Political system of Kievan Rus’

a) Kievan Rus’ was the early-feudal monarchy. Formally, at the head of the state was Grand Prince. But depending on his real authority the lead role played boyars' council and veche.

The title of “grand prince” designated the senior prince of the Rurikid dynasty in Rus principalities from the era of Kievan Rus’ until 1721. In scholarly literature on Kievan Rus’ the term Grand prince is conventionally used to refer to the prince of Kiev. Succession to the position of grand prince was determined by principles associated with the rota system, according to which the position passed laterally from the eldest member of the senior generation of the dynasty to his younger brothers and cousins. When all members of that generation died, those members of the next generation whose fathers had actually held the position of grand prince of Kiev became eligible to inherit the position in order of seniority [2, 598].

Grand Prince had unlimited power. First of all, he was a military leader: he declared war and peace, state of siege. Another function of him was led the administration and the court. He had the right to enact new laws, change the old ones. Grand Prince collected taxes from the population, court fees and criminal fines.

Grand Prince of Kiev had some influence on church affairs.

First, Kievan Rus’ was a relatively free society, especially by the European standards of the time. Its princes, even within their individual principalities, did not have anything like the absolute power Russia's later czars would wield. Princely authority was limited by the power of aristocrats called boyars, who met in councils called dumas. Consulting with the boyars was the moral duty of the prince.

In the cities elected bodies called veches exercised considerable power. The power of these institutions varied from city to city and region to region, leaving some princes with significantly more power than others.

The first time the Primary Chronicle mentions a veche is under the entry for the year 997. In a tale about the siege of Belgorod (a new town founded by St.Vladimir of Kiev in 9918) by the Pechenegs, the chronicler recounts how the population of the town, pressed by starvation, assembled to decide on the best course of action. The decision to surrender the town was then overturned by the town-elders, at the request of an old man, who suggested a ruse. Divested of its legendary aspects (the execution of an elaborate deception, reminiscent of other stories of Near Eastern origin, to lead the Pechenegs astray), the brief narrative already contains several of the elements of the functioning of the veche which return in later reports.

The veche is, in principle, an assembly of the whole town population. It appears to have the power to decide certain important questions. Local elites (the town-elders) may act independently.

The five centuries of veche history may neatly be divided into two equally long periods: before and after the Tataro-Mongol invasions in the middle of the 13th century.

The veche is frequently mentioned by name in the chronicles, but more often its activity is implied in other terminology, such as “the people of such-and-such a town assembled and decided that […]”. If all these reports are collected, a very significant body of evidence concerning the veche emerges. The available evidence suggests that at the dawn of Russian history general popular assemblies played an important part in the political decisionmaking process. Along with the text from the annals, quoted above, that people had been assembling in veches of old in the Russian territories, there are for instance clear references in the 10th century treaties with Byzantium. In the treaty of 945, the emissaries stated that they had been sent by the grand prince Igor, his princes and boyars and the whole people of Rus’ (which in this instance meant Kiev). The treaty of 971 was concluded by the Kievan grand prince Sviatopolk who stated that his boyars and “all Russia” agreed with him The two examples from the Primary Chronicle, related above, to which numerous others could be added, demonstrate that the veche could act independently; it was obviously not only much more than an advisory body to the prince, but also more than a co-governing body, whose consent was required. The veche in many Russian towns could invite and dismiss its own prince. These powers might perhaps go back to arrangements in prehistoric times, but at least for the Kievan period they can be explained adequately in light of the dynastic peculiarities of Rurikid rule.

The veche could probably claim an ancient right to approve or disapprove of its prince, perhaps also to elect and dismiss him; but, in the course of the Kievan period at any rate, the strategic weakening of the prince’s position led to the institutionalization of this right by means of a riad, a contract between the veche and the prince. Such a contract was invariably concluded at the prince’s accession, but a new contract could be concluded when circumstances had changed. There is evidence that a riad was even concluded with a prince who had imposed himself by force, usually by ejecting his predecessor. This contract was formally confirmed by oath by both sides kissing the Cross (krestnoe tselovanie).

The contractual formula, once the riad started to be written down, was actually in the form of a request, and a declaration of readiness, to kiss the Cross. This is evidenced by the later contracts (or treaties) between Novgorod and a series of princes of Tver’, of which the first one extant dates from 1264.

Veches of major towns, and numerous chronicle reports refer to such events, would therefore encompass, as a rule, participants from other towns subordinate to the regional capital. Equally, members of the rural population of the province might be present at the veche in the capital town. In other cases, attendance at the veche could be much more restricted.

There are several stories of veches assembling during the siege of a town, and then obviously only the townspeople could attend. A veche might also be called in the field during a military campaign. Minor towns could have their own veche meeting. The inescapable conclusion from the abundant evidence in the chronicles is that the veche was actually an assembly of the people at hand.

The composition of the veche, the social side. Taking account of the mental and cultural setting of the medieval veche, one may easily understand that women could not take part and that fathers would speak for their sons. More intriguing is the effect of social stratification. A number of reports provide more detail by mentioning the various groups of participants: the higher clergy (the metropolitan in Kiev and the bishop in other major towns), the boyars, the leading citizens (luchshie liudi, narochitye liudi), merchants, common people (chernye liudi, the chern’), but the enumeration often ends with a formula like “and all the people of […]”. Commentators generally agree that this formula should be understood as referring to all the free people and would therefore exclude slaves, whose existence in early Kievan Rus’sia is not in doubt.

b) There was not well-established government in Kievan Rus’. For a long time there was desiatinnaia system, which preserved the system of military democracy and performed administrative, financial and other functions. Over time, it was displaced by the palace-patrimonial system of governance. Prince's court was the management center. Grand Prince settled his armed forces on his lands for ruling there till they performed military service. At court there are various agencies to manage specific sectors of the economy. It was called p osadnichestvo. Posadnik was a representative of the prince. He received one-third of the taxes levied on its content.

4. Social structure of Kievan Rus’

All population of Kievan Rus’ can be relatively divided into three categories according to their legal status: independent, half-dependent and dependent people.

The princes and prince's retinue (druzhina) were the leaders of independent people.

The earliest Kievan princes from the Rurikid dynasty are often shown as acting together with their retinue, their druzhina. The origin of the oldest part of the RP is in fact closely related to problems concerning the druzhina of Iaroslav the Wise (see the chapter on the RP).

The druzhina of the first Kievan rulers appears to have been predominantly ethnically Scandinavian, there are good reasons to assume that its set-up was generally in agreement with what was customary among Slavic princes. The evidence from different European cultures of the heroic era is strikingly similar. The druzhina in its heyday was characterized by the basic equality of its members, combined with a definite interior hierarchy. At the top was the leader, king or prince, surrounded by senior and junior members who had entered into a voluntary relationship of subordination. They were to respect the king’s leadership, but could unilaterally decide to leave. The king must treat his followers with respect and, in particular, supply them generously with everything required by their status.

The treaty of 912 with Byzantium was concluded on behalf of the Kievan grand prince Oleg “and all the serene and great princes and the great boyars under his sway” by fifteen envoys, all bearing apparently Viking names. The treaty of 945 was more detailed in its introductory provisions; it began as follows:

“We are the envoys and merchants of the Russian nation: Ivar, the envoy of Igor, grand prince of Rus’, and the general envoys Vuefast for Sviatoslav, Igor’s son, Iskusevi for the princess Olga [Igor’s wife], Sludy for Igor, Igor’s nephew, Ouleb for Vladislav, Kanitsar for Predslava, Shikhbern for Sfandr, Ouleb’s wife, Pras’ten’ for Turduv, Libiar for Fastov, Grim for Sfir’kov, Prasten for Akun,nephew of Igor, [and thirteen more of such pairs, plus one single individual Sverki], and the merchants, sent by Igor, grand prince of Rus’, and from each prince and all the people of the Russian land.” [1, 143]

All this fits perfectly into the druzhina construction, where a number of aristocratic personalities (they are called ‘princes’), each having their own military and trading interests, combine under the leadership of a king-like figure.

For the same year, the Primary Chronicle offers an entry of particular interest for understanding the druzhina system. Igor’s druzhina addressed its lord as follows: “The servants of Sveinald are adorned with weapons and fine raiment, but we are naked. Go forth with us, prince, after tribute, that both you and we may profit thereby.” Sveinald, as later entries in the Chronicle show, was a great magnate, who served as commander-in-chief after Igor’s death and during the minority of his son Sviatoslav. The treaty of 971 with Byzantium was concluded by “Sviatoslav, grand prince of Rus’, and by Sveinald”, without any indication of the latter’s status. He obviously had a druzhina of his own and was not an immediate relative of the prince. His absence among the signatories of the 945 treaty is conspicuous.

All through the period covered by the Primary Chronicle, i.e. up to 1116, the druzhina remains present as the prince’s retinue, taking an active part in political and military decision-making and being actually around the prince most of the time. In a few cases (in 996, 1078 and 1093), the Chronicle refers to the prince being accompanied by a “small druzhina”; then a small detachment in the nature of a bodyguard is obviously meant. This would agree with the subsequent development of the druzhina; in the First Novgorod Chronicle, the druzhina is still in evidence; initially, in the same sense as in the Primary Chronicle, but later on more and more as an ordinary detachment of moderate size. The members of such a force were just regular soldiers and not any longer the personal companions and advisors of the prince.

At the top were boyars. They formed the upper class of Kievan society. The boyars were reciprocal with merchants and the urban elite on the land of Kiev by their legal status. Their immunities and rights were: free of taxes, to be landowner (just boyars), if a boyar or a druzhinnik dies, his estate does not return to the prince. If there are no sons, the daughters will inherit, the word of boyars was the evidence in the court, and Russkaya Pravda protected life and property of boyars more careful. Their duty was a military serving.

The clergy were a part of a free population and they were divided into secular (white) and regular (black) clergy. The regular clergy played the main role in the state at that time; it was the clergy of monks and nuns. The best scientists (Nestor, Marion, Nikon), doctors (Agapitus), artists (Alimpiy), who held chronicles, rewrote books, organized different schools, lived and worked in monasteries as well. They also didn’t pay taxes.

The middle group of free people was given by cities. Townsmen were legally free, but in fact, they were dependent on the feudal top. They paid taxes, repaired the roads and bridges, in case of war they had to carry a military service.

The lowest group of a free population was represented by peasants – smerdy (servs). They owned land and cattle. Smerdy formed the majority of the Kievan Rus’'s population, they paid fixed taxes and they served in the compulsory military service with their own weapon and horses. Only smerd’s sons could inherit his property. Daughters could inherit only mother’s property. Russkaya Pravda protected a slave's property and his personality as well but a penalty for the crime against him was less, than for the crime against a boyar.

Half-dependent peoples were called zakupy. Russkaya Pravda protected this category of population by “Ustav pro zakupov”. On their legal status they were equal to the free people. They could be a witnesses in a court, they paid taxes e. g. Zakup was called a person who took a loan (kupu). When he returned this ‘kupa’, he would be free again. If he doesn’t give it back in time, he would turn to slave.

Dependent people were called slaves (kholopy). First only men were called so, but some time later all dependent people were called so. They were equal to the things; they had no rights, any property (they were property); they could be sold, changed, pawned; the owner bore the responsibility for the crimes committed by slave, and, in other hand, owner took fines for the crimes against his slave. The sources of slavery were: birth from slave, prisoners of war, marriage with slave, self-selling, runaway or non-payment debt zakup. The Russkaya Pravda also contained the norms wich protected this category of population - “Ustav pro kholopov”.

All categories of population weren’t closed. For example, smerd could turn in merchant, or boyar (for certain services to the state prince could grant a land and title). Or merchant could fail and become an izgoy. These were people who didn’t belong to any of other categories.

There was no question of all being equal under the law: the rape or abduction of the daughter of a boyar merited compensation of 5 grivnas in gold and the same sum as a fine for the bishop; but only one grivna of gold was demanded for the rape or abduction of a daughter of 'lesser boyars', and smaller sums further down the social scale.