law in medieval russia law in eastern europe

8/18/2019 Law in Medieval Russia Law in Eastern Europe

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/law-in-medieval-russia-law-in-eastern-europe 1/364



Law in Medieval Russia



Law in Eastern Europe

A series published in cooperation with the

Institute of East European Law and Russian Studies

of Leiden University, the Universities of Trento and

Graz and the European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano

General Editor

William Simons

VOLUME 59



Law in Medieval Russia

By

Ferdinand Feldbrugge

LEIDEN • BOSTON

2009



This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Feldbrugge, F. J. M. (Ferdinand Joseph Maria), 1933- Law in Medieval Russia /By Ferdinand Feldbrugge.

p. cm. — (Law in Eastern Europe)

Includes index.

ISBN 978-90-04-16985-2 (hardback : alk. paper)

1. Law—Russia—History. I. Title.

KLA122.F45 2009

349.47—dc22

2008039626

ISSN 0075-823XISBN 978 90 04 16985 2

Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands



Contents

Foreword xi

A Note on Sources xv 1. Primary Sources: Chronicles and Other Collections xv Te Primary Chronicle xvi Te First Novgorod Chronicle xvii Other Collections xviii 2. Primary Sources: Individual Documents (Charters); Archives xviii 3. Secondary Sources xx ranslations xxii

extbooks on Legal History xxiii General History Classics xxiv Genealogy xxv

List of Abbreviations xxvi

Chapter 1: LAW’S BEGINNINGS AND EARLY LAW 1 1. Te Question o Definition 2 2. Te Indo-European Aspect 5

Background 5 Indo-Europeans? 7 Indo-European Patriarchy 9 Chiefaincy and Kingship 12 Te Proessionalization o Law 12 Te Penalty Catalogue 14 Collective Liability 16 Some Preliminary Conclusions 18 3. Looking beyond the Indo-Europeans 19 Te Code o Hammurabi 19 Te Law o Bagrat Kuropalates 21 Te Great Statute o the Oirat Mongols o 1640 22 4. Law and State 24 5. Te Origins o Legislation 28

Chapter 2: HE RUSSKAIA PRAVDA 33 1. Introduction 33

2. General Remarks 35 3. Te Short Pravda 35 4. Te Chronological Framework o the Short Pravda 36 5. Te Short Pravda: Composition and Status 38



vi Law in Medieval Russia

6. Te Expanded Pravda 39 7. Other Contemporary Sources 39

Te reaties o 912 and 945 39 Te reaty o 1229 between Smolensk and Riga 41 8. Te Contents o the Short Pravda: Wergeld and Composition 41 9. Procedure 46 10. Te Origins o the Russkaia Pravda 48 11. Te Sources o the Oldest Pravda 51 12. Te “Russian Custom” (Zakon Russkii) 51 13. Other Contemporary Slavic Legislation 53 14. Germanic Contacts 53

15. What does the Oldest Pravda represent? 57

Chapter 3: ROMAN LAW IN MEDIEVAL RUSSIA 59 1. Introduction to the Problem 59 2. How the Views Developed over ime 62 3. Te Legislation Involved: Roman and Byzantine Law— Te ‘Lenders’ 70 Roman Law 70

Secular Byzantine Law 71 a. Te Nomos Georgikos or Farmer’s Law 71 b. Ecloga 72 c. Basilika 73 d. Epanagoge (Eisagoge) 74 e. Procheiron 74 . Epitome 75 Byzantine Canonical (Ecclesiastical) Law 75 Te Early Collections up to the

Nomocanon XIV titulorum 76 Subsequent Developments in Byzantine Canon Law 77 Summary o Byzantine Canon Law 78 4. Te Legislation Involved: Russian Law—Te ‘Borrowers’ 79 Te Court Law or the People 79 Te Russian-Byzantine reaties 80 Te Russian Law (Russkaia Pravda) 81 Te Church Statutes o the Princes 83

5. Roman/Byzantine Influences: Where and When 85 6. Te Kormchaia as the Main Vehicle o ByzantineLegal Influence and Other Collections 87

Te Penetration o the Kormchaia into Medieval Russia 88 Te Merilo Pravednoe or ‘Just Measure’ 92 Te Knigi Zakonnye or ‘Law Books’ 93



Contents vii

7. Weighing the Evidence 94 Roman Law 94

Byzantine Law 108 Nomos Georgikos 109 Ecloga 111 Te Court Law or the People 116 Procheiron 118 Chapter on Witnesses 119 Church Statutes 120 reaties with Byzantium 122 8. Later Developments 122

9. Conclusions 125

Chapter 4: LAND ENURE, HE DRUZHINA AND HENAURE OF KIEVAN RUS’ 129

1. Land enure: Te Legal Perspective 130 2. Te Nature o Kievan Russia: Soviet Approaches 132 3. Te Nature o Kievan Russia: rade or Agriculture? 134 4. Interlude: Feudalism 136

5. Te Nature o Kievan Russia: Continued 139 6. Te Druzhina 140 7. Conclusion 145

Chapter 5: POPULAR ASSEMBLIES IN EARLY MEDIEVALRUSSIA: HE VECHE IN LEGAL HISORY 147

1. Sources 148 2. Five Centuries o Veche History 149 3. Te Veche in Early Kievan Russia 150

4. Te Kievan ‘Empire’ 152 5. Veche and Prince 152 6. Composition o the Veche 154 7. Veche Procedure 156 8. Te Veche afer 1240 157 9. Te Situation in Novgorod and Pskov 159

10. Kievan Rus’ as a Period o ransition 160 11. Te Veche and the Nature o the Kievan Polity 161

12. Te Veche in a Comparative European Context 162 13. Te Russian Veche and Legislation 163 14. Renewed Interest in the Veche 164



viii Law in Medieval Russia

Chapter 6: HE ELDER BROHER IN RUSSIA 167 1. Te House o Rurik 167

2. From Genealogical to Contractual Seniority 170 3. Muscovy Russia: Mestnichestvo 174 4. Te able o Ranks 178 5. Postscript: Te ‘Elder Brother’ in Soviet Rhetoric 179

Chapter 7: HE REAIES OF MEDIEVAL RUSSIA 181 1. Defining the opic 181 2. Te Earliest imes 183 3. Periodization and Sources 186

4. Te reaties between Princes 188 Starshinstvo 189 Te reaties and estaments o the Princes o Moscow:

Close Relatives 189 Excursion concerning the itle o Grand Prince 192 Te reaties o the Princes o Moscow: Distant Relatives 195 Te reaties between Moscow and Lithuania 196 5. Princely reaties not involving Moscow 197 Smolensk reaties 197 Other Princely reaties 198 6. Te reaties o the Russian Cities 200 Te reaties o Novgorod the Great 200 Novgorod-ver’ reaties 202

Novgorod-Moscow reaties 204 Novgorod reaties with Foreign Rulers 205 Novgorod reaties with German and Baltic Cities

and Merchants 206

Pskov reaties 210 7. Iarlyks o atar Khans 211 8. Concluding Toughts 214

Appendix 220 1. Novgorod reaties 220 with Moscow and ver’ Grand Princes 220 with Foreign Rulers 222 with German and Baltic Cities and Merchants 222 2. Pskov reaties 224

3. Polotsk reaties 224 4. Moscow reaties 224 with Other Russian Princes 224 with Foreign Princes 229



Contents ix

5. Other Princely reaties 229 among themselves and with Foreign Princes 229

6. Iarlyks o atar Khans 230

Chapter 8: HUMAN RIGHS IN RUSSIAN LEGAL HISORY 233 1. Introduction 233 2. Te Universal Declaration o Human Rights o 1948 233 3. Equality 235 4. aming the State: Dispersal o Power 236 Te Separation o Powers 236 Due Process 237

Separation o Church and State 237 Christian Anthropology and the Freedom o

Conscience 238 Sharing Power: Original Democracy 239 Sharing Power: Te Feudal System 240 Sharing Power: Urban Freedom 241 Rationalism and Enlightenment 242 5. Te Position in Russia 243 6. Church and State in Russia 243 Te First Centuries 243 Church and State under the Mongols 245 Te Church in Muscovy 247 Te Special Status o Novgorod 249 Te Church in the Russian Empire 250 7. Popular Rule and Democracy in Russia 250 8. Feudalism 252 9. Urban Freedom 253

10. Due Process 256 11. Equality 257 12. Concluding Observations 258

Chapter 9: HE SKRA OF NOVGOROD:LEGAL CONACS BEWEEN RUSSIA ANDWESERN EUROPE IN HE MIDDLE AGES 261 1. Introduction 261 2. Novgorod the Great 262

3. Novgorod’s System o Government 264 4. Novgorod’s Legal System 266 5. Novgorod’s rade with the Hanseatic League 267 6. Te German Court o St.Peter in Novgorod 270



x Law in Medieval Russia

7. Adjudication o German-Russian Disputes 271 8. Te Internal Organization o the Court o St.Peter 274

9. Te Skra o Novgorod and its Different Versions 278 10. Sources and Contents o the Different Versions o the Skra 281 11. Concluding Remarks 290

Chapter 10: MEDIEVAL LAW IN RANSCAUCASIA—ON HE PERIPHERY OF EUROPEAN LEGAL HISORY 293 1. Introduction 293 2. Te Literature 294 3. General Historical Background: Armenia 295

4. General Historical Background: Georgia 297 5. Te Law o the Armenian Kingdoms 298 6. Te Code o Mkhitar Gosh 299 7. Te Code o Smbat Sparapet 300 8. Te Legal History o Georgia 303 9. Te Non-Georgian Parts o the Collection 304 10. Te Law o Bagrat Kuropalates 305 11. Te Canonical Laws 306

12. Te Laws o Beka and Aghbuga 307 13. Te Law o Giorgi V the Brilliant 307 14. Te Order o the King’s Court 308 15. Te Law o the Catholicos 309 16. Te Law Code o Vakhtang VI 310 17. Dasturlamali 311 18. Conclusions 312

Index of Personal Names 315

Subject Index 325

Glossary of Russian and Foreign Terms 329

About the Author 335



Foreword

Soviet law, and then Russian law, have been the central themes in my workfor most of my professional life. But, from the start of my career, I haveentertained a lively interest in legal history, especially in that particularform where the eld is studied for its own sake and not as a handmaidenfor legal practice.

It has often been argued, particularly by legal historians, that legalhistory is useful because without it we cannot properly understand, in-terpret and apply present-day legal rules. This is a valid argument, but its weight should not be overrated. We would only need comparatively smallsections of legal history, and then mostly from more recent times, and not

very often, for this pragmatic purpose. In a legal curriculum, legal historymay have a more important didactic purpose: if properly presented, itmay acquaint the student with a legal system, a legal universe if you wish, which may be much easier to survey and comprehend than the vast andcomplex systems of today. Additionally, European legal history providesan easy link between the two main legal families of the modern world, thesystems of codied law and the Anglo-American systems.

Medieval legal history has its peculiar charm, because in it the linesbetween legal and general history become blurred. One of the reasons is

that a large part of medieval sources consists of legal documents. The legaland the general historian do not approach this material with exactly thesame aim; nevertheless, the problems they have to solve and the lessonsthey learn are often the same. In the end, as I believe, the desire to knowand to understand, without ulterior motives, is what drives the most worthwhile scholarly work.

These few thoughts may perhaps explain why for many years alreadyI have engaged in the study of the law of medieval Russia and relatedtopics. When opportunities arose to write about it, I have made use of

these. This was nearly always in connection with collective eorts, suchas Festschrifte in honour of a respected colleague, or conferences devotedto historical subjects.

When I looked back at the results of these activities, I became moreaware of the fact that these seemingly incidental studies were actuallystrongly interconnected. They were, however, scattered about in dierentpublications, having appeared in dierent countries, and over a periodof more than thirty years. For that reason, I decided to bring them together in a single volume. I am grateful to the General Editor of Law in

Eastern Europe, Professor William B. Simons, for accepting my work forhis series.



xii Law in Medieval Russia

The execution of this plan turned out to be less simple than it seemedin the beginning. First of all, everything had to be brought up-to-date by

the insertion of new materials and the corresponding adjustment of myoriginal texts. In a few cases, this resulted in very drastic revision, especiallyin respect of the older pieces. Then there was the aspect of duplication.When the papers were originally published, separately, certain basic in-formation had to be included about such topics as the Russian-Byzantinetreaties of the 10th century, the Russkaia Pravda, the princely successionsystem of Kievan Russia, the internal organization of Novgorod, etc. Onthis point, I have attempted to reduce redundancy and treat such subjectsat what seemed to be the most appropriate place. To eliminate duplication

altogether would have been counterproductive, because then the narra-tive of an individual chapter would have to be interrupted too often byreferences to other chapters.

The information on sources which had been included in almost all theoriginal papers has now been brought together in a preliminary “Note onSources”; a “List of Abbreviations” has been appended to this Note.

The rst chapter “Law’s Beginnings and Early Law” constitutes anextensive reworking of a concluding chapter which I contributed to a volume which was published several years ago.1 The following chapter on

“The Russkaia Pravda” is an adapted version of a paper I also contributedto this volume.2

The massive Chapter 3 (“Roman Law and Early Russian Law”) has notbeen published before. I had felt for a long time that it would be desirableto treat this subject more in depth. An additional advantage is that thechapter discusses the most important monuments of early Russian law.

Chapter 4 (“Land Tenure, the Druzhina and the Nature of KievanRus’”) is based in part on a paper that was published in 1977;3 the problemraised in the latter paper was indeed fundamental for a proper understand-ing of early Russian law, but the conclusions reached at that time mayhave been somewhat premature. Anyway, the literature on this topic had grown substantially and this alone justied a very thorough reworking, asa result of which a rather dierent paper emerged.

1 “Law’s Beginnings. Some Concluding Observations”, F. Feldbrugge (ed.), The Law’s Beginnings, Leiden, 2003, 255-280.

2 “The Earliest Law of Russia and Its Sources”, F. Feldbrugge (ed.), The Law’s Begin-

nings, Leiden, 2003, 93-113. A dierent version of this paper (in Dutch) was deliveredas my farewell lecture at the University of Leiden, Het oudste Russische recht. Gedachten naar aanleiding van de Russkaia Pravda, Leiden, 1998.

3 “The Law of Land Tenure in Kievan Russia”, W. Butler (ed.), Russian Law: Historical and Political Perspectives, Leiden, 1977, 1-28.



Foreword xiii

The paper on the medieval Russian popular assembly, the veche (Chapter 5: “Popular Assemblies in Early Medieval Russia: The Veche in

Legal History”), was reviewed more lightly, mainly to take into accountnew literature.4

In Chapter 6 (“The Elder Brother in Russia”) an older paper has beenused,5 but in substantially amended form; among other things, a longishsection on the composition of the highest echelons of the Soviet nomen- klatura has been reworked drastically.

In the Chapters 7 (“The Treaties of Medieval Russia”) and 8 (“Hu-man Rights in Russian Legal History”), I have restricted myself mainly toeditorial adjustments, both chapters being based on fairly recent original

papers.6The same applies to Chapter 9 (“The Skra of Novgorod: Legal Con-tacts Between Russia and Western Europe in the Middle Ages”); the originalpaper7 was written in 1981, and the few relevant publications which haveappeared since have been taken into account.

The last Chapter 10 (“Medieval Law in Transcaucasia. On the Periph-ery of European Legal History”) concerns a topic which both in contentand in geographical terms is marginal to the central theme of the collec-tion. Nevertheless, I decided to include it, because during the last two

centuries Armenia and Georgia have been closely associated with Russiaand Russian (Soviet) law.8 Certain parts of the paper do also connect withChapter 1.

The interconnection between the dierent papers is a point which Ialready made above. This was, of course, the reason why the problem ofa considerable amount of duplication had to be addressed. The Russkaia Pravda as the main piece of legislation from the Kievan era is the centraltopic of Chapter 2, but is also prominent in the discussion of the inuence

4 Based on a paper with the same title in M. Hofmann & H. Küpper (eds.), Kontinuitätund Neuanfang [Brunner Festschrift], Baden-Baden, 2001, 165-179.

5 “The Elder Brother in Russia: Seniority in Russian Politico-Legal Discourse”, G.Brunner (ed.), Sowjetsystem und Ostrecht [Meissner Festschrift], Berlin, 1985, 211-225.

6 “The Treaties of Medieval Russia”, R. Clark, F. Feldbrugge & S. Pomorski (eds.), International and National Law in Russia and Eastern Europe [Ginsburgs Festschrift] , Law in Eastern Europe, No.49, The Hague/Boston/London, 2001, 157-205; “HumanRights in Russian Legal History”, F. Feldbrugge & W. Simons (eds.), Human Rightsin Russia and Eastern Europe [van den Berg Festschrift], Law in Eastern Europe, No.51,

The Hague/London/Boston, 2002, 65-90.7 A paper with an identical title was published in Hommage à–Hulde aan–Tribute to René Dekkers, Bruxelles, 1982, 519-533.

8 Originally published under the same title in A. Trunk (ed.), Russland im Kontext derinternationalen Entwicklung [Boguslavskii Festschrift], Berlin, 2004, 765-784.



xiv Law in Medieval Russia

of Byzantine law (Chapter 4) and in the question of land tenure (Chapter4). The Novgorod theme connects the chapters on the Skra (Ch.9), on

the treaties (Ch.7), on the veche (Ch.6) and, to a lesser extent, on humanrights (Ch.8). Princely succession, the main topic of Ch.6 (on the “ElderBrother”), is also of great importance in Ch.4 (about the druzhina and thenature of Kievan Rus’) and Ch.7 (treaties); it also occurs in other chapters.The so-called Normanist problem, concerning the origins of the Rurikiddynasty and the Kievan state, turns up in most chapters and the same canbe said about the impact of Mongol-Tatar rule. The opening chapter on“Law’s Beginnings” oers a comprehensive and more theoretical under-standing of the phenomenon of early law, which constitutes the conceptual

background of the other papers.Two defects should be mentioned too. Although I believe that thecollection of these papers represents a reasonably balanced survey of therich tapestry of the law of medieval Russia, it coverage concerns predomi-nantly what is known as external legal history. There is much less, and atthat more incidentally, about the actual contents of medieval Russian law;in our modern terminology: what was the family law, the commercial law,the criminal law of Kievan Russia like? I intend to return to that at a latertime. One observation that can at least be made is that early law is very

much a question of external history, of identifying the sources; that is itslimitation, but also part of its attraction for the scholar.

The second reservation concerns my own sources. A non-Russianscholar who has to rely mainly on his own library and that of his university,respectable as they may be, is in an unfavourable position in comparisonto a Russian colleague who has large and ancient collections at his disposalin Moscow or St.Petersburg.

A few small technical and editorial points to conclude. I have regularlyreferred, for practical reasons, to the Kievan grand prince who introducedChristianity into Russia as “St.Vladimir”, as is commonly done in Russianliterature, whatever doubts one may have about the prince’s saintliness.9

In bibliographical references, editors of collective works (wherementioned) have been treated as authors of the works concerned (withthe addition of “(ed.)” after their names); if the work is dedicated (as a Festschrift or memorial volume) to a particular person, the latter’s name hasbeen added in square brackets. Place names in bibliographical referenceshave been given as they were in the books concerned (“Moskva” instead

of “Moscow”, “S.Peterburg” instead of “Saint Petersburg”)). The use of theethnonyms “Mongol” and “Tatar” is occasionally, where suitable, explainedin footnotes; generally speaking, they have been used as synonyms.

9 See A.W. Poppe, “Kogda i kak kniaz’ Vladimir byl priznan sviatym”, A.N. Sakharov(ed.), Ot Drevnei Rusi k novoi Rossii [Shchapov Festschrift], Moskva, 2005, 44-61.



A Note on Sources

A lawyer needs sources to tell him what the law ‘is’. (I use the quotationmarks in order to introduce a caveat. The way law ‘is’ is dierent fromthe way a language, the human psyche, or the material reality ‘is’; moreon this in the next chapter.)

In modern states, identication of the sources is unproblematic, atleast in principle. The law is found in statutes and subordinate regulations,and beyond that also in the decisions of courts and other authorized bod-ies who articulate the actual meaning of these statutes and regulations, ifthis meaning is not immediately clear.

In ancient and medieval law, the situation is dierent in at least two

respects. There is much less clarity about what the sources are and oncethis problem is solved the sources turn out to be scarce. A regular proce-dure for creating law, a standard legislative process, was usually absent.Even where common sense would suggest the recognition of certain textsas legislation, there were no ocial gazettes, and our knowledge of thesetexts is based on often diverging manuscript traditions.

These problems also occur in the history of medieval Russian lawand in order to avoid the need to repeat the same basic information onsources in each of the following chapters this introductory chapter will

attempt to survey the most important primary and secondary sources ofthe law of medieval Russia.

1. Primary Sources: Chronicles and Other Collections

Under primary sources, I understand those documents on which, ulti-mately, our knowledge of medieval Russian law rests. To take the mostimportant monument of early Russian law as an example: a student of the Russkaia Pravda may derive much knowledge and insight from the vastliterature that is available on this topic in Russian and Western languages.This literature itself is based on text editions which have been publishedduring the last two centuries. But, in the end, the authors of these texteditions, or at least some of them, must have used a manuscript text. A vast number of manuscript versions of the Russkaia Pravda have survivedand very considerable dierences among them can be observed. This givesrise to the additional problem of trying to establish the most likely versionof the original text. In the case of another very important document, theCourt Charter of Pskov, only a single manuscript copy has survived and

this could therefore certainly be regarded as the primary source.The body of documents constituting the primary sources for thestudy of medieval Russian law can generally be divided into two main



xvi Law in Medieval Russia

categories, book-like volumes and separate (single) documents or charters( gramoty ). Within the rst category, the chronicles form the most numer-

ous group. Chronicles were usually written by monks (initially the onlyliterate persons), often at the behest of secular rulers. They were thencopied and recopied and could undergo all kinds of changes in the process.Precise historical documentation was obviously not the exclusive or evendominant purpose of a chronicler. All these factors have to be taken intoaccount when evaluating the reliability of a chronicle.

Still, the chronicles are an invaluable source because our knowledgeand understanding of medieval Russian society depends largely on them.More specically, they are occasionally the direct source for certain legal

texts. The 10th century treaties between Russia and Byzantium are knownonly from the Primary Chronicle. Some of the original texts of the Russkaia Pravda have been included in copies of the First Novgorod Chronicle.

To realize the systematic publication of chronicle texts the Archeo- graphical Commission was founded in 1834.1 The rst volume of the “FullCollection of Russian Chronicles” ( Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei – PSRL )appeared in 1841. The Archeographical Commission and its publicationssurvive until the present day. For chronicle texts, the PSRL is consideredthe basic publication.

The literature on Russian chronicles is rich, as many leading me-dievalists and philologists have concerned themselves with them. Thefoundation for all more recent work on the chronicles has been laid by A. A. Shakhmatov (1864-1920).

The Primary Chronicle

Of the numerous chronicles, pride of place belongs to the Primary Chroni-cle. It is the oldest of them all and itself the source for many later chronicles.

The oldest and most important redactions of the Primary Chronicle arerepresented by the Laurentian and Hypatian manuscripts.2

The Primary Chronicle ( Nachal’naia letopis’ ) also used to be knownas the Nestor Chronicle, being erroneously ascribed to a monk Nestor.

1 There had been several private publications of chronicle texts previously.2 The Laurentian manuscript derives it name from the monk Lavrentii who made

the copy in Suzdal’ in 1377, according to the colophon of the copy. The Hypatianmanuscript was found in the Hypatian monastery in Kostroma and dates from themiddle of the 15th century.

The Laurentian manuscript was published as the rst part of Vol.1 of the PSRL in 1846 in St.Petersburg, with a second revised edition in 1926 in Leningrad. TheHypatian manuscript constituted Vol.2 of the PSRL, published also in St.Petersburg,in 1843, with a second edition in 1908 and a third edition in 1923 in Leningrad.



A Note on Sources xvii

Another frequently employed title is the “Tale of Bygone Years” ( Povest’vremennykh let ), taken from the opening words of the text.3

The Primary Chronicle takes us up to the year 1116. In its beginning,it mentions Noah and the Flood, but then moves quickly to an accountof how the Slavs settled in Eastern Europe. After reviewing the more orless legendary events concerning the early Slavic tribes in Russia, it stepsonto rm historical ground with the year 852, when according to Greeksources, the Russians attacked Constantinople. The real narrative startsin 862, when the arrival of Rurik, the ancestor of the future ruling dynastyis reported. There is much information on the still pagan successors ofRurik and how they achieved a dominant position as rulers in Kiev. The

main body of the Chronicle covers the ‘classical’ period of Kievan Rus’:baptism under Vladimir in 988, the rule of his son Iaroslav the Wise asthe apogee of Kievan Rus’, and the gradual fragmentation of the Kievanrealm under his successors, with a temporary revival of the old Kievan glory under Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125).

Most commentators, following Shakhmatov, discern various chrono-logical layers in the Primary Chronicle. This makes it impossible to speakunambiguously about the time it was written. The nal text is supposedto have emerged in or shortly after 1116.

The First Novgorod Chronicle

Of the dierent redactions of the Novgorod Chronicle, the First is theonly one that is of eminent importance for the early history of Russianlaw, and particularly where Novgorod itself is concerned. Of the FirstNovgorod Chronicle two versions exist, the Older ( Starshii izvod ) andthe Younger ( Mladshii izvod ). The Older Version of the First NovgorodChronicle is available in one copy only, the Synodal manuscript.4 The ac-

tual text of the Synodal manuscript ends in the year 1333 and was probably written about that time. New entries were added later on, which took

3 English translation of the Laurentian text by S.H. Cross and O.P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor,The Russian Primary Chronicle–Laurentian text , Cambridge, MA, 1953.

4 Novgorodskaia letopis’ po Sinodal’nomu Kharateinomu spisku, 2 vols., S.Peterburg, 1875-1888. Also: M.N. Tikhomirov (ed.), Novgorodskaia kharateinaia letopis’ , Moskva, 1964. TheOlder and Younger Versions were published together by A.N. Nasonov, Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov, Leningrad, 1950. English translation ofthe Synodal manuscript by R. Mitchell and N. Forbes, The Chronicle of Novgorod ,London, 1914 (reprint 1970); this edition includes introductory texts by the transla-tors, and by A.A. Shakhmatov and W. Hanak. German translation by J. Dietze, Die Erste Novgoroder Chronik nach ihrer ältesten Redaktion (Synodalhandschrift) 1016-1333/1352,München, 1971; this edition also includes the Russian text and a complete facsimileof the Synodal manuscript.



xviii Law in Medieval Russia

the narrative up to the year 1472 when Novgorod lost the last remnantsof its independence.

Other Collections

Along with chronicles, other manuscript collections containing legalmaterials have survived. They will be discussed at greater length in thechapter on “Roman Law in Medieval Russia”. Of these the kormchie or‘guide-books’ are the most important and numerous. They are the Rus-sian version of the Byzantine Nomocanon: collections of various content,containing materials which were needed by churchmen. Some of thematerials are of a theological nature, but others concern canon law and

also secular law. Many copies of the Russkaia Pravda have been found asadditions to kormchie.

Another important collection was the ‘Just Measure’ of Merilo Praved- noe, also containing ecclesiastical and secular legal materials. A third col-lection worth mentioning is the ‘Law Books’ ( Knigi zakonnye ), containingonly materials of Byzantine origin.

2. Primary Sources: Individual Documents(Charters); Archives

Along with the more modest number of manuscript ‘books’, such aschronicles and kormchie, a vast number of other shorter documents havesurvived from the Russian middle ages. It is in the nature of things thatsuch documents usually concern legally relevant matters. Because suchdocuments embodied, as it were, a particular right or claim, they have beenpreserved with more than the usual care. Their preservation dependedbefore all on a suitable place for permanent safe-keeping. Monasteries were outstanding in this respect. They were less involved in dynastic strife

and armed conict; their peaceful existence often continued for manycenturies. Documentary collections belonging to secular authorities, suchas governments or judicial bodies, would eventually end up with the ulti-mately remaining power, the rulers of Muscovy and later on the Russianempire.5 A small number of rich and powerful noble families maintainedtheir own archives.

After the rst publication of medieval Russian charters in the last partof the 18th century,6 an ocial publication of state charters was begun in

5 The basic study on these archives is L.V. Cherepnin, Russkie feodal’nye arkhivy XIV- XV vekov, Part I, Moskva/Leningrad, 1948, Part II, Moskva, 1951.

6 Drevniaia Rossiiskaia Vivlioka ili sobranie raznykh drevnikh sochinenii , S.Peterburg,1773-1775.



A Note on Sources xix

1813.7 The Archeographical Commission, mentioned above, was responsiblefor a whole range of serial publications containing documents collected

from all over the empire.8

After the October Revolution, the publication of important archivalmaterial continued. Several collections were devoted to the documentsconnected with some of the great monasteries, who were among the wealthiest landwoners in the past.9 The Central State Archive for AncientDocuments ( TsGADA ) became the repository for many formerly privatearchives.

In other collections, a thematic rather than an archival criterion wasdecisive. S.N. Valk edited a collection of charters concerning the historyof Novgorod and Pskov, covering the period of their independence fromMoscow, i.e. until 1478 for Novgorod and until 1510 for Pskov.10 A year laterL.V. Cherepnin published a collection of testaments and treaties of the grand princes and provincial princes.11 Cherepnin was also the principaleditor of the three-volume “Acts of feudal land ownership and manage-ment”, covering especially the archival materials of major ecclesiasticalland owners.12

7 Sobranie Gosudarstvennykh Gramot i Dogovorov, khraniashchikhsia v Gosudarstvennoi Kollegii inostrannykh del , Moskva, 1813 (Vol.1), 1819 (Vol.2), 1820 (Vol.3), 1828 (Vol.4),1894 (Vol.5).

8 Akty iuridicheskie, ili sobranie form starinnogo deloproizvodstva, S.Peterburg, 1838; Akty istoricheskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheogracheskoiu komissieiu, 5 vols., S.Peterburg,

1841-1842, and twelve volumes of supplements, Dopolneniia k Aktam istoricheskim, sobrannym i izdannym Arkheogracheskoiu Komissieiu, S. Peterburg, 1846-1872;

Akty, otnosiashchiesia do istorii Zapadnoi Rossii , 5 vols., S.Peterburg, 1846-1853; Akty, otnosiashchiesia do istorii Iuzhnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii , 15 vols., S.Peterburg, 1863-1892.

9 S.B. Veselovskii & A.I. Iakovlev (eds.), Pamiatniki sotsialno-ekonomicheskoi istorii moskovskogo gosudarstva XIV-XVII vv., Moskva, 1929 (the Troitse-Sergiev monastery);N.S. Chaev (ed.), Severnye gramoty, Moskva, 1929 (the Solovetskii monastery); A.A.Zimin & M.N. Tikhomirov (eds.), Kniga kliuchei , Moskva, 1949 (the monastery of Joseph of Volokolamsk).

10 S.N. Valk (ed.), Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, Moskva/Leningrad, 1949.11 L.V. Cherepnin (ed.), Dukhovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikikh i udel’nykh kniazei XIV-

XVI vv., Moskva/Leningrad, 1950.12 L.V. Cherepnin (ed.), Akty feodal’nogo zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva, Vol.1, Moskva, 1951

(documents from the Moscow metropolitanate), Vol.2, Moskva, 1956 (monastery of Joseph of Volokolamsk), Vol.3, Moskva, 1961 (Moscow metropolitanate and monasteryof the Annunciation in Nizhnii-Novgorod).



xx Law in Medieval Russia

The publication plan of the core fund of medieval Russian documents was completed by the Institute of History with another three-volume

work, specically devoted to the Russian North-East.13

One category that should be specially mentioned are the birchbarkdocuments, mostly from Novgorod, but also from other places. Consid-erable numbers of such documents have been preserved on account ofthe special soil conditions, and they go back much further than parch-ment or paper documents. While the latter were mostly drawn up andkept safe in order to record some legally relevant matter, the birchbarkdocuments, having survived by chance, had all kinds of other purposes.But, occasionally, they oer an insight into “the law in action” in a period where all other written records fail.14

3. Secondary Sources

In the rst echelon of secondary legal sources, one could place collec-tions of texts, taken from the primary sources mentioned above. Twocollections are of outstanding importance. The “Monuments of RussianLaw” ( Pamiatniki russkogo prava ) were started in 1952 under the editorshipof S.V. Iushkov. After his death in 1952, the series continued under the

editorship of L.V. Cherepnin and then K.A. Sofronenko.15 The last of theeight-volume series to appear was Volume 7 in 1963. The PRP bring togetherthe most important Russian laws and government decrees, starting withthe Russo-Byzantine treaties of the 10th century, up to the year 1724; the

13 Akty sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi istorii Severo-Vostochnoi Rusi , Vol.1 (B.D. Grekov, ed.),Moskva, 1952; Vol.2 (L.V. Cherepnin, ed.), Moskva, 1958; Vol.3 (L.V. Cherepnin, ed.),Moskva, 1964.

14 Cf . L.V. Cherepnin, Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty kak istoricheskii istochnik, Moskva,

1969.15 Pamiatniki russkogo prava, general editor S.V. Iushkov (Vols. 1 and 2), L.V. Cherepnin(Vols.3-5, 7), K.A. Sofronenko (Vols.4 and 8):

Vol.1, Pamiatniki prava Kievskogo gosudarstva, A.A. Zimin (comp.), Moskva, 1952 Vol.2, Pamiatniki prava feodal’no-razdroblennoi Rusi , A.A. Zimin (comp.), Moskva,

1953 Vol.3, Pamiatniki prava perioda obrazovaniia Russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva,

Moskva, 1955 Vol.4, Pamiatniki prava perioda ukrepleniia Russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva,

Moskva, 1956

Vol.5, Pamiatniki prava perioda soslovno-predstavitel’noi monarkhii , Moskva, 1959 Vol.6, Sobornoe Ulozhenie Alekseia Mikhailovicha 1649 goda, Moskva, 1957 Vol.7, Pamiatniki prava perioda sozdaniia absoliutnoi monarkhii , Moskva, 1963 Vol.8, Zakonodatel’nye akty Petra I , Moskva, 1961.



A Note on Sources xxi

eighth volume is devoted to the legislation of Peter the Great. The serieshas been edited most carefully by the leading scholars for the dierent

periods. For the older texts, based on manuscripts, the important variantreadings have been given. The most dicult texts are accompanied bya modern Russian translation. All texts have been provided with a com-mentary.

Twenty years later, a new and similar series was started: “RussianLegislation from the 10th to the 20th century” ( Rossiiskoe zakonodatel’stvo X-XX vekov ).16 The rst four volumes of this series cover the same periodas the entire PRP ; Vols.5-9 cover the period of 1726-1917. For the Middle Ages, the PRP is therefore still the most useful source, although the RZ

series does occasionally oer information not to be found in the PRP .For the most important legislative document of early medieval Rus-sia, the Russkaia Pravda, the Academy of Sciences publication edited byB.D. Grekov is still the fundamental work.17 The rst volume contains thetexts of the oldest and most important copies of the dierent manuscriptfamilies, with the variant readings of other copies. In the second volume,the vast literature from before 1947 has been collected and is quotedextensively, in the shape of a commentary to the individual provisions ofthe RP . The third volume contains full facsimile copies of the two leading

manuscripts of the Short Pravda and the thirteen leading manuscripts ofthe Expanded Pravda.

16 Rossiiskoe zakonodatel’stvo X-XX vekov, O.I. Chistiakov (gen. ed.): Vol.1, Zakonodatel’stvo Drevnei Rusi , V.L. Ianin (ed.), Moskva, 1984 Vol.2, Zakonodatel’stvo perioda obrazovaniia i ukrepleniia Russkogo tsentralizovannogo

gosudarstva, A.D. Gorskii (ed.), Moskva, 1985 Vol.3, Akty Zemskikh soborov, A.G. Man’kov (ed.), Moskva, 1985 Vol.4, Zakonodatel’stvo perioda stanovleniia absoliutizma, A.G. Man’kov (ed.), Moskva,

1986 Vol.5, Zakonodatel’stvo perioda rastsveta absoliutizma, E.I. Indova (ed.), Moskva, 1987 Vol.6, Zakonodatel ’stvo pervoi poloviny XIX veka, O.I. Chistiakov (ed.), Moskva,

1988 Vol.7, Dokumenty krest’ianskoi reformy, O.I. Chistiakov (ed.), Moskva, 1989 Vol.8, Sudebnaia reforma, B.V. Vilenskii (ed.), Moskva, 1991 Vol.9, Zakonodatel’stvo epokhi burzhuazno-demokraticheskikh revoliutsii , O.I. Chistiakov

(ed.), Moskva, 1994.

17 B.D. Grekov (ed.), Pravda Russkaia; Vol.1, Teksty, Moskva/Leningrad, 1940; Vol.2, Kom- mentarii, Moskva/Leningrad, 1947; Vol.3, Faksimil’noe vosproizvedenie tekstov, Moskva,1963.



xxii Law in Medieval Russia

Translations

The fullest and most recent collection of translations of medieval Russian

laws into English is the rst series (”Medieval Russia”) of the ambitiouscollection “The Laws of Russia”, published under the general editorshipof C. Schlacks, Jr. The series on medieval law (R. Hellie served as generaleditor) consists of three volumes, “The Laws of Rus’–Tenth to FifteenthCenturies” (Salt Lake City, 1992), translated and edited by D.H. Kaiser;a volume containing the Law Codes ( Sudebniki ) of 1497, 1550, 1589, and1606/1607;18 and “The Muscovite Law Code (Ulozhenie) of 1649” (Irvine,California, 1988), translated and edited by R. Hellie.

For the purposes of this book, the rst volume by Kaiser is the mostrelevant. Like the other volumes of the series, it oers a bilingual text, with the Russian text on the left-hand page and the English translationon the other. The selection has been very generous, oering not only thebasic texts of the RP and the Novgorod and Pskov Charters, but also thetreaties with Byzantium, eight church charters of various princes, fourtreaties between Novgorod and the prince of Tver’, the “Metropolitan’s Justice” and quite a few other sources. All this, plus more than fty pagesof introduction, makes this volume a most useful addition to the literature

on medieval Russian law.Before this publication, the much smaller volume of translations andcomments by G. Vernadsky (“Medieval Russian Laws”, New York, 1947) was the best-known source for English translations of medieval Russianlaws. Vernadsky was undoubtedly one of the few outstanding Westernscholars in this eld, but his views were occasionally controversial andthis did also aect the quality of his translations. Moreover, his collectionincluded only the RP and the charters of Dvina Land and the cities ofNovgorod and Pskov.

In French, M. Szeftel and A. Eck published a collection of translations(with comments) in 1963, which included the RP , the Charter of Pskov,and a number of princely church statutes.19

Although German scholars had been more involved than other schol-ars from the Western world in the study of Russian legal history, there isno recent German translation of the most important relevant texts, with18 At the moment of writing this chapter, the second volume has not yet appeared. Also,

the third part (the Ulozhenie of 1649) is to consist of two parts, of which apparentlyonly the rst part (text and translation) has been published.

19 M. Szeftel & A. Eck, Documents de droit public relatifs à la Russie médiévale, Bruxelles,1963.



A Note on Sources xxiii

the exception of Baranowski’s translation in his monumental study on the RP .20 L.K. Goetz’ translation of the RP is now a century old.21

Textbooks on Legal History

During the Soviet era, medieval legal history became a branch of generalmedievistics. Most of the scholars in that eld wrote about medievalRussian law, especially because in early medieval studies legal documentsoccupy an important place. But only S.V. Iushkov could be regarded asa legal historian rst of all; some of his major works are about the only general works on early Russian legal history from the Soviet period.22

For the more traditional and comprehensive surveys of legal history,the pre-revolutionary handbooks are still of great value. The leading authors were V.I. Sergeevich, M.F. Vladimirskii-Budanov and M.A. D’iakonov.The “Lectures and Studies on the Ancient History of Russian Law” bySergeevich cover the Kievan period fairly extensively and the Muscovyperiod more briey under the traditional headings of “sources”, “state law”,“criminal law”, “civil law” and “court proceedings”; a lengthy appendix isdevoted to the 10th century treaties with Byzantium.23 Another three- volume work by the same author makes greater use of original sources and

is structured around major themes (territory, population, armed forces,veche, prince, princely councillors, land use, taxation).24

Vladimirskii-Budanov was the author of the most popular textbookon Russian legal history before the October Revolution; it was rst pub-lished in 1886 in Kiev and the last and seventh edition appeared in 1915.25 It is organized along the same lines as Sergeevich’s “Lectures” (state law,criminal law, civil law, procedure) and covers the entire period up to the

20 G. Baranowski, Die Russkaja Pravda–ein mittelalterliches Rechtsdenkmal , Frankfurt a/M.,

2005.21 In his major work: L.K. Goetz, Das Russische Recht , Vols.1-4, Stuttgart, 1910-1914.22 S.V. Iushkov, Istoriia gosudarstva i prava SSSR, Part 1, Moskva (3rd ed.), 1950; this

part treats the entire legal history of all the territories of the USSR up to 1917; id .,Obshchestvenno-politicheskii stroi i pravo kievskogo gosudarstva, Moskva, 1949.

23 V.I. Sergeevich, Lektsii i izsledovaniia po drevnei istorii russkago prava, S.Peterburg, 1883;I have used the 4th ed., S.Peterburg, 1910.

24 V.I. Sergeevich, Drevnosti russkago prava, S.Peterburg, Part 1, 1890; Part 2, 1890; Part3, 1903; I have used the 3rd ed. of Parts 1 and 2 of 1909 and 1908.

25 M.F. Vladimirskii-Budanov, Obzor istorii russkago prava, Kiev, 1886, (7th ed.)1915. Ihave used the modern edition ( Obzor istorii russkogo prava ), published in Rostov-na-Donu, 1995, based on the 7th ed.



xxiv Law in Medieval Russia

19th century Svod Zakonov, although the emphasis is on the Kievan andMuscovy periods.

The work by D’iakonov, as the title suggests, is devoted in principleto the organization of the state, but in discussing the legal status of the various sections of the population numerous other topics are treated.26 Therefore, although the work appears to exclude civil and criminal law,its overall coverage is not too dierent from that of the textbooks of theother two authors.

In the post-Soviet era, I.A. Isaev published a university textbook onRussian legal history.27 This volume also covers the Soviet era. Inevitably,the treatment of most subjects is rather perfunctory and not based on an

in-depth analysis of the sources or a comparative evaluation of the mostnotable viewpoints.In Western languages, there is L. Schultz’ concise overview of Rus-

sian legal history,28 which also includes the Soviet period, and much morerecently, H. Küpper’s introduction to the legal history of Eastern Europe, which devotes some 140 pages to the legal history of Russia before 1917.29 Both works are in German.

General History Classics

The Russian literature (pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet) on the RussianMiddle Ages is very rich and we shall only refer to a few of the patriarchshere.

V.N. Tatishchev (1686-1750), scion of one of the Rurikid familiesand highly gifted in many elds, could be called the founder of Russianhistoriography. His eight-volume “Russian History” has been republishedmany times.30 In some respects, the value of Tatishchev’s work is unique,because some of the sources used by him have subsequently been lost. It

26 M.A. D’iakonov, Ocherki obshchestvennago i gosudarstvennago stroia Drevnei Rusi ,S.Peterburg (2nd ed.), 1908. The rst edition appeared in a very small number ofcopies and is very rare.

