Category Archives: Uncategorized

Observations on Rus Society

Posted on by

Having looked at the Правда Русская (Pravda Russkaia) and compared it to Iaroslav’s Statute I think that the change in the documents can tell us a lot about life in early Rus as well as the different roles that men and women played in their society. In my opinion the biggest change between the two legal codes is the shift in importance from material possessions to family as well as sexual values. In the Pravda Russkaia most of the laws are jumbled around with little regard for organization, however the central theme seems to be property and its value; however, in Iaroslav’s statute we can see Christian values starting to emerge as there are many laws pertaining to marriage and adultery in particular. These include rules about when and how people can get divorced as well as several clauses that talk about incest or sexual relations with other non Christians, actions which were both condemned.

Another aspect of this document that I think is important to look at is the role of women in Rus society. Generally when looking through history I expect to find women having very little power as compared to men. However, in Iaroslav’s Statue I saw several things that led me to believe that women held some power in early Rus. One law in particular that comes to mind is…

“if a girl does not wish to marry,[and] then the father and mother give her [in marriage] by force, and if the girl causes [harm] to herself, than the father and mother are guilty before the Metropolitan, and they are to pay the losses. Likewise with a young man [who does not wish to marry].”

Not only does this law seem to protect women from marriages they may not want, it also does something that I think is equally important. In the end of the clause it says that this practice is the same with both males and females who do not wish to marry. This leads me to believe that the people of Rus may have valued female contribution more than other societies of the time.

Lastly I also noticed that there was nothing in this legal code regarding homosexuality. I found it interesting that nothing was said, as this seems to be a very consistent topic in so dubbed “Christian nations”. The absence of this subject leads me to wonder whether or not this issue was important in Rus society or if it was a social taboo that was intentionally not included.

Olympe de Gouge: Declaration of the Rights of Women, 1791

Posted on by

Olympe de Gouge tests the Declaration of the Rights of Man with her own Declaration of the Rights of Woman. She questions what benefits woman gained from the Revolution. When “man” became free from the Revolution, he turned injustice onto woman. Woman were treated as though inferior, French legislators taking the position that there was nothing in common between men and women. De Gouge encourages women to stand up against this false superiority and unite to gain the rights women deserve. De Gouge brings up the contradiction that a married woman can have bastard children who and they will still benefit from their father’s wealth and also their name. However, if a woman is unmarried, her children cannot receive any of their father’s wealth nor their name. She also realizes that men will have to deal with this matter and women have to wait for that to happen. She proposes that in the meantime women prepare for this “through national education, the restoration of morals, and conjugal conventions”.

De Gouge wrote up and “Form for a Social Contract Between Man and Woman”. In it, she writes that man and woman should unite for common preferences such as pooling wealth together instead of man carrying all the wealth and controlling what happens with it. The idea of a woman sharing a man’s wealth and having just as much control over it as man, being able to reserve the right to hand it down to their children or choose to pass it on to someone who they thought deserving, is a revolutionary idea. Another such revolutionary idea of de Gouge’s is that there be a law forcing man to pay, or leave money for, a widow and her children.

At the end of her “contract”, de Gouge suggests that making laws that favor women equally to men will improve the French government, and make it stronger. “prejudice fails, morals are purified, and nature regains all her rights”.

Declaring a Revolutionary War

Posted on by

Declaration of Independence of the United States

While the celebrated document asserts the fledgling nation’s independence, it is additionally a list of grievances the colonizers have concerning the Crown and associated British government. Considering the varied atrocities committed by British troops and officials in the run-up to the war (Boston Massacre, various taxes, and weakening the citizens’ collective voice over time, among a whole host of other things), the revolutionary leaders, i.e., Founding Fathers, took advantage of the Declaration of Independence to effectively declare war as well on the British troops garrisoned in America. The language in the text suggests this. “It is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” “…as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce…” In these two quotes from the text the signatories vocalize both their desire for the Crown to recognize their independence and their willingness to wage war should the British not recognize America’s independence.

