lecture iv-第4节

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！


　　　　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　prince　and　of　the　popular　assembly　all　over　Russia。
　　　　Our　review　of　the　agreement　signed　by　the　prince　on　his
accession　to　the　throne　has　already　reveaLed　to　us　some　of　the
functions　of　the　veche。　Questions　of　war　and　peace　were　regularly
decided　by　it。　No　war　could　be　begun　but　with　the　consent　of　the
people；　because；　in　the　absence　of　a　regular　army；　the　prince
could　levy　no　other　force　but　that　of　the　militia。　Treaties　of
peace　and　alliance　were　also　signed　in　the　name　of　the　prince　and
people；　as　may　be　seen　from　the　following　words　used　in　the
treaty　of　Igor　with　the　Byzantine　empire　in　945；　〃This　treaty　has
been　concluded　by　the　Grand　Duke　of　Russia；　by　all　the　dukes
whatsoever　and　by　all　the　people　of　the　Russian　lands。〃
Sometimes；　it　is　true；　the　duke　decided　on　going　to　war　against
the　wish　of　his　people；　but　in　such　a　case　he　had　to　rely
exclusively　on　his　own　military　followers；　his　so…called
〃drougina；〃　an　institution　very　like　the　old　German　〃comitatus〃
（Geleit）。　As　long　as　the　system　of　land　donations　remained
unknown；　and　the　duke　had　no　other　property　to　distribute　among
his　followers　but　that　taken　in　time　of　war；　the　drougina　or
comitatus　was　far　from　being　numerous。　Hence　the　duke　was　forced
to　ask　the　veche　for　assistance　whenever　he　thought　himself
obliged　to　go　to　war。　The　veche　either　agreed　to　his　demand　and
ordered　the　levy　of　military　forces；　or　refused　all　help；　in　the
latter　case　the　duke　had　no　other　alternative　but　to　abandon　his
project　entirely；　or　to　resign　his　throne。　The　control　in　matters
of　peace　and　war　was　maintained　by　the　people　so　long　as　the　duke
had　no　other　troops　than　the　militia。　But　a　kind　of　regular　army
had　been　created　by　the　end　of　the　thirteenth　century；　owing　to
the　custom　of　rewarding　military　service　by　grants　of　land。　The
so…called　〃pomestnaia〃　system；　which　was　similar　to　the
Carlovingian　system　of　〃benefices；〃　produced　in　Russia　effects
similar　to　those　produced　in　France。　The　popular　militia　was
superseded　by　a　sort　of　feudal　army；　paid　not　in　money　but　in
land。　In　case　of　war　the　duke　was　not　so　much　interested　in
having　the　acquiescence　of　the　people　as　that　of　the　〃men　of
service；〃　slougilii　liudi；　who　constituted　his　military　force；
and　corresponded　somewhat　to　the　knights　in　Feudal　England。　This
change；　as　we　shall　hereafter　see；　had　a　great　influence　on　the
future　destiny　of　the　Russian　folkmote。
　　　　Another　function　of　the　folkmote；　which　appears　to　be
peculiar　to　the　Northern　principalities；　and　especially　to　those
of　Novgorod　and　Pscov；　is　that　of　legislation。　That　the
legislative　functions　of　the　veche　were　unknown　in　the　Southern
principalities　of　Russia　may　be　seen　from　the　fact；　that　no
mention　is　made　of　them　in　the　most　ancient　code　of　the　country。
The　Pravda　of　Jaroslav　in　its　different　versions　shows　no　trace
of　the　interference　of　the　people　in　matters　of　legislation；　it
is　the　exclusive　work　of　the　duke　and　his　councillors。　The　few
amendments　introduced　into　this　legal　code　during　the　first　part
o