Kievan Rus was a state of the early feudal type, since the process of the formation of classes had not yet been completed, feudal landownership was just emerging, the bulk of the smerds were still free. At the same time, boyar land ownership was already being formed, communal lands were seized by princes and boyars, presented and distributed together with the community members themselves, who must pay dues to the feudal lord.

The form of government in Kievan Rus is a typical early feudal monarchy. At the head was the monarch - the Grand Duke of Kiev, who relied on the squad and the council of elders. He was the eldest (suzerain) in relation to the local princes.

On the ground (in other cities), the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv was exercised by his governors and volostels (in the countryside).

Signs of early feudal monarchy:

- the transfer of legally not fixed power in the order of inheritance;

- lack of legal responsibility of the ruler;

- lack of institutions of power;

- lack of regulation of the activities of the council under the prince;

- Veche was not a permanent representative body;

- Limitation of power by a permanent city meeting.

The political structure of the Kyiv principality was unstable. Composed of many tribal and urban districts, this principality could not form into a single state even in the 11th century. fell apart. Therefore, it would be most accurate to define Kievan Rus as a collection of many principalities united by one dynasty, the unity of religion, tribe, language and national identity, which cannot be attributed to either unitary or federal state institutions. Gradually in the XI-XII centuries. relations between Kyiv and the specific principalities and princes with the boyars took shape in a system that was called the palace-patrimony.

Having a strong center, the great Kiev prince, with the help of his retinue, kept around him several dozen specific principalities. He stood at the head of all Rus', while at the head of individual principalities were their own princes. Relations between the prince of Kyiv and all other princes were built on the principle of "suzerain - vassals" and were fixed by feudal treaties.

Gradually to the XI-XII centuries. the power of local feudal lords increased significantly, and a new body of power was formed - the feudal congress, which considers issues of war and peace, division of lands, and vassalage.

Social division in Kievan Rus became more complicated - at the top of society is the princely squad, with which the former upper zemstvo class merges. The druzhina consists of the eldest (boyars) and the youngest (youths, grides), which includes the prince's slaves. From the ranks of the squad, the princely administration and judges (posadnik, tiun, verniki) are appointed.

The class of people is divided into townspeople (merchants, artisans) and villagers, of which the free ones were called smerds, and the dependents were called purchases.

Church society had its own hierarchy (priesthood, monasticism, clergymen).

There was no political regime in Rus' due to the underdevelopment of society.

Judicial bodies as special institutions did not exist. The armed forces consisted of the squad of the Grand Duke, the feudal militia (military detachments, etc.).

Stages of political history Ancient Rus'

I. IX - XI centuries.- the period of formation of the territory and borders, the foundations of the state system and the preservation of political unity under the rule of Kyiv;

II. XII - beginning. 13th century: period of political fragmentation or specific. Nominally, the Great Kievan (from 1169 - Vladimir) prince remained the head of state. Kievan Rus did not disintegrate, but was transformed into a kind of federation of independent Russian lands and principalities, the number of which was constantly increasing: in the middle of the 12th century. there were 15 of them, at the beginning of the 13th century. - about 50, in the XIV century. - already 250. As the chronicle comments: "and the whole Russian land was torn apart ..."

The main feature of the political system of Ancient Rus', according to V.O. Klyuchevsky, there were two parallel structures of power: one was princely, other - zemstvo, veche.

occupied a central position in public administration princely power originated in a tribal society. In the X century. intertribal struggle ends with the victory of Kyiv, and Svyatoslav takes the title of "Grand Duke of Russia". During the transfer of the Grand Duke's throne, the patrimonial principle was preserved eldership, i.e. the eldest in the Rurik family became the Grand Duke, and the younger Ruriks became governors. Functions princely power were quite wide, they gave it the character supreme state power.

The princes were entrusted with the tasks of military leadership and diplomatic relations; headed executive power. In their appearance there were many features of the former tribal princes, the main of which was direct participation in battles, his task was to "stand and fight", the courage of the prince in the "rati" was highly valued in ancient Russian society. In 1136, the Novgorodians expelled Prince Vsevolod, accusing him of leaving "the regiment ahead of everyone," i.e. fled from the battlefield.
Legislature was also in the hands of the princes. The first laws of the Old Russian state ("Russian Truth") were adopted by the princes Yaroslav the Wise and his sons, the church charters of the princes Vladimir, Yaroslav, Vladimir Monomakh are known.
The prince had the highest judiciary, on his behalf, the governors and volosts carried out the court.
The prince performed religious functions. The nickname of Oleg the Prophet may indicate that he was a "prophet", i.e. priest. Performing such functions, Prince Vladimir carried out a pagan reform in 980, and in 988 converted to Orthodoxy and made it the state religion.

The power of the prince on the ground was exercised governors Grand Duke, as a rule, his brothers, sons and other relatives. They were appointed to the central and large cities of the principalities, ruled in the volosts volosteli. Governors and volostels were responsible for order, collected taxes, were governors, fought criminals, were judges. Part of the taxes remained for the maintenance of local rulers (the system "feeding"). Such a management structure finally took shape under Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich. Principalities, lands and volosts retained considerable independence, which makes it possible to call Kievan Rus a kind of "federation" of lands and principalities.

Druzhina(both great and specific princes) shared with them all the management functions. Members of the senior squad made up the duma of the prince ( Boyar Duma), his state council. The squad as a whole was the military and administrative apparatus of the prince, posadniks, volostels, governors, judges, ambassadors, etc. were appointed from among the combatants. The prince relied on the squad and consulted with her on all issues, otherwise he could lose her support, and according to the chronicle, a prince without a squad is like "a bird taken aback."

Thus, the prince was a military leader and organizer of the people's militia, head of administration, legislation and courts, and princely power was a necessary and main element of the political organization of society.

Zemstvo governing bodies - veche and community also originated in a tribal society and continued the traditions of tribal self-government.

Laurentian Chronicle under 1176, he says: “From the beginning, the Novgorodians and the Smolnyans, and the Kyyans, and the Polochans, and all the authorities seem to agree on the thought for all eternity; Veche - people's assembly acted in all Russian cities until the middle of the 13th century. (in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Novgorod and Pskov lands until the 15th century). The prince had to conclude an agreement with the veche community and accept the conditions put forward. At the end of the 11th - the middle of the 12th centuries, when Rus' breaks up into destinies, the veche becomes the master of the situation. Veche cities acquired the significance of "the leading political force that competed with the princes, and by the end of the 12th century took a decisive advantage over them" (V.O. Klyuchevsky). Participation in the veche and its convocation was the right of all free adults. According to sources, "people" are endowed with significant social energy: they take part in inviting princes to the table and in their drive, participate in the choice of religion, approve international treaties, and gather militia. Since 1136, the Novgorod veche entered into ranks (contracts) with the prince and tightly controlled his power. Of the 50 princes who occupied the Kiev throne, 14 were invited by the veche. For example, in 1151, the Kiev veche (“Kiyanes”), when Y. Dolgoruky attacked the city, made the following decision: beatings". Thus, the veche was the supreme body local legislative and administrative authorities, solving all important issues: about war and peace, inviting and expelling princes, managing finances and land funds, etc.

Community was a form of peasant self-government, i.e. the majority of the country's population. It carried out the redistribution of land allotments, jointly (vechem) solved tax and financial issues, formed a people's militia, investigated crimes and punished them.

The political system of the Russian lands explains and character of the troops. The most combat-ready and well-armed part of the army was the squad. Depending on the degree of military danger, either a squad or a people's militia (all free adults) entered the battle. Every free man enjoyed the right to bear arms and was armed. Those. veche - this is the people's militia of each city or volost: the high political activity of the ordinary population, its sovereignty in the veche was based on the military strength of the people. The cities were arranged in a military way, the people's militia formed a regiment - thousand, which was divided into hundreds and tens. Thousand, hundredth and tenth elected at the convention. Thousands were the leaders of the military forces of the district, in addition, they had police power and judicial power. The militia had its own commanders - zemstvo governors and thousandths.

IN national historiography a tradition has been established that regards the ancient Russian princes as "sovereigns" and "autocratic monarchs", but it requires critical reflection. The prince was not the supreme landowner, society did not have a pronounced class character, the main population was free and full of rights, the princely power was controlled by the retinue and veche - under these conditions, the Grand Duke did not become an autocratic monarch. In general, in the ancient Russian state there was an "unstable balance" of two forms of power, two tendencies of political development: princely ( monarchical) and veche ( democratic). It should also be noted the significant role of the squad ( aristocracy) in the political development of Rus'.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://allbest.ru

State structureKievskOuchRusAnd

1. Plechanging system among the Eastern Slavs

By the 9th century the Eastern Slavs formed tribes and tribal unions: glades, drevlyans, dregovichi, Ilmen Slovenes, etc. An important role in the tribal unions of the Slavs was played by cities - fortified centers of the largest tribal unions: Kiev, Novgorod, Smolensk, etc. It was in the cities that tribal councils gathered - democratic governing bodies, there were also residences of tribal princes - leaders of the tribal army.

The main occupation of the Eastern Slavs was slash-and-burn agriculture. They felled the forest, burned it and cultivated the burnt areas while the land remained fertile. However, hunting, fishing and beekeeping, collecting honey and wax from wild bees, also played an important role in the economy of the Eastern Slavs. Since ancient times, the trade in wax furs, consumer goods of the Arabs and Orthodox Christians of Byzantium. One of the goods sold to foreigners were slaves - mostly captives captured during tribal wars. According to the level of its development, the society of the Eastern Slavs in the IX-XII centuries. was early class. In the whole life of the ancient Slavs, the presence of tribal principles is felt.

The main role in the process of unification of the East Slavic lands was played by the tribes of the Polyans and Ilmen Slovenes with centers in Kyiv and Novgorod. These cities stood at the southern and northern nodal points of the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" and made it possible to control all trade.

2. Createding ancient Russian state

The beginning of this process is traditionally associated with the activities of the Varangian king (prince) Rurik, called by the Novgorodians during the period of aggravation of inter-communal clashes in 862. Rurik is considered the founder of the ancient Russian state. Russian tsars up to the son of Ivan the Terrible - Fyodor Ivanovich - proudly called themselves Rurikovich.

Rurik's relative Oleg in 882 made a campaign from Novgorod to Kyiv and occupied it, uniting Kyiv and Novgorod for the first time. In 883, he conquered the tribe of the Drevlyans, in 884 - the northerners, in 885 - the Radimichi. Gradually, more and more East Slavic tribes and tribal unions along the way "from the Varangians to the Greeks" found themselves under the rule of the Kievan princes.

The functioning of the ancient Russian state was based on the Slavic tradition. Back in those days, when the princes were sitting by tribes, "owning the skin of their kind," they collected tribute, and then sold it to merchants. It was called polyud. This system was preserved in Kievan Rus. In addition to the Varangian squad, a large role in the wars of the Kiev princes was played by the traditional people's militia, a thousand-strong military organization that divided a tribe or city into “conscription sites” of various sizes, supplying tens, hundreds and thousands of fighters, respectively.

The princely squad played an increasing role in the life of the country. The combatants were the environment of the princes, often lived with them under the same roof, ate from the same table, shared all their worries.

The squad was divided into three categories: the senior squad, which included rich and influential boyars who had their own lands, courtyards, mansions, slaves, and their warriors; junior combatants (children, youths) who lived at the court of the prince, in peacetime acting as petty stewards, servants, and in wartime as warriors. The third group consisted of howls recruited from rural and urban people.

Tribute to the prince of Kyiv. With a retinue, fed the foreign trade of Rus' and directed the international interests of the first Russian princes. The foreign policy activities of the princes pursued two main goals: the acquisition of overseas markets and the protection of trade routes leading to these markets.