French writings leading to the eventual revolution

Similarly, the French used various essays as well as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen to make their revolutionary intentions clear. In “What is the Third Estate”, Abbe Sieyes points out the pervasiveness of the French government and nobility (which Louis XVI often manipulated to advance his own agenda) and reflects that it should be the right of the citizens who live under an undesirable government to simply rebel, for it can be detrimental to both the economy and the morale of the citizens. In the Decree upon the National Assembly and in conjunction with the Tennis Court Oath, deputies of the Third Estate (henceforth the National Assembly) asserted its power which was to be independent of the royalty and nobility of France. Finally, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen does belligerent language appear. Until this point the French Crown was considered sovereign and unchallengeable, but the third declared right sought to undo this: “The Nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; no can any individual, or any body of men, be entitled to any authority which is not expressly derived from it.” This is a challenge to the royalty and nobility who were seen by many as not having earned their sovereign powers (hence Sieyes’s essay). Additionally, the twelfth right denounces abuse of power given by citizens to a government’s officials, which can also be viewed as a challenge to the crown. The third right challenges the validity of the Crown’s powers, and the twelfth challenges the abuse of that power that is itself invalid. Although the hostility is less evident in the French essays than in the American Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man also intends to attain sovereignty over the monarchy. The French Revolution began shortly thereafter, the fact of which backs the original theory that it was a declaration of a revolutionary war.

Revolutionaries in France and America

Posted on by

De Gouge was a playwright and a political activist in 18th century France. In her “Declaration of the Rights of Women,” she addresses the unscrupulous oppression under which women have endured and the prejudice that have surrounding prejudice implemented by their male counterparts. De Gouge renounces the male-written law not only in the private sphere but also in the public sphere by stating that “our French legislators have long ensnared by political practices now out of date.” She requests women to question what they have gained from the revolution and asks them to acknowledge all that they have been denied. De Gouge suggests several ways in which women (who are willing to do so) can free themselves from the chains society has imposed on them. She states that women can be “prepared through national education, the restoration of morals, and conjugal conventions.” Her idea of an effective social contract between men and women would include communal wealth and the passing down of family wealth to the respective kin. De Gouge calls for a “fraternal union” for her belief that it will consequently “produce at the end a perfect harmony.” Most importantly, de Gouge offers the social contract as a way to elevate the latent souls of women and to have them conjoined with those of man. She acknowledges that upon writing this document, she will encounter vehement opposition, mostly by “hypocrites, prudes, and the clergy.” De Gouge contract is intricate and comprehensive but her message is simple: once prejudice is exterminated, morals are sanctified, and nature returns to its original state, man and woman can enjoy equal privileges and freedom.

 

Similarly to the way to de Gouge condemns the ways in which man has utilized societal norms to sustain the oppression of women, the Declaration of Independence denounces the tyrannical politics of Great Britain. This document outlines specific ways in which the people have been denied their natural rights and freedom, along with the ways in which the British governors have failed to serve for the public good. The document states “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” and whenever these natural rights are denied, it is the “right of the people to alter or abolish it” and to implement a new form of government, and one that offers the most democratic way of life to ensure that all citizens are provided with security and equality.

 

While both documents were derived from different authors and places, each text was created to inform and inspire those who were denied their freedom to form unity and regain their natural rights.

Rights, Revolutions, and Revolutionaries in America and France

Posted on by

Throughout history, declarations have been written in order to make a society aware of the problems it faces, frequently appearing in times of rapid change and revolution. In her Declaration of the Rights of Women, Olympe de Gouge, a prominent female revolutionary in the late 18th century, argues that women deserve to share equality with men in matters concerning government, society, marriage, and all other areas of life.  De Gouge wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Women in response to the Rights of Man, challenging its suggestion that men are superior to women. Writing in a passionate, defiant tone, she addresses French women, intending to gain supporters and enlighten women of the injustices that are perpetually being posed against them by men and the French government. De Gouge criticizes the authority that reigns France, and insists that women should be equal to men in order to facilitate a “happy government”. She argues that with equality among men and women will come the purification of morals and a stronger government.

Similarly, the American Declaration of Independence appeals to the British monarchy, stating that the king has failed to comply with the necessities of the rights of the people. The same nature of defiance as seen in the Declaration of the Rights of Women is present in the Declaration of Independence, as both are created in opposition to authority the government has placed upon them.

In his document on the third estate, Sieyes also criticizes the state of the government, arguing that the Third Estate does not possess enough power and more responsibilities should be entrusted to it. The First and Second Estates should be eliminated, suggests Sieyes. If not that, all three estates should at least be under equal representation and common laws.

In both the French and American revolutions, the people of the country respond to injustices placed upon them by their ruling monarchies. Both countries successfully overthrow their monarchies, freeing themselves of inequities. Revolutionaries of both countries sought freedom from their imposing governments, liberating their countries and earning their natural rights through the power of discourse.

 

The French and American Declaration

Posted on by

The French and American Revolutions are two of the most famous revolutionary movements in the history of mankind.  The revolutions are very similar, mainly in the writing that led up to revolution.  The United States’ “Declaration of Independence” and the French’s “What is the Third Estate”, “Decree Upon the National Assembly”, “Tennis Court Oath”, and “The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” all outline very similar grievances that the people are rising against.

