Origin of Russian Truth. – Judicial Virus

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 monetary fine - vira (there is a similarity with the “Salic truth” of the Franks, where blood feud was also replaced by a monetary 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, you might think that only the Varangians surrounded our first sovereigns and used 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 property.

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 necessity”). 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. READING READING on the history of state and law of the USSR. Pre-October period.

Edited by TITOV YU.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.

Origin

The conventional name of the ancient Russian legal collection, which was preserved only in lists (copies) of the 13th-15th centuries and later. Similar to numerous early European legal collections, for example, " Salic truth" - a collection of legislative acts of the Frankish state. Also known are the Ripuar and Burgundian truths, compiled in the 5th-6th centuries. n. e., etc. The Anglo-Saxon legal codes, as well as Irish, Alemannic, Basar and some other legal collections, also belong to the Barbarian Truths. The name of these collections of Pravda laws is controversial. In Latin sources Lex Salica- Salic law. The question of the time of origin of its oldest part in science is controversial. Some historians even date it back to the 7th century. However, most modern researchers associate the Most Ancient Truth with the name of the Kyiv prince Yaroslav the Wise. The approximate period of its creation is 1019-1054. The norms of Russian Truth were gradually codified by the Kyiv princes on the basis of oral tribal law, with the inclusion of aspects of Scandinavian and Byzantine law, as well as church influence. As I.V. believes Petrov, Russian truth “was the final codified result of the evolution of Old Russian law,” which went through several stages in its development.

Main editions of Russkaya Pravda

“Reading the Russian Truth to the people in the presence of Grand Duke Yaroslav” (Painting by Alexei Kivshenko)

Traditionally, the numerous surviving versions of “Russian Truth” are divided into 3 main editions, which differ in many respects, and are called “Brief” (6 lists), “Long” (more than 100 lists) and “Abbreviated” (2 lists), which is an abbreviated version "Long-form" edition.

Brief edition consists of the following legal texts:

• “The Truth of Yaroslav”, from or g. (vv. 1–18);
• “The Truth of the Yaroslavichs” (Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod), from the city (v. 19–41);
• “Pokon virny” - definition of the order of feeding virniks (prince’s servants, vira collectors), 1020s or 1030s. (v. 42);
• “A Lesson for Bridge Workers” - regulation of wages for bridge workers - pavement builders, or, according to some versions, bridge builders - 1020s or 1030s. (v. 43).

"A Brief Truth" consisted of 43 articles. Its first part, the most ancient, also spoke about the preservation of the custom of blood feud, about the lack of a sufficiently clear differentiation of the size of court fines depending on the social status of the victim. The second part (Articles 19–43) reflected the further development of landowning relations: blood feud was abolished, the life and property of landowners were protected by increased penalties.

Lists "Dimensional Truth" found in lists of church laws, in chronicles, in articles from Holy Scripture of a judicial and legislative nature (“Righteous Standards”). The “Long Pravda” consisted of two parts - the Charter of Prince Yaroslav the Wise and the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh, which were included in the “Short Pravda” with later changes and additions to the Charter adopted during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, after the suppression of the uprising in Kyiv. The “Long Pravda” was compiled in the 12th century. It was used by ecclesiastical judges when considering secular cases or litigation. It was significantly different from The Brief Truth. The number of articles is 121. This code reflected further social differentiation, the privileges of landowners, the dependent position of serfs, purchases, and the lack of rights of serfs. “Vast Pravda” testified to the process of further development of landowner agriculture, paying much attention to the protection of property rights to land and other property. In connection with the development of commodity-money relations and the need for their legal regulation, “Long-Range Pravda” determined the procedure for concluding a number of agreements and transferring property by inheritance.

"Abridged Truth" belonged to a much later period. Historians believe that it developed in the 15th century. in the Moscow State after the annexation of the territory of Great Perm. According to Tikhomirov, it was written exactly there, which was reflected in the cash account.

Sources of law

1. Legal customs;
2. Arbitrage practice;
3. Church statutes. (Christian norms)

Criminal law "Russian Truth"

Russian truth distinguishes unintentional murder, “in a wedding” or “offense”, from that committed with premeditated intention, “in robbery”; a crime that exposes evil will from an offense committed out of ignorance; an action that causes physical harm or threatens life, for example, the cutting off of a finger, a blow with a sword, which is not accompanied by death, although it causes a wound, is distinguished from an action that is less dangerous, but insulting to honor: from a blow with a stick, pole, palm, or if a mustache or beard is pulled out, and for the latter actions he punishes penalties four times more than for the first ones; a blow with the flat of a sword in a fight was punishable by a greater punishment than a blow with the edge: it was more offensive, since it meant that the enemy was not considered an equal. At the same time, “Russkaya Pravda” contains clear traces of the principle of responsibility characteristic of traditional societies - “blood feud”. Already in Art. 1 CP says “If a husband kills his husband, then take revenge on his brother’s brother, either on a father or on a son, or on a brother’s child, or on a brother’s son.”

Complicated punishments for the most serious crimes: for robbery, arson and horse theft, the criminal was not subject to a certain monetary penalty in favor of the prince, but to the loss of all property with imprisonment.

Princely penalties and private rewards represent a whole system in Russian Pravda; they were calculated in hryvnia kun. For murder, a monetary penalty was levied in favor of the prince, called vira, and a reward in favor of the relatives of the murdered man, called golovnichestvo. The vira was threefold: a double kun of 80 hryvnia for the murder of a prince’s husband or a member of the senior prince’s squad, a simple one of 40 hryvnia for the murder of a simple free person, a half or half-virye of 20 hryvnia for the murder of a woman and serious injury, for cutting off an arm, leg, nose, for damage to the eye. The murder was much more varied, depending on the social significance of the murdered person. Thus, blazing for the murder of a prince’s husband was equal to double vira, blazing for a free peasant was 5 hryvnia. For all other criminal acts, the law punished with sale in favor of the prince and a lesson for offense in favor of the victim.

Estates

By the 9th century, the time of the formation of the Old Russian State, the Eastern Slavs had established the ownership of land by the nobility and social groups had formed - aristocratic landowners and peasants dependent on them. The ruling class of feudal lords included the Kyiv princes, local (tribal) princes, communal nobility (boyars), the elite of the service people, and the squad of princes. According to Doctor of Historical Sciences A. A. Gorsky, in the 9th century. and later in Rus', feudalism of the Western European model as such had not yet developed, but there was a system of championing. The ruling class was not the communal nobility, about which we have no information, but a corporation of squads headed by the prince. The boyars were representatives and descendants of the “senior” squad, and not the communal nobility.

After adoption in the 10th century. Christianity, a significant part of the land was concentrated in the hands of the church, monasteries, and clergy. Another category of feudal lords appeared - palace servants, service people who received land for service and for the duration of their service.

As the power of the nobility increased, the political rights of appanage princes grew. They received immunities from the grand dukes, were exempted from paying tribute, acquired the right to have a squad, judge the population dependent on them, and collect taxes. At the same time, a right (right-privilege) arose, protecting the position of the nobility. Russian Pravda defined a number of privileges: increased punishment for killing a feudal lord or causing property damage to him, broader rights to transfer property by inheritance, including to daughters.

