The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

The Russian truth in the context of history of estates of V.O. Klyuchevsky

to IZVESTIYA PGP • Sector of young scientists • No. 3 (7) 2007

4. The state policy of Russia in education of the non-russian people of the Volga region (the 60th years of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century)//Essays of history of education and a pedagogical thought in the Mordovian region (the middle of XVI - the beginning of the 20th century). Saransk, 2001.
5. L.N. Ivanova. Bilingual (Chuvash-Russian) elementary school in a nation-wide education system of pre-revolutionary Russia. Cheboksary, 2004
6. E.A. Knyazev. During an era of great reforms//the Principal. 1997. No. 6.
7. P.N. Milyukov. Essays on the history of the Russian culture: in 3 TM: Publishing group "Progress — Culture", 1994. T. 2.
8. Essays of history of education and a pedagogical thought in the Mordovian region (page XVI - N of HHv). Saransk, 2001.
9. Russian State Historical Archive (RSHA). T. 922. Op. 1. 196. L. 62.
10. Russian school. 1913. No. 9.
11. The collection of resolutions on the Ministry of national education. M, 1874. T. IV.
12. The code of laws, circulars and help data on national education during a transition period / Sost. V.I. Charnolussky. M, 1908.
13. N.A. Spassky. Educator of foreigners of the Kazan region N.I. Ilminsky. Samara: Printing house

N.A. Zhdanova, 1900.

14. The third All-Russian Muslim congress. Kazan, 1906.
15. G.A. Falbork, V.I. Charnolusky. The reference book on national education: laws, orders, rules, instructions. T. IV. SPb., 1911.
16. Ethnographic review. 1980. No. 6.
17. A.F. Efirov. System of a Russifier of Ilminsky//Soviet pedagogics. 1937. No. 2.
18. I.Ya. Yakovlev. (Salambek). The Simbirsk teacher's school and its role in education the Chuvash. Cheboksary, 1959.



Penza state pedagogical university of V.G. Belinsky department of modern and contemporary history

In article the characteristic of civil society in Russia of the XI-XII centuries in the context of history of estates of V.O. Klyuchevsky is given. The author the attempt of the analysis of factors of class division of the Russian society becomes, some aspects of formation of classes of Old Russian society are considered.

V.O. Klyuchevsky considered the Russian Truth not only the most ancient monument of the Russian right, but also the most valuable source on the social and economic history of Ancient Russia. The analysis of legal norms of a monument allowed the scientist to give the developed characteristic of civil society of Russia, to show the different parties of its life, economic activity and social composition. In the Russian Truth, the historian claimed, "ahead of everything, at least, in the most ancient departments of the code, interests and the relations of well-founded city classes, i.e. the relations of the holopo-possessory and commerce and industry world are put" [1. Page 254].

Society of time of the Russian truth, according to Klyuchevsky, shared three classes, "knyazh men, people and lackeys" [2. Page 310]. The law put them in not identical position, and it estimated life of each of them on a miscellaneous, depending on their attitude towards the grand duke. So, the historian gives different types of punishments for murder of "free servants of the prince", "commoner", and "lackey", "murder of the knyazhy husband was punished by a double criminal penalty fee (belief); murder of a lyudin - idle time, and for murder of the lackey was not appointed a criminal penalty fee at all, but only the civil penalty (sale) with a reward of mister for the harm done to someone else's property was collected" [2. Page 310]. "Knyazhi men" consisted in personal service of the prince therefore were closer to it, than others. "People" made the bulk of the population of Ancient Russia and were the main taxpayers and were connected among themselves by mutual responsibility.

The first two classes were free people, unlike lackeys who were slaves to mister. The Russian truth as Klyuchevsky considers, notes only full servility, it does not mark out types of servility though quite accurately defines servility sources. The first source - "voluntary servility under the contract". The second - "compulsory servility, under the law" [2. Page 311]. The person could become a lackey a marriage on a holopka without contract with its owner, voluntary sale of in lackeys and the accession to "private domestic service without the relevant contract with the owner" [2. Page 312].

The legislation defined cases and compulsory sale of in lackeys. This crime for which the person was forever imprisoned captivity, origin from the lackey or holopk and sale in lackeys on account of outstanding it is long in time, at will of the creditor.

Thus, "civil society on the Russian Truth was divided into people free, personally serving to the prince, on free, rendering it tribute the world, and on not free, serving to individuals. The attitude of the first towards the prince was personal, the second - collective, the third - mediocre" [2. Page 312].