Byzantium was the main trading partner for Rus', and therefore it is natural for Rus' to strive to achieve the most favorable conditions in trade with it.

Another concern of the Kyiv princes was the protection of trade routes and the defense of the borders of Rus' from the steppes. Hence the ongoing wars with the Khazars and Pechenegs.

3. Stateimpact and generic ideals

At the end of the X-beginning of the XI century. Significant changes are taking place in the political life of Kievan Rus. A special order of princely inheritance begins to take shape. It was associated with the destruction of tribal principalities and the realization by the Rurik family of belonging to him of all power in Kievan Rus.

An important role in the distribution of volosts was played by older brothers, spokesmen for the interests of the clan as a whole. Gradually, the role of the Kyiv prince in the appointment to reign increased. Ancestral values were embodied in the ideal of "seniority". The power of the clan was increasingly associated with the power of the Kyiv prince, who was regarded as the head of the clan.

The tribal principle of inheritance distinguished Kievan Rus from Western Europe, where the eldest son usually inherited the father.

Ancestral ideals and political practice.

Over time, tribal values had to recede under the pressure of individual and family interests. An important stage in this process was the congress of Russian princes in Lyubech in 1097, at which the family principle of inheritance was officially recognized on a par with the clan. The princes decided that “everyone keeps his fatherland”, i.e. the descendants of the eldest sons of Yaroslav, Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod were supposed to own only those volosts where their fathers ruled. The generic ideal of princely power was lost only in the 15th-16th centuries.

4. Formation and development of the Old Russian state

The time frame for the existence of Kievan Rus as a single state of the Eastern Slavs is determined by the middle of the 9th century. - the first third of the XII century. During this period, the Grand Dukes were: Rurik (862-879); Oleg (879-912); Igor (912-945); Olga (945-957); Svyatoslav (957-972); Yaropolk (972-980); Vladimir the Saint (980-1015); Svyatopolk the Accursed (1015-1019); Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054); Izyaslav (1054-1078, ruled for one year by Svyatoslav of Chernigov-1076); Vsevolod (1078-1093); Svyatopolk (1093-1113); Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125); Mstislav (1125-1132). Historians, as a rule, distinguish several periods in the history of the Old Russian state: 9th century - end of the 10th century. (the beginning of the reign of St. Vladimir); 2) the end of the X - the middle of the XI century; 3) the middle of the XI - the first third of the XII century.

In the first period of the formation and development of Rus', an important phenomenon, along with the calling of Rurik (862), was the unification of the political power of Novgorod and Kyiv. The Rurikovichs strengthened the state by strengthening their power and weakening the power of local princes, fought against the Drevlyans and the streets, built new cities and changed the tax collection system.

Oleg subjugated or imposed tribute on many tribes (unions of tribes) of the Eastern Slavs. In 911, an agreement was concluded with the Greeks, which began with the words: “We are from the Russian family ...”, the beginning of embassy relations was laid.

During the reign of Svyatoslav, relations were established with Hungary, Poland, and during the reign of his son Vladimir, the border with Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic was determined.

The second period of the formation and development of Rus' is characterized by the completion of the process of political and economic unification of the lands of not only the Eastern Slavs, but also partly the Croats, Tmutarakan, the conquest of the Vyatichi, Yotvingians, Radimichi, and the expansion of the territory of the state. It included Chud, Mer, Muroma, Korela, all.

Strengthening the power of the great Kyiv prince. When the territory of tribal principalities or a union of tribes passed under the direct authority of the Kiev prince, it was common to create a new center of the earth, volosts (over time, in the 12th century, they became the centers of independent principalities-lands).

During this period, there were changes in the economic sphere. In agriculture, the three-field system was established, the plow began to be used, furnaces appeared, which contributed to an increase in the production of metal and products of its processing (for example, weapons). Craftsmen of more than 40 specialties worked in the cities; produced glass. Jewelers have reached perfection in the manufacture of niello, filigree, granulation, enamel.

In 988 Rus' was baptized on the initiative of St. Vladimir. It had great importance for the spiritual renewal of society and the development of culture, changing the mentality and public consciousness, strengthening the position of the state in international relations. The adoption of Christianity entailed a change in social relations in Rus', the emergence of new features of the statehood itself.

Byzantium became an example of a stable state with a single religion for Vladimir. He assisted the Byzantine Emperor Basil II in the fight against the rebels.

The princely power gave a "tithe" of their income to the maintenance of the church. Monasteries and churches received lands and villages from Kievan and appanage princes, boyars.

The Church, acquiring lands, marked the beginning of the development of large-scale land ownership in Rus'. The spread of Christianity continued for several centuries, including during the period of fragmentation. The Metropolitan of Kiev influenced the entire Russian land.

The church was a supporter of the unity of the country, not only in a religious sense, but also in a secular one.

In the "Sermon on Law and Grace" (1037-1050), Rus' was viewed as the heir to Roman greatness: the actions of St. Vladimir are equivalent to the actions of Constantine the Great, the apostles Peter and Paul; it was divine insight that prompted Vladimir to adopt a new faith.

In the second period, Rus' reaches its highest peak. The compilation of a new annalistic code began. Adopted "Russian Truth". The international relations of Rus' have expanded. Rus''s relations with Germany, Byzantium, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Norway strengthened. The country with a population of about 4 million people occupied the territory from the Carpathians to the Kama, from the Balkan Sea to the Black Sea.

The third period in the history of the Old Russian state began in the middle of the 11th century. and ended in the first third of the XII century. It was characterized by: the establishment of a new order of succession to the Grand Duke's throne; the consolidation of volosts, which turned into principalities (lands), to certain branches of the Rurik dynasty; the progressive development of the economy and the movement of trade centers, crafts from the southern Russian lands to the north; the establishment of "zemstvo unity" in the Russian lands; improvement of the legal system of the state.

The basis of the country's economic structure was made up of free communal peasants (they paid tribute to the prince), artisans, and merchants. Princely lands (as well as warriors, boyars, administrations) were processed by captives (slaves, serfs), ryadovichi (under an agreement), purchases (for a loan - purchase). They, together with the “released” (for forgiven sins), could also cultivate church lands. The land belonged to the Grand Duke, the state (he is often called the main feudal lord, although this is not entirely true). Only at the end XI-beginning 12th century appeared (according to sources) land estates of princes, boyars, combatants, servants and administration of the prince. A number of historians note that the primacy in the formation of patrimonial land ownership belongs to the church.

In the economic life of the country, cities and trade began to acquire greater importance. Merchants from the countries of the East and Europe settled in large centers, forming their own quarters. Russian merchants united in communities.

The culture of Kievan Rus developed, firstly, on the basis of the rich population of the Eastern Slavs; secondly, under the influence of diverse contacts with the peoples of the East and West; thirdly, as an original ancient Russian culture, which was an integral part of the world.

Finally, culture - in the broadest sense of the word - formed the basis of the unity of the state, was "everyday zemstvo whole" (V. Klyuchevsky). In Rus', ritual, historical folklore, heroic epic epics, "oral chronicle" occupied a prominent place in the spiritual life of peoples.

A distinctive feature of Old Russian culture is the presence of writing, Church Slavonic and Old Russian literary languages, and religious rites in their native language. The creation of Slavic writing is associated with the names of the "Thessalonica brothers" - missionary monks from Byzantium, Cyril and Methodius, who used in the second half of the 9th century. Glagolitic alphabet when creating the first translations of church books for the Slavs of Moravia and Pannonia (863).

The originality of ancient Russian literature was also manifested in the annals. It originates in the 10th century, although the most famous monument was The Tale of Bygone Years, which had several editions from the 30s and 40s. 11th century We know the "Tale", compiled by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor in 1110-1113.

With the adoption of Christianity in Rus', architecture received great development, the construction of stone temples and structures began, which were distinguished by a special color. For example, the temples of Sophia erected almost simultaneously in Kyiv, Novgorod, Suzdal also had a Byzantine basis - a cross-domed type, and reflected the traditions of wooden architecture, as well as the influence of the Romanesque style in construction technology.

The merger of Kyiv and Novgorod completes the formation of the Old Russian state. The chronicle connected this event with the name of Oleg. In 882 As a result of the campaign of squads led by Oleg, from Novgorod to Kyiv, on the way from the Varangians to the Greeks, both the most important centers of Rus' were united. The Kiev prince began to create strongholds in the lands of the eastern Slavs, collect tribute from them and demand their participation in campaigns.

Based on certain statements of contemporaries, we find among our Slavs when worshiping many different natural phenomena under different names deities worship of one supreme deity, to whom all the others were subordinate. This supreme deity, according to the testimony of one of the oldest writers about the Slavs, Procopius, was the deity of lightning, which the chronicler calls Perun.

And in our time there are some pagan holidays - carnival, carols, red hill.

The Old Russian state can be characterized as an early feudal monarchy. The head of state was the Grand Duke of Kiev. His brothers, sons and warriors carried out the administration of the country, the court, the collection of tribute and duties. The young state faced major foreign policy tasks related to the protection of its borders: repulsing the raids of the nomadic Pechenegs (from the 30s of the 11th century - the Polovtsians), fighting the expansion of Byzantium, the Khazar Khaganate, and Volga Bulgaria. It is from these positions that one should consider the internal and foreign policy Kievan Grand Dukes.

The social division of labor, the separation of handicraft activities from agriculture, played a huge role in the decomposition of primitive communal relations.

When the division of labor penetrated into the community and its members each single-handedly began to produce one, whatever product and sell it on the market, then the institution of private property became an expression of this material isolation of the goods of producers.

Settlements become centers of handicraft production and exchange, turn into cities. Cities grow on the basis of old settlements of the times of the primitive system, appear as handicraft and trading settlements. Finally, the princely prison is often overgrown with an urban-type settlement. This is how cities in Rus' arose: Kyiv, Ladoga, Pskov, Novgorod, Polotsk, Chernigov, Lyubech, Smolensk, Gurov, and others. Trade corrupted the community, contributing to an even greater strengthening of economically powerful families. The ruling elite in ancient Russian sources appears before us under the name of princes, warriors, boyars, old children, etc. Accumulating valuables and land, the noble Slavs become a force and subjugate their former fellow tribesmen.

Feudalism develops.

In the ninth century on the territory of the Eastern Slavs, a single large Old Russian state was formed with a center in the city of Kyiv. The formation of this state was facilitated by the development of crafts, land cultivation techniques, trade relations, which strengthened the ties between the existing state entities separate Slavic tribes.

The moment of the emergence of the Old Russian state is associated with the development of political entities into the feudal state of the Eastern Slavs - the Old Russian Kiev state.

The Old Russian state was formed in the 9th century. It occupied a vast territory with a diverse population in terms of economic, ethnic and cultural characteristics.

Foreign trade, complex political relations with Byzantium, and the need to fight against the attacking tribes also contributed to the strengthening of the unification.

An important factor that stimulated the unification was a certain ethnic community of the Slavs, the similarity of pagan beliefs.

However, the main thing was that the Kiev prince, who had a lot of land, slaves, dependent peasants, and therefore a strong squad, could protect those in power in the conditions of acute class struggle, increasing class contradictions.

Ancient Rus' was of great importance in the development of the three fraternal peoples (Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian), as it was the first step in the history of their statehood. common ancestor- Old Russian people.

The Old Russian state contributed to the further development of feudal landownership, the strengthening of the power of the feudal landowners, the oppression of the feudally dependent population, and was one of the largest powers in medieval Europe.

