lecture iv-第1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！



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