“Russian Truth” in a short version
1. If a husband kills his husband, then brother takes revenge on brother, or son on father, or son on brother, or son on sister; if no one takes revenge, then 40 hryvnia for the person killed.
If the person killed is a Rusyn, or a Gridin, or a merchant, or a sneak, or a swordsman, or an outcast, or from Slovenia, then 40 hryvnia must be paid for him.
2. If someone is beaten to the point of blood or bruises, then he does not need to look for a witness, but if there are no marks (of beatings) on him, then let him bring a witness, and if he cannot (bring a witness), then the matter is over. If (the victim) cannot take revenge for himself, then let him take 3 hryvnia from the perpetrator for the offense, and payment to the doctor.
3. If anyone hits someone with a stick, pole, palm, bowl, horn or the back of a weapon, pay 12 hryvnia. If the victim does not catch up with the one (the offender), then pay, and that’s the end of the matter.
4. If you hit with a sword without taking it out of its sheath, or with the hilt of a sword, then 12 hryvnia for the offense.
5. If he hits the hand and the hand falls off or withers, then 40 hryvnia, and if (he hits the leg) and the leg remains intact, but begins to limp, then the children (of the victim) take revenge. 6. If anyone cuts off any finger, he pays 3 hryvnia for the offense.
7. And for a mustache 12 hryvnia, for a beard 12 hryvnia.
8. If someone draws a sword and does not hit, then he pays a hryvnia.
9. If the husband pushes the husband away from him or towards him - 3 hryvnia - if he brings two witnesses to the trial. And if it is a Varangian or a kolbyag, then he will be sworn in.
10. If a slave runs and hides with a Varangian or a kolbyag, and they do not bring him out within three days, but discover him on the third day, then the master will take away his slave, and 3 hryvnia for the offense.
11. If anyone rides someone else’s horse without asking, then pay 3 hryvnia.
12. If someone takes someone else’s horse, weapon or clothing, and the owner identifies the missing one in his community, then he should take what is his, and 3 hryvnia for the offense.
13. If someone recognizes (his missing thing) from someone, then he does not take it, do not tell him that it is mine, but tell him this: go to the vault where you took it. If he does not go, then let him (provide) a guarantor within 5 days.
14. If someone collects money from another, and he refuses, then he will go to court with 12 people. And if he, deceiving, did not give it back, then the plaintiff can (take) his money, and for the offense 3 hryvnia.
15. If someone, having identified a slave, wants to take him, then the master of the slave should lead him to the one from whom the slave was bought, and let him lead him to another seller, and when he reaches the third, then tell the third: give me your slave, and you look for your money in front of a witness.
16. If a slave hits a free husband and runs into the mansion of his master and he begins not to give him up, then take the slave and the master pays 12 hryvnia for him, and then, where the slave finds the hit man, let him beat him.
17. And if someone breaks a spear, shield, or spoils clothing, and the one who spoiled it wants to keep it for himself, then take it from him in money; and if the one who damaged it begins to insist (on the return of the damaged item), pay in money, how much the item is worth.
The truth laid down for the Russian land when the princes Izyaslav, Vsevolod, Svyatoslav and their husbands Kosnyachko, Pereneg, Nikifor of Kiev, Chudin, Mikula gathered.
18. If a fireman is killed intentionally, then the killer will have to pay 80 hryvnia for him, but people don’t pay; and for the princely entrance 80 hryvnia.
19. And if a fireman is killed like a robber, and people are not looking for the killer, then the vira is paid by the rope where the murdered person was found.
20. If they kill a fireman near a cage, near a horse, or near a herd, or when a cow is dying, then kill him like a dog; the same law applies to tiun.
21. And for the princely tiun 80 hryvnia, and for the senior groom of the herd also 80 hryvnia, as Izyaslav decreed when the Dorogobuzhites killed his groom.
22. For a princely village headman or a field headman, pay 12 hryvnia, and for a princely rank and file 5 hryvnia.
23. And for a killed scum or serf - 5 hryvnia.
24. If a slave-nurse or breadwinner is killed, then 12 hryvnia.
25. And for a princely horse, if it has a spot, 3 hryvnia, and for a stinking horse 2 hryvnia.
26. For a mare 60 kn, for an ox 40 kn, for a cow 40 kn, for a three-year-old cow 15 kn, for a one-year-old half a hryvnia, for a calf 5 kn, for a lamb nogat, for a ram nogat.
27. And if he takes away someone else’s slave or slave, then he pays 12 hryvnia for the offense.
28. If a husband comes bleeding or bruised, then he does not need to look for a witness. 46
29. And whoever steals a horse or an ox, or steals a cage, if he was alone, then he pays a hryvnia and is cut 30; if there were 10 of them, then each of them pays 3 hryvnia and 30 rez.
30. And for the prince’s side 3 hryvnia if they burn it or break it.
31. For torturing a stinker, without a princely command, for insult - 3 hryvnia.
32. And for a fireman, tiun or swordsman 12 hryvnia.
33. And whoever plows a field boundary or spoils a boundary sign, then 12 hryvnia for the offense.
34. And whoever steals a rook, then pay 30 rezan (to the owner) for the rook and 60 rezan for the sale.
35. And for a pigeon and chicken 9 kunas.
36. And for a duck, goose, crane and swan you pay 30 rez, and 60 rez for sales.
37. And if someone else’s dog, or hawk, or falcon is stolen, then 3 hryvnia for the offense.
38. If they kill a thief in their yard, or at a cage, or at a stable, then he is killed, but if the thief is kept until dawn, then bring him to the prince’s court, and if he is killed, and people saw the thief tied up, then pay him .
39. If hay is stolen, then pay 9 kunas, and for firewood 9 kunas.
40. If a sheep, or a goat, or a pig is stolen, and 10 thieves steal one sheep, let each one pay 60 rez for the sale.
41. And the one who captured the thief receives 10 rez, from 3 hryvnia to the swordsman 15 kunas, for a tithe 15 kunas, and to the prince 3 hryvnias. And out of 12 hryvnias, the one who caught the thief gets 70 kunas, and for the tithe, 2 hryvnias, and the prince gets 10 hryvnias.
42. And here is the virnica rule: for the virnik, take 7 buckets of malt for a week, also a lamb or half a carcass of meat, or 2 nogata, and on Wednesday, cut for three cheeses, on Friday the same. same; and as much bread and millet as they can eat, and two chickens per day. And put 4 horses and give them as much food as they can eat. And take 60 hryvnia for the virnik and 10 rez and 12 vereveritsa, and first the hryvnia. And if fasting happens, give the virnik fish, and take him 7 rez for the fish. All that money is 15 kunas per week, and they can give as much flour as they can eat until the virniks collect the virins. Here's Yaroslav's charter for you.
43. And here is the rule for bridge workers: if they pave a bridge, then take a nogat for the work, and from each abutment of the bridge one nogat; if the dilapidated bridge is repaired by several daughters, 3, 4 or 5, then the same.
1. The existing structure of ancient Russian society is reflected in the oldest code of laws - “Russian Truth”. This document was created during the 11th-12th centuries. and received its name in 1072. It was started by Yaroslav the Wise, who in 1016 created a set of laws on order in Novgorod (“Yaroslav’s Truth”). And in 1072, three Yaroslavich brothers (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod) supplemented the code with new laws. It was called “Pravda Yaroslavichy” and became the second part of “Russian Truth”. Subsequently, the code was repeatedly supplemented by princely statutes and church regulations.
2. In “Yaroslav’s Truth,” the law still allowed blood feud for the murder of a person, but only close relatives (brother, father, son) could take revenge. And in “Pravda Yaroslavichy” revenge was generally prohibited and replaced with a fine - vira. Vira went to the prince. The law protected the administration, property and working population of the princely estates.
