In the period from the end of the 10th to approximately the second third of the 12th century. Rus' was a state consisting of volosts ruled by representatives of the Rurik dynasty. At the head of the princely hierarchy was the Kiev prince. The princes - the rulers of the volosts - were his vassals. The volosts were formed on the basis of the territories of the unions of tribal principalities, but their borders did not remain unchanged. They changed as a result of the activities of princes, internecine wars, divisions and divisions of land. The main form of exploitation of the agricultural population at the end of the 10th - mid-12th centuries. What remained was the state tribute - tax. At the same time, the initial stage of the formation of individual large land ownership in Rus' - patrimony - dates back to this period. The princely estate began to take shape in the second half of the 10th century. - during this period, princely villages and hunting grounds were already known. In the middle of the 11th century. the existence of the princely estate was legally enshrined in the Russian Pravda - the legal code of early medieval Rus'. In the 11th century land ownership appears among the warriors and the church. But the patrimonial form of ownership did not yet play a significant role - its appanage was insignificant, the bulk of the territory was in the cooperative (state) property of the military-retinue nobility, sold through a system of tribute-taxes.
The corporation into which the ruling layer of Ancient Rus' was organized during this period continued to be the squad. There were squads for the Kyiv prince and his relatives-vassals. The druzhina organization had an internal hierarchy: the top of the druzhina layer was represented by the oldest druzhina, its members were called boyars. The lowest stratum was the young squad. Its representatives were called youths.
The privileged position of the members of the oldest squad was reflected in ancient Russian law. At the beginning of the 12th century. all its representatives received increased legal protection - for their murder a fine of 80 hryvnia was established, twice as large as the fine for the murder of an ordinary free person, including a junior warrior.
With folding by the end of the 10th century. In the structure of a single state, a centralized and ramified management apparatus is formed. Representatives of the druzhina nobility act as officials of the state administration. Under the princes there is a council (duma), which is a meeting of the prince with the top of the squad. The princes appoint posadniks from the warriors - governors in cities, governors - leaders of military detachments of various sizes and purposes, thousand - senior officials in the so-called decimal system of dividing society, dating back to the pre-state period, land tax collectors - tributaries, court officials - swordsmen, Virnikov, Yemtsy, Podezhnye, collectors of trade duties - Mytniks, minor officials - Birichi, Metelniks. The stewards of the princely patrimonial economy, the tiuns, also stand out from the squad.
The prince did not rule and rule completely. Princely power was limited to elements of preserved popular self-government. The people's assembly - the veche - was active in the 9th-11th centuries. The custom of veche meetings has existed since ancient times in clan unions and communities. When the Kiev dynasty subjugated the volosts, the activities of the veche assemblies naturally narrowed: they began to be in charge only of their local community affairs.
The process of formation of the main classes of feudal society in Kievan Rus is poorly reflected in the sources. This is one of the reasons why the question of the nature and class basis of the Old Russian state is debatable. The presence of different economic structures in the economy gives grounds for a number of experts to evaluate the Old Russian state as an early class one, in which the feudal structure existed along with the slaveholding and patriarchal ones.
Feudalism is characterized by the feudal lord's full ownership of the land and incomplete ownership of the peasants, in relation to whom he applies various forms of economic and non-economic coercion. The dependent peasant cultivates not only the land of the feudal lord, but also his own plot of land, which he received from the feudal lord or the feudal state, and is the owner of tools, housing, etc.
The process that began of the transformation of the tribal nobility into land owners in the first two centuries of the existence of the state in Rus' can be traced mainly only on archaeological material. These are rich burials of boyars and warriors, the remains of fortified suburban estates (patrimonies) that belonged to senior warriors and boyars. The class of feudal lords also arose by separating from the community its most prosperous members, who turned part of the communal arable land into property. The expansion of feudal land ownership was also facilitated by direct seizures of communal lands by the tribal nobility. The growth of the economic and political power of landowners led to the establishment of various forms of dependence of ordinary community members on landowners.
Free population. Serfs. Temporarily obliged categories of the population. Ancient Russian cities. Posads and their population.
However, during the Kiev period there remained a fairly significant number of free peasants, dependent only on the state. The term “peasants” itself appeared in sources only in the 14th century.
Personally, the free rural population, subject to tribute, as well as ordinary townspeople are called people in the sources. For the personally dependent population of estates, as well as for unfree servants, the term servants (servants) and serfs were used. Their disadvantaged position was enshrined in law: for example, for the murder of a slave, only a fine of 5 hryvnia was paid, which went to the master of the murdered person as compensation for damage. Smerds constituted a special category of the population. The question of its essence is the subject of a long-standing dispute in historiography; it is most likely that the smerds are a group of semi-military, semi-peasant population dependent on the prince. In the second half of the 11th century. a category of purchasers appears - people who become dependent on the landowner for debts and are forced to work for the master to pay off the amount of the debt. Their legal status was intermediate between free people and peasants.
The main social unit of the agricultural population continued to be the neighboring community - the Verv. It could consist of one large village or several small settlements. Members of the vervi were bound by collective responsibility for paying tribute, for crimes committed on the territory of the community, by mutual responsibility.
The community included not only smerds-farmers, but also smerds-artisans (blacksmiths, potters, tanners), who provided the needs of the community for handicrafts and worked mainly to order. A person who broke ties with the community and did not enjoy its protection was called an outcast. With the development of feudal land tenure, various forms of dependence of the agricultural population on the farmer appeared. A common name for a temporarily dependent peasant was purchase. This was the name of a person who received a kupa from a farmer - help in the form of a plot of land, a cash loan, seeds, tools or draft power and was obliged to return or work off the kupa with interest. Another term referring to dependent people is ryadovich, i.e., a person who has entered into a certain agreement with the feudal lord - a series and is obliged to perform various works in accordance with this series. In Kievan Rus, along with feudal relations, patriarchal slavery existed, which, however, did not play a significant role in the country’s economy. Slaves were called serfs or servants. Primarily captives fell into slavery, but temporary debt servitude, which ended after the debt was paid, became widespread. Serfs were usually used as domestic servants. In some estates there were also so-called arable serfs, who were planted on the land and had their own farm. A fairly large group of the population of Rus' were artisans. Around the 7th-8th centuries. crafts are finally separated from agriculture. Specialists include blacksmiths, foundries, gold and silversmiths, and later potters. By the 12th century. in the cities of Rus' there were over 60 craft specialties. Russian artisans produced more than 150 types of iron products. Craftsmen usually concentrated in tribal centers - towns or in settlements-cemeteries, which from military fortifications gradually turned into centers of craft and trade - cities. At the same time, cities become defensive centers and residences of power holders. Cities, as a rule, arose at the confluence of two rivers, since the location provided more reliable protection.
