INFLUENCE OF USURIOUS RELATIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF KIEVAN RUS

Abstract

The purpose of our work is to study usury relations and their impact on the development of Kievan Rus.
 The source legal basis shows that in Kievan Rus the usury was governed by princely legislation. Russian-Byzantine treaties emphasize the interest of the princely power in stable trade relations. In our opinion, namely, the stimulation and support from the state to the traders explain the intensive development of trade relations in the state, which, in turn, develop usurious relations, since the creation of a credit system is a necessary element of increasing trade operations. We have analyzed the chronicles and found that the foreigners (Jews), indigenous peoples (Russes), religious organizations and councils were the borrowers. Our study found that not only ordinary people, but also princely power were credited.
 In the paper, we considered the reasons for ensuring the legal regulation of usurious relations through the introduction of new articles in the Russian truth during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh in Kiev.
 During the study, we concluded that the subjects of usurious relations were not only ordinary people and boyars who took money out at interest, but also princes did. We found that the princes borrowed money from religious organizations, congregations, and Jews. We found out that owing to debts, the princes were forced to make concessions to creditors. This led to a change of policy in the state. Our study found that the princes did not always want to be responsible for their debt obligations. The princes’ reluctance to repay debts prompted them to break and violate credit conditions, even to amend legislation. The victims of usurious relations were not only the princes but also the people of Kiev. The uprising of 1113 was the result of harsh conditions for repayment of debt interest rates. The expulsion of the Jews is a clear indication that the authorities in Kievan Rus fought not with usury, but with foreign residents who could interfere with the internal affairs of Kievan Rus through their debts. The influence of the prince administration on the personal system in the interests of his social group caused a revolt, as it happened after the death of Svyatopolk II. If the purpose of power was to fight against usury, in Russian truth it would be forbidden. After the expulsion of the Jews, the authorities softened the conditions for borrowing money. In turn, it indicates that not only Jews but also Russes were engaged in usury. Thus, the expulsion of the Jews was a factor in the competition for usurious cash flows. 
 We concluded that the level of economic development of Kievan Rus was closely linked to usurious relations.