribes who paid tribute (military indemnity) to the Grand Duke. V. Klyuchevsky, L. Cherepnin, B. Rybakov considered the Smerds to be state (princely) peasants who were feudally dependent on the state and bore duties in its favor in the form of tribute. S. Yushkov believed that the status of the smerd was akin to the legal status of the serf peasant in the 16th–17th centuries.
b) Servants (servants). B. Grekov divided all slaves into “whitewashed”, i.e. complete ones who did not run an independent household and were the personal servants of the feudal lord, and “hired men” - former free community members who fell into the category of slaves for debts. A. Zimin believed that the term “servant” meant the entire dependent population of Ancient Rus', and the term “serf” meant only slaves. I. Froyanov argued that the servants were captive slaves, and the slaves were slaves of local origin, etc.
Closely related to this dispute is the problem of the place of slavery in ancient Russian society. According to most historians (B. Grekov, M. Tikhomirov, A. Kuzmin), slavery in Rus' existed only in the form of domestic slavery and did not play a significant role in the social division of labor. According to their opponents (I. Froyanov, P. Pyankov), slavery played a key role in Ancient Rus'.
c) Ryadovichi. According to most historians (B. Grekov, M. Tikhomirov, A. Kuzmin), the dependence of the ryadovich on the feudal lord was purely feudal in nature, since through the signing of a special agreement (row) he entered into a dependent position on the landowner and bore feudal duties in his favor.
d) Procurement. B. Grekov considered purchases to be made by former free smerds, who, through receiving a cash loan (kupa), found themselves in a dependent position on the feudal lord. A. Zimin, I. Froyanov, V. Kobrin argued that purchases were “unwhitened” serfs who either worked in the lord’s plowing fields or were the feudal lord’s servants. The main difference between purchases and white-washed serfs was that they ran a personal household and could, over time, repay their debt and gain freedom again.
d) Outcasts. Majority Soviet historians shared the point of view of B. Grekov, who considered the outcasts to be former slaves placed on the land of the feudal lord, that is, serfs.
The concept of “social system” includes: the economic development of the country, the class structure of society, the legal status of classes and social groups of the population.
Historical, written and archaeological sources indicate that in economic life the main occupation of the Eastern Slavs was agriculture. Both slash-and-burn (in forest areas) and arable (fallow) farming developed.
In the X-XII centuries. There has been a significant increase in cities with a craft and trade population. In the 12th century there were already about 200 cities in Rus'.
In the ancient Russian state, princely, boyar, church and monastic land ownership developed; a significant part of the community members became dependent on the owner of the land. Feudal relations gradually formed.
The formation of feudal relations in Kievan Rus was uneven. In the Kyiv, Chernigov, and Galician lands this process went faster than among the Vyatichi and Dregovichi.
The feudal social system in Rus' was established in the 9th century. As a result of social differentiation of the population, the social structure of society was formed. Based on their position in society, they can be called classes or social groups.
These include:
* feudal lords (great and appanage princes, boyars, churches and monasteries);
* free community members (rural and urban “people” and “people”);
* smerds (communal peasants);
* purchases (a person who has fallen into debt bondage and is working off a “kupa”);
* outcasts (a person who left the community or was freed from servitude by ransom);
* servants and serfs (court slaves);
* urban population(urban aristocracy and urban lower classes);
The dominant class of feudal lords was formed in the 9th century. These included grand dukes, local princes, and boyars. State and personal reigns were not separated, so the princely domain was an estate that belonged not to the state, but to the prince as a feudal lord.
Along with the grand-ducal domain, there was also boyar-druzhina agriculture.
The form of princely agriculture was patrimony, i.e. a form of ownership in which land was inherited.
The appearance in the Long Edition of Russian Pravda, dating back to the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries, of articles that mention boyar tiuns, boyar ryadovichi, boyar serfs and boyar inheritance allows us to conclude that by this time boyar land ownership had become established.
For a long time, a group of feudal boyars was formed from the richer warriors of the prince and from the tribal nobility. Their form of land tenure was:
1. patrimony;
2. holding (estate).
Patrimonies were acquired by seizing communal lands or by grant and were passed on by inheritance. The boyars received tenure only by grant (for the duration of the boyar's service or until his death). Any land ownership of the boyars was associated with service to the prince, which was considered voluntary. The transfer of a boyar from one prince to the service of another was not considered treason.
The feudal lords include both the church and the monasteries, which, after the adoption of Christianity in Rus', gradually became large landowners.
Free community members made up the bulk of the population of Kievan Rus. The term “people” in Russian Pravda means free, predominantly communal peasants and the urban population. Judging by the fact that in Russian Pravda (Article 3) “lyudin” was contrasted with “prince-husband,” he retained personal freedom.
Free community members were subjected to state exploitation by paying tribute, the method of collection of which was polyudye. The princes gradually transferred the right to collect tribute to their vassals, and free community members gradually became dependent on the feudal lord.
Smerds made up the bulk of the population of the Old Russian state. These were communal peasants. Smerd was personally free, his personal integrity was protected by the prince’s word (Article 78 pp.). The prince could give the smerd land if he worked for him. Smerds had tools of production, horses, property, land, ran a public economy, and lived in communities.
Some communal peasants went bankrupt, turned into “bad scum,” and turned to feudal lords and rich people for a loan. This category was called “purchases”. The main source characterizing the “purchase” situation is Art. 56-64, 66 Russian truth, lengthy edition.
Thus, the “purchases” are peasants (sometimes representatives of the urban population) who have temporarily lost their freedom for using a loan, a “purchase” taken from the feudal lord. He was actually in the position of a slave, his freedom was limited. He could not leave the yard without the master's permission. For attempting to escape, he was turned into a slave.
"Outcasts" were free and dependent. These were:
* former purchases;
* slaves bought into freedom;
* come from free strata of society.
They were not free until they entered the service of their master. The life of an outcast is protected by Russian Truth with a fine of 40 hryvnia.
At the lowest rung of the social ladder were slaves and servants. They were not subjects of law, and the owner was responsible for them. Thus, they were the owners of the feudal lord. If he committed theft, then the master paid. If a slave was beaten, he could kill him “in the dog’s place,” i.e. like a dog. If a slave took refuge with his master, the latter could protect him by paying 12 hryvnia, or give him up for reprisals.
The law prohibited sheltering runaway slaves.
Political system
Let us briefly consider the political system of the Old Russian state.
The concept of government includes:
* issues of state structure;
* political form of government;
* structure and competence of central and local authorities and management;
* military device;
* state judicial system.
The formation of the Old Russian state continued until the first third of the 12th century. It was an integral state based on the principle of suzerainty-vassalage. In terms of the form of government, the ancient Russian state was an early feudal monarchy with a fairly strong monarchical power.
