In the IX-X centuries. a ruling class was formed feudal lords, which included: the Grand Duke of Kiev, local princes, boyars (from the senior squad), junior squad and “servants under the court,” white (parish) and black (monastic) clergy.
A princely domain, the possession of local princes, and boyar-druzhina landholdings appeared. Feudal landholdings increased due to both grand and princely grants and the seizure of empty lands and lands of community members. Monasteries and churches also became large landowners.
The feudal lords were interconnected by a system of vassal relations based on the hierarchical structure of feudal land tenure. The Grand Duke relied on the lesser princes and boyars, and they sought his protection during military skirmishes. The boyars from the prince's military comrades began to turn into landowners - the prince's vassals. The boyars as a special feudal class took shape in the 11th-12th centuries.
Special privileges were assigned to the feudal lords: for the murder of princely men, a double penalty was exacted - 80 hryvnia (twice as much as for the murder of a simple free person); boyars and warriors enjoyed privileges when transferring property by inheritance (in the absence of sons, they had the right to transfer inheritance to daughters); only feudal lords - princes, boyars and the church - could have ownership of land; they did not pay tribute, etc.
Also in Kievan Rus there were: free peasants-communists, free urban population, feudal-dependent population, slaves.
Free community members- people were personally free, paid tribute to the state (polyudye) - initially tribute was paid from the smoke (house). High taxes, levies, and duties were imposed on the community; its lands were seized, thus intensifying the processes of transforming community members into feudal-dependent peasants.
Urban population was divided into urban aristocracy (princes, boyars, high clergy, merchants, units - merchants engaged in foreign trade) and the urban lower classes (artisans, small traders, ordinary clergy), who were personally free, paid tribute (with the exception of the clergy).
Feudal-dependent(but not yet serfs, since they were not attached to the land and personality of the feudal lord) the population included the following categories. Smerda(as part of the dependent peasants - Yushkov’s point of view, while B. Grekov believed that smerds are all villager) were personally free, could move to a strong patron, and ran their own household together with their family; the prince gave the smerd land on the condition that he would work for him; in the event of the death of a smerd who had no sons, the land was returned to the prince; for the right to own an independent farm, the smerd paid tribute to the prince; he could become service man prince - a youth, a child, a headman; for his debts he was in danger of becoming a purchaser; smerdas lived in communities - ropes connected mutual guarantee and a mutual aid system.
Purchases- people who fell into debt bondage and were obliged by their work in the household of the lender (the “master”) to return the “buy” received from him (however, the labor of purchasing was only used to pay interest on the debt; he could not work off the “buy” itself); they performed rural work, the feudal lord provided them with land plots, tools and livestock; they could not leave their “master”; for the theft committed by a purchaser, his master was responsible, but the purchaser became a complete slave (as in the case of an escape); the landowner could subject the purchaser to corporal punishment “for the cause” (but could not beat him “without guilt”); it was forbidden to sell purchases to slaves; the procurement could act as a witness in court in minor cases; The purchaser could file a complaint against his master in court.
Outcasts(two types - free and dependent) - people deprived of their previous condition; usually these are slaves who have been bought into freedom; They, as a rule, did not break ties with their master, remaining under his authority, but there were also those who, having freed themselves, left their master.
Feudal dependents also include: (1) freedmen (recognized as personally free); (2) suffocating people; (3) supplicants; (4) patrimonial artisans.
Slaves.(1) servants - captive slaves; were completely powerless (Russkaya Pravda equates them to cattle); (2) serfs - a fellow tribesman who fell into slavery as a result of self-sale, marriage to a slave “without a family”, taking the position of a tiun or housekeeper “without a row”, or being sold into slavery for debts.
Old Russian state developed and existed as early feudal monarchy. It was headed by the Grand Duke of Kiev, to whom the local rulers - his vassals - were subordinate.
In its development, the Old Russian state went through two main stages:
- (1) the first stage (late 9th - 10th centuries) - the period of the creation of the early feudal monarchy;
- (2) the second stage (late 10th - 1st half of the 11th century) - the heyday of Kievan Rus.