Until the end of the 12th century, Klyuchevsky notes, the provision of these three main classes was not accurately limited. In the second half of the 11th century, at Yaroslav's sons, the Russian truth does not allocate a class of "knyazhy husbands" yet, and selects the term "ognishchanin", i.e. the meaning slaveholder, unlike "knyazhy husbands" the provision "ognishchan" was defined not it polity-


chesky situation, relation to supreme authority, and its economic state. Proceeding from a thesis about gain as the initial basis of division of society when society was divided into "conquerors and defeated" [2. Page 318], Klyuchevsky carries "ognishchanin" to number of exclusive classes. The prince with the team, winning rebellious tribes, turned their population into slaves. Slaveholding was a widespread source of income of combatants and was the integral characteristic of a ruling class. Therefore, in the first half of the 10th century "ognishchanam were the same knyazh men" [2. Page 314]. Having sated the yards with slaves, they began to lodge them on the lands, they had its benefit enough.

As class division, according to the historian, extremely movably and floatingly, with development of agriculture among the main estates new economic states appear. The Russian truth distinguishes boyars from knyazhy husbands. "Boyars were the same knyazh the men or members of team only acquiring land property" [2. Page 316]. Referring to the Russian Truth, Klyuchevsky absolutely definitely specified social accessory of nobility of Ancient Russia - "a class of privileged land owners" [1. Page 251]. In a class of free people there are smerda and purchases which are engaged in agriculture: the first on the state land, the second on the earth of private owners. Purchases unlike a smerd had "no stock and the agricultural capital to which their land owners lent" [2. Page 316]. As a part of servility the Russian truth selects the category

"seigniorial tiun". In fact, it is the same lackeys only put at the head of the others and administrators of the owners.

So, according to Klyuchevsky, in the 11th century the position of estates was defined by their relation to supreme authority, and "the unequal attitude of persons towards the prince was expressed in distinction of the state duties falling on people sluzhily tyagly and lackeys; the unequal attitude of the law towards persons was expressed in various price what the law gave to persons of different classes on property of their attitudes towards the prince, unequally punishing for their murder" [2. Page 317]. In the 12th century the provision of classes was defined by also property inequality and distinction of their civil rights. Klyuchevsky noticed that if "three former classes differed with political signs - the unequal attitude of persons towards the prince and the unequal attitude of the princely law towards persons" [2. Page 317], "new, more fractional classes differed with two other signs, economic and legal: distinction of property states and inequality of the civil rights connected to it" [2. Page 318].

Thus, the scientist strengthens the thesis that all subsequent development of society developed from previous, once again proving that "each following stage of development was a complication previous" [2. Page 318].

list of references

1. Klyuchevsky V.O. Soch. In 9 t. T. 1. Course of the Russian history. Part 1., M.: Thought, 1987.
2. Klyuchevsky V.O. Soch. In 9 t. T. 6. Special courses. M.: Thought, 1989.

UDC 947.081.12

from the history of formation of city self-government

A.V. Borisov

Penza state pedagogical university of V.G. Belinsky

department of history and right

Article is devoted to the history of formation of city self-government in Russia, since activity of Peter the Great trying to lay the self-government foundation and finishing with the acceptance of the Policeman of provision of 1870 which opened the new page in the history of local management.

The modern legal thought considers the population it is assigned to local electoral bodies.

local government as part of the general public administration. At the same time the local government is the special organization of the government on places founded on the elective beginning. The central power does not recognize for itself as possible to operate from one center all social needs and interests. It reserves only determination of the general legislative rules for all state, takes in hand the general economic policy, manages the enterprises and institutions, most significant for the state, exercises the general supervision of compliance with laws. Application of laws on places and also satisfaction within the law of various needs and requirements local

Before great reforms of the end of the 19th century this duty was carried out by the officials appointed by the government, the local community did not take any part in management and self-government then did not exist. As a result of city reform of 1870 a part of the cases which were earlier in competence of machinery of government [1] was transferred to the independent jurisdiction to electoral local bodies. It put the beginnings of local city government. However some researchers consider that city self-government begins to arise much earlier, during an era of Peter the Great who the decree of 1699 establishes in Moscow Bur-mistersky chamber, and in other cities territorial log huts and

Thomas Bailey
Other scientific works: