Pokrovsky Joseph Alekseevich

Kievan Rus of the 9th - 12th centuries is, firstly, the cradle of statehood of three fraternal peoples - Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and secondly, it is one of the largest powers of medieval Europe, which played a historical role in the destinies of the peoples and states of the West, East and remote North. Kyiv, the capital of Rus', was one of the five largest cities in the world.
The importance and necessity of studying Kievan Rus as the first state formation was already fully understood by our ancestors: Nestor’s “Tale of Bygone Years,” created at the beginning of the 12th century, was copied and duplicated by scribes for more than 500 years. And this is a wise instruction for us to study the glorious epic past of our Motherland in the fullness and diversity of historical sources available to us.
The era of Kievan Rus is the era of the greatness of our people, therefore I consider its history one of the most important pages of our past.
In this work, I would like to consider the role of the prince and the veche in the “political” sphere of society in the 9th – 12th centuries. Here the main question is how the relationship was determined between the called government and the calling tribes, as well as those who were subsequently subordinated; how the life of these tribes changed due to the influence of the governmental principle - the squad, and how, in turn, the life of the tribes acted on determining the relationship between the governmental principle and the rest of the population when establishing internal order, or order.
Sources and historiography

Sources on the history of Kievan Rus are quite abundant and varied. A good and detailed overview of Rus' and the feudal principalities was made in a solid collective work created under the editorship of V.V. Mavrodin: “Soviet Kievan Rus” (L., 1979), where the authors reasonably understand by Kievan Rus not only the period from IX to early XII century, but also the initial phase of feudal fragmentation until the beginning of the 13th century, which they substantiated in another also very useful publication.
Of great interest are the charters that have come down to us from the 12th century, some of which reflect individual transactions between feudal lords, and some give a broad picture of the entire principality. A whole series of princely and veche affairs are reflected in the birch bark charters of Novgorod the Great. Birch bark letters turn out to be a very important source when compared with chronicles, official material and later scribal books.
For the era of the existence of Kievan Rus of the 9th – 12th centuries, chronicles are still the most important historical source. Numerous works by historians and literary scholars have comprehensively examined both all-Russian chronicles and the chronicles of different regions.
Two works devoted to the bibliography and historiography of chronicle writing help to navigate the vast and inevitably contradictory literature on Russian chronicles: these are the works of V. I. Buganov and R. P. Dmitrieva.
If the 10th century left us only the chronicle of Kyiv, then the 11th century, when state chronicle writing in the capital continued continuously, added the chronicle of Novgorod, which often gave a different, local assessment of events and figures. In the future boyar republic (from 1136), interest in the life of the city is clearly visible, and some Kyiv princes are assessed negatively. It is possible that the initiator of the first chronicle of “Mr. Veliky Novgorod” was the Novgorod mayor Ostomir.
In the 12th century, chronicle writing ceased to be the privilege of only these two cities and appeared in every major center. Chronicles continued to be kept both in Kyiv and Novgorod.
Sources on the history of Kievan Rus are numerous and varied. The study of them and the extraction from them of data about the economy, social structure, political system and social thought is still far from complete.
In this work, I used several books - works of famous historians.
For example, the work of I. N. Danilevsky gives an idea of ​​the current state of domestic and foreign science in the study of the early period of Russian history (before the 12th century). The book is based on a critical rethinking of the source base used for historical constructions; it also includes a detailed analysis of the potential opportunities and experience accumulated to date in the study of Russian history by different schools of humanities.
The work of the greatest Russian historian S. M. Solovyov “History of Russia since ancient times” was used, which is a great scientific work, and the historical and cultural interest in which does not wane.
Also sources were the monographs of Rybakov B.A., who wrote fundamental works on the history of our Motherland, the study of the origin of the ancient Slavs, the initial stages of the formation of Russian statehood, Kievan Rus of the 9th - 12th centuries, the development of crafts, the culture of Russian lands and the art of the ancient Slavs.

Prerequisites for the formation of a state

and his education.

Origin of the Eastern Slavs

And the basis of the analysis of archaeological sites is the following: in the village. 1st millennium BC e. Proto-Slavs lived in Povislenie. They maintained ethnic contacts with the Balts, Germans, Illyrians, Celts, from the 2nd century. - with the descendants of the Scythians and Sarmatians. Finds of treasures of Roman coins and jewelry of the 1st–3rd centuries on the Kyiv hills. testify to the trade of the Slavs with the Greek colonies. In the 3rd century. the Slavs waged fierce wars with the Goths, and in the 4th century. - with the Huns. At the same time, the area of ​​settlement of the Proto-Slavs in the 4th century. expanded from the lower Elbe in the west to the tributaries and middle Dnieper in the east. The Slavs formed a single Indo-European community with the Germans.
From written sources we know the following: the Proto-Slavs - the Wends (as the Proto-Slavs were called in ancient sources of the 1st century) - lived in small villages. The social system is a tribal community. The basis of the economy from the I–III centuries. arable farming begins, as well as cattle breeding, fishing and hunting. Tools - axes, knives, sickles - were also made of stone. Bronze was used mainly for decorations, and from household equipment only for chisels needed in wooden construction. Herodotus wrote about the northern regions, where Scythian ploughmen lived near “many huge rivers,” “who sow grain not for their own needs, but for sale.” In the II century. The Slavs borrowed the “chetverik” grain measure from the colonists. Information about the life and social structure of the Eastern Slavs is contained in the work "Strategikon" by the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea. In the 4th century. Proto-Slavic tribes united into tribal unions.
We do not know for sure the origin of the Slavs either from archaeological or written sources. Some researchers believe that the Slavs were an autochthonous population of Eastern Europe; others believe that the Slavs descend from Herodotus’ “Scythian ploughmen”; still others believe that the Slavs descended from the Finno-Ugrians and Balts. The Tale of Bygone Years reports that the Slavs come from Central Europe. Academician Rybakov B.A. noted: “... judging by the landscape designations common to all Slavic peoples, the Proto-Slavs lived in the zone of deciduous forests and forest-steppe, where there were glades, lakes, swamps, but there was no sea; where there were hills, ravines, watersheds, but there were no high mountains."