3. The Law already had visible features of social inequality; it reflected the beginning of the process of class division. There was a fine for harboring other people's servants (servants); a free man could kill a serf for an offense. For the murder of a princely fireman (manager) there was a fine of 80 hryvnia, a headman - 12 hryvnia, and a smerda or serf - 5 hryvnia. Fines were also established for the theft of livestock and poultry, plowing someone else's land, and violating boundaries. The power of the Grand Duke passed according to seniority - the eldest in the family became the Grand Duke.
4. “Russian Truth” regulated relations between people in society with the help of laws, which put state and public life in order.
5. Social organization of society of the Eastern Slavs at the beginning of the 9th century. reflects the process of formation of feudal relations. They are based on the feudal lord's ownership of the main means of production - land and incomplete ownership of the feudal-dependent worker. During this period, the military-retinue nobility became the owner of the land, and the community farmers living and working on it paid them a tax for the use of the land. There are two main classes - peasants (primarily smerds) and feudal lords.
Smerds were people engaged in agricultural work. They made up the bulk of the population and were divided into free community members, who conducted subsistence farming and paid tribute to the prince, and dependent people. The dependent population consisted of:
ü purchases - bankrupt community members who became dependent on the prince, taking a “kupa” (debt) from him in money, livestock, seeds or equipment;
ü ryadovichi - dependent people who entered into an agreement with the prince (“row”);
ü outcasts - impoverished people from communities;
ü serfs - dependent people who were in the position of slaves and performed master's work on the estate;
ü the entire population who worked in the estate and were dependent on the estate owner, or servants.
The class of feudal lords consisted of military-princely nobility - representatives of the grand-ducal house with the Grand Duke at its head, princes of tribes or lands, boyars, senior warriors.
6. At the beginning of the 9th century. There is a unification of groups of East Slavic tribes. It was based on the following reasons:
ü economic development;
ü social processes during the period of military democracy;
ü development of trade relations;
ü community of pagan beliefs;
ü the need for protection from external attacks;
ü implementation of aggressive policy.
The cities of Kyiv and Novgorod became the centers of unification. Conveniently located on the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” they united two groups of East Slavic tribes - northern and southern. The first included the Slavs, Krivichi and a number of non-Slavic tribes. In the second - glades, northerners, Vyatichi.
INTRODUCTION
The largest monument of Old Russian law and the main legal document of the Old Russian state was a collection of legal norms, called Russian Truth, which retained its significance in later periods of history. Its norms underlie the Pskov and
Novgorod judgment letters and subsequent legislative acts of not only Russian, but also Lithuanian law. More than a hundred lists of Russian Truth have survived to this day. Unfortunately, the original text of Russian Truth has not reached us. The first text was discovered and prepared for publication by the famous Russian historian V.N. Tatishchev in
1738. The name of the monument differs from European traditions, where similar collections of law received purely legal titles - law, lawyer. In Rus' at that time the concepts were known
“charter”, “law”, “custom”, but the document is designated by the legal-moral term “Truth”. It represents a whole complex of legal documents of the 11th - 12th centuries, the components of which were the Most Ancient Truth (circa 1015), Truth
Yaroslavich (about 1072), Charter of Monomakh (about 1120-1130)
.Russian Truth, depending on the edition, is divided into Brief,
Extensive and Abbreviated.
The Brief Truth is the oldest edition of the Russian Truth, which consisted of two parts. Its first part was adopted in the 30s. XI century . The place of publication of this part of the Russian Pravda is controversial, the chronicle points to Novgorod, but many authors admit that it was created in the center of the Russian land - Kyiv and associate it with the name of Prince Yaroslav the Wise (Pravda Yaroslav). It included 18 articles (1-18) and was entirely devoted to criminal law. Most likely, it arose during the struggle for the throne between Yaroslav and his brother Svyatopolk (1015 - 1019).
. Yaroslav's hired Varangian squad came into conflict with the Novgorodians, which was accompanied by murders and beatings. In an effort to resolve the situation, Yaroslav appeased the Novgorodians by “giving them the Truth and writing off the charter, thus telling them: walk according to its charter.” Behind these words in the 1st Novgorod Chronicle is the text of the Most Ancient Truth.
The characteristic features of the first part of the Russian Truth are the following: the action of the custom of blood feud, the lack of a clear differentiation of the size of fines depending on the social affiliation of the victim. The second part was adopted in Kyiv at the congress of princes and major feudal lords after the suppression of the uprising of the lower classes in 1086 and received the name Pravda
Yaroslavich. It consisted of 25 articles (19-43), but in some sources articles 42-43 are separate parts and are called accordingly: Pokonvirny and Lesson of Bridge Workers. Its title indicates that the collection was developed by three sons
Yaroslav the Wise with the participation of major persons from the feudal environment. There are clarifications in the texts, from which we can conclude that the collection was approved no earlier than the year of Yaroslav’s death (1054) and no later than 1077 (the year of the death of one of his sons)
The second part of the Russian Truth reflects the process of development of feudal relations: the abolition of blood feud, the protection of the life and property of feudal lords with increased penalties. Most of the articles
The Brief Truth contains norms of criminal law and judicial process
.
The Extensive Truth was compiled after the suppression of the uprising in Kyiv in 1113. It consisted of two parts - the Court of Yaroslav and the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh. Long edition of the Russian
Pravda contains 121 articles.
Extensive Truth is a more developed code of feudal law, which enshrined the privileges of feudal lords, the dependent position of smerds, purchases, and the lack of rights of serfs. Extensive Truth testified to the process of further development of feudal land ownership, paying much attention to the protection of ownership of land and other property. Certain norms of the Extensive Truth determined the procedure for transferring property by inheritance and concluding contracts.
Most of the articles relate to criminal law and judicial process.
The Abridged Truth was formed in the middle of the 15th century. from recycled
Dimensional Truth.
It is indisputable that, like any other legal act, Russian
Truth could not arise out of nowhere, without a basis in the form of sources of law. All that remains for me is to list and analyze these sources, to evaluate their contribution to the creation of the Russian
Truth. I would like to add that the study of the legal process is not only purely cognitive, academic, but also political and practical in nature. It allows a deeper understanding of the social nature of law, features and traits, and makes it possible to analyze the causes and conditions of its emergence and development.
1.1. SOURCES OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN LAW
The most ancient source of any law, including Russian, is custom, that is, a rule that was followed due to repeated application and became a habit of people. There were no antagonisms in the clan society, therefore customs were observed voluntarily. There were no special bodies to protect customs from violation. Customs changed very slowly, which was quite consistent with the pace of change in society itself. Initially, the law developed as a set of new customs, the observance of which was obligated by the nascent state bodies, and primarily by the courts.
Later, legal norms (rules of behavior) were established by acts of princes. When a custom is sanctioned by government authority, it becomes a rule of customary law.
In the 9th – 10th centuries in Rus' it was precisely the system of norms of oral
, common law. Some of these norms, unfortunately, were not recorded in the collections of law and chronicles that have reached us. one can only guess about them from individual fragments in literary monuments and treaties between Rus' and Byzantium in the 10th century.
One of the most famous ancient Russian legal monuments of that time, in which these norms were reflected, as I already mentioned in the introduction, is the largest source of ancient Russian law - Russian Truth. The sources of its codification were the norms of customary law and princely judicial practice. The norms of customary law recorded in the Russian Pravda include, first of all, the provisions on blood feud (Article 1 of the Communist Code) and mutual responsibility. (Art.
20 CP). The legislator shows a different attitude towards these customs: he seeks to limit blood feud (narrowing the circle of avengers) or completely abolish it, replacing it with a fine - vira (there is a similarity with the “Salic truth” of the Franks, where blood feud was also replaced with a fine); in contrast to blood feud, mutual responsibility is preserved as a measure that binds all members of the community with responsibility for their member who committed a crime (“Wild Virus” was imposed on the entire community)
In our literature on the history of Russian law, there is no consensus on the origin of Russian Pravda. Some consider it not an official document, not a genuine monument of legislation, but a private legal collection compiled by some ancient Russian lawyer or group of lawyers for their own personal purposes.. Others believe
The Russian Pravda is an official document, a genuine work of the Russian legislative power, only spoiled by copyists, as a result of which many different lists of Pravda appeared, which differ in the number, order and even text of the articles.
One of the sources of Russian Truth was the Russian Law
(rules of criminal, inheritance, family, procedural law). Disputes about its essence still continue to this day. In history
Russian law does not have a consensus on this document. According to some historians, supporters of the Norman theory of origin
The Old Russian state, the Russian Law was Scandinavian law, and the famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky believed that the Russian Law was a “legal custom”, and as a source of Russian Pravda it is not “the primitive legal custom of the Eastern Slavs, but the law of urban Rus', formed from quite diverse elements in 9-
11th centuries." According to other historians, the Russian Law was customary law created in Rus' over the centuries and reflected relations of social inequality and was the law of an early feudal society, located at a lower stage of feudalization than the one at which the Most Ancient Truth arose. Russian Law was necessary for the conduct of princely policies in the annexed Slavic and non-Slavic lands. It represented a qualitatively new stage in the development of Russian oral law in the conditions of the existence of the state. It is known that it is also partially reflected in the treaties between Rus' and the Greeks.
Treaties with the Greeks are a source of exceptional importance that allowed the researcher to penetrate the secrets of Rus' in the 9th – 10th centuries. These treaties are the clearest indicator of the high international position of the Old Russian state; they are the first documents of the history of Rus' in the Middle Ages. Their very appearance speaks of the seriousness of relations between the two states, of class society, and the details quite clearly introduce us to the nature of the direct relations between Rus' and Byzantium. This is explained by this. that in Rus' there was already a powerful class interested in concluding treaties. They were needed not by the peasant masses, but by princes, boyars and merchants. We have four of them: 907, 911, 944, 972. They pay a lot of attention to the regulation of trade relations, the definition of the rights that Russian merchants enjoyed in
Byzantium, as well as the norms of criminal law. From the agreements with the Greeks, we have private property, which its owner has the right to dispose of and, among other things, transfer it by will.
According to the peace treaty of 907, the Byzantines agreed to pay
Rus' a monetary indemnity, and then pay a monthly tribute, provide a certain food allowance for Russian ambassadors and merchants coming to Byzantium, as well as for representatives of other states. Prince Oleg achieved duty-free trading rights in Byzantine markets for Russian merchants. The Russians even received the right to wash in the baths of Constantinople, before which only free subjects of Byzantium could visit them. The agreement was sealed during Oleg’s personal meeting with the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI. As a sign of the end of hostilities, the conclusion of peace,
Oleg hung his shield on the gates of the city. This was the custom of many peoples of Eastern Europe. This treaty presents us with Russians no longer as wild Varangians, but as people who know the sanctity of honor and national solemn conditions, have their own laws establishing personal security, property, the right of inheritance, the power of wills, and have internal and external trade.
In 911, Oleg confirmed his peace treaty with Byzantium. In the course of lengthy ambassadorial treaties, the first detailed written agreement in the history of Eastern Europe was concluded between Byzantium and
Russia. This agreement opened with an ambiguous phrase: “We are from the Russian family... sent from Oleg the Grand Duke of Russia and from everyone who is at his hand - the bright and great princes and his great boyars...”
The treaty confirmed “peace and love” between the two states. IN
In 13 articles, the parties agreed on all economic, political, and legal issues of interest to them, and determined the responsibility of their subjects if they committed any crimes. One of the articles talked about concluding a military alliance between them. From now on, Russian troops regularly appeared as part of the Byzantine army during its campaigns against enemies. It should be noted that among the names of the 14 nobles used by the Grand Duke to conclude peace terms with the Greeks, there is not a single Slavic one. Having read this text, one might think that only the Varangians surrounded our first sovereigns and enjoyed their power of attorney, participating in the affairs of government.
The 944 treaty mentions all Russian people in order to more strongly emphasize the idea immediately following this phrase about the binding nature of treaties for all Russian people. Treaties were concluded not on behalf of the veche, but on behalf of the prince and the boyars. Now we can have no doubt that all these noble and powerful men were large landowners, not just yesterday, but with a long history of their own, who managed to grow stronger in their estates. This is evidenced by the fact that with the death of the head of the family, his wife became the head of such a noble house. Russian Truth confirms this position: “What a husband has laid on a nude, there is also a mistress” (Trinity List, art. 93). A significant part of the norms of customary oral law in a processed form entered the Russian
The truth. For example, Article 4 of the 944 treaty is generally absent from the 911 treaty, which establishes a reward for the return of a runaway servant, but a similar provision is included in the Longitudinal
Truth (Article 113). Analyzing Russian-Byzantine treaties, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that there can be no talk of any dominance of Byzantine law. They either give the so-called contractual, on the basis of a compromise between Russian and Byzantine law (a typical example is the rule on murder) or implement the principles of Russian law - Russian law, as we see in the rule on blows with a sword “Whether to strike with a sword or to hit with a sword or a vessel, for that emphasis or beating and give a liter
5 silver according to the Russian law” or in the norm on theft of property.
They indicate a fairly high development of inheritance law in Rus'.
But I think Russia’s adoption of Christianity had a special influence on the development of the law of ancient Rus'. In 988, during the reign of
In Kyiv, Prince Vladimir, the so-called “Baptism of Rus'” takes place. The process of Rus''s transition to the new faith proceeds gradually, encountering certain difficulties associated with the change in the old, established worldview and the reluctance of part of the population to convert to the new faith.
At the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century, along with the new religion, new legislative acts came to pagan Rus', mainly Byzantine and South Slavic, containing the fundamental foundations of church - Byzantine law, which later became one of the sources of the legal monument I was studying. In the process of strengthening the position of Christianity and its spread on the territory of Kievan Rus, a number of Byzantine legal documents - nomocanons, i.e. associations of canonical collections of church rules of the Christian church and decrees of the Roman and Byzantine emperors on the church.
The most famous of them are: a) The Nomocanon of John Scholasticus, written in the 6th century and containing the most important church rules, divided into 50 titles, and a collection of secular laws of 87 chapters; b) Nomocanon 14 titles; c) Eclogue, published in 741 by the Byzantine Emperor Leo
Iosovryanin and his son Konstantin, dedicated to civil law (16 titles out of 18) and regulating mainly feudal land ownership; d) Prochiron, published at the end of the 8th century by Emperor Constantine, called in Rus' the City Law or the Manual Book of Laws; e) The Law of Judgment for People, created by the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon.
Over time, these church-legal documents, called in Rus'
The Helmsmen's Books take on the force of full-fledged legislative acts, and soon after their dissemination the institution of church courts, existing along with princely ones, begins to take root. Now we should describe in more detail the functions of church courts. Since the adoption of Christianity, the Russian Church has been granted dual jurisdiction. Firstly, she judged all Christians, both clergy and laity, on certain matters of a spiritual and moral nature. Such a trial was to be carried out on the basis of the nomocanon brought from Byzantium and on the basis of church statutes issued by the first Christian princes of Rus' Vladimir Svyatoslavovich and Yaroslav
Vladimirovich. The second function of church courts was the right to trial Christians (clergy and laity) in all matters: church and non-church, civil and criminal. Church court in non-church civil and criminal cases, which extended only to church people, was to be carried out according to local law and caused the need for a written set of local laws, which was the Russian Truth.
I would highlight two reasons for the need to create such a set of laws:
1) The first church judges in Rus' were Greeks and southern Slavs, not familiar with Russian legal customs, 2) Russian legal customs contained many norms of pagan customary law, which often did not correspond to the new Christian morality, so church courts sought, if not completely eliminated, then at least try to soften some of the customs that were most distasteful to the moral and legal sense of Christian judges brought up on Byzantine law. It was these reasons that prompted the legislator to create the document I was studying.
I believe that the creation of a written code of laws is directly related to the adoption of Christianity and the introduction of the institution of church courts. After all, earlier, until the middle of the 11th century, the princely judge did not need a written code of laws, because The ancient legal customs that guided the prince and princely judges in judicial practice were still strong. The adversarial process also dominated, in which the litigants actually led the process. And, finally, the prince, possessing legislative power, could, if necessary, fill in legal gaps or resolve the casual perplexity of the judge.
Also, to make the assertion that the creation of
Russian Pravda was influenced by monuments of church-Byzantine law; the following examples can be given:
1) Russian Truth is silent about the judicial duels that undoubtedly took place in Russian legal proceedings of the 11th - 12th centuries, which were established in the “Russian Law” I mentioned earlier. Also, many other phenomena that took place, but were contrary to the Church, or actions that fell under the jurisdiction of church courts, but on the basis of no
Russian Pravda, but church laws (for example, insult with words, insult of women and children, etc.).
2) Even by its appearance, Russian Truth indicates its connection with Byzantine legislation. This is a small codex like the Eclogue and
Prochirona (synoptic codex).
In Byzantium, according to the tradition that came from Roman jurisprudence, a special form of codification was diligently processed, which can be called synoptic codification. Its example was given by the Institutes of Justinian, and further examples are the neighbors of Russian Truth in the Book of the Pilot - Eclogue and
Prochiron. These are brief systematic statements of law, rather works of jurisprudence than legislation, not so much codes as textbooks, adapted for the easiest knowledge of laws.
Comparing the Russian Truth with the monuments of Byzantine church law, summing up the above observations, I came to the conclusion that the text
Russian Pravda was formed in the environment not of a princely court, but of a church court, in the environment of church jurisdiction, the goals of which guided the compiler of this legal monument in his work.
Russian Truth is one of the largest legal works of the Middle Ages. By the time of its origin, it is the oldest monument of Slavic law, entirely based on the judicial practice of the Eastern Slavs. Even Procopius of Caesarea in the 6th century noted that among the Slavs and Antes “all life and laws are the same.” Of course, there is no reason to mean “legalization” of the Russian Truth here, but it is necessary to recognize the existence of some norms according to which the life of the Antes flowed and which were remembered by experts in customs and preserved by the clan authorities. It is not for nothing that the Russian word “law” passed on to the Pechenegs and was in use among them in the 12th century. It is safe to say that blood feud was well known at that time, although in a reduced form in Russian Pravda. There is no doubt that a tribal community with customs in the process of decomposition, occurring under the influence of the development of the institution of private ownership of land, turned into a neighboring community with a certain range of rights and obligations. This new community was reflected in Russian Pravda. All attempts to prove any influence on Russian Truth on the part of Byzantine, South Slavic, Scandinavian legislation turned out to be completely fruitless. Russian Truth arose entirely on Russian soil and was the result of the development of Russian legal thought of the X-XII centuries.
1. 2. LEGAL STATUS OF THE POPULATION
All feudal societies were strictly stratified, that is, they consisted of classes, the rights and responsibilities of which were clearly defined by law as unequal in relation to each other and to the state. In other words, each class had its own legal status. It would be a great simplification to consider feudal society from the point of view of exploiters and exploited. The class of feudal lords, constituting the fighting force of the princely squads, despite all their material benefits, could lose their lives - the most valuable thing - easier and more likely than the poor class of peasants. The feudal class was formed gradually. It included princes, boyars, squads, local nobility, posadniks, and tiuns. The feudal lords exercised civil administration and were responsible for a professional military organization. They were mutually connected by a system of vassalage, regulating rights and obligations to each other and to the state. To ensure management functions, the population paid tribute and court fines. The material needs of the military organization were provided by land ownership.
Feudal society was religiously static, not prone to dramatic evolution. In an effort to consolidate this static nature, the state preserved relations with the estates in legislation.
The Russian Pravda contains a number of norms that determine the legal status of certain groups of the population. The personality of the prince occupies a special place. He is treated as an individual, which indicates his high position and privileges. But further in its text it is quite difficult to draw a line dividing the legal status of the ruling stratum and the rest of the population. We find only two legal criteria that particularly distinguish these groups in society: norms on increased (double) criminal liability - double penalty (80 hryvnia ) for the murder of a representative of the privileged layer (Article 1 of the PP) of princely servants, grooms, tiuns, firemen. But the code is silent about the boyars and warriors themselves. Probably, the death penalty was applied to them for encroachment. The chronicles repeatedly describe the use of execution during popular unrest. And also rules on a special procedure for inheriting real estate (land) for representatives of this layer
(Article 91 PP). In the feudal stratum, the earliest of all was the abolition of restrictions on female inheritance. Church statutes establish high fines for violence against boyars’ wives and daughters, ranging from 1 to 5 hryvnia silver. Also, a number of articles protect the property of feudal lords
. A fine of 12 hryvnia is established for violating the land boundary; fines are also levied for the destruction of beekeepers, boyar lands, and for the theft of hunting falcons and hawks.
The bulk of the population was divided into free and dependent people; there were also intermediate and transitional categories.
The urban population was divided into a number of social groups: boyars, clergy, merchants. “lower classes” (artisans, small traders, workers, etc.) In science, the question of its legal status has not been adequately resolved due to a lack of sources. It is difficult to determine to what extent the population of Russian cities enjoyed urban liberties similar to those in Europe, which further contributed to the development of capitalism in cities. According to the historian's calculations
M.N. Tikhomirov, in Rus' in the pre-Mongol period there existed before
300 cities. City life was so developed that it allowed
IN. Klyuchevsky came up with the theory of “merchant capitalism” in the Ancient
Rus'. M.L. Tikhomirov believed that in Rus' “the air of the city made a person free,” and many runaway slaves were hiding in the cities.
Free city residents enjoyed the legal protection of the Russian
True, they were subject to all articles on the protection of honor, dignity and life. The merchant class played a special role. It early began to unite into corporations (guilds), called hundreds. Usually the “merchant hundred” operated under some church. "Ivanovo Sto" in Novgorod was one of the first merchant organizations in Europe.
The smerds, the community members, were also a legally and economically independent group (they paid taxes and performed duties only in favor of the state).
In science, there are a number of opinions about smerds; they are considered free peasants, feudal dependents, persons in a slave state, serfs, and even a category similar to petty knighthood. But the main debate is conducted along the lines of: free or dependent (slaves). Many historians, for example S.A. Pokrovsky, consider smerds as commoners, ordinary citizens, everywhere presented as Russian Pravda, a free person unlimited in his legal capacity. So S.V. Yushkov saw in the smerds a special category of the enslaved rural population, and B.D. Grekov believed that there were dependent smerds and free smerds. A.A. Zimin defended the idea of the origin of smerds from slaves.
Two articles of Russian Pravda have an important place in substantiating opinions.
Article 26 of the Brief Truth, which establishes a fine for the murder of slaves, in one reading reads: “And in the stink and in the slave 5 hryvnia” (Academic list) In the Archaeographic list we read: “And in the stink in the serf 5 hryvnia” In the first reading it turns out that in case of murder of a serf and a serf, the same fine is paid. From the second list it follows that Smerd has a slave who is killed
. It is impossible to resolve the situation.
Article 90 of the Extensive Truth states: “If the smerd dies, then the inheritance goes to the prince; if he has daughters, then give them a dowry.” Some researchers interpret it in the sense that after the death of Smerd, his property passed entirely to the prince and he is a man of a “dead hand,” that is, unable to pass on an inheritance. But further articles explain the situation - we are talking only about those smerdas who died without sons, and the exclusion of women from inheritance is characteristic at a certain stage of all the peoples of Europe. From this we see that the smerd ran the household together with his family.
However, the difficulties of determining the status of a smerd do not end there. Smerd, according to other sources, acts as a peasant who owns a house, property, and a horse. For the theft of his horse, the law establishes a fine of 2 hryvnia. For “flour” stink, a fine of 3 hryvnia is established. Russian Pravda nowhere specifically indicates a limitation on the legal capacity of smerds; there are indications that they pay fines (sales) characteristic of free citizens. The law protected the person and property of the smerda. For the committed misdeeds and crimes, as well as for obligations and contracts, he bore personal and property liability; for debts, the smerd was in danger of becoming a feudal-dependent purchase; in the legal process, the smerd acted as a full participant.
Russian Pravda always indicates, if necessary, membership in a specific social group (combatant, serf, etc.) In the mass of articles about free people, it is the free people who are meant; about smerds, it comes only where their status needs to be highlighted.
Tributes, polyudye and other exactions undermined the foundations of the community, and many of its members, in order to pay the tribute in full and somehow survive themselves, were forced to go into debt bondage with their rich neighbors. Debt bondage has become the most important source of creating economically dependent people. They turned into servants and slaves who bent their backs on their masters and had virtually no rights. One of these categories were the rank and file
(from the word “row” - agreement) - those who enter into an agreement on their temporary servile position, and his life was valued at 5 hryvnia.
Being a private employee was not always bad; he could turn out to be a key holder or a manager.. A more complex legal figure is procurement.
The Brief Pravda does not mention procurement, but the Long Pravda contains a special charter on procurement. Zakup - a person who worked on the feudal lord’s farm for a “kupa”, a loan, which could include various valuables: land, livestock, money, etc. This debt had to be worked off, and there were no standards. The scope of work was determined by the lender. Therefore, with the increase in interest on the loan, bondage increased and could continue for a long time. The first legal settlement of debt relations between purchases and creditors was made in the Charter of Vladimir
Monomakh after the procurement uprising in 1113. Maximum interest rates on debt were established. The law protected the person and property of the purchaser, prohibiting the master from punishing and taking away property without cause. If the purchase itself committed an offense, the responsibility was twofold: the master paid a fine for it to the victim, but the purchase itself could be issued by the head, i.e. turned into a complete serf. Its legal status changed dramatically.
For attempting to leave the master without paying, the purchaser was turned into a serf. The purchaser could act as a witness in a trial only in special cases: in minor cases (“in small claims”) or in the absence of other witnesses (“out of need”). The purchase was the legal figure who most clearly illustrated the process
“feudalization”, enslavement, enslavement of former free community members.
In Russian Pravda, “role” (arable) procurement, working on someone else’s land, in its legal status did not differ from procurement
"non-role." Both differed from hired workers, in particular in that they received payment for work in advance, and not after completion. Role purchases, working on someone else's land, cultivated it partly for the master, partly for themselves. Non-role purchases provided personal services to the master in his home. In the feudal economy, the labor of slaves was widely used, the ranks of which were replenished by prisoners, as well as by ruined fellow tribesmen. The position of the slaves was extremely difficult - they
“They ate below rye bread and without salt because of their extreme poverty.” Feudal shackles tenaciously held a person in a slave position. Sometimes, completely despairing and giving up on all earthly and heavenly hopes, the slaves tried to break them and raised their hands against the offenders-masters. So, in 1066, reports
Novgorod Chronicle, one of the church fanatics, Bishop Stefan, was strangled by his own slaves. The serf is the most powerless subject of law. His property status is special: everything he owned was the property of the master. His personality as a subject of law was not protected by law. In a lawsuit, a slave cannot act as a party. (plaintiff, defendant, witness). Referring to his testimony in court, a free man had to make a reservation that he was referring to the “words of a serf.” The law regulated various sources of servility of the Russian Truth and provided for the following cases: sale into slavery itself, birth from a slave, marriage to a slave, “key holding”, i.e. entering the service of a master, but without a reservation about maintaining the status of a free person. The most common source of servility, not mentioned however in
Russian Pravda, was captured. But if the slave was a prisoner - “taken from the army,” then his fellow tribesmen could ransom him. The price for a prisoner was high - 10 zlatniks, full-weight gold coins of Russian or Byzantine mintage. Not everyone expected such a ransom to be paid for him. And if the slave came from his own Russian family-tribe, then he waited and wished for the death of his master. The owner could, by his spiritual testament, hoping to atone for earthly sins, set his slaves free. After this, the slave turned into a freedman, that is, set free. Slaves stood at the lowest rung even in those ancient times on the ladder of social relations. The sources of servitude were also: the commission of a crime (punishment such as “flow and plunder” included the extradition of the criminal with his head, turning into a slave), the flight of a purchase from the master, malicious bankruptcy (the merchant loses or squanders other people’s property) Life became more difficult, tributes and quitrents increased. The ruin of the community smerds through unbearable exactions gave rise to another category of dependent outcast people. An outcast is a person expelled from his circle by the force of difficult life circumstances, going bankrupt, losing his home, family, and household. The name “outcast” apparently comes from the ancient verb “goit”, which in ancient times was equivalent to the word
"live". The very emergence of a special word to designate such people speaks of a large number of disadvantaged people. Izgoystvo as a social phenomenon became widespread in Ancient Rus', and feudal legislators had to include articles about outcasts in the codes of ancient laws, and the church fathers constantly mentioned them in their sermons
So from all of the above, you can get some idea of the legal status of the main categories of the population in
Rus'.
CONCLUSION
Undoubtedly, Russian Truth is a unique monument of ancient Russian law. Being the first written set of laws, it nevertheless quite fully covers a very wide area of \u200b\u200bthe relations of that time. It represents a set of developed feudal law, which reflected the norms of criminal and civil law and procedure.
Russian Truth is an official act. Its text itself contains references to the princes who adopted or changed the law (Yaroslav
Wise, Yaroslavichi, Vladimir Monomakh).
Russian Truth is a monument of feudal law. It comprehensively defends the interests of the ruling class and openly proclaims the lack of rights of unfree workers - serfs, servants.
Russian Truth in all its editions and lists is a monument of enormous historical significance. For several centuries it served as the main guide in legal proceedings. In one form or another, the Russian Truth became part of or served as one of the sources of later judicial charters: the Pskov judicial charter, the Dvina charter of 1550, even some articles of the Council Code of 1649.
The long use of the Russian Pravda in court cases explains to us the appearance of such types of lengthy editions of the Russian Pravda, which were subject to alterations and additions back in the 14th and 16th centuries.
Russian Truth satisfied the needs of princely courts so well that it was included in legal collections until the 15th century. Lists
Extensive Truth was actively disseminated back in the 15th - 16th centuries. And only in
In 1497, the Code of Law of Ivan III Vasilyevich was published, replacing the Extensive
Truth as the main source of law in the territories united within the centralized Russian state.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. GREKOV B.D. Kievan Rus. Politizdat. 1953.
2. ZIMIN A.A. Serfs in Rus'. M. Science. 1973.
3. ISAEV I. A. History of the state and law of Russia. M. 1999.
4. SVERDLOV M.B. From Russian law to Russian Truth. M. 1988.
5. TIKHOMIROV M.N. A manual for studying Russian Truth. Publishing house
Moscow University. 1953.
6. CHRESTOMATHY on the history of state and law of the USSR. Pre-October period.
Edited by TITOV Y.P. and CHISTYAKOVA I.O. M. 1990.
7. KLYUCHEVSKY V.O. Course of Russian history, part 1.5-ed.M
8. SHCHAPOV Y.N. Princely charters and the church in Ancient Rus' 9-14 centuries.
9. YUSHKOV S.V. Russian Truth: Origin, sources, its meaning. M.
IV. PECHERSK ASCETS. THE BEGINNING OF BOOK LITERATURE AND LEGISLATION
(continuation)
Origin of Russian Truth. - Judicial rule. - Difference by class. – Economy and trade. - Woman. - Foreigners.
A very important monument to the civil status of Rus' in those days dates back to the era of Yaroslav, his sons and grandsons. This is the so-called Russian Truth, or the first recorded collection of our most ancient laws. Among the Russians, as elsewhere, established customs and relationships served as the basis for legislation. The first collections of laws usually responded to the needs of court and reprisal as the most necessary conditions for a somewhat organized human society. The most important social need is to protect personal and property security; and therefore all ancient legislation is primarily criminal in nature, i.e. First of all, it determines punishments and penalties for murder, beatings, wounds, theft and other crimes against person or property.
The beginning of Russian Truth goes back to times more ancient than the reign of Yaroslav. Already under the first historically known prince of Kiev, under Oleg, there are references to articles of Russian law, namely in the treaty with the Greeks. The same instructions are repeated in Igor’s contract. Yaroslav, known for his love for the zemstvo organization and the book business, apparently ordered the collection of rules and customs related to legal proceedings and the compilation of a written code to guide judges for the future. The first article of this code determines the penalty for the most important crime, for murder. This article represents a clear transition from a barbaric, almost primitive, state to a more civil state. Among the Russians, like other peoples who were at low levels of social development, personal safety was protected primarily by the custom of family revenge, i.e. the duty for the death of a relative to avenge the death of the murderer. With the adoption of Christianity and the success of citizenship, this article naturally had to be softened or changed, which did not happen suddenly, but very gradually, because the custom of bloody revenge was so ingrained in popular morals that it was not easy to eradicate it. Vladimir the Great, according to the chronicles, is already wavering between the death penalty and vira. After his baptism, under the influence of the new religion, he apparently abolished the death penalty and the right of bloody revenge, and imposed a monetary penalty, or vira, for murder; then, when the robberies increased, on the advice of the bishops themselves, he began to execute the robbers by death; and in the end he again canceled the execution and ordered that the penalty be exacted.
Yaroslav in the first article of Russian Pravda allowed bloody revenge for murder, but only to close relatives, namely sons, brothers and nephews. If there were no locals (due to the lack of close relatives or their refusal to take bloody revenge), then the killer must pay a certain fee. But this exception for close degrees of kinship existed only before the sons of Yaroslav.
After him, Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod gathered for a general council on the structure of the zemstvo together with their main boyars; there were thousand people, Kiev Kosnyachko, Chernigov Pereneg and Pereyaslav Nikifor, in addition, boyars, Chudin and Mikula. They revised the Russian Truth, supplemented it with new articles and, by the way, completely abolished the right of bloody revenge, replacing it with vira in all cases for a free person. Vladimir Monomakh, soon after his approval in Kyiv, began a new revision of the Russian Truth, caused, of course, by new circumstances and developing needs. In his country courtyard on Berestov, he, according to custom, for advice on such an important matter, called his thousand, Ratibor of Kyiv, Procopius of Belgorod, Stanislav of Pereyaslavl, boyars Nazhir and Miroslav. In addition, Ivanko Chudinovich, boyar of Oleg Svyatoslavich, was present at this council. Vladimir’s most important addition seems to have related to the statute of cuts, or growth; Let’s not forget that after the death of Svyatopolk-Mikhail, the people of Kiev rebelled and plundered the Jews, who, of course, aroused hatred towards themselves with their usual covetousness. Additions and changes to Russian Pravda continued after Monomakh; but its main parts remained the same.
Let us now see in what form the social concepts and relations of our ancestors appear before us on the basis of Russian Truth.
At the head of the entire Russian land is the Grand Duke of Kiev. He takes care of the zemstvo system, establishes justice and punishment. He is surrounded by boyars or senior squads, with whom he consults about all important matters, confirms old statutes or makes changes to them. In zemstvo affairs, he especially consults with the thousand; their name indicates the military-popular division that once existed into thousands and hundreds; but in this era, by all indications, these were the main zemstvo dignitaries, appointed from among the honored boyars and helping the prince in governance; a thousand no longer designated a numerical division as a zemstvo or volost division. Sometimes the Grand Duke, to resolve the most important zemstvo affairs, gathers the elders among the appanage princes, such as Izyaslav and Svyatopolk II. But Yaroslav and Vladimir Monomakh, who knew how to actually be the head of the princely house, issue statutes for the entire Russian land, without asking the necessary consent of the appanage princes.
Reading the Russian Truth to the people in the presence of Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise. Artist A. Kivshenko, 1880
The place for the court is the court of the prince, and in regional cities - the court of his governor; the court is carried out by the prince personally or through his tiuns. In determining the different degrees of punishment, the division of the people into three states, or three classes, is clearly visible: the princely squad, the smerds and the slaves. The bulk of the population were smerds; it was a general name for free residents of cities and villages. Another common name for them was people, in the unit. number of people For the murder of a human being, a vira, or fine, was paid, determined at 40 hryvnia. The highest status was the military class, or princely squad. But the latter also had different degrees. Simple warriors bore the names of children, youths, gridi and swordsmen; for the murder of such a simple warrior, an ordinary vire was assigned, as for a merchant or other smerd, i.e. 40 hryvnia. The senior warriors were people close to the prince, his boyars or, as they are called in Russian Pravda, princely men. For the murder of such a husband, double fines are imposed, i.e. 80 hryvnia. Judging by this double version, Pravda also includes among the “princely men” the chief princes, or servants, who filled the positions of judges, housekeepers, village elders, senior grooms, etc. The people of Dorogobuzh once, under Izyaslav Yaroslavich, killed the equerry tyun, who was part of the herd of the Grand Duke; the latter imposed a double virus on them; This example is turned into a rule in similar cases and for the future.
Next to the free population in cities and villages lived unfree people who bore the names of serfs, servants, and slaves. The initial source of slavery in ancient Russia, as elsewhere, was war, i.e. the prisoners were turned into slaves and sold along with any other booty. Russian Truth defines three more cases when a free person became a full or white slave: who is bought in front of witnesses, who marries a slave without a row, or an agreement with her master, and who goes without a row to tiuns or key holders. The serf had no civil rights and was considered the complete property of his master; for the murder of a serf or a slave there was no punishment; but if someone kills someone else’s slave innocently, he had to pay the lord the cost of the murdered person and the prince 12 hryvnia so-called. sale (i.e. penalty or fine). In addition to the full serfs, there was also a semi-free class, hirelings, or purchases; these were workers hired for a certain period of time. If a worker, having taken the money in advance, ran away from the master, then he turned into a complete or white slave.
If the killer escaped, then the virus had to pay the rope, i.e. community, and such a vira was called wild. Then penalties for wounds and beatings are determined. For example, for cutting off a hand or other important injury - half a vira, i.e. 20 hryvnia, to the prince's treasury; and for the mutilated - 10 hryvnia; for a blow with a stick or an undrawn sword - 12 hryvnia, etc. The offended person must first of all announce the theft at the auction; if he did not announce it, then, having found his thing, he cannot take it himself, but must take it to the vault of the person from whom he found it, i.e. find the thief, gradually moving on to each person from whom the item was acquired. If the thief is not found and the community, or the community, does not provide all the necessary assistance, then it must pay for the stolen item. A thief caught in the act at night could be killed with impunity “in place of the dog”; but if the owner kept him until the morning or tied him up, then he should already lead him to the prince’s court, i.e. submit to court. To prove the crime, the plaintiff was obliged to provide evidence and hearings, i.e. witnesses; In addition to witnesses, a company, or oath, was required. If no witnesses or clear evidence of the crime were presented, then a test with hot iron and water was used.
For unimportant crimes, the perpetrator paid a sale, or penalty, to the prince's treasury; and the more important ones, such as robbery, horse theft and incendiary, led to a flood, or imprisonment, and plunder of property. Part of the vir and sales was assigned to the prince's servants, who helped carry out the trial and reprisal and were called virniks, metelniks, yabetniks, etc. In the regions, during the trial and investigation, these princely servants and their horses were maintained at the expense of the residents. Repayments, or interest, are allowed in monthly and third periods, the former only for short-term loans; for too large cuts the moneylender could be deprived of his capital. Allowed cuts extended to 10 kunas per hryvnia per year, i.e. up to 20 percent.
Along with agriculture, cattle breeding, hunting and livestock, or beekeeping, also had an important place in the Russian economy of that time. For theft or damage to any livestock, a special penalty has been established, namely for a mare, ox, cow, pig, ram, sheep, goat, etc. Special care is seen for horses. The horse thief was given to the prince for free, while the caged thief paid the prince 3 hryvnia as a penalty. If anyone mounts someone else's horse without the owner's permission, he is punished with a three-hryvnia penalty. For digging up boundaries, bevels and rolls (arable land), 12 hryvnias of sale are assigned; the same amount for cutting down a boundary oak and for cutting a side sign. Beekeeping, obviously, was still primitive, forest, and property was indicated by special signs notched on the sides, i.e. in hollows that served as hives. For damaging the advantage, the culprit paid the owner a hryvnia, and the prince a penalty of 3 hryvnia. An advantage was a net set up in a clearing in the forest or some other place with special devices for catching wild birds. The unthreshed grain was stored on the threshing floor, and the threshed grain was hidden in pits; for the theft of both, 3 hryvnia and 30 kuna were charged for sale, i.e. fine the prince; and the offended person was either given back what was stolen, or a lesson was paid, i.e. its cost. For burning down someone else's threshing floor or yard, the culprit not only paid the victim for his entire loss, but he himself was handed over to the prince for free, and his house was handed over to the prince's servants for plunder.
Russian Truth also testifies to the development of trade, which was quite significant for that time. It protects, for example, a merchant from final ruin in the event of an accident. If he has lost the goods entrusted to him due to a shipwreck, war or fire, he is not responsible; but if he loses or spoils it through his own fault, then the trustees do with him as they wish. Obviously, trade in Rus' was then conducted largely on faith, that is, on credit. In the event of various debts being presented against a merchant, the foreign guests or traders who trusted him were first to be satisfied, and then their own, native ones, from the remains of their property. But if anyone had a princely debt, then the latter was satisfied first of all.
Corporal punishment, judging by Russian Pravda, was not allowed for a free person in those days; they existed only for slaves. Free people also differed from the latter in that they carried weapons with them, at least they had or could have a sword at their hip.
The rights of women under this ancient legislation are not clearly defined; but her position was not without rights at all. So, for the murder of a free woman half a vira is paid, i.e. 20 hryvnia. The inheritance (ass) of the smerd, who left no sons, goes to the prince, and only the unmarried daughters are given a certain part. But in the boyar and generally in the druzhina class, if there are no sons, then the daughters inherit the parental property; with sons they do not inherit; and brothers are only obliged to marry off their sisters, i.e. bear the associated costs. Children born to slaves do not inherit, but receive freedom along with their mother. The widow only wears what her husband has prescribed for her; however, she manages the house and the estate of young children, unless she remarries; and the children are obliged to obey her.
Russian Pravda partly divides the various populations of Ancient Rus' by class or occupation by region. So, she distinguishes between Rusin and Slovenin. The first obviously means a resident of Southern Rus', especially the Dnieper region; and under the second - a resident of the northern regions, especially the Novgorod land. In addition, Pravda mentions two foreign categories, namely the Varangians and Kolbyagi. For example, if a runaway slave hid with a Varangian or a kolbyag and the latter holds him for three days without announcing him, then he pays three hryvnias to the slave’s owner for the insult. On charges of fighting, only a company was required from a Varangian or Kolbyag, i.e. oath; whereas the native had to present two more witnesses. In the case of slander (accusation of murder), a full number of witnesses was required for the native, i.e. seven; and for the Varangian and Kolbyag - only two. In general, the legislation clearly shows protection or mitigation of conditions for foreigners. These articles confirm the constant presence of the Varangians in Rus' in the 11th and 12th centuries, however, from the second half of the 11th century, more as traders than mercenary warriors. It has not yet been decided exactly who the kolbyags were. The most likely opinion is that they mean the southeastern foreigners of Ancient Rus', known in part under the name of the Black Klobuks.
The truth does not mention the custom that was known among medieval peoples under the name of the Judgment of God, i.e. about the trial fight. But this custom, undoubtedly, existed in Rus' since ancient times and was completely in the spirit of the warlike Russian tribe. When two litigants were dissatisfied with the court verdict and could not come to any agreement, then, with the permission of the prince, they settled their litigation with the sword. Opponents entered into battle in the presence of their relatives, and the vanquished surrendered to the will of the winner.
Page of the Trinity List of Russian Truth. XIV century
... Let's move on to the social division of ancient Kievan Rus. It should be noted that a society at the first stage of development always has the same social division: among all the peoples of the Aryan tribe we find the following three groups: 1) the bulk (people in Kievan Rus), 2) a privileged layer (elders, boyars) and 3) slaves deprived of their rights (or slaves in the ancient Kiev language). Thus, the original social division was created not by some exceptional local historical condition, but by the nature of the tribe, so to speak. Already before the eyes of history, local conditions have developed and grown. Evidence of this growth is “Russkaya Pravda” - almost the only source of our judgments about the social structure of Kievan Rus. It has come to us in two editions: short and lengthy. The brief consists of 43 articles, of which the first 17 follow each other in a logical system. The Novgorod Chronicle, which contains this text of Pravda, passes it off as laws issued by Yaroslav. The short edition of Pravda differs in many ways from several lengthy editions of this monument. It is undoubtedly older than them and reflects Kiev society in the most ancient period of its life. The lengthy editions of Pravda, already consisting of more than 100 articles, contain in their text indications that they arose as a whole in the 12th century, not earlier; they contain the laws of the princes of the 12th century. (Vladimir Monomakh) and depict to us the society of Kievan Rus in its full development. The diversity of the text of different editions of Pravda makes it difficult to resolve the question of the origin of this monument. Old historians (Karamzin, Pogodin) recognized "Russian Truth" as the official collection of laws compiled by Yaroslav the Wise and supplemented by his successors. In later times, Pravda researcher Lange held the same opinion. But most scientists (Kalachev, Duvernois, Sergeevich, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, etc.) think that Pravda is a collection compiled by private individuals who, for their personal needs, wanted to have a set of legislative rules in force at that time. According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, “Russian Truth” arose in the church sphere, where there was a need to know the worldly law; This law was written down here. The private origin of "Russian Truth" is most likely because, firstly, in its text one can indicate articles not of legal, but of economic content, which were important only for private life, and, secondly, the external form of individual articles and entire editorial boards " Pravda" has the character of private records compiled as if by outside spectators of the prince's legal education activities.
Studying from the “Russian Truth” and from the chronicles the composition of the ancient Kyiv society, we can note its three oldest layers: 1) the highest, called the “city elders”, “human elders”; This is the zemstvo aristocracy, to which some researchers include the Ognishchans. We have already spoken about the elders; As for the fires, there are many opinions about them. Old scientists considered them to be homeowners or landowners, deriving the term from the word fire (in regional dialects it means a hearth or arable land on a burning site, i.e. on the site of a burnt forest); Vladimirsky-Budanov says in his “Review of the History of Russian Law” that senior warriors were first called “ognishchans,” but immediately adds that the Czech monument “Mater verborum” interprets the word ognishchanin as “freedman” (“libertus, cui post servitium accedit libertas"); The author thinks to hide the apparent contradiction by the consideration that the senior warriors could come from the younger, involuntary servants of the prince. The word fire in ancient times really meant a slave, a servant, in this sense it is found in the ancient, 11th century, translation of the Words of Gregory the Theologian; Therefore, some researchers (Klyuchevsky) see slave owners in the fires, in other words, rich people in that ancient period of society, when not land, but slaves were the main type of property. If you pay attention to the articles of the lengthy "Russian Pravda", which, instead of the "ognishchanin" of the short "Russian Pravda", talk about the "prince's husband" or "the fiery tiun", then one can consider the ognishchanin precisely for the prince's husband, and in particular for the tiun , head of the prince's slaves, i.e. for the person preceding the later courtiers or butlers. The position of the latter was very high at the princely courts, and at the same time they could themselves be slaves. In Novgorod, it seems, not only butlers, but the entire princely court (later nobles) were called firemen. So, therefore, it is possible to mistake the Ognishchans for noble princely men; but it is doubtful that the Ognishchans were the highest class of zemstvo society. 2) The middle class consisted of people (singular people), men, united in communities, faiths. 3) Serfs or servants - slaves and, moreover, unconditional, full, white (obly - round) were the third layer.
Over time, this social division becomes more complex. At the top of society there is already a princely squad, with which the former upper zemstvo class merges. The squad consists of an older one ("thinking boyars and brave men") and a younger one (youths, gridi), which also includes the prince's slaves. The princely administration and judges (mayor, tiun, virniki, etc.) are appointed from the ranks of the squad. The class of people is definitely divided into city dwellers (merchants, artisans) and villagers, of which free people are called smerds, and dependent people are called purchasers (role purchase, for example, is called a rural agricultural farm laborer). Purchases are not slaves, but they are the beginning of a class of conditionally dependent people in Rus', a class that over time replaced complete slaves. The squad and people are not closed social classes: it was possible to move from one to another. The main difference in their position was, on the one hand, in their attitude towards the prince (some served the prince, others paid him; as for the slaves, they had their master as their “master”, and not the prince, who had nothing to do with them), and on the other hand, in the economic and property relations of social classes among themselves.
We would be making a big mistake if we did not mention a completely special class of people in Kyiv society, a class that obeyed not the prince, but the church. This is a church society consisting of: 1) hierarchy, priesthood and monasticism; 2) persons who served the church, clergy; 3) persons looked after by the church - old, crippled, sick; 4) persons who came under the care of the church - outcasts, and 5) persons dependent on the church - “servants” (slaves), donated to the church from secular owners. The church charters of the princes describe the composition of the church society as follows:
"And these are the church people: the abbot, the abbess, the priest, the deacon and their children, and those who are in the wing: the priest, the monk, the monk, the marshmallow, the pilgrim, the sveshchegas, the watchman, the blind man, the lame man, the widow, the freedman (i.e., the one who received miraculous healing), a soulless person (i.e., freed according to a spiritual will), outcasts (i.e., persons who have lost their civil rights); ... monasteries, hospitals, hotels, hospices, then church people, almshouses." The church hierarchy is in charge of the administration and the court of all these people: “Either the metropolitan or the bishop knows whether there is a trial or an offense between them.” The church creates a firm social position for outcasts and slaves and all its people, gives them the rights of citizenship, but at the same time removes them completely from secular society.
The social division of Kyiv society became so developed and complex by the 12th century. Previously, as we have seen, society was simpler in composition and was dismembered before the eyes of history...
S. F. Platonov. Lectures on Russian history
Ticket No. 21
Rus' in the XI-XII centuries. Yaroslav the Wise, “Russian Truth” - the first collection of laws in Rus'. Society of Rus' according to “Russian Truth”. Activities of Vladimir Monomakh, domestic and foreign policy.
Kievan Rus under Yaroslav the Wise, his state and military activities
1. The Great Prince of Kiev Yaroslav (1019-1054), nicknamed the Wise, unlike his father, Vladimir the Holy, was not a hero of epics and legends. But the chronicle speaks of him as a great statesman, an intelligent and educated man, a brave warrior, legislator, city planner, and cunning diplomat. Yaroslav's rise to power was preceded by an intense struggle that he waged with his brother Svyatopolk.
2. The reign of Yaroslav the Wise is the heyday of Rus'. The city of Yuryev was founded on the western shore of Lake Peipsi, the people of Kiev went to Lithuania. A profitable agreement was concluded with Poland, Rus' assisted it in the war with the Czech Republic. Relations between Rus' and Sweden became friendly (Yaroslav married the daughter of the Swedish king). In 1036, near Kiev, the Pechenegs suffered a severe defeat and no longer went to Rus'. But the Pechenegs were replaced by new nomads - the Polovtsians. In 1046, Rus' concluded a peace treaty with Byzantium, dynastic marriages were concluded: Yaroslav's daughters were given in marriage to the French, Hungarian and Norwegian kings. Rus' truly became a European power; Germany, Byzantium, Sweden, Poland and other states reckoned with it.
3. Under Yaroslav, the church began to play a significant role in society. The majestic Hagia Sophia Cathedral was erected in Kyiv, which personified the power of Rus'. In the mid-50s of the 11th century. The Pechersky Monastery arose near Kyiv. At the direction of Yaroslav in 1039, at a general meeting of Russian bishops, priest Hilarion, contrary to the Patriarch of Constantinople, was elected Metropolitan of Rus'. Thus, the Russian church was freed from the influence of Byzantium. By the end of Yaroslav's reign, about 400 churches had already been built in Kyiv.
Russian Truth" - the first written set of laws of Ancient Rus'
1. The existing structure of ancient Russian society is reflected in the oldest code of laws - “Russian Truth”. This document was created during the 11th-12th centuries. and received its name in 1072. It was started by Yaroslav the Wise, who in 1016 created a set of laws on order in Novgorod (“Yaroslav’s Truth”). And in 1072, three Yaroslavich brothers (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod) supplemented the code with new laws. It was called “Pravda Yaroslavichy” and became the second part of “Russian Truth”. Subsequently, the code was repeatedly supplemented by princely statutes and church regulations.
2. In “Yaroslav’s Truth,” the law still allowed blood feud for the murder of a person, but only close relatives (brother, father, son) could take revenge. And in “Pravda Yaroslavichy” revenge was generally prohibited and replaced with a fine - vira. Vira went to the prince. The law protected the administration, property and working population of the princely estates.
3. The Law already had visible features of social inequality; it reflected the beginning of the process of class division. There was a fine for harboring other people's servants (servants); a free man could kill a serf for an offense. For the murder of a princely fireman (manager) there was a fine of 80 hryvnia, a headman - 12 hryvnia, and a smerda or serf - 5 hryvnia. Fines were also established for the theft of livestock and poultry, plowing someone else's land, and violating boundaries. The power of the Grand Duke passed according to seniority - the eldest in the family became the Grand Duke.
4. “Russian Truth” regulated relations between people in society with the help of laws, which put state and public life in order.
Princely breadwinners, as well as princely village and military elders (ratat - plow, arable elder) had a privileged position among dependent people.
The lowest position was occupied by smerds, serfs, rank and file and purchases. For the murder of a smerd, a serf and a ryadovich, a fine of 5 hryvnia was levied (Articles 25, 26 of the Brief Truth).
Smerd is a peasant, in this context a dependent peasant. If after his death he had no unmarried daughters left, the prince inherited the property of the smerd.
Serfdom could be whitewashed (complete) or purchased. Obel is a lifelong slave. Feminine - robe.
Zakup - a person who has taken a kupa - a debt, and has become a debt slave until he repays or works off the debt.
Ryadovich is a person who entered the service and became dependent under a “row,” that is, a contract.
