This famous fragment served as the starting point for the creation of the so-called theory of “tribal life”, which dominated Russian historical thought throughout the nineteenth century. This theory can be called the leading generalization or the most popular “working hypothesis” of this stage of Russian historiography, aimed at revealing the origins of social order in the early stages of Russian history.

Its creator was D.P.G. Evers, an outstanding researcher of Russian legal history, is German by birth, and S.M. Soloviev made it the cornerstone of his largest work, “The History of Russia since Ancient Times.” Lawyer K.D. Kavelin further developed this concept. According to Evers, Russian society passed from the tribal stage to the state state with almost no transition period. The early Kievan state was just a combination of clans. According to Solovyov, the very fact that the princely family of Rurikovich enjoyed exclusive power over the state machine during the Kiev period is a decisive argument in favor of Evers' theory.

This theory met with strong opposition from the very beginning from the Slavophil historian K. Aksakov. From his point of view, not the clan, but the community, the world, were the basis of the ancient Russian social and political order. Aksakov’s opinion was not generally accepted at that time, but mainly because of some vagueness in his definition of community.

For further discussion of the problem, a comparative study of the social organization of various branches of the Slavs, as well as other peoples, is of great value. Being a brilliant researcher in the field of comparative jurisprudence and economic history, M.M. Kovalevsky collected important materials related to the organization of the Ossetians and other Caucasian tribes; he also analyzed the problem as a whole in the light of comparative ethnology. At the same time F.I. Leontovich studied the social institutions of the Slavic peoples, emphasizing some parallel trends in the history of the Russians and the South Slavs, introducing the term friend into Russian historiography. Among the names of the younger generation of Russian historians who paid great attention to the problem, one should in any case mention A.E. Presnyakova. Recently, some Soviet historians, especially B. D. Grekov, examined the problem as a whole, using as a theoretical basis - and this was to be expected - the writings of Friedrich Engels.

What is the current state of the problem? There seems to be a consensus among scholars that the Russians, as well as most other peoples, had to go through the stage of patriarchal clan organization, but in the Kievan period this stage was long ago overcome. There is no direct historical connection between the clan and the state. The unification of clans led to the formation of tribes, but the tribal organization was never strong on Russian soil; Moreover, during the period of resettlement, not only the tribes, but also the clans themselves were subject to disruption. In any case, the constituent parts of Kievan Rus - city-states and appanages - only partially coincided with the previous tribal division, and in some cases did not coincide at all. So, the ancient Russian state did not grow directly from the Russian tribes, which were simply an intermediate type of social and political organization. In most cases, the tribe was a political dead-end unit.

But if the clan cannot be considered as the basic social link of Ancient Rus', what was it? Of course, not a family in the modern sense of the word. This was too small and weak a group to cope with the difficulties of the primitive economy, especially during the period of migration. And thus we come to the problem friends, i.e., a “large family” community - a more or less mediating social link between clan and family, based on the cooperation of three or more generations. The term is taken from the Serbian language and means “friendship”, “agreement”, “harmony”. In Yugoslavia, the zadru obshchina is still an existing institution or was so until the last war. According to the code of laws of the Principality of Serbia (1844), zadruga “is a community for living together and owning property, which emerged and established itself through the process of blood relations and natural reproduction” The average Yugoslav zadruga has between twenty and sixty members (including children). Sometimes the number of members can reach eighty or even one hundred.

Among Russian peasants, a smaller unit of this type, known simply as the “family,” survived almost until the revolution of 1917. In the report of the volost foreman of the Oryol province in the late nineties of the last century, this institution is described as follows: “The peasant family in our settlement consists of numerous relatives, their wives and children, in total from fifteen to twenty people living in one house. The elder has great power over the family. He maintains the family in peace and harmony; all members are subordinate to him. He distributes the work to be done for each family member, manages the household and pays taxes. After his death, power passes to his eldest son, and if none of his sons is of age, then to one of his brothers. If there are no adult men left in the family. , the eldest widow accepts his authority. When several brothers live in this way in one house, keeping the family in unity and harmony, they consider everything they have as the common property of the family, with the exception of women's clothing, linen and linen. does not belong to the community. With the exception of the above, everything else is managed by the elder - the elder.a man in the family or any other family member chosen by agreement of all others. The elder's wife supervises the women's work; however, if she is not suitable for the role, a younger woman may be chosen for the role. All work is distributed between men and women according to the strength and health of each." .

There is no mention of a friend in Russian Pravda. The term used instead to define a local settlement rope The same word also means "rope", "cord". The assumption arose that the rope in the sense of community was supposed to emphasize blood relations, or rather the line of generations. In this regard, another concept can be mentioned: really,"cord" with which it is connected snake,"relative", "member of the family community". Even admitting that the word rope could originally designate a large family community of the zadruga type, we can emphasize that in the eleventh and twelfth centuries the concept had already changed its original semantic content. From “Russkaya Pravda” it is obvious that the rope at that time was similar to the Anglo-Saxon guild. It was a neighboring community, bound by the responsibility of its members to pay a fine for a murder committed within the community's boundaries if the killer could not be found. Membership in the community was free. People could join a guild or refrain from doing so. In a later period of Russian history, the guild was replaced rural community also called world. In “Russian Truth” the concept world used to refer to a wider community - a city with a rural area around it. A specific form of the Russian land system was the joint ownership of land by several co-owners (Syabry). Like the Vervi, the association of Syabrs had to develop from the family community. September or seber - an archaic word whose original meaning seems to have been “a family member working with other relatives on the family land.” In Sanskrit there are parallel terms: sabha, "kinship", "village community"; and sabhyas, "member of the village community." Consider also Gothic sibja and German sippe, "relatives" (collectively). According to its structure, the word seber(note the final "p") is similar to basic kinship terms in Indo-European languages, like pater and mater in Latin; brother and sister in English; brother and sister in Slavic. The more specific word "seber" must be associated with the reflexive pronoun "se". By the way, according to some modern philologists, the Slavic word “freedom” comes from the same root.

Other types of social associations appeared in Old Russian to support trade and industry. There were cooperative associations of artisans and workers, similar to those that later became known as artel(Old Russian term squad derived from Friend). The merchants, as we have seen, formed various independent companies or guilds.

A society consisting only of family communities can be thought of as fundamentally homogeneous. All members of the zadruga have an equal share in both the total labor and the production product. This is a “classless” society in miniature.

With the breakdown of friendship and the emancipation of the family from the clan, with a similar isolation of the individual from society and the formation of territorial communities of a new type, the entire social structure of the nation becomes more complex. Gradually different social classes take shape.

The process of social stratification began among the Eastern Slavs long before the formation of the Kyiv state. We know that the Sklavens and Antes in the sixth century turned prisoners of war - even those of the same race - into slaves. We also know that there was an aristocratic group among the Antes and that some of the military leaders owned great wealth. Thus, we have among the Eastern Slavs elements of at least three existing social groups already in the sixth century: the aristocracy, the common people and the slaves. The subjugation of some of the East Slavic tribes to foreign conquerors could also be realized in the political and social differentiation of various tribes. We know that the East Slavs paid tribute in grain and other agricultural products to the Alans, Goths and Magyars, as each of these peoples in turn established control over parts of the East Slavic tribes. While some of the Slavic groups eventually asserted their independence or autonomy, others remained under foreign control for a longer period. Peasant communities, initially dependent on foreign masters, later recognized the authority of local Slavic princes, but their status did not change, and they continued to pay the same duties. So, a difference was established in the position of different Slavic groups. Some of them were self-governing, others were dependent on princes.

Taking into account this extraordinary social and historical background, we must approach the study of Russian society in the Kiev period. It can be assumed that the society was quite complex, although in Kievan Rus there were no such high barriers between individual social groups and classes that existed in feudal Europe of the same period. In general, it should be said that Russian society of the Kyiv period consisted of two large groups: free and slaves. Such a judgment, however, although correct, is too broad to adequately characterize the organization of Kyiv society.

It should be noted that among the free themselves there were different groups: while some were full citizens, the legal status of others was limited. In fact, the position of some free classes was so precarious, due to legal or economic restrictions, that some of their own volition chose to become slaves. So, we can find an intermediate group between the free and the slaves, which can be called semi-free. Moreover, some groups of the actually free were in a better economic situation and better protected by law than others. Accordingly, we can talk about the existence of a high-ranking class and a middle class of free people in Kiev society.

Our main legal source for this period is the Russian Truth, and to this code we must turn to obtain the legal terminology characterizing social classes. In the eleventh century version of Pravda - the so-called "Short Version" - we find the following fundamental concepts: husbands- for the upper layer of the free, People– for the middle class, stinkers - for people with restricted access, servants - for slaves.

In the eyes of the legislator, a person had different values, depending on his class affiliation. Old Russian criminal law did not know the death penalty. In its place was a system of monetary payments imposed on the murderer. The latter had to pay compensation to the relatives of the murdered man (known as bot in the Anglo-Saxon version) and a fine to the prince ("bloodwite"). This system was common among the Slavs, Germans and Anglo-Saxons in the early Middle Ages.

In the earliest version of Pravda, the wergeld, or payment for the life of a free person, reached 40 hryvnia. In the "Truth" of the sons of Yaroslav, princely people ( husbands)were protected by a double fine of 80 hryvnia, while the fine for people(plural - People) remained at the original level of 40 hryvnia. The fine that the prince had to pay for murder stink was set at 5 hryvnia - one eighth of the normal wergeld. Slaves who were not free did not have a wergeld.

From a philological point of view, it is interesting that all the above terms belong to the ancient Indo-European basis. Slavic husband (mozhi) related to Sanskrit manuh, manusah; Gothic manna; German mann and mench. In Old Russian, “husband” means “a man of noble birth”, “knight” and also means “husband” in family terms. People means a community of human beings, which can be compared to the German leute. It turns out that the root of the word is the same as that of the Greek adjective eleutheros ("free"). Smerd can be considered in relation to the Persian mard, "man"; mard also sounds in Armenian. The disappearance of the original "s" in the combination "sm" is not unusual in Indo-European languages. According to Meillet, mard emphasizes the mortality of man (in contrast to the “immortals,” i.e., the gods). From this point of view, it is interesting to compare the Persian mard and the Slavic death(both words mean "death").

In the social development of Russia, each of the above terms has its own history. The term “smerd” acquired a pejorative meaning in connection with the verb “stink,” “to stink.” The term "husband" in the sense of a specific social category gradually disappeared, and from husbands the class of boyars eventually developed. In its diminutive form the term man(“little man”) was applied to peasants subordinate to boyar power. From here - man,"peasant". Term people(singular) also disappeared, except for the combination commoner

Plural form People still in use; it corresponds to the word in modern Russian Human, used only in the singular. The first part of this word (person-) represents the same root that is present in the Old Russian word servants(“house slaves”). The original meaning of the root is “genus”: compare the Gaelic clann and the Lithuanian keltis.

The upper classes of Kyiv society had a heterogeneous source. Their backbone consisted of outstanding people (husbands) of the main Slavic clans and tribes. As we know, even during the period of the Antes there was a tribal aristocracy - the “elders of the Antes” (?????????????????). Some of these elders must have been of Alan origin. With the rise of princely power in In Kyiv, the prince's entourage (druzhina) became the main catalyst for the formation of a new aristocracy - the boyars in the Kiev period were in themselves a melting pot. Under the first Kiev princes, its core consisted of the Swedes of the Rus tribe. The Scandinavian element grew when the princes hired new Varangian troops from. Scandinavia. However, the princely circle also included Slavic men, as well as various adventurers of foreign origin. Ossetians, Kosogs, Magyars, Turks and others were mentioned in various situations as members of the squad. By the eleventh century, it had already become Slavicized.

Socially it consisted of various elements. Some of its members held high positions even before joining it; others were below by birth, and some were even slaves of the prince. For these, service in the squad not only opened the way to a lucrative position, but also provided the opportunity to climb to the very top of the social ladder.

The retinue consisted of two groups, which can be called the senior and junior squads, respectively. Among the highest officials in the eleventh century, a bailiff is mentioned (fireman), stableman (equestrian), Butler (tiun) and adjutant (driveway) All of them were initially simply servants of the prince in the management of the court and estates, but later they were also used in state administration. Term fireman derived from fireplace, hearth. So, the fireman is a member of the princely “hearth,” that is, the household. Term tiun– Scandinavian origin; in Old Swedish tiun means "servant". In Russia it first meant a butler, but later began to be mainly used in the meaning of “judge”. By the way, it should be mentioned that a similar process of transformation of the prince's servants into government officials took place in England, France and Germany in the early Middle Ages.

The lesser vassals were collectively designated as grid, a term of Scandinavian origin, the original meaning of which was “dwelling”, “house”. Hence the old Russian word gridnitsa, “house” or"large room" At first they were the prince's pages and junior servants in the house, as well as servants of squad officers. Greedy's member is sometimes called in sources a youth, a child or a stepson, which apparently indicates that they were perceived as members of the princely family, as was in fact the case. In Suzdal at the end of the twelfth century a new term appeared to designate junior vassals - nobleman, literally “court”, from “court” in the sense of princely (and also simply “court”). In imperial Russia of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the term nobleman acquired the meaning of “a person of noble birth.”

Since 1072, senior members of the prince's squad were protected by a double fine.

For insulting the dignity of a senior vassal, the offender had to pay the prince a fine four times greater than for wounding a smerd. Qualified protection for insulting the prince's vassals also existed in German legislation of this period.

Not all of the Russian upper class served in the squad. In Novgorod, where the power of the prince and the duration of his stay in this post were limited by the terms of the contract, his vassals were openly prevented from permanently settling on Novgorod land. So, in addition to the service aristocracy, there was an aristocracy in law in Kievan Rus. Its members are named differently in early sources; for example, “outstanding people” ( deliberate men)or the best people, also in many cases"city elders" ( city ​​elders Some of them were descendants of the tribal aristocracy, others, especially in Novgorod, became prominent due to their wealth, in most cases obtained from foreign trade.

Eventually the princely and local aristocracies became known as the boyars. Although some of the local boyars must have been descendants of merchants, and the princely boyars initially created their wealth from the maintenance and rewards received from the prince, and from their share of war booty, over time all boyars became landowners, and the power and social prestige of the boyars as class relied on extensive land holdings.

It may be added that by the beginning of the thirteenth century, as a result of the expansion of the house of Rurik, the number of princes increased, and the possessions of each prince - with the exception of those ruling in large cities - were reduced to such proportions that the lesser princes of this period were no longer socially distinguished from the boyars. So, the princes by this time could be considered socially and economically only as the upper layer of the boyar class.

In fact, some of the larger boyars enjoyed greater wealth and prestige to a greater extent than the lesser princes, and this fact is especially obvious when we see that each of the richer boyars had his own retinue and some tried to imitate the princes by having their own courts. Already in the tenth century, Igor's commander Sveneld had his own vassals ( youths), and boyar vassals are mentioned many times in sources of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The life of the boyar tiun (butler or judge) was protected by law along with the princely tiun.

Despite all the outstanding political and social position of the boyars, during the Kiev period it did not represent any special layer from a legal point of view. First of all, this was not an exclusive group, since a commoner could enter it through service in the prince's retinue. Secondly, it did not have any legal privileges as a class. Thirdly, while the boyars, together with the princes, were the owners of large lands due to their exclusivity, they were not the only landowners during this period in Rus', since land could be bought and sold without prohibitions, and a person of any social group could purchase it . Moreover, it was common for a boyar of this period not to break ties with the city. Each of the major boyars of the princely retinue had his own court in the city in which the prince ruled. All Novgorod boyars were not only residents of Novgorod, but also took part in meetings of the city government.

The underdevelopment of the middle classes is usually regarded as one of the main features of Russian social history. It is true that in both the Muscovite and imperial periods down to the nineteenth century, the proportion of people involved in the production of goods and trade, and the inhabitants of cities in general, in comparison with the peasantry, was low. However, even in relation to these periods, any general statement about the absence of middle classes in Russia requires reservations. In any case, such a generalization will not apply to the Kyiv period. As we have seen (Chapter V, Section 3), the proportion of the urban population to the entire population in Kievan Rus should have been no lower than thirteen percent. In order to assess the significance of this figure, one should approach it not from the point of view of the social stratification of the New Age, but in comparison with the modern conditions of that time in Central and Eastern Europe. Although no precise demographic data exist for Europe during this period, it is generally accepted that, at least until the fourteenth century, the proportion of urban dwellers in Europe relative to the total population was very low.

The majority of the urban population of Russia undoubtedly belonged to a stratum that can be designated as the lower classes; there are no data which would enable us to establish with sufficient accuracy the relative proportion of the middle classes to the whole population. However, knowing about the spread of the merchant class of Kievan Rus, we can be sure that, at least in Novgorod and Smolensk, the merchant people as a social group were proportionally larger than in the cities of Western Europe at that time.

While in our thinking the term "middle classes" is usually associated with urban bourgeoisie, we can also talk about the middle classes of rural society. Prosperous owners with enough land to meet their needs can be characterized as constituting the rural middle class when compared with owners of large estates, on the one hand, and landless and land-poor peasants, on the other. Therefore, we are faced with the question of the existence of such a rural middle class in Russia at this time.

There is no reason to doubt its presence in the pre-Kievan and early Kievan periods. The people organized in guilds (verv) mentioned in the Russian Pravda seem to constitute this kind of middle class. It is important that the wergeld of a person, like that of a person of the upper classes (husband), was equal to forty hryvnia; if he belonged to the prince’s retinue, the fine was doubled (eighty hryvnia).

Although the existence of people organized into classes is undeniable in relation to the tenth and eleventh centuries, it is usually argued that during the twelfth century the old social regime of rural Rus' was overthrown by the rapid growth of the large estates of princes and boyars on the one hand, as well as by proletarianization and feudal subordination people on the other. This statement is only true to a certain extent. It is true that the holdings of princes and boyars expanded rapidly in the twelfth century, but this was also the result of the exploitation of land hitherto untouched by cultivation, and not merely the absorption of pre-existing farms.

It is equally true that the process of proletarianization of small landowners has been going on since the end of the eleventh century. In the course of it, previously formally independent and free people became contract-bound workers. Once again, however, the question arises: can this part of the argument be applied to our case without reservation? There is no evidence in the sources as to what original social group the twelfth-century indentured laborers came from. Some may have been former members of the human group, but certainly not all. As for the peasants, more or less connected with large land estates, which were stinkers And outcasts(see section 8 below), there seems to be very little, if any, connection between them and humans. Already in the twelfth century, the Smerds existed as a separate group, and probably even earlier. Most of the outcasts were freedmen.

So, there is no direct evidence for the supposed complete disappearance of people during the twelfth century. Their number could have decreased, especially in Southern Rus', for various reasons. A significant number of them, apparently, were devastated by Polovtsian raids and princely feuds, after which they undoubtedly had to either move to cities, or become agricultural workers, either remaining personally free as hired workers, or accepting dependence under a contract. In many cases also rural guilds had to disintegrate. We know from the terms of “Russian Pravda” that the people were allowed to leave the guild under certain conditions. But even in the event of the dissolution of the guild, its former members could rightfully maintain their economy or create smaller associations like syabrs.

On the whole, no doubt, the people suffered, they may have lost their usual form of social organization, but, of course, a significant number of them continued to exist as an economic group of free landowners, especially in the north. Following the conquest of Novgorod by the Moscow Grand Dukes at the end of the fifteenth century, there followed an order for a census of the rural population on all types of land. She revealed the existence of a large class of so-called fellow countrymen(“owners of land by right”). They had to come from a class of people.

Turning again to cities, we find the same term People as originally applied to the majority of the urban population. Later in Novgorod two groups could be distinguished: live people(“wealthy people”) and young people(“younger people”), which are sometimes called in Novgorod sources black people. Living people made up a significant part of the Novgorod middle class. The scale of group differences in Novgorod society is most clearly visible from the list of fines for contempt of court contained in one of the paragraphs of the city charter. According to this list, the boyar must pay 50 rubles, the live - 25 rubles, the younger - 10. This Novgorod charter was adopted in 1471, but for its list old rules and regulations were partially used, and the relationship of the classes indicated in it supposedly represents an ancient tradition . Merchants are mentioned in Novgorod sources as a group different from the Zhizhia, but located at the same social level. It turns out that the Zhizhi were not merchants. What was the source of their income? Some may have owned land outside the city. Others may have owned various types of industrial establishments, such as carpenters' shops, forges, etc.

The composition of the middle classes in other Russian cities was supposed to be similar to that of Novgorod.

As we have just seen, people of the lower classes in Russian cities of the Kievan period were called "young people" (young people). They were mainly workers and artisans of various kinds: carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, fullers, tanners, potters, etc. People of the same profession usually lived in one part of the city, which bore the corresponding name. Thus, in Novgorod the Gorshechny district and the Plotnitsky district are mentioned; in Kyiv - Kuznetsk Gate, etc.

For this period there is no evidence regarding the existence of craft guilds as such, but each part of a large Russian city of this time constituted an independent guild (see Chapter VII, Section 6), and the “street guild” or “row guild” in the craft part should was to be not only a territorial community, but in a certain sense also a professional association.

The lower classes of Kyiv society also included hired workers or laborers. In the cities, artisans who did not have their own workshops and younger members of craft families apparently offered their services to anyone who needed them. If many workers came together for a major job, as when building a church or a large house, then in most cases they created cooperative associations.

During this period, little is known about wage workers in rural areas. They are, however, mentioned in some contemporary sources; presumably the greatest need for their help was during the harvest season.

Now we come to the smerds, who formed the backbone of the lower classes in rural areas. As I already mentioned, the term stinks should be compared with Iranian mard ("man"). It is very likely that it appeared during the Sarmatian period of Russian history.

The Smerds were personally free, but their legal status was limited since they were subject to the special jurisdiction of the prince. That they were free can be best seen by comparing Article 45 A of the extended version of Russian Pravda with the subsequent Article 46. The first says that smerds can be fined by the prince for aggressive actions committed by them. In the latter, that slaves are not subject to these payments, “because they are not free.”

The fact that the prince’s power over the smerds was more specific than over the free is clear from the “Russian Truth”, as well as from the chronicles. In the “Pravda” of the Yaroslavichs, smerd is mentioned among people dependent on the prince to one degree or another. According to the extended version of Russian Pravda, a smerd could not be subject to arrest or restrictions in any way in its actions without the sanction of the prince. After the death of the smerd, his property was inherited by his sons, but if there were no sons left, then the property passed to the prince, who, however, had to leave a share for unmarried daughters, if any remained. This is similar to the dead hand law in Western Europe.

It seems important that in the city-states of Northern Rus' - Novgorod and Pskov - the highest power over the smerds belonged not to the prince, but to the city. So, for example, in 1136, the Novgorod prince Vsevolod was criticized by the veche for the oppression of the smerds. The Novgorod treaty with King Casimir IV of Poland directly states that the smerds are under the jurisdiction of the city, not the prince. This treaty is a document of a later period (signed around 1470), but its terms were based on ancient tradition.

Taking into account the status of the smerds in Novgorod, we can assume that in the south, where they were subordinate to the prince, the latter rather exercised his power as head of state than as a landowner. In this case, the smerds can be called state peasants, with due reservations. Bearing in mind that the term stinks, most likely, appeared in the Sarmatian period; we can attribute the appearance of smerds as a social group to this period. Presumably the first Smerds were Slavic “people” (mardan) who paid tribute to the Alans. Later, with the emancipation of the Ants from Iranian tutelage, power over them could pass to the Ant leaders. In the eighth century, the smerds had to submit to the authority of the Khazar and Magyar governors; with the emigration of the Magyars and the defeat of the Khazars by Oleg and his heirs, the Russian princes eventually gained control over them. This sketch of the history of the Smerds is, of course, hypothetical, but, in my opinion, it is consistent with the facts; in any case, it does not contradict any known data.

Whether the land they cultivated belonged to them or to the state is a controversial issue. It turns out that in Novgorod, at least, smerds occupied state lands. In the south there must have been something like co-ownership between the prince and the smerd on the latter’s land. At a meeting in 1103, Vladimir Monomakh mentions the “smerda farm” (its village). As we have already seen, the son of Smerd inherited his possession, that is, his farm. However, taking into account that the smerd owned the land he cultivated, it should be noted that this was not full ownership, since he was not free to bequeath the land even to his daughters; when after his death there were no sons left, as we saw, the land passed to the prince. Since the smerd could not bequeath his land, he may also not have been able to sell it.

The land was in his permanent use, and the same right extended to his male descendants, but it was not his property.

Smerds had to pay state taxes, especially the so-called “tribute”. In Novgorod, each of their groups registered at the nearest churchyard(tax collection center); apparently they were organized into communities in order to simplify the collection of taxes. Another duty of the Smerds was to supply horses for the city militia in the event of a major war.

At the princely meeting of 1103, mentioned above, the campaign against the Polovtsians was discussed, and the vassals of Prince Svyatopolk II noted that it was not worth starting military operations in the spring, since by taking their horses they would ruin the Smerds and their fields, to which Vladimir Monomakh replied: “I I’m surprised, friends, that you are preoccupied with horses on which the stink plows. Why don’t you think that as soon as the smerd begins to plow, the Polovtsian will come, kill him with his arrow, take his horse, come to his village and take away his wife, his children and his property? Are you concerned about Smerd’s horse or about him himself?” .

The low level of social status of the smerd is best demonstrated by this fact: in the event of his murder, only five hryvnias - that is, one-eighth of the fine - had to be paid to the prince by the killer. The prince was supposed to receive the same amount (five hryvnia) if a slave was killed. However, in the latter case, the payment did not represent a fine, but compensation to the prince as the owner. In the case of the murderer, compensation to his family had to be paid by the killer in addition to the fine, but its level is not specified in Russkaya Pravda.

Over time the term stinks, as I mentioned, took on the derogatory meaning of a person belonging to the lower class. As such, it was used by high aristocrats to refer to commoners in general. So, when the Chernigov prince Oleg was invited by Svyatopolk II and Vladimir Monomakh to attend a meeting where representatives of the clergy, boyars and Kyiv citizens were supposed to be, he arrogantly replied that “It is not proper for him to obey the decisions of the bishop, the rector or the minister”(1096)

At the beginning of the thirteenth century the term stinks was in use to refer to the rural population as a whole. Describing one of the battles in Galicia in 1221, the chronicler notes: “A boyar must take a boyar as a prisoner, a smerd must take a smerda, a city dweller must take a city dweller.” .

Serfdom as a legal institution did not exist in Kievan Rus. In the technical sense of the word, serfdom is a product of feudal law.

The subjugation of the serf was not the result of the free play of economic forces, but rather the result of non-economic pressure. Feudalism can be defined as the fusion of public and private law, and the nature of the lord's power was dual. The lord was both a landowner and a ruler. As the owner of the manor, he had dual power over both the serfs and the tenants on his estate.

Potentially, the prince of Kievan Rus had the same type of power over the population of his domains. However, the socio-political regime in the country at that time did not contribute to the development of feudal institutions, and the process of consolidating the manorial power of the princes, not to mention the boyars, never went as far as in Western Europe during the same period. Despite all the encroachments by the princes, the smerds, as we see, remained free.

In addition, there was also a social group of those who could be called semi-free. They were not serfs in the technical sense either, since there was no element of “non-economic pressure” in the process of their loss of freedom. The connection between them and their masters was purely economic, since it was a relationship between creditor and debtor. As soon as the debt was paid with interest, the debtor again became completely free.

The peculiarity of the relationship was the fact that a debt of this type had to be paid not with money, but with work, although there was no objection to its payment in money if the debtor unexpectedly acquired a sufficient amount for this.

The commitment could be made in various ways and for various reasons. The debtor could be a peasant (an impoverished person), a merchant or an artisan who, having taken money to improve his business, was unable to pay in money, and thus had no choice but to pay with his own labor. But he could also be a hired worker and, having need of money, ask for and receive his seasonal or annual wages in advance; the transaction was then formalized as a loan, covered by work with interest. Such a debtor (purchase) was actually a contract worker, and such a worker could be hired by the creditor for any job, but most of them seem to have become agricultural workers (role purchase). The group itself must have been quite large, since its members were seen as responsible - at least in part - for the failed social revolution of 1113, after which special laws were introduced at the initiative of Vladimir Monomakh in order to improve their situation. Some of these laws related to loans in general, and some specifically contained a reference to procurement and were included in the expanded version of Russian Pravda.

The terms of "Russian Pravda" regarding the purchase were intended to establish an appropriate balance between the rights and duty of the contracted employee, on the one hand, and the duty and rights of the creditor - the "master" - on the other. So, if a purchaser tried to escape from his master, he became the latter’s slave; but if the master treacherously sold him into slavery, then not only freedom of purchase was automatically restored, but also his obligations to the master came to an end. The contract worker was required to sue the master for any unprovoked grievance; The master, however, could punish the purchaser even with beatings if “there were good reasons for this,” that is, the purchaser was negligent in his work.

According to the new clauses of Russian Pravda, the master could not force an employee by agreement to perform any work; only work in the relevant specialty could be performed by him. So, if the purchase caused damage to the master's horse used in war, he was not responsible for obvious reasons: caring for the horse of a prince or boyar used in wartime - often it was a beautiful horse - required the services of a specially trained person. Moreover, a nobleman's groom was usually chosen from among his slaves, and a free man—even a semi-free man—might object to such work being performed. If, however, damage was caused by the purchase to a working horse—“one who worked with the plow and harrow,” as explained in Russkaya Pravda—the purchaser had to pay for it. That is, the end of his work obligations was extended depending on the damage caused.

In addition to hired workers, there was another social group, which can also be considered as consisting of semi-free people, although not in a strictly legal sense. These were the so-called giving, men or women who "gave themselves" (the Slavic word for this is date) for temporary service to the master. This was done mainly in times of despair - during a period of famine or after a devastating war. In this case, the deal was made in terms of charity rather than legal obligation. People in a state of despair received “mercy” from the master; money or grain received from him was considered not as a loan, but as a “gift”. However, they had to work for this for at least a year. Institute dachas was also famous among the Baltic Slavs; there, especially in the thirteenth century, it took on a completely different character, approaching slavery.

Concluding this part, we should mention another category of semi-free people - “freedmen” (outcasts). Their position was closest to that of a serf among the social groups of this period. Since they were under the protection of the church, their position will be considered in connection with "church people" (section 8, below).

The oldest Russian concept for a slave, as we have seen, is servants in plural - servants. The term appears in Old Church Slavonic texts and is also used in tenth-century Russo-Byzantine treaties.

Another ancient term is rob(otherwise - slave; in the feminine gender - robe, later – slave), suggestive in connection with the verb robotati. In this sense, a slave is a “worker” and vice versa,

In the middle of the eleventh century a new term appeared - serf, which can be compared with Polish clap(in Polish spelling chlop), “peasant”, “serf”. The Proto-Slavic form was holp; in the transcription used by most Slavic philologists, - cholpa.In Russian term serf denoted a male slave. The slave was constantly called slave

Slavery in Kievan Rus was of two types: temporary and permanent. The latter was known as "total slavery" (servility is white). The main source of temporary slavery was captivity in war. Initially, not only soldiers of the enemy army, but even civilians captured during hostilities were enslaved. As time passed, more mercy was shown to civilians and finally, by the time of the treaty between Russia and Poland, signed in 1229, the need to spare civilians was recognized.

By the end of the war, prisoners were released for a ransom, if one was offered. The Russian-Byzantine treaties established a ransom ceiling in order to prevent abuses. If it was not possible to collect a ransom, the prisoner remained at the disposal of the person who captured him. According to the “Law of Judgment by People,” in such cases, the work of the captive was considered as payment of a ransom, and after paying it in full, the captive had to be released.

The rule had to be observed accordingly in relation to citizens of states with which the Russians concluded special treaties, such as with Byzantium. In other cases it could be ignored. In any case, it is important that Russian Truth does not mention captivity in war as a source of complete slavery.

According to paragraph 110 of the expanded version, “total slavery is of three types.” A person becomes a slave: 1) if he is sold into slavery of his own free will; 2) if he marries a woman without first concluding a special agreement with her owner; 3) if he is hired to serve the owner as a butler or house manager without a special agreement, that he must remain free. As for self-sale into slavery, two conditions had to be met in order for the transaction to become legal: 1) a minimum price (not less than half a hryvnia) and 2) payment to the city secretary (one nogata). These formalities were prescribed by law in order to prevent a person from being enslaved against his will. This part of Russian Pravda says nothing about female slaves, but it can be assumed that a woman can sell herself into slavery, like a man. On the other hand, a woman was not given the privilege of maintaining her freedom by agreement with her master if she married a male slave. Although this is not mentioned in the Russian Pravda, we know from later legislation, as well as from various other sources, that such a marriage automatically made the woman a slave. This must have been an ancient custom, and therefore was not considered worthy of mention in the Russian Pravda.

In addition to the main sources of the slave population mentioned, the sale agreement can be characterized as a derivative source. It is obvious that the same formalities as in the case of self-sale had to be observed in the case of the sale of a slave. This set a minimum price for full slaves. There was no minimum price for prisoners of war. After the victory of the Novgorodians over the Suzdalians in 1169, the captured Suzdalians were sold for two nogat each. The Tale of Igor’s Campaign says that if Grand Duke Vsevolod had taken part in the campaign against the Polovtsians, the latter would have been defeated and then the female captives would have been sold for one nogat, and the men for one rezana.

No upper price was set for slaves, but public opinion—at least among the clergy—was against speculation in the slave trade. It was considered sinful to buy a slave at one price and then sell him for more; this was called "outcasting".

A slave had no civil rights. If he was killed, then compensation had to be paid by the killer to his master, and not to the relatives of the slave. In the laws of this period there is no regulation regarding the murder of a slave by his owner. Obviously, the master was responsible if he killed a temporary slave.

If the slave was “full,” then the owner was subjected to church repentance, but this was obviously the only sanction in such a situation. A slave could not bring charges in court and was not accepted as a full-fledged witness in a lawsuit. By law, he was not supposed to own any property, with the exception of his clothes and other personal belongings, known as peculium in Roman law (Old Russian version - staritsa); a slave could not accept any obligations or sign any contract. In fact, many slaves of Kievan Rus had property and assumed obligations, but in each case this was done on behalf of their owner. If in such a case the slave defaulted, his owner would pay the loss unless the person with whom the slave was dealing was aware that the other party was a slave. If he knew about the fact, he acted at his own risk.

Slaves were used by their owners as various types of domestic servants and as field laborers. It happened that they were men and women skilled in the craft, or even teachers. They were judged on their abilities and services provided. So, according to Russian Pravda, the amount of compensation to the prince for the murder of his slaves varied from five to twelve hryvnia, depending on what type of slave the victim was.

As for the end of the slave state, leaving aside the death of the slave, temporary slavery could end after a sufficient amount of work was completed. The end of complete slavery could come in two ways: either the slave ransomed himself (which, of course, few could afford), or the owner could release his slave or slaves by volitional decision. He was constantly encouraged to do this by the Church, and many wealthy people followed this advice, freeing slaves posthumously in a special section of their wills.

There was also, of course, an illegal way for a slave to free himself - escape. Many slaves appear to have used this route to freedom, as the Russian Pravda contains several paragraphs talking about fugitive slaves. Any person who gave shelter to such a slave or assisted him in any way was to be fined.

In Ancient Rus', not only the clergy and members of their families fell under church jurisdiction, but also certain categories of people who either served the Church in one way or another or needed its support. They were all known as "church people".

The Russian clergy can be divided into two groups: the “black clergy” (i.e., monks) and the “white clergy” (priests and deacons). Based on the Byzantine model, it is an established custom in the Russian Church that monks are ordained bishops and, in contrast to the practice of the Roman Church, priests are chosen from among married men.

During the Kyiv period, the metropolitan see in Kyiv was occupied by Greeks with two exceptions (Hilarion and Clement). About half of the bishops were, however, of Russian origin. Bishops stood far above the ordinary clergy in power, prestige and wealth. In later periods it became customary to speak of them as "princes of the Church."

Let us now look at the situation of other “church people”. The first category among them covers those who participate in some way in church worship, but do not belong to the clergy: such are the church singers, the person responsible for extinguishing the candles after the service ( candle goes out), as well as a woman baking bread ( mallow or Mallow, from the word prosvira). On occasion, we may recall that the poet A. S. Pushkin advised those who wanted to get acquainted with the original Russian language to learn it from the Moscow Mallow(plural of Mallow).

The second category of church people consists of those associated with charitable institutions supported by the Church, like a doctor ( healer)and other staff of hospitals, nursing homes, hotels for pilgrims, etc., as well as from the people served by these institutions.

The third category is the so-called outcasts The characteristics of this group, as well as the source and meaning of the term, have been the subject of lengthy debate among scholars. The main difficulty is that the term is used in one sense in twelfth-century sources and apparently in a completely different sense in the eleventh-century Pravda Yaroslav. From my point of view, the only way to untie this Gordian knot is formulated in the proverb: we must cut it, that is, we must recognize that the “Truth” of the eleventh century and the sources of the twelfth century, using the same words, speak of two completely different social groups. This is not the only known case of such a difference between Pravda and later sources. For example, the term fireman in Pravda it refers to a princely bailiff, but in Novgorod sources it is applied to a special group of Novgorod citizens who have no connections with the princely court.

Outcasts“Russian Truth” will be considered in another section (II, below); here we will study only the situation of the “church people” so called. The classic definition of this social group is found in the “Code of Church Courts” (1125-1136) of Prince Vsevolod: “There are three types of outcasts: the son of a priest who remains uneducated; a slave who bought himself out of slavery; bankrupt merchant." This is followed by a note from a later copyist: “And we can add a fourth type of outcast - the orphaned prince.” .

The common characteristic of all these people was that each of them had lost his former status and needed to adapt to new circumstances, for which the Church offered him its protection. The term itself outcast can be explained in this sense if we agree to derive it from the Old Church Slavonic verb goi-ti, which means “to live”, as well as “to let live”, “to give sustenance”, “to take care of”. From this point of view, an outcast is a person deprived of care, and therefore “in need of care.” In this regard, we must remember that the term outcast or delicacy (outcastism)also has the meaning of undeserved benefits received from the slave trade or, in particular, the ransom price of a slave. Because of this, in a broader sense outcast was sometimes synonymous with "usury". Having in mind the meaning of this term, we can assume that the largest group among the outcasts were the freedmen, that the term was originally applied only to them, and only later other similar groups were included in it by analogy.

According to custom, the freedman did not have to remain with his former master. The obvious purpose of this rule was to prevent the possibility of his re-enslavement. In most cases, he had no means of subsistence and no place to live. The church offered him both, hiring him in some way or settling him on church land. Thus we discover a group of outcasts in Novgorod under the jurisdiction of the city bishop. Most of them, however, settled in rural areas. In his charter of 1150, the Smolensk prince Rostislav guaranteed the bishop of this city, among other things, two places, one “with outcasts and land,” and the other “with land and outcasts.” In this case, it turns out that outcasts were considered part of the estate. Were they permanently attached to the land in rural areas? Hardly. Presumably they paid the Church in money and work for helping them settle, but later they were apparently free to go elsewhere if they wanted.

From Rostislav's charter the conclusion can be drawn that the outcasts mentioned there were originally associated with one of the prince's possessions. Yet we know that the outcasts as a group were under ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In this case, it can be assumed that the outcasts mentioned in the charter had a rather complex history: initially, perhaps, they were under church guardianship - they probably settled on Church land, then moved to the estate of the prince, and finally found themselves again on Church land.

If we accept that the rural outcast retained freedom of movement, we can assume that they were only allowed to cross once a year - after the end of the agricultural season and after they had paid their rent.

The position of women in ancient Rus' is often presented as complete subordination to men. The women were apparently deprived of any freedom and forced to live in eastern isolation. It is true that the Moscow queens and princesses of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries led reclusive lives in their own apartments ( towers) in the royal palace, and that the same custom was also practiced in boyar and merchant families, although less strictly. This was not the case, however, among ordinary people, and therefore, even in relation to the Muscovite period, the traditional view of the subordinate position of women in Russia cannot be accepted unconditionally.

In relation to the Kyiv period, such a view would be absolutely unfounded. Russian women of this time enjoyed considerable freedom and independence, both legally and socially, and demonstrated a spirit of independence in various aspects of life. We see a woman ruling Russia in the mid-tenth century (Princess Olga), another founding a school for girls in the convent she founded in the eleventh century (Yanka, daughter of Vsevolod I). The princesses send their own representatives: to foreign countries (as we know, two members of the Russian peace delegation to Constantinople were women). It is to the woman (the step-mother of Vladimir Monomakh) that the people of Kyiv turn to restore peace between the princes (in the case of the emerging conflict between Svyatopolk II and Vladimir Monomakh in 1097).

If we turn to folklore, a female warrior is a popular heroine of ancient Russian epic poems. Polyanytsya("steppe adventurer") of Russian epics reminds us of the Amazon in the classical tradition. And, of course, from a geographical point of view there is a complete parallel, since both performed their exploits in the same region - the lower Don and the Azov region. As we know, the myth of the Amazons reflects an important fact in the social history of the Don and Azov tribes in the Scythian and Sarmatian periods: the predominance of matriarchal forms of clan organization.

The possibility that matriarchy was the basis of social organization among some Proto-Slavic tribes and, in particular, the Antic clans should not be discounted. If this is so, then the relatively independent position of women in Kievan Rus can be explained at least in part as a consequence of such a tradition. It is perhaps no coincidence that in the earliest version of “Russian Truth”, among relatives who have the right - and must - to take revenge for the murder of a fellow tribesman, “sister’s son” is mentioned together with “brother’s son”.

In general, the Old Russian clan, according to the description of “Russian Pravda” and other sources, obviously belonged to the patriarchal type. At the same time, however, women were guaranteed certain rights. Let's start with the weregeld - a symbol of the social value of a person at that time: a woman had Wergeld, but in quantitative terms the fine for her murder was equal to only half of what a man belonging to the middle class would pay for the murder - twenty hryvnia instead of forty.

A woman, even a married one, had the right to own property in her own name. Following the Byzantine example, Russian civil law recognized both dowry, in the sense of money that a woman brings to her husband in marriage, and “prenuptial gifts” (propter nuptias donatio), that is, the gift of property by a man to his bride, which in English is also is called "dowry". In Russian there are two different terms used, namely: dowry- in the first sense and vein- in the second. In addition, a married woman could have any other property bequeathed to her by her parents or acquired by her. The usual source of income for a woman, including a married woman, was the results of her needlework. According to the so-called “Church Code” of Yaroslav the Wise (copied in fact not in the eleventh, but in the thirteenth century), a man who stole hemp or flax grown by his wife, or any linen and fabric made by her, was subject to a fine. According to Russian Pravda, after the death of her husband, if he died first, the wife had rights to the property left to her and to other property that he might have owned. Moreover, the widow was recognized as the head of the family if there were children, and she was entrusted with the management of her late husband's estate. When the children reached adulthood, each had the right to claim their share of the estate, but if they did so, they had to give a certain part of the estate to their mother for the rest of her days ( belongings).Speaking of children, it should be noted that daughters inherited property along with their sons, with the exception of Smerd families (see section 5 above).

Following the conversion of Rus' to Christianity, marriage and family life were placed under the protection and supervision of the Church. And again, during the Kiev period, women's rights were not forgotten. According to the cited “Church Code”, the husband was subject to a fine in case of adultery. The daughter's rights were also protected, at least to a certain extent. If parents forced their daughter into marriage against her will and she committed suicide, they were held responsible for her death.

More broadly, Christianity affected the attitude of Russian society towards women in two ways. On the one hand, Christian doctrine - at least in its Byzantine interpretation - held woman responsible, through Eve, for original sin. In a brief overview of biblical history, which, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, was taught to Vladimir by Greek missionaries, it was explained that “mankind first sinned through a woman... for because of a woman Adam was expelled from paradise.” .

On the other hand, one of the main points of Byzantine Christianity was the veneration of the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin, who protected the feminine principle by giving life to the Savior, and hence the name “Mother of God” or literally “Our Lady”. As the Greek missionary explained to Vladimir, “After receiving flesh from a woman, God gave the believer the way to heaven.” Thus God “took revenge on the devil.”

So, the doctrine of the Church humiliated and exalted women and in this sense supported both positive and negative attitudes towards women in Russia. Ascetic monasticism saw women as the main source of temptation for men. For the monks and those under their influence, a woman was a “devilish vessel” and nothing else. And yet the Church, including the same monks, also spread the veneration of the Mother of God on Russian soil, and not only women, but also men offered constant prayers to her.

Spiritual life defies weighing or measuring, and religious influences are intangible. It is debatable whether the positive or negative aspects of Christian doctrine regarding women left a deeper impression on the Russian soul. However, it seems plausible that the Russian woman gained more than she lost in the end. It was ancient Russian literature, as we will see (Chapter IX, Section 8), that suffered most from the deterioration of Eve’s position.

