In the course of the history of the Russian state and law, the topic being studied is of great importance. She examines the formation of the Old Russian nationality, the process of uniting the East Slavic tribes into a single Old Russian state. During this period, the ancient Russian people realized their ethnic unity and the unity of their historical destiny.

This period is characterized by:

• the formation of feudal public relations;
• the formation of the social and state system of the early feudal state;
• creation of armed forces;
• the emergence and development of state legal institutions;
• the introduction of the Christian religion in Rus';
• strengthening foreign policy relations Russian state, etc.

The importance of studying the formation of state and law ancient Russian state is that the state and legal institutions created during this period formed the basis for the formation of subsequent forms of state in Russia and other states. The first legal source “Russian Truth” served as the basis for the creation of subsequent legal documents of the Russian state.

Without knowledge of the initial period of formation of the state and law, it will be significantly difficult to study subsequent periods of development of the domestic state and law.

1. Formation of the Old Russian state

Written sources from the beginning of the new era mention tribes that lived in Eastern Europe under the name “Vends”. For the first time such a name was used by a Greek writer and statesman Pliny the Elder. The Roman historian Tacitus also mentioned the “Vendi”. There is a direct connection between the Wend Slavs of the beginning of the century AD and the tribes of the Proto-Slavs.

At the beginning of the new era, a large ethnic formation of Slavs took shape, inhabiting eastern and central Europe between the Dnieper in the east and the Oder in the west. Presumably, in the north, the territory of their settlement reached the left bank of the Pripyat, and in the south – the border of the forest-steppe and steppe.

Written sources of later times, II-V centuries. (the works of Procopius of Caesarea - a Byzantine historian, Jordan - a Gothic historian) indicate the residence of the Antes (eastern Wends) between the Dnieper and Dniester and east of the Dnieper.

In the second half of the 1st millennium AD. The Slavs occupied a significant territory stretching between the Elbe in the West, the Volga-Oka interfluve in the northeast, Lake. Ilmen - in the north and the northern Black Sea coast in the south. The vastness of the territory determined the differentiation of the Slavs. One can distinguish Eastern, Western and Southern Slavs.

The large territory on which the Old Russian people formed was inhabited by East Slavic tribes. The settlement of the Eastern Slavs was described in sufficient detail by the ancient Russian chronicler Nestor (XI - early XII centuries). In “The Tale of Bygone Years” he described the events that took place 300 years before him.

The source, unfortunately, has not reached us; we know a list of it compiled by the monk Sylvester (around 1116).

According to various sources, one can imagine a picture of the placement of Slavic tribes:

The Polyans lived on the right bank of the Dnieper with its center in Kyiv;

Drevlyans - north of the glades in the interfluve of the Ros and Pripyat with the center in Iskorosten;

Dregovichi - north of the Drevlyans and glades on the left bank of Pripyat;

Buzhans and Volynians - west of the glades, along the upper reaches of the Southern Ulichi and Tivertsy - west of the Buzhans and Volynians in the Dniester basin;

Croats (white Croats) - in Transcarpathia;

Northerners - on the left bank of the Dnieper, in the basin of the Sula, Seim, Desna rivers to the Northern Donets;

Radimichi - in the east, in the basin of the middle and upper reaches of the Oka and Moscow rivers (show the location of the tribes on the map).

In the VII-VIII centuries. Slavic tribes conduct active economic activities, which stimulated the strengthening of external economic ties, including foreign trade.

At the end of the 1st millennium, the primitive communal system dominated among the Eastern Slavs. The main economic unit that owned land, tools, livestock, and products of labor was the clan community. It consisted of a group of consanguineous small families. Farming was carried out collectively by the entire community. Land plots were periodically redistributed between individual families. There was no private ownership of land.

In the first half of the first millennium, the Eastern Slavs began to separate crafts from agriculture and develop commodity production. This led to the emergence, along with the clan community, of a territorial (neighborhood) community (called “peace” or “rope”). The decomposition of the primitive system, which was associated with the further development of arable farming, begins.

A rapid process of social stratification was taking place in the neighboring community. Different family compositions, wealth inequality, natural conditions led to the growth of private property among wealthy members of the community. An elite of society was formed, which appropriated the right to collect food for general needs and dispose of it. During the formation of feudal society, this process turned into the collection of tribute.

Most Slavic tribes bypassed the slave-owning formation. Patriarchal slavery, which took place among the Eastern Slavs, did not develop into a slave-owning formation.

1. Slave labor was not profitable; harsh climatic conditions required great expenses to maintain a slave.
2. The development of slavery was delayed by the rural community.
3. There was no source of captive slaves, and the vast neighboring territories were sparsely populated.
4. The level of development of the productive forces required that the worker be interested in the results of labor.

More profitable for the feudal lord was the labor of a dependent peasant who bore certain duties (corvee labor, quitrent, etc.). Slavery among the Slavs was patriarchal, domestic in nature (slaves, servants, etc.).

The prerequisites for the formation of statehood emerged in the 7th-8th centuries. AD The highest stage of development of the primitive communal system among the Eastern Slavs were tribal unions. Presumably there were 14 such unions, the largest of which united up to ten tribes. At the beginning of these tribal unions, the form of government was military democracy.

The military force of the tribal union consisted of the most combat-ready men. Subsequently, some of them, brave and strong, grouped around the leader as his squad. The squad with a leader (prince) occupied a dominant position, gradually displacing such democratic organizations as the people's assembly and the council of elders.

The growth of the social position of the prince and his squad was facilitated by the growing need to protect the alliance of tribes from the ever-increasing threat of attack by external enemies

The support of the squad allowed the leader to violate customs and traditions and introduce his own rules. Military democracy gradually developed into military-hierarchical rule - princely rule. Thus, the process of transforming self-government bodies into state bodies developed.

Tribal unions were distinguished by a higher level of government; public self-government bodies turned into the state apparatus of the prince. A state system was being formed, an important feature of which was the emergence of a special public authority, separated from the people, with a special administrative apparatus and spreading over a certain territory.

According to Arab historical sources Slavic tribes united around three centers: Cuiaba, Slavia and Artavia or Ars (presumably Kyiv, Novgorod and Ryazan).

These were “unions of alliances” of tribes - the first state entities in Rus'.

Pre-revolutionary historians considered the date of formation of the Old Russian state to be 862, when the Novgorod princes allegedly invited Rurik (862-879) to reign in Novgorod. (There is a version that Rurik captured Novgorod either by war or by bribing princes).

Prince Oleg (882-912) supposedly captured Kyiv in 882 (or took over by bribing the princes) and made it the capital of the Slavic unions.

Oleg's successors - Igor, regent Olga and Svyatoslav strengthened the Old Russian state. Prince Igor (912-945) annexed the tribes of the Ulichs and Tivertsi, and returned the Drevlyans who had separated from Kyiv after the death of Oleg. Olga (945-964), Svyatoslav (965-972) and Vladimir (978-1015) made campaigns on the land of the Vyatichi.

Thus, in the 8th-10th centuries, on a vast territory from Lakes Ladoga and Onega in the north to the middle reaches of the Dnieper in the south, in the west and southwest - to the Carpathians, Prut and the lower reaches of the Danube, the Old Russian state was formed with its center in Kyiv.

The Old Russian state went through three stages in its development:

The first - in the form of an early feudal state (late 9th-10th centuries). This period is characterized by the completion of the process of unification of the Slavic tribes into single state, the formation and improvement of the state apparatus and military organization.

The second stage is the heyday Kievan Rus(end of the 11th – first half of the 11th centuries).

The third stage is the second half of the 11th century. – first half of the 12th century. - a period of economic and political weakening of Rus'. In the second half of the 11th century. There were trends towards feudal fragmentation.

It should be noted that there are different interpretations of the history of the formation of the Russian state.

In the 18th century German scientists G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A.L. Shletser, invited to the Russian Academy of Sciences, created the so-called. "Norman theory".

The essence of the theory is that the state of the Eastern Slavs was not a natural process of their internal development, but was created by newcomers from Scandinavia “Normans” or “Varangians”. Bayer wrote the works “The Origin of Rus'” and “Varyags”. Based on the story of the “Tale of Bygone Years” about the “calling” of the three Varangian brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor to Novgorod by the Novgorodians in 862, he concludes that they founded the Old Russian state and gave it the name “Rus”.

“The Tale of Bygone Years” by Nestor was compiled at the end of the 11th – beginning of the 12th centuries; the original has not reached us. The list we know contains many contradictions. It was compiled during the collapse of the Kyiv state. The chronicler, fulfilling a social order, could assume that the version of the origin of the princes from the Varangians would exalt the princely power (the Varangians played a prominent role in Europe in the 11th-12th centuries). Another task of Nestor could have been the desire to show the supra-class character of the state and the prince in order to stop civil strife and social conflicts.

The “Norman theory” itself during the period of its creation corresponded to the political interests of the Holstein feudal dynasty, which ruled Russia under the name of the Romanovs. The purpose of the theory is to show the inferiority of the East Slavic peoples, their inability to create their own state.

The Norman theory established itself as an anti-Russian political doctrine. It was widely used by Hitler's propaganda during the preparation and during the Second World War to justify wars of aggression against the Slavic peoples.

Currently, the strengthening of anti-Russian propaganda, the Norman interpretation of ancient Russian history has intensified. In modern Western literature, a number of authors tendentiously exploit the Norman version about the backwardness of the Russian people, about the creation of the first Russian state by immigrants from Western countries. Attempts are being made to connect the Norman theory with modernity, speculating on the difficulties of economic, political and social development of Russia.

He came out against Normanism in the middle of the 18th century. M.V. Lomonosov, proved the scientific inconsistency of the theory. The fight against this “theory” was led by V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky and others.

The Norman theory was criticized by Russian historians S.A. Geodonov, I.E. Zabelin, A.I. Kostomarov and others.

Russian scientist A.A. Shakhmatov in his works “Investigation of the most ancient Russian lepes connections” (1908) and “The Tale of Bygone Years” (1916) established that the version about the calling of the Varangian princes to Novgorod and Kyiv is artificial. The plots of “The Tale of Bygone Years” are creative, not historical in nature. The chronicler was influenced by Russian princes, who were later connected with Northern Europe by family or other ties. One of these princes, for example, was Mstislav Vladimirovich, the son of Vladimir Monomakh.

Soviet historical and historical-legal science in terms of exposing the Norman theory is represented by the works of B.D. Grekova, A.S. Likhacheva, V.V. Mavrodina, A.N. Nasonova, V.T. Pashuto, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, L, V. Cherepnina, I.P. Sheskolsky, S.V. Yushkova and others. They proved the bias of the Norman theory. The Normans have nothing to do with the disintegration of the primitive communal system and the development of feudal relations. The influence of the Normans on Rus' is negligible, if only because the level of their social and cultural development was not higher than in Ancient Rus'.

The assertion about the original Norman origin of the word “Rus” is also untenable. Russian researchers have proven that the “Ros” tribe existed in the Dnieper region 5 centuries before the appearance of the Varangians. The name subsequently spread to the area around Kyiv. Then on the Slavic tribes that were part of Kyiv principalities A.

The Old Russian state was not the first state formation among the Eastern Slavs. The Slavs have gone through a long path of state development. The formation of the Novgorod and Kyiv principalities was prepared by the development of many state formations of the Slavs during the period of the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of feudalism.

In the process of unification of all East Slavic lands, the Old Russian nationality was formed.

1. Social and state structure of the ancient Russian state

The concept of “social system” includes: economic development countries, the class structure of society, the legal status of classes and social groups of the population.

Historical, written and archaeological sources indicate that in economic life the main occupation of the Eastern Slavs was agriculture. Both slash-and-burn (in forest areas) and arable (fallow) farming developed.

In the X-XII centuries. There has been a significant increase in cities with a craft and trade population. In the 12th century there were already about 200 cities in Rus'.

In the ancient Russian state, princely, boyar, church and monastic land ownership developed; a significant part of the community members became dependent on the owner of the land. Feudal relations gradually formed.

The formation of feudal relations in Kievan Rus was uneven. In the Kyiv, Chernigov, and Galician lands this process went faster than among the Vyatichi and Dregovichi.

The feudal social system in Rus' was established in the 9th century. As a result of social differentiation of the population, the social structure of society was formed. Based on their position in society, they can be called classes or social groups.

These include:

• feudal lords (great and appanage princes, boyars, churches and monasteries);
• free community members (rural and urban “people” and “people”);
• smerds (communal peasants);
• purchases (a person who has fallen into debt bondage and is working off a “kupa”);
• outcasts (a person who left the community or was freed from servitude by ransom);
• servants and serfs (court slaves);
• urban population(urban aristocracy and urban lower classes);

The dominant class of feudal lords was formed in the 9th century. These included grand dukes, local princes, and boyars. State and personal reigns were not separated, so the princely domain was an estate that belonged not to the state, but to the prince as a feudal lord.

Along with the grand-ducal domain, there was also boyar-druzhina agriculture.

The form of princely agriculture was patrimony, i.e. a form of ownership in which land was inherited.

The appearance in the Long Edition of Russian Pravda, dating back to the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th centuries, of articles that mention boyar tiuns, boyar ryadovichi, boyar serfs and boyar inheritance allows us to conclude that by this time boyar land ownership had become established.

For a long time, a group of feudal boyars was formed from the richer warriors of the prince and from the tribal nobility. Their form of land tenure was:

1. fiefdom;
2. holding (estate).

Patrimonies were acquired by seizing communal lands or by grant and were passed on by inheritance. The boyars received tenure only by grant (for the duration of the boyar's service or until his death). Any land ownership of the boyars was associated with service to the prince, which was considered voluntary. The transfer of a boyar from one prince to the service of another was not considered treason.

The feudal lords include both the church and the monasteries, which, after the adoption of Christianity in Rus', gradually became large landowners.

Free community members made up the bulk of the population of Kievan Rus. The term “people” in Russian Pravda means free, predominantly community peasants and the urban population. Judging by the fact that in Russian Pravda (Article 3) “liudin” was contrasted with the “prince-husband,” he retained personal freedom.

Free community members were subjected to state exploitation by paying tribute, the method of collection of which was polyudye. The princes gradually transferred the right to collect tribute to their vassals, and free community members gradually became dependent on the feudal lord.

Smerds made up the bulk of the population of the Old Russian state. These were communal peasants. Smerd was personally free, his personal integrity was protected by the prince’s word (Article 78 pp.). The prince could give the smerd land if he worked for him. Smerds had tools of production, horses, property, land, ran a public economy, and lived in communities.

According to historians B.D. Grekova and M.B. Sverdlov, the smerds were free and dependent. Dependent smerds were those who received land from the feudal lord and worked for him.

Some communal peasants went bankrupt, turned into “bad scum,” and turned to feudal lords and rich people for a loan. This category was called “purchases”. The main source characterizing the “purchase” situation is Art. 56-64, 66 Russian truth, lengthy edition.

Thus, the “purchases” are peasants (sometimes representatives of the urban population) who temporarily lost their freedom for using a loan, a “purchase” taken from the feudal lord. He was actually in the position of a slave, his freedom was limited. He could not leave the yard without the master's permission. For attempting to escape, he was turned into a slave.

“Outcasts” were free and dependent. These were:

• former purchases;
• slaves bought into freedom;
• come from free strata of society.

They were not free until they entered the service of their master. The life of an outcast is protected by Russian Truth with a fine of 40 hryvnia.

At the lowest rung of the social ladder were slaves and servants. They were not subjects of law, and the owner was responsible for them. Thus, they were the owners of the feudal lord. If he committed theft, then the master paid. If a slave was beaten, he could kill him “in the dog’s place,” i.e. like a dog. If a slave took refuge with his master, the latter could protect him by paying 12 hryvnia, or give him up for reprisals.

The law prohibited sheltering runaway slaves.

Political system

Let us briefly consider the political system of the Old Russian state.

The concept of government includes:

• issues of state structure;
• political form of government;
• structure and competence of central and local authorities and management;
• military device;
• judicial system of the state.

The formation of the Old Russian state continued until the first third of the 12th century. It was an integral state based on the principle of suzerainty-vassalage. In terms of the form of government, the ancient Russian state was an early feudal monarchy with a fairly strong monarchical power.

The main characteristics of the ancient Russian early feudal monarchy can be considered:

• economic and political influence of the boyars on central and local authorities;
• the great role of the council under the prince, the dominance of large feudal lords in it;
• the presence of a palace-patrimonial management system in the center;
• availability of a feeding system on site.

It arose at a time when there were no prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state, with weak developed trade and craft, the lack of strong economic ties between individual regions. The feudal lords needed a strong central government to provide cover or support during the seizure of communal and new lands.

The support of the Grand Duke by the feudal lords contributed to the rapid spread of his power over the vast territory of Rus'.

Kievan Rus was not centralized state. It was a conglomerate of feudal principalities. The Kyiv prince was considered a suzerain or “elder”. He gave land (flax) to the feudal lords, provided them with assistance and protection. The feudal lords had to serve the Grand Duke for this. If loyalty was violated, the vassal was deprived of his possessions.

The highest authorities in the Old Russian state were Grand Duke, council under the prince, feudal congresses, veche.

The power functions of the Grand Duke of Kyiv during the reign of Oleg (882-912), Igor (912-945) and regent Olga under Svyatoslav (945-964) were relatively simple and consisted of:

• organizing squads and military militias and commanding them;
• protection of state borders;
• carrying out campaigns to new lands, capturing prisoners and collecting tribute from them;
• maintaining normal foreign policy relations with the nomadic tribes of the south, the Byzantine Empire, and the countries of the East.

At first, the Kyiv princes ruled only the Kyiv land. During the conquest of new lands, the Kiev prince in the tribal centers left a thousand led by a thousand, a hundred led by a sotsky, and smaller garrisons led by a ten, which served as the city administration.

At the end of the 10th century, the functions of the power of the Grand Duke underwent changes. The feudal nature of the prince's power began to manifest itself more clearly.

The prince becomes the organizer and commander of the armed forces (the multi-tribal composition of the armed forces complicates this task):

• takes care of the construction of fortifications along the external border of the state, the construction of roads;
• establishes external relations to ensure border security;
• carries out legal proceedings;
• carries out the establishment of the Christian religion and provides financial support for the clergy.

(During this period, popular unrest began. In 1068, Izyaslav brutally suppressed the popular uprising, and in 1113, fearing new unrest, the boyars and bishops summoned Vladimir Monomakh to Kyiv with a strong squad, who suppressed the uprising).

Princely power was exercised locally by mayor, volosts and tiuns. The prince, by issuing laws, consolidated new forms of feudal exploitation and established legal norms.

Thus, the prince becomes a typical monarch. Grand Duke's throne passed down first by inheritance according to the principle of “seniority” (to the elder brother), and then according to the principle of “fatherland” (to the eldest son).

The council under the prince did not have functions separate from the prince. It consisted of the city elite (“city elders”), major boyars, and influential palace servants. With the adoption of Christianity (988), the Council included representatives senior clergy. It was an advisory body under the prince to resolve the most important state issues: declaration of war, peace, alliances, publication of laws, financial issues, court cases. The central governing bodies were officials of the princely court.

It should be noted that with the improvement of the system of feudalism, the decimal (thousand, centurion, and ten) system is gradually being replaced by the palace-patrimonial system. Separations between organs disappear government controlled and management of the prince's personal affairs. The general term tiun is specified: “fireman” is called “tiun-fireman,” “senior groom” is called “equer tyun,” “village and military headman” is called “village and military tiun,” etc.

As the tasks of public administration became more complex, the role of these positions became stronger, the functions became more precise, for example: “voevoda” - head of the armed forces; “tiun equestrian” - responsible for providing the princely army with horses; “butler-fireman” - manager of the princely court and performing certain government tasks; “Stolnik” – food supplier.

Feudal congresses (snems) were convened by the grand dukes to resolve the most important issues of foreign and domestic policy. They could be national or several principalities. The composition of the participants was basically the same as the Council under the Prince, but appanage princes were also convened at feudal congresses.

The functions of the congress were:

• adoption of new laws;
• distribution of lands (fiefs);
• resolving issues of war and peace;
• protection of borders and trade routes.

The Lyubechsky Congress of 1097 is known, which, with a view to uniting efforts in the fight against external enemies, the “order of the world”, recognized the independence of appanage princes (“let each one keep his fatherland”), at the same time called for the preservation of Rus' by all “one”. In 1100, in Uvetichi, he was engaged in the distribution of fiefs.

The veche was convened by the prince or the feudal elite. All adult residents of the city and non-citizens participated in it. The decisive role here was played by the boyars and the city elite “city elders”. Serfs and people subordinate to the landlord were not allowed to attend the meeting.

It is known that the Drevlyans made the decision to kill Prince Igor for abusing the collection of tribute at their veche.

In 970, the Novgorod veche invited Vladimir Svyatoslavovich to reign.

Issues discussed at the meeting:

– convening and recruiting the people’s militia and choosing a leader;

- protest was expressed against the prince’s policies.

The executive body of the veche was the Council, which actually replaced the veche. The veche disappeared as feudalism developed. Survived only in Novgorod and Moscow.

At first, local governing bodies were local princes, who were later replaced by the sons of the Kyiv prince. In some less important cities posadnik-governors, thousands of the Kyiv prince from his entourage, were appointed.

The local administration was supported by part of the collections from the population. Therefore, the mayor and volostels were called “feeders,” and the management system was called a “feeding” system.

The power of the prince and his administration extended to the townspeople and the population of lands not captured by the feudal lords. The feudal lords received immunity - legal registration power in the domains. The immunity (protection) document determined the land granted to the feudal lord and the rights to the population, which was obliged to be subordinate.

In the Old Russian state, the court was not separated from administrative power. The highest judicial authority was the Grand Duke. He tried warriors and boyars, and considered complaints against local judges. The prince carried out analysis of complex cases at a council or veche. Individual matters could be entrusted to a boyar or tiun.

Locally, the court was carried out by the mayor and the volost.

In addition, there were patrimonial courts - courts of landowners over the dependent population, on the basis of immunity.

In the communities there was a community court, which with the development of feudalism was replaced by an administration court.

The functions of the church court were carried out by bishops, archbishops, and metropolitans.

1. Development of Old Russian feudal law

In the Old Russian state, the source of law, as in many early feudal states, is legal custom inherited from the primitive communal system. The Tale of Bygone Years notes that the tribes had “their own customs and the laws of their fathers.” The source refers to the norms of customary law, and the concepts are used as synonyms.

With the development of feudalism and the aggravation of class contradictions, customary law loses its importance. During the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich (978/980-1015) everything higher value acquires legislation expressing the interests of the feudal lords, asserting feudal principles and the influence of the church.

The first legal document that came down to us was the charter of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich “On tithes, courts and church people.” The charter was created at the turn of the X-XI centuries. in the form of a short charter, which was given to the Church of the Holy Mother of God. The original has not reached us. Only lists compiled in the 12th century are known. (Synodal and Olonets editions).

The charter acts as an agreement between the prince (Vladimir Svyatoslavovich) and the metropolitan (presumably Lyon). According to the charter, initially - the prince:

a) patron of the church (protects the church and provides it financially);

b) does not interfere in the affairs of the church;

Tithes are determined for the existence of the church. According to the charter, the prince owes 1/10 of the funds received from:

– court cases;

- in the form of tribute from other tribes; give to the church

- from trade.

Like the prince, each house also had to give 1/10 of the offspring, income from trade, and harvest to the church.

The charter was drawn up under the strong influence of the Byzantine church, as evidenced by the content of the articles regarding the definition of the crime.

The purpose of the charter is to establish the Christian Church in the Old Russian state. The provisions of Vladimir’s charter “On tithes, courts and church people” are aimed at:

• preservation of family and marriage, affirmation of the inviolability of family ties;
• protection of the church, church symbols and Christian church order;
• fight against pagan rituals.

Collections of Byzantine church law (nomocanons) widespread in the Old Russian state had great importance. Subsequently, on their basis, with the involvement of norms from Russian and Bulgarian sources in Rus', “helmsmen” (guiding) books were compiled as sources of church law.

Thus, after the adoption of Christianity (988), the church acts as an element of the state.

In the 9th century. Secular law is also being developed. Collections of law appear, containing legal material accumulated by the princely and communal courts. More than 110 such collections have reached us in various lists. These collections were called “Russian Truth” or “Russian Law”. Russian historians, based on their similarity to each other, united them into 3 editions:

1. Brief truth (KP).
2. Extensive truth (PP).
3. Abbreviated truth (SP).

Some lists are named by location:

• Synodal - kept in the library of the Synod;
• Trinity - kept in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra;
• Academic - kept in the library of the Academy of Sciences.

The short truth is divided into 2 parts:

1. The most ancient truth (see vv. 1-18) - compiled in the 30s. XI century

Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054), therefore known as Yaroslav's Truth. It contains norms of customary law (for example, blood feud), and the privilege of feudal lords is not sufficiently expressed (the same punishment is established for the murder of any person).

1. The Truth of the Yaroslavichs (see art. 19-43), compiled in the 70s. XI century, when Yaroslav’s son Izyaslav (1054-1072) reigned in Kyiv. The truth of the Yaroslavichs reflects a higher level of development of the feudal state: the princely property and persons of the administration are protected; instead of blood feud, a monetary penalty is established, and it varies depending on class status.

The lengthy truth was compiled during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125). It consists of 2 main parts:

1. Charter of Yaroslav, including a brief truth (see art. 1-52) “Court of Yaroslavl Volodemerech”.
2. Charter of Vladimir Monomakh (see art. 53-121) “Charter of Volodemer Vsevolodovich.”

In this document:

• Feudal law is fully formalized as a privilege;
• civil law, criminal law, judicial system and legal proceedings are regulated in more detail;
• Articles appear on the protection of boyar estates, on the relationship between feudal lords and purchases, and on stinkers.

The abridged truth arose in the 15th century. from Prostranstnaya Pravda and acted in the Moscow state.

In addition to the Russian Pravda, the sources of secular law in Rus' are Russian-Byzantine treaties, which contain not only norms of international law, but also norms regulating internal life. There are 4 known treaties between Rus' and Byzantium: 907, 911, 944 and 971. The treaties testify to the high international authority of the Old Russian state. Much attention is paid to the regulation of trade relations.

The main source of ancient Russian feudal law is “Russkaya Pravda”. The main part of it is devoted to criminal and procedural law, however, there are articles containing norms civil law, especially obligatory and hereditary.

Let us briefly consider the contents of “Russian Truth” according to the scheme:

• ownership;
• law of obligations;
• inheritance law;
• procedural law;
• Crime and Punishment.

In the Brief Truth there is no general term for ownership, because the content of this right was different depending on who was the subject and what was meant by the object of the property right. At the same time, a line was drawn between the right of ownership and the right of possession (see Art. 13-14 KP).

In “Russian Truth”, significant attention is paid to the protection of the private property of feudal lords. Strict liability is provided for damage to boundary signs, plowing of boundaries, arson, and cutting down of berm trees. Among property crimes, much attention is paid to theft (“theft”), i.e. secret theft of things.

The Prostransnaya Pravda enshrines the property rights of feudal lords over serfs, including the procedure for finding, detaining, and returning a runaway serf, and establishes responsibility for harboring a serf. Those who gave bread to a slave (as well as for harboring) had to pay the price of a slave - 5 hryvnia of silver (slaves cost from 5 to 1 2 hryvnia). The one who caught the slave received a reward - 1 hryvnia, but if he missed him, he paid the price of the slave minus 1 hryvnia (see Art. 113, 114).

In connection with the development of private property, inheritance law is formed and developed. In the rules of inheritance law, the desire of the legislator to preserve property in a given family is clearly visible. With its help, the wealth accumulated by many generations of owners remained in the hands of the same class.

By law, only sons could inherit. The father's courtyard passed to the youngest son without division. (Article 100 PP). Daughters were deprived of the right to inherit because when they got married, they could take property outside their clan. This custom existed among all peoples in transition period from the primitive communal system to class society. It is also reflected in Russkaya Pravda.

With the strengthening of princely power, the position “If the prince dies childless, then the prince inherits, if unmarried daughters remain in the house, then allocate a certain part for them, but if she is married, then do not give them a part” (Article 90 PP).

An exception was made for the daughters of boyars and warriors (later the clergy), artisans and community members; their inheritance, in the absence of sons, could pass to their daughters (Article 91 PP). Children adopted by a slave did not participate in the inheritance, but received freedom along with their mother (Article 98 PP).

Until the heirs came of age, their mother managed the inherited property. If a widowed mother got married, she received part of the property “for subsistence.” In this case, a guardian from the immediate family was appointed. The property was transferred in front of witnesses. If the guardian lost part of the property, he had to compensate.

There was a difference between inheritance by law and by will. The father could divide property between his sons at his own discretion, but could not bequeath to his daughters.

The dominance of private property led to the emergence of the law of obligations. It was relatively underdeveloped. Obligations arose not only from contracts, but also from causing harm: damage to a fence, unauthorized riding on someone else's horse, damage to clothing or weapons, death of the master's horse due to the fault of the purchase, etc. In these cases, not a civil claim (compensation), but a fine arose. The obligations extended not only to the debtor's property, but also to his person.

According to Russian Pravda, a bona fide bankrupt (merchant) was not sold into slavery, but received installments from the creditor. The malicious bankrupt was sold with all his property into slavery.

The obligations from the treaties were also reflected in “Russkaya Pravda”. Agreements, as a rule, were concluded orally in the presence of rumors or mytnik (witnesses). The following agreements were known in “Russkaya Pravda”: purchase and sale, loan, deposit (loan agreement between merchants), personal hiring, procurement.

Criminal law in the Old Russian state was formed as a right of privilege, but shades of an earlier period were preserved. It is reflected in Russian-Byzantine treaties and Russian truth.

The peculiarity of “Russian Truth” is that it punishes only intentional crimes or causing harm. (Crimes committed through negligence were reflected only in the 17th century in “ Cathedral Code"). In “Russkaya Pravda” the crime is called “resentment”, which means causing moral, material or physical damage. This stemmed from the understanding of “offense” in ancient times, when offending an individual meant insulting a tribe, community or clan. But with the emergence of feudalism, compensation for damage for a crime (offense) went not in favor of society, but of the prince.

Only free people were responsible. The owner was responsible for the slaves. “If the thieves are slaves... whom the prince does not punish with sale, because they are not free people, then for slave theft they will pay double the agreed price and compensation for losses” (Article 46).

The types of crimes provided for by the “Russian Truth” can be divided into:

a) crimes against the person;

b) crimes against property or property crimes;

The first group includes murder, insult by action, bodily harm, and beatings.

There was a distinction between murder in a quarrel (fight) or while intoxicated (at a feast) and murder by robbery, i.e. premeditated murder. In the first case, the perpetrator paid a criminal fine together with the community, and in the second case, the community not only did not pay the fine, but was obliged to hand over the murderer along with his wife and children to “too and ruin.”

Insult by action, physical insult (a blow with a stick, pole, hand, sword, etc.) was punishable by “Russian Truth,” and insult by word was considered by the church.

Bodily injuries included injury to a hand (“so that the hand falls off and shrivels up”), damage to a leg (“it begins to limp”), an eye, a nose, and amputation of fingers. Battery included beating a person until they were bloody and bruised.

Crimes against honor included pulling out mustaches and beards, for which a large fine was imposed (12 hryvnias of silver).

The second group includes crimes: robbery, theft (theft), destruction of other people's property, damage to boundary signs, etc.

Robbery involving murder was punished by “deluge and ruin.” According to the “Russian Pravda,” theft is considered to be the theft of a horse, a slave, weapons, clothing, livestock, hay, firewood, a rook, etc. For the theft of a horse, a “horse thief” was supposed to hand over a professional horse thief to the prince for “flood and ruin” (Article 35).

For a simple (one-time) theft of a prince's horse, a penalty of 3 hryvnia was imposed, and for a stink - 2 hryvnia (Article 45). The thief could be killed on the spot (v. 40). But if he was tied up and then killed, then 12 hryvnia was collected.

Punishments according to “Russian Truth” provided, first of all, for compensation for damage. The Pravda of Yaroslav provided for blood feud on the part of the relatives of the victim (Article 1). The Yaroslavichs abolished blood feud.

Instead of revenge for murder free man a fine was imposed - a monetary penalty of 40 hryvnia. For the murder of the “princely husband” compensation was established in the amount of double vira - 80 hryvnia. For the murder of a smerd or a serf, the penalty was not vira, but a fine (lesson) of 5 hryvnia.

Among the monetary penalties for murder are vira in favor of the prince and golovnichestvo (usually vira) in favor of the family of the murdered person, for other crimes - sale in favor of the prince and a lesson in favor of the victim. “Wild vira” was exacted from the community in case of refusal to extradite the criminal.

The highest punishment according to Russian truth is white flow and ruin - conversion (sale) into slavery and confiscation of property in favor of the prince. This punishment was applied for 4 types of crime: horse theft, arson, murder by robbery and malicious bankruptcy.

The proceedings were adversarial in nature. the main role in court belonged to the parties. The process was a lawsuit (dispute) between the parties before a judge. The court acted as an arbitrator and made a decision orally. Peculiar forms of this process were “cry”, “vault” and “pursuit of the trace”.

The evidence was the testimony of rumors, videos, ordeals, court battles, and the oath.

The emergence of a state among the Eastern Slavs

The feudal lords included great and local princes, boyars and monasteries (Article 46 of the Long Edition of the Russian Truth, hereinafter referred to as P.P.) and princely servants. The feudal lords were unequal in property, legal status and subordination to each other. The major feudal lords included princes - great and appanage. The position of the princes was high; in Russian Pravda there is not even a mention of their legal status. Any encroachment on them was punishable by death according to unwritten feudal law. The Grand Duke of Kyiv had a special legal status. He was the head of the Old Russian state and the overlord of all local princes. In Kyiv there were the grand ducal court, the metropolis (since 1037), and the bodies of supreme government. Local princes were the rulers of principalities and leaders of squads. The principalities were state entities that paid Kyiv part (usually 2/3) of all income from the land, the remaining part went to maintain the administration and squad. Thus, the Smolensk prince at the beginning of the 12th century. sent 3150 hryvnia of silver to Kyiv, “except for sales, and except for vir, and except for polyudye.” Formally dependent on Kyiv, appanage princes had their own squads and administrative-judicial apparatus; they appeared in Rus' back in the 10th century, when Svyatoslav Igorevich divided it between his sons Yaropolk, who received Kyiv, Oleg, who received the land of Drevlyanskaya, and Vladimir, who reigned in Novgorod. All lands were the property of the Rurik family and passed from prince to prince according to the clan order of inheritance and ownership (law of the ladder).

The middle feudal lords were the boyars - the prince's closest advisers, the clan nobility, the leaders and elite of the squad. The boyars also included the "best people", rich and authoritative inhabitants of the land and the highest ranks of the princely administration. " The best people" were called zemstvo boyars, and the palace boyars were called princely. The formation of the boyars into an estate with a special legal status occurs in the 11th-12th centuries. The boyars had estates - unconditional land hereditary property. The patrimonial owner had a wide range of rights; he was almost equal to the prince. The boyars enjoyed the right to “departure” to serve another prince. The Ognishchans were equal in status to the boyars. Initially, the Ognishchans were junior warriors who led the princely household. Later, in the 11th-13th centuries, the Ognishchans belonged to the highest nobility at the prince’s court, the boyars, and enjoyed special legal protection. According to the law, the murder of a fireman was punishable by a double fine - viroy (80 hryvnia, Article 19 of the Brief Edition of Russian Pravda, hereinafter referred to as K.P.). In terms of legal and property status, the Orthodox Church belonged to the large feudal lords. Prince Vladimir secured the legal and financial position of the church in a special Charter. Her lands grew due to princely and boyar grants, donations for “remembrance of the soul,” wills, “church tithes” and court fees. The Church enjoyed the right of jurisdiction over the lands it owned. The head of the church is the metropolitan, appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. All lands were divided into dioceses headed by bishops appointed by the metropolitan. Bishops appointed priests to lead parishes. Petty feudal lords (future nobility) are officials, princely men, who emerged from the princely and boyar servants. They were warriors-combatants, performed various services and assignments at the court and in the households of princes and large boyars. They received land grants for their service. According to the law, for the murder of the prince's husband, a warrior, double vitriol was due (Article 3, 10 P.P.). All feudal lords had privileges and rights - ownership of land, to exercise administrative functions, to collect taxes and taxes, to judge in the lands that belonged to them, to hold public positions, to enhanced protection by law of life, health and property. The feudal lords were in a complex relationship of vassalage-suzerainty, where the degree of dependence on the Grand Duke and the scope of duties performed were determined by the level of the feudal lord.

The feudal-dependent population consisted of personally free and dependent people. The peculiarity of society at this stage was that it had the features of both the outgoing tribal system and developing feudalism. Urban and part rural population were made up of people - personally free communal peasants or landowners who paid tribute (collection method - polyudye). For their murder there was a fine of 40 hryvnia (Article 3 of P.P.). The bulk of the rural population were smerds, communal peasants (some scientists see smerds as peasants who have already lost their personal freedom, others as a collective name for all peasants). Some of the smerds were assigned to the land and feudal lords and performed various duties for them: they paid tribute and performed “princely work” - obligatory services to the prince (grind flour, make hay, drive the beast while hunting). When a daughter was given in marriage outside the community or land, the smerd paid the governor or volost a fine - “brood marten”. Free smerds paid only state taxes - polyudye and tribute. Later, rent-in-kind began to be replaced by labor rent (corvee labor). Smerds formed the basis of ancient Russian society, its economy and armed forces. The law protected the rights of smerds to personal integrity (lynching and physical violence against them in private were punishable by a fine and material compensation to the victim - Article 33 K.P., Article 78 P.P.) and inviolability of property (Articles 28, 35, 39 K.P., Art. 33, 45, etc. P.P.).

Semi-free people were purchasing. In the Russian Pravda, nine articles are devoted to purchasing (Articles 56-62, 64 and 66 P.P.), which indicates the prevalence of the phenomenon. Purchases included persons who borrowed money - a “kupa” or a plot of land - a “father”, equipment, a horse and did not pay on time. Before the debt and interest were paid or worked off, the purchases were placed at the disposal of the master. The purchases were role (employed by arable farming) and non-role (employed at work in the master's house). The master had great (but not like over a slave) power over him: he could use violence (Article 62 of the Rules of Law), turn a purchaser who tried to escape into slavery (Article 56 of the Rule of Law), but could not sell him into slavery (in this case the debt was forgiven), subject to physical violence without guilt or while intoxicated (Articles 61, 62, 64 P.P.). The life and health of the purchaser were protected on an equal basis with free people; if offended, the purchaser could appeal to the prince’s court (Articles 56, 59, 60 P.P.). The purchase could be a witness in court, albeit in minor cases (Article 66 P.P.). The purchase was not responsible for the death or theft of the master's livestock (unless it was his direct fault - Article 58 of the Provisions).

The category of persons who voluntarily became dependent under the contract included rank-and-file workers. A series is an agreement between a free person and a prince, boyar or rich fellow villager, entailing temporary submission with the loss of the rights of a free person. For the murder of a private soldier, the punishment was not the same as for the murder of a free person, but only the payment of a lesson of 5 hryvnia - as for a serf (Article 25 K.P., Art. 14 P.P.).

The dependent population included outcasts, people deprived social status. These were criminals, slaves freed for ransom or at the will of the owner, bankrupt merchants, unlettered sons of priests, and service princes expelled in the evening. The law provided for special legal protection for outcasts, equating them to free people (Article 1 K.P., Art. 1 P.P.).

The powerless group were servants-slaves (from the 11th century they were called “slaves”). Serfs were objects of purchase and sale and were employed in the feudal economy. The sources of servitude were: captivity, right of birth, criminal punishment, flight from the owner, malicious (due to drunkenness) bankruptcy, self-sale into slavery, marriage to a servant without a special contract, entering the service of a boyar or prince as a tiun, housekeeper without a special agreement (Articles 56, 54, 64, 110 P.P.). The slave could not enter into contractual relations, bear responsibility for his actions, he was the property of the master, who could kill him, sell him, pay him off for debts, in the event of a crime by the slave, the master bore double criminal punishment for him, because slaves “are not free.” "(Article 46, 63 P.P.). Harboring a runaway slave was a criminal offense (Article 11 K.P., Articles 32, 113, 118 P.P.), and there was a reward for his capture (Article 113 P.P.). He could not be a witness in court, except in minor cases (Articles 66, 85 P.P.). For the murder of a slave, not provoked by himself, he was not supposed to pay the viru, but only the sale and lesson to the master for damages (Article 89 P.P.). But the slave could trade on behalf of the master (Articles 117, 119 P.P.), and could be “sieged” to the land. From the 12th century servility is eradicated. It now came only upon entering the service of a prince or boyar and concluding a series of agreements.

From the second half of the 9th century. cities are developing. The cities were inhabited by artisans, merchants and urban plebs. Free city residents were protected by the norms of Russian Truth. The craft population united in hundreds. The merchants played a major role in the life of the cities, and early began to unite into corporate organizations. There were merchants who traded within the state and merchants-guests who carried out foreign trade. The merchants enjoyed special rights in monetary transactions and a simplified procedure for concluding certain agreements. If they refused to repay the borrowed amounts, they did not require witnesses, and the delay in repaying the debt was considered a crime (Articles 47, 48 P.P.).

Political system. In the Old Russian state, a form of government was established in the form of the early feudal monarchy of the Rurik dynasty. One can only speculate about the nature of the power of the first Rurikovichs. There are no direct references to the status of the prince in Russkaya Pravda. Therefore, judgments about the powers exercised by the Grand Duke are based on indirect data. In the era of the birth of statehood, local princes from the tribal nobility ruled locally. They recognized the power of the Kyiv prince, came to the rescue with their squads, and transferred part of the tribute. In the 10th century Through the efforts of princes Svyatoslav and Vladimir, local dynasties are being ousted and the autonomy of the lands is being eliminated. All large land-principalities were transferred to the rule of the sons and relatives of the Kyiv princes. At the end of the X - beginning of the XI centuries. Rus' became a unitary state. It was headed by princes, from the time of Oleg (in the treaty with Byzantium in 911 it was stated: “from Olga, the Grand Duke of Russia”) - great princes. The eldest son of the Grand Duke inherited the table in Kyiv, the other brothers received “destinations”, separate large lands. The so-called “right of the ladder” was also established in inheritance (although not always), according to which the entire princely family was considered the ruler of Rus'. The tables moved according to seniority - after the death of a prince, other princes moved on the tables according to seniority. The brothers were followed by the children of the elder brother. Behind them are the children of older brothers. Thus, as the Grand Duke changed, the princes constantly moved from city to city, from table to table. In the lands and large cities, administration was carried out by governors - representatives of the central government.

The Grand Duke performed important state functions: maintaining feudal order in the state; exercise of military and diplomatic powers - leadership of a squad, gathering of militia, diplomacy. Military campaigns of Rus' in the 10th century. demanded that the princes conduct active diplomatic activities - negotiations, concluding treaties (with Byzantium in 911, 944 and 971), exchanging embassies and concluding marriage alliances (the daughter of the Swedish king Olaf, Princess Ingibegerda, became the wife of Yaroslav the Wise Irina, and their daughter Elizabeth was extradited married to the Norwegian King Harold). The Grand Duke acted as a legislator, which is reflected in the Russian Pravda (Articles 18, 21, 42 K.P., Art. 2, 76 P.P.). In his name, princely charters and charters were issued (for example, “The Charter of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich on tithes, courts and church people”). The prince controlled the filling and expenditure of the treasury, supervised the collection of tributes and taxes. The Grand Duke acted, formally, as the supreme land owner, which was the economic basis of princely power. As the highest court, the Grand Duke received, as stated in the Russian Pravda, special fees - vira and sales. Over time, the Grand Duke concentrated in his hands all the main branches of government.

Under the prince there was a Council, an estate advisory body.

It included “the best and most distinguished people” - large feudal lords, military commanders, leaders big cities- mayors and thousanders, from the church - the metropolitan, bishops and archimandrites of large monasteries, as well as “city elders”. The competence of the council, due to the lack of delimitation of management functions, was not defined and depended on the prince, circumstances and the specific situation. The council dealt with legislation, the distribution of tables, issues of war and peace, and the trial of members of the princely family. The prince’s apparatus also included virniks, gridis, emtsy, swordsmen, who carried out judicial and administrative tasks. They formed the grand ducal court. In the domain lands, a staff of servant-administrators gradually emerged - firemen, princes of the porch, princely men, tiuns, elders, stable hands, etc. (see Art. 19,22, 33 K.P. and Art. 1.12, 78 P. P.). The lands and cities were ruled by appointed prince-deputies. IN big cities The Kyiv princes also appointed posadniks, who were responsible for organizing defense, maintaining order, administering justice, and collecting tributes and taxes. From the 12th century governors, authorized representatives of the prince, are appointed in the region. The institution of posadnichestvo was preserved in the feudal republics of Novgorod and Pskov. As the population grew, the tasks of local administration became more complicated and the staff grew. The governor's apparatus included tiuns, tributaries, mytniks, virniks, stainers, etc. Tiuns, appointed from among the lower servants, were in charge of economic affairs and administered justice in minor cases. The rest were responsible for collecting tribute locally (tributers), collecting trade duties (mytniki), spot duties for the sale of a horse (stainers), performed judicial and police tasks - collecting fines for murder (virniki and youths), etc. In the countryside The localities were governed by volostels appointed by the prince or boyar or by elders elected by the local population.

The veche, a collective body for making important decisions for the land or city, played a major role in public life.

In different cities and lands and in different periods, the competence and functions of the veche were different. In a number of cities and lands (Novgorod, Pskov) the veche exercised supreme legislative and judicial power. In others it has lost its meaning. Usually the veche considered issues of war and peace, finance and taxes, laws, invitation or expulsion of the prince, court, appointment of officials - mayors, governors, etc. So, in 1113, the Kyiv residents themselves decided who would rule in Kyiv, having achieved Vladimir’s enthronement Monomakh. In 1154, the people of Kiev elected Rostislav prince at a meeting and entered into a “row” with him, where they stipulated the mutual obligations of the prince and the townspeople. The entire adult male population of the city and its suburbs participated in the meeting. In the cities, corporations of merchants and artisans had great influence. The most famous is the Ivan Sto, a wealthy and influential association of merchants in Novgorod at the Church of John the Baptist.

Management was initially based on military organization- division into thousands, hundreds and tens. The cities were governed by thousands appointed by the Grand Duke or elected by the veche. Tysyatskys were the highest officials in charge of the city militia (thousand), trade and craft population. Gradually, the importance in economic management of tiuns - princely or boyar servants who managed the feudal economy, and ognishchans - owners of the fire pit (fireplace, courtyard, hearth), "princely husbands" - grew. With the separation of destinies, the palace-patrimonial system formed the basis of their administration, according to which the state was governed on the principle of a large patrimonial economy. The patrimonial positions - housekeeper, stablemaster, tiun - turned into travelers (managers of the economic path-direction), worthwhile boyars.

The basis of the military forces of the Old Russian state were the squads of the Grand Duke, local princes and boyars and the militia. The squad consisted of two parts. The eldest, the boyars, were the prince's close advisers and were appointed to court and administrative positions. Gradually, the boyars emerged as a layer of large feudal lords with extensive land holdings, fiefdoms, where they were sovereign lords, had their own vassals and squad, had immunity and the right to leave for another prince. The younger part of the squad, the youths (grid, children), were not much different from the servants, and later became the basis of a large layer of the nobility. The princely squad existed at the expense of the prince, from voluntary donations and from military spoils. Later, for service and on the condition of service, the warriors began to receive land grants from the prince for conditional ownership - “feeding”. This is how druzhina patrimonial and granted land ownership developed. A foot militia was recruited from the free population. Locally, the thousand, sot and ten organized and commanded the militia of the free urban and rural population. Mercenaries were used - Polovtsians, Kipchaks, etc.

Court. There were no permanent judicial bodies. The highest authority was the Grand Duke. Gradually, the court passed to officials appointed by the prince in the center and locally. The trial was carried out by representatives of the administration - local princes, posadniks, volostels, as well as large patrimonial boyars in their domains. For a long time, relics of the tribal system - veche and community courts - operated. Gradually, with the strengthening of its position in the life of society, the church acquires broad judicial powers. The population living on church lands, the affairs of clergy, all marriage and family matters, crimes against Christian morality and morality were subject to the court of the church.

Law of the Old Russian State. Russian Truth

During the transition to a class society, the main thing in Rus' was customary law, which was a system of unwritten norms, the application of which was sanctioned by the state. The disadvantages of customary law were particularism, territorial and law enforcement disunity and conservatism, and difficulty in changing. With the development of the state, property differentiation of the population, expansion of the range of criminal acts and civil relations, customary law ceased to satisfy society. The importance of written law has increased. The first to reach us written monuments ancient Russian law, treaties between Rus' and Byzantium in 907, 911, 944 and 971, which consolidated the political, trade and military relations of the two countries. The treaty of 911 secured the legal status of the Rusyns in Constantinople. It was stipulated that when analyzing the crime of a Rusyn against a Greek and vice versa, the testimony of the parties should be taken into account; if anyone doubts the testimony of the opposing party, he must swear according to the rites of his faith that it is false; the death penalty was imposed for a false oath. It was indicated that if a Rusyn killed a Greek or vice versa, then the killer would be killed at the scene of the murder; if he runs away and leaves the property, it will go to the family of the murdered man; if the fugitive did not leave property, he was considered to be on trial until he was caught and executed. The one who struck with the sword paid the victim 5 liters of silver. The parties mutually agreed to redeem slaves from Russians or Greeks in foreign lands; Russians had the right to enter the service of Byzantium. The agreement stipulated that if Russian slaves were sold to the Greeks or vice versa, they would be sold for 20 gold and released to their homeland.

On early stages development in the Russian lands, foreign sources of law were in effect - translations into Church Slavonic of Greek collections of canon law - “Nomocanons”, called in Rus' “Helmsman’s Books”. To their texts, the Russians began to add other normative materials, of which the most comprehensive were the Byzantine codes: Eclogue - a legal code published in Byzantium in 726, Prochiron (a manual for judges containing norms of civil, criminal and ecclesiastical law) of Emperor Basil Macedonian, published in 879, etc. The Bulgarian “Law of Judgment for the People” was also used. In the 10th century grand ducal legislation appeared. It especially includes the statutes of Prince Vladimir and Yaroslav, which significantly influenced the development of criminal, civil, procedural and matrimonial law. The Charter of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich on tithes and church people and the Charter of Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich on church courts regulated acts that fell under church jurisdiction - crimes of church people and marriage and family relations, the size and form of material income of the church and the limits of its jurisdiction. They also contained norms of a criminal nature - about theft, arson, etc. Rich legal material is contained in the later, appanage period, church charters of the Novgorod prince Svyatoslav and the Charter of the Smolensk prince Rostislav of 1150. They contain important information about the relationship between the state and the church, the rights of the clergy, the jurisdiction of people dependent on the church and crimes against morality and morality - rape, kidnapping of a woman, blasphemy, witchcraft, etc.).

A major source of Russian law is “ Russian Truth" - the oldest collection of written Russian laws. The time and place, circumstances, sources and nature of the origin and authorship of the Russian Truth in scientific literature are debatable. Undoubtedly, the great princes Yaroslav the Wise and Vladimir Monomakh were involved in the emergence of Russian Truth. The goals of the emergence of Russian Pravda were: overcoming the particularism of law, unifying the law, bringing laws into line with the socio-economic and political situation, and regulating the existing legal proceedings. More than a hundred lists (copies with discrepancies in content) have survived, the most famous being the Academic, Synodal, Troitsky, etc. Based on the time of appearance and the scope of regulated relations, three editions of Pravda are distinguished - Brief, Long and Abridged. The brief edition consists of the “Ancient Truth” or “The Truth of Yaroslav” (appeared no later than 1054, includes art. 1-18), and “Pravda Yaroslavichy” (appeared between 1054 and 1073, includes Art. Art. 19-41), as well as Pokon Virny (Art. 42) and Lesson for Bridge Workers (Art. 43). A lengthy edition appeared at the beginning of the 12th century. and consists of the Court of Yaroslav (Article 1-52), the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh (Article 53-121) and additional articles. The abridged version is a 15th-century compilation. A short edition was opened in 1738 by V. N. Tatishchev and published by A. Schletser. The lengthy edition was first introduced into scientific circulation in 1788 by V. V. Krestinin. The sources of Russian Truth were: common law, lawmaking of the Grand Dukes and judicial and administrative practice. Russian Truth - a collection of secular private law. Contains norms of criminal, civil, procedural and other branches of law, set out in casual form. In the text, groups of norms can be distinguished according to industry - criminal, civil, procedural law.

Crimes and Punishments. The rules on crimes and punishments are not systematized and fragmented. Many types and elements of crimes are not indicated at all or are mentioned fragmentarily. There are no crimes against family and morality in Russian Pravda; they were regulated by the church statutes of princes Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise. Criminal law is secular and private in nature - crimes against the state, church and morality are not considered. A crime is called “offense” - an action that causes physical, moral or material damage(harm) to a free person. The concepts of degree of guilt, complicity are superficially presented, there is no mention of recidivism, the criminal liability of a woman, the age of criminal responsibility, circumstances excluding the criminality of the act, etc. The object and subject of the crime are defined, and the objective and subjective aspects of the crime are outlined. The objects of criminal encroachment are free persons and property. Some unfree persons with limited status rights (purchase, foreigner, outcast) and their property are protected by law (Articles 1, 25, 26 K.P., Articles 1, 54, 55, 62 P.P.). The subjects of the crime were all free people, individuals (the concept of a legal entity did not yet exist). The stages of the crime are indicated, the attempt and the completed crime - “he will take out the sword and not strike,” i.e. threatening with a sword was punishable by a fine of 1 hryvnia (Art. 9 K.P., Art. 24 P.P.), the fine for a blow, for a completed action, was estimated at 12 hryvnia (Art. 3 K.P., Art. 25 P. .P.). The limits of necessary defense are indicated: murder during daylight hours of a thief at night, already neutralized, is punishable (Article 38 K.P., Art. 40 P.P.). There is a concept of complicity (Article 31 K.P., Article 41 P.P.). Aggravating circumstances were intent and self-interest. Murder by robbery was considered one of the three most dangerous crimes and was punishable by capital punishment - exile and robbery (Article 7 of P.P.). Intoxication was an aggravating circumstance - a merchant who lost goods while drunk, or a gentleman who beat up a purchaser while drunk, were severely punished (Articles 54, 62 P.P.).

Russkaya Pravda identified two types of crimes - against the person and against property. The first included murder (Art. 1, 19-27 K.P., Art. 1-6, 11-17 P.P.), beatings and self-mutilation (Art. 5, 6, 7 K.P., Art. 27 P.P.), insults (Articles 3, 4 K.P., Art. 23, 25 P.P.) and damage to the mustache or beard (which was considered a shame, Art. 8 K.P., Art. 67 P.P.). The second crimes included theft (tatba), illegal use, damage and destruction of other people's property. The law stood for the protection of private property, distinguished between the right of ownership and the right of possession (Articles 13, 14 K.P.), provided for high fines for encroachment on feudal property - damage to the boundary and damage to the princely side (Articles 32, 34 K.P. ). The degree of guilt (and the amount of the fine) was influenced by the value of the stolen property and damage caused. The law specifies major thefts - serfs, beavers (fine 12 hryvnia - Article 29 K.P., Art. 69 P.P.), and small thefts - boats, livestock and poultry, etc. (fine 3 hryvnias or less - Art. 35, 36 K.P., Art. 79, 81 P.P.). The punishment also depended on the qualifying characteristics, on the location of the crime - for theft from a threshing floor or barn the punishment is more severe - 3 hryvnia 30 kunas, than for theft in a field - 60 kunas (Articles 41, 42, 43 P.P.).

Illegal use of someone else's property was equated to theft (Article 12 K.P., Art. 33 P.P.). This concerned the destruction of other people's livestock (Article 84 of the G.P.), marks on the right of ownership - side and boundary signs (Articles 71, 72, G.P.). Particularly dangerous were horse theft and arson of the harvest storehouse-threshing floor or yard, which were punishable by capital punishment - exile and plunder (Article 35, 83 P.P.).

Punishments. The punishment system was simple, their goals were revenge on the criminal and fiscal benefit. There were no self-harming, painful punishments or imprisonment. The death penalty was not provided for by law (although it is mentioned in the chronicles). It was allowed to kill a thief at the scene of the crime - (Article 38 K.P., Art. 40 P.P.). The highest punishment was flood and plunder. It was imposed for murder by robbery, horse theft as a professional occupation and arson (Articles 7, 35, 83 P.P.) and included confiscation of property for the purpose of compensation for damage and expulsion of the culprit and his family from the area (turning into outcasts). From a legal point of view, this meant the termination of the civil and property rights of the convicted person and his family members. Other punishments included monetary fines - vira and sale, as well as monetary compensation for damage - slaughter and a lesson. The amounts of fines and penalties (except for slaying) were fixed. Vira - a fine in favor of the prince for murder, simple (single, 40 hryvnia for the murder of a free man, Art. 1 K.P., Art. 1 P.P., half-virye, 20 hryvnia for the murder of a free man’s wife, Art. 88 P .P.), double, 80 hryvnia (for the murder of princely close associates and certain categories of servants - princely husband, doorman, fireman, tiun, groom, art. 19, 22, 23 K.P., art. 1, 12 P.P. .). A special, “wild” fee was paid by the community on whose territory or a member of which committed the murder, but was not handed over to the authorities (Article 20 K.P., Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 P.P.). In addition to vira, the killer paid compensation to the family or relatives of the murdered person - golovnichestvo, the amount of which was not specified.

Russian Pravda also provided for a fine of 20 hryvnia for causing serious injury (Article 27 P.P.). For all other crimes, a fine was imposed in the amount of 1 to 12 hryvnia (Articles 35, 36, etc. K.P., Articles 23, 24, 28, P.P.). Compensation for damage is a lesson (Articles 2, 3, 4, 7, 34 K.P., Art. 23, 24, 25, 28, 45 P.P.). Significant penalties were imposed for damage, destruction and theft of property. The fine for the theft of a slave was 12 hryvnia, which exceeded the fine for his murder - 5 hryvnia (Articles 26, 29 K.P.). An extensive range of the most “tradable” property was listed - weapons, livestock, clothing, goods for trade, equipment, crafts, etc. (Articles 13, 35, 37 K.P., Articles 5, 34, 42, 43 P.P. .). The law prescribed a fine of 3 hryvnia for illegal possession of someone else’s property (Article 12 K.P., Articles 33, 34 P.P.) and its obligatory return to the owner in the presence of witnesses (Article 13 K.P., Art. 34, 35 P.P.).

Law of obligations. A number of articles are devoted to the emergence and implementation of obligations resulting from causing harm (see Articles 47-55 of the Civil Code). A person who violated the interests of another person was obliged to compensate the harm to the victim. Russkaya Pravda has not yet distinguished civil obligations from criminal obligations. Obligations arose from torts and from contracts. In the first case, fines and damages were provided for (Articles 12, 13 K.P., Articles 34, 89 P.P.). The source of the obligations that regulated the relations of the parties during purchase and sale, hiring, borrowing, lending, etc. were contracts. The subjects of the contract were free men and women who had legal personality. Agreements were made publicly, at auction, orally, in the presence of witnesses and with the taking of an oath (Articles 49, 50 P.P.). A special place in Russian Pravda was occupied by purchase and sale agreements (Article 16 K.P., Article 38 P.P.), loans (Articles 47, 48 P.P.) and procurement (Article 56 P.P. ). The loan agreement could include money or products Agriculture. The law established the right of the lender to dispose of the debtor’s personality in the event of his failure to pay the debt, and established his obligation to pay off the debt and interest payments on it (Article 111 of the Provisional Law). Evasion from paying a debt entailed the transformation of the debtor into a slave (Article 56 P.P.). However, according to the law, the creditor could not violate the contract - change the amount of debt, interest, or sell the purchase into slavery (Articles 59, 61 P.P.). The law provided for several types of loans: simple (in the form of a loan or food, it was concluded in front of witnesses), and procurement (see Articles 56-61 P.P.). A special type of loan agreement was caused by the status of merchants and was distinguished by a simplified procedure and did not require hearing witnesses (Articles 48, 49, 54 P.P.). It seems important to regulate interest on loans by law. High usurious interest rates in the Middle Ages were a real scourge for the population; they led to bondage for many townspeople and peasants and repeatedly caused uprisings and riots. The percentages in reality were quite complex system progressive payments at an increasing rate and depended on the loan term - annual, third and monthly. Vladimir Monomakh in Russkaya Pravda limited the amount of loan interest to 20 per annum (Articles 51, 53 P.P.).

Considerable attention was paid in Russkaya Pravda marriage and family relations and, above all, their material side. In the family, children were completely subordinate to the authority of their parents. The law distinguished between legitimate and illegitimate children (“timid”, Art. 98 P.P.). Legitimate children were liable for obligations, even those arising from the crime of the father, being subjected to traffic and plunder together with their mother (“... and everything with the wife and children to the traffic and plunder,” Article 7 of P.P.). At the same time, the father’s crime did not free the children from his power. They were also responsible for their father’s debts (Article 111 of the Civil Code).

Guardianship occupied an important place in Russian Pravda; it arose in a number of situations - when children were young, when the mother remarried or her death. One of the close relatives or a stepfather was appointed as a guardian. The law was aimed at protecting the property interests of young children. The widow was obliged to keep the “earnings”, i.e. family property for subsequent transfer to children's heirs. If she squandered the family property, and she herself, having married again, provided herself with a means of subsistence, then she was obliged to pay the children the cost of the wasted property (Article 101 P.P.). The property was transferred to the guardian for temporary use in the presence of witnesses, with the condition that it be returned to the children upon reaching adulthood, “as far as possible.” The profit from business transactions with this property went to the guardian, but for the waste of the orphan’s property he was responsible for his own (“whatever he lost, then he should pay everything to the children”, Article 99 of P.P.). The institution of inheritance is widely represented. Its basic principles are set out - husband and wife could have separate property and were equal in their disposal, they did not inherit from each other. Inheritance of property was provided for in two types - by will and by law, and primacy belonged to the will (Article 92 P.P.). The form of the will, as far as can be judged from the text of Russkaya Pravda, was oral, and if the testator “would die without a tongue...”, then inheritance occurred according to law (Article 103 P.P.). The inheritance of the smerd who died and left no sons went to the prince; unmarried daughters were given a dowry; the widow was not mentioned in the law (Article 90 of the Civil Code). This restriction did not apply to free people, boyars and warriors (Article 91 P.P.).

The circle of heirs was limited to his wife and sons. Russian truth repeated the ancient norm of customary law, according to which daughters were not heirs, like their brothers, but upon marriage they were to be given a dowry from their father's property (Article 95 of the Provisions of Laws). The remaining relatives were not mentioned in the law and, obviously, did not have the right to inheritance (90, 92 P.P.). Children from the first wife could, according to her will, receive the property of the late mother (Article 94 of the P.P.), but did not have the right to claim it, it passed to the son whom she indicated (“... but to whom the mother gives it, to the same taking...", Art. 103 P.P.). The law established an exception to the general order of inheritance - this is the “yard”, i.e. the father's house, which remained to the youngest son (Article 100 P.P.). Illegitimate children (children of a master by a slave) were deprived by law of the right to inherit the property of their late father, but with his death they received freedom along with their mother (Article 98 of the Provisions of Law). The law protected the property rights of a widow who had not remarried. “If a wife marries, then part of the date is given to her...”, i.e. she received a part, at the expense of the children, of her husband’s property (Article 93 of the Clause of Laws). However, the widow had great rights in the disposal of her personal property - she could bequeath to any of the children or deprive them of inheritance (Articles 103, 106 P.P.), she remained after the death of her husband the head of the family, the administrator of the property and, sometimes, the guardian of young children and their condition (Article 102 P.P.). In general, in terms of the breadth of situations covered and the degree of development, civil law norms occupy a significant place in Russian Pravda.

Court and process. Russian Truth is to a large extent a code of law, an instruction for judges. The court is not separated from the administration. In the Russian Pravda there is only indirect information about judges and the judicial system - the princely court is mentioned (Article 40 P.P.), participation in the discussion and resolution of a number of criminal cases of the community (Art. 15, K.P., Art. 4, P. P.). The highest authority was the court of the Grand Duke, where a free person and even a purchaser had the right to appeal with a complaint against his master (Article 56 P.P.). Representatives of the princely administration who carried out judicial proceedings and control over the execution of sentences - virnik, swordsman, youth, scribe and “children's” (Article 4, 42 K.P., Art. 9, 74, 86 P.P.). The Russian Pravda establishes the amount of court fees and payment in kind for court officials (Articles 41, 42 K.P., Articles 9, 10, 20, 74, P.P.). The judicial authorities were princely congresses, local princes, patrimonial boyars, veche, community and local administration officials authorized by the prince or his governors.

The trial was public, oral, adversarial, the parties to it were equal (Articles 21, 22 P.P.). There was no distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. The process began at the request of the plaintiff, at the well-known fact of a crime, or at the fact of catching a criminal red-handed. The Russian Pravda clearly outlines the forms of the judicial process. The basis for the initiation of criminal prosecution was the “cry” - a public statement in a public place by the victim about a crime (Articles 32, 34 P.P.). If, after a three-day period, the item was found, then the defendant was considered the person who had the stolen property. He returned the item and paid a criminal fine of 3 hryvnia. If the stolen property was discovered within three days after the theft was announced, then a “case” began - the search for the culprit of the theft. The code - the ancient procedure for finding a criminal and a kidnapped person, confrontation and trial in Russian Pravda, due to its well-known nature, is described schematically (Article 16 K.P., Articles 36, 38 P.P.). A peculiar form of the process was “pursuit of the trail” - pursuit of a criminal in “hot pursuit” and at the same time identifying evidence of a crime (Article 77 of the Prosecutor’s Note). If the tracks led to a village, then the search for the criminal and criminal responsibility for his crime fell on the community (Articles 70, 77 P.P.).

Russkaya Pravda, among the evidence, points to the testimony of “videos”, witnesses to the incident (Articles 2, 10 K.P., Articles 29, 31 P.P.) and “hearsay”, witnesses of the integrity of the accused (Articles 15, 30 K. P., Art. 18, 21 P.P.). The number of rumors ranged from 2 to 14; they could only be free people. In exceptional cases, slaves were used as rumors (Article 85 of the P.P.). An accusation not supported by witnesses was considered a false slander (Article 67 of the Prosecutor’s Note). In the absence of rumors, the accused was subject to ordeals. The law mentions testing with iron and water when accused of murder and theft (Articles 21, 22, 85, 86, P.P.). If the ordeal did not confirm the accusation, then the accuser paid a fee - “iron” and compensated for the damage to the falsely accused (Articles 85, 86, P.P.). An important piece of evidence was the oath - “rota”, an oath before God, which provided for denunciation, red-handed (Articles 18, 20, 22, 37, 49 P.P.), surety, taking bail before trial (“On forging by a husband” P. P.). The evidence was traces of beatings, “signs” (“... the husband is bloody... or blue...”), eyewitnesses were not required for them (Article 2 K.P., Art. 29 P.P.). The procedural norms of Russian Pravda constituted a fairly developed system of principles of legal proceedings and regulated the rights and obligations of participants in the process. A reflection of already formed views on justice as a prerogative of the state, on an action sanctioned by the prince, was the mention of criminal penalties for lynching (“... without the prince saying a word...”) or physical violence (torment) against a smerd or a representative of the princely administration ( Art. 33 K.P., Art. 78 P.P.).

Russian Truth is a unique monument of the law of the Old Russian state, which affected a wide range of social relations of its time. Possessing a pronounced class character, it consolidated feudal relations and the interests of the ruling class. The level of legal regulation of social relations in Russian Pravda was quite high for its time, from the 11th century. to the 16th century it operated and was included in many legal collections, including such a well-known one as the Righteous Measure (a widely distributed manual for judges in Ancient Rus', known from manuscripts of the 14th-16th centuries). Russian Truth had a huge influence on the development of Russian legal thought, as well as the legislation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland.

Old Russian state and law (IX-XII centuries) Russian Truth

The formation of secular feudal law in Ancient Rus' was a long process. Its origins go back to the tribal Pravda of the Eastern Slavs. These were customary legal systems designed to legally regulate the entire set of socio-economic and legal relations in each tribe or union of tribes.

By the second half of the 9th century. in the Middle Dnieper region - the Russian land - the unification of the Pravda of these tribes, similar in composition and social nature, took place into the Russian Law, the jurisdiction of which extended to the territory of the state formation of the Slavs with its center in Kyiv. This system of law guided the judicial practice of the great Kyiv princes and the princely and local communal courts controlled by them.

The norms of the Russian Law were taken into account by the great princes of Kyiv when concluding treaties with Byzantium in 911 and 944.

The Russian Law was qualitatively new stage development of Russian oral law in the conditions of the existence of the state.*1*

Russian Truth was the first Russian written monument of customary law to reach us. Various lists of it are known. This difference in the lists of Pravda is explained very easily by the fact that it was the charter of not one, but several princes: Yaroslav, Izyaslav and his brothers, and Vladimir Monomakh.

Several editions of this monument have reached us: the most famous are the Brief and the Long. The short edition constitutes, strictly speaking, the original original package of the Truth. The name of Yaroslav's Truth was established behind it. This Truth was based on the customs of the Slavic tribes, adapted to the conditions of feudal relations. The lengthy edition is nothing more than the Pravda of Yaroslav, modified and supplemented by subsequent princes, which received the name Pravda of the Yaroslavichs. Both of these editions bear the common name Court of Yaroslav Vladimirovich.

*1* See: Sverdlov M.B. From Russian Law to “Russian Truth”. M., 1988.

The last edition of the Extensive Truth falls on the great reign of Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) and, probably, his son Mstislav the Great (1125-1132). At this time, the socio-economic development of the country reached high level, but the state was already on the threshold of feudal fragmentation.

Russian Truth spread widely throughout all the lands of Ancient Rus' as the main source of law and became the basis of legal norms until 1497, when it was replaced by the Code of Laws, published in the Moscow centralized state.

The long period of use of the Long Pravda indicates that a collection of Russian law that was modern in content was created.

The main branches of law are reflected in Russian Pravda.

Feudal ownership of land becomes differentiated, since it belongs to several feudal lords standing on at different levels feudal ladder. At first, the prince became a major landowner. He distributed his lands to the vassal boyars, and they, for their part, distributed the received land to their boyars and close people. By their nature, these distributions were nothing more than benefits. Gradually, the lands received for serving the prince were assigned to the boyars and servants and became hereditary. And these lands began to be called estates.

The lands that were given as conditional possession for service and under the condition of service were called estates. The princes became large land owners. The growth of exploitation of the dependent population became the reason for the first class uprisings against the feudal lords.

The social relations that have developed in Rus', the new form of ownership became an objective prerequisite for the emergence of a new set of laws - Russian Pravda. The code contains a number of articles on the protection of princely property, which was protected more zealously. The fine for killing a prince's horse was set at three hryvnia, and for a stinking horse - at 2 hryvnia.

Based on a long tradition of developing law in the conditions of the state of the 9th-10th centuries. The truth consolidated the existing system of class relations and property relations in the state.

The great princes of Kyiv recognized the Russian land as their acquired estate and considered the right to dispose of it at will: to bequeath, donate, abandon. And in the absence of a will, power was inherited by the children of the dying princes.

In Russian Pravda there are no regulations defining methods of acquisition, volume and procedure for transferring land ownership rights, with the exception of an estate (yard), but there are punitive regulations on violating the boundaries of land ownership.

The norms of written law did not cover the entire variety of social relations associated with the right of ownership and the right of possession. A large amount of archaeological material, and a number of articles of Pravda, give reason to conclude that since ancient times the Slavs have had the institution of private ownership of movable things.

The sources do not indicate the existence of the institution of private land ownership. It did not exist in the era of Russian Truth.

The land was the collective property of the community. The Russian community consisted of residents of a village or village who jointly owned land belonging to the village. Each adult male villager had the right to a plot of land equal to the plots of other residents of his village, where periodic redistribution of land was practiced. Only the courtyard, consisting of a hut, cold buildings and a vegetable garden, was the hereditary property of the family without the right of alienation to persons not belonging to the community.

Forests, hayfields and pastures were in common use. Cultivated arable land was divided into equal plots for temporary use by community members, and was periodically redistributed between them, usually after 6, 9, 12 years. Taxes and duties that fell on the community were distributed among the courts.

Everything related to the timing and methods of dividing arable land between members of the community, the use of forests, hayfields, water and pastures, the distribution of taxes and duties between householders, was decided by peace, i.e. a general meeting of householders under the leadership of the headman - the elected head of the community.

The rural land community of the Russian people that existed for many centuries with periodic redistribution of land and elected elders, representing a legacy of deep antiquity, is proof that “the Russian land was from the beginning the least patriarchal and the most communal land” *1*.

This form of collective ownership is also explained by climatic conditions, especially in the northern regions. It was impossible for one farm to survive.

In the law of the Russian people, the right of ownership was expressed by the word estate, and the estate of private individuals included only movable things.

Law of obligations. Civil obligations were allowed only between free persons and arose either from a contract or from a tort (offence).

Contractual obligations include purchase and sale, loan, hire and luggage.

For a legal purchase, it was necessary to purchase the thing for money from its owner, and to complete the contract in the presence of two free witnesses.

Loan regulations distinguish between loans with and without interest. A loan with interest exceeding three hryvnia required witnesses to certify the agreement in case of a dispute. In loans up to 3 hryvnia, the defendant cleared himself with an oath. In the articles “about rez” - interest, loans of money, people and life are mentioned, according to which interest is called rez, nastavo and prisop. Interest rates were monthly, third and annual.

In Russian Pravda, zakup is a free person who has received a loan and has undertaken to repay it with his work. It was forbidden for the gentleman to sell the purchase under the threat of the latter being released from the loan and the gentleman paying 12 hryvnia for the sale (fine). On the other hand, the law gave the right to turn a purchase into a full slave for flight not caused by the injustice of the master. The purchaser was obliged to compensate the master for damage caused due to his fault or negligence, for example, for missing cattle, if the purchaser did not drive it into the yard, if the owner lost the owner's plow or harrow.

The deposit agreement was concluded without witnesses, but when a dispute arose during the return of an item given for storage, the custodian cleared himself with an oath.

*1* Aksakov K.S. Essays. T.I. M., 1960. P. 124

Liabilities arose as a result of crimes committed, as well as civil offenses (careless and accidental). In order to prevent disputes about the price of damaged and destroyed items. Russian Pravda determines the cost of a number of items (a princely horse with a spot was valued at 3 hryvnia, and Smerd horses - 2 hryvnia). The remaining items had a price without distinction of owners.

The insolvent debtor, according to the law, was sold at auction. The proceeds went to the creditor, and the difference between the debt and the proceeds went to the prince.

Contracts of sale and exchange were recognized as valid when made between sober people, and whoever bought, sold or exchanged something while drunk had the right to demand the annulment of the transaction when sober.

Another condition for the validity of the sales contract was the absence of defects in the thing being sold.

A loan up to one ruble was secured by a guarantee, and over a ruble - by a written deed and a mortgage. Mortgage written acts were called records, mortgage boards. Livestock, buildings, land, and valuables were pledged.

The inheritance, called the ass and the remainder in Russian Pravda, was opened at the time of the death of the father of the family and passed to the heirs either by will or by law. The father had the right to divide his estate among his children and allocate part of it to his wife at his own discretion. The mother could transfer her property to any of her sons whom she recognized as the most worthy.

Inheritance by law opened when the testator did not leave a will.

The general legal order of inheritance was determined in Russian Pravda by the following rules. After the father, who did not leave a will and did not divide his house during his lifetime, the legitimate children of the deceased inherited, and part of the inheritance went to the church “in memory of the soul of the deceased” and part to the benefit of the surviving wife, if the husband did not assign her a share of his property during his lifetime . Children born from a robe did not inherit their father, but received freedom together with their mother.

Among legitimate children, sons were preferred to daughters in the right of inheritance, but brothers who excluded sisters from the inheritance were obliged to support them until they got married; and when they got married, they had to provide them with a dowry according to their means.

The father's courtyard passed to the youngest son without division. The property of the mother, who did not leave a will, was inherited by the son in whose house she lived after the death of her husband.

From the general order of inheritance, Russian Pravda made the following exceptions: the property of a princely son was inherited only by his sons, and when they were not there, all the property of the deceased went to the prince, and part of the inheritance was allocated to unmarried daughters.

Guardianship was established over young children and their property; the mother acted as guardian, and if the mother remarried, then guardianship belonged to the closest relative of the deceased.

Marriage was preceded by betrothal, which received religious consecration in a special ceremony. The betrothal was considered indissoluble. Marriage was concluded through a religious ceremony performed in a church (wedding).

To enter into a marriage, certain conditions were required: the age of the spouses was 15 years for the groom and 13 years for the bride; free expression of the bride and groom and parental consent; the parties must not be related by another marriage; lack of kinship and properties to certain degrees.

The Church did not allow third marriage.

A marriage could be dissolved (terminate): Russian Truth had a specific list of reasons for divorce (the departure of one of the spouses to a monastery, the death of a husband or wife, a missing spouse, adultery, etc.).

The adoption of Christianity brought significant changes to marriage and family relations compared to the time of paganism of the Slavs. Russian law of the pagan era allowed polygamy.

Wives were acquired different ways: violent abduction, abduction with the consent of the abducted person, captivity, buying a bride, etc.

The abduction of girls began to be persecuted by both the law and the church. According to the Church Charter of Yaroslav, “who will drag away a girl for a hryvnia of silver to the bishop.”

Articles of Pravda related to family law consider, in addition to a small family consisting of a father, mother and children, cohabitation in the same house of brothers, uncles, nephews with their wives and children, sealed by the common ownership of family property and the power of one of the relatives - the “Vyatshago” or older brother. Such a patriarchal family was defined by the expression “living on one bread,” i.e. eat one bread, own and use common property.

Crimes and punishments. The replacement of pagan concepts about crimes and punishments with new concepts is especially clearly expressed in the princely statutes and the Russian Truth, where any crime is called “resentment.” Any offense, i.e. Causing material, physical or moral harm to anyone was considered a crime. The crime was quite broad.

The replacement of pagan concepts of crime and punishment with new concepts is especially clearly expressed in the legislation that determined the punishment for murder. According to the agreement with the Greeks in 911, the murderer could be killed with impunity at the scene of the crime: “Let us die before committing murder.” The treaty of 945 gives the right of life to the murderer only to the relatives of the murdered person, without determining the degree of relationship. Russian Truth limited the circle of avengers for murder to only two degrees of the closest relatives of the murdered person.

The truth of Yaroslav's sons forbade anyone to kill the murderer, ordering the latter's relatives to be content with a certain monetary compensation. Thus, the state's right to the person and property of the criminal is expanded.

Russian Truth recognized as a crime acts prohibited by law, as well as those causing damage to persons who were under the authority and protection of the prince.

The size of the princely penalty or fine was determined by the vira.

Vira was the fine for killing a free person and was equal to 40 hryvnia. For the murder of princely husbands, equerry, headman and tiun, two vira were paid. The murder of a free woman was paid for with half-vira - 20 hryvnia.

For serious injury (deprivation of a nose, eye, arm, leg) half a vira was exacted.

Guilty of robbery, i.e. in a murder without guilt on the part of the murdered person, he was subjected not only to property, but also to personal punishment - with his wife and children he was handed over to the prince for plunder and plunder. The essence of this type of punishment, apparently, was the expulsion of the criminal and his family members from the community or city with confiscation of property.

For the murder of persons of the slave class, a fine of 12 hryvnia was imposed.

Of all the malicious acts directed against property, horse theft (i.e. theft - secret abduction) and incendiary stand out. A horse thief and arsonist of a threshing floor or courtyard, like a robber, was handed over to the prince.

The fee for a murder within the vervi (community), paid by the community, was called wild.

Russian Truth contained a number of crimes against honor. Such criminal acts included pulling out a beard or mustache, insulting by word or action.

The church, its property and church servants are protected by enhanced penalties (church robbery, grave robbing, cutting of crosses, witchcraft).

Court and process. In Rus' during the era of appanage states, administration and the court were not differentiated, and therefore the administrative bodies were at the same time the judicial authorities in the subject areas.

According to the Russian Truth, the court in all worldly matters was concentrated in the hands of the prince as the supreme legislator, ruler and judge. The prince administered justice personally or entrusted this matter to governors.

The place of court in the capital and province was the princely court, later replaced by the order or voivode's hut.

The trial began with a claim or “slander” on the part of the plaintiff, which indicated the offense and the accused. The only exceptions to this rule were murder and theft, because... the plaintiff, as a rule, could not indicate a specific person. The Verv, on whose soil one of these crimes was discovered, had to find the criminal or pay the Vir for the murder.

The claim required specific judicial evidence, which were: witnesses - “videos” and “hearsay” of a free state; red-handed, or “in person”, i.e. the subject of the crime is in the hands of the accused or in his yard.

The holder of the red-handed item was found guilty if he could not explain how it came into his hands or was in his yard. If the person suspected of a crime was caught red-handed, he pointed to the person from whom he acquired it. Russian Truth demanded the so-called code, i.e. confrontations until the actual thief of the item is found.

If the investigation ended in finding the thief, the latter had to pay a fine and a reward to the person to whom he sold the stolen item.

The arch was preceded by a cry. The victim reported it missing at the auction.

Pursuing the trail consisted of searching for the criminal in his tracks. The pursuit of a trace entailed for the rope, in which the traces of a murderer or thief are lost, the need to find the criminal itself and hand him over to the authorities or pay a wild price.

The accused was summoned to court by a person at the governor's court, called a closer.

A person called to court in a criminal case had to find a guarantor who would guarantee his appearance at the court hearing within the specified period. If the accused did not find a guarantor, he was deprived of his freedom and shackled in iron.

Among the evidence continued to exist tests of water and iron, as well as the oath, which was accompanied by kissing the cross.

Next to the bodies of the local princely court there was a community court. Its competence was limited to the boundaries and persons of the community.

The parties' complaints against the court's decision were submitted to the prince.

Bibliography

To prepare this work, materials from the site http://www.gumer.info/ were used

tax

Starting from the 9th century, a rigid centralized power began to form in Rus'.

The territory of our country is located between Europe and Asia.

Any military actions of these parties took place through our

lands and gave rise to permanent extreme situations, That's why

There was always the task of being on combat readiness.

Based on this, we understand that our state

has been militarized since time immemorial. Europe and Asia undoubtedly

influenced the formation of political institutions,

cultural, and many others, which is why many scientists,

including Florensky, called our country Eurasia.

Christianity came to Rus' in 988, and in 1054 it split into two directions: Orthodoxy (Rus) and Catholicism (West). From this

moment a confrontation began, which at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. it ends thanks to Peter1 (window to Europe).

Due to the three above factors, a special form of social organization of society has developed in our country.

If in Western countries the unit of society is the family, then in Rus' it was the community, the collective, the corporation. Due to all these reasons,

In our country, the state and centralized power have always played a decisive role.

We find the first mention of the Old Russian state in the “Tale of Bygone Years,” which was written by the monk Nester in the 12th century and

tells about events in the mid-9th century.

The Slavic tribes, who by that time lived in a rural community, sought to unite, quarreled among themselves over priority

authorities. Their dispute continued for a long time, and they were forced to turn to their northwestern neighbors, the Normans (Varangians), with an offer to come

reign and rule the Slavs.

In 862, the Varangian prince Rurik began his reign in Novgorod and Kyiv.

In 882, Prince Oleg united the northern and southern territories.

The Old Russian state was a vast and very unstable association due to the fact that it was united only by military

considerations.

At that time, the head of state was the prince. His throne was in Kyiv. The prince periodically traveled “to people”; it was called polyudye.

Polyudye is a method of collecting tribute from the population of East Slavic tribes, which existed in the 9th-12th centuries in Rus'. Tribal. unions maintained

own organization, the duties of their princes included supplying tribute (cart), mainly furs. The size was calculated proportionally

yards, and did not depend on the wealth of the owners.

The Old Russian state combined elements of the slave-owning and feudal system.

In the 10th century, the feudal structure was determined.

Signs of the feudal system:all land is the property of the Grand Duke.

Votchina is a land ownership that belonged to the feudal lord - hereditary and with the right of resale, pledge

or donations.

Gradually the attachment of peasants to the land.

The meaning of accepting Christianity.
The adoption of Christianity raised the status of the state, placed it alongside Western European countries, strengthened ties with Byzantium, strengthened the state, strengthened the role of the prince, and also contributed to the development of culture and writing.
From the 11th century, feudal fragmentation began.
In 1097, a congress of appanage princes took place in the city of Lyubech. A decision was made - each prince holds his own land - a patrimony - and passes it on by inheritance.

The emergence of the Old Russian state was naturally accompanied by the formation of Old Russian law. Its first source was customs that passed into class society from the primitive communal system and have now become common law. The Tale of Bygone Years notes that the tribes had “their own customs and the laws of their fathers.” But gradually customary law loses its importance and already from the 10th century. We also know the princely legislation.

The emergence of the Old Russian state was naturally accompanied by the formation of Old Russian law. Its first source was customs that passed into class society from the primitive communal system and have now become common law. The Tale of Bygone Years notes that the tribes had “their own customs and the laws of their fathers.” The source refers to the norms of customary law, and the concepts are used as synonyms.

But gradually customary law loses its importance and already from the 10th century. We also know the princely legislation. Of particular importance are the statutes of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav, which introduced important innovations into financial, family and criminal law.

The first legal document that came down to us was the charter of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich “On tithes, courts and church people.” The charter was created at the turn of the X-XI centuries. in the form of a short charter, which was given to the Church of the Holy Mother of God. The original has not reached us. Only lists compiled in the 12th century are known. (Synodal and Olenets editions).

The charter acts as an agreement between the prince (Vladimir Svyatoslavovich) and the metropolitan (presumably Lyon). According to the charter, initially the prince is the patron of the Church (he protects the Church and provides for it financially), and does not interfere in the affairs of the church. For the existence of the Church, tithes are determined. According to the charter, the prince must give 1/10 of the funds received from court cases, from trade, in the form of tribute from other tribes to the church.

Like the prince, each house also had to give 1/10 of the offspring, income from trade, and harvest to the Church.

The purpose of the charter is approval in the Old Russian state Orthodox Church. The provisions of Vladimir’s charter “On tithes, courts and church people” are aimed at preserving family and marriage, establishing the inviolability of family ties, protecting the church, church symbols and Christian church order, and fighting against pagan rituals.

The largest monument of ancient Russian law is Russian Truth, which retained its significance in subsequent periods of history, and not only for Russian law. The history of Russian Truth is quite complex. The question of the time of origin of its oldest part in science is controversial. Some authors even date it back to the 7th century. However, most modern researchers associate the Most Ancient Truth with the name of Yaroslav the Wise. The place of publication of this part of Russian Pravda is also controversial. The chronicle points to Novgorod, but many authors admit that it was created in the center of the Russian land - Kyiv. The original text of Russian Truth has not reached us. However, it is known that the sons of Yaroslav in the second half of the 11th century. significantly supplemented and changed it, creating the so-called Yaroslavich Truth. Later united by scribes, Pravda Yaroslava and Pravda Yaroslavichey formed the basis of the so-called Brief Edition of the Russian Pravda. Vladimir Monomakh made an even larger revision of this law. As a result, the Long Edition was formed. In subsequent centuries, new editions of Russian Pravda were created, of which S. V. Yushkov counted a total of up to six. All editions have come down to us as part of chronicles and various legal collections, handwritten, of course. Over a hundred such lists of Russian Truth have now been found. They are usually given names associated with the name of the chronicle, the location of the find, the person who found this or that list (Academic, T'roitsky, Karamzinsky, etc.).

In addition to the Russian Truth, the sources of secular law in Rus' were Russian-Byzantine treaties, containing not only norms of international law, but also norms regulating internal life. There are 4 known treaties between Rus' and Byzantium: 907, 911, 944 and 971. The treaties testify to the high international authority of the Old Russian state. Much attention is paid to the regulation of trade relations.

With the adoption of Orthodoxy in Rus', canon law began to take shape, based to a large extent on Byzantine legislation.

The entire set of laws and legal customs created the basis for a fairly developed system of ancient Russian law. Like any feudal law, it was a right-privilege, that is, the law directly provided for the inequality of people belonging to different social groups. So, the slave had almost no human rights. The legal capacity of the supplier and purchaser was very limited. But the rights and privileges of the top of feudal society were strictly protected.

Old Russian legislation had a fairly developed system of norms regulating property relations. The law reflects property relations. Legal protection is provided for both real and movable property.

In the Brief Truth there is no general term for ownership, because the content of this right was different depending on who was the subject and what was meant by the object of the property right. At the same time, a line was drawn between the right of ownership and the right of possession (see Art. 13-14 KP).

The development of property relations led to the emergence of the law of obligations. It was relatively underdeveloped. Obligations arose not only from contracts, but also from causing harm: damage to a fence, unauthorized riding on someone else's horse, damage to clothing or weapons, death of the master's horse due to the fault of the purchase, etc. In these cases, not a civil claim (compensation), but a fine arose. In addition, a person who, for example, injured another person, in addition to a criminal fine, had to pay for the losses of the victim, including the services of a doctor. Old Russian law of obligations is characterized by foreclosure not only on property, but also on the very person of the debtor, and sometimes even on his wife and children. Thus, a malicious bankrupt could be sold as a slave.

Russian Truth knows a certain system of contracts. The loan agreement is most fully regulated. This was a consequence of the uprising of the Kyiv lower classes in 1113. against moneylenders. Vladimir Monomakh, called upon by the boyars to save the situation, took measures to streamline interest on debts, somewhat limiting the appetites of moneylenders. The law provides not only money as the object of the loan, but also bread and honey. Russian Pravda provided for three types of loans: a regular (household) loan, a loan made between merchants, with simplified formalities, a loan with self-mortgage - procurement. Provides different kinds interest depending on the loan term.

The Russian Pravda also mentions the purchase and sale agreement. The law is most interested in cases of purchase and sale of slaves, as well as stolen property.

Russkaya Pravda also mentions 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.

Russkaya Pravda also mentions one case of a personal hire agreement: 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.

Already the short edition of Russian Pravda contains a “Lesson for Bridge Workers”, which regulates the contract for the construction or repair of a bridge. Researchers believe that the law refers not only to bridges, but also to city pavements. Archaeologists have found, for example, numerous wooden pavements in Novgorod. It is interesting that this element of urban improvement arose in Novgorod earlier than in Paris.

It must be assumed that in Rus' there was such an ancient agreement as barter, although it was not reflected in the legislation. The same can be said about property rental.

The procedure for concluding contracts was mostly 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 certain information about the origin of the written form of concluding a real estate agreement.

In connection with the development of private property, inheritance law is formed and developed. In the rules of inheritance law, the desire of the legislator to preserve property in a given family is clearly visible.

There was a difference between inheritance by law and by will. The father could divide property between his sons at his own discretion, but could not bequeath to his daughters. When inheriting by law, that is, without a will, the sons of the deceased had advantages. The inheritance was obviously divided equally, but the youngest son had an advantage - the father's court passed to the youngest son without division. (Article 100 PP).

Daughters were deprived of the right to inherit because when they got married, they could take property outside their clan. This custom existed among all peoples during the transition period from the primitive communal system to class society. It is also reflected in Russkaya Pravda. The heirs were only charged with the responsibility of marrying off their sisters.

An exception was made for the daughters of boyars and warriors (later the clergy), artisans and community members; their inheritance, in the absence of sons, could pass to their daughters (Article 91 PP). Children adopted by a slave did not participate in the inheritance, but received freedom along with their mother (Article 98 PP). Illegitimate children did not have inheritance rights, but if their mother was a robe-concubine, then they received freedom with her.

With the strengthening of princely power, the position “If the prince dies childless, then the prince inherits, if unmarried daughters remain in the house, then allocate a certain part for them, but if she is married, then do not give them a part” (Article 90 PP).

The law nowhere speaks about the inheritance of a husband after his wife. The wife also does not inherit after her husband, but remains to manage the common household until it is divided among the children. Until the heirs came of age, their mother managed the inherited property. If this property is divided among the heirs, then the widow receives a certain amount for living expenses. If a widow remarries, she receives nothing from the inheritance of her first husband. In this case, a guardian from the immediate family was appointed. The property was transferred in front of witnesses. If the guardian lost part of the property, he had to compensate.

The legislation does not indicate inheritance of ascending relatives (parents after children), as well as lateral ones (brothers, sisters). Other sources suggest that the first was excluded, and the second was allowed.

Family law developed in Ancient Rus' in accordance with canonical rules. Initially, customs associated with the pagan cult operated here. There was bride kidnapping and polygamy. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, men of that time had two or three wives. And Grand Duke Vladimir Svyatoslavich, before his baptism, had five wives and several hundred concubines. 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.

According to Byzantine law, there was a fairly low age of marriage: 12 - 13 years for the bride and 14 - 15 years for the groom. Earlier marriages are also known in Russian practice. It is obviously no coincidence that the requirement of parental consent for marriage was put forward. The conclusion of marriage was preceded by betrothal, which was given crucial. The marriage took place and was registered in the church. The church took upon itself the registration of other important acts of civil status - birth, death, which gave it considerable income and dominance over human souls. It should be noted that church marriage met with stubborn resistance from the people. If it was quickly accepted by the ruling elite, then among the working masses new orders had to be introduced by force, and this took more than one century. However, Byzantine family law was not fully applied in Rus' at all.

The issue of property relations between spouses is not entirely clear. However, it is obvious that the wife had a certain property independence. In any case, the law allowed property disputes between spouses. The wife retained ownership of her dowry and could pass it on by inheritance.

Children were completely dependent on their parents, especially on their father, who had almost unlimited power over them.

Old Russian legislation pays great attention to criminal law. Many articles of the Russian Pravda are devoted to him, and there are criminal law norms in the princely statutes. Criminal law in the Old Russian state was formed as a right of privilege, but shades of an earlier period were preserved. It is reflected in Russian-Byzantine treaties and Russian Pravda.

Russian Pravda interprets the general concept of crime in a unique way: only that which causes direct damage to a specific person, his person or property is criminal. Hence the term for crime - “resentment”, which refers to the infliction of moral, material or physical damage. This stemmed from the understanding of “offense” in ancient times, when offending an individual meant insulting a tribe, community or clan. But with the emergence of feudalism, compensation for damage for a crime (offense) went not in favor of society, but of the prince. In the princely statutes one can also find a broader understanding of crime, borrowed from Byzantine canon law.

According to the understanding of crime as an “offense”, the system of crimes is built in Russian Pravda. There are no state, official, or other types of crimes in it. (This did not mean, of course, that protests against the princely authorities took place with impunity. In such cases, direct reprisals were used without trial or investigation. Let us remember what Princess Olga did with the murderers of her husband). Russian Truth knows only two types of crimes - against the person and property.

The first group includes murder, insult by action, bodily harm, and beatings. The second group includes crimes: robbery, theft (theft), destruction of other people's property, damage to boundary signs, etc.

Russian Pravda does not yet know the age limit for criminal liability or the concept of insanity. Being intoxicated does not exclude liability. In the literature, it was suggested that intoxication according to Russian Truth mitigated responsibility (murder at a feast). In fact, when killing in a fight, it is not the state of intoxication that matters, but the element of a simple quarrel between equal people. Moreover, Russian Truth knows cases when intoxication causes increased responsibility. So, if the owner beats a purchaser under a drunken hand, then he loses that purchaser with all his debts; A merchant who drinks someone else's goods entrusted to him is liable not only civilly, but also criminally, and very strictly.

Only free people were responsible. The owner was responsible for the slaves. “If the thieves are slaves... whom the prince does not punish with sale, because they are not free people, then for slave theft they will pay double the agreed price and compensation for losses” (Article 46 of the Republic of Poland). However, in some cases, the victim can deal with the offender himself, without turning to government agencies, even to the point of killing the slave who encroached on a free person.

Russian Pravda knows the concept of complicity. This problem can be solved simply: all accomplices in the crime are equally responsible, the distribution of functions between them has not yet been noted.

Russian Truth distinguishes responsibility depending on the subjective side of the crime. There is no distinction between intent and negligence, but there are two types of intent - direct and indirect. This is noted in cases of responsibility for murder: murder in robbery is punishable by capital punishment - traffic and robbery, while murder in a “svad” (fight) is punishable only by viroy. However, some researchers believe that here responsibility depends not on the form of intent, but on the nature of the crime itself: murder in robbery is a base murder, but murder in a fight can still somehow be justified from a moral point of view. Responsibility for bankruptcy also differs on the subjective side: only intentional bankruptcy is considered criminal. A state of passion excludes responsibility.

As for the objective side of the crime, the overwhelming number of crimes are committed through action. Only in very few cases is criminal inaction punishable (concealment of a find, prolonged failure to repay a debt).

Princely statutes also know the elements of verbal insult, where the object of the crime is primarily the honor of a woman.

The charters of princes Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav also deal with sexual crimes and crimes against family relations subject to church court - unauthorized divorce, adultery, kidnapping of a woman, rape, etc.

Among property crimes, Russkaya Pravda pays the most attention to theft (theft). Horse stealing was considered the most serious type of theft, because the horse was the most important means production, as well as military equipment. The criminal destruction of someone else's property by arson, punishable by destruction and plunder, is also known. The severity of punishment for arson is obviously determined by three circumstances. Arson is the most easily accessible, and therefore the most dangerous, way of destroying someone else's property. It was often used as a means of class struggle, when enslaved peasants wanted to take revenge on their master. Finally, arson had an increased social danger, since in wooden Rus' one house or barn could burn down an entire village or even a city. In winter conditions, this could lead to the death of masses of people left without shelter and basic necessities.

The princely statutes also provided for crimes against the church, as well as against family relations. The Church, implanting a new form of marriage, strenuously fought against the remnants of pagan orders.

The punishment system of Russian Pravda is still quite simple, and the punishments themselves are relatively mild.

The ultimate punishment, as already noted, was death and plunder. The essence of this measure is not entirely clear. In any case, at different times and in different places, the flow and plunder were understood differently. Sometimes this meant the murder of the convict and the direct plundering of his property, sometimes expulsion and confiscation of property, sometimes sale into serfs.

The next most severe punishment was vire, imposed only for murder. If a criminal was paid with his rope, it was called a wild rope.

Until the second half of the 11th century. As a punishment for murder, blood feud was used, abolished in Russian Pravda by the sons of Yaroslav the Wise.

For the bulk of crimes, the punishment was the so-called sale - a criminal fine. Its size varied depending on the crime.

Virs and sales in favor of the prince were accompanied by compensation for damage to the victim or his family. Vira was accompanied by headaches, the extent of which is unknown to us, the sale is a lesson.

For crimes within the competence of the church court, specific church punishments were applied - penance.

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

Russkaya Pravda knows two specific procedural forms of pre-trial preparation of a case - pursuit of a trace and a summary.

Pursuing a trail 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 simply to a village, the verv (community) bears responsibility. If the trail is lost on the main road, then the search stops there.

The institution of stalking has remained in common practice for a long time. In some places, in the Western regions of Ukraine and Belarus, it was used until the 18th century, usually in cases of cattle theft.

If neither the lost item nor the thief are found, the victim has no choice but to resort to a call, i.e., an announcement on the market place about the loss, in the hope that someone will identify the stolen or lost property from another person. A person who discovers lost property can, however, claim that he acquired it in a lawful way, for example, by purchase. Then the process of arching begins. The owner of the property must prove the good faith of its acquisition, i.e., indicate the person from whom he acquired the thing. In this case, the testimony of two witnesses or a tax collector - a collector of trade duties - is required.

The law provides for a certain system of evidence. Among them important place take the testimony of witnesses. Old Russian law distinguished between two categories of witnesses - vidoks and rumors. 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. However, Russian Truth does not always maintain a clear distinction between hearsay and video. It is characteristic that an element of formalism appears in the use of testimony. Thus, in some civil and criminal cases a certain number of witnesses was required (for example, two witnesses to the conclusion of a purchase and sale agreement, two witnesses for insult by action, etc.).

In the Old Russian state, a whole system of formal evidence appeared - ordeals. Among them should be mentioned the judicial duel - “field”. The winner of the duel won the case, since it was believed that God helps the right. The Russian Pravda and other laws of the Kievan state do not mention gender, which has given some researchers reason to doubt its existence. However, other sources, including foreign ones, talk about the practical application of the field.

Another type of God's judgment was trials with iron and water. The iron test was used when other evidence was lacking, and in more serious cases than the water test. 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.

A special type of evidence was the oath - “rota”. 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 they had evidentiary value external signs and physical evidence. Thus, the presence of bruises and bruises was sufficient to prove beating.

Researchers believe that the church court also used the inquisitorial (search) process with all its attributes, including torture.

In the Russian Pravda, certain forms of ensuring the execution of a court decision are visible, for example, the recovery of a fine from a murderer. A special official, the virnik, came to the house of the convict with a large retinue and patiently waited for the payment of the vira, receiving an abundant in-kind allowance every day. Because of this, it was more profitable for the criminal to get rid of his debt and get rid of unpleasant guests as quickly as possible.

The Old Russian Kievan state was a major milestone in our country and its neighbors in Europe and Asia. Ancient Rus' became the largest European state of its time. Ancient Russian law was of enormous importance, the monuments of which, especially the Russian Truth, survived to the Moscow state and influenced the development of the law of neighboring peoples.

Prepared on the basis of materials and research by Doctor of Law, Professor O.I. Chistyakov and candidate of philosophical sciences A.V. Popova