The class of dependent peasants developed in various ways. The process of enslavement led to the fact that there were almost no free peasants. The main group of the peasantry were the Smerds, who lived in a community and had their own house, farm, and plot of land for use. Dependence on the landowner could be greater or less, but mainly it manifested itself in the obligation to pay taxes and serve various duties. The life and property of smerds were protected by law to a much lesser extent compared to landowners. Their property, in the absence of sons, was not inherited by married daughters, but became the property of the master. Only unmarried daughters received part of the property. Smerdas were subject to trial by the prince, his assistants, and the church (if they lived on its land).

The position of smerds cannot be defined as serfdom. They were not attached to the land or the person of the landowner, but their dependent state is not in doubt.

Another category of the population was made up of purchases - smerds, who found themselves in a difficult economic situation, borrowed property from their master and guaranteed its return, as if by self-mortgage. Zakup worked on the master’s farm and could not leave him until he repaid the debt (otherwise he would be transferred to a complete, “white-washed” serf). But the purchase had some rights and protection of the law.

There were other categories of the population - outcasts, people who left the community, forgiven - these were those who fell under the so-called “patronage”, the patronage of the church, monasteries, secular landowners, and were obliged to work on their farms.

Along with the dependent population, the ruling classes also exploited slaves (servants). Russian Truth also calls them servants. The most ancient sources of servitude were captivity and birth from a slave. But Russian Truth also pointed out others: self-sale into slavery, marriage with a slave, entering the service (tiuns, key workers), “without a row” (that is, without any reservations), bankruptcy. A slave could be a runaway purchaser or a person who committed a serious crime.

Articles of Russian Pravda testified to the situation of slaves. For the murder of a slave, his master was paid compensation of only 5 hryvnia, for a slave - 6 hryvnia. For a stolen slave, the gentleman received 12 hryvnia. A slave was most often considered an object of law, and the owner was responsible for him.

As crafts and trade developed, cities arose, the size of the urban population increased, from which the rich elite stood out - the “best” people. The urban population was freer than the peasantry. The life and property of townspeople were protected by norms that applied to full-fledged free people. Russkaya Pravda respectfully calls “gridins”, “merchants”, artisans, moneylenders.

Property relations, Law of obligations

In Russian Pravda there are concepts: giving of property for storage (deposit), simple loan, disinterested loan, favor of friendship, giving money in growth from a certain agreed percentage, short-term and long-term interest-bearing loan, trade commission, contribution to a trading company enterprise. In Pravda, there is a certain procedure for collecting debts from an insolvent debtor during the liquidation of his affairs, that is, the procedure for a trade competition distinguishing between malicious and unfortunate insolvency. There are several types of credit turnover.

Procedural law

Old Russian law did not yet know a clear distinction between criminal and civil proceedings, although, of course, some procedural actions could only be applied in criminal cases. In any case, in both criminal and civil cases, an adversarial (accusatory) process was used, in which the parties have equal rights and themselves are the engine of all procedural actions. Even both parties in the process were called plaintiffs.

Stages of the process according to Russian truth

• "Zaklich" meant an announcement about a crime that had been committed (for example, about missing property). The call was made in a crowded place, “at a trade”, the loss of an item that had individual characteristics that could be identified was announced. If the loss was discovered after 3 days from the moment of the call, the one who had it was considered the defendant (Article 32, 34 PP).
• "Vault"(Articles 35-39 PP) resembled a confrontation. The collection was carried out either before the call or within three days after the call. The person from whom the missing item was found had to indicate from whom the item was purchased. The collection continued until it reached a person who was unable to explain where he acquired this thing. Tatem was recognized as such. If the arch extended beyond the boundaries of the locality where the item was lost, it continued until a third party. He was entrusted with the obligation to pay the owner the cost of the thing and the right to continue the arch himself.
• Pursuit of the trail- this is finding a criminal in his tracks. The law provides for special forms and procedures for carrying out this procedural action. If the trail led to the house of a specific person, it is considered that he is the criminal (Article 77 of the Trinity List). If the trail leads to a village, the rope (community) bears responsibility. If the trail is lost on the main road, then the search stops there.

Forensic evidence

In the Old Russian state, a whole system of formal evidence appears:

• Oath. A special type of evidence was the oath - “rota” (Article 22 of the Russian Pravda, Long Edition according to the Trinity List). It was used when there was no other evidence, but, of course, in small cases. The company could confirm the presence of an event or, conversely, its absence. In some cases, external signs and physical evidence had evidentiary value. Thus, the presence of bruises and bruises was sufficient to prove beating;
• Own recognition;
• Witness's testimonies. Old Russian law distinguished between two categories of witnesses - Vidokov And rumors(Articles 18,21,29 of the Russian Pravda, Long Edition according to the Trinity List). Vidoki are witnesses, in the modern sense of the word - eyewitnesses of a fact. Rumors are a more complex category. These are people who heard about what happened from someone else, having second-hand information. Sometimes rumors were also understood as witnesses to the good reputation of the parties. They had to show that the defendant or plaintiff are people worthy of trust. Without even knowing anything about the disputed fact, they simply seemed to characterize one side or another in the process.
• Ordeals - the test with iron was used when there was not enough other evidence, and in more serious cases than the test with water (Articles 17.22 of the Russian Pravda of the Long Edition according to the Trinity List). Russian Pravda, which devotes three articles to these ordeals, does not disclose the technique for carrying them out. Later sources report that the water test was carried out by lowering a bound person into the water, and if he drowned, he was considered to have won the case.

Punishment according to Russian truth

• Vira (a fine in favor of the relatives of the murdered person. And if there were none, then the vira was given to the prince.). Violation could be single (for the murder of a simple free person) or double (80 hryvnia, for the murder of a privileged person - P.19, 22 KP, Art. 3 PP). There was a special type of vira - “wild” or “common” vira. It was imposed on the entire community. To apply this punishment, it is necessary that the murder committed be simple, non-robbery; the community either does not give up its member suspected of murder, or cannot “remove the trace” of suspicion; a community only pays for its member if he has previously participated in community payments for his neighbors. The institution of “wild” vira performed a police function, binding all members of the community with mutual responsibility.
• Golovnichestvo (monetary recovery in favor of the relatives of the murdered person).
• Flow and plunder (capital punishment: for murder by robbery (Article 7 of the PP), arson (Article 83 of the PP) and horse theft (Article 35 of the PP). Punishment included confiscation of property and extradition of the criminal (along with his family) “with his head" , that is, into slavery.
• Lesson (tribute) (monetary compensation for damage caused to the victim).
• Sale (fine in favor of the prince for other crimes).

see also

Literature

Arrangements into modern Russian language

• A lengthy edition of the Trinity List of the second half of the 15th century
• Russian Truth - Collection of various editions of Russian Truth and materials related to it

Research

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Russian Truth” is in other dictionaries:

Russian truth- the oldest written collection of norms of ancient Russian law; formed during the XI-XII centuries. First text of R.p. was discovered and prepared for publication by V.N. Tatishchev in 1738. Currently there are more than 100 lists, varying in composition... Encyclopedia of Law

In “Russian Truth” two directions are visible that make up modern civil law - the right of property and the law of obligations. This indicates fairly highly developed social relations and their reflection in legal thought.

The Russian Pravda regulates contracts: purchase and sale (of people, things, horses, as well as self-sale), loans (money, things), lending (with or without interest), personal hiring (for service, to perform certain work); it regulates the legal status of certain groups of the population (dependent and independent).

In Russian law of the period of Kievan Rus there was not and could not be a general term to designate the right of ownership, since the content of this right was different depending on who was the subject and what appeared as the object of the right of ownership. A group of articles of Russian Pravda protects such property. A fine of 12 hryvnia is established for violating the land boundary, the same fine follows for the ruin of beekeepers, for the theft of hunting falcons.

In the ancient Russian community, property was of great importance. The attitude towards the individual was determined primarily by the presence of property. A person deprived of property or squandered it could secure property ties with other persons with the only thing he had left - his own personality.

In a feudal society, property rights among feudal lords are determined by their mutual connection and connection with the state, i.e. system of vassalage. In the peasant environment, property was determined by a system of prohibitions on disposal.

Historically, the concept of ownership of movable and personal property apparently appeared first of all. The owner, according to Russian Pravda, had the right to dispose of property, enter into contracts, and could receive income from property. Demand his protection in case of encroachment. The objects of property rights include a very wide range of things - horses and livestock, clothing and weapons, trade goods.

The situation with land ownership is more difficult, since there is only a limited range of articles of Art. 70, 71, 72 PP (Article 34 KP), which establish fines of 12 hryvnia for violating the land border boundary and for destroying the boundary sign (crossing) made on a tree. It is impossible to establish with certainty whose boundary this is: a peasant, a collective or a feudal lord. Consequently, every rural possession had its own limits, approved by the civil ruler, and their signs were sacred to the people.

Article 32 of Yaroslav's Truth especially emphasizes the protection of princely property, establishing a fine for damage to princely property. There is an opinion that the highest fine rate is an indication of the “yard border with the tyn” (fence), and in Art. 70 about the “faithful” village community, a high fine rate is only an indicator of respect for the legislative rights of landowners. Other sources indicate the presence of individual peasant farming during the period under review. However, they indicate the existence of villages, graveyards, villages, villages - rural settlements with compact forms of ownership. These are probably neighboring communities with individual ownership, a yard plot and periodic redistribution of arable land.

Intra-feudal agreements and codes regulating landowning relations have not reached us.

The process of strengthening the protection of private property is reflected in Russian Pravda. Thus, if in the Brief Pravda the amount of the fine depended only on the type and quantity of stolen livestock, then in the PP (Articles 41, 41) the amount of the fine was determined by the place where the crime was committed (whether the livestock was stolen from a closed premises or from a field).

Vast Truth goes even further in developing the protection of private land ownership. It (v. 72) is characterized by a larger number compared to art. 34 KP differentiation of possible cases of violation of boundaries (here, side, roll, and yard boundaries are especially highlighted), which gives grounds to talk about the further development of the feudal economy and, above all, at the expense of communal lands, an increase in cases of violation of private property rights in conditions of increasing social inequality.

The forms of ownership were different. In addition to family-individual and community farms, there were the following. The princely domain was a conglomeration of lands that belonged personally to the prince. They collected taxes there, imposed other duties, and disposed of the lands at their own discretion.

Information about the princely lands is available already in the 10th century. Princess Olga owned the villages: Olginichi, Budutino. Vladimir owned the village of Preslavino and the settlement of Berestovo with hundreds of concubines.

The fund of state lands subject to tribute was of great importance. They were formed through military conquests (occupation). State lands were protected in Rus' for centuries and were an important source of replenishment of the treasury. Scientists have had a long debate about the ownership of these lands. Some considered it directly state property, others - the property of peasants (or communities) who had the right to dispose of the land, but with the retention of duties during the transition to a new owner.

The property of feudal lords arose as private and based on princely grants, in the form of domains, boyar and monastic estates. The source of its acquisition was initially borrowing, the development of free lands by the hands of slaves and dependent peasants. Then, the main method of acquiring land was its direct seizure from neighboring communities (appropriation and plundering of the land).

The later the edition of Russian Pravda, the more data it contains about the development of the feudal estate, which included the owner’s mansions, the dwellings of his servants, rooms for servants, and outbuildings. The votchinniki appropriated forests, set up forest reserves, and seized hunting grounds and commercial areas for honey production. This is, in particular, stated in Articles 69 and 70 of the PP, protecting the interests of owners. Protection of private property is one of the purposes of Russian Pravda. Thus, according to Article 71 of the PP, the destruction of a property sign on side trees entailed a fine of 12 hryvnia. The high fine meant, first of all, the protection of the very principle of private property, which the violator had attempted.

In the 11th century, chronicles mention villages of people's warriors. In the 12th century, the estates of the boyars were private property. The princes distributed lands under the condition of service. There could be conditional holdings in the boyar hierarchy itself; the princely distribution of lands was accompanied by the receipt of immunities (independent actions in these holdings) - judicial and financial departments. In the Russian Pravda there is no information about the land ownership of feudal lords, but it mentions the persons who lived on these lands: boyar tiun (Article 1), boyar serfs (Article 46), boyar ryadovichi (Article 14)

Only free people, excluding the slave class, can be subjects of property rights. The division of things into movable and real estate has not found legal formalization, but the status of movable is developed in Russian Pravda quite thoroughly. Property, its contents and various types of ownership did not find special generalized terms, but in practice the legislator distinguished between the right of ownership and possession.

The owner had the right to return his property from illegal possession on the basis of a strictly established procedure for the “offense” caused; a fine of 3 hryvnia was imposed. The return of things required testimony and was examined, if necessary, before “a body of 12 people” (Articles 13, 14, 15, 16 KP; Articles 34, 35 PP). “If someone demands something from another, and the latter begins to shut himself up, then he will be punished by 12 husbands.” The first of Yaroslav’s Pravda lists says that the plaintiff in any lawsuit must go to trial with the defendant before 12 people who examined the circumstances of the case according to their conscience, leaving it to the judge to determine the punishment and collect a fine.

The general principle of protecting movable property was to return it to its rightful owner and pay him a fine as compensation for damages. Movable property (including serfs) is considered in Russian Pravda to be the object of complete domination of the owner: in disputes about its return, the state does not impose fines, the parties themselves agree among themselves. Those who entrusted property to slaves and serfs (for trade operations, etc.) were liable to third parties in full in the event of damage or destruction of the property (Articles 116, 117). In other words, the legislator understood that the right of ownership is determined by the will of the owner himself. The protection of movable property, if it was not associated with a criminal offense, was not of a class nature - everyone has the right to equally determine its fate.

Feudal ownership of land arose, as is known, in various ways: a) as a result of military campaigns, the seizure of foreign lands and the allocation of land to princely warriors; b) by appropriating communal lands by tribal nobility; c) by acquiring land for money, as an inheritance, dowry, etc. In “Russian Pravda”, land ownership was already recorded in the Brief Edition. There was no mention of the purchase and sale of land, but other sources say that land in Rus' was “complained” and sold. In addition, Russkaya Pravda knew the ownership of other things: livestock, slaves, clothing. Property protection extended to carts of hay, firewood, sea and river boats, etc. Legal norms for the protection of property clearly expressed the interests of princes, boyars and clergy.

The Russian Pravda contained various norms of the law of obligations. An obligation was understood as a right to the obligated person. Thus, the consequence of a loan agreement was usually a personal mortgage of the debtor, and a personal rental agreement often led to the establishment of servitude. Old Russian law knew several types of grounds for the emergence of obligations: contracts, causing harm, initiation of legal cases decided under oath, etc.

Contractual obligations were most widespread in Kievan Rus. Agreements were concluded, as a rule, orally, in the presence of witnesses, with the use of symbolic actions - hand-slapping, magarych and others.

The system of contractual obligations, due to the weak development of trade, was uncomplicated. The following types of contracts can be distinguished: barter, purchase and sale, loan, personal hiring, luggage, construction.

In the system of obligations under “Russian Truth”, other features should also be noted:

Imposing obligations not only on the obligatory person, but also on members of his family - wife, children, and in some cases on the entire community (mutual responsibility);

Failure to fulfill obligations could have the consequence of turning an obligatory person into a slave. Thus, a purchaser who could not fulfill the obligation under the rental agreement, or who left his owner, turned into a complete slave (Article 56).

Russkaya Pravda contains many articles devoted to the obligations arising during the bidding process. Items of purchase and sale could be livestock and poultry, slaves, clothing, other things and products.

A significant feature of the Russian Pravda norms is that it did not mention real estate transactions at all, although movable property included livestock, poultry, beavers, game birds, honey, livestock, etc. items - are referred to as permanent objects of transactions.

It should be noted the comparative development of the law of obligations in Kievan Rus. This is further evidence of the dominance of private property rights here.

An obligation is a legal relationship by virtue of which one person (creditor) has the right to the corresponding actions of another person (debtor), in particular: transfer of goods, compensation for damage, performance of work. Obligations could be divided into: contractual and non-contractual (from causing harm). A person who has violated the interests of another person is obliged to perform certain actions in favor of the victim.

Obligations arising from offenses (torts) apparently arose earlier than contractual ones. In Russian Pravda, obligations from torts entail liability in the form of fines and damages. The one who harbors the slave must return him and pay a fine (Article 11 of the Communist Code). The one who took someone else's property must return it and pay a fine of 3 hryvnia (Article 12, 13 KP). For example, a person who injured another, in addition to a criminal fine, had to pay the victim’s losses, including doctor’s services.

Old Russian compulsory law is characterized not only by recourse to the confiscation of the property of the offender, but also by the imposition of penalties directly on the debtor, and sometimes even on his wife and children. Thus, a malicious bankrupt could be sold as a slave.

Contractual obligations are formalized into a system with the formation of private property, but the abstract concept of a contract does not yet exist. Later, a contract began to be understood as an agreement between two or more persons, as a result of which the parties arose legal rights and obligations. There are several types of contracts in Ancient Rus'.

The parties (subjects) to contracts must meet the requirements of the age of legal capacity and freedom. However, in Russian Pravda, a woman already acts as the owner of property, therefore, she had the right to make transactions. This collection of laws enshrines the impact of the status of freedom on obligations.

The slave was not a subject of legal relations and could not be liable for obligations; the owner bore all property liability for him. The property consequences of transactions of a slave made on behalf of the master also applied specifically to the owner. In Russian Pravda, property liability dominates. However, the purchase, in case of violation of the terms of the obligations, could turn into a complete slave, and a malicious bankrupt merchant could also turn into slavery.

With the underdevelopment of slavery, the principle arose according to which the one who did not fulfill his obligations became dependent on the creditor for the period during which he worked off the entire amount of debt and losses. In the 9th - 12th centuries, the written form of contracts had not yet developed; they were concluded, as a rule, orally. To eliminate subsequent mutual claims, witnesses had to be present when concluding transactions, but the court also accepted any other evidence certifying the contracts. The number of transactions known to Russian Pravda is not yet very significant.

The existence of one of the most ancient agreements - a purchase and sale agreement - is already indicated by agreements with the Greeks. It was also regulated in Russian Pravda. Here, first of all, the procedure for the purchase and sale of servants is highlighted (Article 16 KP and Article 38 PP), as well as the procedure for establishing the good faith of the acquisition of a thing (Articles 37 and 39 PP).

If the seller sold an item that did not belong to him, then the transaction was considered void: the item passed to its owner, and the buyer sued the seller for damages. In everyday life, the purchase and sale agreement was the most common. Property (movable and real estate) and slaves were sold. Moreover, much attention was paid to the sale of slaves in the legislation of that time. The Russian Pravda regulated not so much the sale and purchase agreement itself (its terms depended on the will of the parties), but rather the disputes that arose as a result of mutual claims. The parties could dispose of their property.

Mention is made of a storage agreement (luggage). The luggage was considered as a friendly service, was free of charge and did not require formalities when concluding an agreement. As for personal hiring, Russkaya Pravda only mentions hiring as tiuns (servants) or housekeepers. If a person entered such work without a special contract, he automatically became a slave. The law also mentions hiring, but some researchers equate it with purchasing.

There were contracts of transportation and commissions in the Old Russian state.

The procedure for concluding contracts was simple. Usually the oral form was used with the performance of some symbolic actions: shaking hands, tying hands, etc. In some cases, witnesses were required. There is information about the existence of a written form of concluding real estate contracts.

The sale of the most significant items was carried out publicly in order to avoid subsequent claims.

"Russkaya Pravda" knows a certain system of contracts. The loan agreement is most fully regulated. The law provided for not only money, but also bread and honey as the object of the loan. There were three types of loans: ordinary, household loan; a loan made between merchants with simplified formalities, and a loan with self-mortgage - procurement. Various interest rates were provided depending on the term of the loan. A short-term loan entailed the highest interest rate (up to 50).

The loan agreement was the main form of supporting economic stability during crop failures and natural disasters, and the legislator regulates it in sufficient detail. The loan agreement covered credit transactions in money, products and things. It was concluded publicly, in the presence of rumors. Exceptions were allowed only for loans in the amount of no more than 3 hryvnia. In this case, to collect the debt (if the debtor refuses), it is enough for the creditor to take an oath (Article 52 of the PP). The debtor was obliged to pay interest, called “cuts” for money, “instructions” when borrowing honey, “prisopom” in case of borrowing grain. The borrower and the lender were recognized as economically free, their relations were partially legal in nature, the state did not interfere, therefore, the layer of moneylenders flourished.

The uprising of 1113, directed against usury, forced the state authorities to regulate specific legal loan relations. The Dimensional Pravda included special decrees of Vladimir Monomakh on loans and purchases. Annual loans with low interest - 10 kup per hryvnia (50 kup equaled 1 hryvnia), as well as the general rules for returning what was borrowed with interest, were preserved. For long-term loans, it was prohibited to collect amounts at the rate of 50% per annum more than 3 times, i.e. the creditor received 150% of the original amount and the contract was considered fulfilled (Article 50-54 PP).

A merchant who lost property during natural disasters received installments to pay off his debt for many years; goods that lost or “wasted” were at the mercy of the creditor and could be sold as slaves. The debtor's property, if necessary, was distributed among several creditors (Articles 54, 55 PP). Monomakh introduced a procurement charter. Clearly regulating their position. The luggage agreement is enshrined in Art. 49 PP, i.e. goods transferred for storage.

It states that someone who has left property in the custody of another person without witnesses cannot demand more than what is returned to him. The custodian must take a judicial oath: “You left only this with me, and by preserving the property, I did you a favor.” In Russian Pravda there is mention of hiring “bridge workers” for the repair and construction of bridges (Article 97 PP). The amount of payment for work and food is established. The nature of property lease is not disclosed in Russian Pravda.