27 I.A. Isaev, Istoriia gosudarstva i prava Rossii , Moskva, 1998, (3rd ed.) 2006.28 L. Schultz, Russische Rechtsgeschichte von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart einschliesslich

des Rechts der Sowjetunion, Lahr, 1951.29 H. Küpper, Einführung in die Rechtsgeschichte Osteuropas, Frankfurt a/M., 2005.30 V.N. Tatishchev, Istoriia rossiiskaia, Moskva, 1964 (scholarly edition prepared by a

team of leading historians). More accessible perhaps is a modern edition in three

volumes, published in Moscow in 2003.



A Note on Sources xxv

covers the period up to the death of tsar Aleksei Fedorovich, Peter theGreat’s father, in 1677.

The next great work is N.M. Karamzin’s “History of the RussianState”, published rst in 1811 in twelve parts. The nal (fourth) edition isprovided with a special volume with indices by P. Stroev.31 It leads up to1612, the beginning of the Romanov dynasty after the Time of Troubles.

V.O. Kliuchevskii (1841-1911), one of the most prominent Russianhistorians from the end of the pre-revolutionary era, collected his univer-sity lectures on Russian history in a ve-volume work Kurs russkoi istorii ;this was rst published during the years 1904-1910, and republished manytimes afterwards.32 It takes the story up to the land reforms of Alexander

II in the 1860’s.Genealogy

The fragmentation of the Rurikid house and the resulting abundanceof princes occasionally require a guide in the genealogical labyrinth. Formany years, the standard texts were two companion volumes by N. deBaumgarten, published in the series of the Pontical Institute of OrientalStudies in Rome.33 In 1988, a posthumously published work of A.A. Ziminoered detailed information on a number of Rurikid branches which hadbeen absorbed into the boyar class in the era of the Muscovy grand princes,as well as on a number of other boyar families.34 The earliest genealogy ofthe Rurikids, concerning especially the sensitive subject of their Germanicconnections, is the subject of a more recent study by E.V. Pchelov.35

31 N.M. Karamzin, Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskago, S.Peterburg (4th ed.), 1842-1844. This

is the edition which has been reprinted many times, also during recent times.32 I have used the edition in the Sochineniia, 8 vols., Moskva, 1956-1958; the Kurs takesup vols.1-5 of these.

33 N. de Baumgarten, Généalogies et mariages occidentaux des Rurikides russes du Xe au XIIIe siècle, Orientalia Christiana, Vol.IX-1, No.35, Roma, 1925, id ., Généalogies des branches régnantes des Rurikides du XIIIe au XVI siècle, Orientalia Christiana, Vol. XXXV-1,No.94, Roma, 1934.

34 A.A. Zimin, Formirovanie boiarskoi aristokratii v Rossi vo vtoroi polovine XV–pervoi treti XVI v., Moskva, 1988.

35

E.V. Pchelov, Genealogiia drevnerusskikh kniazei IX–nachala XI v., Moskva, 2001.



List of Abbreviations

DDG Dukhovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikikh i udel’nykh kniazei XIV-XVI vv. (S.V. Bakhrushin, ed., L.V.Cherepnin, man. ed.), Moskva/Leningrad, 1950

Cherepnin, Arkhivy L.V. Cherepnin, Russkie feodal’nye arkhivy XIV-XVvekov, Part I, Moskva/Leningrad, 1948, Part II,Moskva, 1951

D’iakonov M. D’iakonov, Ocherki obshchestvennago i gosudarstvennago stroia Drevnei Rusi , S.Peterburg(2nd ed.), 1908

GVNP Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova (S.N. Valk, ed.),Moskva/Leningrad, 1949

Iushkov, Ocherki S.V. Iushkov, Ocherki po istorii feodalizma v Kievskoi Rusi , Moskva/Leningrad, 1939

Iushkov, Stroi S.V. Iushkov, Obshchestvenno-politicheskii stroi Kievskogo gosudarstva, Moskva, 1949

Kaiser, Laws D.H. Kaiser (ed. & transl.), The Laws of Rus’–Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries, Salt Lake City, 1992

Karamzin N.M. Karamzin, Istoriia Gosudarstva Rossiiskago, 4 vols., S.Peterburg, 1842-1844 (reprint Moscow 5th ed.,1988)

Kliuchevskii, Kurs V.O. Kliuchevskii, Kurs russkoi istorii , S.Peterburg,1904-1910; vols.1-5 of Sochineniia, 8 vols., Moskva,1956

Novg. Chr. First Novgorod Chronicle (for full reference, seenote 4)

Presniakov, Kn. pr. A.E. Presniakov, “Kniazhoe pravo v drevnei Rusi.Ocherki po istorii X-XII stoletii”. Zapiski istoriko-lo- logicheskago fakul’teta imp. S.Peterburgskago universiteta,Part 90, S.Peterburg, 1909

Presniakov, Lektsii A.E. Presniakov, Lektsii po russkoi istorii , Part I,

Moskva, 1938, Part II, Moskva, 1939

Prim. Chr. Primary Chronicle (also Nestor Chronicle, or Tale ofBygone Years) (for full reference, see note 2)



PRP Pamiatniki russkogo prava (for full reference, see note15)

PSRL Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei

RP Russkaia Pravda

RZ Rossiiskoe zakonodatel ’stvo X-XX vekov (for full refer-ence, see note 16)

Sergeevich, Drevnosti V.I. Sergeevich, Drevnosti russkago prava, I,S.Peterburg (3rd ed.), 1909; II, S.Peterburg (3rd ed.),1908; III, S.Peterburg, 1903

Sergeevich, Lektsii V.I. Sergeevich, Lektsii i izsledovaniia po drevnei istorii russkago prava, S.Peterburg (4th ed.), 1910

SGGD Sobranie Gosudarstvennykh Gramot i Dogovorov (for full reference, see note 7)

Vlad.-Bud., Obzor M.F. Vladimirskii-Budanov, Obzor istorii russkogo prava, Rostov-na-Donu, 1995 (republication of 7thed., Kiev, 1915)



Chapter 1

Law’s Beginnings and Early Law

At the beginning of the previous chapter (on sources), the point wasmade that the study of medieval law, and especially its earliest phases,encounters specic problems which are absent or at least less signicantin later phases. The most comprehensive of these problems is what mightbe encapsulated in a simple question: When does law begin?

The question of course implies that a more or less generally agreedupon concept is available of what we understand by “law”, a denitionof law, in other words. But it also implies that—provided we can agree

on such a denition—we accept the idea that law did begin at a certainmoment and that it had not been present before, as long as mankind had walked the planet.

I consider this idea as self-evident. When small bands of prehistorichunters-gatherers roamed the virgin earth, they had language, were con-nected by a network of social relations, and individuals had dierentminds and psyches. For the students of historical linguistics, sociology,anthropology and psychology therefore the objects of their studies hadexisted as long as the human race itself. It would make little sense to saythe same about law. Certain types of human social behaviour, in the familyor in similar small groups, are indeed reminiscent of certain legal institu-tions. Persons who are in a position of authority, for instance, may engagein setting rules for others. The phenomenon that previous behaviour, orprecedent, may guide future action is even observable in the animal king-dom. But to regard such things as law in the commonly accepted sense would not serve a useful purpose.

Law therefore is something that came into being at a specic moment

in history, or rather at specic and dierent moments in the histories ofspecic human groups.In this introductory chapter, I intend to investigate this process of the

birth of law in a more general and comparative framework, drawing largelyon the work of specialists in other elds.1 The origin of law is a problemthat is usually approached from a more philosophical or theoretical pointof view. The great exception is Maine’s famous work “Ancient Law”; in

1 As explained in the Foreword, the original version of this chapter constituted theconcluding chapter in the publication of a collective study of numerous aspects of‘early law’: F.J.M. Feldbrugge (ed.), The Law’s Beginnings, Leiden/Boston, 2003 (here-after quoted as Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings ). The contributors to this volume werelinguists, anthropologists, legal historians and legal philosophers, and the contribu-tions ranged from more theoretical studies to investigations of the oldest laws of anumber of Indo-European and non-Indo-European peoples.



