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！
Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia
by Maxime Kovalevsky
1891
Lecture IV
Old Russian Folkmotes
It is a common saying among the Russian Conservatives； who
have lately been dignified in France by the name of
〃Nationalists；〃 that the political aspirations of the Liberals
are in manifest contradiction with the genius and with the
historical past of the Russian people。
Sharing these ideas； the Russian Minister of Public
instruction Count Delianov； a few years ago ordered the
Professors of Public Law and of Legal History to make their
teaching conform to a programme in which Tzarism； the unlimited
power of the Russian emperors； was declared to be a truly
national institution。
Some of the professors who refused to comply with this order
were called upon to resign； others were simply dismissed from
their chairs。 The question I am about to discuss in this and the
following lecture is； whether this theory bears the test of
history。 Is it true that Russian autocracy is a thoroughly
national institution； the roots of which are found in the
remotest period of Russian history？ Is it the fact that no
folkmotes and no representative institutions ever existed in the
eastern part of Europe； and that the Byzantine principle of an
unlimited monarchical power； having no other source but its
divine right derived from God himself and being responsible to no
one but Heaven； has been always recognised by my countrymen？
I shall begin by saving that； had such been the case； the
historical development of Russia would form a monstrous anomaly
to the general evolution of political institutions； at least
among people of Aryan blood。
It is not before an Oxford audience that I need recall this
well…established fact； that in earlier times the assembly of the
people； the Folkmote； shared in the exercise of sovereign power
side by side with the elected head of the nation； whatever may
have been his title。 Professor Freeman and Sir Henry Maine have
left no possibility of doubt on this point； the first； when
treating of the Greeks； Romans； and Germans； the second； in
relation to the ancient Celtic population of Ireland。 The barrier
of language； of which Sir Henry Maine so often complained to me；
prevented these two eminent scholars from completing their
comparative study of early political organisation by a minute
investigation of that of the medieval Slavs； but recent
researches； carried on both in Russia and in Poland； Bohemia and
Servia； permit us to extend to Slavonic nations the general
conclusions which have been arrived at by those English scholars；
who have taken as their basis a careful study of Hellenic；
German； and Celtic law。
Byzantine chronicles； which contain the earliest information
on the social and political condition of the assertion that the
the Slavs； are unanimous in Slavonic people knew nothing of a
strongly centralised autocratic power。 〃From the remotest
period；〃 says Procopius； a writer of the sixth century； 〃the
Slavs were known to live in democracies； they discussed their
wants in popular assemblies or folkmotes〃 （chapter xiv of his
〃Gothica seu Bellum Gothicum〃）。 Another authority； the Byzantine
Emperor Mauriquius； when speaking of the Slavs； writes as
follows： 〃The Slavs like liberty； they cannot bear unlimited
rulers； and are not easily brought to submission〃 （〃Strategicum；〃
chap。 xi）。 The same language is used also by the Emperor Leo。
〃The Slavs；〃 says he； 〃are a free people； strongly opposed to any
subjection〃 （〃Tactica seu de re militari；〃 ch。 xviii。 99）。
Passing from these general statements to those which directly
concern some definite Slavonic people； we will first of all quote
the Latin Chronicles of Helmold and Dithmar of Merseburg； both of
the eleventh century； in order to give an idea of the political
organisation of the Northern Slavs dwelling on the south…eastern
shore of the Baltic。 Speaking of one of their earliest chiefs
named Mistiwoi； Helmold says that he； the chief； once complained
to the whole assembly of the Slavs of an injury he had received
（Convocatis omnibus Slavis qui ad orientem habitant； intimavit
eis illatam sibi contumeliam）。
The Russian scholars who have made a special study of the
history of those Slavonic tribes who were so early Germanised；
give us a description of the proceedings and functions of their
popular assemblies。 The folkmote was convened in an open place。
In Stettin the market…place was furnished for this purpose with a
kind of stand from which the speakers addressed the multitude。