The main characteristics of the ancient Russian early feudal monarchy can be considered:
* economic and political influence of the boyars on the central and local authorities;
* big role council under the prince, the dominance of large feudal lords;
* the presence of a palace-patrimonial management system in the center;
* availability of a feeding system on site.
It arose at a time when there were no prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state, with poorly developed trade and crafts, and the absence of strong economic ties between individual regions. Strong central government feudal lords needed cover or support during the seizure of communal and new lands.
The support of the Grand Duke by the feudal lords contributed to the rapid spread of his power over the vast territory of Rus'.
Kievan Rus was not a centralized state. It was a conglomerate of feudal principalities. The Kiev prince was considered a suzerain or "elder". He gave land (flax) to the feudal lords, provided them with assistance and protection. The feudal lords had to serve the Grand Duke for this. If loyalty was violated, the vassal was deprived of his possessions.
The highest authorities in the Old Russian state were the Grand Duke, the prince's council, feudal congresses, and the veche.
The power functions of the Grand Duke of Kyiv during the reign of Oleg (882-912), Igor (912-945) and regent Olga under Svyatoslav (945-964) were relatively simple and consisted of:
* organizing squads and military militias and commanding them;
* protection of state borders;
* carrying out campaigns to new lands, capturing prisoners and collecting tribute from them;
* maintaining normal foreign policy relations with the nomadic tribes of the south, the Byzantine Empire, and the countries of the East.
At first, the Kyiv princes ruled only the Kyiv land. During the conquest of new lands, the Kiev prince in the tribal centers left a thousand led by a thousand, a hundred led by a sotsky, and smaller garrisons led by a ten, which served as the city administration.
At the end of the 10th century, the functions of the power of the Grand Duke underwent changes. The feudal nature of the prince's power began to manifest itself more clearly.
The prince becomes the organizer and commander of the armed forces (the multi-tribal composition of the armed forces complicates this task):
* takes care of the construction of fortifications along the external border of the state, the construction of roads;
* establishes external relations to ensure border security;
* carries out legal proceedings;
* carries out approval Christian religion and provides financial support for the clergy.
(During this period, popular unrest began. In 1068, Izyaslav brutally suppressed the popular uprising, and in 1113, fearing new unrest, the boyars and bishops summoned Vladimir Monomakh to Kyiv with a strong squad, who suppressed the uprising).
Princely power was exercised locally by mayor, volosts and tiuns. The prince, by issuing laws, consolidated new forms of feudal exploitation and established legal norms.
Thus, the prince becomes a typical monarch. The Grand Duke's throne was passed on first by inheritance according to the principle of "seniority" (to the elder brother), and then according to the principle of "fatherland" (to the eldest son).
The council under the prince did not have functions separate from the prince. It consisted of the city elite (“city elders”), major boyars, and influential palace servants. With the adoption of Christianity (988), representatives of the highest clergy entered the Council. It was an advisory body under the prince to resolve the most important state issues: declaration of war, peace, alliances, publication of laws, financial issues, court cases. The central governing bodies were officials of the princely court.
It should be noted that with the improvement of the system of feudalism, the decimal (thousand, centurion, and ten) system is gradually being replaced by the palace-patrimonial system. The divisions between government bodies and the management of the prince’s personal affairs disappear. The general term tiun is specified: “ognishchanin” is called “tiun-ognishny”, “senior groom” is called “tiun equestrian”, “village and military headman” is called “village and military tiun”, etc.
As the tasks of public administration became more complex, the role of these positions became stronger, the functions became more precise, for example: “voivode” - head of the armed forces; "tiun equestrian" - responsible for providing the princely army with horses; “butler-fireman” - manager of the princely court and performing certain government tasks; "Stolnik" - food supplier.
Feudal congresses (snems) were convened by the grand dukes to resolve the most important issues of foreign and domestic policy. They could be national or several principalities. The composition of the participants was basically the same as the Council under the Prince, but appanage princes were also convened at feudal congresses.
The functions of the congress were:
* adoption of new laws;
* distribution of lands (fiefs);
* resolving issues of war and peace;
* protection of borders and trade routes.
The Lyubechsky Congress of 1097 is known, which, with a view to uniting efforts in the fight against external enemies, the “order of the world,” recognized the independence of appanage princes (“let each one keep his fatherland”), at the same time called for preserving Rus' by all “one.” In 1100, in Uvetichi, he was engaged in the distribution of fiefs.
The veche was convened by the prince or the feudal elite. All adult residents of the city and non-citizens participated in it. The decisive role here was played by the boyars and the city elite “city elders”. Slaves and people subordinate to the landlord were not allowed to attend the meeting.
It is known that the Drevlyans made the decision to kill Prince Igor for abusing the collection of tribute at their veche.
In 970, the Novgorod veche invited Vladimir Svyatoslavovich to reign.
Issues discussed at the meeting:
Convening and recruiting the people's militia and choosing a leader;
Protest was expressed against the prince's policies.
The executive body of the veche was the Council, which actually replaced the veche. The veche disappeared as feudalism developed. Survived only in Novgorod and Moscow.
At first, local governing bodies were local princes, who were later replaced by the sons of the Kyiv prince. In some less important cities, posadnik-governors, thousands of the Kyiv prince from his entourage, were appointed.
The local administration was supported by part of the collections from the population. Therefore, the mayor and volostels were called “feeders,” and the management system was called a “feeding” system.
The power of the prince and his administration extended to the townspeople and the population of lands not captured by the feudal lords. The feudal lords received immunity - legal formalization of power in their possessions. The immunity (protection) document determined the land granted to the feudal lord and the rights to the population, which was obliged to be subordinate.
In the Old Russian state, the court was not separated from administrative power. The highest judicial authority was the Grand Duke. He tried warriors and boyars, and considered complaints against local judges. The prince carried out analysis of complex cases at a council or veche. Individual matters could be entrusted to a boyar or tiun.
Locally, the court was carried out by the mayor and the volost.
In addition, there were patrimonial courts - courts of landowners over the dependent population, on the basis of immunity.
In the communities there was a community court, which with the development of feudalism was replaced by an administration court.
The functions of the church court were carried out by bishops, archbishops, and metropolitans.
3. Development of Old Russian feudal law
In the Old Russian state, the source of law, as in many early feudal states, is legal custom inherited from the primitive communal system. The Tale of Bygone Years notes that the tribes had “their own customs and the laws of their fathers.” The source refers to the norms of customary law, and the concepts are used as synonyms.
With the development of feudalism and the aggravation of class contradictions, customary law loses its importance. During the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich (978/980-1015), legislation expressing the interests of feudal lords, asserting feudal principles and the influence of the church, became increasingly important.
The first legal document that came down to us was the charter of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich “On tithes, courts and church people.” The charter was created at the turn of the X-XI centuries. in the form of a short charter, which was given to the Church of the Holy Mother of God. The original has not reached us. Only lists compiled in the 12th century are known. (Synodal and Olenets editions).
The charter acts as an agreement between the prince (Vladimir Svyatoslavovich) and the metropolitan (presumably Lyon). According to the charter, initially - the prince:
a) patron of the church (protects the church and provides it financially);
b) does not interfere in the affairs of the church;
Tithes are determined for the existence of the church. According to the charter, the prince owes 1/10 of the funds received from:
Court cases;
In the form of tribute from other tribes; give to the church
From trade.
Like the prince, each house also had to give 1/10 of the offspring, income from trade, and harvest to the church.
The charter was drawn up under the strong influence of the Byzantine church, as evidenced by the content of the articles regarding the definition of the crime.
The purpose of the charter is to establish the Christian Church in the Old Russian state. The provisions of Vladimir’s charter “On tithes, courts and church people” are aimed at:
* preservation of family and marriage, affirmation of the inviolability of family ties;
* protection of the church, church symbols and Christian church order;
* fight against pagan rituals.
Collections of Byzantine church law (nomocanons) distributed in the Old Russian state were of great importance. Subsequently, on their basis, with the involvement of norms from Russian and Bulgarian sources, “helmsman” (guiding) books were compiled in Rus' as sources of church law.
Thus, after the adoption of Christianity (988), the church acts as an element of the state.
In the 9th century. Secular law is also being developed. Collections of law appear, containing legal material accumulated by the princely and communal courts. More than 110 such collections have reached us. various lists. These collections were called "Russian Truth" or "Russian Law". Russian historians, based on their similarity to each other, united them into 3 editions:
1. Brief truth (KP).
2. Extensive truth (PP).
3. Short truth (SP).
Some lists are named by location:
* Synodal - kept in the library of the Synod;
* Trinity - kept in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra;
* Academic - kept in the library of the Academy of Sciences.
The short truth is divided into 2 parts:
1. The most ancient truth (see art. 1-18) - compiled in the 30s. XI century
Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054), therefore known as Yaroslav's Truth. It contains norms of customary law (for example, blood feud), and the privilege of feudal lords is not sufficiently expressed (the same punishment is established for the murder of any person).
2. Truth of the Yaroslavichs (see art. 19-43), compiled in the 70s. XI century, when Yaroslav’s son Izyaslav (1054-1072) reigned in Kyiv. The truth of the Yaroslavichs reflects a higher level of development of the feudal state: the princely property and persons of the administration are protected; instead of blood feud, a monetary penalty is established, and it varies depending on class status.
The lengthy truth was compiled during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125). It consists of 2 main parts:
1. Charter of Yaroslav, including the short truth(see art. 1-52) "Court Yaroslavl Volodemerech."
2. Charter of Vladimir Monomakh (see art. 53-121) “Charter of Volodemer Vsevolodovich.”
In this document:
* feudal law is fully formalized as a privilege;
* civil law, criminal law, judicial system and legal proceedings are regulated in more detail;
* articles appear on the protection of boyar estates, on the relationship between feudal lords and purchases, and on stinkers.
The abridged truth arose in the 15th century. from Prostranstnaya Pravda and operated in the Moscow state.
In addition to the Russian Pravda, the sources of secular law in Rus' are Russian-Byzantine treaties, which contain not only norms of international law, but also norms regulating internal life. There are 4 known treaties between Rus' and Byzantium: 907, 911, 944 and 971. The treaties testify to the high international authority of the Old Russian state. Much attention is paid to the regulation of trade relations.
The main source of ancient Russian feudal law is "Russian Truth". The main part of it is devoted to criminal and procedural law, however, there are articles containing norms of civil law, especially obligations and inheritance.
Let's briefly look at the contents of "Russian Truth" according to the scheme:
* ownership;
* law of obligations;
* inheritance law;
* procedural law;
* Crime and Punishment.
The Brief Truth does not. general term, denoting ownership, because the content of this right was different depending on who was the subject and what was meant by the object of the property right. At the same time, a line was drawn between the right of ownership and the right of possession (see Art. 13-14 KP).
In "Russkaya Pravda" considerable attention is paid to the protection private property feudal lords Strict liability is provided for damage to boundary signs, plowing of boundaries, arson, and cutting down of berm trees. Among property crimes, much attention is paid to theft ("theft"), i.e. secret theft of things.
The Prostransnaya Pravda enshrines the property rights of feudal lords over serfs, including the procedure for finding, detaining, and returning a runaway serf, and establishes responsibility for harboring a serf. Those who gave bread to a slave (as well as for harboring) had to pay the price of a slave - 5 hryvnia of silver (slaves cost from 5 to 12 hryvnia). The one who caught the slave received a reward - 1 hryvnia, but if he missed him, he paid the price of the slave minus 1 hryvnia (see Art. 113, 114).
In connection with the development of private property, inheritance law is formed and developed. In the rules of inheritance law, the desire of the legislator to preserve property in a given family is clearly visible. With its help, the wealth accumulated by many generations of owners remained in the hands of the same class.
By law, only sons could inherit. The father's courtyard passed to the youngest son without division. (Article 100 PP). Daughters were deprived of the right to inherit because when they got married, they could take property outside their clan. This custom existed among all peoples in transition period from the primitive communal system to class society. It is also reflected in Russkaya Pravda.
With the strengthening of princely power, the position “If the prince dies childless, then the prince inherits, if unmarried daughters remain in the house, then allocate a certain part for them, but if she is married, then do not give them a part” (Article 90 PP).
An exception was made for the daughters of boyars and warriors (later the clergy), artisans and community members; their inheritance, in the absence of sons, could pass to their daughters (Article 91 PP). Children adopted by a slave did not participate in the inheritance, but received freedom along with their mother (Article 98 PP).
Until the heirs came of age, their mother managed the inherited property. If a widowed mother got married, she received part of the property “for subsistence.” In this case, a guardian from the immediate family was appointed. The property was transferred in front of witnesses. If the guardian lost part of the property, he had to compensate.
There was a difference between inheritance by law and by will. The father could divide property between his sons at his own discretion, but could not bequeath to his daughters.
The dominance of private property led to the emergence of the law of obligations. It was relatively underdeveloped. Obligations arose not only from contracts, but also from causing harm: damage to a fence, unauthorized riding on someone else's horse, damage to clothing or weapons, death of the master's horse due to the fault of the purchase, etc. In these cases, not a civil claim (compensation), but a fine arose. The obligations extended not only to the debtor's property, but also to his person.
According to Russian Pravda, a bona fide bankrupt (merchant) was not sold into slavery, but received installments from the creditor. The malicious bankrupt was sold with all his property into slavery.
The obligations from the treaties were also reflected in Russkaya Pravda. Agreements, as a rule, were concluded orally in the presence of rumors or mytnik (witnesses). In "Russkaya Pravda" contracts were known: purchase and sale, loan, luggage (loan agreement between merchants), personal hiring, procurement.
Criminal law in the Old Russian state was formed as a right-privilege, but shades of more early period. It is reflected in Russian-Byzantine treaties and Russian Pravda.
The peculiarity of "Russian Truth" is that it punishes only intentional crimes or causing harm. (Crimes committed through negligence were reflected only in the 17th century in the “Cathedral Code”). In "Russian Truth" a crime is called "offense", which means causing moral, material or physical damage. This stemmed from the understanding of “offense” in ancient times, when offending an individual meant insulting a tribe, community or clan. But with the emergence of feudalism, compensation for damage for a crime (offense) went not in favor of society, but of the prince.
Only free people were responsible. The owner was responsible for the slaves. “If the thieves are slaves... whom the prince does not punish with sale, because they are not free people, then for slave theft they will pay double the agreed price and compensation for losses” (Article 46).
The types of crimes provided for by "Russian Truth" can be divided into:
a) crimes against the person;
b) crimes against property or property crimes;
The first group includes murder, insult by action, bodily harm, and beatings.
There was a distinction between murder in a quarrel (fight) or while intoxicated (at a feast) and murder by robbery, i.e. premeditated murder. In the first case, the perpetrator paid the criminal fine together with the community, and in the second case, the community not only did not pay the fine, but was obliged to hand over the murderer along with his wife and children to “flood and ruin.”
Insult by action, physical insult (blow with a stick, pole, hand, sword, etc.) was punishable by “Russian Truth”, and insult by word was considered by the church.
Bodily injuries included injury to a hand (“so that the hand falls off and withers”), damage to a leg (“it will begin to limp”), an eye, a nose, and the cutting off of fingers. Battery included beating a person until they were bloody and bruised.
Crimes against honor included pulling out mustaches and beards, for which a large fine was imposed (12 hryvnias of silver).
The second group includes crimes: robbery, theft (theft), destruction of other people's property, damage to boundary signs, etc.
Robbery associated with murder was punished by “deluge and ruin.” According to the “Russian Truth,” theft is considered to be the theft of a horse, a serf, weapons, clothes, livestock, hay, firewood, a rook, etc. For the theft of a horse, a “horse thief” was supposed to hand over a professional horse thief to the prince for “flood and ruin” (Article 35).
For a simple (one-time) theft of a prince's horse, a penalty of 3 hryvnia was imposed, and for a stink - 2 hryvnia (Article 45). The thief could be killed on the spot (v. 40). But if he was tied up and then killed, then 12 hryvnia was collected.
Punishments according to “Russian Truth” provided, first of all, for compensation for damage. The Pravda of Yaroslav provided for blood feud on the part of the relatives of the victim (Article 1). The Yaroslavichs abolished blood feud.
Instead of revenge for the murder of a free person, a vira was established - a monetary penalty in the amount of 40 hryvnia. For the murder of the “princely husband” compensation was established in the amount of double vira - 80 hryvnia. For the murder of a smerd or a serf, the penalty was not vira, but a fine (lesson) of 5 hryvnia.
Among the monetary penalties for murder are vira in favor of the prince and golovnichestvo (usually vira) in favor of the family of the murdered person, for other crimes - sale in favor of the prince and a lesson in favor of the victim. “Wild vira” was exacted from the community in case of refusal to extradite the criminal.
The highest punishment according to Russian truth is white flow and ruin - conversion (sale) into slavery and confiscation of property in favor of the prince. This punishment was applied for 4 types of crime: horse theft, arson, murder by robbery and malicious bankruptcy.
The proceedings were adversarial in nature. The main role in court belonged to the parties. The process was a lawsuit (dispute) between the parties before a judge. The court acted as an arbitrator and made a decision orally. Peculiar forms of this process were “cry”, “vault” and “pursuit of the trail”.
The evidence was the testimony of rumors, videos, ordeals, court battles, and the oath.
History of the Russian state and law: Cheat sheet Author unknown
4. POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE
The Old Russian state took shape until the first third of the 12th century. existed as monarchy From a formal point of view, it was not limited. But in historical and legal literature the concept of “unlimited monarchy” is usually identified with Western absolute monarchy XV–XIX centuries Therefore, to denote the form of government European countries In the early Middle Ages they began to use a special concept - “early feudal monarchy”
The Grand Duke of Kiev organized a squad and military militia, commanded them, took care of protecting the borders of the state, led military campaigns to conquer new tribes, establish and collect tribute from them, administered justice, directed diplomacy, implemented legislation, and managed his economy. The Kyiv princes were assisted in their administration by posadniks, volostels, tiuns and other representatives of the administration. A circle of trusted persons from among relatives, warriors and tribal nobility gradually formed around the prince (boyar council).
The local princes were “in obedience” to the Kyiv Grand Duke. They sent him an army and handed over to him part of the tribute collected from the subject territory. The lands and principalities, ruled by local princely dynasties dependent on the Kyiv princes, were gradually transferred to the sons of the Grand Duke, which strengthened the centralized Old Russian state until its greatest prosperity in the middle of the 11th century. during the reign of Prince. Yaroslav the Wise.
To characterize the shape government structure Kievan Rus usually uses the expression “relatively single state", which cannot be classified as either unitary or federal.
With the development of feudalism, the decimal system of government (thousands - sotskys - tens) was replaced by a palace-patrimonial system (voivode, tiuns, firemen, elders, stewards and other princely officials).
The weakening (over time) of the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv and the growth of the power of large feudal landowners became the reasons for the creation of such a form of state power body as feudal (princely with the participation of some boyars and Orthodox priests) congresses (snapshots). Snems decided the most important questions: about military campaigns, about legislation.
Veche meetings were usually held in emergency situations: for example, war, urban uprising, coup d'etat. Veche- the people's assembly - arose in the pre-state period of development of East Slavic society and, as princely power strengthened and feudalism became established, it lost its importance, except for Novgorod and Pskov.
The body of local peasant self-government was the rope- a rural territorial community that performed, in particular, administrative and judicial functions.
From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the 16th century. 6th grade author Chernikova Tatyana Vasilievna§ 3. CREATION OF AN ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE 1. In the south near Kiev, Domestic and Byzantine sources name two centers of East Slavic statehood: the northern one, formed around Novgorod, and the southern one, around Kyiv. The author of "The Tale of Bygone Years" proudly
From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century author Milov Leonid VasilievichChapter 19. Political system and public administration of the Russian state in the 17th century
From the book History of the Ancient East author Lyapustin Boris SergeevichThe socio-political system and the fall of the Shang-Yin state The core of the Yin state was the territory of the Shang tribe. Judging by the finds in the tombs of Anyang, among the Shans of this time there were four quite clearly delimited from each other by class and
author§ 2. FORMATION OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE The concept of “state”. There is a widespread idea that the state is a special apparatus of social coercion that regulates class relations, ensures the dominance of one class over other social
From the book History of Russia [for students of technical universities] author Shubin Alexander Vladlenovich§ 1. DISCOVERY OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE By the beginning of the period specific fragmentation(XII century) Kievan Rus was social system with the following symptoms:? the state maintained its administrative-territorial unity;? this unity was ensured
From the book Reforms of Ivan the Terrible. (Essays on socio-economic and political history Russia XVI V.) author Zimin Alexander AlexandrovichChapter IV POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE RUSSIAN STATE ON THE EVE OF REFORM The Russian centralized state of the first half of the 16th century. was an apparatus of violence ruling class feudal lords.K mid-16th century V. serious changes have clearly emerged in the country's economy,
From the book Slavic Antiquities by Niderle LuborPolitical system of the Slavs The basis of the political system of the ancient Slavs was made up of individual clans and tribes. A clan lived next to a clan, perhaps a tribe lived next to a tribe, and each clan and tribe lived according to its own customs, which developed on the basis of centuries-old traditions. “I name my customs, and
author author unknown2. THE EMERGENCE OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE. PRINCE'S CHARTERS - SOURCES OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN LAW To the middle. 9th century the northern eastern Slavs (Ilmen Slovenes), apparently paid tribute to the Varangians (Normans), and the southern eastern Slavs (Polyans, etc.) in turn paid tribute
From the book History of the Russian State and Law: Cheat Sheet author author unknown12. POLITICAL SYSTEM DURING THE FORMATION OF THE RUSSIAN CENTRALIZED STATE The centralization of the Russian state is marked by a sharp increase in the power of the monarch - the Moscow Grand Duke, and later - the Tsar. Since the reign of Ivan III (1440–1505), Moscow monarchs emphasized
From book The World History. Volume 3 Age of Iron author Badak Alexander NikolaevichPolitical system of Sparta The political system was based on strict regulation of the duties and rights of a citizen, forming a multi-stage regulation of life. First of all, the public education of the child was provided for as a condition for obtaining civil rights.
author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna1 FORMATION OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE Currently, two main versions about the origin of the East Slavic state retain their influence in historical science. The first was called Norman. Its essence is as follows: the Russian state
From book National history. Crib author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna12 POLITICAL SYSTEM AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE MOSCOW STATE XV-XVI CENTURIES The process of unification of the North-Eastern and Northwestern Rus' ended by the end of the 15th century. The resulting centralized state began to be called Russia. Central power in the country
From the book Baptism of Rus' author Dukhopelnikov Vladimir MikhailovichFormation of the Old Russian state Gradually, the East Slavic tribes form tribal unions, they become acquainted with Western European and eastern countries. The author of “The Tale of Bygone Years” speaks about this in some detail: “In distant times,” writes
From the book History of the Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes. Volume one author Team of authors1. FORMATION OF THE OLD RUSSIAN STATE Chronicle information about the beginning of the Old Russian state. The problem of the emergence of Kievan Rus is one of the most important and relevant in Russian historiography. Already the chronicler Nestor in the Tale of Bygone Years, responding to
author Moryakov Vladimir Ivanovich6. The political system of the Russian state at the end of the 15th century - early XVI century The process of forming a unified territory of the Russian state was inextricably linked with the creation of a system of all-Russian government. At the head of the state was the Moscow Grand Duke,
From the book History of Russia IX–XVIII centuries. author Moryakov Vladimir Ivanovich2. Political system B political system Russia in the 17th century significant changes are taking place. Estate-representative monarchy with the Boyar Duma, Zemsky Sobors and local government bodies evolved into an absolute bureaucratic-noble monarchy.
INTRODUCTION
1. FORMATION OF THE RUSSIAN STATE IN THE IX - EARLY XII CENTURIES.
1.1 Prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state
2. FEATURES OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM OF ANCIENT Rus'
2.1 Social structure of Ancient Rus'
3. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE
4. MAIN RESULTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EASTERN SLAVIC STATE
CONCLUSION
LIST OF SOURCES AND REFERENCES USED
INTRODUCTION
One of largest states European Middle Ages became in the 9th-12th centuries. Kievan Rus. The state is usually understood as a mechanism political power: 1) in a certain territory; 2) with a certain system of controls; 3) with the necessary action of laws and 4) the formation of enforcement bodies (the squad - functions: external - protection from external invasions and internal (police) - suppression of resistance within the state). The emergence of the state is a natural stage in the development of society. It is influenced by many factors that interact in complex interactions with each other: social, economic, political and spiritual.
The Russian land as a single whole, subject to the Kyiv princes, took shape in the second half of the 9th and early 10th centuries. The main form of unification of tribes was military democracy, which included, along with princely power, such institutions as the veche, the council of elders, civil uprising. As external danger grew and the tribal way of life decomposed, power was concentrated in the hands of tribal leaders - princes, united into larger "unions of unions".
Thus began the formation of a single territorial community - the Russian land, which in its own way political system was a federation of Slavic tribes.
The classics of Russian historiography - N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, V. O. Klyuchevsky - made a significant contribution to the study of the history of Ancient Rus'. The works of other outstanding Russian historians enjoy well-deserved authority and influence. These are, first of all, the works of N. M. Kostomarov, A. A. Kornilov, S. F. Platonov, M. N. Pokrovsky, P. M. Milyukov, V. N. Tatishchev.
1. FORMATION OF RUSSIAN STATE INIX- BEGINNING HP BB.
1.1 Prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state
Unlike other countries, both eastern and western, the formation process Russian statehood had its own specific features:
1. Spatial and geopolitical situation - The Russian state occupied a middle position between Europe and Asia and did not have clearly defined, natural geographical boundaries within a large flat area.
2. During its formation, Rus' acquired the characteristics of both eastern and western state formations.
3. Need for permanent protection from external enemies significant territory forced peoples to unite with different types development, religion, culture, language, create a strong state power and have a people's militia.
In the VII-X centuries. Slavic tribes unite into unions and unions of unions (super unions). The emergence of tribal unions is the final stage in the development of tribal political organization and at the same time the preparatory stage of feudal statehood. The concentration of the germs of statehood also occurred in the political organization of super-unions.
2. FEATURES OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM OF ANCIENT Rus'
Traditionally, the history of the Old Russian state domestic historians divided into three periods.
I period (IX - mid-X century): formation of the state, reign of the first Kyiv princes (Oleg, Igor, Svyatoslav).