Settlement of ancient Russian peoples

III–IV centuries The settlement of Eastern and Southern Europe by the Slavs begins.
Causes:
1. Slavic tribal unions were involved in the last wave of the Great Migration. In 530, Slavic migration intensified. The first mention of the “ros” people dates back to this time.
2. Appearance among the Slavs in the 4th–5th centuries. arable farming, which required new lands
3. Gradual cooling on the European continent.
The migration took place not from one region, but from different dialect areas of the Proto-Slavic area. This circumstance, along with the processes of assimilation of the local population, led to the collapse in the 6th–8th centuries. Proto-Slavs into three branches of Slavs: Wends, Antes and Sklavins. Wends - the ancestors of the Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Lusatian Serbs - Western Slavs. Sklavins - the ancestors of Serbs, Slovenes, Croats, Bulgarians, Balkan Muslims - southern Slavs. Ants are the ancestors of Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians - Eastern Slavs.
The Old Russian people formed over vast areas of the East European Plain. Neighbors of the Antes in the 6th–7th centuries. there were Finno-Ugric, Lithuanian, Turkic (Berendei, Obry, Torques, Khazars, Black Klobuks, Pechenegs) tribes. Relations with neighbors were uneven. In 558, the Avar Kagan Boyan killed the Duleb ambassador of Mezhamir and conquered their country. In 602, the Avars again sent an army under the command of Aspikh to the land of the Antes. The history of the Eastern Slavs begins from the period when an independent East Slavic language began to emerge from the Common Slavic (Proto-Slavic) language. This happened in the 7th–8th centuries. Tribal differences within the East Slavic community were determined by mixing with the peoples of the Finno-Ugric group.
During the period of settlement (IV–IV centuries), changes occurred in the socio-political structure:
1. East Slavic tribal unions were formed (Polyans, Northerners, Ulichs, Dulebs, Drevlyans, Volynians, Buzhans, White Croats, Dregovichi, Krivichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi, Ilmen Slovenes and others), each consisting of 120–150 tribes. According to the "Tale of Bygone Years" in the 8th century. 12–15 tribal unions lived in Eastern Europe
2. The clan community and patriarchal family were replaced by a branch
3. The transition from military democracy to early feudal monarchy began.

Political structure of Russian lands in the X–XII centuries.

Early 9th century marked the transition from military democracy to early feudal monarchy. The process of transforming the tribal nobility into land owners began. The structure of tribal “executive” power was taking shape - the prince, the squad (boyars, gridi, youths) and the structure of the “legislative” power - the veche. The feudal class was also formed by separating from the community its most prosperous members, who turned part of the communal arable land into property. 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. Gradually, against this background, the role of councils of elders and people's militias decreased.
Kievan Rus XI–XII centuries. was not a single state, nor was it a political federation, for princely congresses were a relatively rare phenomenon, they met only in exceptional cases, and decisions were not legally binding. All members of the Rurik family considered themselves natural-born princes and “brothers” among themselves; They usually call the eldest in the family, the Grand Duke of Kyiv, their “father,” but this is nothing more than an honorary appointment without any real content, especially since the Prince of Kiev was by no means always really the eldest in the family. In fact, each prince within his “volost” and in inter-princely relations behaved as an independent sovereign and his relations with other princes were determined “either by the army or by peace,” i.e. All controversial issues were resolved either by force of arms, or by agreements, treaties with other princes. This contractual principle in inter-princely relations runs through the entire ancient Russian history and stops only in the Moscow state.
Kievan Rus did not develop any specific order in the distribution of volosts between the princes, because that regular order of princely ownership, based on the principle of tribal seniority, did not actually enter the political life of Kievan Rus.

A number of other principles and factors that did not depend on seniority played a role in the distribution of princely tables. One of them was the principle of “patternship,” or hereditary ownership. Princes often lay claim to the named region that their father owned and where they were born and raised. Already the Lyubech Congress of Princes in 1097, in order to get out of difficulties, adopted a resolution: “let each one keep his fatherland.” Quite often, “tables” were distributed according to agreements and treaties between princes. Sometimes an order or will of a sufficiently strong and authoritative sovereign prince transferred the throne to his son or brother.
Quite often, the population of the older volost cities at the meeting decided on the issue of inviting some popular prince to reign or about expelling a prince unloved by the people, without, of course, paying any attention to the family scores of the princes. The Veche sent its ambassadors to the elected candidate for the throne with an invitation.
Finally, very often stronger, braver, enterprising and shameless princes occupied tables simply by force of arms, having defeated a rival prince. This practice of “getting” tables runs continuously throughout our ancient history.
Veche and princely power in Kievan Rus
Prince and princely administration in Kievan Rus.
The prince was an independent sovereign in relation to other ruling princes. Within his volost, the prince was the head of administration, the highest military leader and judge. Princely power was a necessary element in the state power of all Russian lands. However, the state system of the ancient Russian princely lands cannot be called monarchical. The state structure of the ancient Russian principalities of the 10th–12th centuries. represents a kind of “unstable balance” between two elements of state power: monarchical, in the person of the prince, and democratic, in the person of the people’s assembly or evening older volost towns. The power of the prince was not absolute; it was limited everywhere by the power of the veche. But the power of the veche and its intervention in affairs manifested itself only in emergency cases, while the princely power was a constantly and daily operating governing body.
The prince's responsibilities were primarily to maintain external security and protect the land from attacks by external enemies. The prince conducted foreign policy, was in charge of relations with other princes and states, concluded alliances and treaties, declared war and made peace (however, in those cases when the war required the convening of a people's militia, the prince had to secure the consent of the veche). The prince was a military organizer and leader; he appointed the head of the people's militia (“tysyatsky”) and during military operations he commanded both his squad and the people’s militia.
The prince was a legislator, administrator and supreme judge. He had to “act truthfully in this world.” The prince often entrusted the court to his deputies, “mayors” and “tiuns,” but the people always preferred the prince’s personal court.
The prince was the head of government and appointed all officials. Regional governors appointed by the prince were called “posadniks”. Administrative and judicial power was in the hands of the mayors. Under the prince and under the posadniks there were petty officials, partly from free people, partly from their slaves, for all kinds of judicial and police executive actions - these were “virniki”, “metalniks”, “children’s”, “youths”. The local free population, urban and rural, formed their own communities, or worlds, and had their own elected representatives, elders and “good people” who defended their interests before the princely administration. At the princely court there was management of the extensive princely household - “court tiuns”.
The princely income consisted of tribute from the population, fines for crimes and trade duties, and income from the princely estates.
In their government activities, the princes usually used the advice and help of their senior warriors, “princely men.” On important occasions, especially before the start of military expeditions, the princes gathered the entire squad for council. The warriors were personally free and connected with the prince only by bonds of personal agreement and trust. But there was no Duma with the boyars and warriors mandatory for the prince, nor did it impose any formal obligations on him. There was also no mandatory composition of the princely council. Sometimes the prince consulted with the entire squad, sometimes only with its highest stratum “princely men,” sometimes with two or three close boyars. Therefore, that “aristocratic element of power” that some historians see in the Russian princely Duma was only an advisory and auxiliary body under the prince.
But in this druzhina or boyar duma there also sat the “city elders,” that is, the elected military authorities of the city of Kyiv, perhaps other cities, “thousands” and “sotskas.” So the very question of accepting Christianity was decided by the prince in consultation with the boyars and “city elders.” These elders, or city elders, appear hand in hand with the prince, together with the boyars, in matters of government, as in all court celebrations, forming, as it were, a zemstvo aristocracy next to the princely servants. Along with the boyars and mayors, “elders throughout the city” were invited to the princely feast on the occasion of the consecration of the church in Vasilevo in 996. In the same way, by order of Vladimir, boyars, “gridi”, “sotsky”, “ten” and all “deliberate men” were supposed to come to his Sunday feasts in Kyiv. But while constituting the military-governmental class, the princely squad at the same time remained at the head of the Russian merchant class, from which it stood out, taking an active part in overseas trade. These are Russian merchants around the half of the 10th century. was far from being Slavic-Russian.
Organization of military forces in Kievan Rus.
The main components of the armed forces of the principalities in the X-XII centuries. There were, firstly, the princely squad, and secondly, the people's militia.
The princely squad was not numerous; even among the senior princes, it constituted a detachment of 700–800 people. But they were strong, brave, trained professional warriors. The squad was divided into the younger (lower, “youth”), which was called “gridy” or “gridboy” (Scandinavian grid - yard servant), “youths”, “children’s”, and the older (higher), which was called princely men or boyars. The oldest collective name for the junior squad “grid” was later replaced by the word yard or servants. This squad, together with its prince, came from among the armed merchants of large cities. In the 11th century it was not yet distinguished from this merchant class by any sharp features, either political or economic. The squad of the principality constituted, in fact, the military class.
Initially, the squad was supported and fed at the princely court and, as an additional reward, received its share from the tribute collected from the population and from military booty after a successful campaign. Subsequently, the warriors, especially their highest stratum, the boyars, began to acquire land and establish a household, and then they went to war with their “youths” - servants.
The princely squad formed the strongest core and the main core of the army. In the event of upcoming extensive military operations, the people's militia, made up of the free urban population, was called to arms, and in emergency cases, rural residents - “smerdas” - were also called up for military service.
Large trading cities were organized in a military manner, each formed a solid organized regiment, called a thousand, which was divided into hundreds and dozens (battalions and companies). The thousand (people's militia) were commanded by the “thousand's” chosen by the city and then appointed by the prince; hundreds and dozens were also elected by the “sotskiy” and “ten's.” These elected commanders constituted the military administration of the city and the region that belonged to it, the military-government elders, who are called in the chronicles “city elders.” City regiments, or more precisely, armed cities, took a constant part in the prince’s campaigns along with his squad. But the prince could call upon the people’s militia only with the consent of the veche.
In addition to the princely squad and the people's militia, auxiliary detachments from foreigners took part in the wars. Initially, these were mainly Varangian squads, which the Russian princes hired for their service, and from the end of the 11th century these were cavalry detachments of “their filthy” or “black hoods” (Torks, Berendeys, Pechenegs), which the Russian princes settled on the southern outskirts of the Kyiv region. land.
Veche.
The news from chronicles about veche life in Rus' is numerous and varied, although we find detailed descriptions of veche meetings very rarely. Of course, in all cases when the population of the city acted independently and independently of the prince, we must assume a preliminary meeting or council, i.e., a veche.
In the era of tribal life. Before the formation and strengthening of the Grand Duchy of Kyiv, individual tribes, glades, Drevlyans, etc., gather, if necessary, for their tribal meetings and consult with their tribal princes about common affairs. In the X and early XI centuries. with the strengthening of central power in the person of the Grand Duke of Kyiv (Vladimir the Holy and Yaroslav the Wise), these tribal gatherings lost their political significance, and from the middle of the 11th century they were replaced by an active and influential council of senior regional cities.
However, in exceptional cases (especially in the absence of the prince), the urban population shows its activity and initiative in the early period of the Kyiv state. For example, in 997 we see a veche in Belgorod, besieged by the Pechenegs.
After the death of Yaroslav (in 1054), when the Russian land was divided into several principalities, the veche of the main volost cities acted as the bearer of supreme power in the state. When the prince was strong enough and popular enough, the veche remained inactive and left the prince in charge of government affairs. But emergency cases, such as a change in the throne or the resolution of issues of war and peace, caused the imperious intervention of the veche, and the voice of the people's assembly in these matters was decisive.
The power of the veche, its composition and competence were not determined by any legal norms. The veche was an open meeting, a national gathering, and all free people could take part in it. It was only required that those participating not be under paternal authority (the fathers decided the veche for the children) or in any kind of private dependence. In fact, the veche was a meeting of the townspeople of the main city; residents of small towns or “suburbs” had the right to attend the meeting, but rarely had the actual opportunity to do so. The decision of the veche meeting of the senior city was considered binding for residents of the suburbs and for the entire volost. No law defined or limited competencies of the evening. The veche could discuss and resolve any issue that interested it.
The most important and common subject of competence of veche meetings was the calling, or acceptance, of princes and the expulsion of princes who were not pleasing to the people. The calling and change of princes were not only political facts, stemming from the real balance of forces, but were generally recognized right population. This right was recognized by the princes themselves and their squads.
The second - extremely important - range of issues to be resolved by the veche were questions about war and peace in general, as well as the continuation or cessation of hostilities. For a war with his own means, with the help of his squad and hunters from the people, the prince did not need the consent of the veche, but for a war with the means of the volost, when the convening of the people's militia was required, the consent of the veche was needed.

Development of political freedom and independence of the Great
Novgorod. Veche and princely power of Novgorod Rus'. .

X-XI centuries Novgorod was under the rule of the great princes of Kyiv, who kept their governor in it (usually one or their sons) and to whom Novgorod, until the time of Yaroslavl I, paid tribute on an equal basis with other Russian lands. However, already under Yaroslavl, a significant change occurred in Novgorod’s relations with the Grand Duke of Kyiv. Yaroslav “sat” in Novgorod in 1015, when his father, Vladimir the Holy, and his brother Svyatopolk died and began to beat their brothers in order to seize power over all Russian lands. Only thanks to the active and energetic support of the Novgorodians did Yaroslav manage to defeat Svyatopolk and take possession of the Grand Duchy of Kyiv.
The division of Rus' into several separate principalities weakened the power and influence of the Grand Duke of Kyiv, and discord and civil strife in the princely family provided Novgorod with the opportunity to invite to reign among the rival princes who were “loved” to him.
The right of Novgorod to choose any prince among all the Russian princes was indisputable and generally recognized. In the Novgorod Chronicle we read: “And Novgorod set all the princes free: wherever they can, they can capture the same prince for themselves.” In addition to the prince, at the head of the Novgorod administration was the mayor, who in the X-XI centuries. was appointed by the prince, but in the 30s. XII centuries the important position of mayor in Novgorod becomes electoral, and the right to change the mayor belongs only to the veche.
The important position of tysyatsky (“tysyachsky”) also becomes electoral, and the Novgorod veche “gives” and “takes away” it at its own discretion. Finally, from the second half of the 12th century. upon election of the veche, the high post of the head of the Novgorod church, the lord of the Archbishop of Novgorod, is filled. In 1156, after the death of Archbishop Nifont, “the whole city of people gathered and deigned to install a bishop for themselves, the man chosen by God was Arkady”; Of course, the chosen one of the veche was then supposed to receive a “decree” for the episcopal see from the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'.
Thus, during the XI–XII centuries. the entire highest Novgorod administration becomes elected, and the veche of the Lord of the Great Novgorod becomes the sovereign administrator of the destinies of the Novgorod state.
Government structure and administration:

Prince.
The Novgorodians were “free men,” they lived and governed “at their own free will,” but they did not consider it possible to do without a prince. Novgorod needed the prince mainly as the leader of the army. That is why the Novgorodians valued and respected their warlike princes so much. However, while giving the prince command of the armed forces, the Novgorodians did not at all allow him to independently conduct foreign policy affairs and start a war without the consent of the veche. The Novgorodians demanded an oath from their prince that he would inviolably observe all their rights and liberties.
Inviting a new prince, Novgorod entered into a formal agreement with him, which precisely defined his rights and obligations. Each newly invited prince undertakes to observe inviolably: “For this prince, kiss the cross to all Novgorod, on which grandfathers and fathers kissed, - keep Novgorod in the old days, according to the duty, without offense.” All judicial and government activities of the prince must proceed in agreement with the Novgorod mayor and under his constant supervision: “And the devil of the mayor, prince, do not judge the court, nor distribute volosts, nor give letters”; and without guilt the husband cannot be deprived of his parish. And in the Novgorod volost, you, prince, and your judges should not judge (that is, do not betray), and do not plot lynching.” The entire local administration should be appointed from Novgorodians, and not from princely men: “that the volosts of all Novgorod, you, prince, should not be held by your own men, but by the men of Novgorod; You will have a gift from those volosts.” This “gift” from the volosts, the size of which is precisely determined in the contracts, constitutes the prince’s remuneration for his government activities. A number of resolutions ensured the trade rights and interests of Novgorod from violations. While ensuring freedom of trade between Novgorod and the Russian lands, the agreements also required that the prince not interfere with Novgorod trade with the Germans and that he himself not take direct part in it.
Novgorod took care that the prince and his retinue did not enter too closely and deeply into the inner life of Novgorod society and did not become an influential social force in it. The prince and his court had to live outside the city, on Gorodishche. He and his people were forbidden to accept any of the Novgorodians as personal dependence, as well as to acquire land property in the possessions of Veliky Novgorod - “and you, prince, nor your princess, nor your boyars, nor your nobles should hold villages, nor buy, nor accepted freely throughout the Novgorod volost.”
Thus, “the prince had to stand near Novgorod, serving him. And not at the head of it, they have rights,” says Klyuchevsky, who points to the political contradiction in the structure of Novgorod: he needed a prince, but “at the same time treated him with extreme distrust” and tried in every possible way to constrain and limit his power.
Veche.
Mr. Veliky Novgorod was divided into “ends”, “hundreds” and “streets”, and all these divisions were represented by self-governing communities, they had their own local councils and elected sotsky, as well as Konchansky and street elders for governance and representation. The union of these local communities constituted Veliky Novgorod, and “the combined will of all these union worlds was expressed in the general council of the city” (Klyuchevsky). The veche was not convened periodically, at certain times, but only when there was a need. And the prince, and the mayor, and any group of citizens could convene (or “call”) a veche. All free and full-fledged Novgorodians gathered at the veche square, and everyone had the same right to vote. Sometimes residents of the Novgorod suburbs (Pskovites and Ladoga residents) took part in the veche, but usually the veche consisted of citizens of one older city.
The competence of the Novgorod veche was comprehensive. It adopted laws and rules (in particular, the Novgorod Code of Law, or the so-called “judgment charter”, was adopted and approved in 1471); it invited the prince and concluded an agreement with him, and in case of dissatisfaction with him, expelled him; the veche chose, replaced and judged the mayor and the thousand and sorted out their disputes with the prince; it chose a candidate for the post of Archbishop of Novgorod, sometimes it established churches and monasteries as “peace”; the veche granted the state lands of Veliky Novgorod to church institutions or private individuals, and also granted some suburbs and lands “for feeding” to the invited princes; it was the highest court of justice for the suburbs and for private individuals; was in charge of the court for political and other major crimes, associated with the most severe punishments - deprivation of life or confiscation of property and exile; finally, the veche was in charge of the entire area of ​​​​foreign policy: it made a resolution on the collection of troops, the construction of fortresses on the borders of the country and, in general, on measures of defense of the state; declared war and made peace, and also concluded trade treaties with foreign countries.
The veche had its own office (or veche hut at the head of which was the “eternal clerk” (secretary). The decisions or verdicts of the veche were written down and sealed with the seals of the Lord of Veliky Novgorod (the so-called “eternal letters”). The letters were written on behalf of all Novgorod, its government and of the people. In the Novgorod charter given to the Solovetsky Monastery, we read: “And with the blessing of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Veliky Novgorod and the Pskov Bishop Jonah, Mr. Posadnik of Veliky Novgorod, sedate Ivan Lukinich and the old posadniks, and Mr. Tysyatsky of Veliky Novgorod, sedate Trufan Yuryevich and the old mayors, and the boyars, and the living people, and the merchants, and the black people, and the entire lord sovereign of Veliky Novgorod, all five ends, at the veche, in the Yaroslavl courtyard, granted the abbot... and all the elders... these islands "...
The large Novgorod veche usually met on the trading side, in the Yaroslavl courtyard (or “courtyard”). The huge crowd of thousands of “free men” gathered here, of course, did not always maintain order and decorum: “At the meeting, by its very composition, there could be neither a correct discussion of the issue, nor a correct vote. The decision was made by eye, or better yet by ear, based more on the strength of the shouts than on the majority of votes” (Klyuchevsky). In case of disagreement at the veche, noisy disputes arose, sometimes fights, and “the side that prevailed was recognized by the majority” (Klyuchevsky). Sometimes two parties would gather at the same time: one on the shopping side, the other on the Sofia side; some participants appeared “in armor” (i.e., armed), and disputes between hostile parties sometimes led to armed clashes on the Volkhov Bridge.
Administration and court.
Council of gentlemen At the head of the Novgorod administration were the “sedate posadnik” and the “sedate thousand.”
The court was distributed among different authorities: the ruler of Novgorod, the princely governor, the mayor and the thousand; in particular, the thousand, together with a board of three elders from living people and two elders from merchants, was supposed to “manage all the affairs” of the merchants and the “commercial court”. In appropriate cases, a joint court of different instances acted. For “gossip”, i.e. To review cases decided in the first instance, there was a board of 10 “rapporteurs”, one boyar and one “zhitey” from each end. For executive judicial and administrative-police actions, the highest administration had at its disposal a number of lower agents who bore various names: bailiffs, sub-divisions, pozovniks, izvetniki, birichi.
The crowded veche crowd, of course, could not intelligently and thoroughly discuss the details of government events or individual articles of laws and treaties; she could only accept or reject ready-made reports from the senior administration. For the preliminary development of necessary measures and for the preparation of reports in Novgorod, there was a special government council, or council of gentlemen, it consisted of the sedate mayor and thousand, Konchansky elders, sotsky and old (i.e. former) mayors and thousand. This council, which included the top of the Novgorod boyars, had great influence in the political life of Novgorod and often predetermined issues that were subject to resolution by the veche - “‘this was the hidden, but very active spring of the Novgorod government’” (Klyuchevsky).
In the regional administration of the Novgorod state we find a duality of principles - centralization and local autonomy. Posadniks were appointed from Novgorod to the suburbs, and the judicial institutions of the older city served as the highest authority for the townspeople. The suburbs and all Novgorod volosts had to pay tribute to Mr. Veliky Novgorod. Troubles and abuses in the field of governance caused centrifugal forces in the Novgorod regions, and some of them sought to break away from their center.

Historical destinies of Ancient Rus'

The Russian land as an indivisible whole, which was in the common possession of the princes-relatives, from the turn of the 11th to the 13th centuries. ceases to be actually political reality.
Despite the differences between Kievan and Novgorod Rus, they had some common features. Everywhere we see as the main political institutions three forces: the prince, the squad (boyars), the city council.
At the same time, these principalities can be divided into two types: early feudal monarchy and feudal republic. They differed in which of the listed political bodies played a decisive role in them. At the same time, other power structures could continue to exist, although in everyday life they often remained beyond the attention of contemporaries. Only in extreme situations did society “remember” such traditional state institutions.
An example of the first type of state is the Principality of Kiev. The princes are fighting for the Kyiv throne. Possession of it gave the right to be titled Grand Duke, who formally stood above all other appanage princes.
In Kyiv (and subsequently in Galich and Volyn) the princely power was strong, relying on the squad. One of the first mentions of a direct attempt by the squad of the Kyiv prince to independently resolve the issue of who will sit on the Kiev table dates back to 1015. Having learned about the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, his squad offered to become the Kyiv prince to their youngest son Boris. And only his reluctance to break the tradition of subordination to the eldest in the family (this is how the chronicler interprets this episode, in any case) did not allow the squad to insist on its own. By the way, immediately after Boris refused to fight for power in Kyiv, his father’s warriors left him. Another example of this kind could be the meeting with his “husbands” in 1187 of the dying Galician prince Yaroslav Osmomysl about transferring power in Galich to his youngest son, bypassing the eldest - the legal heir.
.
The southern princes consulted with their squads when resolving issues of war and peace. So, in 1093, the princes Svyatopolk, Vladimir and Rostislav, before the start of hostilities, held a council with their “sensible men”: “Should we attack the Polovtsians or is it more profitable to make peace with them?” The question of the timing of the attack on the Polovtsians during the princely congresses of 1103 and 1111 was also discussed with the squads. At the same time, the prince’s voice turned out to be decisive, but only after he convinced the warriors of the correctness of his decision.
At the same time, in critical situations, when the prince for some reason could not fulfill his functions, the city council took real power into its own hands. This happened in 1068, when the Kiev prince Izyaslav could not resist the Polovtsians and fled from the battlefield. The consequence of this was the veche decision of the people of Kiev to remove the “legitimate” prince and install Vseslav Bryachislavich of Polotsk in his place. Only as a result of the most stringent measures did the former prince manage to regain the Kiev throne.
Another example is the situation when the Kiev veche in 1113, contrary to the existing order of succession to the throne (Kyiv was not his “patrimony” invited to the grand-ducal throne of Vladimir Monomakh. In 1125, the eldest Monomashich Mstislav was placed on the Kiev throne, and after his death in 1132, the people of Kiev transferred power to his brother Yaropolk. In 1146, the people of Kiev summoned Prince Igor Olgovich to the assembly, who, according to the will of his brother Vsevolod, was to ascend the Kiev throne. It is characteristic that Igor was afraid to appear at the meeting himself, and did not dare to ignore the “invitation”. As his plenipotentiary representative (while the pretender to the throne and his retinue sat in ambush), he sent Svyatoslav Olgovich to the meeting of townspeople, who had to listen to the complaints of the residents of Kyiv and promise to stop the abuses of the princely people.
The situation in Kyiv changed with the coming to power of Grand Duke Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky (1157-1174). If his father Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky spent his whole life seeking the Kyiv throne, then Andrei twice left the Kyiv suburb, where the Grand Duke put him in the North-East of Rus'. There he eventually settled. Having become the Grand Duke, Andrei moved his “table” to the former suburb of Suzdal - Vladimir-on-Klyazma. Moreover, in 1169, the united troops of the Russian lands under the leadership of Andrei attacked Kyiv, which tried to get out from under its influence, and plundered it. After this, the importance of the southern capital of the Russian land began to decline rapidly. Despite the fact that the second all-Russian campaign against Kyiv in 1173 turned out to be a failure, the former capital never recovered from the blow. In 1203, Kyiv was again plundered in a joint campaign of Rurik Rostislavich, the Olgovichi and the Polovtsians. The invasion of Mongol troops in 1240 only completed what the Russian princes had begun. Nevertheless, it was the southern Russian lands that for a long time continued to preserve the traditions of governance that had developed in Kievan Rus: the prince's power rested there on the strength of the squad and was controlled by the city council. Conventionally, this form of government is usually called early feudal monarchy.
Its own type of state power has developed in the North-West of Rus'. Here, princely power as an independent political force ceased to exist as a result of the events of 1136 (the so-called Novgorod “revolution”). On May 28, the Novgorodians placed their prince, the protege of the Prince of Kyiv, Vsevolod Mstislavich, under arrest, and then expelled him from the city. From that time on, the order was finally established to elect the Novgorod prince, like all other government positions of Novgorod the Great, at the veche. He became part of the city administrative apparatus. Now his functions were limited to military issues. The voivode was responsible for maintaining law and order in the city, and all power during the periods between veche gatherings was concentrated in the hands of the Novgorod mayors and the bishop (from 1165 archbishop). Complex issues could be resolved at the so-called mixed court, which included representatives of all power structures of Novgorod.
This type of government can be defined as feudal Republic, and the republic "boyar", "aristocratic".
On the one hand, only members of influential (aristocratic) boyar families were elected to the highest government positions (primarily posadniks, who apparently had full power during the breaks between meetings of the veche) in Novgorod.
On the other hand, the characteristics of the Novgorod state are associated with the aristocratic composition of the veche - the highest state body of Novgorod. According to V.L. Yanina, from 300 to 500 people gathered at the veche - people from the largest boyar "families" (as we remember, M.Kh. Aleshkovsky believed that the vechniks from the 13th century also included the richest Novgorod merchants). There is, however, another point of view, according to which not only all adult residents of Novgorod, regardless of their social status, but possibly also residents of the Novgorod suburbs, including rural ones, took part in the Novgorod veche (I.Ya. Froyanov, V F. Andreev, etc.). The most important issues in the political life of the republic were decided at the meeting. The main one is the election of officials who performed power functions: mayors, thousand, bishop (archbishop), archimandrite, prince.
Further development of the Russian lands could have followed any of the outlined paths, but the invasion in the second third of the 13th century. Mongolian troops significantly changed the political situation in the country. But this is a topic for a separate discussion.


Kievan Rus represented an entire era in the history of the Slavic peoples. It was the only Slavic state that could compete in its level of development with the leading countries of the world.

Ve"che (common Slavic; from the Old Slavic vet - council), a people's assembly in ancient and medieval Rus' to discuss common affairs. It arose from tribal meetings of the Slavs. With the formation of the Old Russian state (see Kievan Rus), the feudal nobility used V. to limit the power of the prince Veche meetings became widespread in Rus' with the weakening of princely power during the period of feudal fragmentation (2nd half of the 11th-12th centuries). In the chronicle, V. was first mentioned in Belgorod in 997, in Novgorod the Great in 1016, in Kyiv in 1068. V. was in charge of issues of war and peace, the calling and expulsion of princes, the elections and removal of mayors, thousand, etc., and in Novgorod also the archbishop, the conclusion of treaties with other lands and principalities, the adoption of laws (for example, the Novgorod and Pskov charters). Veche meetings were usually convened by the ringing of the veche bell on the initiative of representatives of the authorities or the population themselves; they did not have a specific periodicity. At the beginning of the veche charter adopted in the V., the names of the archbishop, the mayor, and the thousand were mentioned, then there was a speech about V.: “and. boyars, and living people, and merchants, and black people, and the entire lord sovereign of the great Novgorod, all five ends, at the helm, at Yaroslav's Court, commanded ... ". V. had a permanent gathering place (in Novgorod - Yaroslav's Courtyard, in Kyiv - the courtyard of the Church of Sophia, in Pskov - the courtyard of the Trinity Church). In addition, the V. of individual parts of large cities gathered (for example, the “Konchansky” V. in Novgorod). V. was not a true democracy; in fact, power belonged to the feudal and urban elites; however, it provided the masses with a certain opportunity to influence political life. The feudal nobility therefore sought to reduce the importance of the veche, and the princely government sought the complete abolition of the veche order. In Novgorod there was a special “council of masters”, which included the feudal nobility and which held actual power in the city. In North-Eastern Rus', where the cities were weakened by the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the power of the grand duke was strengthened by the end of the 14th century. liquidated veche institutions. However, during the aggravation of the class struggle, popular assemblies in cities repeatedly took the form of violence (uprisings in Tver in 1293 and 1327, in Moscow in 1382, 1445 and 1547, etc.). The veche system was maintained for the longest time in the Novgorod (until 1478) and Pskov (until 1510) feudal republics, where it reached its greatest development, as well as in the Vyatka land.

Lit.: Sergeevich V.I., Veche and Prince, M., 1867; Grekov B.D.. Kievan Rus, M., 1953 (historiographical review and bibliography on pp. 353-58); Tikhomirov M.N., Old Russian cities, 2nd ed., M., 1956; Yanin V.L., Novgorod posadniki, M., 1962; Epifanov P. P. About the ancient Russian veche, “Bulletin of Moscow State University, Series 9, History,” 1963, No. 3; Pashuto V.T., Features of the political system of Ancient Rus', in the book: Ancient Russian state and its international significance, M., 1965.

A. V. Artsikhovsky, A. M. Sakharov.

people's assembly in Rus'

General meeting of townspeople in Rus'

In Ancient Rus', a meeting of townspeople to resolve public affairs

People's Assembly in Rus' in the 10th-15th centuries.

. "Not every...smart speech"

. "Party" in Old Russian

Old Russian agora

Old Russian Duma in Novgorod

Old Russian rally

Old Russian collection

Duma of Novgorod

Or veche, Wed. old (broadcast? covenant?) national assembly, meeting, secular gathering. At one meeting, but not just one speech. A large meeting, general, legal, decent, with the mayor, thousand, etc.; small or veche, private gatherings and meetings, often unauthorized, illegal, seditious; or convened in the vestibule of a prince, a ruler, a public, open court. To celebrate, to stand, to be at a meeting, to confer. Ceremony, action according to verb. Gathering area, meeting place; bell ringing for convening a meeting and the tower itself, bell tower, vezha or veche. Become a veche, gather for a meeting. Veche Vologda. full meaning alarm, alarm, flash; not so long ago back in the Urals. Kaz. This custom lived in the army, but there the veche ringing was called a flash, and the gathering was called a military circle. Vechevoy, eternal, related to the evening. Eternal clerk, veche secretary; scribe Eternal letter, conclusion of the evening. Vechnik m. member of the veche, layman with a voice at the meeting; deputy, representative, elected. Forever? and. arch. speech, lamentation? gathering

World meeting

Rally in Veliky Novgorod

Rally in Rus'

Novgorod House of Commons

Novgorod forum

Novgorod People's Assembly

Novgorod meeting

Pskovskoye near Vasnetsov

Russian Duma in the distant past

Gathering of townspeople in Rus'

Slavic forum

Townspeople's meeting

Meeting of citizens in Rus'

Meeting of city residents (historical)

Meeting of city residents (historical)

Meeting in Rus'

Meeting in Old Russian

Meeting of Russians

Meeting among the Slavs

Advice from the Slavs

An ancient name for a gathering of people

Gathering in Ancient Novgorod

Gathering of townspeople in Rus'

Gathering of ancient Novgorodians

Gathering of Novgorodians

Gathering of Russians

Random screaming, arguing

In Ancient Rus' - a people's assembly of free citizens, at which all important public and state affairs were decided

In Ancient Rus', a meeting of townspeople to resolve public affairs

Old Russian Parliament

Prototype of the State Duma in ancient Novgorod

Townspeople's meeting (historical)

Lower house of the Yugoslav parliament

People's Assembly in Rus' in the X-XIV centuries.

Meeting of Vyatichi

Assembly of the Slavs

Public meeting

Gathering of Vyatichi

Slavic collection

Novgorod gathering

. "party" in Old Russian

Meeting

Collection of Old Russian

. "get-together" in Old Russian

Advice from the Slavs

. “not every... smart speeches”

. “Novgorod...” by Andrey Ryabushkin

Novgorod agora

) the feudal nobility used to limit the power of the prince. Veche meetings became widespread in Rus' with the weakening of princely power during the period of feudal fragmentation (2nd half of the 11th-12th centuries). In the chronicle Veche (people's assembly in Rus') first mentioned in Belgorod under 997, in Novgorod the Great - under 1016, Kyiv - under 1068. Veche (people's assembly in Rus') was in charge of issues of war and peace, the calling and expulsion of princes, the elections and removal of mayors, thousand, etc., and in Novgorod also the archbishop, the conclusion of treaties with other lands and principalities, the adoption of laws (for example, the Novgorod and Pskov charters of judgment). Veche meetings were usually convened by the ringing of the veche bell on the initiative of representatives of the authorities or the population themselves; they did not have a specific frequency. At the beginning of the veche letter adopted at Veche (people's assembly in Rus'), the names of the archbishop, the mayor, the thousand were put, then there was talk about Veche (people's assembly in Rus'): “and the boyars, and the living people, and the merchant, and the black people, and the whole lord sovereign of the great Novgorod, all five ends, at the crown, at the Yaroslav Court, commanded...”. Veche (people's assembly in Rus') had a permanent gathering place (in Novgorod - Yaroslav's Courtyard, in Kyiv - the courtyard of the Church of Sophia, in Pskov - the courtyard of the Trinity Church). In addition, they were going to Veche (people's assembly in Rus') separate parts of large cities (for example, “Konchansky” Veche (people's assembly in Rus') in Novgorod). Veche (people's assembly in Rus') there was no genuine democracy; in fact, power belonged to the feudal and urban elites; however, it provided the masses with a certain opportunity to influence political life. The feudal nobility therefore sought to reduce the importance Veche (people's assembly in Rus'), and the princely authorities sought the complete abolition of the veche order. In Novgorod there was a special “council of masters”, which included the feudal nobility and which held actual power in the city. In North-Eastern Rus', where the cities were weakened by the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the power of the grand duke was strengthened by the end of the 14th century. liquidated veche institutions. However, during the intensification of the class struggle, popular assemblies in cities repeatedly took the form Veche (people's assembly in Rus')(uprisings in Tver in 1293 and 1327, in Moscow in 1382, 1445 and 1547, etc.). The veche system was maintained for the longest time in the Novgorod (until 1478) and Pskov (until 1510) feudal republics, where it reached its greatest development, as well as in the Vyatka land.

Lit.: Sergeevich Veche (people's assembly in Rus') I., Veche and Prince, M., 1867; Grekov B.D.. Kievan Rus, M., 1953 (historiographical review and bibliography on pp. 353-58); Tikhomirov M.N., Old Russian cities, 2nd ed., M., 1956; Ioannina Veche (people's assembly in Rus') L., Novgorod Posadniki, M., 1962; Epifanov P. P. About the ancient Russian veche, “Bulletin of Moscow State University, Series 9, History,” 1963, No. 3; Pashuto Veche (people's assembly in Rus') T., Features of the political system of Ancient Rus', in the book: Ancient Russian state and its international significance, M., 1965.

A. Veche (people's assembly in Rus') Artsikhovsky, A. M.