The central part of the city, surrounded by a rampart and a fortress wall, was called the Kremlin or Detinets. As a rule, the Kremlin was surrounded on all sides by water, since the rivers, at the confluence of which the city was built, were connected by a moat filled with water. Slobodas, settlements of artisans, adjoined the Kremlin. This part of the city was called posad.
The growth of cities and the development of handicrafts is associated with the activities of such a group of the population as merchants. The most ancient cities arose most often on the most important trade routes. One of these trade routes was the route from the “Varangians to the Greeks.” Through the Neva or Western Dvina and Volkhov with its tributaries and further through a system of portages, ships reached the Dnieper basin. Along the Dnieper they reached the Black Sea and further to Byzantium. This path finally took shape by the 9th century. Another trade route, one of the oldest in Eastern Europe, was the Volga trade route, which connected Rus' with the countries of the East.
Introduction 2
Political system of the ancient Russian state 5
Conclusion 15
References 17
Power is the ability and opportunity to exercise one’s will, to exert a guiding, determining influence on the activities and behavior of people using the means of authority, law, violence, even despite resistance and regardless of what such an opportunity is based on.
As a phenomenon, power is necessary; it is designed to provide for the needs of human society. State power is called upon to govern, establish legal relations and judge.
Public power in the Old Russian state was initially formed privately in consanguineous societies. It retained its private law character throughout the entire first period. However, awareness of the social role of power appears at the very beginning of history. In the most ancient period of Russian history, the last of the three mentioned functions, i.e., the court, came to the fore; however, both the first ones are already included in the tasks of state power.
The state of the first period, in terms of management tasks, is completely different from the state of subsequent periods, especially the 3rd (when the eye becomes the policeman par excellence). The most ancient state is primarily military.
As for self-government in the Old Russian state, science has not yet formed a consensus on the time of its origin. A number of authors attribute the origin of community self-government in Russia to the formation and development of the communal system among the Slavs, the unification of production communities into community unions and urban settlements, and the division of power into central and local.
Other authors date Russian city government from the widespread tradition in early pre-Mongol Rus' (X-XI centuries) of deciding at the veche (from the Old Slavic “vet” - council) the most important issues of public life, up to the invitation or expulsion of the prince. The idea of veche government was most fully realized in two Russian feudal republics - Novgorod and Pskov, liquidated already during the time of Ivan the Terrible, where the veche was considered a body of people's power. The first ideas about social independence come from Novgorod or the Novgorod possessions.
The third group of authors connects the initial stage of the emergence of Russian self-government with the first zemstvo reform of Tsar Ivan IV in the middle of the 16th century. Since that time, the development of individual elements of local self-government in Russia began.
Formation of the Old Russian State.
In the 9th century. The Eastern Slavs already had internal prerequisites for the creation of statehood. The tribal system was at the stage of decomposition. The supreme body of the tribe was still the veche, a meeting of all its free members. But there already existed a tribal nobility in the person of several privileged clans, which differed from the mass of community members in social and property terms. From among them, the veche elected leaders (princes) and elders. By the time the state was formed, separate tribal kingdoms already existed. The power of the tribal princes was based on a system of fortifying urban settlements, some of which later turned into real feudal cities. Tribal principalities were still pre-state formations, and tribal leaders were not yet princes in the true sense of the word.
There were also external prerequisites that contributed to the creation of a state among the Eastern Slavs. The endless steppes stretching between the Black Sea and the forest belt of the Russian Plain have long been the highway to Europe for warlike nomads, whose hordes were driven out of Asia every one and a half to two centuries. Many nomadic tribes tried to gain a foothold in these lands, but settled Slavic farmers were ready to stubbornly defend the fertile arable land, which yielded huge harvests.
The constant struggle with nomads contributed to the unification of the East Slavic tribes into the Old Russian people. In essence, the Kiev state emerged in the fight against external enemies and subsequently became truly a “form of survival” in the constant struggle with the Steppe.
In 882, according to the chronicle, the Novgorod prince Oleg, having previously occupied Smolensk and Lyubech, captured Kiev and proclaimed it the capital of his state. “Behold, be the mother of the Russian city,” the chronicler put the words into Oleg’s mouth. Oleg himself began to be titled Grand Duke. 1 Thus, 882, when Northern Rus' (Novgorod) and Southern Rus' (Kyiv) united under the rule of one prince, became a turning point in the destinies of the Eastern Slavs. The unification of the two most important centers along the great waterway “from the Varangians to the Greeks” gave Oleg the opportunity to begin subjugating other East Slavic lands to his power. Thus began a long process of consolidation of individual tribal principalities of the Eastern Slavs into a single state.
The highest political power in Kievan Rus was represented by the Grand Duke. He acted as legislator, military leader, supreme administrator and supreme judge. Since the time of the first Russian princes, known from the chronicles, Rurik and Oleg, princely power became individually hereditary, and this gave it legitimacy in the eyes of its contemporaries. The idea of the chosenness of people belonging to the princely family was affirmed. Gradually, the power of the prince began to be perceived as state power. By the end of the 10th century, the Kiev state acquired the features of an early feudal monarchy. The adoption of Christianity by Russia was of great importance. The Church strengthened the authority of the prince, considering his power as God-given. In 996, a council of Russian bishops solemnly declared to Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich: “You have been appointed by God to be executed by the evil, and by the good to mercy.”
The political system of Kievan Rus became the subject of scientific research back in the 18th century. In pre-revolutionary historiography, Kievan Rus was primarily viewed as a distinctive society and state, developing in a different way than Europe or Asia. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky was the first Russian historian to try to prove the presence in Russian history of a feudal period similar to Western feudalism. Since the 30s. XX century Soviet historiography affirms the idea of the Old Russian state as an early feudal monarchy. Despite the critical attitude of a number of scientists of the Soviet and post-Soviet times to this concept (S.V. Bakhrushin, S.V. Yushkov, I.Ya. Froyanov), it still dominates in historical works.
The early feudal monarchy grew out of tribal relations and was characterized by the weakness of the central government, fragmentation of the territory and the preservation of significant remnants of tribal self-government. This form of government existed in some European countries - in the Frankish state, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, and the German Empire. In the political system of Kievan Rus one can also find signs characteristic of this type of statehood.
At the head of the Old Russian state was the Grand Duke of Kiev, who owned the highest economic, administrative, judicial and military power. He, however, was not the sole ruler of the state, and his power had not yet acquired a clearly hereditary character. There were various ways to replace the grand ducal throne: inheritance, violent seizure, and finally, election by the veche. The latter method, however, was of an auxiliary nature: the election of a prince by the veche usually only reinforced his inheritance or usurpation of power.
The prince ruled with the help of a squad, divided into senior (“boyars”, “men”) and junior (“gridi”, “youths”, “children”). The senior squad was actually the princely council. Together with her, the prince made decisions about campaigns, collecting tribute, building fortresses, etc.
The Boyar Duma subsequently grew out of it. The squad was supported by the prince at his own expense: from spoils from aggressive campaigns, deductions from tribute and court fees. Princely feasts were a means of uniting the warriors and maintaining the authority of the prince among them. State affairs were discussed at them, disputes and conflicts between combatants were resolved, and positions were distributed. In the depths of the druzhina organization, even before the formation of the Old Russian state, the so-called decimal or numerical system of government developed, which later spread to cities and communities: the population was divided into tens, hundreds, thousands, headed by tens, sots, and thousand, respectively.
The prince's closest relatives - brothers, sons, nephews - formed a special aristocratic stratum that stood above other warriors. Some of them had their own squads. Occupying the Kiev table, the new prince usually united his own squad with the squad of his predecessor.
To collect tribute from the subject population, the Kyiv princes undertook special campaigns - polyudye. Initially, tribute was collected in furs, from the 11th century. Monetary tribute prevailed. For a long time, tribute was not standardized, and its size was determined either by the appetite of the prince and his warriors, or by the possibility of using tribute as a means of putting pressure on disobedient subjects. The establishment of tributary relations meant the entry of one or another territory into the Old Russian state, and polyudye itself was a way of governing the country in the absence of a developed state apparatus, since the princes settled conflicts on the spot, held court, resolved border disputes, etc.
Gradually, a princely administration was formed from warriors and people personally dependent on the prince, the most important role in which belonged to the prince’s local representatives: posadniks (governors) in cities and volostels in rural areas. They did not receive a salary for their service and were supported by taxes from the population - the so-called feed. This system was called feeding, and the officials were called feeders.
The princely household was managed by a noble 2. He was helped by tiuns, appointed from the prince's courtyard servants. They were also present at the court of the prince or mayor and even often replaced them in court. The tax collectors kept track of the collected tribute, the trade duty - “wash” - was collected by the mytniki, the fine for murder - “viru” - by the virniki, the duty for the sale of horses - “spot” - by the stainers.
Despite some growth in the princely administration, the state apparatus of the Old Russian state remained primitive. State and palace functions had not yet been separated from each other and were performed by the same persons.
The development of feudal relations contributed to the strengthening of the positions of local feudal lords - princes and boyars. Their status as large patrimonial owners combined the right to land and the right to power. Being vassals of the Grand Duke, they were obliged to serve him. At the same time, they were complete masters in their estates, had the right of immunity, that is, they carried out some state functions in their possessions and could have their own vassals.
Thus, the so-called palace-patrimonial management system is finally taking shape, in which two control centers are distinguished - the princely palace and the boyar patrimonial estate, power is divided between large land owners - the prince and the boyars, and the implementation of the most important state functions is entrusted to their representatives, who are also officials persons and managers of patrimonial farms. The state apparatus actually coincided with the apparatus for managing the princely and boyar estates.
There were no judicial bodies as special institutions in the Old Russian state. Justice was administered by the prince or his representatives on the basis of customary law and the norms of Russian Truth. As patrimonial land ownership became established and boyar immunity was established, the importance of the boyar court over dependent peasants grew. The transformation of Christianity into the state religion led to the emergence of ecclesiastical jurisdiction that extended to the clergy. Test >> History
... : “The Church as an element political systems Old Russian states" Discipline: History of the Patriotic states and rights. The student completed... himself in the names of residents, in proverbs and signs, in build thinking, in the obligatory corner of the hut, his...
Occurrences Old Russian states Contents Introduction 1. Emergence Old Russian states 2. Political device Old Russian states... P. 9. Yushkov S.V. Social political build and Kievsky law states. M., 1949. P. 361.
It is worth noting that the social system of 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.
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 a historical source as Russkaya Pravda talks about equating vigilantes 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.
In the Old Russian state there were estates. We are talking about a large group of people who are 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 possessed 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 system of government that grew out of a 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 of ancient Rus' was like.
Australopithecus is the name of the great apes that moved using 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 characteristic features, 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
Power is the ability and opportunity to exercise one’s will, to exert a guiding, determining influence on the activities and behavior of people using the means of authority, law, violence, even despite resistance and regardless of what such an opportunity is based on.
As a phenomenon, power is necessary; it is designed to provide for the needs of human society. State power is called upon to govern, establish legal relations and judge.
Public power in the Old Russian state was initially formed privately in consanguineous societies. It retained its private law character throughout the entire first period. However, awareness of the social role of power appears at the very beginning of history. In the most ancient period of Russian history, the last of the three mentioned functions, i.e., the court, came to the fore; however, both the first ones are already included in the tasks of state power.
The state of the first period, in terms of management tasks, is completely different from the state of subsequent periods, especially the 3rd (when the eye becomes the policeman par excellence). The most ancient state is primarily military.
As for self-government in the Old Russian state, science has not yet formed a consensus on the time of its origin. A number of authors attribute the origin of community self-government in Russia to the formation and development of the communal system among the Slavs, the unification of production communities into community unions and urban settlements, and the division of power into central and local.
Other authors date Russian city government from the widespread tradition in early pre-Mongol Rus' (X-XI centuries) of deciding at the veche (from the Old Slavic “vet” - council) the most important issues of public life, up to the invitation or expulsion of the prince. The idea of veche government was most fully realized in two Russian feudal republics - Novgorod and Pskov, liquidated already during the time of Ivan the Terrible, where the veche was considered a body of people's power. The first ideas about social independence come from Novgorod or the Novgorod possessions.
The third group of authors connects the initial stage of the emergence of Russian self-government with the first zemstvo reform of Tsar Ivan IV in the middle of the 16th century. Since that time, the development of individual elements of local self-government in Russia began.
Formation of the Old Russian State .
In the 9th century. The Eastern Slavs already had internal prerequisites for the creation of statehood. The tribal system was at the stage of decomposition. The supreme body of the tribe was still the veche - a meeting of all its free members. But there already existed a tribal nobility in the person of several privileged clans, which differed from the mass of community members in social and property terms. From among them, the veche elected leaders (princes) and elders. By the time the state was formed, separate tribal kingdoms already existed. The power of the tribal princes was based on a system of fortifying urban settlements, some of which later turned into real feudal cities. Tribal principalities were still pre-state formations, and tribal leaders were not yet princes in the true sense of the word.
There were also external prerequisites that contributed to the creation of a state among the Eastern Slavs. The endless steppes stretching between the Black Sea and the forest belt of the Russian Plain have long been the highway to Europe for warlike nomads, whose hordes were driven out of Asia every one and a half to two centuries. Many nomadic tribes tried to gain a foothold in these lands, but settled Slavic farmers were ready to stubbornly defend the fertile arable land, which yielded huge harvests.
The constant struggle with nomads contributed to the unification of the East Slavic tribes into the Old Russian people. In essence, the Kiev state emerged in the fight against external enemies and subsequently became truly a “form of survival” in the constant struggle with the Steppe.
In 882, according to the chronicle, the Novgorod prince Oleg, having previously occupied Smolensk and Lyubech, captured Kiev and proclaimed it the capital of his state. “Behold, be the mother of the Russian city,” the chronicler put the words into Oleg’s mouth. Oleg himself began to be titled Grand Duke. Thus, 882, when Northern Rus' (Novgorod) and Southern Rus' (Kyiv) united under the rule of one prince, became a turning point in the destinies of the Eastern Slavs. The unification of the two most important centers along the great waterway “from the Varangians to the Greeks” gave Oleg the opportunity to begin subjugating other East Slavic lands to his power. Thus began a long process of consolidation of individual tribal principalities of the Eastern Slavs into a single state.
The highest political power in Kievan Rus was represented by the Grand Duke. He acted as legislator, military leader, supreme administrator and supreme judge. Since the time of the first Russian princes, known from the chronicles, Rurik and Oleg, princely power became individually hereditary, and this gave it legitimacy in the eyes of its contemporaries. The idea of the chosenness of people belonging to the princely family was affirmed. Gradually, the power of the prince began to be perceived as state power. By the end of the 10th century, the Kiev state acquired the features of an early feudal monarchy. The adoption of Christianity by Russia was of great importance. The Church strengthened the authority of the prince, considering his power as God-given. In 996, a council of Russian bishops solemnly declared to Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich: “You have been appointed by God to be executed by the evil, and by the good to mercy.”
The political system of Kievan Rus became the subject of scientific research back in the 18th century. In pre-revolutionary historiography, Kievan Rus was primarily viewed as a distinctive society and state, developing in a different way than Europe or Asia. N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky was the first Russian historian to try to prove the presence in Russian history of a feudal period similar to Western feudalism. Since the 30s. XX century Soviet historiography affirms the idea of the Old Russian state as an early feudal monarchy. Despite the critical attitude of a number of scientists of the Soviet and post-Soviet times to this concept (S.V. Bakhrushin, S.V. Yushkov, I.Ya. Froyanov), it still dominates in historical works.
The early feudal monarchy grew out of tribal relations and was characterized by the weakness of the central government, fragmentation of the territory and the preservation of significant remnants of tribal self-government. This form of government existed in some European countries - in the Frankish state, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, and the German Empire. In the political system of Kievan Rus one can also find signs characteristic of this type of statehood.
At the head of the Old Russian state was the Grand Duke of Kiev, who owned the highest economic, administrative, judicial and military power. He, however, was not the sole ruler of the state, and his power had not yet acquired a clearly hereditary character. There were various ways to replace the grand ducal throne: inheritance, violent seizure, and finally, election by the veche. The latter method, however, was of an auxiliary nature: the election of a prince by the veche usually only reinforced his inheritance or usurpation of power.
The prince ruled with the help of a squad, divided into senior (“boyars”, “men”) and junior (“gridi”, “youths”, “children”). The senior squad was actually the princely council. Together with her, the prince made decisions about campaigns, collecting tribute, building fortresses, etc.
The Boyar Duma subsequently grew out of it. The squad was supported by the prince at his own expense: from spoils from aggressive campaigns, deductions from tribute and court fees. Princely feasts were a means of uniting the warriors and maintaining the authority of the prince among them. State affairs were discussed at them, disputes and conflicts between combatants were resolved, and positions were distributed. In the depths of the druzhina organization, even before the formation of the Old Russian state, the so-called decimal or numerical system of government developed, which later spread to cities and communities: the population was divided into tens, hundreds, thousands, headed by tens, sots, and thousand, respectively.
The prince's closest relatives - brothers, sons, nephews - formed a special aristocratic stratum that stood above other warriors. Some of them had their own squads. Occupying the Kiev table, the new prince usually united his own squad with the squad of his predecessor.
To collect tribute from the subject population, the Kyiv princes undertook special campaigns - polyudye. Initially, tribute was collected in furs, from the 11th century. Monetary tribute prevailed. For a long time, tribute was not standardized, and its size was determined either by the appetite of the prince and his warriors, or by the possibility of using tribute as a means of putting pressure on disobedient subjects. The establishment of tributary relations meant the entry of one or another territory into the Old Russian state, and polyudye itself was a way of governing the country in the absence of a developed state apparatus, since the princes settled conflicts on the spot, held court, resolved border disputes, etc.
Gradually, a princely administration was formed from warriors and people personally dependent on the prince, the most important role in which belonged to the prince’s local representatives: posadniks (governors) in cities and volostels in rural areas. They did not receive a salary for their service and were supported by taxes from the population - the so-called feed. This system was called feeding, and the officials were called feeders.
The princely household was managed by a nobleman. He was helped by tiuns, appointed from the prince's courtyard servants. They were also present at the court of the prince or mayor and even often replaced them in court. The tax collectors kept track of the collected tribute, the trade duty - “wash” - was collected by the mytniki, the fine for murder - “viru” - by the virniki, the duty for the sale of horses - “spot” - by the stainers.
Despite some growth in the princely administration, the state apparatus of the Old Russian state remained primitive. State and palace functions had not yet been separated from each other and were performed by the same persons.
The development of feudal relations contributed to the strengthening of the positions of local feudal lords - princes and boyars. Their status as large patrimonial owners combined the right to land and the right to power. Being vassals of the Grand Duke, they were obliged to serve him. At the same time, they were complete masters in their estates, had the right of immunity, that is, they carried out some state functions in their possessions and could have their own vassals.
Thus, the so-called palace-patrimonial management system is finally taking shape, in which two control centers are distinguished - the princely palace and the boyar patrimonial estate, power is divided between large land owners - the prince and the boyars, and the implementation of the most important state functions is entrusted to their representatives, who are also officials persons and managers of patrimonial farms. The state apparatus actually coincided with the apparatus for managing the princely and boyar estates.
There were no judicial bodies as special institutions in the Old Russian state. Justice was administered by the prince or his representatives on the basis of customary law and the norms of Russian Truth. As patrimonial land ownership became established and boyar immunity was established, the importance of the boyar court over dependent peasants grew. The transformation of Christianity into the state religion led to the emergence of ecclesiastical jurisdiction that extended to the clergy.
The formation of the Old Russian state did not entail the immediate liquidation of tribal principalities. Local princes were in vassal dependence on the Grand Duke, which was reduced to paying tribute and participating in the military enterprises of Kyiv.
In fact, the Old Russian state was a federation of lands under the suzerainty of the Kyiv prince. As the grand-ducal family grew, the Kyiv princes practiced allocating separate lands - appanages - for the reign of their sons. They gradually replaced princes from local dynasties. For some time this strengthened the grand ducal power.
The veche continued to play an important role in the Old Russian state. From a tribal gathering of the ancient Slavs, it turned into a meeting of townspeople. The decisive word at veche meetings belonged to the city nobility. The most important issues in the life of the city community were discussed at the meeting. The role of the veche in organizing the defense of the city was especially significant: it formed the people's militia and elected its leaders - thousand, sotsky, ten. Sometimes the veche elected princes and entered into an agreement (row) with them. Of the 50 princes who occupied the Kiev table in the 10th - early 13th centuries, 14 were invited to the veche. The attributes of the veche were the veche bell and a special tribune rising above the square - the degree. There was a certain procedure for conducting the meeting, and, perhaps, recording of speeches was sometimes practiced. Decisions at the meeting were made by a majority vote. In a large city there could be several veche meetings. The first mention in the chronicles of the city council is dated 997 (Belgorod near Kiev).
Many historians considered the veche as an organ of democracy. At the same time, they differently assessed the place of the veche in the system of governance of the Old Russian state. AND I. Froyanov believed that the veche was the supreme institution in the city-states of Ancient Rus'; M.B. Sverdlov, on the contrary, argued that the convening of veche was episodic, usually in emergency circumstances of war or uprising and mainly in the cities of North-Western Rus'. According to academician V.L. Yanina, in the veche allotment of personal land, livestock, and household equipment constituted the personal property of each family. Arable land, meadows, forests, ponds, etc. were in common use. Arable land and meadows were subject to division among community members, carried out every few years. The community was engaged in the redistribution of land plots, distributed taxes between households, resolved disputes between community members, and searched for criminals. The institution of mutual responsibility operated within the community. Community self-government was headed by an elected headman. The state was interested in preserving communal order, since with their help it was easier to collect taxes and ensure the loyalty of the population to the princely government.
The development of feudal relations and the growth of large land ownership resulted in the gradual subordination of communities to the state or individual feudal lords. Along with the elected elders, clerks and other officials appointed by the princes and boyars appear. Over time, elders also began to be appointed by feudal lords.
Legislative system. "Russian Truth"
The formation of statehood in Kievan Rus was accompanied by the formation and development of the legislative system. Its original source was customs, traditions, and opinions that came from the primitive communal system.
Among the earliest known monuments of Russian law are Russian law(apparently a set of oral rules of customary law), treaties between Rus' and Byzantium 911, 944, 971, related to international, trade, procedural and criminal law, mainly in the military-merchant environment; church statutes X-XI centuries, containing norms of marriage and family relations, crimes against morality and the church, etc.
The largest monument, a genuine code of Old Russian law, which widely reflected the features of the political and socio-economic system of the Old Russian state, is Russian Truth. Amazing with the high level of lawmaking and the legal culture developed for its time, this document was in force until the 15th century. and consisted of: Separate norms of the Russian Law; The Most Ancient Truth or the Truth of Yaroslav; Additions to Yaroslav's Truth (provisions on collectors of court fines), etc.; Pravda Yaroslavich (Russian Truth, the land, approved by the sons of Yaroslav the Wise); the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh, which included the Charter on cuts (interests), the Charter on procurement, etc.; Extensive Russian Truth.
The original text of Russian Pravda has not survived, and more than a hundred copies of this document have reached us, including three main editions: Brief, Long and Abridged.
Brief edition (Brief Truth), prepared no later than 1054, it is the oldest edition and consists of Pravda Yaroslav, Pravda Yaroslavich, Pokon Virny, Lesson of the Bridge Workers.
Associated with the name of Vladimir Monomakh Long edition, which arose no earlier than 1113 and included the Court of Yaroslav and the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh.
Revised Extensive Truth in the middle of the 15th century. received the name Abridged edition.
The evolution of Russian Pravda was based on the gradual expansion of legal norms from the princely (dominant) law among the squad, the definition of fines for various crimes against the person. The law provided for inequality of rights for people belonging to different social groups (combatants, feudal lords, rural community members, servants).
Certain legal privileges were also provided for such groups of the population as princes, boyars, princely men, princely tiuns, firemen (managers of the estate), etc. For the murder of a representative of a privileged class, higher criminal liability and a special procedure for inheriting real estate (land) were established.
Legally and economically independent categories included townspeople and community smerdas, who paid taxes and bore certain duties in favor of the state. Thus, a free community member had the right to bequeath property to his children, but land only to his sons. In the absence of heirs, the property came into communal ownership. Smerd also had the legal right to protect his person and property and bore corresponding responsibility for crimes or misdemeanors committed.
Along with free smerds, Russkaya Pravda mentions dependent people - purchases, ordinary people, etc., who owned their own household, but for one reason or another became partially dependent on the feudal lord and worked a significant part of their time on patrimonial lands. Thus, the Long Pravda contains the Procurement Charter. Purchase- a person who took from a feudal lord any valuable “kupa” (loan) in the form of land or money, grain, etc. In this case, the volume of debt service was determined by the creditor himself. Often the purchase worked for the feudal lord only for interest, and the “purchase” taken at the time had to be returned in full. A certain limit to this enslaving dependence was set by Vladimir Monomakh
After the purchase uprising in 1113, limits were established on the permissible interest rates for the “kupa”. This law protected the person and property of the purchaser. However, for a crime, a purchase could be turned into a serf (slave). A similar fate awaited him in case of non-payment of debt or escape. Thus, the page of enslavement, the gradual enslavement of former free community members, was opened.
A complete serf or “slave servant” did not possess any property; everything he used belonged to the master. Meanwhile, the lives of slaves, who made up the special service personnel of the princely or boyar's court (servants, children's educators, artisans, etc.), were protected by higher penalties. Russian Truth introduced certain regulation into the sources of servility. Among them are self-sale into slavery of one person or an entire family, marriage to a slave or birth from a slave, loss of the status of a free person upon entering service without a special reservation, committing a serious crime, escaping a purchase from a master, etc. Captivity, however, as a source of slavery I did not find any reflection in Russian Pravda. And yet, for the Old Russian state, the enslavement of peasants, their attachment to the land and the personality of the feudal lord was not yet typical.
The vira (fine) for murder or mutilation was very differentiated. Its size depended on the category of the victim. 80 hryvnia (hryvnia is a unit of monetary account corresponding to 50 g of silver) for the “best people”, 40 for a simple free person, 20 for causing serious injury, etc. In this case, the vira went to 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 a vira.
Yaroslav the Wise was involved in legislation a lot; he went further than his father (Vladimir Krasnoe Solnyshko) in realizing his role as a sovereign ruler, and introduced important innovations in financial, family and criminal law. His “Church Charter” introduced a legislative act that regulated the relationship between princely power and the church, as well as rights in the field of court, collection of tribute, etc. At the beginning of the 11th century. he affirms the Russian Truth, apparently compiled during his reign in Novgorod and attempting to regulate the relationship between the Novgorodians and the Varangians, who were part of the princely squad. The prince himself was called, like the Byzantine rulers, king, as evidenced by the inscription of the 11th century. on the wall of St. Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. The legend tells that Metropolitan Neophytos, presenting Greek gifts: the cross of the life-giving tree, the carnelian cup of Augustus Caesar, the crown, golden chain and bars of Constantine Monomakh, the grandfather of the Grand Duke, crowned Yaroslav the Wise in the Kiev Cathedral Church with the imperial crown and proclaimed him Tsar of Russia.
Sons of Yaroslav the Wise in the 11th century. significantly supplemented and changed the text of the Russian Pravda, creating the so-called Yaroslavich Pravda.
In 1097, on the initiative of Vladimir Monomakh, the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, a congress of princes was held in the city of Lyubech , the goal of which was to eliminate strife and take measures to protect the Russian land from the Polovtsians. New rules for organizing power in Rus' were introduced. Each prince "kept his fatherland." However, this principle did not become an immutable law, and strife resumed. Vladimir Monomakh, distinguished by his statesmanlike mind, willpower and energetic activity, carried out a major revision of the Russian Pravda. Additions and changes were made, in particular, limiting the arbitrariness of moneylenders, three cases of turning a poor man into a slave were identified, and measures were introduced to protect the property rights of merchants. It was noted above that he introduced the Procurement Charter, which regulated bonded debt and borrowing relations, partly protected the personal and property interests of purchases, somewhat reduced the interest charged by moneylenders from poor citizens, etc.
Vladimir Monomakh remained in historical memory as a talented ruler of the state, who devoted all his efforts to strengthening the unified government, preserving the unity of the country and its transformation. "Monomakh's teaching to children"- a genuine wish for his descendants: respect for elders, observance of laws, so that there are no litigations and quarrels over land and civil strife in Rus', so that the country remains strong, united, well governed.
Mstislav, son of Vladimir Monomakh(1076-1132), was the last prince of a united Rus'; with his death, the Russian land finally disintegrated, and a long period of feudal fragmentation began.
Power is one of the fundamental principles of society and politics. It serves as the basis of policy and is capable of having, albeit indirectly, a tangible impact on various spheres of society.
Power appeared with the emergence of human society and accompanied its development, which is reflected in various teachings about power.
In terms of its form of government, the Old Russian state was a typical early feudal monarchy. The Grand Duke was the eldest (suzerain) in relation to the local princes. He owned the largest and strongest principality. Relations with other princes were built on the basis of contracts - letters of the cross, which determined the rights and responsibilities of the Grand Duke (to protect vassals, provide them with assistance and receive, in turn, help from vassals), as well as the rights and responsibilities of vassal princes.
The system of government bodies in the future in the Old Russian state was determined by the nature of political power under early feudalism, which was, as it were, an attribute of land ownership.
Local government in Russia and its legal basis were formed under the influence of a combination of certain objective and subjective factors. Such factors operate in all countries, but have different consequences. Famous government expert I.A. Ilyin especially emphasized for Russia the importance of such factors as the size of the territory, population density and the degree of enormity of the tasks being solved by the people. With regard to national, social and religious factors, he was convinced that the more homogeneous a society is in terms of these characteristics, the easier it is to govern the state. The less developed the national way of life is, the less individualized its culture is, the more it needs state guardianship, including over the institutions of local self-government.
The development of local self-government in Russia, in which the state traditionally occupied a leading place and position, was possible only under the tutelage of the state. State guardianship of social institutions (policeism), including local self-government, led to the dominance both in municipal theory and in practice of a powerful system of state power.
A kind of “fatherly” assistance from the state is still necessary today.
For the development of local self-government, it is also necessary to form a management culture. Many problems at the municipal level are often aggravated by a subjective factor - the inability and unwillingness of officials to carry out coordinated actions in the interests of the population.
1. Gomola A.I. History of state and law of Russia: Textbook. allowance. / A. I. Gomola, S. G. Pantsernaya. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2005.
2. History of public administration in Russia. Textbook. / Rep. ed. V.G. Ignatov. – Rostov-n/D.: Phoenix, 2003.
3. History of public administration in Russia (X-XXI centuries): Reader / ed. R.G.Pikhoi. M., 2003.
4. History of public administration in Russia: textbook / N.Yu. Bolotina [and others]; Ed. R.G. Pihoi. M., 2006.
5. Kulikov V.I. History of public administration in Russia: textbook. manual for universities. M., 2003.
6. Linets S.I. History of the Russian state and its governing bodies. - Pyatigorsk, 1998.
7. Postovoy, N.V. Local self-government: history, theory, practice, M. Advertising-ed. Center "Fedorov" 1995.
8. History of Russia. http://rushistory.stsland.ru/index.html
Pihoy R.G. History of public administration in Russia. - M., RAGS, 2001.
Ignatov V.G. History of public administration in Russia. - Rostov-on-Don, Phoenix, 1999.
Markova A.N. History of public administration in Russia - M.., Law and Law, 1997.
A lot has been written about the political system of Kievan Rus, but no single view has emerged on this issue.
There are 2 main approaches:
1) The first approach represents Rus' as a principality, at first united, and then split into many more principalities.
2) The second approach assumes that Rus' is a confederation of East Slavic tribes or cities (city volosts).
1. The first point of view refers to the works of Russian historians of the 18th century (Tatishchev, Lomonosov). Prevalent in the first half of the 19th century. N.M. Karamzin wrote about Russian history exclusively as the history of autocracy. The scheme for the development of ancient Russian statehood, drawn by him, can be said to have become classic for Russian historiography. According to this scheme, the Russian state arose as a monarchy with the arrival of Rurik in Novgorod. Rus' becomes the property of the Grand Duke. The sovereign retains part of the land for himself, and distributes part to the Varangian warriors. The Varangians, according to Karamzin, constitute an army and a supreme council, in which the prince shares his power. According to Nikolai Mikhailovich, this order is violated by liberties preserved from ancient times. After the death of Yaroslav the Wise, Rus' is divided into fiefs and the first civil strife arises. The government at this time combines 2 opposite principles: autocracy and freedom.
According to Alexei Mikhailovich Solovyov, the political system of Kievan Rus took on a peculiar form. Like his predecessors, Soloviev considers Rus' a principality, the owner of the country. He does not consider the prince the owner, but the princely family as a whole. The Grand Duke of Kiev, in Solovyov’s view, is not a sovereign or even the supreme head of state, but the eldest in the family (physically). Over the course of the reign of Andrei Bogolyubsky, other relations (as defined by Solovyov - state relations) penetrated into the princely environment, which until the 17th century struggled with the tribal principle. Soloviev also acknowledges the existence of city volosts; the prince and the volost look like parallel political structures to him. That is, Rus', in Solovyov’s view, appears as a principality belonging to the Rurik family and a mechanical sum of city volosts connected among themselves by the princely family.
2.The second point of view spreads in the second half of the 19th century. It was defended by such outstanding historians as Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov, Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, Sergei Fedorovich Platonov, Alexander Evgenievich Presnyakov and many others.
According to Kostomarov, each of the East Slavic tribes (peoples) from ancient times constituted a special political entity of the earth. These lands were led by princes, but the highest power belonged to the veche. The arrival of the Varangians did not change the existing order of things. And at first, Rus' was just a crowd of “peoples” obliged to pay tribute to Kyiv. According to Kostomarov, the full unification of the Eastern Slavs was facilitated by the adoption of Christianity. In contrast to supporters of the first direction, Kostomarov believed that the placement of the sons of the Kyiv prince across the lands led to stronger unity.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky believed that the first political form of the Eastern Slavs was the city region, by which he meant a large trading district governed by the city. Klyuchevsky attributed the emergence of trading districts to the middle of the 9th century. Then, at the end of the 9th and during the 10th century, secondary political formations were formed - the Varangian principalities. Subsequently, and the union of the Varangian principalities and city volosts, he deduced the 3rd political form - the Grand Duchy of Kyiv, which was the beginning of Russian statehood. Klyuchevsky did not notice the strict order of movement of the princes. As the princely family grew, its individual branches diverged from each other and settled more firmly to reign in their own areas. As a result, Rus', with the collapse of the princely family, was again divided into city regions, where the princes turned into a political accident, and power ended up in the hands of the city council.
Presnyakov gave even greater importance to princely power than Klyuchevsky, but his result remained the same.
In Soviet historical science, both points of view were given out, the predominant of them was the first, according to which Rus' was a principality. (Boris Dmitrievich Grekov, Boris Arkadyevich Rybakov, Lev Vasilyevich Cherepnin and many others).
The second point of view began to develop and was revived thanks to the works of Ilya Yakovlevich Froyanov, however, the ideas of the bulk of Soviet historians about the political system of the ancient Russian state were quite close to the views of Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. The Marxist-Leninist methodological base was put under the scheme of the famous ancient Russian historiographer, with the exception of some particular points, the main features of the system and its development remained the same as his.
The founder of the Soviet dominant concept of the political development of the ancient Russian state was Boris Dmitrievich Grekov.
During the period of so-called feudal fragmentation, he did not deny the increasing political significance of cities and wrote about the increased importance of veche meetings. However, this did not affect the general definition of the political system of the ancient Russian lands as monarchical.
Ilya Yakovlevich Froyanov proposes a concept of political system based on his own conclusion about the transitional stage of socio-economic development of ancient Russian society, all this allowed him to return to the idea of domination of city volosts in Rus'. Initially, he believed that the first urban volosts (city-states) arose in the late 9th and early 10th centuries on a tribal basis, and in the 11th century a restructuring took place on a territorial basis. The structure of political power in Rus' seemed to him similar to the structure of the ancient Greek city-states. Then Froyanov, as the predecessors of the city-states of the 11th-12th centuries, identified the so-called super-unions that united the primary unions of the Slavic tribes. He found one of them in the south in the middle Dnieper region, the other in the north in the area of lakes Ilmen and Laduga. He attributed the emergence of super-unions to the 9th century. At the end of the 9th and beginning of the 10th centuries, as a result of the conquests carried out by the Polans, an all-East Slavic inter-tribal super-union emerged. At the same time, he noticeably accepts the role of the prince and his entourage. Froyanov’s views on the political system evolved from those close to Kostomarov to Klyuchevsky’s scheme. As a result, the process of development of ancient Russian statehood began to look like this: tribal unions --- unions of tribal unions (super-unions) --- common East Slavic super-union ---- city-states.
In modern historical science, the situation has hardly changed, the Froyan concept has gained even more supporters than in the Soviet period, but the idea of Rus' as a feudal monarchy has long been widespread. The rejection of Marxism by historians of the Soviet school essentially turned out to be temporary and partial and did not lead to a decisive revision of views on this issue.
At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, Russian historians, again like historians of Tsarist Russia, pay the main attention to the political process, but despite this, very little to the political system of Kievan Rus.
Polyakov A.N. – his views are based on the widest use of the works of his predecessors and on the widest source base. According to Polyakov, as a political association, Kievan Rus was formed from the central city community of Kyiv and also the subordinate communities of the Kyiv suburbs, created by the people of Kiev to maintain power over the surrounding Slavic tribes. This included Slavic and non-Slavic tribes who paid tribute to Kyiv. The development of the situation was that urban centers weakly connected with Kiev began to separate, and their quantitative growth also occurred. Because of this, the impression of the initial unity and collapse of Rus' arose. In reality, there was a gradual complication of the political structure, this was expressed primarily in the spread of the urban way of life. In the 10th century in Rus' there was one full-fledged urban community. (In the 11th century there were more of them. In the 12th century there were many of them.) Far from each other, they lived independently and were virtually independent of each other and of Kyiv. But at the same time, they remembered their origin, valued it and took it into account. They were united by a single cultural space and features of the socio-economic system. Fragmentation in this period existed as a historical fact, but was absent in the minds of people. Initially, the Russian urban community, gradually growing, turned into the Russian world. At the same time, the line between yesterday’s conquerors and the former conquered was imperceptibly erased; if we look at the attitude of the Kyiv prince only from the community of Kyiv, then we will not notice any significant changes of a political nature during the 10-13 centuries. In the 10th and 11th centuries you can see in Rus' many princes who belonged to different families. There is a noticeable desire to choose a prince from his own princely family. There was a disappearance of all the princely families except the Kyiv one. At the same time, this clan branched out, which allowed Russian urban communities to choose a prince among the numerous representatives of their own princely clan.
According to Polyakov, the reason why it has not yet been possible to solve the problem posed without conflicting with the source is that they have always tried to approach the political system of Kievan Rus from the point of view of modern ideas about the types of statehood, and sometimes the essence of the state as such.
Another reason is the nature of the chronicle information. The role of the veche and the ancient Russian city as a whole is clearly visible when the events are described by contemporaries, but if the chronicle talks about the events of the past, then the prince comes first, not because he had more power then, but due to the peculiarities of human memory and in connection with the tasks of chronicle narration.
An objective attitude to historical sources and facts forces us to say that Rus' cannot be called either a monarchy or a republic in its pure form, and in the modern understanding of these words, the power of the prince, if we mean any specific prince, was indeed high. It should be noted that the prince not only was not an autocrat, as historians believed, but he can hardly be called a real monarch. The prince did not rule Russia alone, he himself had power only because he belonged to a certain clan, he had to share not only with the squad, but also with those representatives of his clan who claimed their rights to its share. Contrary to Solovyov’s opinion, the princely family was not the owner of Rus', its owner. He ruled not only over the prince, but also over the entire princely family, the land, that is, the society. The townspeople, gathering at the meeting, sometimes quite decisively and sharply intervened in inter-princely relations, breaking all plans and orders. According to Kulikov, if we proceed solely from forms organization of power, then the ancient Russian princes were, of course, monarchs. But at the same time, there is a monarchy that is limited to the princely family, in relation to which the Grand Duke of Kiev is simply the eldest in the family, and not a monarch. And most importantly, this is a monarchy that is limited by society itself, which decides the most important issues at the meeting, and the prince is only one of the participants. The prince had great power, but only if it concerned individual people. The framework of princely powers was created not by laws or the creation of a certain body, but by the concepts of truth, justice and society itself. Which gathered at the right time for these gatherings. By type of statehood it can be called a veche monarchy. The veche monarchy in terms of the organization of power is a monarchy, and in content it is power limited by the veche, to which all full-fledged citizens gather. This position of the prince reveals in him a direct legacy of tribal times, the heredity of the princely status combined with complete dependence on society, typical of the tribal system.