Initially, customs associated with the pagan cult operated in Rus'. There was bride kidnapping and polygamy. Thus, Grand Duke Vladimir Svyatoslavich had five wives and several hundred concubines before his baptism. With the introduction of Christianity, new principles of family law were established - monogamy, difficulty in divorce, lack of rights for illegitimate children, cruel punishments for extramarital affairs, which came to us from Byzantium. In Ancient Rus' by the 11th century. The monogamous family with individual farming dominated.

With the adoption of Christianity at the end of the 10th century. The church waged an active struggle against paganism, for the triumph of the individual family and family morality. Marriage, divorce, moral relations in the family began to be sanctioned by it.

An unsanctified marriage was considered a sin and could affect descendants.

The chronicle says: “The fruit of a sinful root is an evil fruit.” The supremacy of men in the Christian family was preserved and strengthened, gradually becoming part of the state ideology. The chronicle justifies this: “Do not listen to the evil woman, for honey drips from her lips. Adulterous wives. But this is a moment. She does not follow the path of life; those who come close to her will go to hell after death.”

Family law developed in Ancient Rus' in accordance with canonical rules. In the 11th century, marriage became a church prerogative. Marriage, dissolution or annulment were subject to the jurisdiction of the church.

The Christianization of Rus' led to the establishment of church forms of marriage and the norms of Byzantine marriage law. In Kievan Rus, the church actively fought against polygamy, which was especially common among princes and boyars. The marriage was preceded by a betrothal, which was considered indissoluble. The age of marriage was quite low: 14-15 years for men, 12-13 years for women. Mandatory requirements for those entering into marriage were their free will and parental consent. Any degree of kinship for newlyweds was strictly prohibited. In addition, the church limited the number of marriages entered into by one person: a third marriage was not allowed.

The Christian family had to obey strict moral canons; the new ideology was based on hard work, humility, and responsibility before God. The formation of a Christian family occurred gradually.

In “Russkaya Pravda” and in some other legal documents of Kievan Rus there were a number of norms that determined the property relations of spouses. The father, the head of the family, enjoyed essentially unlimited power over his children and household members. Parents had the right to sell their children as slaves, but at the same time they bore certain responsibilities, responsibility for providing for their children and their arrangement in life. So, if a girl from the boyar’s family did not marry, the parents had to pay the metropolitan five hryvnia in gold (Article 266 of Russian Pravda).

“Russian Truth” contained norms that determined the rules of guardianship. The property of the spouses was separate; after the death of the father, the mother disposed of the house. If she remarried, a guardian was appointed for the children from among her closest relatives. The stepfather could also become a guardian. The guardian took the property of young children “before people” and was obliged to return it intact along with the offspring of livestock and servants.

The church took upon itself the registration of marriage and other important acts of civil status - birth, death, which gave it considerable income and dominion over human souls.

Persons without the appropriate church certificates could be denied participation in inheritance trials.

Inheritance law is formed and developed as a result of the establishment of private property. In ancient times, inheritance was carried out on the basis of customary law, with the right of the entire group to some part of the property. Previously, the inheritance of movable property (bow, ax, etc.) was individualized. In Kievan Rus, as in any class society, inheritance law played a large role. With its help, the wealth accumulated by generations of owners remained in the hands of the same class. Already the treaty between Rus' and Byzantium in 911 distinguished between inheritance by will and by law. This difference was also enshrined in Russian Pravda.

There were significant differences in inheritance depending on a person’s belonging to one or another level of the hierarchical ladder. Thus, among the boyars and warriors, daughters could also inherit, but among the Smerds, in the absence of sons, the property was considered escheat and went to the benefit of the prince.

When inheriting by law, i.e. without a will, the sons of the deceased had benefits. If they were available, the daughters received nothing. The heirs were only charged with the responsibility of marrying off their sisters. The inheritance was divided equally, but the youngest son had an advantage - he received his father's court. Illegitimate children did not have inheritance rights, but if their mother was a slave-concubine, then they received freedom with her.

In Kievan Rus, as in any class society, inheritance law played a large role. With its help, the wealth accumulated by generations of owners remained in the hands of the same class.

The law provided for inheritance of property by law and by will. The order of inheritance for the boyars and for the smerds was different, and the rights of the smerds in this matter were infringed in favor of the prince.

The inheritance law of Kievan Rus bore the features of patriarchal relations. The community was interested in ensuring that its land and property did not go to the side, so only sons enjoyed the right of inheritance. Daughters could not inherit, since when they got married they took their property outside the community (Article 92). This norm was preserved in Russian law for a long time and was expressed in the proverb: “A sister with brothers is not an heiress.”

Feudal law in many countries of Western Europe gave advantages in inheritance to the eldest son. According to "Russian Truth", on the contrary, the youngest son was in a more favorable position, since he inherited the house, yard and all the household left by his father.

After the death of the wife, the property that she brought into the family upon marriage passed to the heirs, even if the husband remarried. The brothers were obliged to allocate part of the property from the inheritance they received to their sister to provide her with a dowry when she got married.

The widow had the right to part of the property, but if the head of the family died without leaving a will (“without a row”), then the property was distributed equally among the children with a portion allocated to the widow, as noted above, and to the monastery “for the commemoration of the soul” (Article 92 ).

If the widow remained to live with the children, then she had the right to part of the inheritance. But if her husband bequeathed part of his property to her, she no longer inherited along with the children. The mother could divide her property among all her sons or give it to one, even just her daughter. If she did not leave a will, then the inheritance was received by the person with whom she lived in the house. Children from different fathers received the inheritance only of their father, and if they came from different mothers, then the inheritance only of their mother.

Only children born in a legal marriage had the right to inherit property. “Russkaya Pravda” deprived children born of a slave-concubine from their father’s inheritance, but gave them freedom along with their mother.

No one could forbid a widow to remain in his house with her children after her husband’s death. But if, remaining with the children, she “squandered” their property and got married again, then she was obliged to pay the children everything that was squandered by her.

The right of relatives to a share of fines in case of murder is enshrined in article four of the treaty with Byzantium in 911. Apparently, relatives could lay claim to part of the property in any case.

The superiority of a will over the law was determined. Article 13 states: “If one of the Rusyns dies without settling his estate, while serving in Byzantium, and has no relatives there, then the property is returned to close relatives in Rus'. If he leaves a will, then the property goes to the person in whose favor the will was made.” Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise took these relatives' lawsuits under their jurisdiction. The institution of inheritance in Russian Pravda is one of the most developed.

In the Extensive Truth there is a whole statute on inheritance (Articles 90-95, 98-106). The first two articles (Articles 90, 91) consolidate ancient restrictions in Smerd communities: the property of the deceased who left no sons passes to the prince, and daughters are allocated a portion of the dowry before marriage. At the same time, a different principle operated among the warriors and boyars: the inheritance does not go to the prince, it is inherited by his daughters. In other cases, inheritance is regulated on the basis of private property and individual households.

The general principle of inheritance is also known from treaties with Byzantium: priority of inheritance under a will, ensuring the legal share of family members. Article 92 states: “Whoever, when dying, divides his house to his children, shall stand on him; whoever dies without a row, the property goes to all the children.”

Inheritance by will is limited to sons and wife, daughters receive only a part (Articles 93, 95). Children from the first wife have the right to part of the property belonging to the mother (Article 94). The children of an owner do not inherit anything from a slave, but receive freedom with their mother (v. 98).

If there are children of different fathers, but of the same mother, then each son takes his father's property. If the second husband plundered the estate of the first and died himself, then the children return it to the children of the first, according to the testimony of witnesses. In all cases, the “yard” passes to the youngest son (v. 100), as less capable of independent existence. The property of young children is under the control of the mother: if she gets married, a relative is appointed as a guardian. The mother, guardian, and stepfather are responsible for this property and bear financial responsibility for its loss. The mother disposes of her part of the property independently, she can bequeath it to her children, and deprive them of their inheritance if they are “dastardly” (Article 106)

The right of inheritance of smerds is opposed to the inheritance of boyars and commoners, and does not merge with them. In the Dimensional Pravda, a special section is devoted to issues of inheritance (Articles 90-95, 98-106, 108). Articles 90, 91 refer to boyars and smerds. Article 90 reads: “Even if you die, it’s your ass for the prince; Even if he has daughters at home, then he won’t give anything; even if he has daughters for his husband, then he won’t give them a share.” In Russian Pravda, “ass” means all property, both movable and immovable.

The first half of Article 90 gives the prince the full right to the inheritance of a deceased smerd. This suggests that Smerd could not be an heir at all. This provision is the “dead hand right”. If his property is managed by the owner, then we have before us not only a free community member, but also a peasant who is not entirely feudally dependent: his position is reminiscent of a serf imprisoned on a peculium. The main innovation in the inheritance law of the Smerds was the recognition that in the event of his death, his inheritance should pass only to his sons, and daughters receive only allocations. This means that the smerd attached to the land received ownership of the means of production, i.e. became a feudal-dependent peasant.

All this spoke about the class nature of the protection of property rights according to Russian Truth.

We can conclude that ancient Russian legislation had a fairly developed system of civil law norms. The law reflects property relations. Legal protection is provided for both real and movable property.

According to the law, the feudal lord had full ownership of the means of production and partial ownership of the worker. At the same time, the peasant, dependent on the feudal lord, was also endowed with certain means of production.

The term “truth”, often found in ancient Russian sources, means the legal norms on the basis of which the trial was carried out (hence the expressions “to judge the right” or “to judge in truth”, that is, objectively, fairly). Sources of codification are norms of customary law, princely judicial practice, as well as borrowed norms from authoritative sources – primarily the Holy Scriptures. There is an opinion that even before Russian truth there was a certain Russian Law(its norms are referenced in the text Treaty Rus' with Byzantium 907), however, which of his articles were included in the text of Russian Pravda, and which are original, there is no exact data. According to another hypothesis, the name “Pravda Roskaya” comes from the lexeme “ros” (or “rus”), which means “combatant”. In this case, in the text of the set of norms one should see a code adopted to regulate relations in the princely-squad environment. The importance of tradition and customary law (not written down anywhere or by anyone) was less important in it than in the community environment.

Russian Truth has survived to this day in copies of the 15th century. and eleven lists from the 18th–19th centuries. According to traditional Russian historiography, these texts and lists are divided into three editions Russian Truth: Brief, Extensive And Abbreviated.

The oldest list or the first edition Russian Truth is Brief Is it true(20–70s of the 11th century), which is usually divided into The Truth of Yaroslav the Wise(1019–1054) and Pravda Yaroslavich. First 17 articles Pravda Yaroslav(according to the breakdown of later researchers, since there is no division into articles in the source text itself), preserved in two lists of the 15th century. as part of the Novgorod I Chronicle, contain an even earlier layer - the first 10 recorded norms, “as Yaroslav judged” - they are called The Most Ancient Truth (« Pravda Roska"). Its text was compiled no earlier than 1016. A quarter of a century later, the text The Most Ancient Truth formed the basis of all Pravda Yaroslav– code of norms of case law. These norms regulated relations within the princely (or boyar) economy; Among them are regulations on fees for murder, insults, mutilations and beatings, theft and damage to other people's property. Start Brief Truth convinces of the fixation of the norms of customary law, since they deal with blood feud (Article 1) and mutual responsibility (Article 19).

Pravda Yaroslavich(sons of Yaroslav the Wise) are referred to as articles 19–41 in the text Brief Truth. This part of the code was compiled in the 70s of the 11th century. and until the end of the century it was constantly updated with new articles. These include articles 27–41, divided into Pokon Virny(that is Charter on fines in favor of the prince for the murder of free people and the standards of feeding the collectors of these payments), the appearance of which is associated with the uprisings of 1068–1071 in Rus', and Lesson for bridge builders(that is, Rules for those who pave roadways in cities). In general Brief edition Russian Truth reflects the process of the formulation of laws from particular cases to general norms, from the solution of specific issues to the formulation of general state law at the stage of formation of the medieval feudal order.

Vast Truth– second edition Russian Truth, a monument to a developed feudal society. Created in the 20–30s of the 12th century. (a number of researchers associate its origins with the Novgorod uprisings of 1207–1208 and therefore attribute its composition to the 13th century). Preserved in more than 100 lists as part of legal collections. The earliest - Synodal list of Extensive Truth- compiled in Novgorod around 1282, included in the Kormchaya Book and was a collection of Byzantine and Slavic laws. Another early list is Trinity, 14th century. - included in The standard of the righteous, also the oldest Russian legal collection. Most of the lists Dimensional Truth– later, 15–17 centuries. All this wealth of texts Dimensional Truth is combined into three types (in source studies - editions): Synodal-Troitsky, Pushkin-Archaeographic And Karamzinsky. Common to all types (or versions) is the combination of text Brief Truth with the norms of the princely legislation of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who ruled Kiev from 1093 to 1113, as well as the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh 1113 (the charter determined the amount of interest charged on contractual loans). By volume Vast Truth almost five times more Brief(121 articles with additions). Articles 1–52 are referred to as Court of Yaroslav, Articles 53–121 – as Charter of Vladimir Monomakh. Norms Dimensional Truth operated before the Tatar-Mongol yoke in Rus' and in its first period.

Some researchers (M.N. Tikhomirov, A.A. Zimin) believed that Vast Truth was primarily a monument of Novgorod civil legislation, and later its norms became all-Russian. Degree of "officiality" Dimensional Truth is unknown, as are the exact boundaries of the region covered by its rules.

The most controversial monument of ancient Russian law is the so-called Abridged Truth– or third edition Russian Truth, which arose in the 15th century. It reached only two lists of the 17th century, placed in Helmsman's book special composition. It is believed that this edition originated as a reduction of the text Dimensional Truth(hence the name), was compiled in the Perm land and became known after its annexation to the Moscow principality. Other scholars do not rule out that this text was based on an earlier and unknown monument from the second half of the 12th century. Disputes still continue among scholars regarding the dating of various editions. Truth, especially this third one.

From the beginning of the 14th century. Russian Truth began to lose its significance as a valid source of law. The meaning of many of the terms used in it became unclear to copyists and editors, which led to distortions of the text. From the beginning of the 15th century. Russian Truth ceased to be included in legal collections, which indicates that its norms have lost legal force. At the same time, its text began to be included in chronicles - it became history. Text Russian Truth(various editions) formed the basis of many legal sources - Novgorod and Smolensk with Riga and the Gothic coast (Germans) of the 13th century, Novgorod And Judgment letters, Lithuanian Statute 16th century, Sudebnik Casimir 1468 and finally the all-Russian code of norms of the era of Ivan III - Sudebnik 1497.

Brief Truth was first discovered by V.N. Tatishchev in 1738 and published by A.L. Shletser in 1767. Vast Truth first published by I.N. Boltin in 1792. In the 19th century. above The truth outstanding Russian lawyers and historians worked - I. D. Evers, N. V. Kalachev, V. Sergeevich, L. K. Goetz, V. O. Klyuchevsky, who analyzed the time and reasons for the creation of individual parts and editions Russian Truth, the relationship between the lists, the essence of the legal norms reflected in them, their origins in Byzantine and Roman law. In Soviet historiography, the main attention was paid to the “class essence” of the source under consideration (works of B.D. Grekov, S.V. Yushkov, M.N. Tikhomirov, I.I. Smirnov, L.V. Cherepnin, A.A. Zimin ) – that is, to study with the help Russian Truth social relations and class struggle in Kievan Rus. Soviet historians emphasized that Russian Truth perpetuated social inequality. Having fully defended the interests of the ruling class, she openly proclaimed the lack of rights of unfree workers - serfs, servants (thus, the life of a serf was valued 16 times lower than the life of a free “husband”: 5 hryvnia versus 80). According to the conclusions of Soviet historiography, Russian Truth asserted the inferiority of women both in the property and private spheres, but modern research shows that this is not so (N.L. Pushkareva). In Soviet times, it was customary to talk about Russian Truth as a single source that had three editions. This corresponded to the general ideological orientation towards the existence of a single legal code in ancient Rus', just as the Old Russian state itself was viewed as the “cradle” of three East Slavic nationalities. Currently, Russian researchers (I.N. Danilevsky, A.G. Golikov) more often talk about Brief, Spatial And Abridged Truths as independent monuments that are of great importance for the study of various parts of the state of Rus', similar to all-Russian and local chronicles.

All texts of Russian Truth have been published several times. There is a complete academic edition of it according to all known lists.

Lev Pushkarev, Natalya Pushkareva

APPLICATION

RUSSIAN PRAVDA SUMMARY EDITION

RUSSIAN LAW

1. If a person kills a person, then a brother takes revenge for (the murder of) a brother, a son for his father, or a cousin, or a nephew on his sister’s side; if there is no one to take revenge, put 40 hryvnia for the killed; if (the person killed) is a Rusyn, a Gridin, a merchant, a snitch, a swordsman, or an outcast and a Slovenian, then put 40 hryvnia for him.

2. If someone is beaten to the point of blood or bruises, then do not look for witnesses to this person; if there are no marks (beatings) on him, then let witnesses come; if he cannot (bring witnesses), then the matter is over; if he cannot take revenge for himself, then let him take 3 hryvnias from the guilty person as compensation for the victim and also the doctor’s payment.

3. If someone hits someone with a batog, pole, metacarpus, cup, horn or sword flat, then (pay) 12 hryvnia; if he is not overtaken, then he pays, and that is the end of the matter.

4. If (anyone) hits with a sword without removing it (from its sheath), or with the hilt, then (pay) 12 hryvnia as compensation to the victim.

5. If (someone) hits (a sword) on the hand and the hand falls off or withers, then (pay) 40 hryvnia.

6. If the leg remains intact, (but) if it begins to limp, then let the members of the (wounded) household humble the (guilty) one.

7. If (anyone) cuts off (anyone’s) finger, then (pay) 3 hryvnia compensation to the victim.

8. And for a (pulled out) mustache (to pay) 12 hryvnia, and for a tuft of beard - 12 hryvnia.

9. If someone draws a sword, but does not strike (with it), then he will put down the hryvnia.

10. If a person pushes a person away from him or towards himself, then (pay) 3 hryvnia if he produces two witnesses; but if (the beaten one) is a Varangian or a kolbyag, then (let him) go to the oath.

11. If a servant hides with a Varangian or a kolbyag, and he is not returned (to the former master) within three days, then having identified him on the third day, he (i.e., the former master) should take his servant and (pay the hider) 3 hryvnia compensation to the victim.

12. If someone rides someone else’s horse without asking, then pay 3 hryvnia.

13. If someone takes someone else’s horse, weapon or clothing, and (the owner) recognizes (them) in his world, then let him take what is his, and (the thief) pay 3 hryvnias as compensation to the victim.

14. If someone recognizes (his thing from someone), then he cannot take it, saying (at the same time) “mine”; but let him say: “Go to the vault (let’s find out) where he got it”; if (he) does not go, then let him (set up) a guarantor (who will appear at the arch) no later than five days.

15. If somewhere (someone) exacts the rest from someone, and he begins to lock himself away, then he (with the defendant) should go to the vault in front of 12 people; and if it turns out that he did not maliciously give up (the subject of the claim), then (for the thing sought) he (i.e., the victim) should be (paid) in money and (in addition) 3 hryvnias as compensation to the victim.

16. If someone, having identified his (missing) servant, wants to take him, then take him to the one from whom he was bought, and he goes to the second (reseller), and when they reach the third, then let him say to him: “You give me your servant, and look for your money in front of a witness.”

17. If a slave hits a free man and runs away to the mansion, and the master does not want to hand him over, then the master of the slave should take it for himself and pay 12 hryvnia for him; and after that, if a person beaten by him finds a slave anywhere, let him kill him.

18. And if (who) breaks a spear, shield or (damages) clothes and wants to keep them, then (the owner) will receive (compensation for this) in money; if, having broken something, he tries to return it (the broken thing), then pay him in money, how much (the owner) gave when buying this thing.

The law established for the Russian land, when Izyaslav, Vsevolod, Svyatoslav, Kosnyachko Pereneg (?), Nikifor of Kiev, Chudin Mikula gathered.

19. If they kill a butler, taking revenge for an insult (inflicted on him), then the killer should pay 80 hryvnia for him, but people (pay) do not need to: but (for the murder of) a princely entrance (pay) 80 hryvnia.

20. And if a butler is killed in a robbery, and the murderer (people) do not look for him, then the viru is paid by the rope in which the body of the murdered man was found.

21. If they kill a butler (for stealing) in a house or (for stealing) a horse or for stealing a cow, then let them kill (him) like a dog. The same regulation (applies) when killing a tiun.

22. And for the (killed) princely tiun (to pay) 80 hryvnia.

23. And for (the murder of) the senior groom of the herd (to pay) 80 hryvnia, as Izyaslav decreed when the Dorogobuzhites killed his groom.

24. And for the murder of a (princely) headman in charge of villages or arable land, (pay) 12 hryvnia.

25. And for (killing) a princely private soldier (pay) 5 hryvnia.

26. And for (killing) a stinker or for (killing) a slave (pay) 5 hryvnia.

27. If a slave-nurse or uncle-educator (is killed), (then pay) 12 (hryvnia).

28. And for a prince’s horse, if he has a brand, (pay) 3 hryvnia, and for a stink horse - 2 hryvnia, for a mare - 60 rezan, and for an ox - hryvnia, for a cow - 40 rezan, and (for) a three-year-old - 15 kn , for a two-year-old - half a hryvnia, for a calf - 5 cut, for a lamb - nogat, for a ram - nogat.

29. And if (someone) takes away someone else’s serf or slave, (then) he pays 12 hryvnia compensation to the victim.

30. If a person comes beaten to the point of blood or bruises, then do not look for witnesses for him.

31. And if (someone) steals a horse or oxen or (robs) a house, and at the same time he stole them alone, then pay him a hryvnia (33 hryvnias) and thirty rez; if there are 18 thieves (? even 10), then (pay each) three hryvnias and pay 30 rubles to people (? princes).

32. And if they set fire to the prince’s side or pull out bees (from it), (then pay) 3 hryvnia.

33. If without a princely order they torture the smerda, (then pay) 3 hryvnia for the insult; and for (torture) an ognishchanin, a tiun and a swordsman - 12 hryvnia.

34. And if (someone) plows a boundary or destroys a boundary sign on a tree, then (pay) 12 hryvnia as compensation to the victim.

35. And if (someone) steals a rook, then he will pay 30 rez for the rook and a fine of 60 rez.

36. And for a pigeon and for a chicken (to pay) 9 kunas, and for a duck, for a crane and for a swan - 30 rubles; and a fine of 60 rubles.

37. And if someone else’s dog, hawk or falcon is stolen, then (pay) compensation to the victim 3 hryvnia.

38. If they kill a thief in their yard or in their house or near the grain, then so be it; if they held (him) until dawn, then take him to the prince’s court; and if (he) is killed and people saw (him) tied up, then pay for him.

39. If hay is stolen, then (pay) 9 kunas; and for firewood 9 kunas.

40. If a sheep, goat or pig is stolen, and 10 (people) stole one sheep, then let them impose a fine of 60 rubles (each); and to the one who detained (the thief) 10 cuts.

41. And from the hryvnia the swordsman (is entitled to) kuna, and in tithes 15 kunas, and the prince 3 hryvnias; and out of 12 hryvnias - 70 kunas for the one who detained the thief, and 2 hryvnias for tithes, and 10 hryvnias for the prince.

42. And here is the establishment for virnik; Virnik (should) take 7 buckets of malt per week, as well as a lamb or half a carcass of meat or two legs; and on Wednesday sliced ​​​​or cheeses; also on Friday, and take as much bread and millet as they can eat; and chickens (take) two a day; put 4 horses and feed them to their fill; and virnik (pay) 60 (? 8) hryvnia, 10 rezan and 12 veverin; and upon entry - hryvnia; if he needs fish during fasting, then take 7 rez for the fish; total of all money is 15 kuna; and bread (give) as much as they can eat; let the viruniks collect the vira within a week. This is Yaroslav's order.

43. And here are the taxes (established for) bridge builders; if they build a bridge, then take a nogata for the work and a nogata from each span of the bridge; if you repaired several boards of the old bridge - 3, 4 or 5, then take the same amount.

Monuments of Russian law. Vol. 1. M., 1952. pp. 81–85

Russian truth is a set of laws (code) of Kievan Rus. It was compiled during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise. Russian truth includes criminal, procedural, commercial, and inheritance laws. This handbook was used by the powers to build social, economic and legal relations in Ancient Rus'. All subsequent generations took Russian truth as a basis in drawing up new laws and legal norms.

In contact with

Classmates

1016 is the date of the appearance of Russian Truth. Before this set of laws appeared, everything was based on religious considerations. Church legal texts have certain similarities with the content of the text in articles written in Russian Pravda, however, they are not identical to it.

This book should have appeared for the following reasons:

1. The judges of Ancient Rus' were not familiar with Russian customs and traditions, because Most of them came from other countries.
2. Pagan law, on which all previous legal norms were based, went against the new religious beliefs.

Thus, the adoption of Christianity served as the main impetus for the creation of Russian Truth.

1. Why Russian truth is a manifestation of Yaroslav’s wisdom.
2. Read the summary and main provisions of the Old Russian document online.
3. Three main editions of Russian Truth.
4. The Short Truth and the Long Truth.
5. The system of fines in the ancient Russian state.
6. What is the significance of the first collection of codes for the modern world?

Why Russian truth is a manifestation of the wisdom of Yaroslav

The answer to this question is very simple - before the reign of Yaroslav, no one compiled written documents with a code of legal, criminal and administrative norms. This was one of the significant reasons for which Yaroslav Vladimirovich received the nickname Wise. All subsequent legislation of Kievan Rus is based on the text of this document.

Russian truth in its original form, unfortunately, has not survived to this day. However, later lists can also be considered as variations of this document.

The book contained legal norms:

• criminal;
• legal;
• procedural;
• administrative;
• civil;
• family.

According to this set of laws, it is unacceptable to decide legal proceedings by means of a duel to the death (“whoever has the sharpest sword has the upper hand”).

Three main editions of Russian Truth

There are three main editions of this document:

1. Brief. This is the oldest version of the presentation.
2. Extensive. Second edition of the book.
3. Abbreviated. A later version, formed in the 15th century on the Brief and Long Pravda.

All three editions have been published many times and you can read them in the complete academic edition.

Short and Long Truth

Brief usually divided into two parts:

• The Truth of Yaroslav (contains the first 10 norms “as Yaroslav judged”);
• The truth of the Yaroslavichs (sons of Yaroslav Vladimirovich).

The copy that has survived to contemporaries dates back to 1280. This is the oldest copy of the code of laws that has ever been found. This book was first published by the Russian historian Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev.

The documents included in the ancient edition are devoted to blood feud, responsibility for murder, the procedure for collecting fines and paying them.

Articles in the Yaroslavich Pravda on the protection of private property and the protection of the population contributed to stabilization in the state.

Extensive- This is the second complete presentation of the original source. Consists of two parts:

• Charter of Yaroslav the Wise.
• Charter of Vladimir Monomakh.

These charters were also included in the Brief, but underwent a number of changes and additions. Dates from the 12th century. It consists of 121 articles, which reflect: divisions into social strata, the advantages and development of land owners, the general position of slaves, hereditary property rights and many other aspects.

Abbreviated- the latest variation. Dates from the 15th century. It was created on the basis of the Short and Long in the Moscow Principality. Written in Great Perm. It contains 50 articles.

These codes distinguish murder in a quarrel - unintentional, from a bloody massacre "in robbery" - intentional. There are also different types of damage caused: severe, weak. The punishment depends on this. They were limited to fines or expulsion of the culprit and his family. And also blood feud was relevant - “If the husband kills the husband, then take revenge on the brother’s brother.”

Social status played a key role in determining punishment. Slaves were punished much harsher than princely associates.

Fines system

Fines were paid in different monetary units: hryvnia, kuna and others.

Vira - This was the name given to the payment for the lethal reprisal of a free person. Its size was directly related to social status in ancient Russian society. The more significant the role of the murdered person in the state, the higher the fine.

Poluvirye - payment for serious injuries.

Sale - fine for theft, minor bodily injury and other criminal offenses.

What is the significance of the first ancient Russian collection of codes for the modern world?

1. This is the first legal document accessible to modern people to read, thanks to which we have an idea of ​​the trials in Kievan Rus.
2. This is the basis on which the entire subsequent legislative system was drawn up.
3. We have an idea of ​​the traditions and customs in Kievan Rus.

Interesting fact! The name “criminal” comes from the Old Russian “golovshchina”, which meant murder.

From this article you learned about the first Old Russian code of laws and norms; now you have an idea of ​​the brief content of the text of this document and understand its significance for contemporaries.