In the “Declaration of Independence” the Continental Congress wrote “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  In the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” the French wrote “The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible right of man; and these rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance of Oppression.”  The common theme in those two quotes is the word Liberty, which is “the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely” (Dictionary.com).  While the Patriots and the French had smaller grievances, specific to their situation, Liberty is the most overarching one.  Both groups felt underrepresented by their controlling body, the English monarchy for the Americans and the French monarchy for the French.  Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès wrote his “What is the Third Estate” after the American Revolution but it applies to what was happening in the colonies as much as it did to what was happening in France.  Sieyès wrote “1) What is the Third Estate?  Everything.  2) What has it been until now in the political order?  Nothing.  3) What does it want to be?  Something.”  Both the American colonists and the French citizens wanted recognition from their controlling government but more importantly they wanted the rights they felt they deserved.

The colonists way of gaining “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” was to declare independence from Britain.  They wrote in the Declaration of Independence “these United Colonies are, and of Right out to be Free and Independent States.”  The French offered up a similar solution, however their monarch was not an ocean away.  The “Third Estate” formed the “National Assembly”, which consisted of “at least ninety-six per cent of the nation.”  The “National Assembly” wrote in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man” that they had “resolved to set forth in solemn declaration, these natural, imprescriptible, and inalienable right; that this declaration being constantly present to the minds of the members of the body social” effectively declaring their own independence from the monarchy.

While the American and French revolution happened an ocean away and began about 13 years apart they followed the same track in action and writing.

 

 

On the Kievan Economy

Posted on by

The nature of the economy in the Kievan state reflected the geographical diversity of the region.  Indeed, some of the sources on the economy are derived from the commentary of outsiders, such as the Byzantine Constantine Porphyrogenitus, reflecting the wide space of influence exerted by the merchant-prince of Kiev.  The foundation of the trade system was tribute, which moved furs, wax, honey, and slaves throughout the state from north to south.  Tribute, besides being an effective means of gathering money and subordinating rival merchants, reflected the importance of trade because it was designed to protect Kiev’s commercial interests from rivals.  Economic rivals were clearly an area of concern for the Kievan princes because trade and foreign policy were connected, and Russo-Byzantine peace treaties included provisions that aided Russian commerce.   With the exception of importing amber from the Vikings, the Rus moved raw materials outside of the state and received manufactured and luxury goods from their trade partners.

The other facet of the Kievan economy was agriculture.  The emergence of the agricultural theory is based on linguistic data on agricultural terms, spiritual beliefs surrounding nature, archaeological discoveries, and written sources.  Agriculture differed between the south and the north because of the diversity between the steppe and dense forests, and forest agriculture evolved into a two and three field perlog system that increased the importance of livestock.  Archaeology shows advancements in soil cultivation and technology preceding the primary chronicle.  The idea of private property is a contested issue among scholars of Kiev, with some believing it emerged in the 11th century and others thinking it may have been in place before.  This is an interesting question to consider in tandem with the law code’s penalties for moving field boundaries.  Does this suggest there was direct individual control over the land to use it at will or does it suggest the princes were the only ones with the authority to administrate land holdings?

Economy in Kievan Rus’

Posted on by

From the tenth to thirteenth centuries Kievan Rus’ economy was largely believed to be based on agriculture. There is very little written evidence to support this, however due to the physical evidence of tools such as iron blades and plows, archeologists and historians have determined that agriculture, trade and farming held major importance in society.  However, there is still little evidence to support the theories of whether or not Kievan Rus’ was a commercial society located mainly in towns or if they were an agricultural society that used towns for marketplaces. Archeologists’ findings of the various tools and wares create a broader understanding of how this culture thrived and survived.

Due to the vast differences in climates in Kievan Rus, the use of agriculture and trade as the central part of their economy made sense. People who had settled in southern Rus’ had a greater ability to grow and plant more food, while those in the northern regions had much more difficulty as the dense forests and poor soil quality greatly inhibited agriculture production. This made it imperative for those living in these various regions to adapt and learn to use the land to ensure their success.

The use of livestock as a part of trade and survival is reflected in an earlier reading where early Kievan Rus’ laws seemed to punish and heavily fine those who had stolen or killed a person’s livestock. This clearly shows why such a high emphasis was placed on farming, agriculture, personal property and trade, as they were incredibly important to the survival of the people and the culture. For example, “And if someone plows across the border, or beyond, a border marker carved on a tree then, he is to pay the owner 12 grivnas for the offense. (Reinterpreting Russian History, pg 29)”. Laws such as these reflected the ‘self-help’ idea that ensured personal survival over the overall survival of the community. How can a community truly thrive if the laws protecting the people stem from a self-help ideology that promotes the success of one as opposed to the whole?

