lecture iv-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


and　Vladimir　on　the　Kliasm；　besides　those　of　Kiev；　Novgorod；
Pscov；　and　Viatka。
　　　　If　we　inquire　into　the　internal　constitution　and　functions　of
the　veche；　we　shall　have　no　difficulty　in　ascertaining　that　in
both　these　points　the　Russian　folkmotes　did　not　essentially
differ　from　those　of　other　Slavonic　nations。
　　　　The　chronicles；　when　they　speak　of　those　summoned　to　these
assemblies；　briefly　note　the　presence　of　all　the　citizens　of　a
definite　urban　division。　Expressions　such　as　the　following　are
also　more　than　once　met　with　in　the　course　of　the　narrative：　〃the
men　of　our　land；〃　〃the　whole　land　of　Galich；〃　and　so　on。　Hence；
it　is　evident　that　we　have　to　deal　with　a　thoroughly　democratic
assembly。　But　it　does　not　follow　that　all　the　inhabitants　of　the
city　were　summoned。　The　veche　was　not　so　much　an　assembly　of　the
whole　people　as　that　of　the　heads　of　families；　or　rather　of　the
natural　chiefs　of　Slavonic　house　communities　known　to　the
earliest　code　of　Russia；　the　pravda　of　Jaroslav；　under　the　name
of　〃verv。〃
　　　　On　several　occasions　the　unknown　authors　of　Russian
chronicles　seem　to　imply　that　the　men　assembled　at　the　folkmote
made　certain　engagements；　not　only　on　their　own　behalf　but　also
on　that　of　their　children。　For　instance；　〃the　men　of　Kiev；　in
folkmote　assembled；〃　declare　in　1147；　that　they　will　fight
against　the　House　of　Oleg；　one　of　the　branches　of　the　dynasty　of
Rurik；　not　by　themselves　alone；　but　also　by　their　children。　This
declaration　clearly　shows　that　children　did　not　appear　at　a
Russian　folkmote；　but　that　their　absence　was　solely　caused　by
their　personal　dependence　on　the　head　of　the　undivided　family。　We
may；　therefore；　infer　that　all　those　who　were　not　free　to　dispose
of　themselves　were　excluded　from　the　veche；　and　such　was　the　case
as　regarded　certain　members　of　undivided　households　and　those　who
had　forfeited　their　liberty　through　war　or　debt。　In　a　society
based；　like　the　old　Russian；　on　the　principle　of　blood
relationship；　undivided　households　must　have　been　numerous；　and
the　fact　that　the　heads　of　these　households　were　alone　summoned
naturally　diminished　the　number　of　persons　composing　the　veche。
It　may；　therefore；　be　easily　understood　how　a　large　square　such
as　those　on　which　the　princely　palaces　of　Novgorod　or　of　Kiev
were　built；　was　quite　able　to　contain　an　entire　assembly；
notwithstanding　the　fact　that　the　citizens　were　not　the　only
persons　admitted　to　the　meetings　of　the　veche；　for　the　suburbs
and　even　the　neighbouring　townships　had　the　right　to　have　an
equal　share　with　them　on　the　management　of　public　affairs。　The
chronicles　very　often　mention　the　fact　of　the　〃black　people；〃
〃the　smerds；〃　and　the　so…called　〃bad　peasants〃　（terms　designating
the　agricultural　population　of　the　country）　being　present　at　the
veche。　The　urban　district　was　as　a　rule　very　large；　the　lands
owned　by　the　citizens　in　some　cases　extending　to　hundreds　and
even　thousands　of　miles　outside　the　city　wall。　In　order　to
preserve　these　widely　scattered　possessions；　the　city　often　built
fortresses；　which　in　case　of　war　offered　a　refuge　to　the
inhabitants　of　the　surrounding　country。　In　time　of　peace　these
fortified　places　answered　another　purpose；　markets　were　regularly
held　in　them　and　hence　in　course　of　time　artisans　and　merchants
were　induced　to　choose　them　for　their　settled　abode。　The
population　increased　day　by　day；　the　fortress　became　surrounded
by　suburbs；　and　a　new　city　appeared　where　originally　there　had
been　nothing　but　a　wooden　fence　with　a　moat　or　ditch　around　it。
The　inhabitants　of　this　new　city　had　generally　the　right　to
appear　at　the　veches　of　the　metropolis；　but　they　usually
preferred　meeting　at　assemblies　of　their　own。　The　roads　being　had
and　not　always　safe；　they　did　not　see　what　was　to　be　gained　by　a
long　journey；　but　chose　rather　to　stay　at　home　and　hold　their　own
folkmotes　from　time　to　time。
　　　　The　chronicles　of　Sousdal　seem　to　imply　that　the　decisions　of
the　local　folkmotes　did　not；　as　a　rule；　differ　from　those　of　the
metropolis。　〃What　has　been　established　by　the　oldest　city；　is
maintained　by　its　boroughs。〃　Such　are　the　words　in　which　the
chronicle　expresses　the　mutual　relations　of　the　metropolis　and
the　daughter　towns。　The　real　meaning　of　the　sentence　is　not　at
all　that　of　dutiful　subjection　on　the　part　of　the　new　town
towards　the　mother　city。　The　writer　merely　wishes　to　suggest　the
idea　of　a　good　understanding　between　the　metropolis　and　the
boroughs　it　has　built。　This　good　understanding　was　not　always
maintained；　and　on　more　than　one　occasion　the　borough　came　to　a
decision　the　reverse　of　that　of　the　chief　city。　A　similar
disagreement　occurred　more　than　once　between　different　quarters
（konzi）　of　the　same　city。　Such　was　often　the　case　at　Novgorod；
divided　as　it　was　into　five　different　administrative　districts　or
wards；　which　more　than　once　held　their　own　separate　folkmotes　and
opposed　the　decisions　of　the　general　assembly。　Such　a
misunderstanding　sometimes　ended　in　open　war；　the　minority
refusing　to　submit　to　the　decision　of　the　majority。
　　　　This　fact　alone　shows　that　the　Russian　veches　admitted　no
other　mode　of　settling　public　affairs　than　that　of　unanimous
decision。　It　has　been　already　shown　that　this　mode　was　general
amongst　Slavonic　peoples。　A　few　quotations　will　prove　its
existence　among　the　Eastern　Slavs。　Whenever　the　chronicler　has
occasion　to　speak　of　one　of　their　decisions　he　employs　such
expressions　as　the　following：　〃It　was　established　by　all　the
oldest　and　all　the　youngest　men　of　the　assembly　that；〃　&c。；　〃all
were　unanimous　in　the　desire〃；　〃all　thought　and　spoke　as　one
man；〃　&c。
　　　　If　unanimity　could　not　be　arrived　at；　the　minority　was　forced
to　acquiesce　in　the　decision　of　the　greater　number；　unless　it
could　persuade　the　members　of　the　majority　that　they　were　wrong
in　their　opinion。　In　both　cases　the　veches　passed　whole　days　in
debating　the　same　subjects；　the　only　interruptions　being　free
fights　in　the　street。　At　Novgorod；　these　fights　took　place　on　the
bridge　across　the　Volchov；　and　the　stronger　party　sometimes　threw
their　adversaries　into　the　river　beneath。　A　considerable　minority
very　often　succeeded　in　suspending　the　measure　already　voted　by
the　veche；　but　if　the　minority　was　small；　its　will　had　soon　to
yield　to　open　force。
　　　　The　competence　of　the　Russian　folkmote　was　as　wide　as　that　of
similar　political　assemblies　among　the　Western　and　Southern
Slavs。　More　than　once　it　assumed　the　right　of　choosing　the　chief
ruler　of　the　land；　but　it　was　not　an　unrestricted　right　which
they　enjoyed；　the　choice　being　confined　to　members　of　the　family
of　Rurik；　for　the　Russians　considered　that　outside　Rurik's
dynasty；　no　one　had　a　right　to　exercise　sovereign　power。　The
folkmote　was　merely　empowered　to　give　its　preference　to　some
district　line　of　the　house　of　Rurik；　for　instance　to　that
directly　descending　from　Vladimir　Monomach；　from　which　the　veche
of　Kiev　elected　its　rulers。　It　was　also　free　to　pronounce　in
favour　of　a　younger　member　of　Rurik's　family；　notwithstanding　the
candidature　of　an　older　one。　The　choice　made　was　often　in　open
contradiction　of　the　legal　order　of　succession　maintained　by　the
dynasty　of　Rurik。　This　order　was　very　similar　to　the　Irish　law　of
tanistry；　according　to　which　the　Irish　crown　devolved　upon　the
oldest　representative　of　the　reigning　family。　In　practice　it
generally　meant　the　succession　of　the　deceased's　next　brother；
not　that　of　his　eldest　son。　The　strict　application　of　this　law　of
tanistry　would　have　necessitated　a　constant　change　in　the　person
of　the　ruler；　not　only　in　Kiev；　which　was　for　a　long　time
considered　the　most　important　principality　of　Russia；　and　which
was；　therefore；　the　appanage　of　the　chief　representative　of　the
dynasty；　but　also　in　the　other　Russian　dukedoms；　which　were
subdivided　into　a　great　number　of　secondary　principalities。　Open
force　had　very　often　to　decide　which　of　the　two　systems；　that　of
free　election　or　that　of　legal　succession；　was　to　prevail。
　　　　Whatever　was　the　issue　of　such　a　struggle　the　new　ruler　was
only　admitted　to　the　exercise　of　sovereign　power　after　having
subscribed　a　sort　of　contract　by　which　he　took　upon　himself　the
obligation　of　preserving　the　rights　of　those　over　whom　he　was
called　to　rule。　These　very　curious　documents；　known　under　the
name　of　〃riad；〃　have　unfortunately　been　preserved　in　only　one　of
the　Russian　principalities；　that　of　Novgorod；　　a　fact　which　has
induced　many　scholars　to　believe　that　this　right　of　covenanting
with　the　duke　was　limited　to　this　Northern　principality。
Professor　Sergievitch；the　well…known　Professor　of　Legal　history
in　the　University　of　St。　Petersburg；　was　the　first　to　prove　by　a
considerable　number　of　quotations　from　Russian　chronicles；　that
covenants　like　that　of　Novgorod　were　known　all　over　Russia。　More
than　once　mention　is　made　of　a　prince　securing　the　throne　by　a
compromise　with　the　men　of　Kiev　（s　liudmi　Kieva　outverdisia）。
These　compacts　or　covenants　between　prince　and　people；　so　far　as
they　are　known　to　us　by　the　few　examples　among　the　archives　of
Novgorod；　were　a　kind　of　constitutional　charter　securing　to　the
people　the　free　exercise　of　their　political　rights；　such　as　the
right　of　the　folkmote　to　discuss　public　affairs　and　to　elect　the
ruler　of　the　State。　This　latter　right　had　been　already　guaranteed
to　Novgorod　by　a　general　assembly　of　Russian　dukes　held　in　1196。
We　read　in　the　text　of　the　decisions　come　to　by　this　princely
congress；　〃All　the　dukes　recognise　the　liberty　of　Novgorod　to
choose　her　ruler　wherever　she　likes。〃　Other　constitutional
restraints　on　princely　power　are　　no　declaration　of　war　without
〃Novgorod's　word〃；　no　foreigner　to　be　nominated　to　the　post　of
provincial　governor　（volostel）；　no　public　official　to　be
dismissed　without　legal　cause；　acknowledged　to　be　such　by　the
decision　of　a　Court　of　law。　Thus　the　principle　according　to　which
most　English　officials　hold　office　〃during　good　behaviour〃　was
already　recognised　in　Russian　principalities　in　the　middle　of　the
thirteenth　century。　This　efficient　mode　of　securing　the
independence　and　dignity　of　public　officials　has　been　completely
abolished　in　later　days　under　the　Tzars　and　Emperors；　although
once　more　in　1863　its　necessity　was　admitted　by　the　legal
enactments　of　Alexander　II。　Unfortunately　no　attention　is　any
longer　paid　to　the　promises　given　to　this　effect　by　the　codes　of
civil　and　criminal　procedure；　and　many　a　judge　has　been　removed
in　recent　times　by　a　simple　order　of　the　Minister　of　Public
Justice。
　　　　Returning　to　the　constitutional　guarantees　secured。　by　the
new　ruler　to　his　future　subjects；　I　must　point　out　that　those
already　mentioned　seem　to　have　been　common　to　all　the　different
principalities　of　Russia。　The　same　cannot　be　said　of　the
following　two：　first；　the　obligation　to　judge　nobody　without　the
assistance　of　a　special　officer；　called　the　posadnik；　and
secondly；　the　right　of　the　folkmote　to　choose　this　official；　a
right　which　first　appeared　in　the　beginning　of　the　twelfth
century。　These　exceptions　once　made；　we　have　the　right　to　say
that　the　compacts　entered　into　by　the　people　of　Novgorod　with
their　future　ruler；　give　us　a　fair　idea　of　the　relative　strength
of　the　prin