Stages of development of legal system in Kievan Rus’

The formation of law in Kievan Rus’ was a long process. It originated from tribal pravdas of eastern Slavs. Legal system of Kievan Rus’ was based on traditional law, which regulated all relations in each tribe or tribal union.

The unification of similar in structure and social nature tribal pravdas into Zakon Ruskiy were held in Kievan Rus’ roughly in the middle of DC c. Kievan princes took account of its principles in treaty-making with Byzantium. Unfortunately, the text of Zakon Ruskiy didn't remain till nowadays.

The first stage of law development in Kievan Rus’ finished with transition from verbal traditional law to written law. The agreements between Kievan Rus’ and Byzantium, and also grand-ducal's law (pravdas, ustavs) became the forms of this law. Ustav, in the language of Kievan Rus’sia, refers to what has been ordered from above, as opposed to zakon or pokon, referring to tradition and custom. An ustav, in later times, would always be in writing and would then have the meaning which it still has: a statute or charter. It is, however, more likely that at that early date Olga's ustavy were simply oral directives.

This second stage naturally leaded to the formation of legislative act common for all state -Russkaya Pravda.

The oldest source was traditional law. Over time the rules of traditional law were approbated by the state and became legal rules. But the rules of traditional law didn't lose, for example they continue to remain the main source of law for communal court. Therefore, the rules of traditional law could exist both in oral and written forms.

Agreements between Rus and Byzantium of 907, 911, 945 and 971 years were important sources of law.

September 2, 911 was signed the Russian-Byzantine treaty - one of the first diplomatic acts of ancient Russia. The treaty was signed after successful campaign of Prince Oleg's retinue against Byzantium. It continued further regulation of Rus-Byzantium relations stipulated by the treaty of 907.

General Policy of the R-B Treaty of 911 repeated the provisions of 860 and 907 agreements. Clauses of R-B Treaty 911 covered the ways of consideration of various crimes and punishments for the; the responsibility for murder; on liability for intentional assault or theft, and the corresponding penalties for it; the responsibility for the robbery; the order of assistance to merchants of both countries during their voyage with goods; the order of redemption of prisoners; the assistance to Greeks on the part of Russia and the order of service of Russians in the Imperial Army; the practice of redemption of any other prisoners; on the order of return of servants who ran away or were kidnapped; the practice of inheritance of property of Russians who died in Byzantium; on the order of Russian trade in Byzantium; the responsibility for the debt and the punishment for failure to pay the debt.

Unlike previous treaties, where the content was brought to the attention as the «emperor's award» to Russian prince, this treaty was equal in rights between two equal parties of the negotiation process. Most of the articles of the Treaty were of a two-way nature: both sides should keep “peace and love”, both Russians and Greeks were responsible for crime, etc. That was a big diplomatic victory of the young Russian state.

The Treaty was drawn up in two identical copies in Greek and Russian languages. But in the Russian text the Greeks were addressed on behalf of the Russian Grand Prince, his princes and boyars, and in Greek - on behalf of the Byzantine emperors and the “all Greeks”. The two parties exchanged the deeds: Russians received the Greek text, and Greeks - the Russian copy. But each party had kept a copy of its own text, which was given to the other side. Subsequently, the Greek original and the Russian copy were lost; 911 treaty and other relevant documents are preserved in the Primary Chronicle.

Before leaving home Russian envoys were received by the Emperor Leo VI, who presented them with expensive gifts of gold, silks, precious vessels, and then asked his “men” to demonstrate “the beauty of the church and the chambers of gold” and then let them go “to their land with a great honor.” In Kiev, the embassy was ceremonially received by the prince Oleg. The envoys reported on the progress of negotiations, on the content of the new treaty and “how the peace was established between Greece and the Russian land...” [1, 140].

The expansion and harmonization of rules through written codes was linked to a larger process of political and social integration. The ruling dynasty was only one of the institutions promoting this process through written codes of law. The other relevant institution was the Church. “We Christians”, wrote the chronicler, “have one law.” Here, however, he is not referring to princely secular law but to the laws of Christianity, the authority of the Church and its teachings: the authority of the Bible in general, and more specifically the authority of the practical codes produced over the centuries under the general heading of canon law. Canon law, combined with Byzantine imperial legislation relating to the Church, was conveyed in reference books known as nomocanons (Kormchie knigi in theRussian tradition). Much of a nomocanon is concerned with the Church's own internal dogmas and disciplines, but substantial sections are also relevant to the wider community, and one of the prime responsibilities of churchmen in Rus' was to promote behavior compatible with canon law, to interpret and apply the rules and guidelines in local circumstances. In promoting social and cultural integration, the Church was thus potentially a very significant partner for the princes, for the Church had pretensions to affect areas of behavior far beyond the reach of the princes' writ. The Church took regulation beyond the public sphere and into the home, into daily life. It prescribed what food could or could not be eaten on which days through the year, whom and how one could or could not marry, what to wear or not wear, when to have or not to have sexual intercourse and in what manner [1, 128].

Clearly these are areas where custom was likely to be powerful and - across the lands of the Rus' - diverse. Some of our most eloquent sources record the responses of senior churchmen to practical pastoral questions. Thus, for example, Metropolitan loann II (c. 1077-89) is asked to advise on a miscellany of issues: whether in the cold northern winters it was permissible to wear leather undergarments made from the hides of animals which were considered unclean tor eating (answer - yes); or how to deal with those who married according to local pagan rituals (answer - impose the same penance that one would impose on fornicators); or whether a ritually unclean mother should be allowed to breastfeed her sick baby (answer- yes. if the child's life is otherwise in danger)

Other sources of law were statutes of Grand Princes Vladymir and Yaroslav.

The Statute of Grand Prince Vladimir established the principle of judicial separation between secular and clerical courts and forbade any of the Prince's heirs from interfering in the church's business. The Statute provided that all church personnel would be tried in church courts, no matter what the subject under litigation. The text scrupulously lists those who qualified for clerical jurisdiction, identifying not only monastic and members of church staffs, but also various social outsiders: pilgrims, manumitted slaves, and the blind and lame, for instance. In addition, the Statute granted church courts exclusive jurisdiction over certain offenses, even if secular subjects of the prince were involved.

Divorce, fornication, adultery, rape, incest, disputes over inheritance, witchcraft, sorcery, charmmaking, church theft, and interfamilial violence were among the subjects assigned to church courts. Over and above the income generated by church courts, the Statute assigned the church a tithe from all the Rus’ land and a portion of various fees that the Prince collected. Finally, the text authorized bishops to supervise the various weights and measures employed for trade [2, 1474].

6. The Russkaya Pravda and its editions.

Law, as we know it,has not existed since time immemorial, but emerged at a certain stage of societal development. Its origins, like those of history, are closely connected with the appearance of writing. That there could not have been history or law before there was writing is an untenable proposition, in view of the ample availability of documentation about oral cultures.

After the RP lost its practical importance, it fell into oblivion and remained unknown for centuries until in 1738 the grandfather of Russian historiography, V.N. Tatishchev, discovered a copy of it in the First Novgorod Chronicle. Subsequently many more copies were found, most of them in manuscript collections of ecclesiastical and secular laws and prescriptions, known as kormchie (lit. “steering-books”, Greek Nomocanon), copied and kept in Russian monasteries. The standard edition by the USSR Academy of Sciences from the middle of the last century made use of 88 different copies, but at that time more than 100 copies were already extant. A considerable number of new copies have emerged afterwards.

As soon as more copies of the RP had become available, it became obvious that there were at least two basic versions, a shorter one, numbering about 850 words, and a longer one about four times as long. These versions are known, respectively, as the Short and the Expanded Pravda.

The two versions are intimately related, not only because in most manuscripts they go under the name of Russkaya Pravda, but, more importantly, because virtually all provisions from the Short Pravda reappear, although in sometimes slightly different wording, in the Expanded Pravda. The general consensus is that the Short Pravda is older than the Expanded Pravda, but we shall have to return to this question at greater length below [1, 35].

After article 185 of the Short Pravda there is a line which reads as a preamble: “The law established for the Russian land, when Iziaslav, Vsevolod, Sviatoslav, Kosniachko, Pereneg, Mikyfor the Kievan, C'hudin [and] Mikula met together.” The fust three persons were the sons and successors of the Kievan grand prince Iaroslav the Wise (Iaroslav Vladimirovich, who ruled in Kiev from 1019 to 1054). This preamble is repeated in article 2 of the Expanded Pravda in a different and more precise wording: “After Iaroslav [had died], his sons Iziaslav, Sviatoslav, Vsevolod, and their men: Kosniachko, Pereneg, and Nikifor came together again [and decided certain things] and as to everything else, decided by Iaroslav, his sons established the same.” Most copies of the Expanded Pravda cany the heading: “The Law of Iaroslav Vladimirovich.”

It is primarily on the basis of these texts that it is generally recognized that the Short Pravda consists of two main parts: the first 18 articles, regarded as a law connected with the Kievan grand prince Iaroslav the Wise, and a following section, connected with his sons. These parts are usually referred to as Iaroslav's Pravda or the Oldest Pravda (Drevneishaia Pravda) and the Pravda of Iaroslav's Sons (Pravda Iaroslavichei). Moreover, at the end of the Short Pravda, there are two provisions with their own headings, which appear to be unconnected with the immediately preceding text of the Pravda of Iaroslav's Sons: the law on the payment of bloodwite (vira): the pokon virnyi (art.42), and the bridgebuilders' statute (urok mostnikov), identified as «a law of Iaroslav» (to ti urok iaroslavl'), art.43 [3, 360].

More speculatively, one may discern different chronological layers in the Oldest Pravda, the Pravda of Iaroslav. The first ten articles are very similar in scope and terminology; they are all concerned with the payment of wergeld for homicide and other personal injuries; article 11 seems to belong to the same layer. Articles 12-18 deal with a greater variety of cases concerning property claims – runaway slaves and loss of possession by the owner being the two central themes.

In the second part, the Pravda of Iaroslav's Sons, the first block of provisions (arts.19-29) may very well be viewed as an addition or amendment to the wergild provisions of the first part; articles 19-29 deal with special and increased fines for killing or injuring the prince's officials.

Article 30 stands somewhat isolated, but the next series of provisions (arts.31-40) continues the focus on the prince's interests, with the accent now on his property interests. As what appears to represent a short law code of princely domanial law, the Pravda of Iaroslav's Sons has therefore repeatedly been compared with Charlemagne's Capitulare de Villis (dating from shortly after 800). Article 41 concerns the distribution of the money collected in fines and articles 42 and 43 have been mentioned above [ 3, 364].

The Expanded Pravda appears to consist of two main parts, entitled in the text “The Law of Iaroslav Vladimirovich” and “The Statute of Vladimir Vsevolodovich”. There is no doubt about the identity of these two princes, the first one is Iaroslav the Wise whom we met before as the legislator of the first part of the Short Pravda, and the second one is his grandson Vladimir Monomakh (so named after his mother, who was a Byzantine princess of the Monomachus family), who ruled as grand prince of Kiev from 1113 to 1125. A closer examination of the text shows that the Expanded Pravda is by no means a simple conjunction of the Short Pravda and a later law by another Kievan prince. The Short Pravda has been incorporated almost entirely into the Expanded Pravda, but not in a single block. Its provisions, edited but still recognizable, are found scattered through the entire text of the Expanded Pravda, also in the Statute of Monomakh [1, 41].

Moreover, most commentators agree that only a small portion of the latter part of the Expanded Pravda represents a specific law promulgated by Vladimir Monomakh at the beginning of his reign.

To cut the story short, the Expanded Pravda was probably compiled at some time in the 12th century (after the death of Vladimir Monomakh in 1125) on the basis of the Short Pravda, the original statute of Vladimir Monomakh of 1113, and other Kievan princely legislation, all of these having been subject to considerable editorial reworking. As to its status, the safest course may be to follow Tikhomirov who suggested that its compilation was officially inspired in order to be used as a practical work of reference in the courts, but that it was not enacted as a separate piece of legislation [1, 36].