5. The social and state system of Kievan Rus

By the 9th century, the time of the formation of the Old Russian state, feudal ownership of land was established among the Eastern Slavs and classes were formed - feudal landowners and feudal-dependent peasants. The ruling class of feudal lords included the princes of Kyiv, the communal nobility (boyars), local (tribal) princes, the squad of princes, the top of the service people.

The land holdings of the princes grew due to the expropriation of communal lands, the colonization of the lands of other tribes, and the capture of wastelands. The princes of Kyiv, who were at the head of the Old Russian state, began to consider themselves the supreme owners of all the lands that previously belonged to the communal peasants. Tribute gradually turned into feudal rent. The collection of tribute acquired a violent character and often provoked active resistance from the peasants.

Large feudal lords were the rulers of other principalities - representatives of the grand ducal dynasty, local princes. The class of feudal lords included boyars - large landowners who seized communal land, princely combatants who received land from the prince. Such land ownership was called a patrimony, a permanent possession that could be inherited.

Only in the princely service could one become a boyar. Boyars from the tribal nobility for their vassal service received immunity - exemption from paying tribute and from the jurisdiction of the princely court, both the boyar himself and the population dependent on him.

Many boyars had their own squad. His combatants settled on the ground and turned into vassals of the second stage (subvassals), they owe the boyar military service.

The rest of the mass of Kyiv society consisted of two main layers: free people and slaves.

With the development of urban life and trading activities, as part of free people or "husbands", city dwellers began to be distinguished from the rural population. The townspeople were called "city people" and were divided into "best" or "highest", i.e. prosperous, and "younger" or "black", i.e. the poor. According to their occupations, they were called merchants or "guests" and artisans.

The rural population was called smerds, they were free people, had their own arable land and their own farm. If a smerd went to work for a landowner and worked on his land, then he was not considered an independent person and was called a “purchase”. Zakup, however, was not a slave, he could become a stink again if he could pay off his master.

Subsequently, all feudal-dependent peasants began to be called smerds. Smerds lived in communities called "vervi" or "graveyard".

A person who belonged to any union or was part of a community enjoyed the protection of a clan, community, squad, partnership. Deprived of the protection of his loved ones, expelled from any community, a person became defenseless. He could be "killed in a place" and go unpunished. Such homeless and defenseless people were called "outcasts". Outcasts were, as it were, "outdated", people thrown out of life.

Part of the population were slaves. The captive slaves were called servants. They were completely powerless. People who became slaves for other reasons (sale into slavery itself, marriage to a slave, an escaped purchase, etc.) were called serfs.

The political system of the Old Russian state combined the institutions of the new feudal formation and the old, primitive communal one. At the head of the state was a hereditary prince, called the Grand Duke. He ruled with the help of a council of other princes and combatants. The rulers of other principalities were subordinate to the Kyiv prince. The prince had a significant military force, which included the fleet.

The prince was a legislator, a military leader, a supreme judge, an addressee of tribute. The prince was surrounded by a squad. The warriors lived in the princely court, participated in campaigns, shared tribute and military booty, and feasted with the prince. The prince consulted with the squad on all matters.

6. Civil order in ancient Russian societyaccording to "Russian Truth"

The oldest set of laws of Rus' is Russian Truth. Russian Pravda reflects the main branches of law.

Feudal ownership of land becomes differentiated. At first, the prince became a large landowner. He distributed his lands to the boyars-vassals, they, for their part, distributed the land they received to their boyars and close people. Gradually, the lands received for the service to the prince were assigned to the boyars and servants and became hereditary and began to be called estates, and the lands that were given in conditional possession for service and under the condition of service were called estates. The princes became large landowners.

The great Kyiv princes recognized the Russian land as their acquired estate and considered they had the right to dispose of it at their own discretion: to give, bequeath, abandon. And in the absence of a will, power passed by inheritance to the children of the dying princes.

In Russkaya Pravda there are punitive decrees on violation of the boundaries of land ownership.

The land was the collective property of the community. The Russian community was made up of residents of a village or village, who jointly owned the land belonging to the village. Each adult male villager had the right to a plot of land equal to the plots of other residents of his village, where a periodic redistribution of land was practiced. Only the yard, consisting of a hut, cold buildings and a garden, was the hereditary property of the family without the right to alienate persons who did not belong to the community. Forests, hayfields and pastures were in common use. Cultivated arable land was divided into equal plots, which consisted in the temporary use of members of the community, and periodically redistributed between them, usually after 6, 9, 12 years. The taxes and duties that lay on the community were distributed among the courts.

The inheritance, called in Russkaya Pravda, was opened at the time of the death of the father of the family and passed to the heirs either by will or by law. The father had the right to divide his estate among the children and allocate part of it to his wife at his own discretion. The mother could transfer her property to any of the sons whom she recognized as the most worthy. Inheritance according to the law was opened when, after his death, the testator did not leave a will.

After the father, who did not leave a will and did not divide his house during his lifetime, the legitimate children of the deceased inherited, and part of the inheritance went in favor of the church “for the remembrance of the soul of the deceased” and part in favor of the surviving wife, if the husband did not assign her a share from his property. Children born from a slave did not inherit from their father, but received freedom along with their mother. Between legitimate children, sons were preferred to daughters in the right of inheritance, but brothers who excluded sisters from the inheritance undertook to support them until they got married; and when they got married, they had to provide them with a dowry according to their means.

The father's yard without division passed to the youngest son. The property of the mother, who did not leave a will, was inherited by her son, in whose house she lived after the death of her husband. The property of the princely smerd was inherited only by his sons, and when there were none, then all the property of the deceased went to the prince, and part of the inheritance was allocated to unmarried daughters.

Guardianship was established over young children with their property, the mother acted as the guardian, and if the mother remarried, then guardianship belonged to the closest relative of the deceased.

Civil obligations were allowed only between free persons. Of the contractual obligations are: loan, hiring, luggage and purchase and sale.

For a legal purchase, it was necessary to purchase a thing for money from the owner and conclude a contract in the presence of two free witnesses.

Loans are classified with and without interest. A loan with an interest of more than three hryvnias - it is necessary to have witnesses who certify the contract if a dispute arose. If the loan is up to three hryvnias, then the defendant is cleared by an oath. A loan up to one ruble was secured by a guarantee, and over a ruble - by a written act and a mortgage. Mortgage written acts were called records, mortgage boards. Livestock, buildings, land, and valuables were pledged.

In Russkaya Pravda, a free person who received a loan and pledged to pay it back with his work is called a purchase. It was forbidden for the master to sell the purchase under the threat of releasing the latter from the loan and paying the master 12 hryvnias of the sale (fine). On the other hand, the law gave the right to turn the purchase into a complete slave for flight, not caused by the injustice of the master. The purchase was obliged to compensate the master for the damage caused by his fault or negligence, for example, for the missing cattle, if the purchase did not drive him into the yard, if he lost the master's plow or harrow.

The deposit agreement is made without witnesses, but if a dispute arises, then the purification is by oath.

Validity of the contract of exchange and sale:

· Committed by sober people;

· The absence of defects in the item being sold.

Marriage was preceded by betrothal, which was considered indissoluble.

Required conditions for marriage:

· Age: groom - 15 years old, bride - 13 years old;

The consent of the parents;

· Free will;

· Absence of relationship.

The church did not allow entry into a third marriage.

Russian Truth recognized as a crime acts prohibited by law, as well as detrimental to persons who were under the power and protection of the prince. The size of the princely penalty or fine was determined by vira.

Viroy was called a fine for the murder of a free man and it was 40 hryvnia. For the murder of princely husbands, a groom, a headman and a tiun, two virs were paid. The murder of a free woman was paid for by a half-wire and was equal to 20 hryvnias.

For a serious injury (deprivation of an eye, arm, nose, legs), half a virus was collected.

Guilty of murder without guilt on the part of the murdered, was subjected not only to property, but also to personal punishment - with his wife and children he was given to the prince for stream and plunder. For the murder of slaves, the fine is 12 hryvnia.

The most malicious acts: arson and horse-stealing, for which the guilty person is handed over to the prince on stream.

The trial is adversarial and begins at the initiative of the plaintiff. The parties to the process have equal rights. Judicial proceedings are public, oral. A special role in the system of evidence was played by ordeals, lots, and an oath.

The trial was divided into three stages:

1. cry - announcement of a crime;

2. set - confrontation;

3. persecution after - the search for evidence and a criminal.

The accused was called to court as a closer. A person summoned to court in a criminal case had to find a guarantor who would vouch for him in his appearance at the court session within the specified period. If the accused did not find a guarantor, then he was deprived of his liberty and chained in iron.

There was a community court.

Complaints of the parties against the decision of the court were submitted to the prince.

Kievan Rus as an early feudal monarchy. The highest bodies of power and administration: the Grand Duke, the princely council, the veche. The development of grand ducal jurisdiction. Relations of vassalage-suzerainty. feudal congresses. Numerical or decimal control system and transition to the palace and patrimonial system

The state system of Kievan Rus can be defined as an early feudal monarchy. The Grand Duke of Kiev was at the head - his functions were to establish foreign trade, command the armed forces, and collect tribute. The activities in the field of administration are becoming increasingly important: the appointment of local administration, princely agents, legislative and judicial activities. In his activities, he relied on the squad and the council of elders. the grand-ducal throne was inherited (first, according to the principle of seniority - the eldest in the family, then - the "fatherland", i.e. the son).

All groups of feudal lords were in a relationship of suzerainty-vassalage. The Grand Duke was the supreme suzerain, his vassals were the local princes - the overlords of their boyars and servicemen. Vassals carried out military service. The most influential participated in the meetings of the princely council. The higher clergy were also involved in the council. Feudal vassals received land holdings as a reward for their service (on the basis of either a fiefdom or land holdings granted to them for the duration of their service or for life). This increased the dependence of the peasants on the local nobility, to whom they paid feudal rent. Gradually, the situation was increasingly determined, by virtue of which all the land belonged to one or another feudal lord. The right of ownership of the feudal lords to the land (on which the peasants lived and worked) was expressed primarily in the fact that they received feudal taxes from the peasants. Later, the dependence of the peasants on the feudal lords became more and more rigid, and the right to own land was more clearly expressed.

Under the Grand Duke, a council functioned in Kyiv. At first, its composition consisted of combatants and "old men of the city." With the development of feudal relations, boyars became advisers - the top of the feudal lords, who settled on the ground, as a rule, around Kyiv. Over time, the council began to include the metropolitan, bishops, archimandrites, abbots.

After strengthening the local feudal principalities, feudal congresses were convened to resolve issues relating to all Russian lands. So, at the congress, held in the 70s of the XI century, new articles of the Russkaya Pravda (Pravda of the Yaroslavichs) were discussed. To ensure the unity of the Russian lands in the struggle against the nomads, the Polovtsy convened Lyubech (1097), Dolobsky (1103) feudal congresses.

In the early feudal monarchy, an important state and political function is performed by the people's assembly - the veche, which acquires more formalized features: an “agenda” is prepared for it, candidates for elected officials are selected, and “starets gradsky” (elders) act as an organizational center. The competence of the veche is determined: with the participation of all free (capable) residents of the city (posada) and adjacent settlements (slobodas), issues of taxation, city defense and organization of military campaigns were resolved, princes were elected (in Novgorod). The executive body of the veche was a council consisting of the “best people” (city patriciate, elders).

Two control systems were established: numerical and palace-patrimonial. The first one was engaged in the organization of the military militia. The military structural units corresponded to certain military districts, which were under the control of the thousand, sot and ten. Over time, correspondence to the numerical designation is lost. A thousand became not an armed number of people, but a territorial concept. The Thousands were primarily the leaders of the military forces of the district, but at the same time they concentrated power, judicial and political functions in their hands.

The numerical system, as feudalization progressed, was supplanted by the palace and patrimonial system. The princely court became the center of government. The princely combatants broke away from the court and settled on their lands. The main administrative representatives of the prince on the ground were the princely tiuns, who began to play a major role in the administrative, financial and judicial organizations.

Tysyatsky joined the princely servants, gradually turning into a governor, the head of all the armed formations of the principality, the centurions turned into representatives of the city authorities.

At the court, a kind of department for the management of certain branches of the economy arose. The most influential persons were the butler, the stableman (providing the troops with cavalry), the bowler (responsible for food).

7. Features of local government of Kievan Rus

Local authorities were posadniks (governors) in cities and volostels in rural areas. They were representatives of the prince in the city or volost: they collected tribute, duties, judged, established and levied fines. They kept part of the money collected from the population for themselves. Instead of a salary for their service, they had the right to collect "feed" from the population. The size of the "feed" was determined in letters. Assistant posadniks and volostels - tiuns, virniks and others - also received "feed". Such a control system was called a feeding system.

Grand princely governors and volostels were not sent to all the lands of the Old Russian state, but only to the territory of the domain of the Grand Duke. On the lands of local princes, the court and management were in the hands of the governors and volosts sent by them.

In the course of the development of feudal relations, the right to judge, to collect taxes, to administer, to a greater extent, is concentrated in the hands of large feudal lords, which is confirmed by immunity letters. Each major feudal lord had his own apparatus of coercion and power.

The court was not separated from the administration. Judicial functions were performed by the authorities and administrations in the center and locally. The princes, volostels, posadniks, representatives of princely power judged. The importance of the boyar court over the peasants grew.

Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was also established. The church had the right to judge the dependent population of its lands, to judge the clergy before all cases, and the entire population of the state - for certain categories of cases (crimes against religion, morality, family, and others). Church statutes determined the list of cases related to the court of the metropolitan, bishop.

The armed forces consisted of the squad of the Grand Duke, the squads of local princes, the feudal militia (military detachments placed at the disposal of the princes by their vassals). During the wars, a people's militia was created.

8. Economic development Kievan Rus

A sufficiently high level of development of agriculture, crafts and cattle breeding in Rus', the brisk construction of cities led to the formation of trade relations. However, trade has not yet occupied a prominent place in the national economy of Kievan Rus. Urban craftsmen worked, as a rule, to order, for which customers often paid with other products, that is, there was an exchange in kind.

Traditionally, trade was called "guest", merchants or merchants - "guests", places of trade - "graveyards". Later, after the adoption of Christianity, churches began to be built near the churchyards, around which cemeteries were arranged. By the way, in the stone cellars of churches, merchants often kept their goods, various trade agreements and documents for security purposes, and for this the church received income.

Guest merchants were traditionally revered, the state and the population highly valued their work. For the murder of a merchant, it was supposed to pay a fine of 12 hryvnias of silver, which is twice as much as for a simple smerd.

Handicraft production reached its heyday in the 11th-13th centuries, when in Rus' there were several dozen specialties. Due to the high demand for iron products (armor, weapons), iron smelting occupied the first place among the crafts. The work of gunsmiths, goldsmiths, and armored workers was especially appreciated, whose settlements in cities occupied an honorable place.

Carpentry skills were greatly developed, since church churches, houses of ordinary people and boyar mansions were built mainly of wood. The production of fabrics, especially from linen and wool, reached a high quality. With the spread of Christianity, architects for the construction of stone churches and monasteries, as well as artists for the interior painting of churches and icon painters, began to enjoy special honor.

Foreign trade has been greatly developed. Russian merchants traded with Central Europe, Byzantium, Central Asia, and Scandinavia. Merchants used the Danube to trade with Europe. They also sailed along the Baltic, Azov, Black, Caspian and Mediterranean seas. The largest centers of international trade were Novgorod and Kyiv.

The main export commodities were furs, honey, linen, leather, jewelry, weapons, etc. Imports were luxury goods for the nobility: spices, precious stones, silks, velvet, weapons, brocade, precious and non-ferrous metals.

9. The main stages in the development of money circulationancient Russian state

As a result of the development of trade in Rus', money appeared.

In Kievan Rus, they hardly minted money, but used Arab and Byzantine coins made of silver and gold, mainly in foreign trade. Silver and copper ingots were much more widespread inside the country. Such a unit as the hryvnia is known - a silver ingot weighing one pound, or approximately 400 g. The hryvnia was cut in half and each half of the hryvnia was called "ruble", or "ruble hryvnia". The ingots were stamped with the prince's mark indicating the weight. Further, the ruble was divided into two parts - two half, and even in half - two quarters. Imported raw materials were used to make money.

Conclusion

The significance of Kievan Rus in history is enormous. Under her, the ancient Russian nationality developed, uniting the East Slavic tribes in a new, higher, ethnic formation. Kievan Rus is the cradle of three fraternal East Slavic peoples - Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian.

The creation of the Old Russian state - a single state of the Eastern Slavs - was of great importance for their further state and legal development.

In its class essence, the Old Russian state was feudal, in form it was a relatively unified state, headed by the great prince of Kiev. The most ancient control system was the decimal system. The strengthening of feudalism in Rus' led to the emergence new system management - palace and patrimonial.

The state apparatus formed in Kievan Rus, its central and local bodies, and military forces were an effective tool for strengthening the rule of the feudal lords and suppressing the resistance of the exploited working masses.

Along with the formation and development of the Old Russian state, law took shape and developed. The most important legislative monument is Russkaya Pravda. In the law of Kievan Rus, social relations were reflected, the orders of the emerging ancient Russian feudal society were consolidated. It was a privilege. Its norms provided for the privileged position of representatives of the feudal class.

Kievan Rus was a great power of the Middle Ages. The high authority of Kievan Rus was secured by numerous international treaties, close relations between the Kievan princes and many foreign royal houses.

Literature

Kievan Rus state

1. Isaev I.A. History of the state and law of Russia. Moscow, 1996.

2. Kara-Murza S.G., Kuritsin V.M., Chibiryaev S.A. History of the state and law of Russia. Moscow, 1998.

3. Munchaev Sh.M., Ustinov V.M. Russian history. Moscow, 1997.

4. Pavlenko N.I. History of Russia from ancient times to 1861. Moscow, 1996.

5. Timoshina T.M. Economic history of Russia. Moscow, 1998.

6. Titov Yu.P. History of the state and law of Russia. Moscow, 1999.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Introduction

The state system of Kievan Rus can be defined as an early feudal monarchy. At the head was the Kyiv Grand Duke. In his activities, he relied on the squad and the council of elders. Local administration was carried out by its governors (in cities) and volostels (in rural areas).

In the life of Kievan Rus there are signs of significant progress in citizenship and education. The presence of significant capital in the large cities of Rus' in the 11th and 12th centuries is noticeable. Material contentment was expressed in the success of the arts and book education. But all this constituted the front side of life, which had its reverse side, which is the life of the lower classes of society.

Kievan Rus was one of the largest states of that time, it occupied an important strategic position: trade routes connecting Europe and Byzantium passed through its territory. This also determined the breadth of cultural contacts of Kievan Rus. Possessing its own cultural potential, pre-Christian Rus' creatively assimilated influence from outside, which ensured its organic entry into the pan-European historical and cultural landscape and gave rise to "universality" as a characteristic feature of Russian culture.

By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, ancient Russian culture reached its highest level and spread widely over the vast territory of Eastern Europe. Russian cities became accomplices in the creation of a pan-European Romanesque artistic style. These achievements are based on successes in the development of the material and spiritual culture of the previous period.

The political structure of Kievan Rus

The question of the political structure of Kievan Rus therefore presents many difficulties; he caused a lot of research and disputes among historians. Scientific controversy revolved here around two questions: 1) what gave rise to and supported the fragmentation into principalities of ancient Rus'? 2) on what principle, in this state of affairs, did the unity of the Russian land rest?

The answer to the first question seemed very simple at first. Historians of the last century, and partly Karamzin, explained it by the fact that the princes did not want to offend their sons and they were all given land; but later they realized that personal princely arbitrariness cannot split a state that has national unity, and they began to look for the cause in other phenomena, in the customs and abstract views of the tribes. Some thought that political fragmentation was in general in the manners and customs of the Slavs (for the first time this idea was expressed by Nadezhdin). Others (like Pogodin) saw the reason for the formation of many princely tables in the fact that the princes, as owners of the land, considered themselves entitled, according to Slavic custom, to own the land together.

Finally, others (the school of tribal life) successfully noticed the tribal order of inheritance of tables and thought that the tribal life of the princes at the same time supported zemstvo unity and divided the land into parts according to the number of relatives who had the right to own tribal property. Subsequently, researchers looked for the reasons for the fragmentation of Rus' in the real conditions of public life: Passek found these reasons in the desire of urban communities for autonomy; Kostomarov believed that these reasons stemmed from the desire for isolation not of urban communities, but of the tribes that were part of the Kyiv principality (he numbered 6 tribes); Klyuchevsky, in essence, supported the view of Passek, saying thus: “The Russian land was originally formed from independent urban regions with the help of a close union of two aristocracies - military and commercial. When this union of zemstvo forces disintegrated (due to the mobility, vagrancy of the princes), the constituent parts of the earth also began to return to their former political isolation, then the nobility of merchant capital remained at the head of local worlds and the aristocracy of arms with their princes over these worlds ”(“ Boyar Duma ”) .

The second question is what was the unity of the earth based on? - was also allowed differently. Former historians, and even Karamzin, did not dwell on it for long: they said that the unity of the earth was based on the feeling of princely kinship, which bound the princes into one. The school of tribal life was the first to give a scientific construction to the issue, based on the concept of tribal ownership. The clan of princes, representing one inseparable whole, unites the land in its possession. All the princes immediately own the land, remembering that they themselves are "grandchildren of one grandfather." Rus' was, therefore, a single state, because it was the possession of one family.

Representatives of the federal theory headed by Kostomarov had a different opinion: he saw in ancient Rus' a federation based on the unity of origin and language, the unity of faith in the church, and, finally, on the unity of the dynasty ruling the country. But a federation presupposes the existence of certain permanent institutions common to the entire federation, while in Rus' such institutions cannot be indicated; princely congresses, for example, represent nothing legally certain. That is why the federal theory was replaced by a new, contractual one, belonging to Sergeevich. Even Chicherin said that ancient Rus' did not know the state order and lived on private law, on a contractual basis. Proceeding from this thought, Sergeevich came to the conclusion that ancient Rus' did not have political unity, and the only driving principle of life was the beginning of personal interest.

The princes do not know restraint to personal arbitrariness, they do not inherit the tables by right, but "get" them by force or art, formulating their relations to other princes and to the zemstvo under the terms of "rows", that is, contracts; the unity of the state is out of the question. Klyuchevsky says that two ties lie at the basis of the unity of the Russian land: the 1st is related, linking the princes, the 2nd is economic, linking the regions. A peculiar combination of conditions arising from economic life volosts, with the conditions of the tribal life of the princes, gave rise to the constant movement of the princes through the cities and the constant interaction of the zemstvo worlds. This was the expression of the unity of the Russian land.

All the teachings cited were right, because they all correctly illuminated one side of the issue: some caught the formula of legal possession, the actual idea of order (this is the school of tribal life); others were engaged not so much in the study of norms, even ideal ones, as in the study of their violations (Sergeevich); still others noted the role of society in ancient Rus', and they accepted it differently (Kostomarov and Passek). Each introduced his own view, and this view aroused the objections of others. With all the disagreements that exist on the question, however, it can be said that the question has now been sufficiently elucidated in its main features. The generic order of inheritance of tables, as an ideal legal norm, undoubtedly existed. But next to it there were conditions that undermined the correctness of this order.

Thus, princely congresses often adopted decisions that were contrary to the legitimate course of research. The Lyubechsky Congress of Princes (1097) decided on the princes, so that each of them "keep his fatherland." This principle of fatherhood, that is, family inheritance from father to son, undoubtedly began to take shape in the minds of this era, decomposing the tribal principle. (This is very well disclosed in the new book “Princely Law in Ancient Rus'” by A.E. Presnyakov.) The arbitrariness of the princes, either who did not recognize the legal order and authority of the elders, or who, thanks to their strength and seniority, violated the interests of the younger princes, also prevented correctness of political life.

The outcast, the exclusion of the princes from the rights of their state, created such areas of outcasts along the edges of the Russian land, which they already owned directly by family, and not by tribal order; the outcast ruler could not claim other volosts, but other princes should not have laid claim to his volost either. Finally, if we recall interference in political affairs and in questions of the inheritance of city councils, which sometimes did not recognize the obligatory reckoning of princely seniority for themselves and called princes of their choice to the cities, then we will indicate all the most important conditions that corrupted the correct order of political life.

The existence of these conditions serves as clear evidence that the political structure of the Kyiv principality was unstable. Composed of many tribal and urban worlds, this principality could not form into a single state in our sense of the word even in the 11th century. fell apart. Therefore, it would be most accurate to define Kievan Rus as a collection of many principalities united by one dynasty, the unity of religion, tribe, language and national identity. This self-consciousness authentically existed: from its height, the people condemned their political disorder, condemned the princes for “carrying the land separately” with their “which”, that is, strife, and urged them to be in unity for the sake of a single “Russian land”.

The political connection of Kievan society was weaker than all its other connections, which was one of the most prominent reasons for the fall of Kievan Rus.

From the general form of political life, let's move on to its particulars. We noticed that the first political form that originated in Rus' was urban or regional life. When the regional and city life had already taken shape, a princely dynasty appeared in the cities and regions, uniting all these regions into one principality. Next to the authorities of the city became the power of the princes. This is the reason for the fact that in the XI-XII centuries. there are two political authorities in Rus': 1) princely and 2) city, or veche. The veche is older than the prince, but the prince is often more visible than the veche; the latter sometimes temporarily loses its significance to it.

The princes of Kievan Rus, older or younger, were all politically independent from each other, they had only moral duties: the princes of the volost had to honor the elder, grand prince, “in the father’s place”, together with him they had to protect their own “from the filthy” volost, together with him to think and guess about the Russian land and solve important issues of Russian life. We distinguish three main functions of the activity of the ancient Kievan princes. Firstly, the prince legislated, and the ancient law, Russkaya Pravda, directly confirms this with several of its articles. In Pravda we read, for example, that the sons of Yaroslav, Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, jointly decided to replace revenge for murder with a fine. The titles of some of the articles in Pravda testify that these articles were princely "courts", that is, they were established by the princes.

Thus the legislative function of the princes is attested by an ancient monument. The second function of their power is military. The princes appeared for the first time in the Russian land, as defenders of its borders, and in this respect the subsequent princes did not differ from the first. Let us recall that Vladimir Monomakh almost considered his main task to be the defense of the borders from the Polovtsy; he also persuaded other princes at congresses to fight against the Polovtsy, and together with them undertook general campaigns against the nomads. The third function is the judicial and administrative function. Russkaya Pravda testifies that the princes themselves judged criminal cases. According to Russkaya Pravda, a fine of 80 hryvnias was levied for the murder of the prince's equerry, "as if Izyaslav had put him in his stable, he was killed by Dorogobuzhtsi." Here "Truth" indicates a valid court case. Regarding the administrative activities of the princes, we can say that for a long time they have carried the duties of administration, established "graveyards and tributes." Even on the very first pages of the chronicle, we read how Olga "set graveyards and tributes in the Place and dues and tributes in Luza." (The graveyards were administrative districts.) Here are the main duties of the prince of the Kyiv era: he legislates, he is a military leader, he is the supreme judge and supreme administrator.

These signs always characterize the highest political power. In accordance with the nature of their activities, the princes also have servants, the so-called squad, their closest advisers, with the help of which they govern the country. In the annals one can find a lot of evidence, even with a poetic character, about the close relationship of the squad to the prince. Even St. Vladimir, according to chronicle legend, expressed the idea that you can’t get a squad with silver and gold, but with a squad you can get both gold and silver. Such a view of the squad, as something incorruptible, standing up to the prince in moral relations, runs through the entire chronicle. The squad in ancient Rus' enjoyed great influence on affairs; she demanded that the prince do nothing without her, and when one young prince of Kiev decided to go on a campaign without consulting her, she refused to help him, and the prince's allies did not go with him without her. The solidarity of the prince with the retinue followed from the most real life conditions, although it was not determined by any law. The squad was hiding behind the princely authority, but she supported him; a prince with a large squad was strong, with a small one - weak. The squad was divided into senior and junior.

The eldest was called "husbands" and "boyars" (the origin of this word is interpreted differently, by the way, there is an assumption that it came from the word "boly", greater). The boyars were influential advisers to the prince, they undoubtedly made up the highest stratum in the squad and often had their own squad. They were followed by the so-called "husbands" or "princes of men" - warriors and princely officials. The younger squad is called "gridy"; sometimes they are called "lads", and this word should be understood only as a term of social life, which could refer, perhaps, to a very old person. This is how the squad was divided. All of it, with the exception of the prince's slaves - serfs, treats the prince equally; she came to the latter and entered into "ranks" with him, in which she designated her duties and rights. The prince had to treat the combatant and the “husband” as a completely independent person, because the combatant could always leave the prince and look for another service.

From the squad, the prince took his administrators, with the help of whom he manages the land and protects it. These assistants were called "virniki" and "tiuns; their duty consisted in the court and the recovery of vira, i.e., the court fee, in the management of the land and in the collection of tribute. Tribute and vira fed the prince and his squad. The prince collected tribute, sometimes with the help of officials, and sometimes personally. A tribute was collected in kind and in money, and in the same way, not only in kind, but also in money, it was given to the squad. One chronicler of the beginning of the XIII century. writes about an earlier time that the prince “even if it is the right of the vira, and that it is possible, - giving the squad for weapons. And his squad ... not greedy: there are malomi, prince, 200 hryvnias, I don’t put gold hoops on their wives, but their wives wear silver.” A salary of 200 hryvnias for each combatant is very high according to the then concepts and undoubtedly testifies to the wealth of the Kyiv princes (if you count 1/2 pound of silver in a hryvnia, then its weight value is about 10 rubles). Where did this wealth come from, what sources of income did the princes use? Firstly, the means to the princes were given by their judicial activities. Secondly, the princes received tribute, which has already been mentioned. Thirdly, military booty was in favor of the princes. Finally, the last type of princely income is private income. Taking advantage of their privileged position, the princes acquire private lands (villages) for themselves, which they strictly distinguish from political possessions. A prince cannot bequeath political possessions to a woman, but only to a son or brother, and yet we see that he gives his private lands to his wife or daughter, or to monasteries.

Veche was older than the prince. We read from the chronicler: “From the very beginning, the Novgorodians and the Smolnyans and the Kyyans and the Polochans and all the authorities seem to agree on a thought at the veche, and what the elders think, the suburbs will become.” The meaning of these words is this: from the beginning, cities and volosts (“sweets”) were ruled by veche and the veche of the older city ruled not only the city, but also its entire volost. Next to these eve, in which all the heads of families used the right to vote, the power of the princes appeared, but the princes did not abolish the eve, but ruled the earth, sometimes with the assistance, and sometimes with the opposition of the latter. Many historians have tried to define the relationship between the prince and the vecha and, conversely, the vecha and the prince from the point of view of our political concepts, but this has only led to exaggerations. The facts of veche activity, collected in the book by V. I. Sergeevich “Prince and Veche”, first of all, do not allow us to establish the very form of the veche, which is very easy to confuse with simple folk gatherings, and the uncertainty of the form often forced researchers to distinguish between legal and illegal veche.

A veche convened by a prince was called legal; veche, gathered against the will of the prince, rebelliously, was considered illegal. The consequence of the legal uncertainty of the position of the veche was that the latter was highly dependent on purely local or temporary conditions: its political significance decreased with a strong prince who had a large squad, and, conversely, increased with a weak one; moreover, in large cities it had a greater political significance than in small ones. The study of this question makes us convinced that the relationship between the prince and the veche is constantly fluctuating. So, under Yaroslav and his sons, the veche was far from having the same power as under his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. When the power of the princes was strengthened and determined, the veche moved from political activity to economic activity - it began to deal with the affairs of the inner life of the city. But when the family of Rurikovich multiplied and hereditary accounts got confused, the city councils sought to regain their political significance. Taking advantage of the turmoil, they themselves called to themselves the prince they wanted, and entered into “ranks” with him. Little by little, the veche felt so strong that it dared to argue with the prince: it happened that the prince stood for one thing, and the veche for another, and then the veche often “shows the way to the prince,” i.e., expels him.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. 2004.
Texting: Sergey Pilipenko, December 2017.

I consider this topic quite relevant, because whatever is being discussed in our time (and that’s good) - whether democracy is what we have, and whether it corresponds to our traditions, and whether we correspond to democracy at all, and whether democratic tradition is characteristic Russian. They also talk about the desirability of recreating the monarchy. Moreover, it is often forgotten that there are many monarchies, and that not every monarchy, just as not every democracy, corresponds to Russian national traditions. Believe me, gentlemen, as Aristotle noted twenty-four centuries ago in his treatise "Politics", which was published many times, all correct forms of power are good: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Their distortions are just as unambiguously bad. For a monarchy, this is tyranny. For the aristocracy, this is an oligarchy (we use this term illiterately, in fact, it is the power of a few or, if you like, the power of a gang; in Greek, “oligos” means a few). And finally, ochlocracy (from "ohlos" - crowd) is a distortion of democracy.

There is one more, very important remark. Developing the thought of Aristotle, in the middle of the II century BC. The greatest ancient historian Polybius came to the conclusion that the best polity, that is, the political system or structure of the state, is such a polity in which all three correct types of power are combined in one scheme as its elements: monarchy, and aristocracy, and democracy.

In 1993, I called this three-element polity the Polybian scheme. And today I will try to show you briefly that in the best periods of their history, the Russians were governed in accordance with the Polybian scheme, and in decent periods, unlike the best (there were also indecent periods), the Russians sought to restore the Polybian scheme. There is my article about that back in 1993, slightly altered later, which is called “Polybian scheme of power”. I haven't republished it lately, but it's absolutely available on the Internet.

So let's see. Starting from the pagan, hardly distinguishable past in Russia, each principality was a state. I am firmly convinced that what you had in your school textbook, a united Kievan Rus, is a fiction of historians of the 18th century. Such a state never existed. There was a confederation of principalities. Undoubtedly, the Grand Duke of Kiev was the first prince, but he was revered as such only because of the exception that Kyiv was the first city, that Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities. There was no political system for the whole of Rus', neither the capital, nor the government, nor the ruler, but in the principality it was. This was the case throughout the pre-Mongolian period.

In general, now in science it is customary to consider the terms "ancient Rus'", "pre-Mongolian Rus'" and "Kievan Rus" as synonyms. That is, from pagan times, from the depths of centuries, one might say, from the 8th century AD to the middle of the 13th century AD - this is the period of ancient Rus'. What do we see there? We see that every state has a prince. The prince is in the city. Each city, if possible, seeks to obtain a prince for itself. It's difficult, it's challenging. For several hundred years, Pskov has been seeking its own prince in order to stop being a “suburb” of Novgorod, a suburb not in the modern sense of the word, but in the sense of a dependent city, a city of the second row, a city without full rights. The princes inherited each other in accordance with the "ladder law". It united Rus'. "Ladder" means ladder, but a Slavic synonym has been adopted for the political term. That is, the tables were inherited by seniority not from father to son, but from brother to brother, who moved from table to table as higher, more prestigious tables were vacated. This, to some extent, as well as the fact that in the XI century almost everywhere local tribal princely dynasties were ousted, the Rurik dynasty was strengthened almost everywhere, undoubtedly, was a serious bond for Rus'.

There were quite a few reasons for the unity of Rus'. There was no such state, but there was such a country. Never confuse the concepts of "country" and "state". I think you will immediately remember that in English these concepts are not related, these are words of different origin. A country is a historical-geographical concept, it takes centuries to develop, it cannot be established. Right now, before our eyes, they are trying to establish countries. But this, in my opinion, is a futile exercise. For example, non-historical Latvia or non-historical, artificial Estonia is not a country. The state, of course, can be established, constituted. And the term "constitution" in its original meaning means the establishment of something that did not exist before. So, the country of Rus existed. Religious unity apparently existed in pagan times, and then, from the end of the 10th century, Rus' finally became Orthodox and thereby strengthened its religious unity.

Assuming a possible question, I note that I believe, like the godless historians of the godless direction in Soviet times, that the baptism of Rus' is really not a one-time act, but a long-term act, stretching for centuries. The error of Soviet historiography was not in this. They tried to present the case in such a way that the baptism of Vladimir and the people of Kiev was the beginning of this process, but in fact it was its end, completion. From the end of the 10th century, it was already just an Orthodox country. The Orthodox country also received Orthodox statehood.

Rus' and its legal space were tied together by the action of the Russian Truth of Yaroslav and some of the Byzantine translation laws adopted by us. They connected transit trade routes and a single monetary system, a single price equivalent. But he did not bind a single ruler and a single government, a single capital. What was not, was not. So we're talking about a union, a confederation.

So, in every principality there was a prince. The prince, according to Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (one of the greatest pre-revolutionary historians at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries), had power limited by a service character in relation to the city. This does not mean that the prince was hired and expelled. He was not a mercenary, he was a monarch, but a monarch in the service of the principality, especially the capital city. The prince with his retinue still in pagan times entered the service of the city. And even the prince who captured the city by force (remember the famous episode with Oleg, who captured Kyiv), justified his capture by zealous service to the city.

It would be useful for us to know now, we are much less freedom-loving and have less self-esteem than our distant ancestors, the Slavic-Russians of ancient Rus'. And we really might not be interested, for example, in the questionable nature of Boris Yeltsin's coming to power for a number of reasons, if Boris Yeltsin defended Russian or at least Russian interests. In fact, everything was the other way around. In Kievan times, such a prince would have been kicked out in a few months if he had not been killed. Sometimes they killed.

Undoubtedly, urban democracy was in balance with the princely power, the prince and the squad. But if an alliance of aristocracy and democracy was formed against the monarchical element, that is, an alliance of the boyar nobility and veche democracy, then it was stronger than the monarchy. In 1135, such an unification took place in Novgorod, a consolidation of aristocratic and democratic forces. The prince was expelled and it was decided that "from now on, Novgorodians are free to be princes," that is, they are free to call, free to see them off. This lasted until the loss, until the loss of the independence of Novgorod, that is, until the end of the 15th century, until 1478.

At the same time, princely power is real, it is real in that the prince is, of course, first of all the military leader of his principality, but also the head of the government with certain reservations, the personification of power. Note that “the city is stronger than the prince,” Klyuchevsky declares, and our contemporary Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov, a St. However, there is also such an annalistic indication in the first Novgorod chronicle of the senior version of the beginning of the 12th century, where it is noted that “there was no prince in Novgorod for a year and a half, and there was a great tightness among the Novgorodians.” Again, it is not clear to modern man. How so? The main "exploiter" is gone, we must gather a "rally" and get drunk. But the Novgorodians were smarter than us, they understood that Novgorod was losing terribly in prestige. If there is no prince, then Novgorod slips in the hierarchy, he is threatened with the prospect of turning into someone's suburb. The city was in dire need of a prince.

Boyars. The power of the boyars lay in the fact that if the prince did not have his own land, then the boyar did, he had a fiefdom. The prince, generally speaking, had the land of his entire principality. That meant that he receives tribute from her. Dani is the same as later taxes, and now taxes. But the prince did not and could not have a fief from which he would receive rent, because he received these tributes not as Prince Mstislav or Gleb, but as a prince, for example, Bryansk. And if the Bryansk prince rose and became the prince of Chernigov, then from that moment he received Chernigov tributes, larger, richer, but immediately lost the Bryansk tributes, which went to his successor, who became the Bryansk prince. The boyar was more closely connected with his land, he had estates. These are the first landowners in our history. And we constantly see references that the prince must make this or that fundamental decision with the boyars.

And what about democracy? I have already said that we have an ancient democratic tradition. Our democratic tradition if not older than the monarchical one, and also, of course, goes back to pagan times. First of all, we are talking about urban democracy. There was also a rural community, there was a rural community, a rural gathering that decided affairs, but only internal affairs. Rural democracy concerned a specific volost, respectively, a specific community. It did not have the slightest influence on the state, that is, on the affairs of the principality. But urban democracy provided.

A Russian city is fundamentally different from a Western European city. Here in this collection, in its title, on its cover, the name of a large article is placed. This is my article, together with my colleague Marochkin, which is called “The Russian City and the Russian House”. It is also on the Internet. Therefore, if you are interested, reading it will not be a particular problem. This article of mine, perhaps, was noted by professionals for some reason above all others. The Russian city was fundamentally different from the West. He was softer. The Western city, the cradle of Western democracy, was very tightly organized. Why? Because the western city defended itself from its own lord, not from the enemy, but from the lord, who could be a count, duke, bishop ... It was from a collision with a lord that stone walls were erected at the first opportunity. Therefore, there was a rigid organization within the city, there were merchant guilds and craft workshops. We also had merchant brotherhoods similar to Western merchant guilds in the pre-Mongolian period, but there were no workshops. There was less rigid organization.

Still, the prince was not a lord, or, more precisely, he was a lord, but at the same time he was a city magistrate, an official responsible to the city. Because there were no shops, but there was a territorial organization. The lowest level is the street, which gathered the street assembly and elected the street headman. In a big city, the next level is the end (the "district", as we would now say). In Novgorod there were five ends, in Pskov - six. Now historians believe that any large city had a Konchanian structure. The end had its own cathedral church, the Konchan veche, and elected the Konchan elder. And there was the highest level of urban democracy - the city council, it met only on very serious problems.

Here is an example that will convince you that this democracy was absolutely real. The prince, who at that time was still perceived first of all as a warrior and commander, was free to fight at his own discretion. Well, those who were supposed to, the bishop, abbots, priests could exhort him not to fight, to be peaceful, especially not to enter into civil strife with another prince. They either succeeded or they failed. That was his royal right. But the prince could, at his own discretion, start a war only with the squad, in extreme cases, with "eager people", he could recruit volunteers. The prince could not militia the city. The city took up arms only by its own veche verdict. That is, in other words, we see that our distant ancestors in ancient Rus' participated in resolving the issue of peace and war in much the same way as the ancient Greeks in Hellas polis, which you were taught correctly in school. I think that now the most ardent democrats do not demand, after all, that the solution to the issue of peace and war be adopted by a referendum, well, due to technical impossibility, really. That is, any democracy of the 21st century is weaker, less powerful, and therefore less democratic than those medieval democracies that we are talking about today. Consider this too.

Interestingly, there was also an intermediate, as we like to say, "system of checks and balances." Absolutely nothing new has been invented lately! There was also a very interesting institution in ancient Rus'. This is the position of the thousandth. "Thousand" is the head of the city militia and the head of the city, like, for example, "Lord Mayor" in England. Thousandsky is always a boyar, of course, but he was elected by the democracy. He was elected by the townspeople, and to some extent was the city's counterbalance to the prince. That was the situation. True, I do not believe that this was the implementation of the "principle of the separation of powers." In general, I believe that the “principle of separation of powers” is not only not implemented anywhere (it is imitated), it is not feasible. We are not talking about this at all, I am talking now about the West, where democratic institutions are more developed. All the same, this is a fiction - "the principle of the independence of the authorities."

And the principle that I now draw for you is rather not the principle of separation, but the principle of supplementing powers! It is very characteristic of the Polybius scheme.

So look. Elements of the Polybian scheme: prince (monarchy), boyars (aristocracy), veche (democracy), moreover, a full-fledged democracy. Who actually made up the urban democracy? From city householders, heads of families, who spoke on behalf of their families. It is absolutely unthinkable to imagine that an urban bum would appear at a veche, and even open his mouth, as is customary in the last decade and a half. The householder closest to him would immediately shut his mouth to the joyful laughter of those around him. Of course, democracy is the heads of families, as in Rome, as in Hellas, as in all real democracies. In passing, I note that an unlimited democracy, in which all residents participate, is in essence not a democracy, but an ochlocracy, the power of the mob. This is written in my work "Demos and his cratia". Illegal immigrants aspire to become legal, even aspire to acquire political rights. Sakhalin is not the most painful place in this problem. But look what is happening in Siberia with the invasion of the most dangerous illegal immigrants - the Chinese. True democracies protect themselves from such phenomena, penetrations and threats by their very structure, because "citizen" and "resident" are fundamentally different concepts. You were taught that democracy is the rule of the people. What is "demos"? The inhabitant has nothing to do with the demos. Demos are only citizens. Democracy is the rule of full citizens. In the article "Demos and its Cracy" I note that if the entire population is declared citizens, then there is not a single citizen in this country. And in ancient Rus' there were citizens.

So, this is the first period corresponding to the Polybius scheme. In the XIII century there is a change of ethnicity. This is according to Gumilyov; strictly speaking, we do not have time for this. The history of the united people of the Slavs ends and the history of the Russians begins. Gumilyov quite convincingly shows that the normal age of an ethnos that has lived its entire history is 12-13 centuries, after which the ethnos disintegrates. Therefore, you can see that we are halfway there. So you can have a huge number of children and be calm about your grandchildren, great-grandchildren, Russia will still be enough for their lifetime, unless, of course, we take Russia seriously.

So, the change of ethnicity is generally always a big upheaval, although we have inherited the culture of ancient Rus'. The ethnic group changes, but the culture remains the same. And political traditions are part of culture, they are the same. But due to the fact that the disintegrating ethnos is disintegrating because it completely loses intra-ethnic solidarity, as it always happens, immediately, naturally, everyone who is not lazy began to tear Rus' to shreds. Moreover, of those who tore it, the Horde were the least dangerous. The Horde did not seek to occupy our lands, they sought to receive tribute. They were not going to live in our lands. The steppe dwellers, even in the forest-steppe of southern Rus', were uncomfortable, and they did not live in the forests at all, they were lost there. It was not the most formidable opponent. This is proved, for example, by the fact that almost everything that survived from the culture of ancient Russia was preserved in the Great Russian regions, in the regions of eastern Russia, and in the western regions, which are now called in a new way Ukraine and Belarus, which, as it turned out, have both If it were not for its independent history, nothing has been preserved, because the Horde did not destroy Russian Orthodox culture, while the Poles, Hungarians, and Germans destroyed it with taste.

