In the course of the history of the domestic state and law, the topic under study is of great importance. She considers the formation of the Old Russian people, the process of unification of the East Slavic tribes into a single Old Russian state. During this period, the Old Russian people realized their ethnic unity and the unity of historical destiny.

This period is characterized by:

• the formation of feudal social 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 Russia;
• strengthening the foreign policy ties of the Russian state, etc.

The importance of studying the formation of the state and the law of the Old Russian state lies in the fact that the state and legal institutions created during this period formed the basis for the formation of subsequent forms of the state in Russia and other states. The first legal source "Russkaya Pravda" served as the basis for the creation of subsequent legal documents of the Russian state.

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

1. Formation of the Old Russian state

In written sources new era Tribes are mentioned that lived in Eastern Europe under the name "Venedi". 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 "Venedi". There is a direct connection between the Venedian Slavs of the beginning of the century AD and the Proto-Slavic tribes.

At the beginning of a new era, a numerous ethnic formation of the 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 the steppe.

Written sources of a later time, II-V centuries. (the works of Procopius of Caesarea - a Byzantine historian, Jordanes - a Gothic historian) testify to the residence of the Ants (Eastern Wends) between the Dnieper and the Dniester and to the east of the Dnieper.

In the second half of the 1st millennium AD. 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 led to the differentiation of the Slavs. It is possible to distinguish eastern, western and southern Slavs.

A large territory on which the ancient Russian people was 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-beginning of the XII century). In "The Tale of Bygone Years" he described the events that took place 300 years before him.

The source, unfortunately, has not come down to us, we know of its list compiled by the monk Sylvester (circa 1116).

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

Polyany lived on the right bank of the Dnieper with the center in Kyiv;

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

Dregovichi - north of the Drevlyans and glades on the left bank of the 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 are active in economic activity, which stimulated the strengthening of foreign economic relations, 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 tribal community. It consisted of a group of consanguineous small families. The economy was conducted collectively, by the whole community. Land plots were periodically redistributed among individual families. There was no private ownership of land.

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

In the neighboring community there was a rapid process of social stratification. The different composition of families, inequality of property, natural conditions led to the growth of private property among wealthy members of the community. The top of society was formed, which appropriated the right to collect products for common needs and dispose of them. In the process of the formation of a feudal society, this process turned into a collection of tribute.

Most of the Slavic tribes bypassed the slave formation. The patriarchal slavery that took place among the Eastern Slavs did not develop into a slave-owning formation.

1. Slave labor was not profitable; harsh climatic conditions required high costs for the maintenance of a slave.
2. The development of slavery was delayed by the rural community.
3. There was no source of slaves - captives, vast neighboring territories were sparsely populated.
4. The level of development of productive forces required that the worker be interested in the results of labor.

More profitable for the feudal lord was the work of a dependent peasant who carried certain duties (corvée, dues, etc.). Slavery among the Slavs was patriarchal, domestic in nature (serfs, servants, etc.).

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

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

The growing need to protect the union of tribes from the ever-increasing threat of attacks from external enemies contributed to the growth of the social position of the prince and his squad.

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

The unions of tribes were distinguished by a higher level of management, the bodies of public self-government turned into the state apparatus of the prince. formed political system, an important feature of which was the emergence of a special public authority separated from the people, with a special administrative apparatus and extending to a certain territory.

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

These were “unions of unions” of tribes - the first state formations in Russia.

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 bribery of princes).

Prince Oleg (882-912) in 882 allegedly captured Kyiv (or took possession of the bribery of 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 streets and Tivertsy, returned the Drevlyans who separated from Kyiv after the death of Oleg. Olga (945-964), Svyatoslav (965-972) and Vladimir (978-1015) make trips to the land of the Vyatichi.

Thus, in the VIII-X centuries, on a vast territory from Lake Ladoga and Onega in the north to the middle reaches of the Dnieper in the south, in the west and south-west - to the Carpathians, Prut and the lower reaches of the Danube, an Old Russian state was formed with a 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 in single state, the formation and improvement of the state apparatus and military organization.

The second stage - the heyday Kievan Rus(the end of the XI - the first half of the XI 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 Russia. In the second half of the XI century. there are 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 XVIII century. German scientists G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A.L. Schlozer, invited to the Academy of Sciences of Russia, created the so-called. "Norman theory".

The essence of the theory is that the state among the Eastern Slavs was not a natural process of their internal development, but was created by newcomers from Scandinavia by the “Normans” or “Varangians”. Bayer wrote the works "The Origin of Russia" and "Varangians". Based on the story of The Tale of Bygone Years about the “calling” by the Novgorodians of the three Varangian brothers Rurik, Sineus and Truvor in 862 to Novgorod, 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; in the original, it has not reached us. The list known to us contains many contradictions. It was compiled during the collapse of the Kievan state. The chronicler, fulfilling a social order, could admit that the version of the origin of the princes from the Varangians would exalt the princely power (the Varangians in the 11th-12th centuries played a prominent role in Europe). Another task of Nestor could also be the desire to show the supra-class nature of the state and the prince in order to stop civil strife and social conflicts.

The “Norman theory” itself at the time of its creation met 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 Hitlerite propaganda during the period of preparation and during the Second World War, to justify the aggressive wars against the Slavic peoples.

At present, 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 link the Norman theory with modernity, speculating on the difficulties of economic, political and social development Russia.

He opposed Normanism in the middle of the 18th century. M.V. Lomonosov, proved the scientific inconsistency of the theory. This “theory” was fought 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 stucco 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. The chronicler was influenced by the Russian princes, who later, by family or other ties, were connected with Northern Europe. One of these princes, for example, was Mstislav Vladimirovich, 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. Likhachev, V.V. Mavrodina, A.N. Nasonova, V.T. Pashuto, B.A. Rybakova, M.N. Tikhomirova, L.V. Cherepnina, I.P. Sheskolsky, S.V. Yushkov and others. They proved the bias of the Norman theory. The Normans have nothing to do with the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the development of feudal relations. The influence of the Normans on Russia is negligible, if only because the level of their social and cultural development was not higher than Ancient Russia.

The statement 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 to the Slavic tribes that became part of the Kyiv principality.

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

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

1. The social and political system of the ancient Russian state

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

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

In the X-XII centuries. there is a significant growth of cities with a handicraft and trade population. In the XII century in Russia there were already about 200 cities.

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

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

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

These include:

• feudal lords (princes great and appanage, boyars, church and monasteries);
• free community members (rural and urban “people” and “people”);
• smerdy (communal peasants);
• purchases (a person who has fallen into debt bondage and works out “kupa”);
• outcasts (a person who left the community or freed himself from slavery by ransom);
• servants and serfs (court slaves);
• urban population(urban aristocracy and urban lower classes);

The ruling class of feudal lords was formed in the 9th century. These included grand dukes, local princes, boyars. The state and personal reign was not divided, therefore the princely domain was an estate belonging 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 the estate, i.e. a form of ownership in which land was inherited.

The appearance in the Long Edition of Russkaya Pravda, dating back to the end of the 11th-beginning of the 12th centuries, of articles mentioning boyar tyuns, boyar ryadovichi, boyar serfs and boyar inheritance allows us to conclude that boyar land ownership was also established by this time.

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

1. fiefdom;
2. holding (estate).

Estates were acquired through the seizure of communal lands or by grants and were inherited. The boyars received the holding only by grant (for the duration of the boyar's service or until his death). Any land ownership of the boyars was associated with the service to the prince, which was considered voluntary. The transfer of a boyar from one prince to the service of another was not regarded as treason.

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

Free community members made up the bulk of the population of Kievan Rus. The term “people” in Russkaya Pravda refers to free, predominantly communal peasants and the urban population. Judging by the fact that in Russkaya Pravda (Article 3) “people” were opposed to “prince-husband”, he retained his personal freedom.

Free community members were subjected to state exploitation, paying tribute, the method of collection of which was polyudie. 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 (Art. 78 paragraphs). The prince could give land to the stink if he worked for him. Smerds had tools of production, horses, property, land, conducted a public economy, lived in communities.

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

Part of the communal peasants went bankrupt, turned into “thin smerds”, turned to the feudal lords and the rich for a loan. This category was called "purchases". The main source characterizing the position of “purchase” is Art. 56-64, 66 Russian Pravda, lengthy edition.

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

"Outcasts" were free and dependent. These were:

• former purchases;
• serfs redeemed at will;
• people from the free strata of society.

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

At the lowest rung of the social ladder were serfs and servants. They were not subjects of law, but the owner was responsible for them. Thus, they were the owners of the feudal lord. If he committed theft, then the master paid. In the case of a beating by a serf, he could kill him “in the dog’s place”, i.e. like a dog. If a slave took refuge with his master, then the latter could protect him by paying 12 hryvnias, or hand him over for reprisal.

The law forbade sheltering runaway serfs.

Political system

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

The concept of government includes:

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

The formation of the ancient Russian state continued until the first third of the 12th century. It was an integral state based on the principle of suzerainty-vassalage. According to 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:

• the economic and political influence of the boyars on the 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 system of government in the center;
• availability of a feeding system in place.

It arose at a time when there were no prerequisites for the formation of a centralized state, with poorly developed trade and crafts, and the absence of strong economic ties between individual regions. The feudal lords needed a strong central authority to cover or support 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 Russia.

Kievan Rus was not a centralized state. It was a conglomerate of feudal estates-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. In case of violation of fidelity, the vassal was deprived of his possessions.

The supreme authorities in the Old Russian state were the Grand Duke, the 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;
• the implementation of campaigns to new lands, the capture of prisoners and the collection of tribute from them;
• maintaining normal foreign policy relations with the nomadic tribes of the south, the Byzantine Empire, and the countries of the East.

Initially, the Kyiv princes ruled only the Kyiv land. During the conquest of new lands, the Kyiv prince in the tribal centers left a thousand led by a thousand, a hundred led by a sot, smaller garrisons led by a tenth, which served as the city administration.

At the end of the 10th century, the functions of the power of the Grand Duke undergo changes. The feudal nature of the power of the prince 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 in order to ensure the security of borders;
• carries out legal proceedings;
• carries out the approval of the Christian religion and financially provides the clergy.

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

The princely power was exercised locally by posadniks, volostels and tiuns. By issuing laws, the prince consolidated new forms of feudal exploitation and established legal norms.

Thus, the prince becomes a typical monarch. The Grand Duke's throne was first inherited 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 separate functions from the prince. It consisted of the city elite (“the elders of the city”), large boyars, and influential palace servants. With the adoption of Christianity (988), representatives of the higher clergy entered the Council. It was an advisory body under the prince to resolve the most important state issues: declaring war, concluding peace, alliances, issuing laws, financial issues, and 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 (thousands, centurions, and tenths) system is gradually being replaced by the palace and patrimonial system. Separations between the organs of state administration and the management of the personal affairs of the prince disappear. The general term tiun is specified: “fireman” is called “fiery tiun”, “senior groom” - “tiun stableman”, “village and military headman” - “rural and military tiun”, etc.

With the complication of the tasks of public administration, the role of these positions has strengthened, the functions have been clarified, for example: “voivode” - head of the armed forces; “tiun equestrian” - responsible for providing the princely army with horses; “butler-fireman” - the manager of the princely court and performing certain state 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 nationwide or several principalities. The composition of the participants was basically the same as the Council under the prince, but the specific princes were also convened for feudal congresses.

The functions of the congress were:

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

The Lyubech congress of 1097 is known, which, having in mind the unification of efforts in the fight against external enemies, “the organization of the world”, recognized the independence of the specific princes (“let each one keep his fatherland”), at the same time called for observing Russia by all for “one”. Snem in 1100 in Uvetichi was engaged in the distribution of fiefs.

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 urban elite “the elders of the city”. Serfs and people subordinate to the householder were not allowed at the meeting.

It is known that the decision to kill Prince Igor for abuse of collecting tribute was made by the Drevlyans at their meeting.

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

The following questions were decided at the meeting:

- convocation and recruitment of the people's militia and the choice of leader;

- protested against the policies of the prince.

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

Local governments were initially local princes, who were later replaced by the sons of the Kyiv prince. In some less important cities, posadnik-governors were appointed, thousands of the Kyiv prince from his entourage.

The local administration was maintained at the expense of part of the extortions from the population. Therefore, the posadnik and volosteli were called “feeders”, and the management system was called the “feeding” system.

The power of the prince and his administration extended to the townspeople and the population of lands that were not captured by the feudal lords. The feudal lords received immunity - legal registration dominion power. In the immunity (defensive) charter, the land granted to the feudal lord and the rights to the population, which were obliged to be subordinate, were determined.

In the Old Russian state, the court was not separated from the administrative power. The supreme court was the Grand Duke. He judged combatants and boyars, considered complaints against local judges. The prince conducted the analysis of complex cases at a council or veche. Individual cases could be entrusted to a boyar or a tyun.

In the localities, the court was carried out by the posadnik and volosteli.

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

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

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

1. Development of Old Russian feudal law

In the Old Russian state, the source of law, as in many early feudal states, is a legal custom inherited from the primitive communal system. The "Tale of Bygone Years" notes that the tribes had "their 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 significance. During the time of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich (978/980-1015), legislation expressing the interests of feudal lords, affirming feudal principles and the influence of the church, was becoming increasingly important.

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 statutory charter, which was given to the Church of the Holy Mother of God. The original has not come down to 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) the patron of the church (protects the church and provides it financially);

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

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

The statutory charter was drawn up under the strong influence of the Byzantine church, as evidenced by the content of the articles in terms of determining the corpus delicti.

The purpose of the charter is the approval of the Christian Church in the Old Russian state. The provision of the charter of Vladimir “On tithes, courts and church people” is aimed at:

• the preservation of the family and marriage, the assertion of the inviolability of family ties;
• protection of the church, church symbols and Christian church order;
• struggle against pagan rites.

The collections of Byzantine church law (nomocanons) common in the Old Russian state had great importance. Subsequently, on their basis, with the involvement of norms from Russian and Bulgarian sources in Russia, "helmsman" (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 ninth century gains development and secular law. Collections of law appear, containing the legal material accumulated by the princely and communal courts. More than 110 such collections have come down to us in various lists. These collections were called "Russian Truth" or "Russian Law". By Russian historians, they are united by similarity among themselves in 3 editions:

1. Short Truth (KP).
2. Long Truth (PP).
3. Abbreviated Truth (SP).

Some lists are named after their location:

• Synodal - kept in the library of the Synod;
• Trinity - was 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. 11th century

Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054), therefore known as the Truth of Yaroslav. It contains norms of customary law (for example, blood feud), 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 the son of Yaroslav Izyaslav reigned in Kyiv (1054-1072). The truth of the Yaroslavichs reflects a higher level of development of the feudal state: princely property and administration are protected; instead of blood feud, a monetary penalty is established, and it is different, depending on the class position.

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

1. The charter of Yaroslav, including a short truth (see Art. 1-52) “Court Yaroslavl Volodemerech”.
2. The Charter of Vladimir Monomakh (see Articles 53-121) “The Charter of Volodemer Vsevolodovich”.

In this document:

• feudal right is fully formalized as a privilege;
• civil law, criminal law, judicial system and legal proceedings are regulated in more detail;
• articles appeared on the protection of the boyar patrimony, on the relationship between feudal lords and purchases, and on smerds.

The abbreviated truth arose in the 15th century. from the Long Truth and acted in the Muscovite state.

In addition to Russkaya Pravda, the sources of secular law in Russia are Russian-Byzantine treaties, which contain not only norms international law but also the norms governing the inner life. 4 treaties of Russia with Byzantium are known: 907, 911, 944 and 971. The treaties testify to the high international prestige 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 civil law norms, especially obligations and inheritance.

Let us briefly consider the content of Russkaya Pravda according to the scheme:

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

In Brief Truth there is no general term for the right of 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 Articles 13-14 of the CP).

In "Russkaya Pravda" considerable attention is paid to the protection of the private property of feudal lords. Strict liability is provided for damage to boundary marks, plowing the boundary, for arson, cutting down a side tree. Of property crimes, much attention is paid to theft (“tatba”), i.e. secret theft of things.

The Spacious Pravda enshrines the feudal lords' ownership of serfs, including the procedure for finding, detaining, returning a runaway serf, and establishing responsibility for harboring a serf. The one who gave the serf bread (equally for harboring) had to pay the price of the serf - 5 hryvnias of silver (serfs cost from 5 to 12 hryvnias). The one who caught the serf received a reward - 1 hryvnia, but if he missed it, then he paid the price of the serf minus 1 hryvnia (see Art. 113, 114).

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

By law, only sons could inherit. The father's court without division passed to the youngest son. (Art. 100 PP). Daughters were deprived of the right to inherit, tk. when they got married, they could take property outside their clan. This custom existed among all peoples during the transitional period from the primitive communal system to a class society. It was also reflected in Russian Truth.

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

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

Until the age of majority of the heirs, their mother disposed of the inheritance property. If a widow mother got married, she received part of the property “for a living”. In this case, a guardian from the next of kin was appointed. The property was transferred in the presence 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 the property between his sons as he saw fit, but he could not bequeath it 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 the fence, illegal riding of someone else's horse, damage to clothing or weapons, death of the master's horse through the fault of the purchase, etc. In these cases, there was not a civil claim (compensation), but a fine. Obligations extended not only to the property of the debtor, but also to his personality.

According to Russkaya Pravda, a conscientious bankrupt (merchant) was not sold into slavery, but received an installment plan from the creditor. A malicious bankrupt was sold with all his property into slavery.

Russkaya Pravda also reflected the obligation from treaties. Agreements, as a rule, were concluded orally in the presence of rumors or mytnik (witnesses). In Russkaya Pravda, contracts were known: purchase and sale, loan, luggage (loan agreement between merchants), personal hiring, purchasing.

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

A feature of Russkaya Pravda is that it punishes only for intentional crimes or causing harm. (Crimes committed through negligence were reflected only in the 17th century in the “Cathedral Code”). In Russkaya Pravda, a crime is called an “insult”, which refers to the infliction of moral, material or physical damage. This followed from the understanding of “offense” in antiquity, when inflicting offense on an individual meant insulting a tribe, community or clan. But with the formation of feudalism, compensation for damage for a crime (offense) did not go in favor of society, but of the prince.

Only free people were responsible. The owner was responsible for the serfs. “If the thieves are serfs…whom the prince does not punish by sale, because they are not free people, then for the theft of serfs double fixed prices and compensation for losses” (Article 46).

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

a) crimes against the person;

b) crimes against property or property crimes;

The first group includes murder, assault, bodily harm, beatings.

There was a difference between murder in a quarrel (fight) or in a state of intoxication (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, together with his wife and children, to “stream and ruin”.

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

Bodily injuries included wounding the hand (“so that the hand falls off and dries out”), damage to the leg (“it starts to limp”), eyes, nose, and cutting off the fingers of the hand. Beatings included beating a person to the point of blood and bruises.

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

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

Robbery associated with murder was punished with “flood and ruin”. According to Russkaya Pravda, theft is considered to be the abduction of a horse, a serf, weapons, clothing, livestock, hay, firewood, a boat, etc. For the theft of a horse, a “horse thief” was supposed to issue a professional horse thief to a prince for “flow and ruin” (Article 35).

For a simple (one-time) theft of a princely horse, a penalty of 3 hryvnias was supposed, a smerd - 2 hryvnias (Article 45). A thief could be killed on the spot (v. 40). But if he was tied up, then killed, then 12 hryvnias were collected.

Punishments according to Russkaya Pravda provided, first of all, compensation for damages. Yaroslav's Pravda provided for blood feud on the part of the victim's relatives (Article 1). Yaroslavichi canceled the blood feud.

Instead of revenge for the murder of a free man, a vira was established - a monetary penalty in the amount of 40 hryvnias. 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, not a vira was collected, but a fine (lesson) in the amount of 5 hryvnias.

Among the monetary penalties for the murder - vira in favor of the prince and golovnichestvo (usually vira) in favor of the family of the murdered, 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 penalty 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, robbery and malicious bankruptcy.

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

The evidence was the testimony of rumors, vidakov, ordeals, court fights, an oath.

The figure of the prince arose as a result of the evolution of the power that belonged to the tribal leader, but the princes of the period of military democracy were elected. Having become the head of state, the Grand Duke transfers his power by inheritance, in a direct descending line, i.e. from father to son. Usually the princes were men, but an exception is known - Princess Olga.

Although the Grand Dukes were monarchs, yet they could not do without listening to the opinions of those close to them. So there was a council under the prince, which was not legally formalized in any way, but which had a serious influence on the monarch. The council included close associates of the Grand Duke, the top of his squad - princely men. Sometimes in the ancient Russian state feudal congresses were convened, in which large feudal lords took part. The congresses resolved inter-princely disputes and some other issues. It has been suggested in the literature that at one of these congresses the Truth of the Yaroslavichs, an important component of the Russian Truth, was adopted. Existed in the Old Russian state and veche, which grew out of the ancient people's assembly. His activity was especially high in Novgorod.

Initially, in Kievan Rus, a decimal, or numerical, control system was used, which grew out of a military organization, in which the heads of military units - tenth, hundredth, thousandth - were the leaders of more or less large units of the state. So, Tysyatsky retained the functions of a military commander, and Sotsky became a city judicial and administrative official. Over time, however, the decimal system gave way to the palace and patrimonial system, which grew out of the idea of ​​combining the management of the grand duke's palace with state administration. In the economy of the Grand Duke there were various kinds of servants who were in charge of its individual branches (butlers, stables, etc.). Over time, the princes began to instruct them to conduct certain affairs throughout the state, endowing them with appropriate powers.

The system of local government was simple. In addition to the local princes who were sitting in their destinies, representatives of the central government were sent to the places - governors and volostels. They did not receive salaries from the treasury for their service, but "fed" at the expense of the local population, from which they collected, not forgetting themselves, a tribute in favor of the prince. Thus, a feeding system developed in Russia, which far outlived the Old Russian state (in the Muscovite state it was canceled only in the middle of the 16th century).

The basis of the military organization of Kievan Rus was the grand ducal squad, which was relatively small in number. These were professional warriors who depended on the mercy of the prince. But he also depended on them. The combatants were not only warriors, but also advisers to the prince. The senior squad represented the top of the class of feudal lords and to a large extent determined the policy of the prince, internal and external. Vassals of the Grand Duke, appearing at his call to Kyiv, brought with them squads, as well as a militia, consisting of their servants and peasants. Every man had to own a weapon. Boyar and princely sons were put on a horse already at the age of three, and at the age of 12 their fathers took them on campaigns. Feeling the need to build up military force, Kyiv princes often resorted to the services of mercenaries - first the Varangians, then the steppe nomads (Karakalpaks, etc.)

In ancient Russia there were no special judicial bodies. Judicial functions were performed by representatives of the administration, including its head, the Grand Duke. However, there were special officials who helped in the administration of justice. Among them are, for example, virniki, who collected criminal fines for murder. Virnikov, when they were on duty, was accompanied by a whole retinue of minor officials. Judicial functions were also performed by the church and individual feudal lords, who had the right to judge people dependent on them (patrimonial justice). The judicial powers of the feudal lord were an integral part of his immunity rights.

The management of the state, the conduct of wars, the satisfaction of the personal needs of the Grand Duke and his entourage required, of course, considerable funds. In addition to income from their own lands, the princes established a system of taxes and tribute. At first, these were voluntary donations from members of the tribe to their prince and his squad, but then they become a mandatory tax. The payment of tribute has become a sign of submission (hence the word "subject" i.e. being under tribute, subject to it). Tribute was collected by polyudia, when the princes, usually once a year, traveled around the lands subject to them and collected income from their subjects. There were no conflicts. The sad fate of the Grand Duke Igor, who was killed by the Drevlyans for excessive extortions, was known, which forced his widow, Princess Olga, to streamline taxation. She established the so-called churchyards - special tribute collection points (usually it was a large village). The population paid taxes in furs, which were a kind of monetary unit. Their value as a means of payment did not disappear even when they, while retaining the princely sign, lost their presentation. Foreign currency was also used, which was melted down into Russian grivnas.

An important element of the political system of ancient Russian society was the church, which from the moment of the baptism of Russia was closely connected with the state. At first, Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich tried to use the pagan cult for state interests, establishing a hierarchy of pagan gods headed by Perun, the god of thunder and war, but then he switched to the Christian religion and baptized Russia. According to legend, he thought for a long time before making a choice in favor of Orthodoxy.

The baptism of Russia took place largely by force, especially in the northern Russian lands, where the population did not want to renounce the faith of their fathers and grandfathers. One way or another, but as soon as Russia adopted Christianity, the church organization began to grow, and soon the church declared itself not only as a large (collective) feudal lord, but also as a force that contributed to the strengthening of domestic statehood. At the head of the Orthodox Church was the Metropolitan of Kyiv, appointed at that time from Byzantium, the center of Orthodoxy. Then the princes of Kyiv began to appoint him. In some Russian lands, the church organization was headed by bishops.

1.5. Legal system

Sources of law. The emergence of the Old Russian state was naturally accompanied by the formation of Old Russian law, historically the first source of which was legal customs - the norms of the customs of pre-class society, sanctioned by the emerging state. Among them you can find blood feud, the principle of talion - "equal for equal". The totality of these norms of the annals and other ancient documents is called the "Russian Law".

The first written monuments of ancient Russian law that have come down to us were the agreements between Russia and Byzantium. Concluded after successful military campaigns, these treaties were of an international legal nature, but at the same time they reflected the norms of the Russian Law. (From these treaties, we, in fact, know about the main content of ancient Russian customary law).

Princely legislation as a source of law appears in Russia in the tenth century. Of particular importance are the statutes of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Yaroslav, who made changes to the current financial, family and criminal law. The largest monument of ancient Russian law is Russkaya Pravda, which retained its significance in subsequent (beyond Kyiv) periods of Russian history.

Russian Pravda was compiled over a long period of time (in the 11th-11th centuries), but some of its articles go back to pagan antiquity. For the first time, its text was discovered by V.N. Tatishchev in 1738. Now more than a hundred of its lists are known, which differ significantly from each other in terms of volume, structure, and content. The legal monument is usually divided into three editions (large groups of articles, united chronologically and semantic content): Short, Long and Abbreviated. 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 Truth includes the first 18 articles of the Brief Edition and is entirely devoted to criminal law. Most likely, it was compiled when there was a struggle for the throne of Kyiv between Yaroslav and his brother Svyatopolk (1015-1019). The mercenary Varangian squad of Yaroslav dealt with the Novgorodians, thereby laying the foundation for a protracted and unprofitable conflict for Yaroslav. In an effort to appease the Novgorodians, he "gave" them Pravda, commanding them to "walk according to her letter."

The truth of the Yaroslavichs includes the following two dozen articles of the Brief Edition (the so-called Academic List). As it is clear from its title, the collection was developed by the three sons of Yaroslav the Wise with the participation of their closest associates. The composition of the text dates back to about the middle of the 11th century. From the second half of the same century, a lengthy edition began to take shape, which took shape in the final version in the 12th century. In terms of the level of development of legal institutions, this is already the next stage in the development of Old Russian law, although, along with new regulations, the Long Truth also includes modified norms of the Brief Edition. It presents criminal and inheritance law, thoroughly developed the legal status of various categories of the population. By the XIII-XIV centuries. includes the emergence of the Abridged Edition, which is a selection of articles of the Long Truth, adapted to regulate the more developed social relations of the period of political fragmentation in Russia.

In addition to Russkaya Pravda, which stood at the center of the legal system of the Old Russian state, in the era of Kievan Rus, church charters of princes Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise were known from legal sources, from which the history of church legislation came, as well as articles from legal collections of other Slavic peoples. Used, for example, "Law Judgment people" from Bulgaria. The Pilot's Books, Byzantine collections of ecclesiastical and civil decrees, mostly related to the field of family and marriage law, also had significance.

The whole set of legal customs and laws that were in force in Russia created the basis for a fairly developed system of ancient Russian law. Like any feudal right, it was a right-privilege, i.e. the law provided for the inequality of people belonging to different social groups. So, the serf had almost no rights. The legal capacity of smerds, especially purchases, was very limited. But the law took the rights and privileges of the top of the feudal society under enhanced protection.

Civil law. Russkaya Pravda and other sources of ancient Russian law quite clearly distinguish between two main parts of civil law - the right of ownership and the law of obligations. The right of ownership arises with the establishment of feudalism and feudal ownership of land. Feudal property is formalized in the form of a princely domain (land property belonging to a given princely family), a boyar or monastic estate. In the Brief Edition of Russian Pravda, the inviolability of feudal land ownership is fixed. In addition to ownership of land, it also speaks of the ownership of other things - horses, draft animals, serfs, etc.

As for the law of obligations, Russkaya Pravda knows obligations from contracts and obligations from causing harm. Moreover, the latter merge with the concept of crime and are called resentment.

Old Russian law of obligations is characterized by foreclosure not only on property, but also on the person of the debtor, and sometimes even on his wife and children. The main types of contracts were contracts of exchange, sale, loan, luggage, personal hiring. Agreements were concluded orally, but in the presence of witnesses - rumors. The purchase and sale of land apparently required a written form. When selling a stolen item, the transaction was considered invalid, and the buyer had the right to claim damages.

The loan agreement is most fully regulated in Russian Pravda. In 1113, there was an uprising of the lower classes of Kyiv against usurers, and Vladimir Monomakh, called by the boyars to save the situation, took measures to streamline the collection of interest on debts. The law in the form of an object of a loan names not only money, but also bread, honey. There are three types of loans:

an ordinary (household) loan, a loan made between merchants (with simplified formalities), and a loan with self-mortgage - purchasing. There are different types of interest depending on the term of the loan. Interest collection period is limited to two years. If the debtor paid interest within three years, then he had the right not to return the amount owed to the creditor. The short-term loan entailed the highest interest rate.

Marriage and family law. It developed in Ancient Russia in accordance with canonical rules. Initially, there were customs associated with a pagan cult. One of the forms of individual marriage in the pagan era was the kidnapping of the bride (including imaginary), the other was the purchase. Polygamy was quite widespread. (According to The Tale of Bygone Years, then men had two or three wives, and Grand Duke Vladimir Svyatoslavich had five wives and several hundred concubines before baptism). With the introduction of Christianity, new principles of family law are established - monogamy, the difficulty of divorce, the lack of rights for illegitimate children, cruel punishments for extramarital affairs.

According to the Church Charter of Yaroslav, a monogamous family becomes an object of protection from the church. Members of such a family, primarily the wife, enjoy her full patronage. Marriage was necessarily preceded by betrothal, which was considered indissoluble. The marriageable age was low (14-15 years for a man and 12-13 years for a woman). The church demanded a wedding as an indispensable condition for the legality of marriage. The legislation of Ancient Russia consistently defended the free will of the spouses, establishing the responsibility of those parents who either marry off their daughter without her consent, or prevent their daughter from marrying. Divorce was possible only if there were reasons listed in the Church Charter.

The question of property relations between spouses is not entirely clear. It is obvious, however, that the wife had a certain property independence. The law allowed property disputes between spouses. The wife retained ownership of her dowry and could pass it on through inheritance.

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

Inheritance law. The concept of inheritance arises directly with the advent of private property; at the same time, the inheritance law of the Eastern Slavs, which became widespread after the formation of the Old Russian state, retained many features of patriarchal relations. When inheriting by law, i.e. without a will, the sons of the deceased had the benefits. In their presence, the daughters did not receive anything (the heirs were only obliged to marry the sisters). The hereditary mass was divided, obviously, equally, but the youngest son had the advantage - he received his father's court. Illegitimate children did not have hereditary rights, but if their mother was a robe-concubine, then they received freedom along with her. The right of the father to dispose of property in the preparation of a will was not limited. The exception to this rule was that he could not bequeath his daughter's property.

Criminal law. In the Old Russian state, a crime was called an insult. This meant causing any harm to the victim. But harm, as you know, can be caused by both a crime and a civil violation (tort). Thus, Russkaya Pravda did not distinguish between a crime and a civil violation.

The criminal law of the period under review was feudal. The life, honor, property of serfs were not protected by law. The benefits belonging to the feudal lords were defended especially zealously: for the murder of a feudal lord, a fine of 80 hryvnia was established, and for a smerd only 5 hryvnia. Kholops were not recognized as subjects of law at all. Art. 46 of Russian Pravda says that if the serfs turn out to be thieves, then the prince does not punish them with a fine, since they are not free (and because of this, as the legislator probably believes, they can commit theft at the instigation of their master). The owner of such a serf was obliged to pay double remuneration to the victim. In some cases, the victim could deal with the serf-offender himself, without turning to state bodies, up to the murder of the serf who encroached on a free person.

Russian Truth does not know the age limits of criminal liability, the concept of insanity. The state of intoxication does not exclude liability. But Russian Pravda knows the concept of complicity. The problem is solved simply: all accomplices in the crime are equally responsible.

Russian Truth distinguishes between liability depending on the subjective side of the crime. It does not distinguish between intent and negligence, but distinguishes between two types of intent - direct and indirect. This is noted with responsibility for murder: murder during the settling of scores is punishable by the highest measure of punishment - flood and plunder, while murder in a "marriage" (fight) - only vira. On the subjective side, liability for bankruptcy also differs: only intentional bankruptcy is considered criminal. The state of passion excludes, according to the norms of Russian Truth, liability. As for the objective side of criminal acts, the vast majority of crimes are committed through action. Only in very few cases is criminal inaction punishable (concealment of a find, prolonged failure to return a debt).

Russian Truth knows only two generic objects of the crime - the personality of a person and his property. Hence, there are only two kinds of crimes. But each genus includes quite a variety of types of criminal acts. Among the crimes against the person should be called murder, bodily harm, beatings, insult by action. Princely statutes also know verbal insult, where the object of the crime is mainly the honor of a woman. In the statutes of princes Vladimir Svyatoslavich and Yaroslav, one can find references to sexual crimes.

Among property crimes, Russian Truth pays the most attention to theft (tatba). Horse theft was considered the most serious type of tatba. The criminal destruction of other people's property by arson is also known, punishable by flood and plunder. The princely statutes provided for crimes against the church, as well as against family relations. The Church, planting a new form of marriage, with the help of criminal law, fought hard against the remnants of pagan rites.

In Russian Pravda there are no indications of either state or malfeasance. But this does not mean that speeches against princely power went unpunished. Simply in such cases, direct reprisals were used without trial or investigation. Just remember what Princess Olga did with the murderers of her husband.

Court and judiciary. In the Old Russian state, the court was not separated from the administration. Posadniks and other officials who administer justice received a certain part of the vir and sales collected during the consideration of cases. In addition, they were also rewarded by the parties - participants in the process. The supreme court was the Grand Duke.

Old Russian law did not yet know the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings, although some procedural actions could only be applied in criminal cases (persecution, code). In any case, both in criminal and civil cases, an adversarial (accusatory) process was used, in which the parties were equal. Both parties in the process were called plaintiffs. (Researchers believe that the inquisitorial, investigative process with all its attributes, including torture, was also used in the church court).

Russkaya Pravda knows two specific procedural forms of pre-trial preparation of a case - persecution of a trace and a set. Pursuing a trace is the search for a criminal in his footsteps. If the trail led to the house of a specific person, it means that he is a criminal, if to a village, the community is responsible, if he is lost on a high road, the search for the criminal stops.

If neither the lost thing nor the thief is found, the victim has no choice but to resort to a cry, i.e. declare missing in the market place in the hope that someone will identify the stolen or lost property from another person. A person who is found to have lost property may, however, claim that he acquired it in a lawful manner, for example, he bought it. Then the bridging process begins. The owner of the property must prove the good faith of its acquisition, i.e. indicate the person from whom he acquired this item. At the same time, the testimony of two witnesses and a collector of trade duties is sufficient.

The law provides for a certain system of evidence, including testimony. There are two categories of witnesses - vidoki and rumors. The first are witnesses in the modern sense of the word, eyewitnesses of the incident. Rumors are a more complex category. These are people who heard about what happened from someone who has second-hand information. Sometimes rumors were also understood as witnesses of the good glory of the parties. They were supposed to show that the defendant or the plaintiff are respectable people who are trustworthy. In some civil and criminal cases, a certain number of witnesses were required (for example, two witnesses when concluding a contract of sale, two witnesses when insulting by action). In other words, there is an element of formalism in the use of witness testimony.

In the Old Russian state, a whole system of formal proofs appeared - ordeals. Among them should be called a judicial duel - "field". The one who won the duel won the case, because it was believed that God helps the right. In Russkaya Pravda and other laws of the Kievan state, the "field" is not mentioned, but other sources, including foreign ones, speak of practical application in Russia this type of ordeals.

Another type of "God's judgment" was iron and water trials. The iron test was used when other evidence was lacking, and in more serious cases than the water test. Russkaya Pravda, devoting three articles to ordeals, does not disclose the technique of their implementation. According to later sources, however, it can be concluded that if a person, bound and thrown into the water, began to drown, then he was considered to have won the case. A special type of evidence was an oath - "company". In some cases, external signs and physical evidence had probative value.

In Russkaya Pravda, certain forms of enforcement of a court decision are visible, for example, the recovery of vira from the murderer. A special official, the virnik, came to the convict's house with a large and armed retinue and "patiently" waited for him to pay the fine, receiving a plentiful natural allowance every day. It was more profitable for the criminal to get rid of his debt and get rid of unpleasant "guests" as quickly as possible.

For the bulk of the crimes, the punishment was "sale" - a criminal fine.

2. STATE AND LAW OF RUSSIA IN THE PERIOD OF SPECIFIC GOVERNMENT (XII-XIV CENTURIES). FORMATION OF THE RUSSIAN CENTRALIZED STATE

2.1. Prerequisites for political fragmentation

In the middle of the XII century. The Old Russian state broke up into twelve specific principalities. This was the political result of the further development of feudalism, the strengthening of feudal ownership of land, the establishment of feudal rent as a means of exploiting the peasantry. The decline in the share of international trade, which was carried out along the path "from the Varangians to the Greeks" through Kyiv, the cessation of the conquering campaigns of the Kievan princes, which enriched the nobility, weakened the importance of Kyiv as the political and economic center of the Russian lands. The attempts of the Kyiv princes to stop the process of disintegration of Kievan Rus through feudal congresses did not bring success. One by one, the lands began to be liberated from the power of Kyiv, local feudal lords began to pursue their own policy, often different from the national, Kiev one. In an effort to expand their land holdings, local feudal lords and princes seized neighboring lands, which intensified civil strife and feudal strife. Gradually, new economic and political centers - Novgorod, Smolensk, Galich, Ryazan and others - are being strengthened. New era characterized by the spread of arable farming, the three-field system begins to take hold. Crafts are developing in the cities, and the number of craft specialties is growing. Cities become centers of the surrounding territories, military strongholds. However, under the dominance of natural economy, the development of commodity production had its limits: trade ties between the principalities were fragile and unstable.

The increase in productivity in agriculture and handicrafts led to an increase in the value of land. The feudal lords now saw in the land the main source of their enrichment. The desire of the feudal lords to expand their land holdings is sharply increasing. In such conditions, the grand princely power, in an effort to strengthen its position, widely practices the distribution of land to those close to it. The result ultimately turned out to be the opposite: the growth of large feudal landownership and the assistance of the central government to it weakened the throne of Kyiv and led to the collapse state unity Kievan Rus. Having become the owners of vast land holdings, local princes and boyars gained independence both economically and politically. The real power of the Kyiv princes quickly declined and was gradually limited to the territory of the Kyiv principality itself, although nominally Kyiv continued to be considered an all-Russian "capital city".

The collapse of state unity, the economic and political isolation of individual principalities and lands is a natural stage in the development of the feudal system. But, on the other hand, the transition to feudal fragmentation, the dismemberment of the Old Russian state weakened the resistance to external pressure and facilitated (later) the conquest of Russia by the Tatar-Mongols.

After the collapse of the Old Russian state, the location of the principality and the level of feudalization of its economic life were of great importance for the economic and political development of its individual parts. The political forms of domestic statehood during the period of appanage rule were diverse - from strong princely power to the republican system. The main variants are connected with the history of Vladimir (Rostovo)-Suzdal and Galicia-Volyn principalities, Novgorod and Pskov feudal republics.

2.2. Vladimir-Suzdal Principality

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality is a typical example of the Russian principality of the period of feudal fragmentation. Occupying a large territory - from the Northern Dvina to the Oka and from the sources of the Volga to its confluence with the Oka, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus eventually became the center around which the Russian lands united, the Russian centralized state. Moscow was founded on its territory. The growth of the influence of this large principality was largely facilitated by the fact that it was there that the grand ducal title passed from Kyiv. All Vladimir-Suzdal princes, descendants of Vladimir Monomakh, from Yuri Dolgoruky (1125-1157) to Daniil of Moscow (1276-1303) bore this title. The metropolitan see was also moved there. After the ruin of Kyiv by Batu in 1240, to replace the Greek Joseph, the Patriarch of Constantinople appointed Metropolitan Kirill, a Russian by origin, as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who, during his trips to the dioceses, clearly preferred North-Eastern Russia. The next Metropolitan Maxim in 1299, "not enduring the violence of the Tatars," finally left Kyiv and "sitting in Volodymyr with all his clergy." He was also the first of the metropolitans to be called the metropolitan of "All Russia".

Rostov Veliky and Suzdal, two ancient Russian cities, were given from ancient times by the great Kievan princes as inheritances to their sons. Vladimir founded in 1108 Vladimir Monomakh and gave it as an inheritance to his son Andrei. The city became part of the Rostov-Suzdal Principality, where the princely throne was occupied by Andrei's elder brother, Yuri Dolgoruky, after whose death his son Andrei Bogolyubsky (1157-1174) transferred the capital of the principality from Rostov to Vladimir. Since then, the Vladimir-Suzdal Principality has its origins.

The Vladimir-Suzdal principality did not retain its unity and integrity for long. Soon after its rise under Grand Duke Vsevolod the Big Nest (1176-1212), it broke up into small principalities. In the 70s. 13th century the Moscow principality also became independent.

social order. The structure of the class of feudal lords in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality differed little from that in Kyiv. However, here a new category of petty feudal lords arises - the so-called boyar children. In the XII century. there is also a new term - "nobles". The ruling class also included the clergy, which in all Russian lands of the period of feudal fragmentation, including the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, retained its organization, which was built according to the church charters of the first Russian Christian princes - St. Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise. Having conquered Russia, the Tatar-Mongols left the organization of the Orthodox Church unchanged. They confirmed the privileges of the church with khan's labels. The oldest of them, issued by Khan Mengu-Temir (1266-1267), guaranteed the inviolability of faith, worship and church canons, retained the jurisdiction of the clergy and other church persons to church courts (with the exception of cases of robbery, murder, exemption from taxes, duties and duties). The metropolitan and bishops of the Vladimir land had their own vassals - the boyars, the children of the boyars and the nobles, who carried out their military service.

Acquaintance with the stages of formation of the ancient Russian state and law. "Russkaya Pravda" as a collection of legal norms of Kievan Rus. General characteristics of the activities of the monk-chronicler of the Kiev Caves Monastery and one of the first Russian historians Nestor.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Old Russianstate and law (IX-12th century)

Old Russian state legal norm

1. The formation of the ancient Russian state and law

Story Russian state begins with a series of small state formations with unstable borders and weak power of rulers. Each Slavic tribe (Polyans, Drevlyans, Krivichi, etc.) had its own reign, its own territory, its own power of the people's assembly (vecha), its own prince, its own system of customs, and voluntarily established one or another relationship with neighboring tribes.

The area occupied by the tribe was called "land". The lands were divided into "parishes", called the names of cities - the political centers of the volosts. The main city of the "land" in relation to the younger cities was called the "senior city", there was the residence of the prince. Four categories were distinguished in the composition of the population of the tribal Russian territories: priests-sorcerers, princes, free people and slaves.

One of the first Russian historians, the monk-chronicler of the Kiev Caves Monastery Nestor (late 11th - early 12th centuries) in The Tale of Bygone Years tells of the creation in the 6th century. a large union of Slavic tribes in the middle Dnieper region, which adopted the name of one of the tribes "ros" or "rus". Already in the VIII - IX centuries. this union united several dozen Slavic tribes with a center in Kyiv and occupied a significant territory, not inferior in size to the Byzantine Empire.

The Novgorod chronicle tells about the elder Gostomysl, who headed the Slavic association around Novgorod. According to Eastern sources, on the eve of the formation of the Old Russian state, three major political centers were formed on this territory, which can be considered proto-state associations: Kuyavia (the southern group of Slavic tribes with a center in Kyiv), Slavia (the northern group with a center in Novgorod) and Artania (southeastern group, presumably the region of Ryazan). And although the statehood among the Slavs was still primitive, it became the basis, the foundation for the formation of the Old Russian state.

The prevailing conditions for the creation of the state required appropriate formalization. According to the author of The Tale of Bygone Years, the warring tribes of the Ilmen Slavs, Krivichi and Chud invited the Varangian prince to restore order: “Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it. Yes, go to reign and rule over us. Prince Rurik arrived with the brothers Sineus and Truvor. He himself ruled in Novgorod, and his brothers - in Beloozero and Izborsk. The Varangians laid the foundation for the grand ducal dynasty of Rurikovich, which ruled in Russia until the end of the 16th century.

In historical and legal science, there are several theories of the origin of the Old Russian state: tribal, tribal, communal, friendly life, volost, Norman and others. As you can see, they are distinguished by the difference in the definition of the main element that became the basis of the state: clan, zadruga (a settled clan, where blood principles still prevail over territorial ones), community, etc.

Closer to the truth is the zemstvo theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state, put forward by the historian of Russian law M.F. Vladimirsky-Budanov, who lived in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. In his opinion, these elements of the state (genus, friend, etc.) were consistently experienced by the ancient Eastern Slavs in the process of the formation of the state, characterized by the weakening of blood principles and the predominance of territorial ones. As a result, a state was formed - the land, which is a union of volosts and suburbs under the authority of the older city.

Thus, the main element of the state was not princely or tribal relations, but territorial ones. According to the zemstvo theory, the summoned Varangian princes found everywhere in Russia a ready-made state system, which once again proves the inconsistency of the Norman theory of the origin of the Old Russian state (recall that its essence lies in the fact that the Slavs themselves were not able to create a state, and they did it in 862, allegedly more cultured, more developed Varangians (Normans); however, as M.V. Lomonosov proved, the fact of calling the Varangians can only testify to the Norman origin of the princely dynasty, and not statehood, which cannot be introduced from outside to unprepared soil) . The first Russian states, and then Kiev, arose as a result of the internal socio-economic development of the Eastern Slavs, and not under the influence of external circumstances.

The conquests of the Varangian princes were made by conquering the central city of the land - in this way, in 882, Kyiv land was annexed by Prince Oleg, as a result of which Kyiv became the center of the state - Kievan Rus.

The strengthening of the Kievan state falls on the reign of Vladimir I. The adoption of Christianity (988) and its spread throughout Kievan Rus strengthened the power of the Kievan prince. A church hierarchy was established: a metropolitan, sent by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, began to live in Kyiv. Bishops subordinate to the metropolitan were appointed in the cities. Churches and monasteries were built throughout Russia. The power of the metropolitan united all the clergy of the country.

After the death of Prince Vladimir, as a result of a fierce bloody struggle with his brothers, his son Yaroslav the Wise became the Grand Duke of Kyiv. During his reign, Kievan Rus turned into a huge power with a diverse population.

2.State system

Even before the calling of the Varangians, state power in the Russian lands included 3 elements: monarchical (in the person of the prince), democratic (veche) and aristocratic (boyar duma).

Princely power is a primordial phenomenon of our history; its roots go back to patriarchal life.

At first, in the Kievan state, they were guided by the patrimonial (or ladder) principle of succession to the throne. The vacant throne was passed not to the eldest son, but to the eldest in the family, i.e. to the next brother of the father, and if he was not available, to the eldest nephew.

Thus, the son could count on the inheritance only after the death of older relatives. At the same time, the new Grand Duke moved to Kyiv from his former principality, along with his retinue and boyars, and other princes, in turn, moved in order of seniority to the principalities closest to Kyiv. Often this principle was violated, the situation became confused, causing irreconcilable hostility within the family and violent conflicts between relatives.

Gradually, the tradition of tribal inheritance began to be replaced by the principle of ancestry, i.e. transfer of the throne from father to son. This decision was made Lyubech congress Russian princes in 1097, held on the initiative of Vladimir Monomakh, the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise.

Veche was a form of direct participation of the people in the decision of state affairs. This is a collection of able-bodied inhabitants of the earth. Every free man had the right to come to the meeting, but it was not his duty.

The composition of veche assemblies was socially heterogeneous. Not only residents of the city, but also suburbs could take part in it.

Sources mention vechas in all ancient Russian lands. The ubiquity of this institution is due to the fact that only the consent of the whole people could ensure the implementation of this or that measure in the absence of a standing army and an organized police force. For the same reason unanimity is required for a decision in the assemblies: there was no means of enforcing the decision of the majority in spite of a strong minority.

Dividing opinions at the veche is not uncommon. The decision in such cases could take place only when the parties came to an agreement. The subject of discussion at the veche could be any issue of public life. Most often, at the veche, questions were decided on the calling and expulsion of princes, on an agreement with them, on military campaigns and on the conclusion of peace treaties.

Boyar Duma - a permanent council under the prince, elected from among his closest associates - princely husbands and boyars, who form the highest service class. The practical need for employees prompted the princes to attract as many people as possible who were strong in their social position (boyars). Often there were representatives of the clergy in the councils of princes, but their participation was not constant.

Management with the weakness of state power was extremely simple and undifferentiated. Dispatch of the court, military organization for the defense of the country, collection of revenues - these are the simple tasks of management. Its main body was the prince, who personally judges, leads the army and collects tribute, going around the country (polyudye). The closest assistants to the prince were his combatants, the elders (princely men and boyars) and the younger (youths, children, gridins, nobles). Since ancient times, princes have distributed cities to their husbands for administration and judgment. In this role, men are called posadniks and replace the prince in the given district, politically linking the circle with the capital city of which they are appointed prince. The decimal (numerical) control system and the princely proper were intertwined.

The army was divided into princely and popular: the first was the princely squad, and the senior warriors not only served personally, but introduced their own squads into the army. The people's army was the people's militia. His participation in campaigns depended on the decrees of the veche; in the event of the veche's refusal to help the prince, the latter undertook a campaign only with a retinue and those who wished from among the people.

The leader of the people's militia was a thousand, appointed by the prince (exception - Novgorod). The content of the troops in the campaigns was almost exclusively military booty, the enrichment of which attracted both princes with squads and eager people. Financial management was reduced mainly to the collection of tribute, which at first was in the form of a ransom, determined by the winner from the conquered peoples. In the middle of the 10th century, the size of the tribute was determined by charters and lessons, and it became an internal permanent tax.

So in the IX - XII centuries. the Old Russian state - Kievan Rus - was formed as the main institution of the political system of society, protecting its economic and social structures. The main features of this process were: the presence of a special system of bodies and institutions that exercised the functions of state power; the existence of a law that establishes a certain system of norms sanctioned by the state; the presence of a certain territory to which the jurisdiction of this state extended.

As we have already seen, the Grand Duke represented the central authority. The main military and fiscal force of the state was the retinue, which had intra-estate democracy. The state administration was formed from the retinue class. The senior squad was a noble boyar elite, the closest circle of the prince, the princely duma. From their number were appointed governors, townsmen, thousands. Representatives of the younger squad became the basis of the future class of service people. From their composition were nominated tiuns (managers of princely estates), tributaries, mytniks and other lower officials. So the Old Russian state sought to ensure its most important internal and external functions.

3. Social order

Russkaya Pravda contains rich factual material about the population of Kievan Rus and its legal status. The population of the ancient Russian state can be classified for various reasons, first of all, according to the status of freedom. Here we see three groups - free, not free and dependent.

To designate all the free people, the terms "lyudiya" (people) and "men" were used. Differences in positions were denoted by qualitative adjectives: lazy, deliberate, front, oldest - on the one hand, and smaller, thin, black people - on the other.

The non-free (serfs, robes, servants, white men) constituted another part of the population. The sources of slavery were captivity, birth from slaves, insolvency, when creditors did not agree to a deferral of debt payment, and certain types of crimes. In addition, a person could become a slave voluntarily as a result of self-sale, marriage to a non-free woman and upon entering the service as a tyun or a housekeeper; in the latter case, only a special treaty could preserve one's freedom.

Dependent - purchases and ryadovichi. Zakup - a person who took a loan, a ryadovich - who concluded an agreement under the guarantee of personal freedom. If they return or work off the debt, then they return to a free state, if not, they become serfs.

On an ethnic basis, in addition to the Slavs, we can distinguish aliens and foreigners. The last two elements poured into the population of Russia in two main ways: through immigration - from the west - the Varangians, from the east - the Turks, and through Slavic colonization in other countries.

On the basis of stratum, boyars, townspeople and smerds stood out.

The legal status of the population depended on several factors. With regard to gender, an essential distinguishing feature of Russian law is considered to be a possible approximation to the recognition of equal legal capacity for a man and a woman. As for age as the limit of the onset and termination of legal capacity, it is not indicated in Russkaya Pravda.

Foreigners and strangers had certain privileges. Foreigners in Ancient Russia were called residents of other Russian lands, strangers - residents of non-Russian countries. Art. The 55th Long Truth decides that in the event of a bankruptcy recovery from the debtor, the debt to the guest creditor, if such, of course, exists, should be paid first from his property, and then the remaining property is divided among “their” creditors.

An intermediate legal position between free and slaves was occupied by outcasts - persons deprived of their former social status: a freed serf, a peasant expelled from the community, an illiterate son of a priest, a bankrupt merchant, outcast princes.

Russian Truth protects the life of those close to the prince with a double vira: 40 hryvnias are paid for the murder of a smerd, and 80 hryvnias for the murder of a princely ognischan, tiuna, combatant.

4. Old Russian lawabout the state. "Russian Truth"

There are two points of view on the origin of Russian Pravda: 1) it is an official code of laws, a kind of code given by Yaroslav the Wise and supplemented by his sons and Vladimir Monomakh; 2) Russkaya Pravda is a series of collections compiled by private individuals from princely charters, customary law, and partly Byzantine sources.

A comparison of the surviving editions convinces us that Pravda is not an official collection. The external form of the monument (on behalf of the prince is nowhere mentioned and the princes are mentioned in the third person), the reworking of individual articles in the spirit of a gradual generalization of the rules contained in them, the variety of articles in different lists of the later edition, the inclusion in the lists of Russkaya Pravda of material that has no legal force, and sometimes a mixed exposition of her articles with articles from Byzantine sources - all this leaves no doubt that Pravda is the work of many individuals at different times.

Sources. It is known that the most ancient source of law of any nation is custom, tradition. A custom sanctioned by the government becomes customary law. In this regard, the Slavs were no exception. All this is clearly reflected in Russian Pravda.

The basis of the monument are princely statutes; it mentions the “lesson of Yaroslavl” on duties in favor of the virnik, the charter of Izyaslav on the vir for the head of the stableman, the charter of the three princes of Yaroslavich on the abolition of blood feud and the murder of a slave for insulting a free man, the charter of Vladimir Monomakh on interest. The Pravda included decrees of other princes not mentioned in it.

Princely statutes sometimes arose on private occasions, when the prince had to judge someone and pass a sentence that had no basis in previous statutes. Therefore, court verdicts can be recognized as a special source of Russian Truth. But judgments were based for the most part on customary law, collecting them, the compiler collected the actual rulings of customary law.

The compilers included in the collection selected individual decrees from the Byzantine codes. For example, the ruling on the responsibility of the master for the crime of a serf is taken from the Eclogue.

Speaking about the Byzantine sources of Russian Truth, it should be noted that the adoption of Christianity made a real revolution in all areas of the legal life of the Slavs, since customary Russian law in many respects contradicted Christian morality and church law.

Such a revolution could lead to the complete replacement of local law by someone else’s, but due to the stability of Russian customary law, it only led to the assimilation of church law and to a partial (moreover, creative) reception of some codes of secular Byzantine law, accompanied by their “adaptation” to the law of the Slavs.

Editions of Russian Truth. Russian Truth has come down to us in many manuscripts. In these lists, the name of the monument, the order and number of articles are different. However, three editions can be distinguished in them: Short, Long and Abbreviated (from the Long). There are 43 articles in the Short Pravda (KP), 121 in the Long Pravda (PP), and 50 in the Abbreviated Pravda (SP).

Ownership, obligation and inheritance law. In Russian Pravda, the term "cattle" is used, denoting money, property, and livestock proper. The right of ownership of movable things from ancient times was not limited: the owner could own, use and dispose of them up to their destruction. The right of ownership was recognized by the Slavs from ancient times, it also extended to immovable things, but in Russian Truth it is defined with respect to only movable things. The existence of an abstract concept of the right of ownership of immovable things in Kievan Rus is confirmed by the decrees of Russkaya Pravda on boundaries and borders (KP, Art. 34) and other signs of ownership.

Obligation law. In the era of Russian Truth, the concept of obligation as a right to act (or inaction) of another person had not yet developed. Instead of the right to actions of a person, the right to a person was practiced, which arose from the moment the obligation was concluded. Thus, under a loan agreement, usually (except for commercial transactions) there was a personal pledge of the debtor to the creditor (purchasing); the contract of personal employment led to the establishment of servitude. Responsibility for obligations fell only on the person, and not on his property.

Agreements, as a rule, were concluded orally, sometimes with the participation of witnesses (rumours). The deadlines for the fulfillment of obligations in certain cases could be postponed.

If the seller did not have the right of ownership to the thing he sold, then the contract became null and void. So, if a person sold his freedom, which no longer belonged to him (slave), the contract was broken with twofold consequences: if the buyer knew that he was acquiring a slave, he would lose his money, and if he did not know, the money would be returned to him (PP, art. 118).

The loan agreement mentioned in Russkaya Pravda is still close to hiring movable property. The subject of the loan could be not only money, but copper, livestock and other things (PP, art. 47 - 51, etc.). At the same time, the difference in the loan agreement was that the borrowed thing had to be returned in the form of a pre-negotiated measure, bill or weight. At the same time, as a rule, interest was discussed, which in Russkaya Pravda is called cut (when it was about money), nastav (about honey) or powder (about bread).

The deposit agreement, according to Russian Truth, is more of a moral service than an obligation, and exempts from the formality of concluding it in front of witnesses. If the one who gave his property for storage accused the receiver of concealing things (or parts of them), then the latter had to take an oath (PP, Art. 49).

Inheritance law. The historical basis of the right of inheritance was the unions of individuals, primarily families and clans. During the period of Russkaya Pravda, only family members had this right: the will of the testator was subject to this order. The testator could not bequeath property to third parties; in the absence of heirs (family members), the inheritance passed to a representative of public authority.

In Russian Pravda, inheritance by will - (“row”) and inheritance without a will are distinguished. However, there is no significant difference between them in terms of content. “Row” is a testamentary disposition, but the content of such a disposition is not the appointment of an heir, but only the distribution of property among the legal heirs.

As for the form of drawing up a will, although Russkaya Pravda does not decide anything definite, it nevertheless gives reason to believe that a verbal will was the usual form. The verbal form was in full agreement with the essence of the will: "row" is the disposal of property with the general consent of family members. This is not a private, but a collective will of the entire family, led by the father.

The right to make a will is attributed in Russian Pravda only to the father and mother in relation to children and to the husband in relation to the selection of a wife.

Inheritance by law (according to custom). Initially, the law did not interfere with the order of inheritance: each time the father of the family, in agreement with other members of the family, distributed property in the event of his death. The decrees of Russian Truth on inheritance appeared later and provided for cases when someone died without leaving a will. Each father distributed property among his children, and therefore the law, in the absence of a will, tried to distribute the property of the deceased in the same way as the testator himself would have done if he had managed to dispose of it. Thus, inheritance under the law is not a limitation of the will of the testator, but a completion of it: both are essentially identical. In the complete absence of legitimate heirs, the remaining property becomes escheated and passes to the prince.

Crimes and punishments according to Russian Truth. The term "crime" is not found in Russian Pravda, since the concept of a crime that is expressed by this term, namely, a violation of the law, is alien to it. The term used by Russian Pravda is resentment. This is sometimes seen as proof of the view of crime as an act judged only by the amount of harm inflicted on a private individual. The acts punishable by Russian Truth are limited to the so-called private crimes against personal and property rights specific individuals. But it does not follow from this that the assessment of criminal acts is given only on the basis of the interests of the victims. On the contrary, the penalty for "insulting" is also paid in favor of the public authority.

The subject of the crime. According to Russian Truth, only a person with free will and consciousness is recognized as a criminal. Acts committed by serfs are not considered crimes and do not entail criminal penalties: if thieves turn out to be serfs whom the prince does not execute by “selling” because they are not free, then double fines should be paid for the serf theft in compensation for loss (PP, Art. .46); but if free people stole or hid stolen things with them, then the latter pay a fine to the prince (PP, Art. 121). The responsible person before the victims is the master of the serf, who either redeems or gives him to the victim.

Russkaya Pravda does not contain information about the age in case of criminal imputation, but from this one cannot, however, conclude that criminal penalties were applied equally to both adults and minors. For the existence of a crime, it was necessary to realize the wrongness of one's actions. So, if in the event of the loss of a thing or the flight of a serf, a third party who found the thing (or accepted the fugitive) did not know about the loss or flight, then he could possess this thing in good faith. If the owner "commanded" (announced) the loss (the law assumed that such a "commandment" was to become well known to the world within three days), then anyone hiding someone else's thing turned into a criminal and was subject to a criminal fine (KP , article 13).

Russian Truth knows the criminal community and punishes every criminal equally. In the Brief Truth (Article 40) it is stated that if 10 people steal one sheep, then each must pay 60 rezan fines. The Long Truth says more precisely: for the theft of cattle from a barn or from a cage, if one stole, pay 3 hryvnias and 30 kunas, and if there were a lot of them (thieves), then each pay 3 hryvnias and 30 kunas (Article 41). Thus, for a crime committed by the community, each member is punished as if he alone had committed it. Not only accomplices, but also accomplices are punished on a par with the main culprit, as can be seen from Art. 121 of the Long Truth: if, together with the main culprit - the serf, free people stole or hid (the fruits of the crime), then the latter paid the prince a fine ("sale").

Russian Truth knows and punishes also the action begun, but not reaching the goal (assassination attempt). With regard to crimes against a person, she expresses this with complete clarity: if someone draws a sword, but does not injure, then he pays hryvnia kun (KP, art. 24). A thief caught at the scene of a crime, that is, who did not have time to commit a theft, could be killed or presented to the prince's court for trial and punishment equal to the punishment for a completed theft, because here there is an attempt, unfinished not by the will of the leader.

The scope of the objects of crime according to Russian Pravda is the rights of individuals, but the practice also included among the objects the rights of the state and public associations protected by the state (religious, church and moral).

The classification of crimes is made in Russian Pravda on the basis of their objects. True, Yaroslav adheres to a certain system here, considering first of all crimes against a person (murder, attempt on health and honor), and then property crimes.

Crimes against life are called "murder" and "robbery", while the first term is called murder in general, the second - premeditated. The difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder is not indicated in Yaroslav's Pravda; but the Vast Truth clearly distinguishes these concepts (vv. 6 and 7). It distinguishes a murder committed in a quarrel ("wedding") - at a feast, openly, from a robbery murder, without any quarrel. In the first case, the community (“rope”) helps the killer pay the fee, in the second, the killer is handed over with his wife and children “to the stream” to the prince and “plundered”.

According to Yaroslav's Truth, mutilation refers to crimes against life, vira is due for it (KP, Art. 5). The Extended Truth mitigates the punishment for mutilation, but does not remove the latter from the category of crimes against life, appointing a “half-virt” for it.

Crimes against health: minor injuries - chopping off a finger, inflicting a wound with a drawn sword, beatings and blows that are not related to insulting honor. For all these types of criminal acts, among which there are very serious ones, a fine of 3 hryvnias was usually collected in favor of the prince.

Crimes against honor. Russian Truth knows insulting honor only by deed, not by word, and therefore these crimes merge in their external composition with crimes against health, but differ from them in a much greater punishability, sometimes not corresponding to the amount of material harm caused. For example, a blow with an undrawn sword or hilt does much less harm than a grievous wound with a sword; but for this act a fine was four times greater (12 hryvnias) than for the second (KP, Art. 4). In the same way, a high penalty was imposed for hitting with a batog, pole, palm, bowl or horn (feast instruments) or with a sword hilt (KP, art. 3). The pulling out of beards and mustaches as symbols of courage, especially revered by many ancient peoples, was punished with a high fine (KP, art. 8). If 3 hryvnias were charged for cutting off a finger, then a fine of 12 hryvnias for pulling out a mustache indicates that this act was classified as a crime against honor (moral insult).

Crimes against freedom are known to Russkaya Pravda in two forms. This is, firstly, the sale of a semi-free person (PP, Art. 61) and, secondly, imprisonment on false charges (PP, Art. 111).

property crimes. Russkaya Pravda mentions robbery only as a crime against life, but premeditated murder, according to Russian Pravda, is murder for mercenary purposes, which is close to the concept of robbery in the current criminal law. Robbery, although not singled out as a special type of crime, was punished on a par with theft (“tatba”). Russkaya Pravda also does not know the term "fraud", but has in mind some types of such acts: malicious bankruptcy and trade fraud when selling horses.

Of the property crimes known to Russkaya Pravda, theft occupied the first place. In the criminal assessment of “tatba”, subjective and objective views on the crime competed: the severity of the deed was determined by the value of the stolen. At the same time, all items were divided into only three categories: the highest, for the items of which 12 hryvnias of “sales” were collected (serf, beaver); medium - with a "sale" of 3 hryvnia (cattle, bees, hunting dogs and birds); the lowest - with a "sale" of 60 kunas. Russkaya Pravda does not mention recidivism in case of theft.

The destruction of other people's things in terms of material harm should have been evaluated on a par with theft of the same things, but it was punished three times more severely. At the same time, arson, according to Russkaya Pravda, was not considered the destruction of any things by fire (borti, for example) and was qualified as a crime of a special order, punishable by only 3 hryvnias of “sale”. Arson in the proper sense correlated with the destruction of only buildings by fire and was punishable by "flood and plunder". Under the buildings, Russkaya Pravda meant courtyard buildings and barns, designed for human habitation and food storage.

Illegal use of other people's things was punishable, according to Russkaya Pravda, on a par with tatba: whoever rides someone else's horse without asking the owner must pay 3 hryvnia (KP, art. 12; PP, art. 33). The extermination of signs of private property (crossings, boundaries) was punished by the highest “sale” of 12 hryvnias (KP, Art. 34).

Punishment. Terms common to designate this concept are not found in Russian Pravda. The types of punishments were: revenge; monetary fines; criminal penalties. Revenge was understood as retribution for a criminal "untruth" committed by the hands of the victim. In the concept that Russkaya Pravda gives about it, revenge combined both private and public elements of punishment, somehow:

Revenge was not only recognized but prescribed by law (KP, art. 1; PP, art. 1);

Revenge was connected with the court, that is, it required either a subsequent sanction of the court (as it usually happened), or a preliminary decision of the court;

The law determined who had the right (and duty) to avenge, namely: members of the clan (father and son, brother, uncle and nephew; KP, art. 1; PP, art. 1) avenge the murder. Revenge was relied on for murder, mutilation and an attempt on health and honor. Death was supposed to follow only for murder, but not for mutilation and not for personal insults: this is evidenced by the analogy of decrees on revenge on a serf who hit a free husband: under Yaroslav it was allowed to kill him for this, but the sons of Yaroslav, repealing such a harsh law, decided that the offended can either tie the offender or beat him, that is, revenge consisted in imprisonment and corporal punishment.

Cash fines. The fines were criminal (in favor of public power) and in the form of private rewards to the victim, namely: for murder - vira (in favor of the prince) and golovnichestvo (to the victim's relatives), for other crimes - "sale" (in favor of the prince) and "lesson "(to the victim).

Vira and golovnichestvo. According to Yaroslav's Truth, vira was charged if there was no avenger (KP, Art. 1). Yaroslav the Wise established a "lesson" (tax) in favor of the virnik, who collected vira in favor of the prince (KP, Art. 42). Vira was not always exacted only from the criminal, but sometimes from the community (vervi) to which he belonged; in this case, it was called wild vira and was collected in two cases: a) if manslaughter was committed and the offender was on mutual responsibility with members of the community; b) if a premeditated murder was committed, but the community covered the murderer, did not extradite it). In the first case, the community paid the vira with the participation of the offender himself (in an appropriate share); in the second, the payment of vira was spread over several years. In general, with the weakening of the importance of the individual (with the elimination of revenge), the importance of communities in the field of criminal law has increased. The size of the vira was constant: for free people - 40 hryvnia, for privileged persons - 80 hryvnia.

Sale and lesson. The criminal meaning of "selling" is evident from some of the facts cited concerning the vira; The truth of the Yaroslavichs indicates: if someone steals a rook, he must pay 30 rezan for the rook and 60 rezan fine to the prince (KP, Art. 35). The size of the fine is constant: 12 hryvnia (for killing a thief without requiring defense, insulting honor, imprisonment, for stealing a serf and a beaver, for exterminating a horse and livestock, for damaging a land); 3 hryvnias (and 30 kunas) for all other crimes. The lesson is taxed in the law on crimes against a person that cause physical harm (for a tooth, for a finger, for a wound - 1 hryvnia each). For a crime against honor, Russkaya Pravda does not determine fees. When property crimes are committed, either the thing or the price for it, appointed by law, is returned.

Flood and plunder together constituted one punishment. They not only replaced the vira for premeditated murder, but also extended to such crimes as horse theft and arson, and also followed theft (“tatba”) in case of insolvency. Initially, flood and plunder had an indefinite meaning: anything could be done with a disenfranchised person and his family. Looted property was sometimes divided "throughout the city for 3 grivnas"; in the principalities it went to the prince. The death penalty is not mentioned in Russkaya Pravda, although it was used in practice.

Trial. During the period under review, there were both private and public authorities. The privilege to restore the violated right was in the hands of a private person - the head of the family or clan, the master and the landowner. The general form of the process included three stages: the establishment of the parties, the production of the court and the execution of the decision. But along with the general, there were other forms in which one or another of the indicated parts of the process was lacking.

Both parties were referred to as "plaintiffs". The concept of the state as a plaintiff (in criminal cases) did not yet exist, there was no difference between criminal and civil, investigative and accusatory processes. But the state helped the private plaintiff in the prosecution of the accused, entrusting this function to the communities.

The parties, as a general rule, in all cases were private individuals, which meant not specific individuals, but the family, clan and community. In particular, a claim arising from such crimes as murder or mutilation was brought forward by the whole clan or the whole family. Subsequently, this provision was limited and determined who exactly could avenge a father, son or brother.

On the other hand, the entire family, clan or community was also liable for crimes. Probably, the personal presence of the parties in court was a general rule, since the process was carried out directly on the spot (for example, a test by fire or water, an oath or “field”) with the help of family members or clans. Therefore, Russkaya Pravda is silent about representation.

The procedural relations of the parties were established, as a rule, by an agreement between them. But often the agreement between the parties could not be concluded due to the defendant's evasion from appearing in court. Then, instead of an agreement, the plaintiff was allowed to bind the defendant and lead him to the princely court. At the same time, possible abuses of force were not allowed by law: if it turned out that a person was bound "without fault", the plaintiff paid a large fine.

Special types of establishing the relationship of the parties before the trial were the code and persecution of the trace. The code included several stages. First, the plaintiff searched for the proper defendant by means of a call (announcement) at the auction. The law held that the announcement should be known to the world where it was made within three days. If the plaintiff found his thing within the prescribed period, the one with whom it was found was recognized as the defendant, and had to not only return the thing, but also pay a criminal fine - 3 hryvnias for insult. If the cry had not yet been made, or the owner, before the expiration of the legalized three days after the “cry”, found his thing in the hands of another, or not in his city (“peace”), the “vault” began. However, the person with whom the thing was found was not yet recognized as a defendant: since he could legally acquire it from a third party known to him. Therefore, the law, leaving the thing in the possession of the buyer, obliged the latter, together with the victim, to go to the person from whom the thing was purchased. If the third party also referred to the legal method of acquisition, the "codification" was continued by all interested parties. The participation of the original owner in this lawsuit was, however, subject to restrictions. So, if the “community” took place in one city, the owner participated in it to the end, but if the circle of interested persons went beyond the city to an area subordinate to the city, the plaintiff “reached” only the third confrontation. The one who “reached” the third vault in the region had to hand over to the plaintiff in money a price equal to the value of the thing, and he himself continued the “vault” further (KP, Art. 16; PP, Art. 36). The exception was lawsuits about servants. The plaintiff had to participate in the procedure even when he was in one city, because in this case there was no need for the presence of the owner: the servant himself could indicate in what ways he passed from one owner to another. The third acquirer of the servant was supposed to hand over his slave to the plaintiff, and himself receive the stolen servant and lead the "vault" further (KP, art. 16; PP, art. 38).

The code could end in three ways: either the last owner did not prove that he acquired the thing legally from anyone; or he could prove it, but did not know the person from whom he acquired the thing; or, finally, the "arch" led to the borders of the state. In the first case, the last owner was recognized as a thief and subject to a criminal fine and private recovery, which was received at the satisfaction of those to whom he sold the stolen thing. In the second and third cases, the last owner had to prove that he had bought and not stolen the thing. This could only be proved by an oath of two witnesses to the purchase. The oath of two free husbands could be replaced by the oath of one collector. And although the last owner was deprived of the money paid for the thing, he forever retained the right to claim against the person who sold this thing to him. If he ever managed to meet a criminal, the “code” began again and ended with the duty of the guilty to reward the victim and pay a criminal fine.

Tracking. If the offender was not caught at the scene of the crime, the search for traces began. It was assumed that where the trace (“face”) was found, the criminal was also hiding there. Hence, if the corpse of the murdered person (“head”) was found, then the community in whose territory it was found had to find the guilty person and extradite him, after which the accused no longer used any procedural remedies; or the “verv” itself paid “wild vira”. If the "red-handed" (stolen thing) was in someone's house, the owner of the house was responsible for the "tatba" as an alleged thief.

Looking for the theft on the "trace", the plaintiff could lose it. Where he was lost, it was assumed that the criminal is located. This provision was based on the fact that all communities and individual settlements lying on the path of the "trace" were supposed to help the plaintiff find its continuation. If some community did not indicate its continuation or forcibly removed the plaintiff from the search, the law assumed that the criminal was hiding here (PP, Art. 77). If the trace was lost on a high road or in an empty steppe, any claim ended.

The court, according to Russkaya Pravda, was a struggle of the parties before the judge. The most important judicial were: rumors, judgments of God and acts.

Rumors and sights. There are two interpretations of these terms in the literature. In the first case, a “vidok” is an eyewitness to a fact, a “hearing” is a person who testifies by ear. In the second - "vidok" and "obedience" mean two different procedural roles. “Vidok” is a simple witness in the current sense of the word, and “listening” is an accomplice to whom the plaintiff and defendant “referenced”.

The rumor was obliged to be present at the trial: his failure to appear led to the loss of the claim for the plaintiff. The rumor had to verbally confirm everything that the side that put it up said.

In Russia, the following forms of God's judgment were practiced: lot, "company", "hordeals" and "field". Lot - the oldest way to solve all sorts of dubious cases. It was either an alternative to the “company” (oath), or had an auxiliary character: it decides who to take the oath to. Self value"Lot" did not have.

In Russian Pravda, an oath was called a company. "Rota" became an auxiliary tool in the presence of testimonies and in a judicial duel. The testimony of witnesses in the era of Russian Truth always ended with a "company".

Ordeals. Ordeals were called the search for truth through the destructive forces of nature - fire and water. The mention of the test with red-hot iron is present in the Long Truth (vv. 85-87).

Litigation began, was conducted and ended by the forces of the parties themselves. The court's decision was made orally, and then issued in the form of a letter - "right" if the court took place, or "without trial" - if the defendant was accused of failing to appear.

FROMlist of literature

1. History of the state and law of Russia: textbook / V.M. Kleandrov, R.S. Mulukaev, A.V. Khokhlov and others / Ed. Yu.P.Titova. Griffin MO. -M.: Prospect. 2011.

2.History of the domestic state and law: a textbook. / Kuvyrchenkov N.S., Pechnikov A.P., Prikhodko M.A. / Rev. ed. I.A. Isaev. Griffin MO. -M.: Prospect. 2012.

4. History of the State and Law of Russia: Textbook / Ed. I.A. Isaev.- M.: Prospekt, 2011.

5. History of the domestic state and law: Textbook. At 2 h. Part 1. / Ed. O.I. Chistyakov. Moscow: Yurayt, 2011.

6. Mikhailova N.V. History of domestic state and law. Lecture course. At 3 pm / N. V. Mikhailova. - M.: MosU of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2010.

7. Kuznetsov I.N. History of the state and law of Russia. -M.: Dashkov i K. 2012.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

The main stages in the formation and development of the Kiev Caves Monastery. The social origin of the monks, the degree of influence of this factor on their way of life. An analysis of the daily life of the Kiev-Pechersk monks, from the moment the monastery was founded to the end of the 12th century.

thesis, added 09/17/2017


Settlement of the Slavs in the upper Dnieper region. Formation of human society. Fight against nomads in the Black Sea steppes. "The Tale of Bygone Years" by the monk of the Kiev Caves Monastery Nestor. The first religious ideas among the Slavic peoples.

abstract, added 03/26/2012


Characteristics and prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state. Features of the era of the first Kyiv princes. Specificity, development political system and the "golden age" of Kievan Rus. Causes of the destruction of the political unity of the Kievan state.

term paper, added 11/10/2010


Prerequisites and causes of the emergence of the Old Russian state, the stages of its formation. The adoption of Christianity by Russia. The impact of this event on the historical fate of the state. The emergence and development of ancient Russian law, its historical significance.

abstract, added 01/24/2008


The origin and meaning of the onym "Rus", the ethnicity of the first Russians. Russian historiography and criticism of the "Norman theory", the role of the "Varangian element" in the early state structures, the theory of the origin of the state among the Eastern Slavs.

abstract, added 05/27/2010


Study of the process of the origin of the Old Russian state through the prism of the ethnic roots of the Varangians (according to the chronicles of Nestor). Places of settlement of the Varangians before their calling to Russia. Characteristics of relations between Kyiv and Novgorod before their unification in 882

term paper, added 04/17/2016


Norman and anti-Norman theories. "The Tale of Bygone Years" is the most important historical source. Age of the Vikings. The formation of the Old Russian state, the resettlement of the Slavs. The state of Russia under the first princes. Analysis of the role of the Varangians in the history of Russia.

abstract, added 10/09/2010


The emergence of Russian civilization and the prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state. The adoption of Christianity as the most important factor in strengthening the Kievan state. The crisis of ancient Russian statehood, the reasons for the weakening and collapse of Kievan Rus.

abstract, added 04/06/2012


The period of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise is the period of the greatest flourishing of Kievan Rus. Characteristics of the foreign and domestic policy of Yaroslav the Wise. Marriage of Yaroslav the Wise and Ingigerd, daughter of the Swedish king. "Russian Truth" - a collection of norms of ancient law.

abstract, added 11/18/2010


Ethnic and political panorama of Eastern Europe in the 7th-9th centuries. Slavs: theories of origin and settlement. "The Tale of Bygone Years" about the founding of Kievan Rus. Theories of the emergence of the Old Russian state: Norman, the theory of M.V. Lomonosov.

By the VI century. the tribes of the Eastern Slavs are going through the process of decomposition of the primitive communal system. Tribal and kinship relations are replaced by territorial, political and military ties. As the division of labor and the increase in its productivity, it becomes possible to exploit the labor of others.

In the rural community, the process of social stratification begins, the emergence of the top, which grew rich due to the exploitation of neighbors and the use of slave labor. Numerous wars also contributed to the emergence of a class society. In connection with the wars, the dependence of the communal peasants on the princes and their squads, which ensured the protection of the communities from external enemies, increased. By the 8th century 14 tribal unions were formed on the territory of the Slavic tribes. At the head of the union were the prince and the princely squad.

The form of social relations of the Slavs in the VII-VIII centuries. military democracy. Its features include:

Participation of all members of the tribal union in solving the most important issues;

The special role of the people's assembly as supreme body authorities;

General arming of the population (people's militia).

The ruling class was formed from the old tribal aristocracy - leaders, priests, elders - and wealthy members of the community.

Pursuing military-political goals, tribal unions united into even larger formations - “unions of unions”. Sources testify to the existence in the VIII century. three major political centers:

Kuyaba - the southern group of Slavic tribes (Kyiv);

Slavia - northern group (Novgorod);

Artania - southeastern group (Ryazan).

The Old Russian state was formed in 882 as a result of the unification under the rule of Kiev of the two largest Slavic state formations - Kiev and Novgorod. Later, other Slavic tribes submitted to the Kyiv prince - Drevlyans, Severyans, Radimichi, Ulichi, Tivertsy, Vyatichi and Polyana, as well as neighboring non-Slavic tribes - Merya, Muroma, etc. Almost from the very beginning, the Old Russian state was multi-ethnic.

In general, the process of state formation among the Eastern Slavs had the same characteristics as similar processes among other peoples. As shows world history(Mesopotamia, Egypt, Ancient Greece etc.), the state is formed in each nation in several centers. Tribal and supratribal governments become the basis of the state apparatus.

Just a few decades after the emergence of state formations among the Eastern Slavs, they united into a large state. No country in world history has known such an early creation of such a large state. This circumstance is a distinctive feature of ancient Russian statehood.

According to the form of government, Ancient Russia was an early feudal monarchy. There was a certain system of the state mechanism: the Grand Duke; council under the prince; veche; specific princes; palace and patrimonial authorities: a fireman with a staff of palace servants-tiuns, a treasurer, stewards, housekeepers, stablemen, and local authorities in the person of governors, posadniks and volostels.

The Grand Duke was at the head of the state. Its functions on early stage The existence of the Old Russian state consisted in organizing the armed forces, commanding them, collecting tribute and establishing foreign trade.

In the future, the activities of the prince in the field of administration became more important: the appointment of local administration, princely agents, legislative and judicial activities, management of foreign relations, etc. The prince's income consisted of feudal duties, tribute (tax), court fees, criminal fines (vir and sales) and other fees. Relations with other princes were built on the basis of letters of the cross, which determined the rights and obligations of the Grand Duke and the vassal princes (protection of the latter, rendering assistance to them, their assistance to the Grand Duke, etc.). The Grand Duke's throne was inherited, first on the principle of seniority - the eldest in the family, and then "fatherland" - to the son.

The Grand Duke in his activities relied on the advice of the boyars and "princely husbands." Although the council did not have a clearly defined competence, the boyars, together with the prince, resolved the most important issues of administration, foreign policy, courts, and legislative activity. The management of the branches of the princely palace economy was entrusted to tiuns and elders. Over time, they turn into managers of branches of the princely economy. The decimal system of government is being replaced by the palace-patrimonial one, in which political power belongs to the owner (boyar-votchinnik). Two centers of power are being formed - the princely palace and the boyar estate.

In the early feudal monarchy, the popular assembly, the veche, plays an important state and political role. All free residents of the city (posada) and adjacent settlements (slobodas) participated in the veche. The competence of the veche included issues of taxation, defense of the city, organization of military campaigns and the election of princes. The executive body of the veche was the council, which consisted of the city patriciate, elders, and others.

Local government was carried out by posadniks (governors) in cities and volosts in rural areas, and relied on military garrisons led by thousands, centurions and tenths. The representatives of the prince had the following powers: they collected tribute and duties, administered justice, established and levied fines, etc. Instead of a salary for service, they had the right to keep part of the money collected from the population for themselves. This control system is called the feeding system.

The body of local peasant self-government was the territorial community - verv. Verv XI-XII centuries. combined elements of neighborhood and family communities and was a conglomerate of small settlements. The competence of the Vervi included issues of redistribution of land allotments, tax and financial issues, police supervision, resolution of litigation, investigation of crimes and execution of punishments. The state, using the rope for fiscal, police and administrative purposes, was interested in the further preservation of the community structure.

Judicial bodies as special institutions did not yet exist. Judicial functions were performed by authorities and administrations in the center and locally - princes, posadniks, volostels and other representatives of princely power. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was established. The Church judged the dependent population of its lands, the clergy in all categories of deeds, the population of the state in certain categories of deeds (crimes against religion, morality, etc.).

The armed forces included: the squad of the Grand Duke, the squads of local princes, the feudal militia and the people's militia.

In 988, Christianity was adopted as the state religion in Russia. Russian Orthodox Church organized as a diocese of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Dioceses, parishes and monasteries acted as organizational centers. A procedure was established for the collection of tithes for the income of the church. She was granted the right to acquire land inhabited by villages. The adoption of Christianity was of great importance for the further development of the Old Russian state. The princely power received the Byzantine justification of the sovereign as a person appointed by God, and not only to protect against external enemies, but also to establish order within the country. There was a separation of secular and spiritual power.

The social structure of Ancient Russia

The population of the Old Russian state was divided into free and dependent. Ancient monuments call the free population "people". Sometimes definitions were added to these terms: “oldest”, “youngest”, “black”, etc. The free population was divided into a number of social groups. The upper class included princes, boyars, combatants,

In Russian Pravda, the upper class is denoted by three terms: boyar, fireman and princely husband. It was a tribal nobility, having their own estates, in which they themselves ruled the courts and collected taxes without the intervention of the prince. With the adoption of Christianity, another layer of the population was formed - the clergy, which was divided into "black" (monastic) and "white" (parish). The middle strata of the population included merchants, artisans, "living" people. The bulk of the population was made up of black people and smerds. Smerds were engaged in agriculture, hunting, beekeeping. Smerds were the main payers of tribute.

The dependent population was made up of serfs. Sources of servility: captivity, self-sale, marriage to a "robe", sale into slavery for serious crimes. In Russia there was a category of semi-dependent population: ryadovichi and purchases. Ryadovich concluded a loan agreement (“row”) with the feudal lord and worked it out. Purchasing is a person. Having borrowed from the landowner a loan of money, grain, tools, or something else, and undertook to work out the kupa with interest.

The main social unit of the upper class was the patrimony. The rope was the social cell of the smerds. Members of the community were bound by mutual responsibility. If a community member left the community, he became an outcast - a person deprived of the protection of the community, and hence all civil rights.

The emergence and evolution of Old Russian law

At an early stage in the development of the Old Russian state, the norms of customary law were in force, i.e. customs sanctioned by the government. With the strengthening of the role of the state, the importance of the legislative activity of the princes increased. Another source of law was jurisprudence.

Historically, the first source of law after the creation of the state is custom. By the time the state arose, the Eastern Slavs had a whole complex of customs. Customs developed at the level of clans, communities, tribal unions. It was they who, with the emergence of the Old Russian state, turned into legal norms that became the basis of the customary law of Russia. At the same time, the customs of the national level have developed, and above all in the field of organization and functioning of the central government. The Russian law that existed for several decades exclusively in the form of ordinary Russian law received the official name "Russian Law".

The earliest written sources of Russian law are treaties between Russia and Byzantium, concluded in 907, 911, 945 and 971. These international legal acts reflected the norms of Byzantine and Old Russian law relating to international, commercial, procedural and criminal law. Treaties between Russia and Byzantium were usually drawn up in two copies: one in Old Russian, the second in Greek. The texts of the treaties mentioned the death penalty, penalties and other punishments. The right to hire, measures to capture fugitive slaves, register certain goods, etc. were also regulated. Thus, chronologically, the second source of law in Russia was the normative contract.

Among the most ancient sources of law are also church statutes of princes Vladimir, Yaroslav, Vsevolod and some others (X-XI centuries). These documents determine the position of the church in the state, establish the jurisdiction of church bodies and courts, contain rules on marriage and family relations, crimes against the church, morality and the family. The state gave the church a "tithe" (a tenth of the income), which was fixed in the statutes. They established church judicial immunity, that is, the release of people dependent on the church from the jurisdiction of the princely court, and determined the limits of church judicial jurisdiction (cases of blasphemy, witchcraft, rape, verbal abuse, etc.).

After the adoption of Christianity in Russia, collections of Byzantine church norms used by the clergy (pilot books) were distributed. The ancient helmsman's book was a translation of the Byzantine Nomocanon (a set of church rules and laws related to church affairs).

The main legal document of the Old Russian state was a collection of legal norms, called Russkaya Pravda. It is a whole complex of legal documents of the 11th-12th centuries, the components of which were the Ancient Pravda (about 1015), the Truth of the Yaroslavichs (about 1072), the Charter of Monomakh (about 1113-1125). Russian Pravda, depending on the edition, is divided into Brief, Long and Abbreviated.

Brief Pravda is the oldest edition of the Russian Truth, which consisted of two parts. Its first part was adopted in the 30s. 11th century and is associated with the name of Prince Yaroslav the Wise (Pravda Yaroslav). The second part was adopted in Kyiv at the congress of princes and major feudal lords after the suppression of the uprising of the lower classes in 1068 and was called Pravda Yaroslavichi. The short edition of Russian Pravda contains 43 articles. The characteristic features of the first part of the Brief Truth (Articles 1-18) are the following: the operation of the custom of blood feud, the lack of a clear differentiation in the amount of fines depending on the social affiliation of the victim. The second part (Articles 19-43) reflects the process of development of feudal relations: the abolition of blood feuds, the protection of the life and property of feudal lords with increased penalties, etc. Most of the articles of the Brief Pravda contain the norms of criminal law and judicial process.

The lengthy Truth was compiled after the suppression of the uprising in Kyiv in 1113. It consisted of two parts - the Judgment of Yaroslav (Art. 1-52) and the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh (53-121). The Long Truth is a more developed code of feudal law, which fixed the privileges of feudal lords, the dependent position of serfs, purchases, the lack of rights of serfs, etc. The Long Truth testified to the process of further development of feudal landownership, paying much attention to the protection of property rights to land and other property. Separate norms of the Long Truth determined the procedure for the transfer of property by inheritance, the conclusion of contracts. Most of the articles relate to criminal law and litigation.

Abbreviated Truth took shape in the middle of the 15th century. from the revised Extended Truth.

Old Russian law was characterized by the absence of a clear division into branches. Such a structural feature was inherent in the systems of law of all civilizations at the initial stage of state-legal development. For example, civil offenses (torts) were not separated from criminal offences. At the same time, the beginnings of such branches of law as: criminal, civil, family, hereditary, procedural can be traced in Russian Pravda. In the field of civil law relations, Russkaya Pravda distinguishes between institutions in the field of rights in rem and rights of obligations. The law protected the rights of owners, regulated the rights to use and dispose of property. The objects of property rights were: horses and cattle, clothes and weapons, trade goods, etc. The general principle of protecting property was to return it to its rightful owner and pay a fine as compensation for damages. For violation of the border of land ownership, a fine of 12 hryvnia, regardless of whose border it is: a peasant, a community or a feudal lord. Civil obligations flowed from harm and from contracts. The form of concluding contracts was oral, with the obligatory participation of witnesses. Contracts of sale, loan, lending, personal employment, storage, transportation, assignment are mentioned. The objects of obligations were not only the actions of the debtor, but also his personality. For example, for the loss as a result of deliberate actions of goods or money taken on credit, the merchant was liable not only with his property, but also with his person: he could be sold into slavery (Article 54 1111). Inheritance differed by law and will. Priority was inheritance by will (“as the father agreed with his sons”) with the provision of the legal shares of all family members.

Criminally punishable acts included murder, beatings and bodily harm with the infliction of physical pain and moral suffering, the murder of a thief on the spot, the murder of a serf. Russian Truth distinguishes between two types of crimes: property and causing harm to a person. A crime is interpreted as an "insult", that is, the infliction of material, physical or moral harm to a person or group of persons. Criminal inaction is also considered a crime: hiding a find, a long non-return of a debt. In Russkaya Pravda there is no age limit for criminal liability and the concept of insanity. The state of intoxication is interpreted in different ways. There are two intents: direct and indirect - murder in a fight was punishable by vira, murder in robbery - capital punishment. Deliberate bankruptcy was considered a crime, but unintentional bankruptcy was not.

Russkaya Pravda can be defined as a code of private law, since all subjects are individuals. There is no concept of a legal entity. The object of legal protection was the individual, not the state. The system of punishments according to Russkaya Pravda was simple and included: flood and plunder; viru, half viru; fine (sale). The heaviest punishment was "flood and plunder" - the sale into slavery of the criminal and his family members and the confiscation of property. This measure was appointed only for murder in robbery, horse stealing and arson.

There was no differentiation between civil and criminal proceedings. Any case was called litigation. The process was adversarial. He was distinguished by an active role and equality of the parties. The process could be carried out in two forms - the arch and the persecution of the trace. The code was usually preceded by a cry - a public announcement of the damage caused. If the thing was found within three days after the call, then the new owner was recognized as a criminal. Tracing was used when the perpetrator was not caught at the scene of the crime. Evidence according to Russkaya Pravda was the testimony of video records and rumors, physical evidence. Ordeals, oath.

Russian Truth is a set of laws of feudal law. It fully satisfied the needs of the princely courts, so its norms until the 15th century. acted in Russian society.

We do not know exactly when and how exactly the first principalities of the Eastern Slavs arose, preceding the formation of the Old Russian state, but in any case they existed until 862, before the notorious "calling of the Varangians." In the German chronicle, since 839, the Russian princes are called Khakans - kings.

But the moment of the unification of the East Slavic lands into one state is known for certain. In 882, Prince Oleg of Novgorod captured Kyiv and united the two most important groups of Russian lands; then he managed to annex the rest of the Russian lands, creating a huge state for those times.

The Russian Orthodox Church is trying to link the emergence of statehood in Russia with the introduction of Christianity.

Of course, the baptism of Russia was of great importance for strengthening the feudal state, since the church sanctified the subordination of Christians to the exploiting state. However, the baptism took place no less than a century after the formation of the Kievan state, not to mention the earlier East Slavic states.

In addition to the Slavs, the Old Russian state also included some neighboring Finnish and Baltic tribes. This state, therefore, from the very beginning was ethnically heterogeneous. However, it was based on the ancient Russian nationality, which is the cradle of three Slavic peoples - Russians (Great Russians), Ukrainians and Belarusians. It cannot be identified with any of these peoples in isolation. Even before the revolution, Ukrainian nationalists tried to portray the Old Russian state as Ukrainian. This idea has been taken up in our time in nationalist circles, which are trying to quarrel the three fraternal Slavic peoples. Meanwhile, the Old Russian state neither in territory nor in population coincided with modern Ukraine, they had only a common capital - the city of Kyiv. In the 9th and even in the 12th century. it is still impossible to talk about specifically Ukrainian culture, language, etc. All this will appear later, when, due to objective historical processes, the ancient Russian nationality will break up into three independent branches.

social order

The social structure of the Old Russian state was complex, but the main features of feudal relations were already quite clearly looming. Formed feudal ownership of land - the economic basis of feudalism. Accordingly, the main classes of feudal society were formed - feudal lords and feudal-dependent peasants.

The most important feudal lords were princes. Sources point to the presence of princely villages, where dependent peasants lived, working for the feudal lord under the supervision of his clerks, elders, including specially supervised field work. The boyars were also large feudal lords - the feudal aristocracy, which grew rich due to the exploitation of the peasants and predatory wars.

With the introduction of Christianity, the church and monasteries became collective feudal lords. Not immediately, but gradually, the church acquires land, the princes grant it a tithe - a tenth of the income from the population and other, including judicial, income.

The lowest stratum of the class of feudal lords consisted of combatants and servants, princely and boyar. They were formed from free people, but sometimes even from serfs. Cursing before the master, such servants sometimes received land with the peasants and became exploiters themselves. Article 91 of Russian Pravda equates the combatants in order of succession to the boyars and opposes both to the smerds.

It seems that the point of view of S.V. Yushkov, who believed that the ancient Russian state was characterized by a system of relations of suzerainty-vassalage typical of early feudalism, suggesting that the entire structure of the state rests on the ladder of the feudal hierarchy. A vassal depends on his lord, that one - on a larger lord or supreme overlord. Vassals are obliged to help their lord, first of all, to be in his army, and also to pay tribute to him. In turn, the seigneur is obliged to provide the vassal with land and protect him from the encroachments of neighbors and other oppressions. A vassal is immune within his realm. This meant that no one, including the overlord, could interfere in his internal affairs. Vassals of the Grand Dukes were local princes. The main immunity rights were: the right to collect tribute and the right to administer a court with the receipt of appropriate income.

State mechanism. The Old Russian state was a monarchy. It was headed by the Grand Duke. He held the supreme legislative power. There are major laws issued by the Grand Dukes and bearing their names: the Charter of Vladimir, Yaroslav's Pravda, and others. The Grand Duke also concentrated executive power in his hands, being the head of the administration. The Grand Dukes also performed the functions of military leaders, they themselves led the army and personally led the army into battle. Vladimir Monomakh recalled at the end of his life about 83 of his big campaigns. Some princes died in battle, as happened, for example, with Svyatoslav.

Tributes were preceded by voluntary gifts from members of the tribe to their prince and squad. Later, these gifts became a mandatory tax, and the very payment of tribute became a sign of subordination, from which the word subject was born, i.e. under tribute.

Initially, the tribute was collected by polyudia, when the princes, usually once a year, traveled around the subject lands and collected income directly from their subjects. The sad fate of Grand Duke Igor, who was killed by the Drevlyans for excessive extortions, forced his widow, Princess Olga, to streamline the system of collecting state revenues. She established the so-called graveyards, i.e. special collection points. In science, there are other ideas about graveyards.

A system of various direct taxes, as well as trade, judicial and other duties, has developed. Taxes were usually collected in furs, but this does not mean that they were only natural. Marten furs, squirrels were a certain monetary unit. Even when they lost their presentation, their value as a means of payment did not disappear if they retained the princely sign. These were, as it were, the first Russian banknotes. In Russia, there were no deposits of precious metals, therefore, already from the 8th century. along with furs, foreign currency (dirhams, later - denarii) enters into circulation. This currency was often melted down into Russian grivnas.

The largest monument of ancient Russian law is Russkaya Pravda, which retained its significance in the following periods of history, and not only for Russian law. The history of Russian Pravda is rather complicated. The question of the time of origin of its oldest part in science is debatable. Some authors date it even to the 7th century. However, most modern researchers associate the ancient Truth with the name of Yaroslav the Wise. The place of publication of this part of the Russian Pravda is also debatable. 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 come down to us. However, it is known that the sons of Yaroslav in the second half of the XI century. significantly supplemented and changed it, creating the so-called Truth of the Yaroslavichs. The Truth of Yaroslav and the Truth of the Yaroslavichs, which were later united by scribes, formed the basis of the so-called Short Edition of the Russian Truth. Vladimir Monomakh made an even larger revision of this law. As a result, the Extended edition was formed. In subsequent centuries, new editions of Russian Pravda were created, which S.V. Yushkov numbered a total of up to six. All editions have come down to us as part of chronicles and various legal collections, of course, handwritten. More than a hundred such lists of Russian Pravda have now been found. They are usually assigned names associated with the name of the chronicle, the place of discovery, the person who found this or that list (Academic, Trinity, Karamzinsky, etc.).

With the introduction of Christianity in Russia, canon law began to take shape, based to a large extent on Byzantine legislation.

The whole set of laws and legal customs created the basis for a fairly developed system of ancient Russian law. Like any feudal right, it was a right-privilege, i.e. the law directly provided for the inequality of people belonging to different social groups. So, the serf had almost no rights. The legal capacity of the smerd, the purchase, was very limited. But the rights and privileges of the top of the feudal society were protected in an enhanced manner.

Old Russian legislation knew a fairly developed system of norms governing property relations, i.e. what today is called civil law. The law reflects property relations. Legal protection is provided for both immovable and movable property. Feudalism is characterized by the presence of full ownership of the feudal lord over the means of production and incomplete ownership of the worker. At the same time, the feudally dependent peasant is also endowed with certain means of production. Feudal property in Russia arises on the basis of the collapse of primitive communal relations.

Russkaya Pravda also mentions a contract of sale. The law is most interested in cases of sale and purchase of slaves, as well as stolen property. The contract of sale historically originated from the barter agreement. In essence, after all, buying and selling is nothing more than the exchange of things for money. In Russkaya Pravda, the barter agreement is not mentioned. It is unlikely that in Ancient Russia no one changed, but the exchange was such a simple action, understandable and accessible to everyone, that it was obviously considered unnecessary to regulate it in the law.

Russkaya Pravda also mentions a storage agreement (luggage). Luggage was considered as a friendly service, was free of charge and did not require formalities when concluding a contract.

Feudalism is not characterized by hired labor. Nevertheless, Russkaya Pravda mentions one case of a contract of personal employment: hiring as tiuns (servants) or housekeepers. If a person entered such work without a special contract, he automatically became a serf. The law also mentions hiring, but some researchers identify it with a purchase. The Russkaya Pravda does not speak about property rent. However, it is difficult to imagine that in a country with a highly developed trade, for example, the hiring of warehouse space is not required.

You can obviously talk about the existence of transportation contracts in the Old Russian state, as well as commissions. Russian Truth in Art. 54 mentions a merchant who could drink, lose or spoil someone else's goods, given to him either for transportation or for sale. The commission agreement is clearly visible in the following article, where a foreign merchant instructs a Russian to sell his goods at a local auction.

The Brief Edition of Russian Pravda already contains a "Lesson to Bridgemen", which regulates a contract for the construction or repair of a bridge. Researchers believe that the law refers not only to bridges, but also to urban pavements. Archaeologists have found, for example, numerous wooden pavements in Novgorod. Interestingly, this element of urban improvement arose in Novgorod earlier than in Paris.

The procedure for concluding contracts was mostly simple. Usually, an oral form was used with the performance of some symbolic actions - hand-beating, tying hands, etc. In some cases, witnesses were required. There is some information about the origin of the written form of concluding a contract on real estate.

Old Russian legislation pays great attention to criminal law. Many articles of Russian Pravda are devoted to him, and there are also criminal law norms in princely charters.

Russkaya Pravda interprets in a peculiar way general concept crimes: only that which causes direct harm to a specific person, his person or property is criminal. Hence the term for a crime - "resentment". In the princely statutes, one can also find a broader understanding of the crime, covering some formal compositions. This is borrowed from Byzantine canon law.

According to the understanding of the crime as "offense" is built in the Russian Truth and the system of crimes. Russian Truth knows only two types of crimes - against the person and property. There are no state, official, or other kinds of crimes in it. This did not mean, of course, that speeches against princely power went unpunished. Simply in such cases, direct reprisals were used without trial or investigation. Let us recall what Princess Olga did with the murderers of her husband.

In criminal law, the class nature of feudal law is especially clearly manifested, openly defending the ruling class and neglecting the interests of the working people. This is clearly seen when considering the individual elements of the crime. So, the subject of a crime can be any person, except for a serf. His master is responsible for the actions of the serf. However, in some cases, the victim can deal with the offending serf himself, without turning to state bodies, up to the murder of the serf who encroached on a free person.

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

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

Russkaya Pravda differentiates responsibility depending on the subjective side of the crime. It does not distinguish between intent and negligence, but distinguishes between two types of intent - direct and indirect. This takes place with responsibility for murder: murder in robbery is punishable by the highest measure of punishment - a stream and plunder, while murder in a "marriage" (fight) is only vira. However, some researchers believe that here responsibility does not depend on the form of intent, but on the nature of the crime itself: murder in robbery is a vile murder, and murder in a fight can still somehow be justified from a moral point of view. On the subjective side, liability for bankruptcy also differs: only intentional bankruptcy is considered criminal. The state of affect excludes liability.

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

The class nature of ancient Russian law appears most clearly in the analysis of the object of criminal encroachment. Responsibility differs sharply depending on the social affiliation of the victim. So, for the murder of the bulk of free people, a vira of 40 hryvnias is paid. The life of representatives of the top of the feudal lords is estimated at a double cost of 80 hryvnia. The life of dependent people is estimated at 12 and 5 hryvnias, which are not even called vira.

Russian Truth knows only two generic objects of the crime - the personality of a person and his property. Hence, as already mentioned, there are only two kinds of crimes. However, each of the genera includes quite a variety of types of crimes.

Among the crimes against the person should be called murder, bodily harm, beatings, insult by action. Princely statutes also know the composition of an insult with a word, where the object of the crime is mainly the honor of a woman.

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

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

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

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

The highest measure of punishment, as already noted, was flood and plunder. The essence of this measure is not entirely clear. In any case, in different time and in different places flood and plunder were understood differently. Sometimes this meant the murder of the convict and the direct taking away of his property, sometimes the expulsion and confiscation of property, sometimes the sale to slaves.

The next most severe punishment was vira, which was imposed only for murder. If his verv (community) paid for the offender, then this was called wild vira.

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

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

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

For crimes referred to the competence of the church court, specific church punishments were applied - penances. So, the Byzantine law provided, for example, for fornication with a sister for 15 years, "fast and cry." Light penance was considered 500 prostrations a day. Penance was often combined with state punishment. According to S.V. Yushkov, the church applied, in addition to penances, self-harmful punishments and imprisonment.

Old Russian law did not yet know a sufficiently clear distinction between criminal and civil proceedings, although, of course, some procedural actions (for example, persecution of the trace, code) could only be applied in criminal cases. In any case, both in criminal and civil cases, an adversarial process was used, in which the parties are equal and are themselves the engine of all legal proceedings. Both parties in the process were even called plaintiffs.

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

Pursuing a trace is the search for a criminal in his footsteps. The law provided for special forms and procedures for conducting this procedural action. If the trail led to the house of a particular person, it was believed that he was the criminal (Article 77 of the Trinity List). If the trail just led to a village, the rope is responsible. If the trace was lost on the main road, then the search stopped there.

The institute of persecution of the trace was preserved for a long time in common practice. In some places, in the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus, it was used until the 18th century, usually in cases of cattle rustling.

If neither the lost thing nor the thief was found, the victim had no choice but to resort to a cry, i.e. to a missing persons announcement in the market place, in the hope that someone will identify the stolen or lost property from another person.

A person who is found to have lost property may, however, declare that he acquired it by a lawful means, for example, by purchase. Then the bridging process 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. This requires the testimony of two witnesses or a collector of trade duties.

The law provides for a certain system of evidence. Among them, the testimony of witnesses occupies an important place. Old Russian law distinguished between two categories of witnesses - vidok and rumors. Vidocqs are witnesses, in the modern sense of the word, eyewitnesses of the fact. Rumors are a more complex category. These are people who heard about what happened from someone, have second-hand information. Sometimes rumors were also understood as witnesses of the good glory of the parties. They had to show that the defendant or the plaintiff were trustworthy people. Without even knowing anything about the disputed fact, they simply, as it were, gave a characterization to one or another side in the process. However, already Russian Truth does not always maintain a clear distinction between rumors and vidoks. It is characteristic that an element of formalism appears in the application of witness testimony. So, in some civil and criminal cases, a certain number of witnesses was required (for example, two witnesses to the conclusion of a contract of sale, two witnesses in case of insult by action).

In the Old Russian state, a whole system of formal proofs appeared - ordeals.

Among them should be called a judicial duel - a field. The one who won the duel won the case, because it was believed that God helps the right. The Russian Pravda and other laws of the Old Russian state do not mention the field, which gave reason to some researchers to doubt its existence. However, other sources, including foreign ones, speak of 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. Russkaya 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 an oath - a company. It was applied when there was no other evidence, but, of course, in small cases. A company could confirm the presence of some event or, conversely, its absence.

In some cases, external signs and physical evidence had probative value. So, the presence of bruises and bruises was enough to prove the beating.

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

In Russkaya Pravda, certain forms of enforcement of a court decision are visible, for example, the recovery of vira from the murderer. A special official, the virnik, came to the convict's house with a large retinue and patiently waited for the payment of the vira, receiving an abundant natural 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.