Code of Old Russian Feudal Law. Russian truth

The largest monument of Russian law is Russian Truth. Lists of Russian Truth have reached us in large quantities, but their unified classification is still missing.

Russian Truth was the code of ancient Russian feudal law. Its norms form the basis of the Pskov and Novgorod judicial charters and subsequent legislative acts of not only Russian, but also Lithuanian law.

The articles of Russian Pravda talk about the establishment of feudal property rights not only to land and lands, but also to movable property, horses, beavers, tools of production, etc.

For the era preceding Russian Pravda, the characteristic association of the rural population was the neighboring community. It grew in the process of decomposition of the family community.

The oldest part of Russian Truth is a record of older norms made under Prince Yaroslavl Vladimirovich. It is sometimes called “Yaroslav’s Truth.” This part consists of the first 16 articles of “The Brief Truth”. It is followed by “The Yaroslavich Truth,” i.e. sons of Yaroslav The lengthy edition is more complex in composition and includes many princely laws issued between the mid-11th and early 13th centuries, systematized and chronologically mixed.

Legal status of the population

All feudal societies were strictly stratified, that is. consisted of classes, the rights and obligations of which are clearly defined by law as unequal in relation to each other and to the state. In other words, each class had its own legal status. It would be a great simplification to consider feudal society from the point of view of exploiters and exploited. The class of feudal lords, constituting the fighting force of the princely squads, despite all their material benefits, could lose their lives - the most valuable thing - easier and more likely than the poor class of peasants.

Feudal society was religiously static, not prone to dramatic evolution. In an effort to consolidate this static nature, the state preserved relations with the estates in legislation.

Having not developed into a global production system, slavery in Rus' became widespread as a social system. The source of slavery was primarily captivity, birth from a slave. People fell into slavery for serious criminal offenses (possession and robbery), a dependent purchaser turned into a slave in case of escaping from the owner and theft, and a malicious bankrupt turned into slavery (Articles 56, 64, 55 of the Extensive Pravda). Article 110 of the Extensive Truth establishes three more cases of servitude: marrying a slave without a contract, entering the service of a housekeeper-tiun without a contract of freedom, self-selling into slavery even for “nudity.”

In the first millennium AD. slavery among the Slavs, according to Roman authors, was patriarchal in nature, captive slaves were released for ransom or included in the tribe; The most severe forms were inherent in slavery in the early stages of statehood, in the 9th-10th centuries. Among the Slavs, slaves are the subject of sale and enrichment. In the contracts with Byzantium (10th century) a special “servant price” appears. In the 11th century Russian law already has a principle according to which a slave cannot be a subject of legal relations or enter into contracts. Russian Truth considered slaves to be the property of the master; they themselves did not possess property. For the criminal offenses of slaves and the property damage they caused, the owners were responsible for compensation. For the murder of a slave, damages of 5-6 hryvnia were due (as for the destruction of a thing). The owner of the slave was not held accountable for his murder - church repentance was prescribed for such cases.

Russian Pravda reflected processes similar to Roman law, where the slave was endowed with special property (peculium), with the right to dispose of it for economic purposes in favor of the master. The Charter on Slaves (Articles 117, 119 of the Extensive Praada) speaks of the conduct of trading operations by slaves on behalf of their owners.

The feudal class was formed gradually. It included princes, boyars, squads, local nobility, mayors, tiuns, etc. The feudal lords exercised civil administration and were responsible for a professional military organization. They were mutually connected by a system of vassalage, regulating rights and obligations to each other and to the state. To ensure management functions, the population paid tribute and court fines. The material needs of the military organization were provided by land property. Vassal and land relations of feudal lords, their connection with the Grand Duke were most likely regulated by special agreements. The Russian Pravda reveals only some aspects of the legal status of this class. It establishes a double vira (fine for murder) of 80 hryvnia for the murder of princely servants, cakes, grooms, and firemen. But the code is silent about the boyars and warriors themselves. Probably, the death penalty was applied for attacks on them. The chronicles repeatedly describe the use of execution during popular unrest.

The next group of articles of Russian Pravda protects property. A fine of 12 hryvnia is established for violating land boundaries. Some researchers believe that a high fine indicates that the property belongs to a feudal lord. The same fine follows for the destruction of beekeepers, boyar lands, and for the theft of hunting falcons and hawks. The highest fines of 12 hryvnia are established for beatings, knocked out teeth, damaged beard - apparently, the corporate understanding of honor often led to physical clashes.

In the feudal stratum, earlier, restrictions on female inheritance were abolished. Church statutes establish high fines for violence against boyar wives and daughters - from 1 to 5 hryvnia in gold, for others - up to 5 hryvnia in silver.

The responsibilities of the peasant population in relation to the state were expressed in the payment of taxes in the form of tribute and quitrents and participation in armed defense in the event of hostilities. The peasants were subject to state jurisdiction and the princely court.

In science, there are a number of opinions about smerds; they are considered free peasants, feudal dependents, persons in a slave state, serfs, and even a category similar to petty knighthood. But the main debate is conducted along the line: free - dependent (slaves). Two articles of Russian Pravda have an important place in substantiating opinions.

Article 26 of the Brief Truth, which establishes a fine for the murder of slaves, in one reading reads: “About the death and in the slave 5 hryvnia” (Academic List). In the Archaeographic List we read: “And in the stink of a serf there are 5 hryvnia.” In the first reading, it turns out that in the case of murder of a serf and a serf, the same fine is paid. From the second list it follows that the smerd has a slave who is killed. It is impossible to resolve the situation.

Article 90 of the Extensive Truth states: “If the smerd dies, then the inheritance goes to the prince; if he has daughters, then give them a dowry...” Some researchers interpret its atom in the sense that after the death of the smerd, his property passed entirely to the prince and he is a man of a “dead hand,” that is, unable to pass on an inheritance. But further articles clarify the situation - we are talking only about those smerdas who died without having sons, and the exclusion of women from inheritance is characteristic of all the peoples of Europe at a certain stage.

However, the difficulties of determining the status of a smerd do not end there. Smerd, according to other sources, appears as a peasant who owns a house, property, and a horse. For the theft of his horse, the law establishes a fine of 2 hryvnia. For the “flour” of stink, a fine of 3 hryvnia is established. Russian Pravda nowhere specifically indicates a limitation on the legal capacity of smerds; there are indications that they pay fines (sales) characteristic of free citizens.

Russian Truth always indicates, if necessary, belonging to a specific social group (combatant, serf, etc.). In the mass of articles about free people, it is free people who are meant; smerds are discussed only where their status needs to be specially highlighted.

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

The urban population consisted of artisans, small traders, merchants, etc. In science, the question of his agility position has not been adequately resolved due to a lack of sources. It is difficult to determine to what extent the population of Russian cities enjoyed urban liberties similar to those in Europe, which further contributed to the development of capitalism in cities. According to the calculations of M.N. Tikhomirov, in Rus' in the pre-Mongol period there were up to 300 cities. City life was so developed that it allowed V.0. Klyuchevsky came up with the theory of “merchant capitalism” in Ancient Rus'. ML. Tikhomirov believed that in Rus' “the air of the city made a person free,” and many runaway slaves were hiding in the cities.

Free residents of cities enjoyed the legal protection of Russian Pravda; they were covered by all articles on the protection of honor, dignity and life. The merchant class played a special role. It early began to unite into corporations (guilds), called hundreds. Usually the “merchant hundred” operated under some church. “Ivanovo Sto” in Novgorod was one of the first merchant organizations in Europe.

Ancient Rus' developed in the same direction as the largest countries in Europe. It had enormous cultural potential and a highly developed legal field. The political fragmentation of the country coincided with the Horde's devastation, and this caused extremely dire consequences and predetermined the deformation of the natural course of political and legal development.

Origin and sources

Russian Truth, the oldest Russian collection of laws, was formed during the 11th-11th centuries, but some of its articles go back to pagan antiquity. The first text was discovered and prepared for publication by V.N. Tatishchev in 173G. d. There are now more than a hundred lists, varying greatly in composition, volume and structure. The name of the monument differs from European traditions, where similar collections of law received purely legal titles - law. lawyer In Rus' at that time the concept of “charter” was known. “law”, “custom”. but the code is designated by the legal and moral term “Truth”.

It is customary to divide the collection into three editions (large groups of articles, united by chronological and semantic content): Brief, Long and Abridged. The Brief Edition includes two components: the Truth of Yaroslav (or the Most Ancient) and the Truth of the Yaroslavichs - the sons of Yaroslav the Wise. Yaroslav's Pravda includes the first 18 articles of the Brief Pravda and is entirely devoted to criminal law. Most likely, it arose during the struggle for the throne between Yaroslav and his brother Svyatopolk (1015-1019). Yaroslav's hired Varangian squad entered into conflict with the Novgorodians, accompanied by murders and beatings. Trying to resolve the situation. Yaroslav appeased the Novgorodians “by giving them the Truth, and having copied the charter, he thus told them: walk according to its charter.” Behind these words in the 1st Novgorod Chronicle is the text of the Most Ancient Truth.

Yaroslavich's truth includes Art. Art. 19-43 Brief Truth (Academic list). Its title indicates that the collection was developed by the three sons of Yaroslav the Wise with the participation of major individuals from the feudal environment. There are clarifications in the texts. from which we can conclude that the collection was approved no earlier than the year of Yaroslav’s death (1054) and no later than 1072 (the year of the death of one of his sons).

From the second half of the 11th century. The Extensive Truth began to take shape (121 articles according to the Trinity List), which was formed in its final version in the 12th century. In terms of the level of development of legal institutions and social and economic content, this is already a very developed monument of law. Along with new regulations, it also included modified norms of the Brief Truth. The Extensive Truth consists, as it were, of groups of articles united by a single meaning. It presents criminal and inheritance law, thoroughly develops the legal status of categories of the population and slaves, contains a bankruptcy statute, etc. By the beginning of the 12th century. The Vast Truth has formed.

In the XIII-XIV centuries. An abridged edition arose, which has come down to us in only a few lists (50 articles according to the IV Trinity list). It represents a selection from the Dimensional Truth, adapted for more developed social relations during periods of fragmentation.

Civil law. Ownership

In a feudal society, property rights among feudal lords are determined by their mutual connection and connection with the state. that is, a system of vassalage, and in the peasant environment a system of prohibitions on disposal. Differences in property status also depend on the differences in these relations. In pre-revolutionary studies, there was mainly a discussion of questions about the existence of tribal and private property; the opinion about collective forms of land ownership prevailed.

Legal differences and special terminology for designating movable and immovable property arise much later, downloaded in Europe. Due to the influence of developed Roman law, and then in Russia. The legal formulation of property rights developed in Russia under the influence of bourgeois relations and corresponded to a similar concept in other bourgeois countries. Its essence is to emphasize the extraordinary position of the subject of property. defined in Roman law: “The owner has exclusive and independent dominion over the thing.”

In the X-XI centuries. communal survivals in Rus' are still quite significant. However, it is very difficult to determine the extent of the presence of collective and individual forms of ownership due to a lack of sources. In the overwhelming majority of cases, Russian Pravda deals with individual property. (horse, weapons, clothes, etc.). Most likely, in developed areas where princely legislation was in force, individual (private) property played a decisive role.

The owner, according to Russian Pravda, had the right to dispose of property, enter into contracts, receive income from property, and demand its protection in case of encroachment. The objects of property rights are a very wide range of things - horses and livestock, clothing and weapons, trade goods, agricultural implements and much more.

Other sources indicate the presence of individual peasant farming during the period under review. However, they indicate the existence of villages, graveyards, villages, and all rural settlements with collective forms of land ownership. These are probably neighboring communities with individual ownership of the yard plot and periodic redistribution of arable land. Payments of taxes to the prince did not prevent the population from disposing of the land at their collective discretion, since the unit of tribute was not the land, but the courtyard and households.

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

The property of feudal lords arose as private and based on princely grants. In the 11th century. chronicles - mention the villages of princely warriors in the 12th century. There is already much more such evidence. The estates of the boyars were private property. The princes distributed lands under the condition of service (beneficial ownership, temporary or lifelong). O. Rakov, believes that there were hereditary benefits. There could be conditional holdings in the boyar hierarchy itself. The princely distribution of lands was accompanied by the receipt of immunities (independent actions in these possessions) - judicial, financial, and administrative. In the Russian Pravda there is no information about the land ownership of feudal lords, but in the Extensive Pravda the persons who lived on these lands are mentioned: boyar tiun (Article 1), boyar serfs (Article 46), boyar ryadovich (Article 14). Intra-feudal land agreements and codes regulating landowning relations have not reached us; one can only guess about their existence.

Land ownership of the church arose on the basis of state grants in the form of tithes. Subsequently, it grew due to deposits, purchases, etc.

Only people not in a slave state could be subjects of property rights. The division of things into movable and real estate has not found legal formalization, but the status of movable is developed in Russian Pravda quite thoroughly. Property, its content, and various types of ownership did not have special generalizing terms, but in practice the legislator distinguished between ownership and possession.

The owner had the right to return his property (horse, weapons, clothes, slave) from someone else's illegal property! possession on the basis of a strictly established procedure, a fine of 3 hryvnia was imposed for the “offense” caused. The return of things required testimony and trial, if necessary, before “a body of 12 people” (Articles 13, 14, -15, 16 of the Brief Truth; Articles 34, 35 of the Long Truth). The general principle of protecting movable property was to return it to its rightful owner and pay him a fine as compensation for damages. Movable property (including slaves) is considered in Russian Pravda to be the extent of the owner’s complete dominance: in disputes about its return, the state does not impose fines, the parties themselves agree among themselves. Those who entrusted property to slaves and serfs (for trade operations, etc.) bore liability to third parties in full in the event of damages and destruction of the property (Articles 116, 117). In other words, the legislator understood that the right of property is determined by the will of the owners themselves. Protection of movable property, if it was not related to a criminal Crime, was not class-based, everyone has the right to equally determine its fate.

Law of obligations

An obligation is a legal relationship by virtue of which a person who has violated the interests of another person is obliged to perform certain actions in favor of the victim. The differences between a civil obligation and a criminal obligation arise only at a certain level of legal development, but in the ancient period they are mixed. Only with the formation of the branches of civil and criminal law does the legislator clarify these issues.

In ancient times, there were two types of obligations - from offenses (torts) and contracts, and the first, apparently, arose earlier. In Russian Pravda, obligations from torts entail liability in the form of fines and damages. The one who harbors the slave must return him and pay a fine (Article I of the Brief Truth). The one who took someone else's property (horse, clothes) must return it and pay a fine of 3 hryvnia (Article 12. 13 of the Brief Truth). Contractual obligations are formalized into a system with the formation of private property, but the concept of the abstract concept of contract does not yet exist. Later, a contract began to be understood as an agreement between two or more persons. As a result, the parties have legal rights and obligations. In Ancient Rus' there were several types of contracts.

The parties (subjects) to contracts must meet the requirements of age, legal capacity and freedom. We know nothing about the age of those who entered into obligations in the pre-Christian period. With the adoption of Christianity, a general principle apparently operated, according to which marriage was a legal factor in the achievement and property independence of a person. We also do not know those aspects of concluding contracts in the pagan period that were determined by the gender of the person. However, in Russian Pravda, a woman already acts as the owner of property, therefore, she had the right to commit food. This collection of laws enshrines the impact of the status of freedom on obligations. The slave was not the subject of legal relations and could not be liable for obligations; the owner bore all property liability for him. The property consequences of the slave's transactions carried out on behalf of the master also fell on the latter.

Ancient law knows two types of liability under contracts: personal and property (historically, later and more developed). In Ancient Rome, only the law of Petelius (VI century BC) established property liability. In the first case, the person who failed to fulfill his obligations was turned into a slave; in the second case, his property was transferred to the creditor. In Russian Pravda, property liability dominates. However, in case of violation of the terms of the obligations, the zakuy could turn into a complete slave, and a malicious bankrupt merchant could also turn into slavery. When slavery is underdeveloped, a principle arises. according to which the defaulter. became dependent on the creditor for the period during which he worked off the entire amount of debt and losses.

In the IX-XII centuries. The written form of contracts had not yet developed; they were made, as a rule, orally. To eliminate subsequent mutual claims, witnesses had to be present at the conclusion of transactions, but the court also accepted any other evidence certifying the contracts. The number of transactions known to Russkaya Pravda is not yet very significant.

In everyday life, the purchase and sale agreement was the most common. Property (movable and immovable) and slaves were sold, and the sale of the latter was given very much attention in the legislation of that time. The Russian Pravda regulated not so much the sale and purchase agreement itself (its terms depended on the will of the parties) as the disputes that arose as a result of mutual claims. The parties could only dispose of their own property; property stolen or of unknown origin was disputed after purchase in the presence of the administration. If the legality of ownership of what was sold was not proven, the transaction was terminated and the property was reimbursed to the person who disputed it. The transaction for the sale of any significant things was carried out at a public auction in order to avoid subsequent claims.

The sale of real estate, apparently, began to be formalized by written acts earlier (those that have come down to us date back to the 12th century). S.V. Yushkov believed that there were deadlines for filing claims for defects in the purchased item. There was also an agreement of self-sale into servitude in the presence of witnesses.

According to S.V. Yushkov, this agreement was quite common in the period under review and historically preceded the purchase and sale agreement. Although the Russian Pravda mentions the ram, the terms of its conclusion were most likely similar to the purchase and sale agreement.

In the Russian Pravda there is a mention of hiring “bridge workers” for the repair and construction of bridges (Article 97 of the Extensive Pravda). The amount of payment for work and food is established. In the XII-XIII centuries. a category of “hirers” appeared, whom the law distinguished from other groups of the dependent population, and their relationship with the landlord was stipulated by agreement. The hirer was free to terminate the contract by paying damages. At the same time, there are references to hired servants and purchasing hires who remained dependent. The nature of property lease is not disclosed in Russian Pravda.

In the XII-XV centuries. Three trends in the development of the law of obligations have emerged. Firstly, the development of commodity-money relations led to the emergence of new types of contracts (emphasis, pledge, guarantee) and the reduction of the property liability of the parties to the obligations. Obligations from offenses are gradually shifting to the criminally punishable area. Secondly, under the dominance of feudal relations, the personal responsibility of debtors remained. Debtors became economically dependent on creditors and were obliged to work off the debt, being, as it were, under patronage. Personal dependence spread even among feudal lords in vassal, relationship with the state or overlord. Thirdly, in Novgorod and Pskov a system of obligatory law was formed with developed property liability based on commodity-money exchange.

Inheritance law

Family Inheritance Law is a slowly changing area. Since the adoption of Christianity, the foundations of the Orthodox family remained static for many centuries; women were gradually allowed to inherit; inheritance options were strictly limited (by custom, by law, by will). Relationships in the family were based on the power of the father; only in the late feudal period did the principle of separation of property emerge. These are the main trends in this area of ​​law.

By the time of Russian Truth, we do not encounter evidence of the degraded position of women. According to some researchers, the family of the patriarchal type is reflected in Russian Pravda in the concept of “rope”, that is, a group of relatives bound by the common responsibility of paying the “wild rope”. However, as follows from a number of articles in Russian Pravda, outsiders could “invest” in the common virus without being relatives. M. Kosven proposed a hypothesis according to which the “rope” of Ancient Rus' is a transitional form from a patriarchal family to an individual one. with the preservation of collective orders (patronymy). But the distinctive features of patronymy were not highlighted; it retained a collective economy, family ties and customs. The only distinguishing feature - smaller numbers - is generally difficult to determine. Therefore, patronymy is more like a purely logical construction.

In Ancient Rus' by the 11th century. The monogamous family with individual farming dominated. With the adoption of Christianity at the end of the 10th century. The church waged an active struggle against paganism, for the triumph of the individual family and family morality. Marriage, divorce, moral relations in the family began to be sanctioned by it. An unsanctified marriage was considered a sin and could affect descendants. The chronicle says: the lot of a sinful root becomes an evil fruit.” The supremacy of men in the Christian family was preserved and strengthened, gradually becoming part of the state ideology. The chronicle justifies this: do not listen to the evil woman, for honey drips from her lips. Adulterous wives. But this is a moment. She does not follow the path of life; those who come close to her will go to hell after death.”

The Christian family had to obey strict moral canons; the new ideology was based on hard work, humility, and responsibility before God. The formation of a Christian family occurred gradually, the state was quite tolerant of paganism, but it is impossible to confirm the coexistence of Christian and pagan families with concrete facts.

In ancient times, inheritance was carried out on the basis of customary law, with the right of the entire group to some part of the property. The inheritance of movable property (bow, spear, ax) was the first to be individualized. A division of the hereditary mass into shares arose: part - to the collective, part - to the family, part at the discretion of the person himself. Ibn Fadlan testified that by the 10th century. The property of deceased Russians was divided into three parts.

Inheritance based on customary law in a modified form is included in national law. Apparently, testamentary refusals, limited to shares in favor of immediate relatives, developed in parallel. There are two forms of inheritance: by law and by will. Exclusion of women from inheritance cannot be considered as a means of unconscious humiliation. When marrying a member of another clan, they could not take away property acquired by members of their own clan. Men fought for new territories and men cultivated the land, therefore the institution of inheritance of real estate through the male line is stable among all European nations.

The right of relatives to a share of fines in case of murder is enshrined in Art. 4 treaties with Byzantium in 911. Apparently, relatives could lay claim to part of the property in any case. Otherwise, the agreement paints a picture of developed inheritance law, where the primacy of the will over the law applies. Article 13 states: “If one of the Rusyns dies without settling his estate, while serving in Byzantium, and has no relatives there, then the property is returned to close relatives in Rus'. If he leaves a will, the property goes to the person in whose favor the will was made.” True, it should be borne in mind that such a developed form is prescribed to the propertied environment; in peasant communities, ordinary inheritance continued to operate.

Disputes about inheritance arose quite often, and the Church Charters of Vladimir 1 and Yaroslav the Wise took these lawsuits of relatives under their jurisdiction. But since the position of the church at that time was not strong enough, the rules on inheritance of property included in the Russian Pravda were described in great detail, apparently in order to avoid conflicts between pagan customs and Christian attitudes of an individualized family. The institution of inheritance in Russian Pravda is one of the most developed.

In the 11th century marriage became a church prerogative; participation in inheritance trials could be denied to persons without the appropriate church certificates; exact data on the age of marriage has not reached us. S.V. Yushkov believed that it was 14-15 years for men and 12-13 years for women.

In Russian Pravda we are talking about an individual family (husband, wife, children) with a private household. Articles about “vervi” perhaps refer to groups of relatives. In the Extensive Truth there is a whole statute on inheritance (Articles 90-95, 98-106). The first two articles (Articles 90, 91) consolidate ancient restrictions in Smerd communities: the property of the deceased, who left no sons, goes to the prince, and daughters are allocated a portion for dowry before marriage. At the same time, a different principle operated among the warriors and boyars: “the inheritance does not go to the prince, it is inherited by the daughters.” The remaining articles regulate inheritance on the basis of private property and individual households.

The general principle is also known from the Treaties with Byzantium: priority of inheritance under a will, ensuring the legal shares of family members. Article 92 states: “Whoever, when dying, divides his house to his children, shall stand on him; whoever dies without a row, the property goes to all the children.” Inheritance by will is limited to sons and wife, daughters receive only part of Art. 9 3, 95). Children from the first wife have the right to part of the property belonging to the mother (Article 94). Children from a slave do not inherit anything, but receive freedom with their mother (v. 98). In all cases, the “yard” passed to the youngest son (v. 100) as less capable of independent existence. The property of young children is managed by the mother: if she marries, a relative guardian is appointed. The mother, guardian (stepfather) are responsible for this property and bear financial responsibility for its loss. The mother disposes of her part of the property independently, she can bequeath it to her children, and deprive them of their inheritance if they are “dastardly” (Article 106).

This order of inheritance ensured the property rights of all family members and generally existed until the moment when women began to be allowed to inherit. At the same time, the dependence of the well-being of male children on the will of the testator was established as the basis for a “good” attitude towards parents, while maintaining a guarantee of livelihood for younger children.

Crime and Punishment

Criminal law, as a set of norms representing a separate branch of law, was formed at the stage of late feudalism and continued to develop during the bourgeois period. Therefore, for an earlier time, it is more correct to talk about criminal legislation, at the center of which there are two kate, crucibles - crime and punishment. In the X-XV centuries. the concepts of guilt, complicity, preparation for committing a crime were in their infancy, gradually, throughout the 15th-11th centuries, but were formed, and only in the Code of 1649 they were more or less fully reflected.

Arabic sources, chronicles, and treaties between Rus' and Byzantium contain sufficient information about criminal offenses punishable by the state in the 1st-10th centuries. We are talking about thefts, murders, beatings, etc., but they are not characterized by any special terms. Criminal acts in the chronicles are called evil deeds. The main element of a criminal act is punishability. The object of violation could be state law, customs, religious and moral institutions. In the literature, it is generally accepted that the first attempt to define criminality was made in Russian Pravda, where harm to a person is called “resentment.” For example, when beating, one had to “pay 12 hryvnia for the insult.”

The subjects of crimes, that is, persons capable of being responsible for criminal actions, could be “free people.” Any crime implied the payment of fines and property penalties, which required the presence of property. Serfs and slaves, themselves, being a type of property, did not have such property liability the owners were responsible for them. It is very difficult to determine the influence “and the position of the subject of class status. We have no information from documents about the consequences, for example, of a fight between a warrior and a peasant, although the most plausible version of the emergence of the Most Ancient Truth is associated precisely with the massacre between the princely squad of Yaroslav the Wise and the Novgorod townspeople It is most likely that in the times of Russian Pravda, with oral privileges of feudal lords for insults, dishonor, etc., the entire free population was responsible for criminal actions against a representative of another class.Russian Pravda does not say anything about the commission of crimes by women, about the age of the criminals. With the adoption of Christianity, the age of the criminal began to be determined. based on church regulations.

It can be assumed that in the ancient period, punishments based on customary law were practiced in “peasant communities,” but specific sources have not reached us. The Russian Pravda reflects only two types of crimes: against the person (murder, bodily harm, insults, beatings) and against property (robbery, theft, violation of land boundaries, illegal use of other people's property). The law protected the interests of the individual, who, having separated from the communal system, needed to protect both his personality and his1 economy. State crimes. The Russian Pravda does not mention, and very vaguely describes, acts against the princely administration (for example, the murder of a groom). At this stage, there was no abstract understanding of the state and its interests; harm to the state was identified with harm to the prince, and attacks against the princes were considered serious acts. Participants in the uprisings were executed on the spot, often on a mass scale. Princes in the struggle for power sometimes resorted to very unworthy methods, but the issue of responsibility was decided among them. Treason to the prince was also considered in the princely circle. Responsibility largely depended on the balance of political forces.

In Russian Pravda, fines dominate, although in practice the arsenal of criminal penalties was quite large. The code, approved soon after the adoption of Christianity, being state legislation, broke with the moral principles of paganism, but new Christian values ​​were adopted gradually. In such conditions, the only criterion of an individual’s interests could only be the monetary equivalent of the damage caused, which was secured by the system of fines. It also played a role that harsh types of punishment contradicted the Christian doctrine of humanity; they were not included in the code. For the same reason, Russian Truth is purely secular; criminal penalties against the interests of the church were established in church statutes.

In practice, the following types of punishment were used: blood feud (it can only conditionally be classified as punishment), “flood and plunder”, death penalty, criminal fines, imprisonment, self-harm punishment. Criminal fines for attacks on the person have a pronounced class character; when there is an attack on property, this is less pronounced.

The murders are mentioned in the treaty with Byzantium in 911. (in the case of killing someone, the killer must “die on the spot” (blood feud). If the culprit managed to escape, property liability came into play: those who had property gave up their part of the property as a ransom, and the relatives of the murdered person who did not have property were persecuted until revenge. Article 1 of Pravda Yaroslav the Wise also provides for revenge of relatives for murder, if there are “no avengers”, a fine of 40 hryvnia is paid. In this article there is still no social differentiation of the perpetrators when paying a fine, but murder is recognized as the most dangerous crime, all editions of Russian Pravda begin with it In the Pravda of Yaroslavich, for the murder of firemen, grooms of the prince, tiun, an increased fine of VO hryvnia is already provided, for the murder of a free person a fine of 40 hryvnia was paid.

Battery, insults, and bodily harm were punishable by monetary fines. For damage to a finger, 3 hryvnias were paid, for snowcocks with a pole or stick, for pulling out a beard and mustache, 12 hryvnias. For cutting off a hand there was a fine of 40 hryvnia. Threat with a weapon was punishable by a fine of 1 hryvnia. Although the fines are differentiated depending on the severity of the injury, there is no clear understanding of the degree of harm in the Russian Pravda, so we can talk about the principle of causality: the code lists cases of violation of bodily integrity with specific fines, but without attempts at generalization.

Most attention in Russian Pravda is paid to theft. It describes in detail what fine a convicted thief must pay for a horse, cow, duck, firewood, hay, servants, etc. The legislator, trying not to miss anything, includes grain, birds of prey, and hunting dogs in this list. The general principle is that the victim should be fully compensated for the material damage, so the perpetrator must pay the value of the stolen property and pay a fine. Estate protection of property is rare. For example, for the theft of a princely horse, a fine of 3 hryvnia was established, for a stinking horse - 2 hryvnia. In Prostransnaya Pravda, for stealing horses (the main labor force), a thief was handed over “to the stream and plunder.” Murder of a thief, not at the crime scene? was considered a crime and did not entail punishment. All other types of encroachments on someone else's property were punishable by fines (violation of land boundaries, burning bees, lances, unauthorized seizure of someone else's horse or weapon, breaking other people's things) of up to 12 hryvnia.

Russian Pravda does not know the death penalty, but it was used in practice for anti-state activities, for participation in uprisings and bandits. It is curious that already in the 10th-11th centuries. this punishment was regulated by the state.

Information about the use of the death penalty by the ruler of the Russians is available in Arab sources of the 1st-10th centuries. According to the testimony of Ibn Last and Ibn Fadlan, the robber monitor lizard could have been killed by hanging. Princess Olga and Prince Svyatoslav (until 972) used barbaric executions in the besieged city of Dorostol. According to Arab observations, there was an alternative to life: the criminal could be “exiled” to the outskirts of the state (an option of expulsion from the community). Around the 10th century. execution gave way to criminal fines for crimes against property and persons. At the end of the 10th century. Vladimir 1, due to the intensification of “robberies,” discussed the issue of introducing the death penalty for them, and was afraid of this, “fearing sin.” Consequently, the adoption of Christianity played a role in limiting death sentences. But the princely entourage authorized increased repression, since the prince is obliged to “fight evil.” The introduced executions for robbery led to the impoverishment of the treasury, where fines ceased to flow, and the replacement of deprivation of life with fines followed. Moreover, the conversation, apparently, was not only about robbery, but about a wide range of attacks on property and person.

In this form, the system of criminal fines was included in Russian Pravda in the 11th century. The death penalty became the prerogative of the extraordinary powers of the princely power in the state non-political sphere and was not used for ordinary crimes for a long time. At the same time, the lack of legislative regulation of methods of execution sometimes led to unbridled cruelty of the princes. For example, at the turn of the XX-XIII centuries. The Galician prince Roman buried the rebellious boyars alive in the ground, quartered them with savage edification: “Without crushing the bees, you can’t eat the honey.”

Fines were the leading and main type of punishment according to Russian Truth, were applied for all types of crimes and served as a source of significant replenishment of the state treasury. The fine ranged from 1 to 80 hryvnia silver, and in church charters - up to 100 hryvnia. It is not possible to accurately determine which part went to the victims and which to the state.

Sale is the most common fine paid for battery, encroachment on property, and insults. Its size ranged from 1 to 12 hryvnia. For example, for a blow with a naked sword, for pulling out a beard, 12 hryvnia were due. Some articles only indicate the amount of the fine without mentioning “sale.” The code contains direct instructions that the sale is paid to the prince; this is a public fine, indicating that. free state of the culprit.

Vira was a criminal fine that was paid only for the murder of a free person. In Russian Pravda there is no mention of the murder of feudal lords; this was punishable by a more severe punishment than vira. For 40 hryvnia, at the prices of that time, you could buy 20 horses. Not everyone could afford to pay such sums. Therefore, there was a collective institution of “wild vira”, where community members made contributions in order to pay a ransom for murder if necessary. Wild vira was paid by the community in the event of a robbery, if it did not search for the criminal. Probably, some of the feudal elites were not averse to receiving an extra criminal fine for an accidentally discovered body, and Russian Pravda therefore forbade the collection of wild vires for unidentified dead and skeletons (Articles 3-8, 19 of the Extensive Pravda). Those who did not contribute to the wild virus in the event of a murder paid the entire amount themselves.

Lessons were penalties for the destruction of property and property. For example, “whoever intends to slaughter a horse or cattle pays 12 hryvnia for the sale, and a lesson to the owner” (Article 84 of the Extensive Truth). Since slaves and serfs were equated to the property of their owners, a lesson was paid for their murder, not a vira. Russkaya Pravda estimates the cost of serfs at 5-6 hryvnia, and for higher-ranking serfs (tiuna, artisan) at 12 hryvnia.

Russian Truth says nothing about corporal punishment and imprisonment. There were no prisons in Ancient Rus' yet, nor was there any awareness of the prison influence on the criminal. Confinement in a “hole” was used. (basement) of high-ranking officials, princes, mayors, persons of the princely entourage. This measure was a temporary restriction of freedom until certain events occurred. For example, in 1067, Grand Duke Izyaslav imprisoned Prince Vseslav and his two sons in the ice hole; after the death of Yaroslav Iudrog, his sons released Uncle Sudislav from the ice hole and forcibly tonsured him as a monk. Corporal punishment was also used, but the state still gave preference to fines.

The legislator was aware that the severity of the crime may depend both on the offender and on external circumstances. However, he could not formulate these elements in abstract form, aggravating circumstances, complicity, forms of guilt, etc. - a product of a later time. And yet, with a state of intoxication (during the ruin of a merchant), Russian Truth associates more serious consequences. In three cases, it provides for group theft of livestock (Articles 40, 41, 43 of the Extensive Pravda) and establishes that each participant must pay the fine in full. The legislator also understood the different directions of the criminal’s intent, therefore the code distinguishes between accidental or careless murders (to offend), murders in robbery, murders in the world “revealed”, “in a wedding”. Severe punishment was imposed for “robbery without any wedding.” However. separating intentional crimes from everyday ones, the legislator was guided by the principle of causality and recorded them without theoretical generalizations. In Russian Pravda, a division into intentional and careless acts is only outlined.

The punitive norms of Russian Pravda continued to operate, but by the end of the 15th century. the basis was prepared for a qualitatively new level of criminal law. This is due to the fact that new types of crimes against the state, its apparatus, and public persons have emerged, crime has become more widespread and criminal legislation has responded to this by increasing repression.

Court and process

The oldest form of judicial process was the court of the community, whose members equally had the rights and responsibilities of tyan in legal proceedings. The adversarial nature of the parties persisted for a long time, which is why the process in Ancient Rus' is called adversarial (less often, accusatory). It has such distinctive features as the relative equality of the parties and their activity during the consideration of the case in collecting evidence and evidence. At the same time in the X-XI centuries. The process was strengthened, where the prince and his administration played the leading role: they initiated the process, collected information themselves and passed a sentence, often involving death. The prototype of such a process can be the trial of Princess Olga over the ambassadors of the Drevlyans during the uprising or the trial of the princes over the rebels in 1068 and 1113.

The reasons for initiating the process were complaints from the plaintiffs, the capture of a criminal at the scene of a crime, and the fact that a crime had been committed. One of the forms of starting the process was the so-called “cry”: a public announcement about the loss of property and the beginning of the search for the thief (usually at an auction). A three-day period was given for the return of the stolen property, after which the person in whose possession the sought-after items were found was considered guilty and had to return the property and prove the legality of its acquisition. It can be assumed that different types of evidence were used: oral, written, witness, evidence. Eyewitnesses of the incident were called vidocques. There were “rumours”, which some researchers consider to be eyewitnesses by hearing,” others - only free people could be witnesses to the “good fame” of the accused: “they don’t impose obedience on a slave, since he is not free,” says Russian Pravda. The equality of the parties in the trial dictated the inclusion of as many free people as witnesses. Only in “small litigation” and out of need could one “refer to the procurement.” If there were no free people, then they referred to the boyar’s tiun, and “others cannot be added” (Article 66 of the Extensive Pravda).

Russian Pravda provides for a special form of discovery of lost property - a code. If, after the “call”, the missing item was found in the possession of a person who declared himself a bona fide purchaser, the collection began. The person from whom the item was purchased was indicated, who, in turn, pointed to another, etc. Anyone who could not indicate the source of acquisition was considered a thief and had to return the item (cost) and pay a fine. Within one territorial unit, the code went to the last person, but if residents of another territory (city) participated in it, it went to the third person, who paid increased compensation and began the code at his place of residence (Articles 35-39 of the Extensive Truth).

Another procedural action - chasing the trail - was a search for the Criminal in the footsteps. In the case of murder, the presence of traces of the criminal in any community obliged its members to pay “wild vira” or to search for the culprit. When traces were lost on wastelands and roads, the search stopped (Article 77 of the Extensive Truth).

The norms of Russian Truth, in force in the “Russian principalities in the 12th-15th centuries, continued to be used in the judicial process of the period under review. While maintaining the adversarial principles in the judicial process, the role and activity of the state administration increased. The importance of a judicial duel has grown everywhere when it is impossible to clarify the cap by other means. Ordeals became a thing of the past because they contradicted the Christian understanding of clarifying the truth; judgment oaths were deprived of pagan paraphernalia. At the same time, the role of written documents increased, especially in land disputes and litigation.

For the era preceding Russian Pravda, the characteristic unification of the rural population was the neighboring community. She grew up in the process of disintegration of the previous family community. Private ownership of land is gradually disintegrating the previously homogeneous mass of community members: along with the wealthy, poor people appear who have lost their plots. Leaving the community, in search of work they became dependent on rich landowners - princes and boyars.