In the second half of the 11th century. There was a tendency towards feudal fragmentation, and at the end of the first third of the 12th century. The Old Russian state broke up into a number of principalities and lands.
At the first stage of development of the Old Russian state, a decimal control system. The head of state was Grand Duke of Kyiv, initially whose functions were to organize squads and military militias, command them, take care of border protection, and lead military campaigns. The power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv was transferred to the heirs according to the so-called “leaf law,” when the princely table was inherited not by the prince’s eldest son, but by the eldest in the princely family (for example, the prince’s brother).
The Grand Duke of Kiev ruled the country with the help squads, which was divided into senior and junior. From the senior squad (boyars and princely husbands) was formed council under the prince- members of the council were called Duma members, and mayors were also appointed major centers countries. The younger squad (youths, gridi, boyar children) acted as an armed force.
After the annexation of new lands to Kyiv, the Kyiv princes stationed their garrisons in the tribal centers: in major cities- large garrison - thousand(under the command of the thousand, to whom the sotskys were subordinate), in small ones - smaller garrisons under the command of the sotskys and tens. Gradually thousand, Sotsky And tenths Administrative functions also appeared: maintaining order in the city, trade and police functions, judicial functions. This is how it was formed decimal (or numerical) control system.
The princes appointed to the most important cities mayors- from the boyars and other “good men”, the prince’s plenipotentiary representatives on the ground, judged, collected tribute and duties, were in charge of police affairs, and led the military forces of the cities. In rural areas that were part of the princely domain, the princes appointed governors - volostels.
Assistants to mayors and volosts - tiuns, swordsmen, mytniks, bridgemen, virniks etc. - were supported by taxes from the population. This control system was called feeding.
Local princes were in obedience to the Kyiv prince, deployed an army at his call, and transferred to him part of the tribute collected from the subject territory. This is a relationship of suzerainty - vassalage.
In order to strengthen the centralization of the state apparatus, Prince Vladimir abolished the power of local princes, ending the autonomy of the lands. All the highest levels of the feudal hierarchy ended up in the hands of one princely family, whose representatives, having become large farmers, were in a relationship of vassalage - suzerainty with their overlord (the Grand Duke of Kyiv). These relations were regulated by agreements - letters of the cross, according to which the overlord allocated land to the vassal. Suzerainty in Kievan Rus was designated by the word “eldership”: local princes, as descendants of the great Kyiv prince, enjoyed the rights to inherit princely power.
On initial stage development of the Old Russian state law enforcement tasks were entrusted to the squad - the mayor and his subordinate tribute officers, Mytniks, Virniks.
Members of the princely squad - the sneaker and the swordsman, mentioned by Russkaya Pravda - had special detective powers. The Yabednik, standing out among other vigilantes for his knowledge of laws and legal customs, organized legal proceedings. A swordsman is a person who was attached to the mayor to capture and bring to court those accused of committing any crimes.
The squad was also sent to suppress rebellions against the authorities. Thus, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, in 945, on the orders of Princess Olga, a squad led by governor Sveneld dealt with the Drevlyans who refused to pay tribute to Kyiv and killed Prince Igor. In 1071, governor Jan Vyshatich and his squad suppressed the famine-induced uprising of the inhabitants of Beloozero; in 1113, the squad of Prince Vladimir Monomakh suppressed the rebellion of the urban lower classes of Kiev.
On the ground in Peaceful time Police functions were performed by sotskys and tens elected by the population, who were subordinate to the princely administration in the person of the thousand.
The fight against crime was organized based on ancient customs self-defense of violated rights(private law form of investigation). This tradition was enshrined in the norms of Russian Pravda, So, Brief edition Russkaya Pravda mentions the “code” procedure (Articles 14 and 16), and the later Long version of Russkaya Pravda also mentions the “call” (Articles 32 and 34) and “persecution of the trail” (Article 77) procedures. A reward was provided for the capture of criminals or fugitive slaves. Thus, the search for the criminal was the job of the victim. If the plaintiff was not there or he did not search for the offender, then the crime remained unpunished. The state did not undertake the responsibility to independently investigate crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice: this is explained by the fact that the crime was considered not as a socially dangerous act, but as an “offense” inflicted on a private individual.
During the second period of development of the Old Russian state (from the end of the 10th century), serious changes took place in the organization and volume of power Prince of Kyiv: he was a military leader, organizer and commander of military forces; he organized guard service on the borders, was in charge of external relations; he led the construction of roads, bridges, organized the protection of trade routes, was in charge of the courts, etc. IN council under the prince In addition to the boyars and “princely men,” representatives of the clergy and the elite of the urban population began to enter.
At the same time, there was a strengthening of power local princes, they headed the administration and troops, and the right of court passed to them.
The decimal control system, which grew out of the druzhina organization, began to be replaced during this period palace-patrimonial control system", all the threads of control were concentrated in the prince (boyar); Anyone who was part of the “prince’s court” (boyar estate) and was in charge of any branch of the economy could also exercise state functions. The ranks of this new system The departments were: voivode - the head of all armed forces of the principality; equer tiun - was in charge of providing the troops with horses; fire butler - manager of the princely court; steward - organized the supply of food to the princely court; falconer; Chashnichy.
Subordinate to the highest palace positions were tiuns And elders.
The palace-patrimonial system of government existed at all levels - both in the grand-ducal domain, and in the possessions of local appanage princes, and in boyar estates. Consequently, there is the emergence of two centers of power - the princely court and the boyar estate, which is associated with the acceleration of processes leading to feudal fragmentation.
The weakening of the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv led to the creation of such a form state power, How feudal congresses). Nationwide councils were convened by the Grand Duke of Kyiv: they dealt with legislation, distributed fiefs, resolved issues of war and peace with foreign countries. Convened and specific shots.
In the Old Russian state, the people's assembly continued to operate - evening: it recruited the people's militia and elected its leaders; executive body there was a Council meeting.
The body of local peasant self-government was rope - rural territorial community. The competence of the vervi included: redistribution of land plots, police supervision, distribution of taxes, resolution of disputes, investigation of crimes and execution of punishments. State control over the activities of the rope was carried out by the prince's clerk. Later, instead of an elected headman, the prince began to appoint courtiers, who were replaced village clerks.
The court was not separated from the administration:
- (1) the functions of the princely court were performed by the prince himself, the mayors, and the volosts;
- (2) the functions of a patrimonial court over the dependent population - landowners on the basis of immunity grants.
Community courts and church courts also functioned (carried out by bishops, archbishops and metropolitans).
Under the conditions of the palace-patrimonial management system, the functions of ensuring law and order were assigned to each patrimonial owner, who had full power within the boundaries of his possessions. To carry out these tasks, appanage princes and boyars formed their own squads. The Grand Duke had full state power only on lands that were his private property. In the cities, the princely administration was represented by governors, in rural areas- volostels, on which the prince entrusted, among other things, police functions. At the grassroots level, elected sotskys and tens were still responsible for maintaining law and order. This approach to the formation of bodies responsible for maintaining order was preserved in many lands even during the period of feudal fragmentation.
From the 11th century In addition to private law investigation, state (or criminal) investigation began to develop: special judicial positions of virniks, meshelniks and emtsy began to be created, who, on behalf of the prince, investigated crimes. A particularly important official was Virnik. He traveled around his (virnaya) district, tried for crimes and exacted a “vira” (monetary fine), while exposing the criminals and searching for them. His assistant was stirrer The name of this position came from the word “mesh” - “mark”, which the stirrer placed on special sticks, thus keeping records of money or things accepted into the vira. Yemets - catcher of a thief, we can say that he is the first detective agent in the history of the Russian state. The Yemets received rewards from the victims (70 kunas) for their help in finding the thieves, and the Virniks received food from the population (Articles 41 and 42 of the Communist Code). From the 12th century The staff of Virnik assistants began to be supplemented by youths, or children (Article 74 of the PP), who performed the functions of bailiffs at the courts.
The formation of the princely administration took place against the backdrop of the first administrative and legal reforms. In the 10th century Princess Olga was held tax reform(points are set - churchyards - and the timing of the collection of tribute, its size is regulated - lessons). At the beginning of the 11th century. under Prince Vladimir, a tax was established in favor of the church - tithe. In addition to tribute, the princely administration received other direct fees from the population - gifts, polyudye, feed. Olga collected from the yard, Vladimir - from the plow, Yaroslav - from a person. The tribute payers signed for graveyards, hundreds, ropes.
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE
It should be noted that social structure 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 they lived dependent peasants, who worked 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 by mutual responsibility, a system of mutual assistance.
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 most the peasants were dependent smerdas, who, due to their powerless position, were close to serfs: “And for the murder of a smerd or a 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 into 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 the “Long-Range Pravda” says: “Even if the master beats the purchaser about the matter, then there is no guilt,” i.e., 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 for two varieties 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 more high punishment. These are all kinds of service personnel of the 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 applied in Ancient Rus' to different categories of people and was used in three meanings: 1) A person who undertook 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 an ancient Russian village for a long time was illiterate, 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 of people united by a common 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 of 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 there was a federation, although this institution is not typical 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. He owned the supreme legislature. So major laws are known, published by the great princes and bearing their names: “The Charter of Vladimir”, “The Truth of Yaroslav”, etc.
The 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. The Old 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 central administration the so-called palace-patrimonial system is emerging. 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, grooms, 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 were already mounted on horses at the age of three, and at the age of 12 their fathers took them on a campaign.
Cities, or at least their central part were fortresses - castles, defended, if necessary, not only 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 sad fate Grand Duke Igor, killed by the Drevlyans for excessive extortions, was forced by 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 Christian religion, the most convenient for feudalism, preaching the divine origin of the power of the monarch, the obedience of the working people 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 concept of “social system” includes: the economic development of the country, the class structure of society, legal status classes and social groups 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;
* 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;
* the great role of the council under the prince, the dominance of large feudal lords in it;
* 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. The feudal lords needed a strong central government to provide 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. Central authorities management 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, “helmsmen” (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 more high level development of the feudal state: princely property and administration officials 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 "Russian Truth" considerable attention is paid to the protection of the private property of 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.
Responsibility was borne only free people. 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 a 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 “too 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 "prince's 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. Unique forms of this process there were “cry”, “arch” 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 the Western absolute monarchy of the 15th–19th centuries. Therefore, to denote the form of government European countries of the early Middle Ages began to be used 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 gradually formed around the prince proxies from among relatives, warriors and tribal nobility (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 form of government of Kievan Rus, the expression “relatively single state", which cannot be classified as either unitary or federal.
With the development of feudalism decimal system management (thousand's - sot's - ten's) was replaced by the palace-patrimonial (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 government authority as feudal (princely with the participation of some boyars and Orthodox priests) conventions (snapshots). Snems decided the most important questions: about military campaigns, about legislation.
Veche meetings were usually held in emergency situations: e.g. war, urban uprising, coup d'état. 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 Russian state in the XVII
From the book History 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. THE DISSOLUTION OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE By the beginning of the period of specific fragmentation (XII century), Kievan Rus was a social system with the following features:? 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 Russian centralized state first half XVI V. was an apparatus of violence of the ruling class of 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 the book 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, it was envisaged public education child 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 North-Eastern and North-Western Rus' was completed by the end of the XV 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 East Slavic tribes form alliances of tribes, 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 In the political system of Russia in the 17th century. significant changes are taking place. The estate-representative monarchy with the Boyar Duma, Zemsky Sobors and local government bodies evolved into an absolute bureaucratic-noble monarchy.
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3
Prerequisites and reasons for the emergence of the Old Russian state………………………………………………………..5
The emergence and development of ancient Russian law………………….10
Social and socio-economic relations……………...15
Domestic and foreign policy…………………………………………………….19
Formation of the ancient Russian state………………………………….5
Development of the ancient Russian state……………………………………...15
State and political system of the ancient Russian state….24
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………...31
List of used literature……………………………………………………..32
Introduction.
The conquest and subjugation of the Slavic, as well as their neighboring tribes, to the new political center, which became Kyiv, was a distinctive feature of the initial stage of the Old Russian state. This is how his territory developed. The earliest chronicles began their presentation, apparently, with the presentation of Kiy, the founder of the Kyiv principality and the city of Kyiv. The legend about the emergence of Kyiv (about its construction by Kiy, Shchek, Khoriv) arose before the 9th century, since it was recorded in the Armenian chronicle already in the 8th century. Other chroniclers considered the beginning of statehood in Rus' to be the “calling of the Varangians” in the second half of the 8th century.
The emergence of state institutions in Kievan Rus was inextricably linked with the emergence and strengthening of princely power. The prince personified the power; he was the central link, the core of the political system. The supreme legislative power belonged to him. He headed the entire military organization of the ancient Russian state and personally led the army into battle. The grand dukes performed the external functions of the state not only by force of arms, but also by diplomatic means. Ancient Rus' stood at the European level of diplomatic art. It concluded various international agreements of a military and commercial nature, either orally or in writing. Diplomatic negotiations were conducted by the princes themselves; they sometimes headed embassies sent to other countries. The princes also performed judicial functions.
Many historians equate the political system of the ancient Russian state with a monarchy, but on the other hand, the “anti-monarchists” reduce their argument to the fact that the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv was never complete; it was limited either by the council of boyars, or the people's assembly, or other princes - members of the princely dynasty.
Purpose This course work is a study of the political system of the ancient Russian state.
Based on the goal set, we have identified a number of tasks :
Study the prerequisites and reasons for the emergence of the ancient Russian state;
Analyze the emergence and development of ancient Russian law;
Identify social and socio-economic relations developing in the ancient Russian state;
Analyze the internal and foreign policies of the ancient Russian state;
Determine the state and political system of the ancient Russian state.
In this course work textbooks and teaching aids were used by Bystrenko, V.I., Andreev, I.A., Danilevsky I.N., Isaev I.A., Karamzin N.M., Klyuchevsky V.O., Markov A.N. Smirnova A.N., Titova Yu.P. “Fundamentals of State and Law”, “History of Public Administration and Self-Government in Russia”, “Ancient Rus' through the Eyes of Contemporaries and Descendants (IX – XII Centuries)”, “History of State and Law of Russia”, “History of the Russian State”, “Russian Course history”, “History of public administration in Russia”, “Rus X - XVII centuries”, “Ancient Slavs”, “History of state and law of Russia”, which contributed to the study and analysis of the ancient Russian state, its formation and development of the political system.
Research methods used in course work: study of specialized literature on the chosen topic; analysis of the political system of the ancient Russian state.
Prerequisites and reasons for the emergence of the Old Russian state.
The formation of the ancient Russian state.
The moment of the emergence of the Old Russian state cannot be determined with sufficient accuracy. Obviously, there was a gradual development of those political formations that we talked about earlier into the feudal state of the Eastern Slavs - the Old Russian state. In the literature, this event is dated differently by different historians. However, most authors agree that the emergence of the Old Russian state should be attributed to the 9th century.
The question of how this state was formed is not entirely clear. And here we are faced with the so-called Norman theory.
The fact is that we have at our disposal a source that, it would seem, to some extent answers the question about the origin of the Old Russian state. This is the oldest chronicle"The Tale of Bygone Years." The chronicle makes it clear that in the 9th century. our ancestors lived in conditions of statelessness, although this is not directly stated in the Tale. We are only talking about the fact that the southern Slavic tribes paid tribute to the Khazars, and the northern ones to the Varangians, that the northern tribes once drove out the Varangians, but then changed their minds and called the Varangian princes to themselves. This decision was caused by the fact that the Slavs fought among themselves and decided to turn to foreign princes to establish order. It was then that it was said famous phrase: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it. May you come and reign over us.” The Varangian princes came to Rus' and in 862 sat on the thrones: Rurik - in Novgorod, Truvor - in Izborsk (not far from Pskov), Sineus - in Beloozero.
This interpretation raises at least two objections. Firstly, the factual material presented in The Tale of Bygone Years does not provide grounds for the conclusion that the Russian state was created by calling the Varangians. On the contrary, like other sources that have come down to us, it says that statehood among the Eastern Slavs existed even before the Varangians. Secondly, modern science cannot agree with such a primitive explanation complex process formation of any state. The state cannot be organized by one person or several even the most outstanding men. The state is a product of the complex and long development of the social structure of society. Nevertheless, the chronicle mention in a certain sense was adopted back in the 18th century. This is how the notorious Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state was born.
Already at that time, Normanism met with objections from advanced Russian scientists, among whom was M.V. Lomonosov. Since then, all historians studying Ancient Russia have been divided into two camps - Normanists and anti-Normanists.
Modern domestic scientists predominantly reject the Norman theory. They are joined by the largest foreign researchers of Slavic countries. However, a certain part of foreign authors still preach this theory, although not in such a primitive form as was done previously.
The main refutation of the Norman theory is the fairly high level of social and political development of the Eastern Slavs in the 9th century. The Old Russian state was prepared by the centuries-old development of the Eastern Slavs. In terms of their economic and political level, the Slavs were higher than the Varangians, so they could not borrow state experience from the newcomers.
The chronicle story contains, of course, elements of truth. It is possible that the Slavs invited several princes with their squads as military specialists, as was done in later times in Rus' and in Western Europe. It is reliably known that the Russian principalities invited squads not only of the Varangians, but also of their steppe neighbors - the Pechenegs, Karakalpaks, and Torks. However, not Varangian princes organized the Old Russian state, and the already existing state gave them the corresponding government posts. However, some authors, starting with M.V. Lomonosov, doubt the Varangian origin of Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, believing that they could also be representatives of some Slavic tribes. In any case, there are practically no traces of Varangian culture in the history of our Motherland. Scientists, for example, have calculated that per 10 thousand square meters. km of Russian territory, only five Scandinavian geographical names can be found, while in England, which the Normans conquered, this number reaches 150.
We do not know exactly when and how exactly the first principalities of the Eastern Slavs arose, preceding the formation of the Old Russian state, but in any case they existed until 862, before the notorious “calling of the Varangians.” In German chronicles, already from 839, Russian princes were called Khakans - kings.
But the moment of unification of the East Slavic lands into one state is known with certainty. In 882, the Novgorod prince Oleg captured Kyiv and united the two most important groups of Russian lands; then he managed to annex the rest of the Russian lands, creating a huge state for those times.
The Russian Orthodox Church is trying to link the emergence of statehood in Rus' with the introduction of Christianity.
Of course, the baptism of Rus' was of great importance for strengthening the feudal state, since the church sanctified the subordination of Christians to the exploitative state. However, the baptism occurred no less than a century after the formation of the Kievan state, not to mention the earlier East Slavic states.
In addition to the Slavs, the Old Russian state also included some neighboring Finnish and Baltic tribes. This state was thus ethnically heterogeneous from the very beginning. However, its basis was the Old Russian people, which was the cradle of three Slavic peoples - Russians (Great Russians), Ukrainians and Belarusians. It cannot be identified with any of these peoples separately. Even before the revolution, Ukrainian nationalists tried to portray the Old Russian state as Ukrainian. This idea has been picked up in our time in nationalist circles, trying to quarrel the three fraternal Slavic peoples. Meanwhile, the Old Russian state did not coincide either in territory or in population with modern Ukraine; they only had a common capital - the city of Kyiv. In the 9th and even 12th centuries. It is still impossible to talk about specifically Ukrainian culture, language, etc. All this will appear later, when, due to objective historical processes, the Old Russian people split into three independent branches.
Also, the Old Russian state arises in a heterogeneous society and is a way of regulating relations between different social strata, classes, etc.
Statehood among the Slavs began to take shape in the 6th century, when there was a transition from the clan and tribal community to the neighboring community, and property inequality was formed. There are many reasons for the formation of the Old Russian state, here are the main ones:
Social division of labor . The sources from which people drew their livelihood became more diverse; Thus, military spoils began to play a major role in the life of the clan. Over time, professional artisans and warriors appeared. Frequent migrations of clans, the emergence and disintegration of inter-tribal and inter-tribal unions, the separation of groups of seekers from the clan spoils of war(druzhin) - all these processes forced every now and then to deviate from tradition, based on custom, old solutions did not always work in previously unknown conflict situations.
Economic development . Not only the changed individual and group identity and the existing inter-tribal relations, but also the economic, economic activity encouraged people to search for more suitable forms of common existence. The importance of the economic factor in the emergence of the state is usually exaggerated in studies by supporters of Marxism and other teachings that consider production (or distribution of what is produced) the basis of social life. The relationship between the economy and the ideas that guide people, between economic activity and the ways of organizing power is much more complex than it seems to Marxists. Without going into the details of the long-standing dispute between “materialists”, who highlight the economic needs of people, and “idealists”, who consider ideas to be the main factor of social development, we will limit ourselves to recognizing the close relationship material world and human consciousness. Private property could not arise until a person realized his distance from the clan, but on further development self-awareness individual, undoubtedly, were influenced by the practical, material results of the fragmentation of common tribal property. Economic forces influenced the formation of the state, but this influence was neither direct nor decisive. The state arose when property differences directly related to the economy were not too significant; The emerging state power initially made almost no claims to serious participation in economic life. The bearers of the new, pre-state and state power (princes, warriors) were distinguished from society not on property, but on professional grounds. At the same time, the often coinciding professions of a warrior and a ruler (standing above the traditional, patriarchal power of clan elders) were almost unanimously recognized as socially useful.
Society's interest in the emergence of a state . The state arose because the overwhelming majority of members of society were interested in its emergence. It was convenient and beneficial for the community farmer to have the prince and warriors with weapons in their hands protect him and save him from burdensome and dangerous military affairs. From the very beginning, the state solved not only military, but also judicial problems, especially related to inter-tribal disputes. The princes and their warriors were relatively objective mediators in conflicts between representatives of various clans; the elders, who from time immemorial had to take care of the interests of their clan, their community, were not suitable for the role of impartial arbiters. Resolving communal disputes by force of arms was too burdensome for society; As the general utility of power was realized, above private and tribal interests, the conditions were created for the transfer of the most important judicial powers historically.
Hence it turns out that the created Kievan Rus was one of the largest states of the Middle Ages in the 9th-12th centuries. Unlike Eastern and Western countries, its process of statehood formation had its own specific features - spatial and geopolitical. 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. During its formation, Rus' acquired the characteristics of both Eastern and Western state formations, since it occupied a middle position between Europe and Asia and did not have clearly defined natural geographical boundaries within the vast flat space. Need in permanent protection from external enemies of a large territory forced peoples with different types of development, religion, culture, language to unite and create a strong state power.
The emergence and development of ancient Russian law.
The emergence of the Old Russian state was naturally accompanied by the formation of Old Russian feudal law. Its first source was customs that passed into class society from the primitive communal system and have now become common law. But princely legislation has also been known since the 10th century. Of particular importance are the statutes of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav, which introduced important innovations into financial, family and criminal law.
The political system of Kievan Rus can be defined as an early feudal monarchy. At its head was the Grand Duke of Kyiv. In his activities he relied on the squad and the council of elders. Local administration was carried out by his governors (in cities) and volostels (in rural areas).
The Grand Duke was in contractual or suzerain-vassal relations with other princes. Local princes could be forced to serve by force of arms. The strengthening of local feudal lords (XI-XII centuries) causes the emergence of a new form and a new body of power - “snema”, i.e. feudal congress. At such congresses, issues of war and peace, separation of powers, and vassalage were resolved. The suzerainty-vassalage relationship placed all feudal lords subordinate to the prince in the position of service people. Large feudal lords and landowners enjoyed great autonomy.
Local government was carried out by the prince's trusted people, his sons, and relied on military garrisons led by thousanders, centurions and tens. During this period, a numerical or decimal control system continued to exist, which originated in the depths of the druzhina organization, and then turned into a military administrative system. Local governments received resources for their existence through a feeding system (fees from the local population). There was a Council consisting of boyars and “princely men.” Separate functions or management of branches of the princely palace economy were carried out by tiuns and elders. Over time, these palace managers turn into managers of branches of the princely (state) economy.