II period (second half of the 10th - first half of the 11th century): the era of the heyday of Kievan Rus, its highest power, the reign of Vladimir the Red Sun and Yaroslav the Wise.
III period (second half of the 11th - beginning of the 12th century): a time of territorial and political fragmentation.
The geopolitical space in which Kievan Rus was located was at the junction of different worlds: nomadic and sedentary, Christian and Muslim, pagan and Jewish. The population of Ancient Rus' experienced the powerful influence of multidirectional civilizational factors. Naturally, this affected the history of the state from the very beginning of its formation.
The most important feature of the newly created state was the conquest of the Slavic tribes and their subordination to the Kyiv political center. Under Oleg, the Drevlyans, northerners, and Radimichi began to pay tribute to Kyiv. After his death, the process of annexing lands to Kyiv continued: during the reign of Igor (912-945) and Olga (945-957), the lands of the Ulitches, Tivertsi and, finally, the Drevlyans, who refused to pay double tribute under Igor, were annexed. Igor's wife, Olga, streamlined the collection of tribute by establishing "lessons" - the amount of tribute and "cemeteries" - places for collecting tribute. Igor and Olga probably strengthened the courts of the princely rulers, which then turned into strongholds of princely power.
The formation of the state continued under Svyatoslav (964-972). Researchers differ in their assessments of his personality: some consider him a talented commander and prominent statesman, others consider him a robber of Varangian blood who saw the purpose of life in military campaigns. But, one way or another, Svyatoslav sought to expand the possessions of Rus' and establish trade relations with other countries. He defeated the Volga Bulgaria, defeated the Khazar Kaganate, made successful campaigns in the North Caucasus, the Azov coast, captured Tmutarakan on Taman, repelled the onslaught of the Pechenegs, and concluded a non-aggression pact with Byzantium. In 972 he was ambushed by the Pechenegs and was killed. According to a legend that has survived to this day, the Pechenezh khan ordered a cup, bound in gold, to be made from Svyatoslav’s skull to drink from at feasts in the hope that the prince’s glory would pass to him. Remained in history and famous phrase Svyatoslav, with whom he warned his opponents: “I’m coming at you.”
Under Vladimir (980-1015), all the lands of the Eastern Slavs united as part of Kievan Rus, and the prince himself, having finally subjugated the Kaganate, took the title "Kagan", i.e. tsar. A single Russian state was created, which acted as a subject of a huge Eurasian region, which contained such powerful states as Byzantium and the Arab Caliphate.
Vladimir shifts the center of gravity in his activities from organizing long-distance predatory campaigns to strengthening Kyiv’s power over East Slavic tribes. The transition to settled life in the capital was serious step towards the feudalization of the state. Royal monarchs of the time largely ruled their countries from their capitals. Vladimir, although he made military campaigns, never remained in the conquered lands, but returned to Kyiv. His campaigns were dictated by the needs of the state. Construction defensive structures along the rivers Desna, Osetra, Sula, Stugna also indicated that he intended to live permanently in the capital and protect it from nomads. A calm atmosphere in the capital was the key to successful government reforms.
Most historians view Kievan Rus as an early feudal state. It was headed by a hereditary prince who kept a “herd” in Kyiv. The princes of the subject lands were subordinate to him. Princely sons and senior warriors received control of the largest centers, which became the capitals of the appanages into which Rus' was divided. Appanage princes continued to remain vassals of the Grand Duke of Kyiv. Initially, there were six appanages, then their number grew, but all appanage princes were from the Rurik family. The principle of inheritance in those days was as follows: the throne was passed from brother to brother, from uncle to nephew (but it was often violated by the father, who passed the throne to his son or other relatives). In general, this principle of inheritance did not contribute to strengthening the political stability of the state.
The Kiev prince served as a legislator, military leader, supreme judge, and tax collector. On all issues, he first consulted with his squad. In his hands, the squad was a means of coercion, control, collection of tribute, protection own interests and the population of the country from enemies. We can talk about the state-forming activities of the squad in the era of the formation of East Slavic statehood. Until the end of the 10th century. the prince depended on the squad and took it into account. However, already at the beginning of his reign, Vladimir stopped replenishing his squad with Scandinavians. According to R.G. Skrynnikov, he “broke the umbilical cord that firmly connected Principality of Kiev with Scandinavia." In the era of Vladimir, the druzhina form of statehood ends. The princes of tribal principalities, the great boyars, apparently constituted the top of the druzhina, which gradually turned into the military-administrative body of society, and later into the class of feudal lords. As for the Normans, their complete Assimilation by the local Slavic population was completed by the beginning of the 11th century.
Economic basis The social system of Ancient Rus' was feudal land tenure. But land in Rus' did not represent a value embodied in monetary terms; it was not a subject of purchase and sale, but acted as a patrimony - the common, collective property of the clan. Feudal fiefdom(“fatherland”) was inherited from father to son. The estate was owned by a prince or boyar. The main function of the prince was to “keep his fatherland.” The boyars were the prince's vassals, obliged to serve in his army. They, as the masters of their territory, had less noble vassals subordinate to them. The same relationships were typical for Western Europe, which indicated the similarity of development trends between Rus' and the West. The boyars were formed from the clan and tribal nobility or the top of the princely squad. There was no strict isolation of the feudal elite in Rus'; patriarchal life was preserved, and the institution of private property was not developed.
AND I. Froyanov believes that the feudalization of ancient Russian society was carried out through the formation of a patrimonial economy and a feudally dependent population working in it. A noticeable increase in patrimonial holdings occurred during the 11th-12th centuries. But the dominant position in the economy of Rus' in the 16th-13th centuries. occupied communal land ownership. The Old Russian nobility associated their ideas about wealth primarily with jewelry and money, and not with land.
At first, the population of the estate consisted of slaves and semi-free categories of dependent population. And only from the second half of the 11th century. feudal elements appear in the estate. Modern concept the genesis of feudalism in Russia is based on the ideas of academician L.V. Tcherepnin, who argued that feudalism in Rus' was initially established in the form of supreme state ownership of land, personified in the person of the prince. The exploitation of peasants was carried out with the help of centralized feudal rent (first labor rent, then quit-rent in kind), and private feudal land ownership began to develop only in the 12th century.
The main difference between feudalism in Rus' and the West was the enormous role of the “public sector” in the country’s economy - the presence of territorial communities of free peasants who paid taxes to the Grand Duke. In Europe in the X-XIII centuries. There was a destruction of community structures, a process of class formation was underway based on the allocation of private property.
The Scandinavians called Rus' Gardarika - the Country of Cities due to the large number of cities and vibrant city life. The genesis of the city begins with the formation ancient Russian statehood. At an early stage, cities arose on the basis of tribal and intertribal centers. From the second half of the 10th century. The centers of the volosts into which the territory of the Old Russian state was divided became cities. Typical features of the city were considered to be the presence of a fortress, courtyards of feudal lords, a craft estate, trade, administration and churches.