So, the transitional period begins, the period of ruin of the XIII century. Even pagan Rus', the Scandinavians called "Gardariki" - a country of cities. In this article, I calculated that from 20% to 25% of the population of pre-Mongolian Rus' lived in cities. True, part, living in cities, was engaged in agriculture. Not only artisans and merchants lived in cities. This is about the same percentage as at the end of the (pre-Christian) Roman Empire, up to a quarter of the population were city dwellers. All this is leaving. Rus' becomes agrarian for a long time. Well, of course, besides, urban democracy is being lost, while democracy was urban. A weakened city, losing its original cultural role, its economic role, cannot but lose its political one. Therefore, we still have a princely monarchy in a certain balance with the boyar aristocracy. But what is very interesting is that, nevertheless, grassroots democracy is preserved, and both the village assembly and the volost assembly live on. There are no more veche in the cities. The Novgorod veche will survive until the end of Novgorod, and the Pskov veche will survive, but in general the veche disappears everywhere. However, the organization of the townspeople itself is preserved throughout the entire period, these are hundreds and settlements. Here is another important observation. Democracy is built only from below, only from the local, as we would say now, from the municipal level. The only way!

I undertake to assert, without imposing on you, that if in some abstract state ruled by an unlimited monarch without any parliament, at the municipal level, not officials, but only councils and elected chiefs, govern, then we are forced to admit that in this state there is democracy, as in we, for example, had democracy since the Great Reforms of Alexander II, that is, since the 1860s. Actually Zemstvo reform was carried out in 1862-64. And if in a certain state there is a parliament, a unicameral or bicameral, or even a five-chamber parliament, if someone manages to come up with such a thing, but officials are in control below - the heads of the DEPs, police departments and even district commissioners, then we are forced to admit that there is no democracy in this there is no state, just as there is none in ours now, because we have just such a system. Yes, everything seems to be in order with parliamentarianism, but at the bottom we see only officials. Democracy can only be built from below, from the municipality to the parliament, if it exists.

During this period, therefore, we still did not have the Polybius scheme, we did not have democracy at the level of the state, the principality, but democratic self-government was preserved below.

By the end of the 15th century, for the first time, we come to the creation of a united Russia. In the days of Kyiv there was no united Russia, but perhaps under the greatest sovereign of our history, our first sovereign, by the way, our first Tsar Ivan the Third Vasilyevich, such a state appears. Here it is extremely interesting that this indicates a change in the national character or, in a scientific way, an ethnic stereotype. The Slavs were not statesmen, they were very freedom-loving, and the confederation suited them. And the birth of Russians takes place in the terrible conditions of invasions from all sides. And that is why Russians from the very beginning become statesmen. And in the XIV-XV centuries there is not a struggle of all against all, and not at all a struggle of someone for their independence. Tver never fought for its independence from Moscow. Everyone agreed that a united Russia was needed and that there would be a united Russia. The struggle went on between the three dynasties only for who would actually be able to found a united Russia - Suzdal, Tver or Moscow. Moscow succeeded. But the installation was common - yes, we need a single, powerful Russia. She appeared. No one will name the exact date. It is usually believed that this happened during the acquisition of external independence, the destruction of the Horde in 1480. This is a convenient date. In any case, it is somewhere at the end of the 15th century.

And as soon as a united Russia appeared, it turns out that the social base of the ruling stratum has become narrow. For a separate principality, a prince and a boyar duma were enough. It is clear why. Even the prince could be reached by a simple person, and as a last resort, a day was driving to the boyar. The peasant arrived at the boyar court, took off his hat, bowed, and told the boyar about his problems. And the boyar listened, the people were then traditional, respectful to each other. But now, with the government in Moscow, the Boyar Duma is sitting in Moscow, and you won't get to it. And that is why the problem of expanding the social base of the ruling stratum arises. How could it be resolved? In the West, it was often solved bureaucratically. France followed this path already in the 14th century. Unlike Russians, the French love bureaucracy. They are the poets of the bureaucracy. Actually, the very word "bureaucracy" is French. So, we did not go down this path. Already in 1493, Ivan the Third, accepting the Sudebnik, the first all-Russian legislative body since the time of Russkaya Pravda Yaroslav, consulted “from different ranks with people”, in fact, with the Zemsky Sobor, only in the annals it has not yet been called the “Zemsky Sobor”. That is, already in the 15th century, under John the Third, there was a timid experience of parliamentarism, even with all the authority of Ivan the Third, who during his lifetime received the nickname the Terrible, which was later stolen from him by his crazy grandson, a tyrant and cannibal. By right, this nickname did not belong to Ivan the Fourth, but to his great grandfather.

I cannot help saying that I have been ashamed all my life that we are probably the only state where there is not a single monument to its founder. In America, Washington sticks out of any garbage dump, and Columbus at the same time. In Turkey, you stumble over Kemal Ataturk. We do not have a single monument to Ivan the Third. And you don't know him well after school. Agree that you know Ivan the Fourth much better. This is how our school teaching is structured. In the entire history of pre-revolutionary Russia, there were only two tyrants. In the history of Italy, I would name you dozens of tyrants. But at school they study exactly tyrants - Ivan and Peter! And many worthy and even great sovereigns are mentioned in such a way that you forget about them, the same Alexander the Liberator, by the way.

So, the problem is posed, but not resolved. It is allowed by the middle of the 16th century. In 1548, a short-term Zemsky Sobor was assembled. The following year, 1549, a full-scale zemsky sobor of 1549-50 was already working and carrying out a zemstvo reform.

The Zemsky Sobor is a parliament without any reservations. By the way, this is how it was perceived in the West. Note that "Parliament" is the national name for the English estates. All normal peoples had their own names. In France in the Middle Ages, you probably remember, there were "states general", in Spain - "Cortes", in Poland - "Seim", in Sweden - "Riksdag", and in our country - "Zemsky Sobor".

So, the Zemsky Sobor had the usual composition for the parliament of that time. The upper chamber was made up of aristocrats (boyars and higher clergy), but the lower, elective chamber, three times as large, was elected from the nobility and from the townspeople, that is, from the bourgeoisie. But this was the case in all countries. But the Zemstvo reform was even more interesting. It was decided to elect a zemstvo headman in each volost. They elected the headman from the local nobles for a term, they elected "according to the noble list", as we would now say, but they elected all free householders, that is, they elected the nobles and peasants! In addition to the zemstvo headman, there was also a labial headman. "Guba" is another name for the parish. You have to translate into English, because your generation knows English and American concepts better than Russian. The "lip warden" is the sheriff, the elected head of the police. Elected zemstvo and lip kissers also helped the elders. The "kisser", because he kisses the cross, takes an oath to serve honestly when he is elected to office. Tselovalnikov were elected from wealthy peasants. That is, our democracy turned out to be wider than Western European (perhaps with the only exception of Sweden), because at the zemstvo level, at the municipal level, not only petty nobles and burghers were involved in it, but also peasants, at least the top peasants. This is a good touch to our democratic tradition. This system operates intermittently on the oprichnina, on the tyrannical overwhelm of Ivan the Fourth, and operates in the 16th and 17th centuries.

What are the functions of the Zemsky Sobor? Zemsky Sobors elected tsars. The first election of a king takes place in 1584. Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich was the rightful heir. But after the death of the tyrant, the estates declared themselves imperiously, stamped their feet, and the legitimate heir was forced to go through the election procedure. After Fedor, each subsequent tsar is elected, including the legitimate heir. Thus, election is a statement. Not only the first Romanov, but also the second Romanov, and subsequent Romanovs are also elected. And the last elections are held in 1682, when Ivan the Fifth and Peter the First, brothers Ivan and Peter Alekseevich are elected to the kingdom on the rights of co-government.

Zemsky Sobors deposed sovereigns, more precisely, they had the right to depose sovereigns. They took advantage of this once, when in 1610 the Zemsky Sobor deposed Tsar Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky due to complete inability and harmfulness.

Zemsky Sobors and only they approved the laws.

Zemsky Sobors have always resolved issues of peace and war. So, for example, in the early 30s of the 17th century, the Don Cossacks conquered, took away the fortress of Azov from the Turks and offered it as a gift to the Moscow sovereign. Mikhail Fedorovich turned to the Zemsky Sobor. The Zemsky Sobor refused the tsar, because the turmoil was not long ago, Russia was still weak, and accepting Azov meant war with the Turks. We were kind of unprepared.

Twenty years later, in 1653, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich also turned to the Zemsky Sobor with the question of whether to accept Bogdan Khmelnitsky with part of the Little Russian lands into Russian citizenship. Here we were already talking about fellow tribesmen, then everyone considered themselves Russian people, and the Zemsky Sobor decided to accept. In 1654 (this year's anniversary) there was a ratification of this treaty, this is the Pereyaslav Rada. In fact, everything was decided a year earlier.

Zemsky Sobors approved major changes in taxes, as they did all over the world. The only thing that Zemsky Sobors lacked in order to become a completely full-fledged parliament was regularity. Zemsky Sobors were assembled by sovereigns, sometimes on their own initiative, sometimes on the initiative of the estates. However, already in 1634, a prominent Moscow nobleman, Beklemishev (this name should be known), proposed making the cathedral permanent, with a one-year session and a term of office for vowels. In Russian, "deputy" is called a vowel, that is, having the right to vote. But Beklemishev's proposal was somehow not accepted out of thoughtlessness, as they say, because a council was convened every second year anyway.

Thus, having created a single state, we restored the Polybius scheme. And now, on a national scale, it looks like this - the tsar, the boyar duma, the Zemsky Sobor.

In 1689 and 1696, two coups took place, actively supported by foreign mercenaries, two coups of Peter the Great, they were bureaucratic coups. And the worst thing is not even that under the conditions of the second tyranny, Peter stopped convening zemstvo councils. There is nothing terrible in this, it is a nuisance, but you know, the Western European powers also went through their tyrannies, or, to put it mildly, through their absolutism. A rather fashionable trend of absolutism, absolute monarchy in the 17th-18th centuries originated in the 16th century. For example, an older contemporary of Ivan the Fourth was the English King Henry the Eighth. They have a lot in common. They willingly, with pleasure, shed blood, including their subjects, both were utter womanizers, even at the same time each had seven wives for his biography. And note that in England then there were already several centuries of parliamentary history.

Actually, the first Zemsky Sobor in our country was convened 54 years earlier than the first Parliament in England. I missed this moment. Trying to achieve some kind of unification of Rus', the Grand Duke of Vladimir Vsevolod the Third Big Nest convenes a class representation in 1211. It is desirable to remember such a date, otherwise we somehow look like savages. We have in 1211, and the British in 1265. But the British were sitting on the island, and their tradition was not interrupted, while ours was interrupted in the devastation of the XIII century, there was no one and nowhere to gather cathedrals.

So, in England there were several centuries of parliamentary tradition, serious, uninterrupted, and yet tyranny is possible, unfortunately, everywhere. Parliament dutifully voted for all Henry's follies, unanimously, as the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. But Henry was gone, and gradually the parliament regained its position, there was a certain balance between the royal power and parliament.

By the way, don't you think that our tradition, our desire to recreate the Polybius scheme, is very akin to the English one? Indeed, in England at the best of times we see the same thing - the king, the House of Lords, the House of Commons. But not now, of course. Now England is a republic pretending to be a monarchy. Now the royal power is no longer constitutional, it is simply decorative, and the House of Lords has become decorative over the 20th century. But after all, the greatness of England is not now, not in the 20th century, when England, having lost all its world positions, turned into, excuse me, a tattered trail of the United States. And in the 19th century in England there was still real royal power and there was a real house of lords, there was a Polybius scheme.

So, we are very related to the British in many features of the national character. When we are compared with Western Europeans, they do an impossible thing, we are compared with continental Europeans, with Germans or French, which we are terribly different from, just a rarity. And in the far west, the British, on the one hand, and the Spaniards, on the other hand, find much more similarities with Russian stereotypes, with Russian preferences, with the Russian character. This is already the case, by the way, as a cultural historian, I draw your attention. Take a look if you want.