The folkmotes were not periodical assemblies； but were convened
as often as there was some question of State which needed public
discussion。
It is well known that the privilege enjoyed in our days by
the majority was quite unknown to the primitive folkmotes。 In
early times the decisions of the people were unanimous。 This does
not mean that it was always easy to arrive at a general
agreement。 Opinions were certainly as divided then as they are
now。 What is meant is only this that； in case of difference of
opinion； the minority was forced to acquiesce in that of the
majority； unless it could succeed in persuading the majority that
they were in the wrong。 In the Chronicle of Dithmar of Merseburg
the 〃unanimous vote〃 is distinctly stated to be a peculiarity of
the primitive Slavonic folkmotes：
〃Unanimi consilio；〃 says this author； 〃ad placitum suimet
necessaria discutientes in rebus efficiendis omnes concordant。〃
In case some one refused to acquiesce in the common decision； he
was beaten with rods。 If any opposition to the vote of the
majority arose after the assembly had been held； the dissentient
lost all his property； which was either taken from him or
destroyed by fire； unless he was ready to pay a certain amount of
money； varying according to his rank。 The unanimous vote is very
often mentioned by contemporary chroniclers； who for this purpose
employ the following expressions： 〃Remota controversia；〃 or
〃quasi unus homo。〃（1*） The matters discussed at these early
Slavonic folkmotes were of a great variety： the election or the
dethroning of a prince； decisions about going to war or making
peace； are more than once mentioned by contemporary authors as
the direct work of these assemblies。
If we turn our attention to the study of the earliest period
in the history of Bohemian political institutions； we shall see
the development of facts similar or quasi…similar to those just
mentioned。 The Bohemian folkmote； the 〃snem；〃 as it was called；
is known to Latin chroniclers under the names of conventus；
generale colloquium； or generalis curia。 Persons of different
estates or orders constituted the assembly。 The chronicles
mention； as a rule； the presence of the majores natu； of the
proceres and comites； as also that of the higher clergy； in clero
meliores； but in addition we find at these meetings； at least as
far back as the end of the eleventh century； the common people；
the populus； Bohemorum onmes； Bohemicae gentis magni et parvi；
nobiles et ignobiles。 In the year 1055 the people are especially
mentioned as taking part in the election of a duke； and in 1068
and 1069 as engaged in the nomination of a bishop。 In 1130 the
Duke Sobeslav convened an assembly of 3000 persons； nobiles et
ignobiles； to judge those who had conspired against him。 At a
later period； after the beginning of the twelfth century； the
common people disappear from these assemblies； and the proceres
and majores natu remained alone with the high clergy to discuss
the affairs of the State。 But in the early days with which we are
at present concerned the constitution of the Bohemian snem was
not very unlike that of an ordinary folkmote； to which all
classes of society were equally summoned。 Like the folkmotes of
the Baltic Slavs； the Bohemian generalis conventus was not a
periodical assembly。 Like them also； its decisions were the
result of a unanimous consent； a fact which is shown by the
contemporary documents； when they state that this and that matter
have been settled at the assembly 〃communio consilio et voluntate
pari〃 （Cosmus of Prague； ii。 87）； or even more explicitly； 〃de
consensu omnium；〃 〃unanimiter。〃
The election first of the duke and later on of the king； the
nomination of the bishop； the confirmation or rejection of the
laws proposed by the king and his council； the judicial decision
of certain exceptionally important cases； such were the regular
functions of the Bohemian folkmote。 You will have no difficulty
in seeing that these functions are the same as those of the
popular assemblies of the Baltic Slavs。
In Poland； the folkmotes； known under the name of
congregationes generales； sometimes also under that of conciones；
coltoquia； or consilia； were in early days composed not only of
the higher orders of society； but also of the common people。 The
Latin Chronicle of Gallus mentions an occasion on which king
Boleslaus 〃imprimis majores et seniores civitatis； deinde totum
populum in concionem advocavit。〃 The meaning of this quotation
leaves no doubt as to the popular character of these early Polish
political assemblies。 In no Slavon