With the advent of the Pechenegs at the end of the tenth century and even more so with the invasion of the Cumans in the mid-eleventh century, the steppes were closed to Slavic agriculture. Only in the intermediate forest-steppe zone and in the northern borderlands of the steppes could the land be constantly cultivated. The Russian princes tried to protect this borderland from the invasion of nomads with fortification lines, which often did not present an insurmountable barrier for the Polovtsians, but at least provided some security for the Russian population. Beyond the boundaries of this fortification line, not a single farmer tried to organize any kind of farming, and few Russians penetrated beyond it; the exception was soldiers on campaigns or Polovtsian prisoners of war.

In a certain sense, the steppe can be likened to the sea. With sufficient forces it could be blocked, but it was impossible for either the Russians or the Cumans to control or guard every part of it. The Polovtsian horde made annual detours of the steppe, people followed their grazing horses and cattle; the area near the nomads' tents was closed to any outsider, but the rest of the steppe was no man's land, at least periodically.

It was - field ancient Russian epic poems, scenes of the heroic deeds of Ilya Muromets and other Russian legendary heroes, as well as actual battles - the exploits of thousands of real Russian warriors - victorious, like Vladimir Monomakh, or defeated, like Igor of Novgorod-Seversk. Covered feather grass and rich in animal life, but also in Cuman archers, the steppes had an attractive force for adventurers, scaring off the weak. This is described poetically and concisely in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” at the end of the twelfth century and hardly less poetically, but more refined in “Taras Bulba” by N.V. Gogol seven centuries later.

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, this no-man's land became home to Ukrainian and Russian Cossacks, eventually organizing themselves into strong military communities "troops", of which the Zaporozhye (above the Dnieper rapids) and Don troops (the latter in the lower Don region) were the two most important.

During the Kiev period, a similar community was founded on the lower Dnieper. Its members were known as wanderers.Term wanderer(singular) must be associated with a verb wander, the original meaning of which in Old Russian is “to wade”; hence the word ford- place of passage by water. From an economic point of view, the purpose of wading is to catch fish with a net. So, wanderer means "fisherman".

The Brodniks lived outside the borders of both the Kyiv state and the Cuman community, although they may have at times recognized the authority of some Cuman khans as a temporary political instrument. Little is known about the organization of their community. It may have originated as a fishermen's association and later acquired some military characteristics. Presumably, similar communities also existed in the regions of the lower Dniester and Danube.

The choice of rivers by the wanderers may be partly explained by the fact that the rivers provided them with abundant food, and partly by the element of protection which they gave them against the nomads. In their campaigns, the armies of nomads tried to follow watersheds.

Since time immemorial, the Proto-Slavic and Ant tribes lived in contact with other national groups. Never before the Kievan period did the Slavs colonize the entire territory of Western Eurasia, and even in the Kievan period the Russians were not able to populate the entire territory politically subordinate to them. Moreover, the "Russians" of the ninth and tenth centuries are themselves an ethnically mixed group, due to the presence of a Swedish element.

However, new bands of Scandinavian warriors, hired from time to time by the Russian princes, constantly increased the Scandinavian element, and their flow dried up only at the end of the eleventh century. Some of the Varangians remained in Rus' only temporarily and should thus be regarded more as strangers than as national minorities. Others who settled permanently in Rus' followed in the footsteps of the ancient Swedish Rus tribe and quickly disappeared into the Slavic sea. So, although there were a significant number of people of Scandinavian origin in Kievan Rus, they never constituted any national minority.

The largest national minority during the Kiev period were the Finns. Various Finnish tribes have occupied the northern and eastern regions of Russia since time immemorial. Some of them were displaced from their places by the process of Slavic colonization, others were completely Russified. The Principality of Suzdal in particular became a melting pot, and from the mixture of Slavs and Finns the core of the so-called "Great Russian" branch of the Eastern Slavs was formed to assume leadership over the Russians during the Muscovite period. Many of the national characteristics of the Great Russian must be explained by the Finnish element in his blood.

While some Finnish tribes disappeared in the course of the Slavic expansion, many others were able to retain their identity, although one by one they had to join the Russian federation, with the exception of the Western Finns in Finland, who were eventually conquered by the Swedes.

According to the story of the “call of the Varangians,” the latter were invited jointly by the “Russians” (Rus), Slovenes, Krivichi and three Finnish tribes - Chud, Merya and Ves. At that time, in the middle of the ninth century, there was a strong Slavic-Finnish federation in Northern Rus'. Chud and Merya are also mentioned as participants in Oleg's Byzantine campaign in 907. This is the last mention of the Merya, who were completely Russified during the tenth century.

With the conversion of Rus' to Christianity, the Finnish tribes, who lived in close proximity to the Russians, were eventually baptized; other, mostly small, tribes in more remote areas remained pagan for a long time, some of them unconverted even by the time of the revolution of 1917. Because of the power of shamans among the Finnish tribes, Christianity met with the strongest opposition precisely in the mixed Finnish-Slavic regions of the North. Rus'. As a result of the conversion of the Eastern Finns to the Greek Orthodox faith, and the Western Finns to Roman Catholicism (later to Lutheranism), a religious and cultural barrier was established between the two branches of the Finns, which has existed to the present day.

Lithuanians should be mentioned here after Finns. Already in the eleventh century, the Lithuanian tribe Golyad (Galinda) lived in Central Rus', in the basin of the Ugra and Protva rivers, both of which were tributaries of the Oka. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, the golyad were defeated by Izyaslav I in 1058. After that, they gradually merged with the Russians. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Russians also came into interaction with the Yatvingians (Yatvingians), one of the main Lithuanian tribes who lived between the Russians and the Poles. Some Yotvingians were conquered by Vladimir I and Yaroslav I; others were subjugated by the Volyn prince Roman at the end of the twelfth century. It seems, however, that even those Yatvingian clans that were supposed to recognize the superiority of the Russian princes managed to preserve their national identity.

While Finns and Lithuanians formed an important part of the ethnic background of Northern, Northwestern and Eastern Rus', Jews, although significantly less numerous, played an important role in the life of Southern Rus'. Jewish colonies existed in the Trans-Caucasus region, the Taman Peninsula and the Crimea since at least the fifth century AD. e., if not earlier. In the eighth and ninth centuries, Jewish missionaries were active in Khazaria, and around 865 the Khazar Khagan and many of his nobles were converted to Judaism. So, a significant number of Jews who settled in Southern Rus' during this period must have been of Khazar origin,

Apart from the Taman Peninsula, from which the Russians were to leave at the end of the eleventh century, and the Crimea, which they abandoned a century earlier, the main center of Judaism in ancient Rus' was Kyiv. A Jewish colony has existed there since the Khazar period. In the twelfth century, one of the city gates of Kyiv was known as the Jewish Gate, which is evidence of the Jewish ownership of this part of the city and their significant number in Kyiv.

Jews played a significant role in both the commercial and intellectual life of Kievan Rus.

At least one of the Russian bishops of this period, Luka Zhidyata from Novgorod, was, we can assume, of Jewish origin. Judaism had a strong influence on Russians during this period, with the result that Russian bishops, like Hilarion of Kyiv and Cyril of Turov, paid considerable attention in their sermons to the relationship of Judaism with Christianity.

While the presence of Jews in Southern Rus' was, at least in part, the result of Khazar expansion, the Russians were in direct contact through Tmutarakan with the people of the Caucasus, especially the Yases (Ossetians) and Kosogi (Circassians). As we know, both of these peoples recognized the suzerainty of Svyatoslav I and later Mstislav of Tmutarakan (in the tenth and eleventh centuries, respectively). Kosogi formed an important element in Mstislav's squad, and he settled some of them in the Pereyaslavl region. No doubt some of the Yasa warriors also joined his retinue. It is against this background that we can interpret the term izgoy in The Truth of Yaroslav. The term appears in the introductory part of the code, in the list of people worthy of a normal wergeld. It is obvious that the outcast mentioned here belongs to the upper middle class and has nothing in common with the freedman under the protection of the Church, although the latter is also called an outcast. Vladimirsky-Budanov considers the outcast of “Russian Truth” as a member of the princely squad, and he, of course, is right, he just does not explain the source of either this category of princely vassals, or the term itself. The only clue to the meaning of this term is its place in the list. The outcast is mentioned between the (Kyiv) Russian and the (Novgorod) Slav. The term in such a case must have had an ethnic meaning, and since there was no Slavic tribe under this name, the outcast must have been of non-Slavic origin.

So far we have been on solid ground; What follows is just my hypothesis. In my opinion the term outcast can be derived from the Ossetian word izkai, which means "stranger", "mercenary" and also "hired worker". If this is so, then the outcast should have been a princely “mercenary” - a member of a squad - of Ossetian or Kosog origin.

After Mstislav's death in 1036, his domain was inherited by Yaroslav, and presumably most of Mstislav's vassals were included in Yaroslav's retinue, as a result of which they were guaranteed the same wergeld as members of the squad. It was precisely in 1036 that the “Truth of Yaroslav” probably underwent revision, and it was precisely at this time that the term should have been introduced into it outcast .

WITH At the end of the eleventh century, detachments of Turkic warriors and entire Turkic tribes were hired by Russian princes as auxiliary troops against the Polovtsians. Some of these Turkic groups, such as the Black Klobuks, Berendeys, Kuis and many others, settled permanently in Southern Rus'. They were usually called “their pagans.”

Of all of them, the Black Cowls, who settled in the region of the Ros River south of Kyiv, were in closest contact with the Russians. In the mid-twelfth century they even played an important political role, supporting Prince Izyaslav II against his opponents. Presumably all these Turkic tribes retained their traditional clan organization.

In addition to the “loyal Turks,” small groups of independent Turkic peoples—the Pechenegs and Cumans—were repeatedly brought to Rus' as prisoners of war or mercenaries and slaves. The villages of the Pechenegs and Polovtsians are mentioned in Russian sources and left toponymic traces. It is in this connection that the term can be considered hop in "Pravda" sons of Yaroslav.

The term is mentioned in the list of various categories of people subject to the jurisdiction of the prince, for the murder or injury of whom fines were to be paid to the prince. Paragraph 26 of the short version of “Russian Pravda” reads: “For a stink or a hop – five hryvnia. In the corresponding section of the expanded version of the “Russian Pravda” serf(“slave”) is read instead hop, and therefore writing hop usually regarded as a copyist's error. This explanation is hardly acceptable. This part of Pravda obviously deals with the standard social couple mentioned in Byzantine legal textbooks: the peasant ( stinks) and shepherd ( hop).

Khop - the name of the Pecheneg tribe - is well known from the words of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, since the Russians usually bought horses and cattle from the Pechenegs. When large herds were purchased, Russians had to hire or buy Pecheneg shepherds in order to care for the animals during the journey and after arriving at the place. Presumably, most of the shepherds hired in this way belonged to the Khop tribe, hence the term Khop, which first meant “shepherd of Pecheneg origin” and then shepherd in general.

As we know, during the eleventh century the Pechenegs were expelled and replaced by the Cumans. Polovtsian shepherds were also hired by Russian princes. In the twelfth century the term hop was no longer used, and by the time of the final revision of Pravda, at the end of the twelfth century, it had been replaced by a somewhat similar one - serf("slave"). Coincidentally, the prince's shepherds were usually his slaves; thus between hop And serf there is an internal connection through the social meanings of the two terms.

Having examined both the economic foundations and the social organization of Kievan Rus, we can now ask ourselves to what stage of social and economic development, or, to use the geological term, socio-economic formation, does Kievan Rus belong.

Chronologically, as we know, the Kiev period included the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. These three centuries saw the rise and flowering of feudal institutions in Western and Central Europe; they represent what may be called the feudal period par excellence. It is quite natural to want to place Kievan Rus in the same category and characterize its socio-political regime as feudal. But until recently, Russian historians were in no hurry to do this. They did not raise any serious objections to the study of feudalism in Russia: they simply ignored the problem.

A similar attitude on the part of leading representatives of Russian historical science, such as S.M. Soloviev and V.O. Klyuchevsky, as well as ordinary historians, can be partially explained by the leading idea - consciously or subconsciously conceived - of the basic difference in the development, on the one hand, of Russia and Europe, on the other. Each scientist had his own explanation of the reasons behind this difference. Some noted the important role of the clan in the Russian social structure (Soloviev, Kavelin), others - peace or communities (K. Aksakov), others - excessive expansion of centralized power (Milyukov) or expansion of foreign trade (Klyuchevsky). While Slavophiles extolled Russia's uniqueness as a historical gift, Westerners deplored this tendency and - as we have seen - spoke of the "slowness" of the historical process in Russia as the main reason for its "backwardness."

An important reason for the inattention of nineteenth-century Russian historians to the problem of feudalism was the concentration of their efforts - in relation to the Mongol and post-Mongol periods - on the study of Eastern or Muscovite Rus', where the development of feudal or similar institutions was less pronounced than in Western or Lithuanian Rus'. From this point of view, the appearance of the work of M.K. Lyubavsky's “Provincial division and local administration in the Lithuanian-Russian state” (1893) constituted an important historiographical milestone, which opened new horizons for historical research.

N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky was the first to put the study of the problem of feudalism on the agenda in Russian historiography, but he studied mainly the feudal institutions of the Mongol period, without trying to assert their development in Kievan Rus. Only in Soviet times was the problem of feudalism in Kievan Rus given sufficient attention.

Since “feudalism” is a rather vague concept and the Marxist definition of it differs from the more or less generally accepted one in Western historiography, we must clarify the meaning of the concept itself before we accept or reject the conclusions of Soviet scientists. The term "feudalism" can be used in both a narrow and broad sense. In a narrow sense, it is used to refer to the social, economic and political system specific to the countries of Western and Central Europe - mainly France and Germany - during the Middle Ages. In a broader sense, it can be applied to certain social, economic and political trends in the development of any country at any time.

In this sense, any definition of a developed feudal regime should include the following three features: 1) “political feudalism” - a scale of mediation of the highest political power, the existence of a ladder of greater and lesser rulers (suzerains, vassals, even smaller vassals), connected by personal contact, the reciprocity of such an agreement ; 2) “economic feudalism” - the existence of a manorial regime with restrictions on the legal status of peasants, as well as the distinction between the right of ownership and the right of use regarding the same land ownership; 3) feudal ties - an indivisible unity of personal and territorial rights, with the conditionality of the vassal's land ownership on the part of the service of the lord.

The essence of feudalism in the narrow sense is the complete fusion of political and economic power within the class of nobles - owners of large land estates. Added to this is the fact that during the period of early feudalism, European society was mainly dependent on agriculture for its economy. And, despite the objections of A. Dopsch, it can be said in general that in the initial stages of European feudalism there was a primacy of the so-called “natural” economy in contrast to the “money economy”.

If only some of the above tendencies are present, and others are absent, and if there is no harmonious connection between them, we do not have “feudalism” in the narrow sense, and in this case we need to talk only about the process of feudalization, and not about feudalism.

Let us now turn to the Marxist approach to the problem. According to the Small Soviet Encyclopedia (1930), feudalism is “a socio-economic formation through which many countries of the new and ancient world have passed.” The essence of feudalism is the exploitation of the peasant masses by the owner of the manor. It is characterized by the “non-economic pressure” of the master in relation to his serf in order to obtain “rent”, which has a “pre-capitalist nature”.

The feudal state of secular and ecclesiastical lords is nothing more than a political superstructure over the economic foundation of feudal society and, thus, does not belong to the essence of feudalism. In other words, what is called “feudalism” in the Marxist interpretation, rather corresponds to “economic feudalism” in everyday use.

For the special conditions of scientific activity in the Soviet Union, where the party dictates the rules of historical terminology, it is characteristic that the publication of critical notes by Stalin, Zhdanov and Kirov on the draft standard textbook on the history of the USSR (1934) is considered in Soviet historiography as a milestone of enormous significance for the development of Soviet historical science. “In these “notes” historians of the Soviet Union received the most important principled advice that it was the establishment of serfdom that should be considered as the boundary line separating the feudal period from the pre-feudal period.” .

In numerous “discussions” of Soviet historians, a series of which began with the report of B.D. Grekov’s “Slavery and Feudalism in Kievan Rus,” presented in 1932 at the Academy of the History of Material Culture, concluded that Kievan society was not “slave-owning,” but “feudal.” The emergence of the Kyiv state is now considered by Soviet historians as an expression of a pan-European historical process - the transition from slavery of classical antiquity to medieval feudalism.

As a result, two leading modern researchers of the history of Kievan Rus B.D. Grekov and S.B. Yushkov view the Kiev regime as feudal, although with some reservations.

Terminology is not ultimately a matter of central importance. It is only necessary to understand accordingly what is meant by such and such a term. We call a tiger a big cat or a cat a little tiger; it makes no difference as long as the person we are addressing knows what we mean by “cat” or “tiger.” But if we see a cat crossing the street and start shouting “tiger,” we can easily create panic.

In fact, my own objection to the position of the newest Soviet school in discussing the problem of feudalism in Kievan Rus is not only of a terminological nature. In a certain sense, the growth of the manor can be said to be evidence of the growth of feudalism. And we can agree with Soviet historians that the manorial power of princes and boyars was constantly increasing in Kievan Rus. Moreover, I am even ready to recognize the completely new approach of Soviet historians to the study of the economic and social development of Kievan Rus, as well as the important achievements in their research.

However, the question remains whether they did not over-exaggerate the sociological consequences of the growth of the manorial system and minimized the role of slavery in the Kievan period. One can accept that the manor was an important institution in Kievan Rus and that some tenants were at the semi-serf level, but still doubt that the manor and serfdom were the leading socio-political institutions and the basis of the Russian national economy of this period. In order to determine the special significance of the manor in Russian social and economic life of this time, we must consider or revise the following provisions: 1) the degree of distribution of large land holdings in Kievan Rus; 2) their types; 3) the status of the land from a legal point of view; 4) the degree of manorial power over the rural tenant; 5) social status of the landowner; 6) the general type of national economy in the Kiev period.

1. There is no doubt that large land holdings existed in Rus' in Kiev times. However, next to them there also existed other types of estates, such as the farms of people organized in guilds. It is characteristic that the extended version of Pravda deals with such guilds in more detail than the short version. This is an important indication of the fact that people still owned land in the twelfth century. We also know of the existence of a large class of small landowners ( fellow countrymen) in the Novgorod region.

2. Concerning large landed estates, the question may be asked whether they were all of the manorial type (using the term in the special sense of fiefs). The existence of large land holdings does not in itself mean the inevitable predominance of the feudal regime. Large landed estates existed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in England, France and Germany under democracy or, in any other case, under capitalism.

Large estates existed in the Roman Empire and, although they are sometimes seen as one of the reasons for its final fall (latifundia perdidere Italiam), their growth did not immediately change the “capitalist” economy of the Romans into a feudal one. In that medieval continuation of the Roman Empire known as Byzantium, also, despite the gradual rise of “economic feudalism,” the land regime based on Roman law did not stifle the functioning of the “monetary economy.” In Kievan Rus the situation was similar.

3. From a legal point of view, land in Kievan Rus was the only type of private property. Transactions regarding land did not encounter any feudal interference. It could be inherited, gifted, bought, sold and otherwise used without hindrance.

Byzantine legislation - that is, essentially Roman law - served as an example for Russian practice in any matter concerning land. Two Byzantine textbooks of legislation – Ecloga (eighth century) and Procheiron (ninth century) were available in Slavic translation. In addition, legislative codes in the original Greek version could be used.

In Russian practice, certain modifications of Byzantine legislation were introduced, similar to the right of the seller or his relatives to redeem the sold land, at least within the boundaries of a certain time. But such restrictions did not come from feudal law, but from the remnants of tribal psychology, as well as from the general concepts of law and justice inherent in the Russian mind.

4. Although it is true that the owner of a manor in Kievan Rus, as in feudal Europe, had a certain power over his tenants, this power was less defined in the former case than in the latter. And whatever legal power the owner had, it was delegated to him by the prince. We know that peasants (smerds) initially lived on the land of the princely domain; some of them could subsequently find themselves under the rule of a boyar through the transfer of the estate to this boyar by the prince, but there is no positive evidence regarding this. Outcasts, or freedmen, settled mainly in church estates. Contract workers (purchases), as well as recipients of “donations” (giving), were dependent on the owner of the manor to a significant extent, but the source of their subordination was rather financial, i.e. “capitalist”, rather than feudal. Their hardships were not the result of “non-economic pressures.”

And another important circumstance was that even if we call the outcast a semi-serf (this cannot be done without appropriate reservations), they represented only part of the necessary agricultural labor. In addition, hired free workers were used ( hirelings, rank and file).And whatever the objections of Grekov and the historians of his school to the concept of Kyiv society as “slave-owning”, slaves were an indispensable factor in the Kyiv economy. Contract workers (purchases) and recipients of gifts (dachas) were in fact semi-slaves, and their role should be associated with the slave economy rather than with serfdom.

As a result, there was no universal serfdom in Kievan Rus, and the sociological significance of this fact cannot be overestimated, since it was serfdom, and not slavery, that was specific to feudalism, according to the testimony of Soviet historians themselves.

5. From a social point of view, the owners of large land holdings in Kievan Rus cannot be identified without reservations with the feudal barons. As a social group, they did not represent an exclusive link in the Kiev period, similar to the feudal rulers of Western Europe. The owner of the manor, a Russian boyar of the Kyiv period, was an ordinary citizen outside his land. He was subject to the same laws as other freemen, and in city-states like Novgorod, at least officially, had no more voice in the city assembly than any other burgher. We can agree that the lives of some boyars were protected by a double wergeld, but they were only a group of people in the prince’s service, and not all owners of large land holdings were the prince’s servants during this period.

Moreover, for his income, the Russian boyar of the Kyiv period depended not only on agriculture, but also on trade - (mainly foreign trade) as well. Not only could the ancestors of such a boyar receive their wealth as members of the squad of an ancient prince - adventurer, but he himself could probably own a significant share of Kyiv trade even in the twelfth century. In this respect, the Kyiv boyars did not differ from the Kyiv prince. Both groups collaborated - or even competed at times - with the regular merchant class and had the same share of the river caravans as the merchants themselves.

6. In Western Europe, feudalism appeared in the conditions of the so-called “natural economy”, opposite to the “money economy”. In a certain sense, and with appropriate reservations, one can characterize the economic regime of the feudal countries of Western and Central Europe, at least in the tenth and eleventh centuries, as “closed economies” with the economic self-sufficiency of each manor. Agriculture was the main source of national income, and trade as a source of subsistence and supply of necessary goods played only a minor role for the majority of the population. We know that in Kievan Rus' agriculture was also an important branch of economic life and that agricultural production was partly organized at the manorial level. However, we also know that there were other trends in agricultural management. There were smaller, non-feudal farms; and, I repeat, on large farms labor was performed mainly by hired workers and slaves, and not exclusively by semi-serfs. So, the large land economy in Kievan Rus was perhaps more similar to the Roman latifundia, than with feudal seigneury. What is important is that grain was grown on the large land estates of the Kyiv period not only for the consumption of the estate's inhabitants, but also for the market. To summarize these observations, it can be said that while the agriculture of Kievan Rus was highly developed, this does not necessarily mean the primacy of the “natural” or “closed” economy in national life.

Moreover, agriculture constituted, as we have seen in a large number of cases, only one important source of the national income of Russia during this period. Trade, and especially foreign trade, was an equally significant factor in Russian economic life. In this respect, many of Klyuchevsky's brilliant generalizations still firmly stand up to the criticism that has recently been thrown at them. The trade expansion of a nation is itself an important evidence of the spread of the “money economy” (as opposed to the “subsistence economy”) in the life of the nation. Regarding Kievan Rus, we know that money and trade played a very important role. Foreign trade was the original source of wealth for the upper classes, even if they subsequently settled on the earth. Money was available for trade and other transactions at a relatively low interest rate.

Credit, trade, storage of goods, bankruptcy - Kiev legislation of this period paid considerable attention to all of this. And in the field of trade and credit, as well as in the circulation of land, Kiev legislation was based on Byzantine (that is, essentially Roman) sources.

What should be the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the section? To which socio-political formation should we classify Kievan Rus? It is obvious that it was not a feudal state, at least not a typically feudal state. But if she was not one, then what was she?

We have seen that the first rulers of Kyiv dreamed of creating a vast commercial empire that would take up the tradition of the Huns and Khazars and at the same time seize the wealth accumulated by Byzantium. In a certain sense, the Principality of Kiev grew up on the same soil as all the nomadic and semi-nomadic empires that controlled the territory of the Black Sea steppes in turn, starting from the Scythian period. Each of them tried to create a link between northern and eastern trade, on the one hand, and Mediterranean trade, on the other. Chronologically, the last among these Western Eurasian commercial empires before the formation of the Russian state was the Khazar one. It was in the bosom of the Khazar Kaganate that the first Russian Kaganate, the Tmutarakan Kaganate, was born. The Principality of Kiev was created by Oleg and his successors with the intention of continuing and expanding the trade and political tradition of the first Khaganate.

It is against this historical background that the origins of Kyiv's "merchant capitalism" can best be understood. But there was also a significant difference between the early nomadic and semi-nomadic states and the Principality of Kyiv, since the majority of the population of the latter had a specific place of settlement, regardless of whether its main occupation was agriculture or forestry.

It should also be noted that Kievan Rus, even before the conversion of its population to Christianity, was under significant Byzantine influence, and it increased significantly after the baptism of Rus.

In a number of cases, we have already noted the dependence of the Kyiv regime on Roman legislation. The national economy of the Roman Empire can be called capitalist in a certain sense; The peculiarity of Roman capitalism was that it was based, at least in part, on slave labor. The Roman economic system, as well as Roman law, continued to exist under varying historical circumstances and with significant modifications in the Byzantine Empire. Over time, feudalization tendencies became more and more pronounced in the Byzantine imperial regime. But until its first fall during the Fourth Crusade (1204), the Byzantine economy was essentially a "money economy".

Culturally being under significant Byzantine influence, Kievan Rus economically also had much in common with Byzantium. Of course, we cannot identify the Kyiv economy with the economy of the Roman Empire, or even the Byzantine Empire, without reservations. Kievan "capitalism" was not as well formed as the Roman one, and the Kievan civilization, although brilliant in many respects, did not match the level of the Roman one. First of all, she was much younger, if we can use that expression in this connection. As a result, much more primitive elements remained in the Kyiv civilization than in the Roman one. Leaving aside the fact that during the Kievan period Russian rural life was at a much lower cultural level than life in the cities, many remote areas of Kievan Rus were not touched by the new civilization at all. Overall, the elements of the ancient cultured country, including the ancestral and shared psychology and habits, were still easily and quickly discernible under the outer layer of the new trading civilization.

Industrially, as well as technologically, Kievan Rus was, of course, at a lower level than the Roman Empire. Kiev capitalism can primarily be characterized as commercial.

Russia has always been and remains a country of contrasts, and the Kiev civilization, with its combination of refinement and primitiveness, represents an interesting case. And yet, after all that has been said, we are obliged to connect Kievan Rus sociologically not only with the type of nomadic trading empire, but in a certain sense also with that type, the highest expression of which in classical antiquity was the Roman Empire - with a “capitalist” formation based on slavery.

Of course, elements of feudalism were present and gradually increased from the beginning of the twelfth century. But despite certain restrictions on the legal status of some peasants, no general serfdom existed in the Kiev period. This process of “lag” of serfdom was, of course, one of the characteristic facets of the social and economic regime prevailing in Kievan Rus.

We therefore come to the conclusion that in the tenth and eleventh centuries there was a significant difference in terms of social and economic foundations between Kievan Rus, on the one hand, and Western and Central Europe on the other. This difference was partly the result of different historical backgrounds, and partly a consequence of the dissimilarity of social and economic development factors in the Kiev period, as well as Byzantine influence in the formation of Kyiv institutions.

After the formation of medieval countries in the 5th century, a social structure of society characteristic of a feudal people began to form. (using the example of the kingdom of the Franks)

King- headed the state, destroying 40 kings of related tribes that were part of the kingdom of the Franks and began to transfer power by right of succession to the throne.

Feudal lords– landowners appeared after the distribution of lands by the royal power to the administrative elite of the tribes. Feudal lords, together with knighthood, constituted the first estate.

Clergy took shape after the baptism procedure of 40 Frasnian tribes. They constituted the second estate.

Government officials - were appointed by the royal authority to manage the created administrative-territorial districts.

Chivalry- became a military support of power. The knight received a service land allotment.

Townspeople- residents of commercial and industrial cities, who jointly advocated for a solution to their problems, they formed into a special third estate.

Free peasants

Serfs - peasants who lived on the land of feudal lords personally and in land depended on them.

Approximate folding mechanism

serfdom in Western Europe

1. The transformation of communal lands into the private property of the Franks led to the fragmentation of allotments as families grew and their loss by the majority of land-poor Franks for debts. As a result, there was a redistribution of the lands of former community members in favor of spiritual and secular feudal lords.

2. The peasants who lost their lands were forced to place themselves under the patronage (patronage, commendation) of large landowners, receiving land for temporary use on the terms of working out. This was accompanied by the formation of land, and then their personal dependence on the feudal lords.

3. Similar consequences were caused by the entry of land-poor peasants into a precarium (literally - a plot of land upon request) to the church - with the transfer of their land. While continuing to work on it, the peasants continued to use their former land and additional plots provided by the church.

4. Some of the peasants who lost their land sold themselves into slavery.

Familiarity with the textbook materials allows us to conclude that in Kievan Rus there was a rather complex system of society .

Grand Duke - by right of conquest and transfer of power by inheritance, he was the head of state. Great Kyiv princes

860-882 Askold and Dir, princes of Kiev, did not have the title Grand Duke.

882-912 Oleg Prophetic

912-945 Igor Rurikovich

945-957 Olga

957-972 Svyatoslav Igorevich

972-978 Yaropolk Svyatoslavich

978-1015 Vladimir Svyatoslavich (Saint, Baptist, Red Sun), etc.

Appanage princes- initially they were vassals of the Kyiv prince, but after the Lyubech Congress of princes, some of them seized the controlled territories into their own property.

Boyars- these are the prince’s senior warriors, who together with him made decisions and carried out the will of the prince to govern the state. After the Lyubech Congress, the princes, who came out of Kyiv control, began to pay the boyars for their service not in silver, but in land. So the boyars turned into landowners - feudal lords.