 

The Economy of Kievan Rus’

Posted on by

Much of early Russian history has been contested and debated by historians for years. Unfortunately, the information historians can glean about this civilization is confined to the sources and artifacts available. Learning about the Kievan economy is no exception to these limitations. However, a lot of information about this group can be derived from both primary sources and archeological information.

At the base of the Kievan economy was the idea of tribute. This was the driving force behind the exchanging of goods from all over the area.  A narrative written by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, a Byzantine emperor and scholar, describes how Kievan princes and their retainers would go on a tour throughout the land, collecting tribute. This process arguably formed the primitive basis for trading, as it enabled the entire population of Kievan Russia to be linked together through the goods that they exchanged. From this, the development of a North-South trade route that stretched “from the Varangians to the Greeks” (41) was established and became crucial to the survival of the Kievan state. How historians have learned this information is through the use of primary sources as well as artifacts. For example, historians know that trade was essential to the Kievan economy because many treaties that were created during this time, specifically the Russo-Byzantine treaties, had provisions dealing specifically with trade. By observing the meticulous, highly developed manner of these treaties, we can learn what was deemed important to these peoples. In addition, through studying the presence of amber in Novgorod, historians have learned that amber was brought to the city and used to create a wide array of items. There were references to the amber trade as well. For instance, in a book titled Natural History of Minerals, the author specifically mentions a testament made by one Philemon, who describes where amber was gathered in Scythia.

However, trade was not the only driving force behind the Kievan economy. Agriculture was also extremely prevalent in Kievan Russia. Similar to learning about trade, understanding the role of agriculture in this society can be done through the lens of archeology primarily, as well as through observing images, and other primary sources. For instance, historians know that agriculture was commonplace through archeology. In numerous digs, archeologists have discovered primitive plows that were used to till the land. Through the discovery of these tools, we know that agriculture was fairly sophisticated. The variety of tools discovered reveals the ability of these peoples to adapt to the various challenges they encountered, for instance with the evolvement of the Slash-and-Burn technique to light plowing. In addition, through an account depicted in a juridical document, we learn of raiders who stole plows, axes, etc. from peasants. The fact that this was mentioned specifically demonstrates the importance and commonality of these tools, and subsequently agriculture, to the Kievan economy and society.

 

The Economy of Kievan Rus’ from the 10th to the 13th century

Posted on by

The period between the 10th and the 13th century was a period of economic prosperity for the Rus’. This can be proven by the study of the remains of both agricultural tools and proofs of an extensive trade of Amber. The location of Rus’ was, of course, propitious to the development of the economy: the Dniepr for example offered the Rus’ a perfect trade route.

The remains of agricultural tools prove that the Rus’ had a capacity to adapt to their environment but also that they also were able to optimize their work, as seen in the North by the evolution of the technique from Slash-and-Burn to a technique based on light plowing. This uniformity could be an indication that some communication between the North and the South subsisted since it is believed that the light plow originated in the North. The augmentation of livestock-raising in the North is also believed to have played a role in the evolution of the North’s agricultural techniques. This made me wonder: Can the increase of livestock-raising be explained by farmers from the North learning this technique from the South, or is it somehow linked to the trade of Fur which we know the North practiced?

The trade of amber was also extensive in Rus’, the fact that all the amber was being processed in Novgorod could show that Novgorod was in fact the most important city in Rus’. The North, and therefore Novgorod, was naturally more protected of nomadic invasions than Kiev, which we know has been sacked numerous times. We also know that the light plow has originated in the North, which might demonstrate that the North was superior to the South in agricultural ingenuity and craftsmanship: Since finished and unfinished amber were found in Novgorod, we can assume that the amber was processed there. Finally the drop in production of amber in the 13th century might show the end of the golden age of the Kievan Rus’ since we know that this century was marked by the invasion of the Teutonic Order and more importantly the Mongols.

I remember reading in the last few years that the reason Russia was so far behind Western Europe in subsequent century was due to the Mongol invasions which had not allowed Russia to develop as freely as Western Europe did. Upon reading about the Rus’ economy I am beginning to wonder if this is not the case. Prior to the Mongol invasion, the Rus’ had everything to become a strong power in Europe, a sound economy revolving around trade, which was greatly helped by its location, military victories – which proves that the Rus’ could fight and win – and one of the biggest territories of Europe. Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter.