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 to the next 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 fate of the peoples and states of the West, East and far North.

From a relatively small union of Slavic tribes of the Middle Dnieper, Russia grew to a huge power, uniting both all the East Slavic tribes, as well as a number of Lithuanian-Latvian tribes in the Baltic states and numerous Finno-Ugric tribes of northeastern Europe. The ancient Russian state was defensive and formidable for its neighbors. It was the largest state of all Slavic and non-Slavic contemporary states.

PUBLIC STRUCTURE OF Kyiv RUSSIA

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 people's squads were gathered by the prince for joint campaigns, and after them they dispersed to their tribes. City regions were territorial communities with democratic governing bodies: veche, elected elders, thousand (commanded by a thousand), hundreds, tenths. The prince had his own squad, which was divided into senior and junior. The senior squad consisted of boyars, princely husbands; the youngest - from the youths, grids, servants. The boyars could have their own squads and had the right to leave the prince at their own request. The senior squad constituted the council of the prince, which included elected elders, thousandth, sotsky and tenth. During the period of strong princely power, instead of elected military leaders, the prince planted his deputies, but when civil strife shook the power of the princely family, self-government bodies again came to the fore in leadership.

Thus, Kievan Rus, from the point of view of family organization, was a tribal union; in terms of structure, it was a union of territorial communities; in terms of political form, it was a military democracy. Military democracy is a transitional form from clan to state. From the tribal 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 is already a military-administrative class that stands above the people and from which the formation of state administration bodies takes place. A characteristic feature of princely power in Kievan Rus was the regular procedure for replacing free princely tables. The next order was that the eldest of the brothers became the grand duke, who sent younger brothers and nephews as governors around 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. So successively representatives of the princely family moved from throne to throne in the direction of the Grand Duke. Each prince was a temporary worker on the next throne, the princely family remained unchanged as a hired leader of the territorial communities. By its tribal 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. The tribes paid tribute, the 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 relations tended to turn into a system of exploitation of the population by the princely family. Here is how Klyuchevsky speaks of this in Lectures on the History of Russia about the legend of the calling of Rurik 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” offended, saying: we will 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 husbands fled from Rurik to Kyiv to Askold. All these features do not speak of a benevolent invitation of strangers to rule over undressed natives, but rather of military hiring. Obviously, the overseas princes with a retinue were called 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 guards for hire seemed to want to feed too much. Then a murmur arose among the payers of feed, suppressed by an armed hand. Feeling their strength, the mercenaries turned into rulers, and turned their hired salary into an obligatory tribute with an increase in salary. This example, and the whole history of Kievan Rus, shows how hired power turns from servants of the people into its most cruel exploiters. More than once, the Slavic tribes rebelled against exorbitant tribute. In the 9th and 10th centuries, the princes had to conquer the Vyatichi four times, the Drevlyans three times, and the natives twice. In the 11th-12th centuries, the form of exploitation was brought to the last line - to the direct conversion into slavery by the princes of their former employers.

Kievan Rus was formed along the water trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks." For the first princes, probably, the collected day and international trade did not give significant wealth. Igor's squad complained about their poverty, inviting him to go to 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 reaches its peak. During the development of Kievan Rus, the boyar estate was a military-merchant class, and the main income was from the service to the prince and trade. The exploitation of slave labor was of no economic importance to him. But in Byzantium, slavery persisted, and there was a great demand for slaves, so the slave trade began to prevail in Russia from the 10th century, and military campaigns of princes against neighboring tribes became a source of popular goods. During the time of Vladimir and Yaroslav, the slave trade was probably the main source of their wealth, since the own territorial acquisitions of these princes were not as significant as those of their predecessors, and one increase in the number of tributaries 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 the era of its decay and decline. The growth of wealth led to an increase in the number of the ruling class - representatives of the princely family. The previous regular procedure for filling vacant tables began to falter, as it led to conflicts between numerous members of the family for the Kyiv and other thrones. Already St. Vladimir, and then his son Yaroslav the Wise, occupied the grand throne as a result of internecine struggle with the brothers. Under them, these wars stopped, but after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, civil strife became a chronic phenomenon. More than once the princes gathered for congresses to end the dynastic war. Ownership lands were tried to be assigned to individual branches of the family as hereditary property - to the fatherland, and among themselves they began to conclude agreements delimiting the rights to possessions, as a result of which several independent lands were formed: Kyiv, Turovo-Pinsk, Polotsk, Volyn and Galician west of Denpr ; Pereyaslavskaya, Chernigov-Severskaya, Smolenskaya, Rostov-Suzdolskaya and Muromo-Ryazanskaya to the east of the Dnieper and the Novgorod land in the north. Nothing helped, for two hundred years of internecine strife, Kyiv, for which there were the most wars, first ceased to be grand-ducal 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 in 200 houses, the center of the region of the same name. Only when the popular 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, Russia entered the final period of its development, the period of the destruction of old social relations and the transition to a new social formation. This period is characterized not only by the disintegration of Russia into separate volosts, but also by the rapid accumulation of enormous wealth by the ruling class, the flourishing of its culture. Here 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, large capitals is noticeable.

The princely civil strife and the weakening of Russia caused by them led to an increase in the invasions of the Polovtsy. The Polovtsy suffered the most from the rural population, which constituted the main productive class of society, for which the walls of city castles were not always accessible. Due to the intensification of exploitation by the indicated methods, the population decreased, migration increased significantly due to the resettlement of peasants in the region of Galicia and in the north-east of the country. Population decline soon led to the economic decline of Kievan Rus. To top it all, fragmented Russia 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 various conditions for their existence. The fate of these volosts, their history in the general history of Russia, developed differently. But the changes that took place in the Rostov-Suzdal Territory subsequently determined the entire structure of Russia, and its historical fate.

The main wave of settlers went to the Rostov-Suzdal land, wooded and hard to reach for nomads and hostile princely squads. In this new land, the aliens began to settle along the banks of numerous rivers and streams, a dense network that covered it. They took up farming, hunting, fishing, crafts. Land for arable land in this region could only be recaptured from the forest, so slash-and-burn agriculture became the main form of its cultivation. In slash-and-burn agriculture, a piece of forest is cut down, uprooted or burned, and used for crops for several years. When the soil loses its fertility, the arable land is abandoned and moved to a new plot (repairs), 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 relations between the tiller and the landowner, and died out only with the establishment of serfdom.

Slash-and-burn agriculture destroys the tribal organization, since the conduct of a joint household 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 wives and children. The semi-sedentary life of such families had to mix various tribes with each other over time, therefore it is not surprising that from the 11th century the mention of the original tribal names ceases, and a single Russian people is formed.

These new living conditions of the population also determined the nature of the political structure of Suzdal Rus, its specific character. The political bodies of Kievan Rus were the princely family with the administrative apparatus - the boyar estate and the veche assembly. With the collapse of a single state in its individual parts, volosts, a struggle began between these three elements for political dominance. As a result of the struggle, the veche assembly prevailed in Novgorod, the boyar estate in Galich, and princely power 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 over the countryside, took the side of one of the authorities - the princely one, ensuring its victory, and also determined its hereditary nature in their own interests. The temporary worker, which was the prince during the next order of succession of thrones, was replaced by the prince-owner, who, as a private owner, was supposed to take care of his patrimony, 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 the 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 prince the owner, the specific 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 rest of the Russian land. Prince Andrei and Vsevolod forced to recognize themselves as the great princes of the whole earth, they ruled southern Russia from the banks of the distant Klyazma. Vsevolod autocratically ruled Novgorod the Great and Galicia.

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 emerge in the suburbs, until one of them, Moscow, turned into an autocratic state, finally overcoming both regular, contractual, and appanage character of possession during the reign of Vasily the Dark from 1425 to 1462. It should 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 government, often prevented the outbreak of internecine wars, and also contributed to the rise and enrichment of Moscow, entrusting its princes with collecting tribute in favor of the Tatars - Tatar exit.

Social The structure of society changed and became more complex as feudal relations developed. Some pre-revolutionary historians argued that the free population of the Kievan state did not know class divisions and partitions. Everyone enjoyed the same rights, but, of course, different groups of the population differed from each other in their actual situation, i.e., in wealth and social. influence. The social leaders were called: the best people, (husbands), goblin, big, first, deliberate, boyars.

The social ranks were smaller, black, simple children, smerds. Klyuchevsky and the historians of his school note that the upper stratum of the population (the boyars) consisted of two elements: the zemstvo boyars - the local tribal aristocracy (descendants of tribal elders, tribal princes), as well as the military-commercial aristocracy, the serving princely boyars and the upper layer of princely combatants. Soviet historiography in the class of feudal lords distinguishes the top - representatives of the grand ducal house with the grand duke at the head. According to Klyuchevsky, the middle strata were: an ordinary mass of princely combatants who were kept and fed in the princely court and received their share of tribute and military booty as an additional reward: the middle strata of the urban merchant class. The lower strata - the urban and rural common people - were the main population of Russia. Free communal farmers who owe tribute to the prince, urban and artisans, purchases and ryadovichi, smerds - unfree or semi-free tributaries who sat on the land of the prince and carried duties for his personal benefit. The non-free population of Russia are serfs (prisoners of war, bonded serfs, outcasts).

The apparatus of power performed the following functions:

• - Collection of tribute from subject lands in favor of the Grand Duke of Kyiv (polyudye);
• - Maintenance of public order in their land. The princes judged and sorted out conflicts and defended their lands from external enemies, especially nomads;
• - Foreign policy activities. Military campaigns were undertaken against neighboring states in order to seize booty, alliances were concluded, and trade and diplomatic relations were established.

The historian Semenikova believes that the Old Russian state was built on the basis of the institution of vassalage.

The upper layer of society - the boyars were vassals of the Grand Duke of Kyiv and were obliged to serve his squad.

But at the same time they were full masters in their lands, where they had less noble vassals. The system of boyar immunity included the right to transfer to the service of another prince.

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

With the breaking of the friend and the emancipation of the family from the clan, with the similar isolation of the individual from society and the formation of a new type of territorial community, 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 Kievan state. We know that the Sclavenes and Antes in the sixth century converted 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 war chiefs held great wealth. So, 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 Eastern 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 part 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 power of local Slavic princes, but their status did not change, and they continued to pay their former duties. So, a difference was established in the position of different Slavic groups. Some of them were self-governing, others were dependent on the princes.

Given this extraordinary social and historical background, we should approach the study of Russian society in the Kievan 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 the 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 Kievan society.

It should be noted that among the free themselves there were various groups: while some were full citizens, the legal status of others was limited. In fact, the position of some of the free classes was so precarious, due to legal or economic restrictions, that some of them voluntarily chose to become slaves. So, between the free and the slaves, an intermediate group can be found, which can be called semi-free. Moreover, some groups of the truly free were better off economically 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 Russkaya Pravda, and we must turn to this code for legal terminology characterizing social classes. In the eleventh century variant of Pravda—the so-called Short Version—we find the following fundamental concepts: men- for the upper layer of the free, people- for the middle class smerdy - for limited free, servants - for the slaves.

In the eyes of the legislator, a person had a different value, depending on his class affiliation. Ancient Russian criminal law did not know the death penalty. Instead, it was a system of cash payments imposed on the killer. The latter had to pay compensation to the relatives of the slain (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 hryvnias. In "Pravda" of the sons of Yaroslav, princely people ( men) were protected by a double fine of 80 hryvnia, while the fine for people(plural - people) remained at the initial level of 40 hryvnia. The fine to be paid to the prince for murder stink was set at 5 hryvnias - 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 of the above terms belong to an ancient Indo-European foundation. Slavic husband (may) 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 in the Greek adjective eleutheros ("free"). Smerd can be seen in relation to the Persian mard, "man"; in Armenian it also sounds mard. The disappearance of the initial "s" in the combination "sm" is not unusual in the Indo-European languages. According to Meie, mard emphasizes the mortality of man (as opposed to "immortals", i.e. 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" has acquired a pejorative meaning in connection with the verb "stink", "stink". The term "husband" in the sense of a specific social category gradually disappeared, and the class of boyars eventually developed from husbands. In its diminutive form, the term man("little man") was applied to peasants subordinate to boyar power. From here - man,"peasant". Term lyudin(singular) also disappeared except for the combination commoner.

Plural form people still in use; it corresponds in modern Russian to the word human, used only in the singular. The first part of this word (chel-) represents the same root that is present in the Old Russian word servants("domestic slaves"). The original meaning of the root is “genus”: let’s compare the Gaelic clann and the Lithuanian keltis

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.

Introduction

And they all became under the banner

And they say: “How can we be?

Let's send to the Varangians:

Let them come to reign.

And here come the three brothers,

Middle-aged Varangians,

Look - the land is rich,

There is no order at all."

A.K. Tolstoy.

"History of Russian Goverment

from Gostomysl to Timashev"

Kievan Rus - one of the largest states of medieval Europe - developed in the 9th century. as a result of a long internal development of the East Slavic tribes. The chronicle "Russian Truth" testifies that there was a union of multilingual tribes: two Slavic and at least two Finnish. Obviously, their earlier economic and cultural symbiosis was supplemented by a political one. Pyatetsky L. M. Reference book on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. -M.: Moscow Lyceum, 1995. - S. 14

An important historical source - the oldest Russian chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years" contains the chronicler's story about the calling of the Varangian (Norman) Prince Rurik and his two brothers in 862 by the Novgorodians, laying the foundation for the Russian princely dynasty. Over time, historians came to the conclusion that the two Varangian brothers, Truvor and Sineus, were fictitious (in ancient Swedish, these words mean “with a house and a squad”), recognizing the historical authenticity of Rurik’s personality (see Appendix).

In 882, a relative of Rurik, Prince Oleg, managed to unite the Novgorod and Kyiv lands into an ancient Russian state - Kievan Rus with a capital in Kyiv, according to the definition of the prince - "the Mother of Russian cities."

“From Kyiv came the unification of the Russian Slavs; The Kiev Varangian principality became a mirror of that union of Slavic and neighboring Finnish tribes, which can be recognized as the original form of the Russian state. “Klyuchevsky V.O. Course of Russian history, in 9 vols. T. 1 - M., 1987.

The formation of the original territory of the Old Russian state took place in the 8th - 10th centuries, and consisted in the process of unification of tribal principalities into a single state under the rule of the grand duke's power.

The relevance of the topic of the course work lies in the fact that until now the nature of the socio - economic system of Kievan Rus remains the subject of scientific discussions.

What are the main points of view of scientists on the socio-economic development of Ancient Russia can be distinguished? For the first time, the idea that in Russia there were feudal relations similar to the Western European type of development was expressed in 1907 by N.P. Pavlov - Sylvan. Pavlov-Silvansky N.P. . Feudalism in Ancient Russia. - St. Petersburg, 1907.

If Pavlov-Sylvansky attributed the emergence of feudal relations to the 13th century, then his follower, the founder of Soviet historiography M.N. Pokrovsky Pokrovsky M.N. Essay on the history of Russian culture. - M., 1925. already confidently found feudal relations in Kievan Rus. Here he discovered all their signs: large-scale land ownership, combined with small peasant farming, the combination of political power with land ownership and vassalage.

The first major special work on this topic was published in 1925 by S.V. Yushkov. Yushkov S.V. Feudal relations in Kievan Rus // Uchenye zapiski Saratovskogo universiteta. 1925. V.3. Issue 4 Yushkov developed the theory of V.O. Klyuchevsky about the global economic crisis that befell the European countries, Byzantium and Russia in the 12th century. As a result, the old trade ties, on which the ancient Russian economy had previously stood, fell apart. This gave impetus to the process of feudalization, the reigning of the land, the emergence of a seigneury, a dependent population, etc.

However, the fact that the labor of slaves (serfs and servants) occupied a significant place in the economy of Kievan Rus gave rise to the point of view that the socio-economic system of the Old Russian state was slave-owning. It was first formulated in 1926 by P.I. Lyashchenko. Lyashchenko P.I. History of the Russian national economy. - M., 1926.

In 1928-39s. a number of major scientific discussions took place, in which supporters of the slave-owning and feudal models argued. Adherents of this theory (I.I. Smirnov, E.S. Leibovich, M.M. Svibak, A.V. Shestakov.) believed that it was illiterate to say that the Slavs "jumped" from the primitive communal system immediately into feudalism. They certainly had to go through the slaveholding stage in their development.

“Slave owners” were opposed by “feudal lords” (B.D. Grekov, S.V. Bakhrushin, S.V. Yushkov and others), who defended the above-described feudal model of the socio-economic system of Kievan Rus. In their opinion, the main income of the aristocracy was formed by collecting rent from dependent peasants. They recognized the existence of slavery, but considered it secondary, subordinate. According to B.D. Grekov, the leader of the "feudal direction", already in the tenth century. we can talk about the existence of feudal relations in Kievan Rus. Grekov B.D. Essays on the history of feudalism in Russia. - M., 1934.

The dispute was only about its chronological framework, for example, B.D. Grekov believed that it had already established itself in the 10th century, and S.V. Yushkov - In the XI century.

An important role in this discussion was played by I.V. Stalin, A.A. Zhdanova and S.M. Kirov. In them, the system of Kievan Rus was defined as feudal. Since this party directive was considered the ultimate truth, for many years the point of view of B.D. Grekov and other "feudal lords" became generally accepted.

All these contradictions and controversial conclusions needed to be overcome, which he did in the 50s. L.V. Cherepnin. He tried to get away from the definition of feudalism as a purely private system and introduced the concept of "state feudalism". Tcherepnin believed that until the end of the XI century. state ownership remained the dominant form of ownership, Cherepnin L.V. Russia. Controversial issues of the history of feudal land ownership in the IX-XV centuries. // Ways of development of feudalism. - M., 1972. and the main method of exploitation is the collection of tribute.

The next milestone in understanding the social relations of the times of Kievan Rus was reached in the 60s - 70s. thanks to the work of V.L. Yanina, A.L. Shapiro, A.P. Tolochko: they proved the fallacy of the search for feudalism earlier than the 10th century.

A special position in science is occupied by the research of I.Ya. Froyanov. He speaks about the combination in the socio-economic system of the Old Russian state of several ways, which combined:

patriarchal elements (city-states with a veche system and self-governing agricultural communities, a widespread communal form of land tenure, etc.);

elements of feudalism (the formation of estates in the 11th-12th centuries and the emergence of a dependent agricultural population);

elements of the slave-owning structure (a huge mass of slaves employed mainly in the princely household).

According to I.Ya. Froyanov, in ancient Russia, these three ways were combined with each other, and therefore it is impossible to unequivocally state that we have a slave-owning or feudal society. Froyanov I.A. Kievan Rus: Essays on domestic historiography. - L., 1990.

The main goal of the course work is to study the legal foundations of the social division of the population of Kievan Rus.

In accordance with this goal, the following tasks were set in the study:

1. Give a general description of the social system in the early feudal period of the history of Kievan Rus.

2. Consider the role of all-Russian legislation in the development of the ancient Russian social system.

3. Reflect the legal status of certain groups of the population of Kievan Rus.

Chapter 1. General characteristics of the social system of Kievan Rus

1.1. Early feudal period in the history of Kievan Rus (IX - XII centuries)

Before the formation of Kievan Rus, the social system is characterized by the fact that the princes from the tribal nobility were at the head of the East Slavic tribal unions. The word "prince" comes from the common Slavic "knez", meaning "leader". The princes were surrounded by the former tribal nobility - "deliberate people", "best men". The most important issues were resolved at public meetings - veche gatherings.

There was a tribal militia ("regiment", "thousand", divided into "hundreds"). At the head of them were the thousand, sotsky.

Gradually, around the prince, a special organization of professional warriors was formed - a squad. The squad was divided into the eldest (ambassadors, stewards), and the youngest, who lived with the prince and served his court and household.

Thus, Slavic society was already approaching the emergence of statehood.

By the IX-X centuries. the pre-feudal period of the social system among the Eastern Slavs ended, the state and economic system of the Old Russian state of a transitional type, feudal at its core, was formed. Feudal relations took shape - feudal land ownership, subordination of small producers to the ruling classes, deepening class differentiation, and so on. The dominant, exploiting military-leading minority was initially represented by the old tribal aristocracy - leaders, priests, elders, etc.

The other, larger part of the population was made up of communal peasants, who gradually became dependent on them with the help of non-economic (capture, violence) and economic (bondage, debt) measures.

Captured, they turned into slaves (serfs) and were used in auxiliary work. At the same time, social differentiation was noticeably hampered by the stability of the secular community and the presence of patriarchal slavery, which did not further degenerate into classical slave-owning relations.

The main cell of the social structure of Russia was the neighboring, territorial community - the body of local peasant self-government - "peace" (from the word "verviye" - a rope used to measure a piece of land). The land community was retained in Russia much longer than in the West. And although in the end it did not prevent the formation of dependent relations of class society, but managed to get rid of mass slavery, in its own way contributed to the transition of the Eastern Slavs from the primitive system to the feudal system, bypassing the slave-owning one.

The territory of the ancient Russian state is formed as a result of an internal process (with the development of a new mode of production and with the collapse of tribal ties) on the ruins of tribal associations. It takes shape where the nobility appears in the process of development of feudal relations and, as a result of class contradictions, the organization of coercion. Pyatetsky L. M. Decree. op. - p. 14

Describing the social structure of the ancient Russian state, it can be noted that it developed a management structure in many respects similar to the Western institution of vassalage, which included the concept of freedom, granting autonomy to vassals.

So, the boyars - the highest stratum of society - were the vassals of the prince and were obliged to serve in his army, they were the eldest, most experienced warriors. At the same time, they remained full masters of their land and had lesser nobles as vassals.

The younger squad - the youths - were fed from the prince's table. The squad came with the prince and, in the event of his expulsion, left with him. The prince was the first among equals in relations with his squad.

The Grand Duke ruled over the territories with the help of a council (Boyar Duma), which included senior combatants. The Boyar Duma symbolized the rights and autonomy of the vassals and had the right to "veto".

The main cell of the social structure of Russia was the community. The community in Russia was a closed social system, designed to organize all types of human life - labor, ritual, cultural. Being multifunctional, it relied on the principles of collectivism and leveling, was the collective owner of the land and lands. She organized her inner life on the principles of direct democracy - election, collective decision-making, etc. She redistributed land allotments, resolved tax and financial issues related to the imposition of taxes and their distribution, litigation, investigated crimes and carried out punishment for them.

In the IX - X centuries. the dependence of the population on the prince was manifested in the fact that he annually at a certain time traveled around the subject territories and levied taxes from them. At the same time, there were no norms: the prey was captured "according to strength", as much as they could take away. It was called "polyudem". In order to support his warriors, and the younger princes who entered the service, the senior prince gave them control over the volosts with the right to collect tribute in his favor. This system is called "feeding".

From the middle of the XI - XII centuries. princes and boyars set up agricultural property in the volosts (this was called "princeship of the land"). The formation of the patrimony Votchina begins - the father's possession, a process that dragged on for a long time and was unlikely to be completely completed in the pre-Mongol era. This is a land holding granted for service. The owner could dispose of it as he liked: sell it, donate it, leave it to the heirs, etc.

But the supreme property in the patrimony belonged to the Grand Duke, and at any moment he had the right to take it away and transfer it to someone else. The population of the patrimony no longer paid tribute, but carried duties in favor of the owner - either cultivated his land (later it became known as corvee), or paid dues (products).

However, a significant number of inhabitants until the XIII century. were peasants-communes independent of the boyars, who paid tribute in favor of the state to the Grand Duke. Polyudye - the collection of tribute from the entire free population - is the most characteristic form of domination and subordination, the exercise of the supreme right to land, the establishment of the concept of citizenship.

What was the patrimony in economic terms? In its center was the master's courtyard - his residence (castle) and various buildings: residential buildings (mansions, towers), houses of princely servants (fireman, tiun - managers of various branches of the princely economy, a ratai elder who observed the peasants' field work, etc.). etc.), buildings of the economic complex: a stable, a barnyard, a forge, warehouses, a current, etc.

Slaves, who were called serfs or servants, worked directly in the princely-boyar economy. Also, prisoners of war worked here, working out their ransom, hirelings who were hired for money. In the church patrimonies, forgivers worked - people who committed any crimes, bought out by the church and now earning their "forgiveness". People who were personally free, but economically dependent on him, also worked for the feudal lord: ryadovichi - who concluded an agreement (row) with the lord on some conditions, purchases - worked out the loan they received (“kupu”). Smerds also carried various duties - the free population, subordinate to the prince in a judicial respect, paying tribute to him and obliged to serve in the militia.

In the XII - early XIII century. the term "parish" was used to define private property. As Tolochko notes, its etymology goes back to the word "power". Tolochko A.P. Prince in medieval Russia: Power, property, ideology. - Kyiv, 1992 "Volost" until the XIII century. belonged only to the Grand Duke or the church. That is, the princes were not feudal lords, but sovereigns, landed property belonged to them not as private individuals, but as sovereigns. And equating the ancient Russian term "patrimony" with the Western European "feud", according to Tolochko, is not justified in any way.

The modern level of historiography allows us to assert, firstly, that in the XII century. there were not many large landed property. The property of princes and boyars was probably limited to a few villages, rarely when there were more than 10. Private property relations spread slowly.

According to Froyanov, Froyanov I.Ya. Kievan Rus: Essays on socio-economic history. - L., 1974.

the boyar elite did not strive for isolation, but concentrated around the prince. Her wealth consisted not so much in landed property as in movable property in the form of jewelry, expensive utensils and weapons.

Secondly, and this is the main thing, the Kyiv princes disposed of the land not as their own real estate, but as sovereigns, state property. And they gave it to their relatives and boyars for service and for the duration of the service. That is, like the socio-political practice of the East, the land in Kievan Rus of the XII century. belonged not to a specific person, but to a position. When the prince of Kyiv, due to any circumstances, was deprived of the throne, automatically lose the land and all to whom he distributed it.

For example, in 1148, Yuri Dolgoruky captured Kyiv, endowed his sons with "volosts". But after he was expelled from Kyiv, his sons also lost their “own” land.

That is, the Rurikoviches and the boyars by the XIII century. to a greater extent, they were not private feudal lords, but "state employees", who still received land for "feeding".

Basically, the development of feudalism led to the fact that only the feudal princes, the boyars and the church could have the right to own land. They did not pay tribute and had other privileges.

Thus, in Kievan Rus, along with the class division of society, there was a process of forming a class system, i.e. registration of legally closed groups among the population.

In the XI - XII centuries. princes ruled in the name of the interests of the nobility. But at the same time they ruled in the name of the people. The prince - the ruler of Kievan Rus - in many ways still played a socially useful role.

So, he had to "guard" the land where he reigned, that is, to defend it from external enemies, to carry out court, diplomatic relations with foreign countries, to regulate social relations.

Principality really disrupted the normal life of the volost, made it vulnerable, defenseless against the outside world. Therefore, in the annals, cases are carefully recorded when in one or another volost center there was a reign, which was considered as a misfortune.

Despite the significant social weight, the prince in Kievan Rus, nevertheless, did not become a true sovereign. The fact is that, arriving in one or another volost, the prince had to conclude a "row" - an agreement - with a people's assembly - a veche. And this means that in a certain sense it turned into a communal power, called upon to look after the interests of the local society.

The inconsistency of the princely policy reflected the contradictions of the historical reality of Russia in the 11th - 12th centuries, where, despite property inequality and social differentiation, the process of class formation did not end and society did not become antagonistic, because the vast majority of the population consisted of free community members, whose economy dominated the economy of Kievan Rus .

As a single political organism, Kievan Rus existed until the middle of the 12th century, however, as an ethnic, cultural, religious and, to some extent, legal community, it continued to exist after that time: until the northeastern part of its territory a new political organism, new political and legal traditions were formed, a new ethnic and cultural community arose - the Moscow kingdom, or Muscovy.

The fragmentation of the united state of Kievan Rus into a number of politically independent principalities did not entail the collapse of the Old Russian nationality formed within its framework, the disappearance of the common language and spiritual culture, and the fragmentation of the church organization. The legislation of Kievan Rus continued to operate in the territories of isolated Russian principalities.

According to Academician B.A. Rybakov, Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Old Russian principalities of the 11th-19th centuries. - M., 1993.

It is more correct to call this stage of the historical development of Russia not the period of feudal fragmentation, but the initial stage of developed feudalism. Its characteristic features were: the deepening of the processes of feudalization in the city and the countryside, as well as the further crystallization and isolation of individual ancient Russian principalities.

Feudal fragmentation is an inevitable step in the evolution of feudal society, the economic basis of which is a subsistence economy with its isolation and isolation. Within the framework of a single state, independent economic regions have developed over three centuries, new cities have grown, large patrimonial farms have arisen and developed, and the possessions of many monasteries and churches. Feudal clans grew up and rallied - the boyars with their vassals, the rich top of the cities, church hierarchs. The nobility was born, the basis of whose life was the service to the overlord in exchange for a land grant for the time of this service.

The vast Kievan Rus, with its superficial political cohesion, necessary, first of all, for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-range campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their branched feudal hierarchy, developed trade and craft strata, and the needs of votchinniki.

From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Russia is a natural stage on the way to the future centralization of the country, the future economic and political rise on a new civilizational basis. Kievan Rus. Guidelines for the theoretical study of the course “Russia in world history” / Comp.: Popova T.G., Oganesyan M.N. - M .: Moscow State Institute of Electronics and Mathematics 1998.

By the 30s of the XII century. individual ancient Russian principalities grew stronger and grew so much that they were able to start an independent life, in many respects independent of Kyiv. The power of the great Kyiv prince, who became the first among equals, became a thing of the past and no longer extended to all ancient Russian lands. Along with Kyiv, the title of "Grand Duke" was also held by Vladimir, Chernigov and some other princes, who were absolute masters in their principalities. The process of forming a new political map of Russia with many centers corresponded to the general historical conditions of life in the ancient Russian lands.

The new stage in the development of feudalism in Russia was characterized not only by the strengthening of immunity rights, but also by an unusually extensive system of vassal-hierarchical ties. The ruling class in Russia was a rather complex feudal hierarchical ladder, on the upper steps of which stood representatives of the princely family, on the lower steps - boyars, retinue nobility, nobles. All of them were closely connected with each other by a system of suzerainty - vassalage, which, even in the conditions of a dismembered form of land ownership, remained the defining system of state-legal relations.

1.2. The role of legislation in the development of the ancient Russian social order. Categories of the population in Kievan Rus

All feudal societies were strictly stratified, that is, they consisted of estates, rights and obligations, which were clearly defined by law, as unequal in relation to each other and to the state. In other words, each estate An estate is a closed social group that has rights and obligations defined by law. had its own legal status.

Feudal society was religiously static, not prone to sudden evolution. In an effort to consolidate this static nature, the state conserved relations with the estates in the legislative order.

All-Russian legislation played an important role in the development of the ancient Russian social system. Unlike some feudally fragmented states of Western Europe (for example, Germany), where each principality had its own laws, in Ancient Russia of the XI-XIII centuries. there was a single legal code of judicial - legal norms, which had the same force in all lands.

Characteristically, the lengthy process of adding up the text of Russkaya Pravda (a lengthy edition of Russkaya Pravda) ended completely at the second stage of the historical development of Russia. It reflected all the most important aspects of the economic and socio-political life of the country - the development of feudal land ownership, the palace and patrimonial system of government, the legal status of various categories of the dependent population, the development of trade and the restriction of usury, social struggle, the abolition of blood feuds, etc.

The harmony and thoughtfulness of the legal provisions of Russkaya Pravda testifies to the high level of legal thought in Russia. It is no coincidence that this legislative code acquired an all-Russian significance and had legal force in all the principalities until the 15th century.

Along with Russkaya Pravda, princely statutes and collections of church regulations are important pieces of legislation.

Russkaya Pravda is divided into the Short Pravda, compiled in the 11th century, and the Long Truth, compiled in the 12th century. The "Brief Truth", in turn, is divided into "The Truth of Yaroslav", compiled around 1015, and "The Truth of the Yaroslavichs", which appeared in the 2nd half of the 11th century.

The evolution of Russian Pravda was based on the gradual expansion of legal norms from the princely (dominal) law among the squad, the definition of fines for various crimes against the person. The law provided for the inequality of people belonging to different social groups (combatants, feudal lords, rural community members, servants).

Russkaya Pravda contains a number of norms that determine the legal status of certain groups of the population. Chistyakov O.I. "Domestic legislation of the XI - XX centuries". Part I. - M.: Yurist, 1999.

The bulk of the population was divided into free and dependent people, there were also intermediate and transitional categories.

S.F. Platonov, on the basis of Russian Truth, as part of the ancient Kyiv society, notes three of its most ancient layers: Platonov S.F. Full course of lectures on Russian history. - M., 1993.

1) the highest, called the elders "of the city", "the elders of men"; this is the zemstvo aristocracy, to which some researchers rank the firemen. Ognischanin can be considered precisely for the prince of her husband, and in particular for the tiun, the head of the prince's serfs, i.e. for a person preceding the later courtiers or butlers. The position of the latter was very high at the princely courts, and at the same time, they could be serfs themselves.

2) The middle class consisted of people (single number of people), men united in communities, ropes.

3) Kholops or servants - slaves and, moreover, unconditional, full, white (obly - round) were the third layer.

Over time, this social division becomes more complicated. At the top of society is already the princely retinue, with which the former upper zemstvo class merges. The druzhina consists of the eldest ("thinking boyars and brave men") and the youngest (youths, gridey), which also includes the prince's slaves.

The class of people is definitely divided into townspeople (merchants, artisans) and villagers, of which free people are called smerds, and dependent people are called purchases. Purchases are not slaves, but they begin in Russia with a class of conditionally dependent people, a class that over time has replaced full slaves.

Russian Pravda always indicates, if necessary, belonging to a specific social group (combatant, serf, etc.). In the mass of articles about free people, it is free people that are implied, about smerds, it comes only where their status needs to be highlighted.

The squad and the people are not closed social classes: one could move from one to another. The main difference in their position was, on the one hand, in relation to the prince (some served the prince, others paid him; as for the serfs, they had their master as their master, and not the prince, who did not concern them at all), and on the other hand, in the economic and property relations of social classes among themselves.

Certain legal privileges were provided for such groups of the population as princes, boyars, princely husbands, princely tiuns, firemen (managers of the estate), etc.

The vira (fine) for murder or mutilation was highly differentiated. Its size depended on the category of the victim: 80 hryvnia (hryvnia - a unit of money account, corresponding to 50 g of silver) for the "best people", 40 - for a simple free person, 20 - for inflicting grievous injuries, etc. At the same time, the vira entered the treasury, and the victim received a monetary reward. The life of dependent people was valued low: 12 or even 5 hryvnia, which was not considered vira.

A completely special class of persons in Kyiv society was a class that obeyed not the prince, but the church. It is an ecclesiastical society consisting of:

1) hierarchies, priesthoods and monasticism;

2) persons who served the church, clergymen;

3) persons treated by the church - old, crippled, sick;

4) persons who have come under the guardianship of the church - outcasts,

5) persons dependent on the church - "servants" (serfs), who passed as a gift to the church from secular owners.

The church statutes of the princes describe the composition of the church society in this way: “And here are the church people: hegumen, abbess, priest, deacon and their children, and who is in the krylos: priest, black man, blueberry, marshmallow, pilgrim, sveschegas, watchman, blind man, lame man, a widow, a freedman (i.e., who received miraculous healing), a strangled person (i.e., a freedman under a spiritual will), outcasts (i.e., persons who have lost their civil status rights); ... monasteries, hospitals, hotels, hospices , then church people, almshouses. Platonov S. F. Decree. op.

The church creates a firm social position for outcasts and serfs and all its people, communicates the rights of citizenship, but at the same time removes them completely from secular society.

It is believed that the church received land ownership and immunities at the beginning of the 11th century. There are no documents from that time. The earliest sources date back to the 12th century: these are four princely charters, fixing the transfer of land holdings to the Novgorod monasteries.

These letters represented the right to collect tribute, and not feudal rent, they did not give the monks the right to choose the abbot, therefore, in the XII century. they were not yet completely autonomous, which is one of the foundations of feudalism. Zemtsov B.N. The social system of Kievan Rus in the 11th-12th centuries. // History of state and law. - 2004. - No. 5.

Clergy. Its legal status as a privileged social group took shape with the adoption of Christianity, which became an important factor in strengthening the national statehood at the initial stage of its development. The Christian religion, which replaced paganism, brought with it the doctrine of the divine origin of the supreme state power, a humble attitude towards it.

After the adoption of Christianity in 988, the princes began to widely practice the distribution of land to the highest representatives of the church hierarchy and monasteries. A large number of villages and cities were concentrated in the hands of the metropolitans and bishops, they had their own servants, serfs and even an army. The church was given the right to tithe for its maintenance. Over time, she was removed from the princely jurisdiction and began to judge her hierarchs herself, as well as to judge all who lived on her lands.

The church organization was headed by a metropolitan, who was appointed by the patriarch of Constantinople (the princes tried to obtain the right to appoint metropolitans for themselves, but did not achieve success during the period under review). Under the Metropolitan, there was a council of bishops. The territory of the country was divided into dioceses headed by bishops who were appointed by the metropolitan. In their dioceses, the bishops managed church affairs together with a collegium of local priests - the kliros.

Chapter 2. The legal status of certain groups of the population of Kievan Rus

2.1. The legal status of the feudal lords of Kievan Rus

The estate of feudal lords, constituting the fighting force of the princely squads, despite all their material benefits, could lose their lives - the most valuable - easier and more likely than the poor class of peasants.

The class of feudal lords was formed gradually. It included princes, boyars, warriors, local nobility, posadniks, tiuns, etc.

The feudal lords carried out civil administration and were responsible for the professional military organization. They were mutually connected by a system of vassalage, regulating rights and obligations to each other and to the state, they collected tribute and judicial fines from the population, they were in a privileged position compared to the rest of the population.

A special place is occupied by the personality of the prince. He is regarded as an individual, which testifies to his high position and privileges.

The great princes of Kyiv recognized the Russian land as their acquired estate and considered they had the right to dispose of it at their own discretion: to bequeath, to give, to throw. And in the absence of a will, power passed by inheritance to the children of the dying princes. Rogov V.A. History of the state and law of Russia in the 9th - early 20th centuries. - M., 2002.

Defensive and offensive wars, which united the Slavs into captive alliances, nominated talented and courageous tribal leaders and princes, contributed to the formation of princely squads. They formed the basis of the military organization of the state. Standing out from the mass of ordinary warriors, or wars, a relatively small squad in quantitative terms was an armed cavalry detachment. She shared with the prince all the hardships of life, was always ready for campaigns, strove to glorify the prince with her feats of arms, and for herself to gain honor and wealth. The warriors lived in the princely court or around it. IX-X centuries there were compact settlements of combatants.

The squad, headed by the prince, consisted of experienced warriors (men) and constituted the eldest, "big", "front" squad, sometimes to a large extent determining the policy of the prince. The younger squad was represented by youths, boyar children. It is known that boyar and princely sons already fought on horseback at the age of three, and from the age of twelve, fathers took their sons on campaigns. The senior and junior squads differed in the age of their members, their nobility, and influence on the prince.

From the aristocratic elite of the squad, the categories of "boyars" (from the old Russian bolyar - a fighter, combatant) stood out, which represented the ruling class of ancient Russian society. Along with this, the most common name, there are others in the sources: the best people, deliberate men, princely men, firemen.

There were two ways to form the boyar class. Firstly, the tribal nobility, which stood out in the process of decomposition of the tribal system, became boyars. These were deliberate men, city elders, zemstvo boyars, speaking on behalf of their tribe. Together with the prince, they participated in military campaigns, enriching themselves at the expense of captured trophies.

The second category consisted of princely boyars - fire boyars, princely men. As the power of the Kyiv princes strengthened, the zemstvo boyars received from the hands of the prince immunity letters, which assigned to them as hereditary property (patrimonies) the lands they had. The boyars received from the prince the right to collect tribute from part of the territories and later turned into large feudal owners.

Later, in the XI century, the layer of zemstvo boyars completely merges with the princely boyars, the differences between them disappear.

The princely boyars, who were part of the second category of boyars, were in the past the prince's combatants, and during military campaigns they became the core of the Russian army. Constantly being with the prince, the warriors performed his various tasks in governing the state, were advisers to the prince on domestic and foreign policy. For this service to the prince, the combatants were endowed with land and became boyars.

The beginning process of the transformation of tribal nobility into land owners in the first two centuries of the existence of the state in Russia can be traced, mainly, only on archaeological material. These are rich burials of boyars and combatants, the remains of fortified suburban estates (patrimonies) that belonged to senior combatants and boyars. Basically, the development of feudalism led to the fact that only the feudal princes, the boyars and the church could have the right to own land. They did not pay tribute and had other privileges. Thus, in Kievan Rus, along with the class division of society, there was a process of forming a class system, i.e. registration of legally closed groups among the population.

From among the combatants, the prince appointed posadniks - governors in cities; governor - leaders of various military units; thousand - senior officials; collectors of land taxes - tributaries; judicial officials - swordsmen, virnikov, emtsev, porches; collectors of trade duties - collectors, petty officials - biriches (representatives of the lower echelon of the princely administration, who announced princely decrees, collected taxes, summoned defendants to court, etc.), sweepers. The rulers of the princely patrimonial economy, the tiuns, also stand out from the squad (since the 12th century, they have been included in the system of state administration).

It was the chiefs of military units - tenth, hundredth, thousandth that now began to head the corresponding parts of the state. For example, if the function of a military leader was retained for the thousand, then the sotsky was entrusted with city judicial and administrative affairs. Later, the decimal system developed into a palace and patrimonial system, connecting the management of the grand duke's palace with state administration. Thus, individual functions or management of branches of the princely palace economy were carried out by tiuns and elders.

The boyars were not homogeneous and were divided into different groups, belonging to which gave the right to be a privileged part of society, and all crimes against the boyars were punished more severely. So, according to Russkaya Pravda, the life of the boyars was guarded by a double vira (vira is the highest criminal fine). According to the church charter of Yaroslav, the honor of the wives of the great boyars was protected by a fine of 5 hryvnias of gold, lesser boyars - 3 hryvnias of gold, city people - 3 hryvnias of gold, and ordinary people - 60 rezan (Article 30). The boyars, in the absence of sons, were entitled to transfer the inheritance to their daughters, while the daughters of ordinary people could not inherit. Rogov V.A. Decree. op.

The boyars were also exempted from paying taxes. The boyars were not a closed caste. For certain merits, a smerd and even a foreigner - a Varangian, a Polovtsian, etc., could get into the boyars.

In the Kyiv land, the boyars were not separated from the merchants, from the urban elite.

Vassal and land relations of the feudal lords, their connection with the Grand Duke were most likely regulated by special treaties. In Russkaya Pravda, only some aspects of the legal status of this class are disclosed. It establishes a double vira (fine for murder) at 80 hryvnia for the murder of princely servants, cakes, grooms, firemen. But the code is silent about the boyars and warriors themselves. Probably, the death penalty was applied for encroachments on them. Chronicles repeatedly describe the use of execution during popular unrest.

In the feudal stratum, earlier, in total, there was an abolition of restrictions on female inheritance. In church charters for violence against boyar wives and daughters, high fines are set - from 1 to 5 hryvnias of gold, for the rest - up to 5 hryvnias of silver.

2.2. The legal status of groups of the free population of Kievan Rus

The free population was represented by free community members, whom Russkaya Pravda calls "people." The Old Russian community (verv) had its own territory, for which it was responsible to the state. So, if a corpse is found on its land, the verv was obliged to find the killer or pay the so-called. wild virus. If the killer turned out to be a member of the community, then the community helped him pay the viru (fine), unless, of course, he lived by robbery and robbery. The rope could give out the robber to "stream and plunder." Also, a community member could not count on the help of the community if he had not invested in the "wild vira" sometime.

Legally and economically independent groups were townspeople and smerds - community members (they paid taxes and performed duties only in favor of the state).

Smerds lived in communities - ropes. The community in the Old Russian state was no longer consanguineous, but territorial, neighboring in nature. It operated on the principle of mutual responsibility, mutual assistance. The duties of the peasant population in relation to the state were expressed in the payment of taxes (in the form of tribute) and dues, and participation in armed defense in the event of hostilities.

A free smerd - a community member possessed certain property, which he could bequeath to children (but land - only to sons). In the absence of heirs, his property passed to the community. The law protected the person and property of the smerd. For committed offenses and crimes, as well as for obligations and contracts, he was personally and property liable. In the trial, the smerd acted as a full participant. History of State and Law of Russia / Ed. S.A. Chibiryaev. - M.. 2000.

Russkaya Pravda nowhere specifically indicates the restriction of the legal capacity of smerds, there are indications that they pay fines (sales) typical of free citizens. The law protected the person and property of the smerd.

But in the testimonies about smerds, their unequal position slips through, constant dependence on the princes, who "favor" villages with smerds.

For committed offenses and crimes, as well as for obligations and contracts, he was personally and property liable, for debts the smerd was threatened with becoming a feudal-dependent purchase, in the trial, the smerd acted as a full participant.

In science, there are a number of opinions about smerds, they are considered free peasants, feudal dependents, persons of a slave state, serfs, and even a category similar to petty chivalry.

B.D. Grekov even writes in his textbook that: “Smerd”, from the point of view of ... the Kyiv gentlemen, is, as it were, not a person, “... smerd is equal to the beast.” Grekov B.D. "Kievan Rus" IX - first half. X centuries - M .: State educational and pedagogical publishing house of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, 1949. But the main controversy is conducted along the line: free or dependent (slaves). Many historians, for example, S.A. Pokrovsky, consider smerds as commoners, ordinary citizens, everywhere exposed by Russian Truth, a free person unlimited in their legal capacity. S.V. Yushkov saw in the stinks a special category of the enslaved rural population, and B.D. Grekov believed that there were dependent smerds and free smerds. A.A. Zimin defended the idea of ​​the origin of smerds from slaves planted on the ground. M. B. Sverdlov considers the most fruitful division of smerds into personally free and feudal-dependent. History of domestic state and law. / Ed. O.I. Chistyakov. - M., 2003.

Kievan Rus was a country not only of villages, but also of cities. The number of cities grew rapidly. If in the IX - X centuries. there were more than 25 of them, then in the XI century. there were already more than 80 cities, and by the 30s of the XII century. - about 300. Cities were military strongholds, centers of struggle against foreign invasion, centers of crafts and trade. There was an organization similar to the guilds and workshops of Western European cities.

In the ancient Russian city-state, the community was the initial component of society. The urban population was divided into a number of social groups: the boyars, the clergy, the merchants, the "lower classes" (artisans, small merchants, workers, etc.). The entire urban population paid taxes. The church charter of Prince Vladimir speaks of the payment of duties on weights and measures; there was also a special city-wide tax - suburbs. Old Russian cities did not have their own self-government bodies, they were under princely jurisdiction. Therefore, the city ("Magdeburg Law") did not arise in Russia.

Free residents of the cities enjoyed the legal protection of Russian Pravda, they were subject to all articles on the protection of honor, dignity and life.

Cities were centers of trade. Merchants in Russia were divided into leading commercial operations with other countries (they were called "guests") and local merchants. Merchants united in corporations - "hundreds", which often occupied entire streets (street of fur traders, street of leather merchants, etc.). In large cities there were constantly operating farmsteads of foreign merchants.

The art of craftsmen (builders, potters, blacksmiths, gunsmiths, jewelers, etc.) was widely known. This was a fairly literate part of the population, as evidenced by the author's inscriptions on products and numerous birch bark letters. Thus, in Ancient Russia, even then, estates were formed, fastened by the unity of labor activity, social and production interests and legal status.

2.3. Legal Status of Dependent Population Groups

Kievan Rus

In addition to free smerds, there were other categories of them, which Russkaya Pravda mentions as dependent people. In the literature, there are several points of view on the legal status of this group of the population, however, it should be remembered that it was not homogeneous: along with the free, there were also dependent ("serfs") smerds who were in bondage and in the service of the feudal lords.

Among the dependent people, Russkaya Pravda mentions purchases, ryadoviches, and others who had their own household, but for one reason or another fell into partial dependence on the feudal lord and worked out a significant part of the time on patrimonial lands.

Dani, polyudie and other requisitions undermined the foundations of the community, and many of its members, in order to pay tribute in full and somehow survive themselves, were forced to go into debt bondage to their rich neighbors. Debt bondage has become the most important source of formation of economically dependent people. They turned into servants and serfs, bending their backs on their masters and having practically no rights.

One of these categories were ryadovichi (from the word "row" - contract) - those who enter into an agreement on their temporary servile position, and his life was estimated at 5 hryvnias. Being a ryadovich was not always bad; he could turn out to be a key keeper or manager.

A more complex legal figure is the purchase. The Long Truth contains the Purchasing Charter. Purchase - a person who took from the feudal lord some valuable "kupa" (loan) in the form of land or money, grain or livestock, etc. At the same time, the amount of debt mining was determined by the creditor himself. Often, the purchase worked for the feudal lord only for interest, and the “kupa” taken at one time should have been returned in full. A certain limit to this bondage was set by Vladimir Monomakh.

After the uprising of purchases in 1113. the limits of admissible interest rates for "kupa" are established. This law protected the person and property of the purchaser. However, for a crime, the purchase could be turned into a serf (slave). A similar fate awaited him in the event of non-payment of debt or escape. Thus, the page of enslavement, the gradual enslavement of former free community members, was opened.

The purchase was the legal figure that most clearly illustrated the process of "feudalization", enslavement, enslavement of former free community members.

In Russkaya Pravda, a “role” (arable) purchase that worked on foreign land did not differ in its legal status from a “non-role” purchase. Both of them differed from hired workers, in particular, in that they received payment for work for the future, and not after completion.

Role purchases, working on foreign land, worked it partly for the master, partly for themselves. Non-role purchases provided personal services to the master in his house.

Slaves and serfs. Not becoming the predominant mode of production, slavery in Russia became widespread only as a social way of life. There were reasons for that. The content of the slave was too expensive, there was nothing to occupy him with the long Russian winter. The climatic conditions unfavorable for the use of slave labor were supplemented by the decline of slavery in neighboring countries: there was no clear example for borrowing and spreading this institution in the Slavic lands. Its spread was also hindered by developed community ties, the possibility of harvesting by the forces of free community members.

Slavery in Russia had a patriarchal character. The terms "slave", "servant", "serf" were used to denote the slave state.

However, some historians believe that these terms are of different origin: servants and serfs were from fellow tribesmen, slaves were from prisoners of war. In addition to captivity, the source of slavery was the birth of a slave. Criminals and bankrupts also fell into slavery. A dependent person (purchase) could become a slave in the event of an unsuccessful escape from his master or theft. There were cases of self-sale into slavery.

Kholop is the most disenfranchised subject of law. A complete serf or "slave servant" did not possess any property, everything that he used belonged to the master. All the consequences arising from the contracts and obligations that the serf entered into (with the knowledge of the owner) also fell on the master.

The identity of a serf as a subject of law was not actually protected by law. For his murder, a fine was levied, as for the destruction of property, or another slave was transferred to the master as compensation. The serf who committed the crime himself should have been handed over to the victim (in an earlier period he could simply be killed at the scene of the crime).

The mister always bore the penalty for the serf. In the trial, the serf could not act as a party (plaintiff, defendant, witness). Referring to his testimony in court, a free man had to make a reservation that he was referring to "the words of a serf."

Meanwhile, the life of serfs, who constituted the special attendants of the princely or boyar court (servants, educators of children, artisans, etc.), were protected by higher punishments.

The most common source of servility, not mentioned, however, in Russkaya Pravda, was captivity. But if the serf was a prisoner - “taken from the rati”, then his fellow tribesmen could ransom him. The price for the prisoner was high - 10 gold coins, full-weight gold coins of Russian or Byzantine coinage, and not everyone hoped that such a ransom would be paid for him.

Under the influence of Christianity, the fate of the serfs was alleviated. Applied to the XI century. we can already talk about the protection of the identity of the serf for pragmatic reasons. A stratum of serfs appeared, who advanced in the administrative service of the master and had the right to command other categories of the dependent population on his behalf. The Church intensifies the persecution for the murder of serfs. Slavery degenerates into one of the forms of severe personal dependence with the recognition of certain rights for serfs, first of all, the right to life and property.

An outcast is a person "outdated", knocked out of the usual rut, deprived of his former state. Free outcasts and dependent outcasts are known. A significant contingent of feudally dependent outcasts was formed at the expense of serfs who redeemed themselves. They, as a rule, did not break ties with the master and remained under his authority. However, there were cases when a freed serf left his master.

Such outcasts - freedmen who broke with their former master, usually fell into dependence on the church. Along with them, outcasts came from the free strata of ancient Russian society.

Sources also refer to scapegoats, strangled people, slingers, and patrimonial artisans as the feudal-dependent population.

Conclusion

As a result of the study