There were also junior wars in the squad - youths and greedi. They accompanied the prince as retinue and bodyguards, carried out various assignments, but did not participate in councils.

Clergy- class of church ministers. Appeared after the baptism of Rus' in 988. It was divided into white clergy (priests) and black clergy - monks.

Townspeople- people who lived in cities

Smerda- free communal peasants who lived on the lands of the Kyiv state, paid tribute to it and performed other duties.

Serfs-, in fact, they were slaves in ancient Russian society. They had no property, the master was responsible for his actions. They became serfs as a result of captivity, self-sale, sale for debts or crimes, through marriage to a serf or servant.

procurement- community members who found themselves in debt for a loan, a percentage of which they earned from the feudal lord who gave them a coupa (money, land, livestock or any other property) and ryadovichi- community members who took out a loan and agreed to pay it off with their labor.

In Rus', the registration of serfdom took a very long time for a number of reasons. Firstly, in the absence of private ownership of land by peasants, they remained for a long time without the need to take it from the feudal lords. Secondly, the class of feudal lords - landowner boyars - appeared only at the end of the 11th century. Thus, the structure of society in Rus' was very different from the structure of society in Western Europe.

INTRODUCTION

The Old Russian state left a huge mark on the development of our people. This is confirmed by a considerable number of epics dedicated to this particular period of history. And this cannot be an accident. The people, who have experienced many difficult and joyful events throughout their history, perfectly remembered them, appreciated them and passed them on as souvenirs to future generations.

Kievan Rus of the 9th-12th centuries is, firstly, the cradle of the statehood of three fraternal peoples - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians - and secondly, it is one of the largest powers of medieval Europe, which played an important historical role in the destinies of the peoples and states of the West, East and remote North.

From a relatively small union of Slavic tribes of the Middle Dnieper region, Rus' grew to a huge power that united all the East Slavic tribes, as well as a number of Lithuanian-Latvian tribes of the Baltic states and numerous Finno-Ugric tribes of north-eastern Europe. The ancient Russian state was defensible and formidable to its neighbors. It was the largest state of all the Slavic and non-Slavic states contemporary to it.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF KIEVAN RUS

Kievan Rus was a complex socio-political entity. The population was united into tribes - the tribal division was preserved almost until the collapse of Kievan Rus. Signs of a tribal organization are people's squads (as opposed to the prince's squad), their own tribal administration, for example, Tsar Mal among the Drevlyans. These folk squads were gathered by the prince for joint campaigns, and after them they dispersed among their tribes. Urban regions were territorial communities with democratic governing bodies: veche, elected elders, thousand (commanding a thousand), hundred, ten. The prince had his own squad, which was divided into senior and junior. The senior squad consisted of boyars, princely men; the youngest - from the youths, gridi, servants. The boyars could have their own squads and had the right to leave the prince at their own request. The senior squad made up the prince's council, which included elected elders, thousand, hundred and ten. During the period of strong princely power, instead of elected military leaders, the prince installed his governors, but when civil strife shook the power of the princely family, self-government bodies again took first place in the leadership.

Thus, Kievan Rus, from the point of view of family organization, was a tribal union; from the point of view of structure, it was a union of territorial communities; from the point of view of political form, it was a military democracy. Military democracy is a transitional form from clan to state. From the clan organization, democratic forms of self-government are preserved, up to the election of princes, when the veche could refuse the throne over itself to one or another prince, and invite the one they wish to the throne. But at the same time, there already exists a military-administrative class, which stands above the people and from which the formation of government bodies occurs. A characteristic feature of princely power in Kievan Rus was the regular procedure for replacing vacant princely tables. The next order was that the eldest of the brothers became the Grand Duke, who sent his younger brothers and nephews as governors to the cities. In the event of the death of a prince, his place was taken by the brother closest in seniority (but not the son of the deceased), who left his former place of reign for this purpose. Thus, successively, representatives of the princely family moved from throne to throne towards the grand ducal family. Each prince was a temporary worker on the next throne; the princely family remained unchanged as a hired leader of the territorial communities. In its clan structure, princely power is closer to the aristocratic families of Homeric Greece than to the European feudal organization.

The mutual obligations of the tribes and the prince were as follows. Tribes paid tribute, princes guarded the borders of the state, organized trade caravans and ensured their safety, built and fortified cities, waged wars or organized people's militia for defense. But these mutual, reasonable relationships tended to turn into a system of exploitation of the population by the princely family. This is how Klyuchevsky speaks about this in “Lectures on the History of Rus'” regarding the legend of Rurik’s calling by the Novgorodians: “Having settled in Novgorod, Rurik soon aroused discontent among the natives against himself: in the same chronicle it is written that two years later the Novgorodians were called “ They were offended, saying: “We should be slaves and suffer a lot of evil from Rurik and his fellow countrymen.” There was even some kind of conspiracy: Rurik killed the leader of sedition, “brave Vadim,” and killed many Novgorodians, his accomplices. A few years later, many more Novgorod men fled from Rurik to Kyiv to Askold. All these features do not speak of a benevolent invitation to strangers to rule over the unmanned natives, but rather of military recruitment. Obviously, the overseas princes and their retinue were called upon by the Novgorodians and the tribes allied with them to protect the country from some external enemies and received a certain amount of food for their guard services. But the hired guards, apparently, wanted to feed themselves too richly. Then a murmur arose among the feed payers, suppressed by an armed hand. Feeling their strength, the mercenaries turned into rulers, and turned their wages into obligatory tribute with an increase in salary.” This example, and the entire history of Kievan Rus, shows how hired power turns from servants of the people into their most cruel exploiters. More than once the Slavic tribes rebelled against the exorbitant tribute. In the 9th and 10th centuries, the princes had to conquer the Vyatichi four times, the Drevlyans three times, and the Rodimichs twice. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the form of exploitation was taken to the extreme - to the direct conversion of their former employers into slavery by the princes.

Kievan Rus was formed along the water trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” For the first princes, the daily harvest and international trade probably did not provide significant wealth. Igor’s squad complained about their poverty, inviting him to go against the Drevlyans. Svyatoslav Igorevich was quite modest in consumption and indifferent to wealth. But the son of Svyatoslav Vladimir the Saint (baptist) (reigned from 980 to 1015) already had 800 concubines and raised 12 children, and under Yaroslav Vladimirovich (reign - 1019-1054) Kyiv reached its heyday. During the development of Kievan Rus, the boyar class was a military-mercantile class, and its main income came from serving the prince and trade. The exploitation of slave labor had no economic significance for him. But in Byzantium, slavery persisted, and there was a great demand for slaves, so the slave trade began to prevail in Rus' from the 10th century and the military campaigns of princes against neighboring tribes became a source of popular goods. During the times of Vladimir and Yaroslav, the slave trade was probably the main source of their wealth, since these princes' own territorial acquisitions were not as significant as those of their predecessors, and the increase in the number of tributaries alone could not lead to such a rapid increase in their wealth.

Having reached its peak under Vladimir and, especially, under Yaroslav the Wise, Kievan Rus entered an era of decomposition and decline. The growth of wealth led to an increase in the size of the ruling class - representatives of the princely family. The previously existing procedure for filling vacant tables began to malfunction, as it led to the emergence of conflicts between numerous members of the clan for the Kiev and other thrones. Already Saint Vladimir, and then his son Yaroslav the Wise, occupied the grand-ducal throne as a result of internecine struggle with their brothers. Under them, these wars stopped, but after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, civil strife became a chronic phenomenon. Princes gathered at congresses more than once to stop the dynastic war. Owner's lands tried to assign individual branches of the family to hereditary ownership - to the fatherland, and among themselves they began to conclude agreements delimiting the rights to ownership, as a result of which several independent lands were formed: Kiev, Turovo-Pinsk, Polotsk, Volyn and Galitsk to the west of Denpra ; Pereyaslavskaya, Chernigovo-Severskaya, Smolenskaya, Rostov-Suzdolskaya and Murom-Ryazanskaya to the east of the Dnieper and Novgorodskaya land in the north. Nothing helped, for two hundred years of civil strife, Kyiv, for which there were most wars, first ceased to be a grand prince in 1169, was plundered several times, and the last blow was dealt by the Tatars in 1240, after which Kyiv turned into a small regional town of 200 houses, the center of the region of the same name. Only when the masses entered the struggle between the princes did a new order begin to be established, which led to the cessation of internecine wars.

Thus, at the end of the 11th century, Rus' entered the final period of its development, a period of destruction of old social relations and transition to a new social formation. This period is characterized not only by the disintegration of Rus' into separate volosts, but also by the rapid accumulation of enormous wealth by the ruling class and the flourishing of its culture. This is how Klyuchevsky describes the wealth of the ruling elite: “In the large cities of Kievan Rus in the 11th and 12th centuries. in the hands of princes and boyars the presence of significant funds and large capital is noticeable.

Princely civil strife and the resulting weakening of Rus' led to an intensification of Polovtsian invasions. The rural population, which constituted the main productive class of society, for whom the walls of city castles were not always accessible, suffered most from the Polovtsians. Thanks to increased exploitation in these ways, the population decreased and migration increased significantly due to the resettlement of peasants to the Galicia region and the northeast of the country. The population decline soon led to the economic decline of Kievan Rus. To top it all off, fragmented Rus' became easy prey first for the Golden Horde, then for the Principality of Lithuania.

The disintegration of Kievan Rus into many volosts, scattered and hostile to each other, created different conditions for their existence. The fate of these volosts and their history in the general history of Rus' also developed differently. But the changes that took place in the Rostov-Suzdal region subsequently determined the entire structure of Russia and its historical destiny.

The main wave of settlers headed to the Rostov-Suzdal land, which was wooded and difficult to access for nomads and warring princely squads. In this new region, the newcomers began to settle along the banks of numerous rivers and rivulets, covering it in a dense network. They took up farming, hunting, fishing, and crafts. Land for arable land in this region could only be reclaimed from the forest, so slash-and-burn farming became the main form of cultivation. In slash-and-burn farming, an area of ​​forest is cut down, uprooted or burned, and used for crops for several years. When the soil loses fertility, the arable land is abandoned and moved to a new plot (pochinok), that is, this form of agriculture requires a semi-sedentary lifestyle. This semi-sedentary way of life of the peasants for many years, until the beginning of the 17th century, determined the contractual nature of the relationship between the tiller and the landowner, and died out only with the establishment of serfdom.

Slash-and-burn agriculture destroys the clan organization, since joint farming by a large team becomes impossible, the clan breaks up into separate patriarchal families, which consisted of the head of the family with his wife and their male descendants with their wives and children. The semi-sedentary life of such families was supposed to mix different tribes among themselves over time, so it is not surprising that from the 11th century the mention of the original tribal names ceased, and the formation of a single Russian people took place.

These new living conditions of the population also determined the nature of the political structure of Suzdal Rus', its appanage character. The political bodies of Kievan Rus were the princely family with the administrative apparatus - the boyar class and the veche assembly. With the collapse of the unified state in its individual parts, the volosts, a struggle between these three elements began for political dominance. As a result of the struggle, the veche assembly prevailed in Novgorod, the boyar class prevailed in Galich, and princely power prevailed in the Rostov-Suzdal land, but the nature of this power changed. Here's how it happened.

Thus, the main productive population, which was now dispersed throughout the countryside, sided with one of the authorities - the princely, ensuring its victory, and also determined its hereditary character in its own interests. The temporary worker, as the prince was during the next succession of thrones, was replaced by the prince-owner, who, as a private owner, was supposed to take care of his estate, building it for himself and his children. In the strife, not only the collective form of government of the princely family perished, but also the veche organization of power. If in Kievan Rus the working population was concentrated in cities and could participate in veche gatherings, then with a dispersed population the veche turned into an apparatus of aristocratic power, covered by the authority of democracy. Thus, in the class struggle, a new political power crystallized - the owner prince, the appanage prince, corresponding to the interests of the peasant masses, the form of power came into line with the form of production.

The harmony between production and power was not slow to affect the wealth and strength of the principality, in the decisive predominance of the Suzdal region over the other regions of the Russian land. Prince Andrei and Vsevolod forced them to recognize themselves as the great princes of the entire earth; they ruled southern Russia from the shores of the distant Klyazma. Vsevolod ruled Novgorod the Great and Galicia autocratically.

The Vladimir region, having arisen on the basis of appanage law, again became the property of the family and the next order under the sons of Vsevolod. But appanage principalities continued to arise in the suburbs, until one of them, Moscow, turned into a sovereign state, having finally overcome both the regular, contractual, and appanage nature of ownership during the reign of Vasily the Dark from 1425 to 1462. It should also be noted that The Tatar-Mongol yoke did not stop, but contributed to the establishment of a new social order, since with their authoritarian power the Tatars suppressed the activities of the veche administration, often prevented the outbreak of internecine wars, and also contributed to the rise and enrichment of Moscow by entrusting its princes with the collection of tribute in favor of the Tatars - Tatar exit.

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://www.allbest.ru/

Topic: Kievan Rus in IX - beginning. XII centuries: social structure, political and government system

Work plan

Introduction

The emergence of the Old Russian state

1. Socio-economic system of Kievan Rus

2. Political and government system

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The Old Russian state of Kievan Rus arose in Eastern Europe in the last quarter of the 9th century. At its peak, it occupied the territory from the Taman Peninsula in the south, the Dniester and the headwaters of the Vistula in the west to the headwaters of the Northern Dvina in the north.

There are two main hypotheses for the formation of the Old Russian state. According to the Norman theory, based on the Tale of Bygone Years of the 12th century and numerous Western European and Byzantine sources, statehood in Rus' was introduced from outside by the Varangians - the brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor in 862.

The anti-Norman theory is based on the idea of ​​the emergence of the state as a stage in the internal development of society. The founder of this theory in Russian historiography was considered to be Mikhail Lomonosov. In addition, there are different points of view on the origin of the Varangians themselves. Scientists classified as Normanists considered them Scandinavians (usually Swedes); some anti-Normanists, starting with Lomonosov, suggest their origin from West Slavic lands. There are also intermediate versions of localization - in Finland, Prussia, and other parts of the Baltic states. The problem of the ethnicity of the Varangians is independent of the issue of the emergence of statehood.

The first information about the state of the Rus dates back to the first third of the 9th century: in 839, the ambassadors of the Kagan of the people of Rus were mentioned, who arrived first in Constantinople, and from there to the court of the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious. The term “Kievan Rus” appears for the first time in historical studies of the 18th - 19th centuries.

Kievan Rus arose on the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” on the lands of the East Slavic tribes - the Ilmen Slovenes, Krivichi, Polyans, then covering the Drevlyans, Dregovichs, Polotsk, Radimichi, Severians, Vyatichi.

1. The emergence of the Old Russian state

Kievan Rus of the 9th-12th centuries is a huge feudal state stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from the Western Bug to the Volga.

The chronicle legend considers the founders of Kyiv to be the rulers of the Polyan tribe - the brothers Kiya, Shchek and Khoriv. According to archaeological excavations carried out in Kyiv in the 19th-20th centuries, already in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. there was a settlement on the site of Kyiv.

Kievan Rus - one of the largest states of medieval Europe - emerged in the 9th century. as a result of the long internal development of the East Slavic tribes. Its historical core was the Middle Dnieper region, where new social phenomena characteristic of a class society arose very early.

In the northeast, the Slavs delved into the lands of the Finno-Ugric people and settled along the banks of the Oka and upper Volga; in the west they reached the Elbe River in Northern Germany. And yet most of them were drawn to the south, to the Balkans - with their warm climate, fertile lands, rich cities.

The existence of Kievan Rus covers the period from the 9th century to the 30s of the 12th century. The Old Russian state can be characterized as an early feudal monarchy. The head of the state was the Grand Duke of Kyiv. His brothers, sons and warriors carried out the administration of the country, the court, and the collection of tribute and duties.

The young state faced major foreign policy tasks related to the protection of its borders: repelling the raids of the nomadic Pechenegs, fighting the expansion of Byzantium, the Khazar Kaganate, and Volga Bulgaria.

Since 862, Rurik, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, established himself in Novgorod.

During that period, the Slavs were subject to constant raids by nomads. Prince Oleg conquered Kyiv, killing Rurik, expanded Russian borders, conquering the Drevlyans, northerners, and Radimichi.

Prince Igor conquered Kyiv and became famous for his campaigns in Byzantium. Killed by the Drevlyans while collecting tribute. After him, his wife Olga ruled, who brutally avenged her husband’s death.

Then the throne of Kyiv was taken by Svyatoslav, who devoted his whole life to campaigns.

Prince Yaropolk was conquered by Vladimir (the Saint). He converted to Christianity and baptized Rus' in 988.

During the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054), the period of greatest prosperity of Kievan Rus began. Prince Yaroslav the Wise expelled Yaropolk the Accursed, fought with his brother Mstislav, and established family ties with many European countries. But already in the second half of the 11th century, the so-called princely war began between the princes, which led to the weakening of Kievan Rus.

In the second half of the 12th century, Rus' broke up into independent principalities.

2. Socio-economic system of Kievan Rus

Kievan Rus developed in the form of an early feudal monarchy. Feudal society is characterized by the division of the population into classes. An estate is a closed social group that has rights and obligations defined by law. In Kievan Rus, the process of formation of estates had just begun.

At the pinnacle of state power stood the Grand Duke. The authorities also included the boyar council (council under the prince) and the veche.

Prince. He could only be a member of the family of Vladimir the Great. Kievan Rus did not have a clearly defined right of succession to the throne. At first, the Grand Duke ruled with the help of his sons, who were completely subordinate to him. After Yaroslav, the right of all the sons of the prince to inherit in the Russian land was established, but for two centuries there was a struggle between two approaches to inheritance: according to the order of all brothers (from eldest to youngest), and then according to the order of the sons of the eldest brother or only along the line of the eldest sons.

The prince's competence and power were unlimited and depended on his authority and the real strength on which he relied. First of all, the prince was a military leader; he took the initiative of military campaigns and their organization. The prince headed the administration and court. He had to “rule and judge.” He had the right to pass new laws and change old ones.

The prince collected taxes from the population, court fees and criminal fines. The Prince of Kyiv had influence on church affairs.

The boyar council, and at first the council of the prince's squad, was an integral part of the mechanism of power. Consulting with the squad, and later with the boyars, was the moral duty of the prince.

Veche. The veche was a body of power that had been preserved since the times of the tribal system. With the growth of the prince's power, the veche loses its significance and only when the power of the Kyiv princes declines does it increase again. The veche had the right to elect a prince or deny him reign. The prince elected by the population had to conclude an agreement with the veche - a “row”.

The veche in Kievan Rus did not have a specific competence or procedure for convening. Sometimes the veche was convened by the prince, more often it met without his will.

Controls. There were no clearly defined governing bodies in Kievan Rus. For a long time there was a tithe system (thousands, sots, tens), which was preserved from military democracy and performed administrative, financial and other functions. Over time, it is replaced by the palace-patrimonial system of government, i.e. such a system of government in which princely servants over time turned into government officials who carried out various functions of government.

The division of principalities into administrative units was not clear. Chronicles mention a volost, a churchyard. The princes carried out local government in cities and volosts through mayors and volosts, who were representatives of the prince. From the middle of the 12th century, instead of posadniks, the position of governors was introduced.

Officials of the local administration did not receive salaries from the Grand Duke, but were supported by levies from the population. This system is called a feeding system.

The body of local peasant self-government was the verv - a rural territorial community.

The power of the prince and his administration extended to cities and the population of lands that were not the property of the boyars. Boyar estates gradually acquired immunity and were freed from princely jurisdiction. The population of these estates becomes completely subservient to the boyar-owners.

The entire population of Kievan Rus can be conditionally divided into three categories: free, semi-dependent and dependent people. The top free people were the prince and his squad (princes and men). From among them, the prince chose the governor and other officials. At first, the legal status of the “princely men” differed from the zemstvo elite - well-born, noble, of local origin. But in the 11th century these two groups merged into one - the boyars.

The boyars took part in the work of boyar councils, veche, and administration, where they held senior positions. The boyars were not homogeneous and were divided into different groups, membership of which gave the right to be a privileged part of society, and all crimes directed against the boyars were punished more severely. Thus, according to Russian Pravda, the life of the boyars was protected by a double vira (vira is the highest criminal fine). The boyars were also exempt from paying taxes.

The boyars were not a closed caste. For certain merits, a boyar could become a smerd, and even a foreigner - a Varangian, a Polovtsian, etc. In the Kyiv land, the boyars were not separated from the merchants, from the city elite. Over time, a patriciate was created in the cities, which was more connected with the city than with the personality of the prince.

Russian cities, especially Kyiv, were experiencing an acute process of struggle between the urban population, both with the princely power and with the urban patriciate. Thus, the usury of Svyatopolk and the extortion of the city patriciate led in 1113 to an uprising in Kyiv.

The free population also included the clergy, which represented a separate group of the population and was divided into black and white. At that time, the leading role in the state was played by the black clergy - monastics. The best scientists (Nestor, Hilarion, Nikon), doctors (Agapit), artists (Alympius), who kept chronicles, copied books, and organized various schools, lived and worked in the monasteries. The first place among the monasteries of Kievan Rus belonged to Kiev-Pechersk. He became an example for other monasteries and had a huge moral influence on the princes and the whole society.

The white clergy included churchmen: priests, deacons, clerks, palamari, and clerics. The number of white clergy was very large. According to some sources, in Kyiv at the beginning of the 11th century there were more than 400 churches.

The middle group of free people was provided by the cities. Residents of cities were legally free, even equal in rights with the boyars, but in fact they depended on the feudal elite.

The lowest group of the free population were peasants - smerds. They owned land and livestock. Smerds made up the overwhelming majority of the population of Kievan Rus, paid established taxes and served military service with personal weapons and horses. Smerd could inherit his property to his sons. Russian Truth protected the personality and economy of the smerd as if it were free, but the punishment for a crime against a smerd was less than for a crime against the boyars.

In the XII-XIII centuries, boyar land ownership increased throughout Rus', and in connection with this, the number of independent smerds decreased. The number of smerds who work on boyar land is growing, while remaining free.

Semi-dependent (semi-free) people. In Kievan Rus there was a fairly large group of semi-free people - purchasers. This was the name given to smerds who, for various reasons, temporarily lost their economic independence, but under certain conditions had the opportunity to regain it. Such a smerd borrowed a “kupa”, which could include money, grain, livestock, and until he returned this “kupa”, he remained a purchase. The purchase could have his own farm, yard, property, or he could live on the land of the one who gave him the “kupa” and work on this land. Zakup himself was responsible for his actions, and the perpetrator was responsible for a crime against him as for a crime against a free man. For unfair punishment imposed by the creditor on the purchaser, the latter could complain to the court, and then the creditor would be held liable. An attempt to sell the purchase to slaves freed him from the debt, and the creditor paid a high fine for this. In case of theft committed by a purchaser or his escape from a creditor without paying the debt, he turned into a slave.

Dependent (involuntary) people were called serfs. At first, this term was used to describe male persons (lady - serf - serf), and over time, all involuntary people.

The main sources of servitude were: captivity in war; marriage with an involuntary person; birth from slaves; sale in front of witnesses; fraudulent bankruptcy; escape or theft carried out by the purchaser. The law provided for the conditions under which a slave could become free: if he was bought out, if his owner freed him. A woman servant, if her master raped her, after his death received freedom with her children. The slave actually had no rights. For damage caused to the slave, the owner received compensation.

However, he was also responsible for the crime committed by the slave. The slave could not have his own property; he himself was the property of the owner. With the spread of Christianity, the situation of slaves improved. The Church called for softening in relations with slaves, advising them to be set free to “remember the soul.” Such slaves moved into the category of outcasts.

Outcasts included people who, for various reasons, dropped out of the social group to which they previously belonged, but did not join another.

The main wealth and main means of production in Rus' was land. First, a domain was formed - the personal possession of the prince. By the X - XII centuries. Large private landholdings developed in Kievan Rus. The form of land ownership became patrimony - land transferred by inheritance with the right of full ownership. The estate could be princely, boyar, or church. The peasants living on it became land dependent on the feudal lord. The feudal patrimony, or fatherland, became a common form of organization of production, i.e. paternal possession, passed from father to son by inheritance. The owner of the estate was a prince or boyar.

A characteristic feature of the Russian economy was the subordination of peasants to a collective feudal lord - the state, which collected land taxes from them in the form of tribute. At the initial stage of the development of Old Russian tribute was collected from the entire free population and was called polyudye. This was the exercise of the supreme right to the land, the establishment of allegiance to the prince.

The highest official positions in Kievan Rus were occupied by representatives of the druzhina nobility. The council under the prince constituted the Duma. Military detachments were led by governors. The collection of taxes was carried out by tributaries (land taxes) and letniks (merchants). There were court officials - swordsmen, virniks, zemstvos and minor officials - priviuchs, sweepers. By the 10th century, the lands of tribal unions turned into administrative units - volosts under the control of princes - governors of the Grand Duke.

The number of Russian cities continues to grow. It is known that in the 10th century 24 cities were mentioned in chronicles, and in the 11th century - 88 cities. In the 12th century alone, 119 of them were built in Rus'.

The growth in the number of cities was facilitated by the development of crafts and trade. At this time, handicraft production included dozens of types of crafts, including weapons, jewelry, blacksmithing, foundry, pottery, leatherwork and weaving. The center of the city was a market where handicraft products were sold. Internal trade, due to subsistence farming, was much less developed than external trade. Kievan Rus traded with Byzantium, Western Europe, Central Asia, and Khazaria.

3. Political and government system

The object of the princes' foreign policy was all matters related to dynastic relations, issues of war and peace, foreign trade, and the relationship of the Grand Duke and his state to foreign religious organizations. All these problems required the personal participation of the head of state, because the affairs of the dynasty, military affairs, taxes, like the rest of the treasury, were concentrated in the hands of the prince.

Kievan Rus had foreign policy relations with three types of states during the period of its existence:

1. Russians are independent or appanage and related (dynastically) dependent on the Grand Duke of the Kyiv principality and land.

2. Non-Russian state entities and lands that were the closest neighbors of Kievan Rus, bordering on it, entering into wars, alliances, and treaty relations with it.

3. Western European states that did not have direct borders with Kievan Rus.

Thus, Kievan Rus had complex relations with almost four dozen foreign policy entities.

The concentration of all foreign policy and its leadership in the hands of one person - the Grand Duke - created favorable conditions for strengthening the tactics of caution and ensured the greatest secrecy and surprise of all the most important decisions of the head of state. And this was a huge advantage of the Kyiv princes over other European monarchs.

The following periods can be distinguished in the foreign policy of the princes of Kievan Rus:

1. From Rurik to Yaroslav the Wise (862 - 1054) The main feature is the accumulation of lands, the expansion of the state at the expense of internal resources - the inheritance of weakened and impoverished princes - relatives of the Grand Duke.

2. From Yaroslav the Wise to Vladimir Monomakh (1054 - 1125) The period of stabilization of foreign policy advances, the period of consolidating the successes of foreign policy and protecting from interference in it by other Rurikovichs, appanage princes, attempts to defend and canonize the individuality of pursuing a foreign policy line as a personal policy prince or, at least, as a unified national policy.

3. From Mstislav I to Daniil Romanovich Galitsky (1126 - 1237) The period of a defensive direction of foreign policy, the main task of which was to preserve the acquisitions of previous centuries, to prevent the strengthening regional principalities from weakening the Kiev state. During this period, the weakened Kyiv princes had to share a monopoly on foreign policy with their Monomakhovich relatives. And this leads to the disappearance of the continuity of the foreign policy line that was preserved during the prince’s personal foreign policy. The frequently replaced great princes, who have ruled for a year or two, can no longer see foreign policy prospects. As a result, at the first strong external pressure from the Tatar-Mongols, all of Rus' falls apart.

Beginning in 1125, a new dynasty was established on the Kiev grand-ducal throne - the Vladimirovich-Monomakhovichs. The influence of the grand dukes on foreign policy after Vladimir Monomakh weakens. The reason lies not only in the short duration of the princes’ tenure in their positions, but also in the need to take into account the opinion of the entire Monomakhovich clan. Along with the liquidation of the independence (political) of Kievan Rus, its independent foreign policy, determined in the Horde by the Great Khan, was also liquidated.

However, the state unity of Rus' itself was not strong. Signs of the fragility of unity were revealed after the death of Svyatoslav, when young Yaropolk took power in Kyiv. Yaropolk relied on the Varangians - mercenaries hired by his father. The Varangians behaved arrogantly. Svyatoslav's second son Oleg began a fight with them and sought to replenish his squad with peasants - Oleg died in this strife, but Vladimir (3rd son) began to reign over the walls of Kyiv. After the death of Grand Duke Vladimir in 1015, difficult times came for Rus': his sons (12 of them) began long-term strife, in which the Pechenegs, Poles, and Varangian detachments were involved. The soldiers barely violated the established order in the state. The year 1073 came, and a new internecine struggle. This time, strife occurred between the sons of Yaroslav the Wise. If Yaroslav the Wise managed to maintain the unity of Rus' for a long time, then it turned out to be more difficult for his sons and grandsons to do this. There are many reasons for this.

Firstly, the order of succession to the throne established by Yaroslav was unsuccessful. The sons of the deceased Grand Duke did not want to give power to their elders, their uncles, and they did not allow their nephews to take power, putting their sons in their place, even though they were younger.

Secondly, among the successors of Yaroslav the Wise there was no purposeful and strong-willed personality like Vladimir I and Yaroslav himself were.

Thirdly, large cities and lands were gaining strength. The emergence of large patrimonial farms, including church estates, contributed to the general progress of economic life and the desire for independence from Kyiv.

Fourthly, the constant interference of the Polovtsians in the internal affairs of Rus' History of the Russian State.

In 1068, when the Polovtsian Khan Shakuran invaded Russian lands, the sons of Yaroslav the Wise took refuge in their fortresses. The Kiev people overthrew Izyaslav and proclaimed the Polovtsian prince Vseslav to the throne, who left a grateful memory for seven years. Having expelled Vseslav, the Yaroslavichs continued to quarrel with each other for eight years. During these years, popular uprisings broke out in the Volga region and in distant Belozer, in the Rostov land, Novgorod against the feudal nobility, which increased taxes: taxes and sales (judicial duties), feed (deliveries for officials). Since the anti-feudal movements were also directed against the church, the rebels were sometimes led by the Magi. The movement took the form of an anti-Christian movement, appealing to the return of the old pagan religion.

Since 1125, after the death of Monomakh, the son of Monomakh, nicknamed the Great, established himself on the Kiev throne. He ruled Russia as menacingly as his father. Under him, the Polotsk Vseslavichs were expelled from their possessions. Due to internal strife, the Chernigov Svyatoslavichs weakened: the Murom-Ryazan land separated from Chernigov. None of the princes dared to confront Mstislav. But after his death in 1132, strife began among the descendants of Monomakh. The Olegovichs immediately took advantage of this, and the relative calm in Rus' came to an end.

Thus, we can conclude that after the death of Svyatoslav, a new political situation arose in Rus': after the death of the ruler, several sons remained who shared power. The new situation gave rise to a new event - princely strife, the purpose of which was the struggle for power.

political state Kievan Rus

Conclusion

The existence of Kievan Rus covers the period from the 9th century to the 30s of the 12th century. The Old Russian state was one of the largest European states. The fight of Rus' against the raids of nomads was of great importance for the security of the countries of both Western Asia and Europe. Rus''s trade relations were extensive. Rus' maintained political, trade and cultural relations with the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria, had diplomatic ties with Byzantium, Germany, Norway and Sweden, and also established ties with France and England. The international significance of Rus' is evidenced by the dynastic marriages concluded by Russian princes. Treaties with Byzantium preserve valuable evidence about social relations in Kievan Rus and its international significance.

However, already in the 12th century. A number of principalities separated from the ancient Russian state. Along with the economic prerequisites for fragmentation, there were also socio-political ones. Representatives of the feudal elite, having transformed from the military elite (combatants, princely people) into landowners, strived for political independence. The process of the squad settling to the ground was underway. In the financial field, it was accompanied by the transformation of tribute into feudal rent.

During this period, the system of public administration also changed. Two control centers are formed - the palace and the fiefdom. All court ranks are simultaneously government positions within a separate principality, land, appanage, etc. Finally, foreign policy factors played an important role in the process of collapse of the relatively unified Kyiv state. The invasion of the Tatar-Mongols and the disappearance of the ancient trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” which united the Slavic tribes around itself, completed the collapse.

The Principality of Kiev, seriously damaged by the Mongol invasion, lost its significance as a Slavic state center.

List of literature

1. Georgieva T.S. History of Russia: textbook. - M.: Unity, 2001

2. Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia: Complete course of lectures. - 2nd ed. reworked and additional - M.: Lawyer, 1998

3. History of the Russian State: textbook \ A.M. Pushkarev. - M.: Pravda, 2003

4. Kondakov I.V. New history of Russia: textbook. - M.: University, 2000

5. Lyubimov L.D. Art of Ancient Rus'. - M.: Education, 1991

6. Pavlov A.P. History: textbook for universities. - St. Petersburg, 2005

7. Russia in the 9th-20th centuries: textbook\pod. ed. A.F. Nettle. - M.: Unity, 2004

8. Rybakov B.A. The birth of Rus'. - M.: "AiF Print", 2003

Reader on the history of Russia: In 4 volumes, - Volume 1. From ancient times to the 17th century. / Compiled by: I. V. Babich, V. N. Zakharov, I. E. Ukolova. - M.: MIROS, International relations,

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The emergence of the Old Russian state, theories of its origin. Social structure of Ancient Rus', social structure of society. The state and political system of the Old Russian state, the influence of Christianity on its formation and development.

abstract, added 10/06/2009


Prerequisites for the formation of the East Slavic state. The emergence, formation and flourishing of Kievan Rus. Development of statehood in Rus' in the first half of the 10th century. Socio-economic and state system of Kievan Rus. Baptism of Rus'.

abstract, added 10/02/2008


Eastern Slavs in the 8th-9th centuries, their socio-political system. Feudal relations and forms of rent. Theories of the emergence of the state among the Eastern Slavs. Social structure and main categories of the population. Management of the ancient Russian state.

presentation, added 09/25/2013


Social structure of the Eastern Slavs. Socio-political system of Ancient Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. History of written legislation. Weakening of the political role of the Kyiv prince. Strengthening the landowning nobility. Changes in the situation of the dependent population.

abstract, added 11/05/2016


History of the formation of the ancient Russian state. Origin and history of the Eastern Slavs. Kievan Rus in the 9th - 13th centuries, domestic and foreign policy. Development of the culture of Kievan Rus. The period of feudal fragmentation. Princely dynasties in Rus'.

abstract, added 06/07/2008


The theory of the formation of the Old Russian state: Normanism and anti-Normanism. Political and socio-economic system in Ancient Rus': Kyiv and Novgorod. The activities of the first Kyiv princes (Oleg, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav). History of popular uprisings.

test, added 01/17/2014


The emergence and social structure of the ancient Russian state. The state system of Kievan Rus, administrative and legal reforms of the first princes. The introduction of Christianity in Rus', its influence on the development of statehood. The problem of feudalism in Rus'.

abstract, added 12/21/2010


The emergence of statehood among the Eastern Slavs. Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state. Historical portrait of the princes of the Rurik dynasty. Defense of Rus' from nomads. Continuous wars between Svyatoslav and Volga Bulgaria and Khazaria.

test, added 06/28/2013


Political and state system of Safavid Iran in the last quarter of the 16th century. Political crisis in the country and weakening of the central government. Reforms of Abbas I and strengthening of the country's state system. Expanding the sphere of social and political support of the Shah.

thesis, added 02/16/2010


Types of personal dependence of a person in Ancient Rus'. Political system of the ancient Russian state. The process of restricting the rights of the personally free population in the 9th-10th centuries. Social structure of the feudal-dependent population in the X-XII centuries. (smerds, slaves, purchases).

Feudal society is characterized by the division of the population into classes, i.e. into social groups that have rights and obligations defined by law. In Kievan Rus, the process of formation of estates had just begun. The entire population of Kievan Rus can be conditionally divided into three categories: free, semi-dependent and dependent people.

The top free people were prince and him squad . From among them, the prince chose the governor and other officials. At first, the legal status of the squad differed from the zemstvo elite - well-born, noble, of local origin. But in the 11th century these two groups merged into one - boyars . The boyars were a privileged part of society. They were exempt from paying taxes.

The free population also included clergy, which was a separate group of the population and was divided into black and white. Played a leading role in the state black clergy - monastic. The best scientists (Nestor, Hilarion, Nikon), doctors (Agapit), artists (Alympius), who kept chronicles, copied books, and organized various schools, lived and worked in the monasteries. TO white clergy belonged to the clergy: priests, deacons, clerks, palamari.

The middle group of free people was provided by the cities. Residents of cities were legally free, even equal in rights with the boyars, but in fact they depended on the feudal elite.

The lowest group of the free population were peasants - stinkers . They owned land and livestock. Smerds made up the overwhelming majority of the population of Kievan Rus, paid established taxes and served military service with personal weapons and horses. Smerd could inherit his property to his sons.

Semi-dependent (semi-free) people. In Kievan Rus there was a fairly large group of semi-free people - procurement This was the name given to smerds who, for various reasons, temporarily lost their economic independence, but under certain conditions had the opportunity to regain it. Such a smerd borrowed a “kupa”, which could include money, grain, livestock, and until he returned this “kupa”, he remained a purchase. The purchase could have his own farm, yard, property, or he could live on the land of the one who gave him the “kupa” and work on this land.

Dependent (involuntary) people were called slaves .

TO outcasts included people who, for various reasons, dropped out of the social group to which they previously belonged, but did not join another. All these people came under the protection of the church. The bulk of the outcasts in Kievan Rus came from serfs who received freedom.

6. Russian Truth: origins, lists, editions, pages, general history, knowledge in the development of Russian law.

Occurrences: RP has been in existence for a long time (in the 11th-11th centuries), but some of its articles go back to pagan antiquity. Its text was first discovered by V.N. Tatishchev in 1738. RP is the first set of laws of Rus', which incorporated common law, the law of Byzantine sources, and the legislative activity of Russian princes of the 11th-12th centuries. The RP has reached us in more than a hundred lists of the 14th-16th centuries, which differ greatly from each other in composition, volume, and structure. There is no consensus in the literature about the origin of this legislative monument, nor, in fact, about the interpretation of its content. Scientists have been arguing about this for more than 250 years, since the time when in 1738 V.N. Tatishchev discovered and prepared for publication the first list of Russian Pravda.

Sources of codification –

customary law and princely court. practice. Common law rules include- provisions on blood feud (Article 1) and mutual responsibility (Article 19 KP). The legislator treats these customs differently: he seeks to limit blood feud (by narrowing the circle of avengers) or completely abolish it, replacing it with a monetary fine (vira). Mutual responsibility, on the contrary, is preserved by him as a political measure that binds all members of the community with responsibility for their member who committed a crime (“wild vira” was imposed on the entire community).

Rules developed by princely judicial practice, are numerous in Russian Pravda and are sometimes associated with the names of the princes who received them (Yaroslav, sons of Yaroslav, Vladimir Monomakh).

Certain influence on Russian Truth Byzantine canon law provided.

Editorial: The traditionally preserved numerous versions of Russian Pravda are divided into two main editions, which differ in many respects, and are called "Brief"(6 lists) and "Spacious"(more than 100 lists). Stands out as a separate edition "Abridged"(2 lists), which is a shortened version of the “Long edition”.

1) “The Brief Truth” consists of the following legal texts:

- “The Truth of Yaroslav”, from 1016 or 1036 (art. 1-18);

- “The Truth of the Yaroslavichs” (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod), from 1072 (v. 18-41);

Pokon virny - determination of the order of feeding virniks (prince's servants, vira collectors), 1020s or 1030s. (v. 42);

Lesson for bridge workers (regulated the wages of bridge workers (pavement builders, or, according to some versions, bridge builders), 1020s or 1030s (Article 43).

++"The Brief Truth" consisted of 43 articles. Its first part, the most ancient, also spoke about the preservation of the custom of blood feud, about the lack of a sufficiently clear differentiation of the size of court fines depending on the social status of the victim. The second part (Article 18 - Article 43) reflected the further process of development of feudal relations: blood feud was abolished, the life and property of feudal lords were protected by increased penalties.

2) Spacious- Lists of “PP” are found in lists of church laws, in chronicles, in articles from the Holy Scriptures of a judicial and legislative nature (“Righteous Standards”).

Composition of "PP": 2 parts - the court of Prince Yaroslav the Wise and the Charter of Vl. Monomakh, included in the “Brief Truth” with later changes and additions to the Charter adopted during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, after the suppression of the uprising in Kyiv in 1113. “PP” was compiled in the 12th century. It was used by ecclesiastical judges when considering secular cases or litigation. It was significantly different from The Brief Truth. Number of articles - 121. This code reflected further social differentiation, the privileges of feudal lords, the dependent position of serfs, purchases, and the lack of rights of serfs.

“PP” testified to the process of further development of feudal agriculture, paying much attention to the protection of property rights to land and other property. In connection with the development of commodity-money relations and the need for their legal regulation, “Long-Range Pravda” determined the procedure for concluding a number of contracts and transferring property by inheritance.

3) “Abridged Truth” belonged to a much later period. Historians believe that it developed in the 15th century. in the Moscow State after the annexation of the territory "Perm the Great" According to Tikhomirov, it was written there exactly, which was reflected in the monetary account.

General characteristics: RP is a unique ancient Russian monument. rights.

This is the first written set of laws; the RP quite fully covers a very wide area of ​​​​relations. It represents a set of developed feudal law, which reflected the norms of criminal and civil law and procedure.

The RP is an official act. Its text itself contains references to the princes who adopted or changed the law (Yar. the Wise, Yaroslavichs, Vl. Monomakh).

RP is a monument of feudal law. It comprehensively defends the interests of the ruling class and openly proclaims the lack of rights of unfree workers - serfs, servants.

The RP satisfied the needs of the princely courts so well that it was included in legal collections until the 15th century. Lists of PPs were actively distributed back in the 15th - 16th centuries. (only in 1497 was the Code of Law of Ivan III published, replacing the PP as the main source of law).

Influence code can be traced in subsequent legal monuments: the Novgorod Judicial Charter, the Pskov Judicial Charter of 1467, the Moscow Code of Laws of 1497, the Lithuanian Charter of Casimir IV - 1468, the Lithuanian Statute of 1588.

Russian Truth spread widely throughout all the lands of Ancient Rus' as the main source of law and became the basis of legal norms until 1497, when it was replaced by the Code of Laws, published in the Moscow centralized state.

The main branches of law are reflected in Russian Pravda.

The social relations that have developed in Rus', the new form of ownership became an objective prerequisite for the emergence of a new set of laws - Russian Pravda. The truth consolidated the existing system of class relations and property relations in the state.

In Russian Pravda there are no regulations defining methods of acquisition, volume and procedure for transferring land ownership rights, with the exception of an estate (yard), but there are punitive regulations on violating the boundaries of land ownership.

The sources do not indicate the existence of the institution of private land ownership. It did not exist in the era of Russian Truth. The land was the collective property of the community. Forests, hayfields and pastures were in common use. Everything related to the timing and methods of dividing arable land between members of the community, the use of forests, hayfields, water and pastures, the distribution of taxes and duties between householders, was decided by peace, i.e. a general meeting of householders under the leadership of the headman - the elected head of the community. This form of collective ownership is also explained by climatic conditions, especially in the northern regions. It was impossible for one farm to survive.

Law of obligations. Civil obligations were allowed only between free persons and arose either from a contract or from a tort (offence). Contractual obligations include purchase and sale, loan, hire and luggage. For a legal purchase, it was necessary to purchase the thing for money from its owner, and to complete the contract in the presence of two free witnesses. Loan regulations distinguish between loans with and without interest. In Russian Pravda, zakup is a free person who has received a loan and has undertaken to repay it with his work. It was forbidden for the gentleman to sell the purchase under the threat of releasing the latter from the loan and paying a fine by the gentleman. The deposit agreement was concluded without witnesses, but when a dispute arose during the return of an item given for storage, the custodian cleared himself with an oath.

Liabilities arose as a result of crimes committed, as well as civil offenses (careless and accidental).

Inheritance, called in Russian Pravda the back and the remainder, 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 his children and allocate part of it to his wife at his own discretion. The mother could transfer her property to any of her sons whom she recognized as the most worthy.

Inheritance by law opened when the testator did not leave a will.

The general legal order of inheritance was determined in Russian Pravda by the following rules. 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 to the church “in memory of the soul of the deceased” and part to the benefit of the surviving wife, if the husband did not assign her a share of his property during his lifetime . Children born from a robe did not inherit from their father, but received freedom together with their mother. Smerds' daughters do not inherit, but feudal lords' daughters do.

Marriage was preceded by betrothal, which received religious consecration in a special rite. The betrothal was considered indissoluble. Marriage was concluded through a religious ceremony performed in a church (wedding). The marriage could be dissolved (terminate). Russian law of the pagan era allowed polygamy.

Everyone had to pay church tithes.