So Peter made a revolution. So what? If not for a few additional conditions, several decades would have passed, a hundred years would have passed, and the Zemsky Sobors would have restored their position. Well, okay, England, one tyrant. But Sweden is also a parliamentary country. She passed not a period of tyranny, but a period of absolutism. Under Gustav II Adolf at the beginning of the 17th century and under Charles XI at the end of the 17th century, the Riksdag did not dare to utter a word! Everything was decided by the king and the bureaucracy. But Charles XII lost the Northern War miserably, and the Riksdag ceased to reckon with the king, who, moreover, wandered around the Russian expanses for too long, and then along the “Turkeys”. And the Riksdag regained its position. Royal power was preserved, it was real. And balance was restored.

We would recover too. But Peter not only destroyed parliamentarism in Russia, he did two more terrible things, truly terrible. And these things still weigh on us to this day, they have become ingrained in literature.

Firstly, he killed grassroots democracy, Zemstvo. It is interesting that he copied the territorial-administrative structure (and not only it) from the Swedes. In general, fighting with the Swedes, he borrowed a lot from them. Sweden was at the end of the 17th century and at the beginning of the 18th century a completely bureaucratic monarchy, one of the most bureaucratic in Europe. Above was the land (land), below the herad, even below the district, but at the very bottom there remained a self-governing church parish - the kirchspiel, with an elected pastor and an elected focht - headman, local administrator. So, when all this was transferred to Russian soil, it was specially written down in the Senate, naturally at the suggestion of Peter: “and the Kirchspilfokht will not be elected from the peasants, because there are no smart people in our village.” This was written about Russia with its centuries-old zemstvo tradition! And now, when there was no even grassroots democracy, how could a nationwide, parliamentary democracy be restored?

Secondly, there is another gloomy legacy of Peter, and here it is, it is working, weighing on us until now. This is Peter's Westernism. Peter's cultural turn towards Western Europe led to the fact that everything that was before Peter began to refer to the "unenlightened" past. Therefore, when we started thinking already in the 18th century, and in the 19th century even more thinking about the restoration of parliamentarism, we began to copy Western models, and this is bad. When the French restored their parliamentarism, the Spaniards restored, they did not run to us to copy the scheme of the Zemsky Sobor, they restored their tradition - French and Spanish. And we ran to them.

Here's a modern example for you. In equatorial Africa, the institution of tribal kings still exists, they have real power in the area, which is considered their kingdom as part of the modern African republics. Every year, the elders gather and elect a king, usually the same one, that is, they extend his powers. He has no terms, he can be elected at least until his death. But every year his powers can not be renewed. And this institution, at the same time moderately monarchical and of course democratic, works great, as it did before colonial times! But at the state level, democratic institutions, transferred to Africa from Europe, give rise to such corruption that we have never dreamed of even now. All institutions - monarchical, aristocratic, democratic - work only in national form! In any other they refuse to work.

In particular, Peter, of course, brought the Russian autocracy closer to the absolute monarchies of the West. Peter destroyed democratic institutions, and aristocratic ones too, by the way, he also destroyed the boyar thought. What did it lead to? In the 18th century, Russians were also energetic and self-respecting people. It turned out that it was no longer possible to tolerate Emperor Peter the Third. And what state, what society, besides our modern one, can tolerate a foreign minister on its throne? Georgian, for example, can. Georgian society can tolerate President Saakashvili, who, having already become president, continued to receive wages from the US State Department. This is no longer called "agent of influence", it is simply called "agent". And nothing. But the Russian people in the 18th century were not ready for this. This, by the way, Marx in "The Secret Diplomacy of the 18th Century" called Peter the Third "a loyal Prussian minister on the Russian throne." It was clear that it was necessary to get rid of him, but there was no institution of the Zemsky Sobor that could do this legitimately. I had to choke.

At this time, serfdom in Rus' actually turned into slavery. By the way, serfdom in the 17th century (before it did not exist) and serfdom in the 18th century are two completely different phenomena, although the term is used the same. Serfdom, the serfdom of a peasant in the 17th century meant only that he could not leave his land, his house, his estate, that he had to cultivate this land. But it was also impossible to kick him out. The peasant was connected to the land allotment, as it were, forever. That's all, because the estates could not be sold at all then. The estate was a form of wages for a nobleman. Many, however, owned not estates, but estates. The estate could be bequeathed, sold, donated to the monastery, but only in its entirety, and not just one peasant estate. The estate could be taken away from the nobleman. What changed for the peasant in both these cases? The same neighbor Ivan on the left, the same neighbor Semyon on the right. The same Father Nikolai in the parish church. The same tributes. The same taxes to the state. Only the subject of receiving these quitrents has changed, and nothing else. And it is forbidden for anyone to sell baptized people, there was just a special article in the cathedral code about that. Moreover, they meant, of course, not peasants, but serfs, that is, courtyards. No one could even dream that peasants could be sold! And compare this situation at the end of the 17th century with the situation at the end of the 18th century, when in the “most enlightened age” of Catherine the Great it was possible to print an ad in the newspaper: “A healthy girl with a strong cart and a greyhound bitch is for sale.” In the 19th century, Alexander the First stopped this, but we went through this.

Only in the cities, where there were settlements and hundreds, an exhausted, rather bloodless grassroots democracy glimmered, after all, it still existed.

In 1861-64, the Great Reforms of Alexander II took place. By the way, in passing I want to say that twenty years before that, under Nicholas the First, under the father of Alexander the Liberator, local, volost self-government had already been given state peasants, a not-so-small population. According to the latest revision, that is, the population census, 25 million landlord peasants and 18 million state-owned, that is, state-owned peasants, who did not have a master, were counted. Here they received rural and volost self-government earlier. And according to the reforms of Alexander II, all the liberated peasants received it. At the same time, zemstvos were restored at the county and gubernia levels. For the first time, starting with Peter, common municipal institutions were restored, where nobles, philistines (that is, townspeople) and peasants met together. Half a century later, this led to brilliant results; at the beginning of the 20th century, the Zemstvo reform was summed up. Many good roads appeared in Russia, everyone took up their own roads. Of course, I don't mean the railways, the zemstvos didn't deal with them. An agronomic and veterinary system of public services appeared, the second in the world after Italy.

We are probably the only state where compulsory universal primary education was introduced twice - in 1908 and in 1932. Twice, because the revolution and its integral part, the civil war, completely ruined public education. Yes, indeed, I admit that Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya, at the head of the commission for the elimination of illiteracy, was engaged in real work. But we must always remember that they were doing this because it was they who, having committed bloody revolutionary outrages, themselves ruined the literacy system in historical Russia. And soon we will come to the point that we will have to introduce universal public education for the third time. We're getting closer, gentlemen.

Thus, the Zemstvo reform was certainly justified. We have restored grassroots democracy, we were ready to restore it at the level of the Zemstvo Sobor, however, already under the name "State Duma". You probably know, I hope you know, that the decree on the convocation of the State Duma with limited powers was lying on the desk of Emperor Alexander on that very tragic day of March 1, 1881, when he was killed by two bombs. The first killed the Cossacks of the convoy and the children who greeted their king, the emperor remained unharmed, but the bombers went in pairs for the low power of the then explosive devices. That's it, unfortunately.

So, look what we see. I have named two big periods of the Polibian scheme in Russia. Both periods are periods of her strength and prosperity. And the IX century - the beginning of the XIII century, and the XVI-XVII centuries. I have also pointed out to you quite decent periods when we were striving to restore the Polybius scheme. This is the second half of the 15th century, that is, John the Third, and the era that began with the liberation of the peasantry, from 1861. We were close to restoring it, because in addition to the State Duma, we also had a State Council - a quasi-aristocratic chamber.

Here I want to point out that smart people they look closely at the experience of prosperous states, although they may not read Polybius. Look how they reproduced without any aristocracy and without a monarchy the Polybian scheme in the USA. There can be no aristocracy in America, all plebeians, but the US Senate is arranged in such a way that it plays the role of an aristocratic chamber. Senators are elected for 6 years, and not for 2 years, like congressmen, and not for 4 years, like the president. Moreover, every 2 years the Senate is renewed by one third, that is, the majority in the Senate is always conservative, the majority has always been working in the Senate for a long time. Yes, and the President of the United States is actually a Republican monarch.

So, we strove to restore the Polybius scheme, and we were very close to this in the last reign, under Emperor Nicholas II, when, finally, we still went to the election of the State Duma. And here, which is very important, the national tradition was again violated. All the centuries that I have analyzed for you, we have had a non-partisan democracy. Illegal parties have always existed, there are always groups of like-minded people, allies. But legal parties were impossible. But even modern Western political scientists and philosophers usually admit that partisanship is a necessary evil in democratic systems, for a very simple reason - it is not a democratic institution. The party works in conditions of democracy, but the party itself is undemocratic. In my article “Demos and His Cracy,” I cite that back in the 18th century, the English philosopher James Hutchison asked the question, can a member of a political party be considered a decent citizen? There is a Russian translation of his works, in fact, he was mainly an esthetician, but he did a lot of things. It's the middle of the 18th century, not so long ago, right? Not under the pharaohs. And Hutchison replies: Of course not! Because a party member will defend the interests of the party, not society. And so we allowed party membership, legalized party membership in 1906, and got the State Duma infected with this party spirit. Too early, because we had no party experience before.

The most absurd thing is that no one suggested to the emperor (we had lawyers, there were historians) one simple thing, that only destroyers, revolutionaries, had parties, there were only underground parties, and well-meaning people, centrists, rightists, monarchists, they had no parties.

Thus, with the legalization of parties, the Duma turned out to be infected with the poison of party spirit. And now we also have elections on two lists - elections on parties and regional elections on constituencies. Yeltsin created this, and now Putin wants to make it worse. I hope that the Lord and Russian society will hinder him in this. And if they fail to interfere, after three years Putin will still be gone, and his vile system will be broken. They want to impose on us elections only on party lists. If now we do not have parliamentary democracy, then there will not even be a shadow of it, there will be several oligarchic groups, several competing gangs. It's better than one gang of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but still bad enough. A full-fledged democracy operates only where personally known people are elected, at least acquaintances, so to speak, not with a hat, not by the hand, but those who could be observed. When the Yakut Abramovich finds himself at the head of the Yakut region, where not a single Yakut and not a single Russian knows him, this did not even gather dust next to democracy.

And lastly, gentlemen, it is time for me to close. Peter made an unprecedented bureaucratic coup in the history of Russia. From 1718 to 1783, the number of officials in the state apparatus of the Russian Empire doubled, and there was not enough money to support them. At the end of the 18th century, bureaucracy in Russia was already softening. In the 19th century, especially after the reforms of Alexander II, bureaucracy was on the wane, and everything was getting immeasurably better. If you want, read my little, funny note "Do Russians Steal". It is in this collection "Russia - the last fortress", which is still on sale in your city. I prove there, laughing, but I prove that the more bureaucratic things are in Russia, the more they steal, and vice versa. The Soviet power from the first days broke all the records of Peter. And the last thing I would like to draw your attention to. Since the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, the bureaucratic apparatus, which should have been reduced because there were three major instances - the CPSU, the USSR and the RSFSR, has actually increased by 2.7 times (!), although now only the Russian Federation remains. This is such a wonderful observation of our days.

But I'm not going to criticize the current regime, I just showed its complete inconsistency with national political traditions.

Open Library - an open library of educational information. The political structure of Kievan Rus Socio-political structure of Kievan Rus

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar Documents

Introduction

The political structure of Kievan Rus