During the period of the early feudal monarchy, important state and political functions were performed by public assemblies- veche. History has not preserved detailed information about the legislative process. But it is obvious that due to the monarchical nature of the state, it could not have any other form than the form of acts of grand-ducal power. In the Kiev state, the veche could not lay claim to the role of an independent legislative power. The same cannot be said about Novgorod, which did not fully experience the princely power characteristic of Rus'. This created favorable opportunities for the development of democratic forms of government, including those inherited from the pre-state period of development - the Novgorod veche. There is no unity among historians in assessing the powers of the veche. Many consider it a legislative body that could make decisions in the name of Veliky Novgorod.
The participants in the meeting made decisions, which they themselves carried out locally with the help of local government. Local government acted as a support for the central government in the localities, so the central government supported and strengthened it in all respects. Interaction with the central government also consisted in the fact that the city council necessarily included representatives of parts of the older city, streets, communities, and suburbs. The structure and content of local self-government remained the same - community-based, because the Russian land continued to consist of large and small communities that were in more or less close connection with each other. Cities were then called those main large communities to which small communities adjoined. They were divided into older cities and suburbs. Cities had internal administrative-territorial divisions.
O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “Novgorod and Pskov society was mosaically composed of local small worlds, which were part of larger ones, and from the latter even larger unions were formed. Each of them enjoyed a certain amount of self-government, had its own administration, its own headman. Thus, Novgorod, regardless of the administrative and topographic division into ends, hundreds, streets, settlements, towns, was also divided into social strata, which represented a semblance of estates.” It follows from this that local self-government was not uniform even within the territory of one city. Along with territorial and production factors, there was also a class factor. The territorial basis of local community self-government were junior cities, suburbs, villages, volosts, and churchyards.
The bodies of local peasant self-government remained the territorial community - verv. Its competence included land limits (redistribution of land plots), police supervision, tax and financial issues related to the imposition of taxes and their distribution, resolution of legal disputes, investigation of crimes and execution of punishments. Rural communities of Rus' were divided into villages and repairs, and several villages and repairs constituted new centers subordinate to cities and were called volosts.
Local self-government was carried out by elected officials who were elected by the corresponding veche (community elders, street elders, village and volost elders, etc.). The elders performed administrative and executive functions, resolved issues of improvement, maintaining order, settling disputes between citizens, performed duties, deployed their militia when necessary, etc.
Concerning judiciary, then naturally, it could not exist in those days as an independent power. The lengthy edition of Russkaya Pravda mentions the princely court. After accepting Christianity as state religion in Rus', the church received the right to conduct trials in cases of crimes against morality, marriage and family issues. Some historians believe that all criminal and civil cases were decided without the participation of the state by the persons concerned and the community.
Thus, in ethnic terms - today this is already quite clear - the population of Ancient Rus' cannot be represented as a “single ancient Russian nationality”. The inhabitants of Ancient Rus' were quite clearly divided into several ethnic groups - with different appearance, language, material and spiritual culture. Despite all their apparent closeness, they differed in systems of metrology and word formation, dialectal features of speech and favorite types of decorations, traditions and rituals.
Social and socio-economic relations.
Development of the ancient Russian state.
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 feudal-dependent peasants.
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 tithes - a tenth of the income from the population and other, including judicial, income.
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 warriors in the 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 also 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 working population were smerds. Some researchers believed that all rural residents were called smerds. Others believe that the smerds are part of the peasantry, already enslaved by the feudal lords. The latter point of view seems preferable.
The Smerds lived in rope communities, 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 by mutual responsibility, a system of mutual assistance.
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, the purchase cannot work off the coupon and practically remains with the master for life. In addition, the purchaser is responsible for damage caused by negligence to the master. 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. Russkaya Pravda notes that the feudal lord has the right to beat a careless purchaser (Article 62 of the Trinity List). 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 (with such an offense he is automatically released from his obligations towards the master), his property cannot be taken away with impunity.
In the multi-structured ancient Russian society, there also existed “involuntary servants”. Russian Truth 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 servants or from 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.” However, in Rus', slaves did not form the basis of production; slavery was predominantly patriarchal, domestic. It is no coincidence that Russian Truth identifies categories of slaves whose lives were protected by higher punishment. These are all kinds of service personnel of the princely and boyar court - servants, children's educators, artisans, etc. Over time, the process of transforming serfs into feudal-dependent peasants also develops. They became the first serfs.