In the 1980s experts came to the conclusion that the ancient Russian city is a permanent locality, in which from the vast rural district - the volost - most of what was produced there was collected, processed and redistributed: the surplus product, i.e. the city was a center of crafts and trade. The connection with the vast agricultural district distinguished the city from the castle of a feudal lord, churchyard or ordinary volost center. However, most scientists agree that cities in Rus', unlike Europe (where they were the center of crafts, trade, culture), primarily played the role of political centers and military strongholds.
2.1 Social structure of Ancient Rus'
The social structure of Ancient Rus' was complex. The bulk rural population, dependent on the prince, were called smerds. They lived both in peasant communities and in estates. Ruined peasants took out a loan from the feudal lords - "kupa" (money, harvest, etc.), hence their name - purchases. A person who lost his social status became an outcast. In the position of slaves were servants and serfs, replenished from among the captives and ruined fellow tribesmen.
The dependent people were opposed by a free population called people (hence the collection of tribute - “polyudye”). The social elite consisted of princes from the Rurik family, surrounded by a squad that had been divided since the 11th century. into the eldest (boyars) and the younger ("children's", youths, almsmen). “The new druzhina and zemstvo (zemstvo boyars) nobility, which took the place of the former tribal nobility, represented a kind of aristocratic stratum that supplied political leaders.” Free population consisted mainly of residents of cities and villages, community members, who created a significant part of public wealth. They were the social core of the socio-political and military organization in the Old Russian state. This was expressed as follows.
The free community members had their own military organization, which was far superior in combat power to the princely squad. It was a people's militia led by a leader - the thousand (the militia itself was called "thousand"). The supreme authority in the Russian lands of the X-XII centuries. there was a people's assembly of the "elder city" - the veche, which was the highest form of self-government. According to L.I. Semennikova, the ideal of popular rule and collective communal government dominated in ancient Russian society: “The prince in Kievan Rus was not in in every sense words by the sovereign neither in the eastern nor in the western version... Arriving in one or another volost, the prince had to conclude a “row” (agreement) with the people’s assembly - “veche”. This means that he was also an element of communal power, called upon to safeguard the interests of society and the collective; The composition of the meeting was democratic. The Old Russian nobility did not have the necessary means to completely subjugate him. With the help of the veche, the people influenced the course of social political life"
Opinion of L.I. Semennikova’s opinion about the folk character of the veche is shared by many scientists, including I.Ya. Froyanov, A.Yu. Dvornichenko. At the same time, in science there is a view of the veche as a narrow-class government body that ordinary people could not get into (V.T. Pashuto, V.L. Yanin, etc.). Another point of view boils down to the following: the veche became a relic in Rus' by the 11th century. and was collected in exceptional cases, and as the highest form of power it was until the 15th century. existed only in Novgorod, Pskov and partly in Polotsk.
The veche played a prominent role in the political life of Ancient Rus', therefore the political system of that time can be called veche democracy.
Analysis of the socio-political situation in Kievan Rus leads to the conclusion that the people were active political and social force, based on traditions of freedom and social institutions dating back to antiquity, but built on a territorial basis. Through the veche, the people often decided which of the princes to “sit on the table”, discussed issues of war and peace, acted as a mediator in princely conflicts, and resolved financial and land problems. As for the nobility, it has not yet emerged as a separate closed class, has not turned into a social whole opposing the bulk of the population.
3. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE
The Old Russian state in its form of government is early feudal monarchy. Except monarchical element, which is undoubtedly the basis, political organization Russian principalities Kyiv period also had a combination aristocratic And democratic board.
Monarchical the element was prince. The head of the state was the Grand Duke of Kiev, who, however, in Ancient Rus' was not an autocratic ruler (but rather was “first among equals”). His brothers, sons and warriors carried out: 1) government of the country, 2) court, 3) collection of tribute and duties.
The prince's main function was military; his first duty was the defense of the city from external enemies. Other functions include judicial. He appointed local judges to hear cases among his wards. In important cases he judged himself as the supreme judge.
Aristocratic the element was represented by the Council (Boyar Duma), which included senior warriors - local nobility, representatives of cities, and sometimes the clergy. At the Council, as an advisory body under the prince, the most important state issues were resolved (the full composition of the council was convened if necessary): election of the prince, declaration of war and peace, conclusion of treaties, publication of laws, consideration of a number of judicial and financial cases, etc. The Boyar Duma symbolized rights and autonomy vassals and had the right of veto.
The younger squad, which included boyar children and youths, and courtyard servants, as a rule, were not included in the Prince’s Council. But when resolving the most important tactical issues, the prince usually consulted with the squad as a whole. It is widely believed that the boyars were completely free in their service to the prince. The boyar could always leave his court or enter the service of another prince. However, since the boyars became the owners of land holdings, they could only do so by sacrificing their rights to the land. Sometimes it happened that a boyar who was the owner of land in one principality served the prince of another. But, nevertheless, usually the growth of land holdings forced the boyars to more often combine their interests with the principality where they lived.
With the participation of princes, noble boyars and representatives of cities, they gathered and feudal congresses, at which issues affecting the interests of all principalities were considered. A management apparatus was formed that was in charge of legal proceedings and the collection of duties and tariffs. From among the warriors, the prince appointed posadnikov - governors to govern the city, region; voivode-leaders various military units; thousand - senior officials (in the so-called decimal system of military-administrative division of society, dating back to the pre-state period); land tax collectors - tributaries, court officials - virnikov, entrance, trade tax collectors - Mytnikov. The managers of the princely patrimonial farm also stood out from the squad - tiuns(later they became special government officials and were included in the public administration system).
Democratic element governance is found in the city assembly, known as the veche. It was not a body of representatives, but a meeting of all adult men. Unanimity was necessary to make any decision. In practice, it happened that this demand led to armed clashes between groups arguing at the meeting. The losing side was forced to agree with the winners' decision. The veche in the capital of the principality influenced the veche less major cities. In the XI-XII centuries. The veche fell under the influence of the social elite, losing the functions of management and self-government.
An important feature of Kievan Rus, which emerged as a result of constant danger, especially from the steppe nomads, was the general armament of the people, organized according to the decimal system (hundreds, thousands). It was the numerous people's militia that often decided the outcome of battles, and it was subordinate not to the prince, but to the veche. But as a democratic institution it was already in the 11th century. began to gradually lose its dominant role, retaining its strength for several centuries only in Novgorod, Kyiv, Pskov and other cities, while continuing to exert a noticeable influence on the course of the socio-political life of the Russian land.
