Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..3
Prerequisites and reasons for the emergence of the Old Russian state………………………………………………………..5
The emergence and development of ancient Russian law………………….10
Social and socio-economic relations……………...15
Domestic and foreign policy…………………………………………………….19
Formation of the ancient Russian state………………………………….5
Development of the ancient Russian state……………………………………...15
State and political system of the ancient Russian state….24
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………...31
List of used literature……………………………………………………..32
Introduction.
The conquest and subjugation of the Slavic, as well as their neighboring tribes, to the new political center, which became Kyiv, was a distinctive feature of the initial stage of the Old Russian state. This is how his territory developed. The earliest chronicles began their presentation, apparently, with the presentation of Kiy, the founder of the Kyiv principality and the city of Kyiv. The legend about the emergence of Kyiv (about its construction by Kiy, Shchek, Khoriv) arose before the 9th century, since it was recorded in the Armenian chronicle already in the 8th century. Other chroniclers considered the beginning of statehood in Rus' to be the “calling of the Varangians” in the second half of the 8th century.
The emergence of state institutions in Kievan Rus was inextricably linked with the emergence and strengthening of princely power. The prince personified the power, he was the central link, the core political system. The supreme legislative power belonged to him. He headed the entire military organization of the ancient Russian state and personally led the army into battle. The grand dukes performed the external functions of the state not only by force of arms, but also by diplomatic means. Ancient Rus' stood at the European level of diplomatic art. It concluded various international agreements of a military and commercial nature, either orally or in writing. Diplomatic negotiations were conducted by the princes themselves; they sometimes headed embassies sent to other countries. The princes also performed judicial functions.
Many historians equate the political system of the ancient Russian state with a monarchy, but on the other hand, the “anti-monarchists” reduce their argument to the fact that the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv was never complete; it was limited either by the council of boyars, or the people's assembly, or other princes - members of the princely dynasty.
Purpose This course work is a study of the political system of the ancient Russian state.
Based on the goal set, we have identified a number of tasks :
Study the prerequisites and reasons for the emergence of the ancient Russian state;
Analyze the emergence and development of ancient Russian law;
Identify social and socio-economic relations developing in the ancient Russian state;
Analyze the internal and foreign policies of the ancient Russian state;
Determine the state and political system of the ancient Russian state.
In this course work, textbooks and Tutorials Bystrenko, V.I., Andreeva, I.A., Danilevsky I.N., Isaeva I.A., Karamzin N.M., Klyuchevsky V.O., Markova A.N. Smirnova A.N., Titova Yu.P. “Fundamentals of State and Law”, “History of Public Administration and Self-Government in Russia”, “Ancient Rus' through the Eyes of Contemporaries and Descendants (IX – XII Centuries)”, “History of State and Law of Russia”, “History of the Russian State”, “Russian Course history”, “History of public administration in Russia”, “Rus X - XVII centuries”, “Ancient Slavs”, “History of state and law of Russia”, which contributed to the study and analysis of the ancient Russian state, its formation and development of the political system.
Research methods used in course work: study of specialized literature on the chosen topic; analysis of the political system of the ancient Russian state.
Prerequisites and reasons for the emergence of the Old Russian state.
The formation of the ancient Russian state.
The moment of the emergence of the Old Russian state cannot be determined with sufficient accuracy. Obviously, there was a gradual development of those political formations that we talked about earlier into the feudal state of the Eastern Slavs - the Old Russian state. In the literature, this event is dated differently by different historians. However, most authors agree that the emergence of the Old Russian state should be attributed to the 9th century.
The question of how this state was formed is not entirely clear. And here we are faced with the so-called Norman theory.
The fact is that we have at our disposal a source that, it would seem, to some extent answers the question about the origin of the Old Russian state. This is the oldest chronicle collection “The Tale of Bygone Years”. The chronicle makes it clear that in the 9th century. our ancestors lived in conditions of statelessness, although this is not directly stated in the Tale. We are only talking about the fact that the southern Slavic tribes paid tribute to the Khazars, and the northern ones to the Varangians, that the northern tribes once drove out the Varangians, but then changed their minds and called the Varangian princes to themselves. This decision was caused by the fact that the Slavs fought among themselves and decided to turn to foreign princes to establish order. It was then that the famous phrase was uttered: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no decoration in it. May you come and reign over us.” The Varangian princes came to Rus' and in 862 sat on the thrones: Rurik - in Novgorod, Truvor - in Izborsk (not far from Pskov), Sineus - in Beloozero.
This interpretation raises at least two objections. Firstly, the factual material presented in The Tale of Bygone Years does not provide grounds for the conclusion that the Russian state was created by calling the Varangians. On the contrary, like other sources that have come down to us, it says that statehood among the Eastern Slavs existed even before the Varangians. Secondly, modern science cannot agree with such a primitive explanation of the complex process of formation of any state. The state cannot be organized by one person or several even the most outstanding men. The state is a product of the complex and long development of the social structure of society. However, the chronicle mention in in a certain sense was adopted back in the 18th century. This is how the notorious Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state was born.
Already at that time, Normanism met with objections from advanced Russian scientists, among whom was M.V. Lomonosov. Since then, all historians studying Ancient Russia have been divided into two camps - Normanists and anti-Normanists.
Modern domestic scientists predominantly reject the Norman theory. Major foreign researchers are joining them Slavic countries. However, a certain part of foreign authors still preach this theory, although not in such a primitive form as was done previously.
The main refutation of the Norman theory is quite high level social and political development of the Eastern Slavs in the 9th century. The Old Russian state was prepared by the centuries-old development of the Eastern Slavs. In terms of their economic and political level, the Slavs were higher than the Varangians, so they could not borrow state experience from the newcomers.
The chronicle story contains, of course, elements of truth. It is possible that the Slavs invited several princes with their squads as military specialists, as was done in later times in Rus' and in Western Europe. It is reliably known that the Russian principalities invited squads not only of the Varangians, but also of their steppe neighbors - the Pechenegs, Karakalpaks, and Torks. However, it was not the Varangian princes who organized the Ancient Russian state, and the already existing state gave them corresponding government posts. However, some authors, starting with M.V. Lomonosov, doubt the Varangian origin of Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, believing that they could also be representatives of some Slavic tribes. In any case, there are practically no traces of Varangian culture in the history of our Motherland. Scientists, for example, have calculated that per 10 thousand square meters. km of Russian territory, only five Scandinavian geographical names can be found, while in England, which the Normans conquered, this number reaches 150.
We do not know exactly when and how exactly the first principalities of the Eastern Slavs arose, preceding the formation of the Old Russian state, but in any case they existed until 862, before the notorious “calling of the Varangians.” In German chronicles, already from 839, Russian princes were called Khakans - kings.
But the moment of unification of the East Slavic lands into one state is known with certainty. In 882, the Novgorod prince Oleg captured Kyiv and united the two most important groups of Russian lands; then he managed to annex the rest of the Russian lands, creating a huge state for those times.
The Russian Orthodox Church is trying to link the emergence of statehood in Rus' with the introduction of Christianity.
Of course, the baptism of Rus' was of great importance for strengthening the feudal state, since the church sanctified the subordination of Christians to the exploitative state. However, the baptism occurred no less than a century after the formation of the Kievan state, not to mention the earlier East Slavic states.
In addition to the Slavs, the Old Russian state also included some neighboring Finnish and Baltic tribes. This state was thus ethnically heterogeneous from the very beginning. However, its basis was the Old Russian people, which was the cradle of three Slavic peoples - Russians (Great Russians), Ukrainians and Belarusians. It cannot be identified with any of these peoples separately. Even before the revolution, Ukrainian nationalists tried to portray the Old Russian state as Ukrainian. This idea has been picked up in our time in nationalist circles, trying to quarrel the three fraternal Slavic peoples. Meanwhile, the Old Russian state did not coincide either in territory or in population with modern Ukraine; they only had a common capital - the city of Kyiv. In the 9th and even 12th centuries. It is still impossible to talk about specifically Ukrainian culture, language, etc. All this will appear later, when, due to objective historical processes, the Old Russian people split into three independent branches.
Also, the Old Russian state arises in a heterogeneous society and is a way of regulating relations between different social strata, classes, etc.
Statehood among the Slavs began to take shape in the 6th century, when there was a transition from the clan and tribal community to the neighboring community, and property inequality was formed. There are many reasons for the formation of the Old Russian state, here are the main ones:
Social division of labor . The sources from which people drew their livelihood became more diverse; Thus, military spoils began to play a major role in the life of the clan. Over time, professional artisans and warriors appeared. Frequent migrations of clans, the emergence and disintegration of inter-clan and inter-tribal unions, the separation from the clan of groups of war booty seekers (squads) - all these processes forced every now and then to deviate from tradition, based on custom; old solutions did not always work in previously unknown conflict situations.
Economic development . Not only the changed individual and group identity and the established inter-tribal relations, but also economic activity encouraged people to search for more suitable forms of common existence. The importance of the economic factor in the emergence of the state is usually exaggerated in studies by supporters of Marxism and other teachings that consider production (or distribution of what is produced) the basis of social life. The relationship between the economy and the ideas that guide people, between economic activity and the ways of organizing power is much more complex than it seems to Marxists. Without going into details of the long-standing dispute between “materialists”, who highlight the economic needs of people, and “idealists”, who consider ideas to be the main factor social development, let us limit ourselves to recognizing the close relationship between the material world and human consciousness. Private property could not arise until man realized his distance from the clan, but further development The self-awareness of an individual was undoubtedly influenced by the practical, material results of the fragmentation of common tribal property. Economic factors influenced the formation of the state, but this influence was neither direct nor decisive. The state arose when property differences directly related to the economy were not too significant; The emerging state power initially made almost no claims to serious participation in economic life. The bearers of the new, pre-state and state power (princes, warriors) were distinguished from society not on property, but on professional grounds. At the same time, the often coinciding professions of a warrior and a ruler (standing above the traditional, patriarchal power of clan elders) were almost unanimously recognized as socially useful.
Society's interest in the emergence of a state . The state arose because the overwhelming majority of members of society were interested in its emergence. It was convenient and beneficial for the community farmer to have the prince and warriors with weapons in their hands protect him and save him from burdensome and dangerous military affairs. From the very beginning, the state solved not only military, but also judicial problems, especially related to inter-tribal disputes. The princes and their warriors were relatively objective mediators in conflicts between representatives of various clans; the elders, who from time immemorial had to take care of the interests of their clan, their community, were not suitable for the role of impartial arbiters. Resolving communal disputes by force of arms was too burdensome for society; As the general utility of power was realized, above private and tribal interests, the conditions were created for the transfer of the most important judicial powers historically.
Hence it turns out that the created Kievan Rus was one of the largest states of the Middle Ages in the 9th-12th centuries. Unlike Eastern and Western countries, its process of statehood formation had its own specific features - spatial and geopolitical. The geopolitical space in which Kievan Rus was located was at the junction of different worlds: nomadic and sedentary, Christian and Muslim, pagan and Jewish. During its formation, Rus' acquired the characteristics of both Eastern and Western state formations, since it occupied a middle position between Europe and Asia and did not have clearly defined natural geographical boundaries within the vast flat space. The need for constant protection of a large territory from external enemies forced peoples with different types of development, religion, culture, language to unite and create strong state power.
The emergence and development of ancient Russian law.
The emergence of the Old Russian state was naturally accompanied by the formation of Old Russian feudal law. Its first source was customs that passed into class society from the primitive communal system and now became common law. But princely legislation has also been known since the 10th century. Of particular importance are the statutes of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav, which introduced important innovations into financial, family and criminal law.
Political system Kievan Rus can be defined as an early feudal monarchy. At its head was the Grand Duke of Kyiv. In his activities he relied on the squad and the council of elders. Local administration was carried out by his governors (in cities) and volostels (in rural areas).
The Grand Duke was in contractual or suzerain-vassal relations with other princes. Local princes could be forced to serve by force of arms. The strengthening of local feudal lords (XI-XII centuries) causes the emergence of a new form and a new body of power - “snema”, i.e. feudal congress. At such congresses, issues of war and peace, separation of powers, and vassalage were resolved. The suzerainty-vassalage relationship placed all feudal lords subordinate to the prince in the position of service people. Large feudal lords and landowners enjoyed great autonomy.
Local government was carried out by the prince's trusted people, his sons, and relied on military garrisons led by thousanders, centurions and tens. During this period, a numerical or decimal control system continued to exist, which originated in the depths of the druzhina organization, and then turned into a military administrative system. Local governments received resources for their existence through a feeding system (fees from the local population). There was a Council consisting of boyars and “princely men.” Separate functions or management of branches of the princely palace economy were carried out by tiuns and elders. Over time, these palace managers turn into managers of branches of the princely (state) economy.
During the period of the early feudal monarchy, an important state and political function was performed by people's assemblies - veche. History has not preserved detailed information about the legislative process. But it is obvious that due to the monarchical nature of the state, it could not have any other form than the form of acts of grand-ducal power. In the Kiev state, the veche could not lay claim to the role of an independent legislative power. The same cannot be said about Novgorod, which did not fully experience the princely power characteristic of Rus'. This created favorable opportunities for the development of democratic forms of government, including those inherited from the pre-state period of development - the Novgorod veche. There is no unity among historians in assessing the powers of the veche. Many consider it a legislative body that could make decisions in the name of Veliky Novgorod.
The participants of the meeting made decisions, which they themselves carried out locally with the help of local government. Local government acted as a support for the central government in the localities, so the central government supported and strengthened it in all respects. Interaction with the central government also consisted in the fact that the city council necessarily included representatives of parts of the older city, streets, communities, and suburbs. The structure and content of local self-government remained the same - community-based, because The Russian land continued to consist of large and small communities that were in more or less close connection with each other. Cities were then called those main large communities to which small communities adjoined. They were divided into older cities and suburbs. Cities had internal administrative-territorial divisions.
O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “Novgorod and Pskov society was mosaically composed of local small worlds, which were part of larger ones, and from the latter even larger unions were formed. Each of them enjoyed a certain degree of self-government, had its own administration, its own headman. Thus, Novgorod, regardless of the administrative and topographic division into ends, hundreds, streets, settlements, towns, was also divided into social strata, which represented a semblance of estates.” It follows from this that local self-government was not uniform even within the territory of one city. Along with territorial and production factors, there was also a class factor. The territorial basis of local community self-government were junior cities, suburbs, villages, volosts, and churchyards.
The bodies of local peasant self-government remained the territorial community - verv. Its competence included land limits (redistribution of land plots), police supervision, tax and financial issues related to the imposition of taxes and their distribution, resolution of legal disputes, investigation of crimes and execution of punishments. Rural communities of Rus' were divided into villages and repairs, and several villages and repairs constituted new centers subordinate to cities and were called volosts.
Local self-government was carried out by elected officials who were elected by the corresponding veche (community elders, street elders, village and volost elders, etc.). The elders performed administrative and executive functions, resolved issues of improvement, maintaining order, settling disputes between citizens, performed duties, deployed their militia when necessary, etc.
As for the judiciary, naturally, it could not exist in those days as an independent power. The lengthy edition of Russkaya Pravda mentions the princely court. After the adoption of Christianity as the state religion in Rus', the church received the right to exercise justice in cases of crimes against morality, marriage and family issues. Some historians believe that all criminal and civil cases were decided without the participation of the state by the persons concerned and the community.
Thus, in ethnic terms - today this is already quite clear - the population of Ancient Rus' cannot be represented as a “single ancient Russian nationality”. The inhabitants of Ancient Rus' were quite clearly divided into several ethnic groups - with different appearance, language, material and spiritual culture. Despite all their apparent closeness, they differed in systems of metrology and word formation, dialectal features of speech and favorite types of decorations, traditions and rituals.
Social and socio-economic relations.
Development of the ancient Russian state.
The social structure of the Old Russian state was complex, but the main features of feudal relations already emerged quite clearly. Feudal land ownership was formed - the economic basis of feudalism. Accordingly, the main classes of feudal society took shape - feudal lords and feudal-dependent peasants.
The largest feudal lords were princes. Sources indicate the presence of princely villages, where dependent peasants lived, working for the feudal lord under the supervision of his clerks, elders, including those who specifically supervised field work. The boyars were also major feudal lords - the feudal aristocracy, which grew rich through the exploitation of peasants and predatory wars.
With the introduction of Christianity, the church and monasteries became the collective feudal lord. Not immediately, but gradually the church acquires land, the princes grant it tithes - a tenth of the income from the population and other, including judicial, income.
The lowest stratum of the feudal class consisted of warriors and servants, princes and boyars. They were formed from free people, but sometimes even from slaves. By currying favor with the master, such servants sometimes received land from the peasants and became exploiters themselves. Article 91 of Russian Pravda equates the warriors in the order of succession to the boyars and contrasts both with the smerds.
The main right and privilege of the feudal lords was the right to land and exploitation of the peasants. The state also protected other property of the exploiters. The life and health of the feudal lord were also subject to enhanced protection. For encroachment on them, a high penalty was established, differentiated depending on the position of the victim. The honor of the feudal lord was also highly guarded: insult by action, and in some cases by word, also entailed serious punishment.
The bulk of the working population were smerds. Some researchers believed that all rural residents were called smerds. Others believe that the smerds are part of the peasantry, already enslaved by the feudal lords. The latter point of view seems preferable.
The Smerds lived in rope communities, which grew out of the clan system, but in the Old Russian state they no longer had a consanguineous, but a territorial, neighborly character. The rope was tied by mutual responsibility, a system of mutual assistance.
In the Old Russian state, the figure of a typical feudal-dependent peasant appears - the zakup. Zakup has his own farm, but need forces him to go into bondage to his master. He takes a kupa from the feudal lord - a sum of money or assistance in kind and, because of this, is obliged to work for the owner. The labor of purchasing does not go towards paying off the debt; it acts as if only paying interest on the debt. Therefore, the purchase cannot work off the coupon and practically remains with the master for life. In addition, the purchaser is responsible for damage caused by negligence to the master. In case of escape from the master, the purchaser automatically turns into a slave. Theft committed by procurement also leads to servitude. The master has the right of patrimonial justice in relation to the purchase. Russkaya Pravda notes that the feudal lord has the right to beat a careless purchaser (Article 62 of the Trinity List). The purchaser, unlike the slave, has some rights. He cannot be beaten “for no reason”, he can complain about his master to the judges, he cannot be sold as a slave (with such an offense he is automatically released from his obligations towards the master), his property cannot be taken away from him with impunity.
In the multi-structured ancient Russian society, there also existed “involuntary servants”. Russian Truth calls an unfree man a serf or servant, and an unfree woman a slave, uniting both of them with the common concept of “servant.”
The servants were almost completely powerless. Russkaya Pravda equates it to cattle: “the fruit comes from servants or from cattle,” says one of its articles. In this respect, the servants of the Old Russian state resembled ancient slaves, who in Rome were called “talking instruments.” However, in Rus', slaves did not form the basis of production; slavery was predominantly patriarchal and domestic. It is no coincidence that Russian Truth identifies categories of slaves whose lives were protected by higher punishment. These are all kinds of service personnel of the princely and boyar court - servants, children's educators, artisans, etc. Over time, the process of transforming serfs into feudal-dependent peasants also develops. They became the first serfs.
History of the Russian state and law: Cheat sheet Author unknown
4. POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE
The Old Russian state took shape until the first third of the 12th century. existed as monarchy From a formal point of view, it was not limited. But in historical and legal literature the concept of “unlimited monarchy” is usually identified with Western absolute monarchy XV–XIX centuries Therefore, to denote the form of government European countries In the early Middle Ages they began to use a special concept - “early feudal monarchy”
The Grand Duke of Kiev organized a squad and military militia, commanded them, took care of protecting the borders of the state, led military campaigns to conquer new tribes, establish and collect tribute from them, administered justice, directed diplomacy, implemented legislation, and managed his economy. The Kyiv princes were assisted in their administration by posadniks, volostels, tiuns and other representatives of the administration. A circle of trusted persons from among relatives, warriors and tribal nobility gradually formed around the prince (boyar council).
The local princes were “in obedience” to the Kyiv Grand Duke. They sent him an army and handed over to him part of the tribute collected from the subject territory. The lands and principalities, ruled by local princely dynasties dependent on the Kyiv princes, were gradually transferred to the sons of the Grand Duke, which strengthened the centralized Old Russian state until its greatest prosperity in the middle of the 11th century. during the reign of Prince. Yaroslav the Wise.
To characterize the form of government of Kievan Rus, the expression “relatively unified state” is usually used, which cannot be classified as either unitary or federal.
With the development of feudalism, the decimal system of government (thousands - sotskys - tens) was replaced by a palace-patrimonial system (voivode, tiuns, firemen, elders, stewards and other princely officials).
The weakening (over time) of the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv and the growth of the power of large feudal landowners became the reasons for the creation of such a form of state power body as feudal (princely with the participation of some boyars and Orthodox priests) congresses (snapshots). Snems resolved the most important issues: about military campaigns, about legislation.
Veche meetings were held, as a rule, in emergency situations: for example, war, city uprising, coup d'etat. Veche- the people's assembly - arose in the pre-state period of development of East Slavic society and, as princely power strengthened and feudalism became established, it lost its importance, except for Novgorod and Pskov.
The body of local peasant self-government was the rope- a rural territorial community that performed, in particular, administrative and judicial functions.
From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the 16th century. 6th grade author Chernikova Tatyana Vasilievna§ 3. CREATION OF AN ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE 1. In the south near Kiev, Domestic and Byzantine sources name two centers of East Slavic statehood: the northern one, formed around Novgorod, and the southern one, around Kyiv. The author of "The Tale of Bygone Years" proudly
From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century author Milov Leonid VasilievichChapter 19. Political system and public administration of the Russian state in the 17th century
From the book History of the Ancient East author Lyapustin Boris SergeevichThe socio-political system and the fall of the Shang-Yin state The core of the Yin state was the territory of the Shang tribe. Judging by the finds in the tombs of Anyang, among the Shans of this time there were four quite clearly delimited from each other by class and
author§ 2. FORMATION OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE The concept of “state”. There is a widespread idea that the state is a special apparatus of social coercion that regulates class relations, ensures the dominance of one class over other social
From the book History of Russia [for students of technical universities] author Shubin Alexander Vladlenovich§ 1. THE DISSOLUTION OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE By the beginning of the period of specific fragmentation (XII century), Kievan Rus was a social system with the following features:? the state maintained its administrative-territorial unity;? this unity was ensured
From the book Reforms of Ivan the Terrible. (Essays on socio-economic and political history Russia XVI V.) author Zimin Alexander AlexandrovichChapter IV POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE RUSSIAN STATE ON THE EVE OF REFORM The Russian centralized state of the first half XVI V. was an apparatus of violence of the ruling class of feudal lords.K mid-16th century V. serious changes have clearly emerged in the country's economy,
From book Slavic antiquities by Niderle LuborPolitical system of the Slavs The basis of the political system of the ancient Slavs was individual births and tribes. A clan lived next to a clan, perhaps a tribe lived next to a tribe, and each clan and tribe lived according to its own customs, which developed on the basis of centuries-old traditions. “I name my customs, and
author author unknown2. THE EMERGENCE OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE. PRINCE'S CHARTERS - SOURCES OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN LAW To the middle. 9th century the northern eastern Slavs (Ilmen Slovenes), apparently paid tribute to the Varangians (Normans), and the southern eastern Slavs (Polyans, etc.) in turn paid tribute
From the book History of the Russian State and Law: Cheat Sheet author author unknown12. POLITICAL SYSTEM DURING THE FORMATION OF THE RUSSIAN CENTRALIZED STATE The centralization of the Russian state is marked by a sharp increase in the power of the monarch - the Moscow Grand Duke, and later - the Tsar. Since the reign of Ivan III (1440–1505), Moscow monarchs emphasized
From the book World History. Volume 3 Age of Iron author Badak Alexander NikolaevichPolitical system of Sparta The political system was based on strict regulation of the duties and rights of a citizen, forming a multi-stage regulation of life. First of all, the public education of the child was provided for as a condition for obtaining civil rights.
author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna1 FORMATION OF THE ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE Currently in historical science two main versions about the origin of the East Slavic state retain their influence. The first was called Norman. Its essence is as follows: the Russian state
From the book National History. Crib author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna12 POLITICAL SYSTEM AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE MOSCOW STATE XV-XVI CENTURIES The process of unification of North-Eastern and North-Western Rus' was completed by the end of the XV century. The resulting centralized state began to be called Russia. Central power in the country
From the book Baptism of Rus' author Dukhopelnikov Vladimir MikhailovichFormation of the Old Russian state Gradually East Slavic tribes form alliances of tribes, they become acquainted with Western European and eastern countries. The author of “The Tale of Bygone Years” speaks about this in some detail: “In distant times,” writes
From the book History of the Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes. Volume one author Team of authors1. FORMATION OF THE OLD RUSSIAN STATE Chronicle information about the beginning of the Old Russian state. The problem of the emergence of Kievan Rus is one of the most important and relevant in Russian historiography. Already the chronicler Nestor in the Tale of Bygone Years, responding to
author Moryakov Vladimir Ivanovich6. Political system of the Russian state at the end of the 15th – beginning of the 16th centuries The process of forming a single territory of the Russian state was inextricably linked with the creation of a system of all-Russian government. The head of the state was the Moscow Grand Duke,
From the book History of Russia IX–XVIII centuries. author Moryakov Vladimir Ivanovich2. Political system In the political system of Russia in the 17th century. significant changes are taking place. The estate-representative monarchy with the Boyar Duma, Zemsky Sobors and local government bodies evolved into an absolute bureaucratic-noble monarchy.
In the IX-X centuries. a ruling class was formed feudal lords, which included: the Grand Duke of Kiev, local princes, boyars (from the senior squad), junior squad and “servants under the court,” white (parish) and black (monastic) clergy.
A princely domain, the ownership of local princes, and boyar-druzhina landownerships appeared. Feudal landholdings increased due to both grand and princely grants and the seizure of empty lands and lands of community members. Monasteries and churches also became large landowners.
The feudal lords were interconnected by a system of vassal relations based on the hierarchical structure of feudal land ownership. The Grand Duke relied on the lesser princes and boyars, and they sought his protection during military skirmishes. The boyars from the prince's military comrades began to turn into landowners - the prince's vassals. The boyars as a special feudal class took shape in the 11th-12th centuries.
The feudal lords were assigned special privileges: for the murder of princely men, a double penalty was exacted - 80 hryvnia (twice as much as for the murder of a commoner). free man); boyars and warriors enjoyed privileges when transferring property by inheritance (in the absence of sons, they had the right to transfer inheritance to daughters); only feudal lords - princes, boyars and the church - could have ownership of land; they did not pay tribute, etc.
Also in Kievan Rus there were: free peasants-communists, free urban population, feudal-dependent population, slaves.
Free community members- people were personally free, paid tribute to the state (polyudye) - initially tribute was paid from the smoke (house). High taxes, levies, and duties were imposed on the community; its lands were seized, thus intensifying the processes of transforming community members into feudal-dependent peasants.
Urban population was divided into the urban aristocracy (princes, boyars, higher clergy, merchants, units - merchants engaged in foreign trade) and the urban lower classes (artisans, small traders, ordinary clergy), who were personally free and paid tribute (with the exception of the clergy).
Feudal-dependent(but not yet serfs, since they were not attached to the land and personality of the feudal lord) the population included the following categories. Smerda(as part of the dependent peasants - Yushkov’s point of view, while B. Grekov believed that smerds are all rural residents) were personally free, could move to a strong patron, and ran their own farm together with their family; the prince gave the smerd land on the condition that he would work for him; in the event of the death of a smerd who had no sons, the land was returned to the prince; for the right to own an independent farm, the smerd paid tribute to the prince; he could become a servant of the prince - a youth, a child, a headman; for his debts he was in danger of becoming a purchaser; Smerdas lived in communities - ropes, connected by mutual responsibility and a system of mutual assistance.
Purchases- people who fell into debt bondage and were obliged by their work in the household of the creditor (“master”) to return the “buy” received from him (however, the purchase labor was used only to pay interest on the debt; he could not work off the “buy” itself); they performed rural work, the feudal lord provided them with land plots, tools and livestock; they could not leave their “master”; for the theft committed by the purchaser, his master was responsible, but the purchaser became a complete slave (as in the case of escape); the landowner could subject to procurement corporal punishment“for the cause” (but could not beat him “without guilt”); it was forbidden to sell purchases to slaves; the procurement could act as a witness in court in minor cases; The purchaser could file a complaint against his master in court.
Outcasts(two types - free and dependent) - people deprived of their previous condition; usually these are slaves who have been bought into freedom; They, as a rule, did not break ties with their master, remaining under his authority, but there were also those who, having freed themselves, left their master.
Feudal dependents also include: (1) freedmen (recognized as personally free); (2) suffocating people; (3) supplicants; (4) patrimonial artisans.
Slaves.(1) servants - captive slaves; were completely powerless (Russkaya Pravda equates them to cattle); (2) serfs - a fellow tribesman who fell into slavery as a result of self-sale, marriage to a slave “without a family”, taking the position of a tiun or housekeeper “without a row”, or being sold into slavery for debts.
The Old Russian state developed and existed as early feudal monarchy. It was headed by the Grand Duke of Kiev, to whom the local rulers - his vassals - were subordinate.
In its development, the Old Russian state went through two main stages:
- (1) the first stage (late 9th - 10th centuries) - the period of the creation of the early feudal monarchy;
- (2) the second stage (late 10th - 1st half of the 11th century) - the heyday of Kievan Rus.
In the second half of the 11th century. there is a tendency towards feudal fragmentation, and at the end of the first third of the 12th century. The Old Russian state broke up into a number of principalities and lands.
At the first stage of development of the Old Russian state, a decimal control system. The head of state was Grand Duke of Kyiv, initially whose functions were to organize squads and military militias, command them, take care of border protection, and lead military campaigns. The power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv was transferred to the heirs according to the so-called “leaf law”, when the princely table was inherited not by the eldest son of the prince, but by the eldest in the princely family (for example, the prince’s brother).
The Grand Duke of Kiev ruled the country with the help squads, which was divided into senior and junior. From the senior squad (boyars and princely husbands) was formed council under the prince- members of the council were called Duma members, and mayors were also appointed to large centers of the country. The younger squad (youths, gridi, boyar children) acted as an armed force.
After the annexation of new lands to Kyiv, the Kyiv princes stationed their garrisons in the tribal centers: in major cities- large garrison - thousand(under the command of the thousand, to whom the sotskys were subordinate), in small ones - smaller garrisons under the command of the sotskys and tens. Gradually thousand, Sotsky And tenths Administrative functions also appeared: maintaining order in the city, trade and police functions, judicial functions. This is how it was formed decimal (or numerical) control system.
The princes appointed to the most important cities mayors- from the boyars and other “good men”, the prince’s plenipotentiary representatives on the ground, judged, collected tribute and duties, were in charge of police affairs, and led the military forces of the cities. In rural areas that were part of the princely domain, the princes appointed governors - volostels.
Assistants to mayors and volosts - tiuns, swordsmen, mytniks, bridgemen, virniks etc. - were supported by taxes from the population. This control system was called feeding.
Local princes were in obedience to the Kyiv prince, deployed an army at his call, and transferred to him part of the tribute collected from the subject territory. This is a relationship of suzerainty - vassalage.
In order to strengthen the centralization of the state apparatus, Prince Vladimir abolished the power of local princes, ending the autonomy of the lands. All the highest levels of the feudal hierarchy ended up in the hands of one princely family, whose representatives, having become large farmers, were in a relationship of vassalage - suzerainty with their overlord (the Grand Duke of Kyiv). These relations were regulated by agreements - letters of the cross, according to which the overlord allocated land to the vassal. Suzerainty in Kievan Rus was designated by the word “eldership”: local princes, as descendants of the great Kyiv prince, enjoyed the rights to inherit princely power.
On initial stage development of the Old Russian state law enforcement tasks were entrusted to the squad - the mayor and his subordinate tribute officers, Mytniks, Virniks.
Members of the princely squad - the sneaker and the swordsman, mentioned by Russkaya Pravda - had special detective powers. The Yabednik, standing out among other vigilantes for his knowledge of laws and legal customs, organized legal proceedings. A swordsman is a person who was attached to the mayor to capture and bring to court those accused of committing any crimes.
The squad was also sent to suppress rebellions against the authorities. Thus, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, in 945, on the orders of Princess Olga, a squad led by governor Sveneld dealt with the Drevlyans who refused to pay tribute to Kyiv and killed Prince Igor. In 1071, governor Jan Vyshatich and his squad suppressed the famine-induced uprising of the inhabitants of Beloozero; in 1113, the squad of Prince Vladimir Monomakh suppressed the rebellion of the urban lower classes of Kiev.
In localities, in peacetime, police functions were performed by sotskys and tens, elected by the population, who were subordinate to the princely administration in the person of the thousand.
The fight against crime was organized based on ancient customs self-defense of violated rights(private law form of investigation). This tradition was enshrined in the norms of the Russian Pravda. Thus, the Brief edition of the Russian Pravda mentions the “code” procedure (Articles 14 and 16), and the later Long edition of the Russian Pravda also mentions the “call” (Articles 32 and 34) and “persecution” procedures trace" (Article 77). A reward was provided for the capture of criminals or fugitive slaves. Thus, the search for the criminal was the job of the victim. If the plaintiff was not there or he did not search for the offender, then the crime remained unpunished. The state did not undertake the responsibility to independently investigate crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice: this is explained by the fact that the crime was considered not as a socially dangerous act, but as an “offense” inflicted on a private individual.
During the second period of development of the Old Russian state (from the end of the 10th century), serious changes occurred in the organization and volume of power Prince of Kyiv: he was a military leader, organizer and commander of military forces; he organized guard service at the borders and was in charge of foreign relations; he led the construction of roads, bridges, organized the protection of trade routes, was in charge of the courts, etc. IN council under the prince In addition to the boyars and “princely men,” representatives of the clergy and the elite of the urban population began to enter.
At the same time, there was a strengthening of power local princes, they headed the administration and troops, and the right of court passed to them.
The decimal control system, which grew out of the druzhina organization, began to be replaced during this period palace-patrimonial control system", all the threads of control were concentrated in the prince (boyar); Anyone who was part of the “prince’s court” (boyar estate) and was in charge of any branch of the economy could also exercise state functions. The ranks of this new system The departments were: voivode - the head of all armed forces of the principality; equer tiun - was in charge of providing the troops with horses; fire butler - manager of the princely court; steward - organized the supply of food to the princely court; falconer; Chashnichy.
Subordinate to the highest palace positions were tiuns And elders.
The palace-patrimonial system of government existed at all levels - both in the grand-ducal domain, and in the possessions of local appanage princes, and in boyar estates. Consequently, there is the emergence of two centers of power - the princely court and the boyar estate, which is associated with the acceleration of processes leading to feudal fragmentation.
The weakening of the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv led to the creation of such a form of state power as feudal congresses). Nationwide councils were convened by the Grand Duke of Kyiv: they dealt with legislation, distributed fiefs, and resolved issues of war and peace with foreign states. Convened and specific shots.
In the Old Russian state, the people's assembly continued to operate - evening: it recruited the people's militia and elected its leaders; The executive body of the veche was the Council.
The body of local peasant self-government was rope - rural territorial community. The competence of the vervi included: redistribution of land plots, police supervision, distribution of taxes, resolution of disputes, investigation of crimes and execution of punishments. State control over the activities of the rope was carried out by the prince's clerk. Later, instead of an elected headman, the prince began to appoint courtiers, who were replaced village clerks.
The court was not separated from the administration:
- (1) the functions of the princely court were performed by the prince himself, the mayors, and the volosts;
- (2) the functions of a patrimonial court over the dependent population - landowners on the basis of immunity grants.
Community courts and church courts also functioned (carried out by bishops, archbishops and metropolitans).
Under the conditions of the palace-patrimonial management system, the functions of ensuring law and order were assigned to each patrimonial owner, who had full power within the boundaries of his possessions. To carry out these tasks, appanage princes and boyars formed their own squads. The Grand Duke had full state power only on lands that were his private property. In the cities, the princely administration was represented by governors, in rural areas - by volostels, on whom the prince entrusted, among other things, police functions. At the grassroots level, elected sotskys and tens were still responsible for maintaining law and order. This approach to the formation of bodies responsible for maintaining order was preserved in many lands even during the period of feudal fragmentation.
From the 11th century In addition to private law investigation, state (or criminal) investigation began to develop: special judicial positions of virniks, meshelniks and emtsy began to be created, who, on behalf of the prince, investigated crimes. A particularly important official was Virnik. He traveled around his (virnaya) district, tried for crimes and exacted a “vira” (monetary fine), while exposing the criminals and searching for them. His assistant was stirrer The name of this position came from the word “mesh” - “mark”, which the stirrer placed on special sticks, thus keeping records of money or things accepted into the vira. Yemets - catcher of a thief, we can say that he is the first detective agent in the history of the Russian state. The Yemets received rewards from the victims (70 kunas) for their help in finding the thieves, and the Virniks received food from the population (Articles 41 and 42 of the Communist Code). From the 12th century The staff of Virnik assistants began to be supplemented by youths, or children (Article 74 of the PP), who performed the functions of bailiffs at the courts.
The formation of the princely administration took place against the backdrop of the first administrative and legal reforms. In the 10th century Princess Olga carried out tax reform (established points - churchyards - and the timing of the collection of tribute, its size is regulated - lessons). At the beginning of the 11th century. under Prince Vladimir, a tax was established in favor of the church - tithe. In addition to tribute, the princely administration received other direct fees from the population - gifts, polyudye, feed. Olga collected from the yard, Vladimir - from the plow, Yaroslav - from a person. The tribute payers signed for graveyards, hundreds, ropes.
It is worth noting that social order The ancient Russian state can be called quite complex, but the features of feudal relations were already visible here. At this time, feudal ownership of land began to form, which entailed the division of society into classes - feudal lords and, accordingly, peasants who were always dependent on them.
Features of the social system
The princes were considered the largest feudal lords. There were even entire princely villages where peasants who were dependent on the upper strata of the population lived. Boyars can also be classified as large feudal lords. We are talking about the feudal aristocracy, which grew rich through predatory wars and exploitation of the labor of peasants.
When Christianity was introduced, monasteries and the church could be considered collective feudal lords. The church gradually became richer in land, and was also given a tenth of the population's income.
As for the lower layer of feudal lords, this included servants and warriors, who were formed from both free people and slaves. Sometimes such people could become exploiters, having received land with the peasants from the owner as a reward for their service. Such historical source how Russian Truth talks about equating warriors with boyars, contrasting them with smerds.
The main privilege of a feudal lord is the right to land, as well as exploitation. It is interesting that the life of the feudal lord was also quite well protected: if there was an encroachment on them, then the law could establish the highest penalty.
Smerds made up the bulk of the population, which constantly worked. If we talk about their living conditions, they lived in communities. The rope was connected by a mutual guarantee, as well as a system of some kind of mutual assistance.
In addition, in the state of Ancient Rus' there was a figure of the purchaser - the feudal-dependent peasant. Such a person had his own household, but a difficult life situation forced him to go to the master in the so-called bondage. Such a peasant received money from the owner in exchange for physical work. But the purchase worked for the owner only for the interest that he owed, so he could not pay him for life. The purchase was also responsible for damage that could have been caused to the gentleman due to negligence. If the purchase ran away, he could turn into a slave.
In addition, the social structure of the ancient Russian state also distinguishes servants, which include unfree women and men. This segment of the population was almost completely powerless. Servants resemble slaves, although there was no enslavement in the Old Russian state.
Among the population of cities, merchants and artisans were distinguished. It is worth noting that the cities were considered real centers of culture. But the village was considered illiterate for a long time.
What was the political system of the ancient Russian state? 
In the Old Russian state there were estates. This is about large group people, which is united by a unified legal status. More specifically, this state was multi-ethnic. The state of ancient Rus' was a monarchy, headed by a prince. It was this prince who owned the supreme legislative power in the state. The princes adopted important laws like the Truth of Yaroslav and the Charter of Vladimir. The princes were heads of administrations, concentrating executive power in their hands.
If we talk about external functions, they were performed both diplomatically and with the help of weapons. At that time, various treaties were signed with other nations. The prince was guided by the opinions of those around him, which led to the emergence of councils. At that time there were also popular assemblies called Veche. Originally there was a decimal, numerical control system that grew out of military organization. Such a system could separate local government from central government.
The church became an important element of the state's political system. The head of the church was the metropolitan. This is exactly what the political system was like ancient Rus'.
Video: Old Russian statehood
Read also:
Australopithecus is the name of the great apes that moved with two legs. Most often, Australopithecus is considered to be one of the subfamilies of the family called hominids. The first find included the skull of a 4-year-old cub found in Yuzhnaya
It is no secret that the inhabitants of the North were mainly engaged in fishing, hunting forest animals, etc. Local hunters shot bears, martens, hazel grouse, squirrels and other animals. In fact, the northerners went hunting for several months. Before the trip, they loaded their boats with various edibles
Indigenous peoples are peoples who lived on their lands before the time period when national boundaries began to appear. In this article we will look at which indigenous peoples of Russia are known to scientists. It is worth noting that the following peoples lived on the territory of the Irkutsk region:
If we talk about the Old Russian state, then it was a state located in Eastern Europe. It is worth noting that the history of Rus' from ancient times dates back to the 9th century as a result of the unification of the Finno-Ugric and East Slavic tribes under a single government
The religion of Ancient Rus' had its own characteristics, and this is not surprising. The basis of the religion of that time was the gods of ancient Rus', and more specifically, we are talking about such a direction as paganism. In other words, the ancient Russian inhabitants were pagans, that is, they
Russian medieval architecture represents the most striking page in the history of Ancient Rus'. It is worth noting that it is cultural monuments that provide the opportunity to fully become familiar with the history of a particular time. Today, the monument of ancient Russian architecture of the 12th century is reflected in many
The concept of “social system” includes: the economic development of the country, the class structure of society, legal status classes and social groups population.
Historical, written and archaeological sources indicate that in economic life the main occupation of the Eastern Slavs was agriculture. Both slash-and-burn (in forest areas) and arable (fallow) farming developed.
In the X-XII centuries. There has been a significant increase in cities with a craft and trade population. In the 12th century there were already about 200 cities in Rus'.
In the ancient Russian state, princely, boyar, church and monastic land ownership developed; a significant part of the community members became dependent on the owner of the land. Feudal relations gradually formed.
The formation of feudal relations in Kievan Rus was uneven. In the Kyiv, Chernigov, and Galician lands this process went faster than among the Vyatichi and Dregovichi.
The feudal social system in Rus' was established in the 9th century. As a result of social differentiation of the population, a social structure society. Based on their position in society, they can be called classes or social groups.
These include:
* feudal lords (great and appanage princes, boyars, churches and monasteries);
* free community members (rural and urban “people” and “people”);
* smerds (communal peasants);
* purchases (a person who has fallen into debt bondage and is working off a “kupa”);
* outcasts (a person who left the community or was freed from servitude by ransom);
* servants and serfs (court slaves);
* urban population (urban aristocracy and urban lower classes);
The dominant class of feudal lords was formed in the 9th century. These included grand dukes, local princes, and boyars. State and personal reigns were not separated, so the princely domain was an estate that belonged not to the state, but to the prince as a feudal lord.
Along with the grand-ducal domain, there was also boyar-druzhina agriculture.
The form of princely agriculture was patrimony, i.e. a form of ownership in which land was inherited.
The appearance in the Long Edition of Russian Pravda, dating back to the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries, of articles that mention boyar tiuns, boyar ryadovichi, boyar serfs and boyar inheritance allows us to conclude that by this time boyar land ownership had become established.
For a long time, a group of feudal boyars was formed from the richer warriors of the prince and from the tribal nobility. Their form of land tenure was:
1. patrimony;
2. holding (estate).
Patrimonies were acquired by seizing communal lands or by grant and were passed on by inheritance. The boyars received tenure only by grant (for the duration of the boyar's service or until his death). Any land ownership of the boyars was associated with service to the prince, which was considered voluntary. The transfer of a boyar from one prince to the service of another was not considered treason.
The feudal lords include both the church and the monasteries, which, after the adoption of Christianity in Rus', gradually became large landowners.
Free community members made up the bulk of the population of Kievan Rus. The term “people” in Russian Pravda means free, predominantly communal peasants and the urban population. Judging by the fact that in Russian Pravda (Article 3) “lyudin” was contrasted with “prince-husband,” he retained personal freedom.
Free community members were subjected to state exploitation by paying tribute, the method of collection of which was polyudye. The princes gradually transferred the right to collect tribute to their vassals, and free community members gradually became dependent on the feudal lord.
Smerds made up the bulk of the population of the Old Russian state. These were communal peasants. Smerd was personally free, his personal integrity was protected by the prince’s word (Article 78 pp.). The prince could give the smerd land if he worked for him. Smerds had tools of production, horses, property, land, ran a public economy, and lived in communities.
According to historians B.D. Grekova and M.B. Sverdlov, the smerds were free and dependent. Dependent smerds were those who received land from the feudal lord and worked for him.
Some communal peasants went bankrupt, turned into “bad scum,” and turned to feudal lords and rich people for a loan. This category was called “purchases”. The main source characterizing the “purchase” situation is Art. 56-64, 66 Russian truth, lengthy edition.
Thus, the “purchases” are peasants (sometimes representatives of the urban population) who have temporarily lost their freedom for using a loan, a “purchase” taken from the feudal lord. He was actually in the position of a slave, his freedom was limited. He could not leave the yard without the master's permission. For attempting to escape, he was turned into a slave.
"Outcasts" were free and dependent. These were:
* former purchases;
* slaves bought into freedom;
* come from free strata of society.
They were not free until they entered the service of their master. The life of an outcast is protected by Russian Truth with a fine of 40 hryvnia.
At the lowest rung of the social ladder were slaves and servants. They were not subjects of law, and the owner was responsible for them. Thus, they were the owners of the feudal lord. If he committed theft, then the master paid. If a slave was beaten, he could kill him “in the dog’s place,” i.e. like a dog. If a slave took refuge with his master, the latter could protect him by paying 12 hryvnia, or give him up for reprisals.
The law prohibited sheltering runaway slaves.
Political system.
The concept of government includes:
* issues of state structure;
* political form boards;
* structure and competence of central and local authorities and management;
* military device;
* judicial system states.
The formation of the Old Russian state continued until the first third of the 12th century. It was an integral state based on the principle of suzerainty-vassalage. In terms of the form of government, the ancient Russian state was an early feudal monarchy with a fairly strong monarchical power.
The main characteristics of the ancient Russian early feudal monarchy can be considered:
* economic and political influence of the boyars on the central and local authorities;
* the great role of the council under the prince, the dominance of large feudal lords in it;
* the presence of a palace-patrimonial management system in the center;
* availability of a feeding system on site.
It arose at a time when there were no prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state, with poorly developed trade and crafts, and the absence of strong economic ties between individual regions. Strong central government feudal lords needed cover or support during the seizure of communal and new lands.
The support of the Grand Duke by the feudal lords contributed to the rapid spread of his power over the vast territory of Rus'.
Kievan Rus was not a centralized state. It was a conglomerate of feudal principalities. The Kyiv prince was considered a suzerain or "elder". He gave land (flax) to the feudal lords, provided them with assistance and protection. The feudal lords had to serve the Grand Duke for this. If loyalty was violated, the vassal was deprived of his possessions.
The highest authorities in the Old Russian state were the Grand Duke, the prince's council, feudal congresses, and the veche.
The power functions of the Grand Duke of Kyiv during the reign of Oleg (882-912), Igor (912-945) and regent Olga under Svyatoslav (945-964) were relatively simple and consisted of:
* organizing squads and military militias and commanding them;
* protection of state borders;
* carrying out campaigns to new lands, capturing prisoners and collecting tribute from them;
* maintaining normal foreign policy relations with the nomadic tribes of the south, the Byzantine Empire, and the countries of the East.
At first, the Kyiv princes ruled only the Kyiv land. During the conquest of new lands, the Kiev prince in the tribal centers left a thousand led by a thousand, a hundred led by a sotsky, and smaller garrisons led by a ten, which served as the city administration.
At the end of the 10th century, the functions of the power of the Grand Duke underwent changes. The feudal nature of the prince's power began to manifest itself more clearly.
The prince becomes the organizer and commander of the armed forces (the multi-tribal composition of the armed forces complicates this task):
* takes care of the construction of fortifications along the external border of the state, the construction of roads;
* establishes external relations to ensure border security;
* carries out legal proceedings;
* carries out the establishment of the Christian religion and provides financial support for the clergy.
(During this period, popular unrest began. In 1068, Izyaslav brutally suppressed the popular uprising, and in 1113, fearing new unrest, the boyars and bishops summoned Vladimir Monomakh to Kyiv with a strong squad, who suppressed the uprising).
Princely power was exercised locally by mayor, volosts and tiuns. The prince, by issuing laws, consolidated new forms of feudal exploitation and established legal norms.
Thus, the prince becomes a typical monarch. The Grand Duke's throne was passed on first by inheritance according to the principle of "seniority" (to the elder brother), and then according to the principle of "fatherland" (to the eldest son).
The council under the prince did not have functions separate from the prince. It consisted of the city elite (“city elders”), major boyars, and influential palace servants. With the adoption of Christianity (988), representatives of the highest clergy entered the Council. It was an advisory body under the prince to resolve the most important state issues: declaration of war, conclusion of peace, alliances, publication of laws, financial issues, court cases. The central governing bodies were officials of the princely court.
It should be noted that with the improvement of the system of feudalism, the decimal (thousand, centurion, and ten) system is gradually being replaced by the palace-patrimonial system. The divisions between government bodies and the management of the prince’s personal affairs disappear. The general term tiun is specified: “ognishchanin” is called “tiun-ognishny”, “senior groom” is called “tiun equerry”, “village and military headman” is called “village and military tiun”, etc.
As the tasks of public administration became more complex, the role of these positions became stronger, the functions became more precise, for example: “voivode” - head of the armed forces; "tiun equestrian" - responsible for providing the princely army with horses; “butler-fireman” - manager of the princely court and performing certain government tasks; "Stolnik" - food supplier.
Feudal congresses (snems) were convened by the grand dukes to decide critical issues external and domestic policy. They could be national or several principalities. The composition of the participants was basically the same as the Council under the Prince, but appanage princes were also convened at feudal congresses.
The functions of the congress were:
* adoption of new laws;
* distribution of lands (fiefs);
* resolving issues of war and peace;
* protection of borders and trade routes.
The Lyubechsky Congress of 1097 is known, which, with a view to uniting efforts in the fight against external enemies, the “order of the world”, recognized the independence of appanage princes (“let each one keep his fatherland”), at the same time called for preserving Rus' by all “one”. In 1100, in Uvetichi, he was engaged in the distribution of fiefs.
The veche was convened by the prince or the feudal elite. All adult residents of the city and non-citizens participated in it. Decisive role The boyars and the city elite "city elders" played here. Serfs and people subordinate to the landlord were not allowed to attend the meeting.
It is known that the Drevlyans made the decision to kill Prince Igor for abusing the collection of tribute at their veche.
In 970, the Novgorod veche invited Vladimir Svyatoslavovich to reign.
Issues discussed at the meeting:
Convening and recruiting people's militia and the choice of leader;
Protest was expressed against the prince's policies.
Executive body The veche was the Council, which actually replaced the veche. The veche disappeared as feudalism developed. Survived only in Novgorod and Moscow.
At first, local governing bodies were local princes, who were later replaced by the sons of the Kyiv prince. In some less important cities, posadnik-governors, thousands of the Kyiv prince from his entourage, were appointed.
The local administration was supported by part of the collections from the population. Therefore, the mayor and volostels were called “feeders,” and the management system was called a “feeding” system.
The power of the prince and his administration extended to the townspeople and the population of lands not captured by the feudal lords. The feudal lords received immunity - legal registration power in the domains. The immunity (protection) document determined the land granted to the feudal lord and the rights to the population, which was obliged to be subordinate.
In the Old Russian state, the court was not separated from administrative power. The highest judicial authority was the Grand Duke. He tried warriors and boyars, and considered complaints against local judges. The prince carried out analysis of complex cases at a council or veche. Individual matters could be entrusted to a boyar or tiun.
Locally, the court was carried out by the mayor and the volost.
In addition, there were patrimonial courts - courts of landowners over the dependent population, on the basis of immunity.
In the communities there was a community court, which with the development of feudalism was replaced by an administration court.
The functions of the church court were carried out by bishops, archbishops, and metropolitans.
6. Sources of law of the Old Russian state. Sources of law are an official document or a document of another form containing rules of law at a particular historical stage or generally not documented rules of law.
Sources of law of the Old Russian state - sources of law that existed during the period of formation and development of the Old Russian state.
Types of such sources of law.
1. Custom. It existed and was used until 1917 on the territory of the Russian state, but only for the peasantry.
2. Written monuments rights. They based their provisions on customary law, which only through them received official recognition:
1) The First Russian Truth (belongs to the type of barbarian truths, i.e., such laws that were adopted at the initial stage of the existence of the peoples who conquered the Roman Empire; such collections of legal norms were of the same type, since they all contained customary law, were not structured and systematized; they contained norms of procedural (formal) law, forms of establishing law and sanctions for offenses);
2) Russian Truth 1016–1019. and Pravda Yaroslavich (they belong to collections of canon law and represent more structured and systematized sources of ancient Russian law, mainly devoted to criminal and criminal procedural law in Russia of that period);
3) Stoglav 1551 (characterized by a more complete scope of legal norms not only of a criminal and criminal procedural nature, but also of all other spheres of public life: family relations, civilians, etc.);
4) Pskov and Novgorod court documents of the 14th–15th centuries. (adopted on the basis of Russian Pravda, but represented by a much wider range of norms; these norms reflected the transition to a unified Moscow state).
3. Interstate agreements:
1) treaties of the North Russian tribes - are characterized by archaism, i.e. their norms are not related to any separate branch of law, but at the same time they are more systematized than barbarian truths;
2) treaties between Russians and Greeks are the most ancient source, they were based on Byzantine law, which in many ways had Roman features, therefore, the structure of these treaties was similar to the modern one: preamble, main part and conclusion; these treaties established equal rights of subjectivity between Rus' and Byzantium, regulated the procedure for extraditing criminals to each other, the procedure for trading with each other, and formalized relations between Byzantium and Russia;
3) treaties between Russians and Germans in the 12th–13th centuries. (they established a trade alliance with German cities, which assumed that the representative of Rus' and the Germans should each sue according to their own right);
4. Church statutes. The Church during the period of the Old Russian state had significant influence for the entire system of government and law, these charters established the tithe (church tax), the competence of church courts, which in those years were the only ones for family and inheritance relations.
5. Acts of legal life, i.e. contracts, letters, etc., have not reached us well. Interprical ranks (agreements) - on marriage, purchase and sale, deeds of gift.
6. Legal proverbs and sayings. Their historical significance for researchers lies in the fact that they indicate how the population perceived the law and the state system. Like other peoples, one of the main sources of law among the Slavs is custom. Customs, or stable rules of behavior, are formed already at the stage of pre-state development, in the conditions of tribal relations. When part of the customs turns into a norm of behavior and communities or their elders begin to force their members who are negligent or otherwise out of community life to fulfill these norms, we can talk about the emergence of customary law. Customary law is expressed in legal actions (facts), in their monotonous repetition (for example, a community under any circumstances protects each member of the community with mutual guarantee). It is also expressed in legal transactions or judicial acts (the use of blood feud for the murder of a relative) and in verbal formulas (in law, proverbs): “A thief steals, the world mourns”; “A husband is strong through his wife, and a wife through her husband,” etc.
Common law is very conservative; it often coexists with public law for a long time in conditions when the state and all legal institutions are already taking shape. In Rus', it has long been believed that to act in the old way means to act according to the right. “What is older is righter,” says the proverb. At the same time, customary law, without being enshrined in law, is capable of changing along with life. The most ancient norms of the customary law of the Eastern Slavs included blood feud, mutual responsibility, bride kidnapping, polygamy, a special verbal form of concluding a contract, inheritance within the family, etc. We find some of them in ancient Russian legislation already as norms of public law, some of them are modified, some are lost. Blood feud, for example, was prohibited in the 11th century. and is replaced by a monetary fine.
The second source of law of Kievan Rus is the own lawmaking of the early feudal state in the first decades of its existence, which generalized judicial practice. We learn that this took place from the texts of the treaties between Rus' and Byzantium, the powerful southern neighbor of the Rurik Empire. The Russian chronicle brought to us the texts of 3 such treaties: 911, 944 and 971. The treaties regulated trade, allied and military relations between the two states, established different types punishments for crimes (murder, theft, mutilation) committed on foreign soil, they developed a procedure for compensation of losses, ransom of prisoners, inheritance, etc. These monuments demonstrate a fairly high level of law not only of the Byzantine Empire, but also of Russia, which acted in them as equal partners . The texts of the treaties of 911 (Article 5) and 944 (Article 6) directly indicate the existence by this time of Russian law (in the first case) and the charter and Russian law (in the second), on the basis of which the legislator resolves controversial issues.
The third source of Old Russian law is Byzantine law, its reception (assimilation), and through it - partially Roman law. Adoption of Christianity by Russia (988), assimilation Christian culture, closer communication with Byzantium and other countries produced a real revolution in all spheres of the legal life of Ancient Russia. Common law in many ways directly contradicted the teachings of Christian morality and church law and had to be revised. With Christianity, the church came to Rus' with its canonical laws, with its ministers, starting with the Greek metropolitans and ending with clergy of lower rank, who made up the educated elite of society, striving to improve Russian law.
Over the next two centuries, the 11th and 12th, Rus', like a diligent student, assimilated foreign law, adapting it to the conditions of local life. At that time, a stream of translated Greek literature poured into Rus', both secular and mainly religious in content: gospels, psalters, lives of saints, chronicles, apocryphal works, etc., which formed the reading range of the medieval Russian reader. In this stream, the codes of Byzantine law were of no small importance, which began to be studied and applied both in lawmaking and in judicial practice. The first to arrive were collections of church law: Nomocanon (laws and rules) of John Scholasticus, Nomocanon of Patriarch Photius. Their translations received the name Kormchikh books (collections of canonical and legal institutions) in Rus'. From the codes of secular laws of Byzantium in Rus', the Eclogue (selection) of the emperors Leo the Isaurian and Constantine Compronimus, the Legal Books containing agricultural, criminal laws, etc., were well known.
Under the influence of Byzantine law already in the 11th century. all self-harmful and painful punishments gave way to monetary fines, serious changes took place in family and marriage law, legal norms appeared that protect the honor and dignity of the individual, etc.
The revolution brought about in ancient Russian society and law by Christianity and Byzantine law affected, first of all, the position of the church and church people. This was reflected in the church statutes adopted by the Russian princes. The following have reached us: the Charter of Prince Vladimir, the Charter of Prince Yaroslav, the charters of the Novgorod princes Vsevolod and Svyatoslav, etc. They contain provisions on church tithes, which since the time of St. Vladimir the Russian Church has received from the treasury for maintenance; church people were exempted by statutes from all fees and partially from the jurisdiction of the princely court; the church received the right to supervise the correctness of weights and measures, to perform marriages, etc. The statutes, therefore, make it possible to clarify the relationship between the state and the church and help restore legal norms that were not reflected in Russian Pravda. It is a valuable source for studying law.
However, the main source from which we study Old Russian law is the already mentioned Russian Truth - 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. Russian Truth has come down to us in more than a hundred copies 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.
According to content, all surviving texts are usually divided into three editions: Short, Long and Abridged. The oldest of them is the Brief Truth, consisting of two main parts: the Truth of Yaroslav and the Truth of the Yarosyaevichs. Yaroslav's Pravda includes the first 18 articles of the Brief Pravda and is entirely devoted to criminal law. Most likely, it arose during the struggle for the Kiev throne between Yaroslav and his brother Svyatopolk (1015–1019). Trying to enlist the support of the Novgorodians, who were in conflict with his hired Varangian squad, Yaroslav “gave them the Truth, and wrote off the charter, thus decreeing to them: walk according to this letter” (Novgorod I Chronicle).
The Yaroslavich Pravda (Articles 19–43 of the Brief Pravda) absorbed the legislative and judicial practice of the sons of Yaroslav the Wise and can be dated between 1054 (the year of Yaroslav’s death) and 1072 – the year of the death of one of his sons.
Researchers date the creation of the second edition of the Russian Pravda - the Extensive Pravda - to the 12th century, to the time of the reign of Vladimir Monomakh and his son Mstislav the Great. But it does not represent a single set of laws created at the same time. Its components are the Court of Yaroslav Vladimirovich (Articles 1–52), which summarized the legislative practice of Prince Yaroslav the Wise, and the Charter of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh (Articles 53–121), consisting entirely of the decrees of this prince. The Extensive Pravda presents (in groups of articles) not only criminal law, but also inheritance law, the legal status of categories of the population is thoroughly developed (which has already been discussed), it contains a bankruptcy statute introduced in 1113, after the famous Kiev uprising, and defines the norms procedural law, etc.
The abridged edition is considered a condensed version of the Long Truth, which arose later, in the 13th–14th centuries, under conditions of feudal fragmentation. But its origins are even more obscure than those of the two previous editions. With such an unambiguous conclusion, it is difficult to explain why it contains articles that are not in the Long Pravda, and omits articles borrowed from the Short Pravda into the Long Pravda.