4. MAIN RESULTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EASTERN SLAVIC STATE
In the process of development from a tribal system to a state, the socio-political structure of the Eastern Slavs went through three main periods:
1) intertribal associations - VIII-IX centuries;
2) the emergence of the state as a political union of autonomous tribal principalities, the princes of which were subordinate to the Kyiv prince - the end of the 9th - first half of the 10th century;
3) formation of the state - mid - second half of the 10th century;
Its main features:
a) public power in the form of the princely dynasty of Rurikovich with the apparatus of princely administrative and judicial administration with a gradual decrease in the role of the veche;
b) territorial division not by tribes, but by volosts with cities and churchyards, replacing tribal relations with territorial ones;
c) a fixed tax system ("podymnoye" - from the house to give a squirrel, marten, etc.; "polyudye" - tribute, gift, cart) and the beginning of land taxation in the form of rent.
These socio-political processes received ideological form in the adoption of Christianity as the state religion. The created state can be characterized as early feudal, in which the process of the genesis of feudalism has not yet been completed. The class of landowners-feudal lords was economically and politically dominant, but the free peasantry remained.
Unity Kyiv land rested on the strength of the Kyiv squads, on the unity of the princely family and the church, on the commonality of geopolitical interests of the Eastern Slavs, their ethnic kinship, similarity of social structure and mentality. Thus, the role of wealth was reduced to a large extent to a way of increasing prestige. Princes and nobles spent their wealth on organizing feasts, donations, giving alms, etc. The ideals of society and princes coincided. Pious princes were loved not only during life, but also after death, transferring their love and affection to their descendants. Their memory lived on for centuries in the popular consciousness, being a reflection of the ideal of deep, harmonious interpenetration of the people and the government, developed Eastern Slavs in ancient times and most consistent with the historical aspirations and aspirations of the Russian people.
Some scientists place the beginning of the formation of feudalism in Rus' beyond the boundaries of the Old Russian period. From their point of view, from the 9th to the first third of the 13th century. Russian society had a complex transitional character. It was no longer tribal, but not yet early feudal. M. Froyanov defines it as “pre-feudal”. The society was organized on a communal-territorial basis with elements social inequality in the absence of classes.
Kievan Rus is characterized as a huge inter-tribal super-union with a center in Kyiv, which in the 11th-12th centuries. breaks up into independent city-states surrounded by numerous rural communities. Friendly relations persisted until the 14th century, remaining the antipode of feudal relations.
The basis of political life was direct democracy, expressed in the direct participation of the population in city public assemblies (veche). Thus, Ancient Rus' provided the first examples of Russian democracy, which were preserved until the Mongol invasion.
The basic structure of ancient Russian civilization was the territorial community in various forms (from urban to rural). Ancient Rus' was part of Europe and developed at the same pace and in the same direction. The country was distinguished by internal cohesion and national unity. It was a time of great achievements, a “heroic era,” an epic kingdom. By the 11th century. the name "Rus" acquired ethno-state significance. Within the boundaries of a single Old Russian state, the formation of the Old Russian nationality was completed.
“The Old Russian state that emerged on the eastern tip of the European continent played an outstanding role in shaping the appearance of medieval Europe as a whole, its political structure, international relations, its economic evolution, culture. It influenced in the 9th-11th centuries. on the position of Byzantium, the Khazar Khaganate. The Bulgarian states on the Volga and in the Balkans, protected Central and Western Europe from the nomadic Pechenegs and Polovtsians, and with their fight against the German invaders for a long time changed the balance of forces in the Baltic, Central and Northern Europe".
CONCLUSION
So you can do the following conclusions:
Russians political institutions Kyiv period were based on a free society. There were no insurmountable barriers between different social groups of free people, there were no hereditary castes or classes, and it was still easy to leave one group and find yourself in another.
The main social groups of this period:
1) upper classes- princes, boyars and other owners of large land estates, rich merchants in cities. The princes were at the top of the social ladder. In addition to the princely boyars - governors, governors of the regions, there was also a tribal aristocracy - “deliberate children”: children of former local princes, clan and tribal elders, relatives of the first two groups. In general, the boyars were a group of heterogeneous origins. Its basis was made up of the descendants of the old clan aristocracy of the Antes. Some of the boyars, especially in Novgorod, came from merchant families. With the growth of princely power in Kyiv, the princely entourage became an important factor in the formation of the boyar class.
2) middle class - merchants and craftsmen (in cities), owners of medium and small estates (in rural areas). In the IX-X centuries. merchants were closely connected with the princely power, since the princes who collected tribute themselves organized trade expeditions to sell this tribute in Constantinople or somewhere in the East. Later, “private” merchants appeared. A significant part of them were small traders (like later peddlers). Rich merchants carried out large operations inside and outside Rus'. Less wealthy merchants founded their own guilds or formed family companies.
Craftsmen each specialty usually settled and traded on the same street, forming their own association or “street” guild. In other words, artisans united into professional groups of one type or another, which later became known as artels.
3) With the growth of the church, a new social group appeared, the so-called church people. This group included not only the clergy and members of their families, but also members of various charitable institutions supported by the church, as well as freed slaves. The Russian clergy was divided into two groups: the “black clergy” (i.e., monks) and the “white clergy” (priests and deacons).
4) lower classes - the poorest artisans and peasants who inhabited state lands. In addition to free people, there were also semi-free and slaves in Kievan Rus. The free population of Rus' was usually called "People". The bulk of it were peasants. In addition to the communal landowners, there was also a group of peasants who lived on state lands known as stinks. They had to pay a state tax (the so-called tribute), which was not paid by city residents or middle-class landowners. If the smerd did not have a son, the land was returned to the prince. TO dependent categories of peasantry included procurement- people who took a kupa (in debt). The most powerless members of society were serfs And servants.
LIST OF SOURCES AND REFERENCES USED
1. Ganelin R. Sh., Kulikov S. V. Main sources on the history of Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries: Tutorial. M, 2000
2. History of Russia from antiquity to the present day: A guide for applicants to universities/I. V. Volkova, M. M. Gorinov, A. A. Gorsky and others; edited by M.N.Zueva. M., 2006
3. History of Russia: Textbook for universities / Ed. M. N. Zueva, A. A. Chernobaeva. M., 2001
4. Kirillov V.V., Kulagina G.M. History of the Fatherland from ancient times to the present day. M., 2000
5. Novikov I.V. History of Russia in questions and answers. From Ancient Rus' to the Time of Troubles. M., 1998
6. Russian history: Textbook for universities / G. B. Polyak, A. N. Markova, N. V. Krivtsova and others; edited by acad. G. B. Polyak. M., 2007
7. Skrynnikov R.G. Rus' IX-XVII centuries. St. Petersburg; M.; Kharkiv; Minsk, 1999
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.