2 Law in Medieval Russia

his Introduction to this work, J.H. Morgan, contrasting Maine’s method,revolutionary at the time, with the eorts of jurists, such as Bentham and

Austin, and political philosophers, such as Hobbes and Locke, wrote thatthe latter “had approached the study of law and political society entirelyfrom an unhistoric point of view and had substituted dogmatism forhistorical investigation”, while “he [Maine] demonstrated that our legalconceptions […] are as much the product of historical development asbiological organisms are the outcome of evolution”.2

Morgan may have been unkind to legal philosophers and theorists,but we can agree with him that the origins of law constitute a problemthat should not be left to them alone. It should also be tackled in con-

crete historical terms. Some of the questions that require an answer inthis connection are: What are the conditions for the earliest phase ofjuridication of human relations? To what extent can one identify generallines or laws of development?

1. The Question of Denition

A discussion of, and investigation into the beginnings, the origins, of lawpresupposes an understanding of what it is that is beginning. Is a deni-tion of law therefore required?

Signicantly, most authors dealing with the question of “early law”in specic cultures briey touch upon this question, without oering anelaborate answer. They then move on to other matters and this suggeststhat if a problem would exist in this respect, it is not considered particularlyurgent or relevant. Terminology considered to be understood in more orless the same way by the audience is usually not explained. Most authorsexplaining the beginning of law in a specic culture apparently expecttheir readers to share a more or less identical concept of law, in the same

way as other terms used ( e.g . “state”, “authorities”, “force”) are consideredto have a suciently clear and generally understood meaning.The question of denition is more dicult to avoid when the problem

of the beginning of law is considered from a more general point of view.One might look for help to other disciplines. In legal anthropology, one ofthe current denitions (“a social norm is legal if its neglect or infractionis regularly met, in threat or in fact, by the application of physical force,ostracism or shame by an individual or group possessing a socially recog-2 H.S. Maine [Sir Henry Sumner Maine], Ancient Law, with an Introduction by J.H.

Morgan, Everyman’s Library edition, London/New York, 1917; Morgan’s Introductionon pp.v-xiii.

The only remotely comparable work known to me is W. Fikentscher, H. Franke& O. Köhler (eds.), Entstehung und Wandel rechtlicher Traditionen, Freiburg/München,1980.



Law’s Beginnings and Early Law 3

nized privilege of so acting”) is so broad that it would even embrace socialnorms operating among primates.3 Hoekema then refers to an approach

adopted by several authors in the Fikentscher volume (mentioned abovein the footnotes), who dene the beginning of law as the rise of a moreformal, more authoritarian structure of law and its administration.4 Theformula is too vague to be of much help.

Legal philosophy may oer further elucidation. Cliteur notes correctlythat law is not something that exists in reality (“outside and independentlyfrom ourselves”, I would say), but that it is a matter of what we wish toregard as law, a man-made construction.5 This leads him to the conclusion“that the question is not so much where does law start but rather where do

we think that law should start ”6 [Cliteur’s italics]. The problem is turned intoa normative one in this way. We derive from elsewhere (religion, ideology,etc.) a certain idea of what law should be and begin to construct law, rstin our minds and then in the reality of social life.

This could be a suitable approach when dealing with present-day law,but it is of no assistance in studying “early law” and “law’s beginnings”. Wecould, for instance, agree that certain family matters should be brought within the sphere of law, while others should remain outside the law’sreach. The sum of all such choices would produce a complete catalogue

of the contents of a legal system and by the same token a certain kind ofdenition of law. But such a denition of law would be dicult to applyin a dierent cultural setting, while it is precisely that kind of denitionthat would be needed.

People apparently feel that there is a suciently general consensusabout what is meant by “law”, so that an actual denition is regarded assuperuous, and this consensus would also allow us to deal with the lawof civilizations very dierent from our own. This consensus need notbe based on a shared underlying philosophy. Nobody would for instancedeny that law, in any cultural setting or historical phase, is characterizedby the occurrence of peculiar institutions, practices and procedures.

3 Quoted by A.J. Hoekema, “A New Beginning of Law Among Indigenous Peoples.Observations by a Legal Anthropologist”, Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings, 181-220, at182. Hoekema derives the quotation from P.R. Grant, “Recognition of TraditionalLaws in State Courts and the Formulation of State Legislation”, B.W. Morse & G.R.Goodman (eds.), Indigenous Law and the State, Dordrecht/Providence, RI, 1988, 259-268, at 260.

4

As quoted by Hoekema, 183. The formula is logically defective (dening idem peridem ), but something may possibly have been lost in translation.5 P. Cliteur, “Incipient Law. Aspects of Legal Philosophy”, Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings,

1-9, at 7.6 Cliteur, 9.




They need not all be there, and some of them may also occur outside thelegal system, but once a certain number of them are present, in sucient

intensity, and in particular constellations, we recognize the existence oflaw. The following institutions could be mentioned:

— dispute settlement by a third party; — xed procedures for dispute settlement; — acceptance and enforcement of third party dispute settlement; — recognition of the validity of precedents in dispute settlement.

These may be considered as part of the bedrock upon which a legal sys-

tem may eventually be built. By themselves they do not yet constitutesuch a system, or at least only an embryonic one. Once a second layerdevelops, we can more condently speak of emerging or early law; sucha layer would involve:

— specialization and then professionalization of dispute settlement:courts;

— verbal xation, orally or in writing, of procedural and substantiverules concerning dispute settlement;

— monopolization of rule enunciation by specic persons or agen-cies.

In a third phase the legal system reaches its maturity when at least:

— a central authority acquires the power to enunciate rules; — and then creates new rules; — and increasingly monopolizes enforcement of rules.

In this third phase, law becomes an essential element of the power struc-ture of the society concerned and co-denes the emerging state.

The denition of law which gradually takes shape in this way couldbe called enumerative, in that it is constructed through the enumerationof various elements considered to be generally accepted as constituentparts of a legal system. To put it in concrete terms: law is courts decid-ing disputes, bailis executing judgments, lawyers arguing precedents,and of course also the rules they apply—laws, government decrees, all

kinds of regulations, etc.7

The enumeration should also not be regardedas exhaustive—other elements could be added. It attempts to formulatethe common denominator of a great variety of views on law and is, in that

7 This view is, in many ways, close to those of the American realist school.




sense, pragmatic. Proponents of more specic denitions of law may wellmiss elements which they consider essential or, at least, more important

than the elements included in the enumeration. It is implicit in this ap-proach that law is not regarded as something that is either there or not.It emerges gradually; many authors have used the term “juridication”,thereby indicating that certain practices and institutions may acquire alegal character incrementally, by stages.

Finally, the emergence of law in the sense explained above is not onlya phenomenon from the distant past, but it is still occurring in the presentin various parts of the globe. Moreover, juridication of particular cornersof our Western society is something that we can observe ourselves and in

which we are often ourselves involved. In modern Western civilization, the volume of law has grown almost explosively during the last half-century;many sectors of life which were left to informal social procedures andcustom before World War II are now covered by a dense network ofocially enacted laws and regulations. Phenomena from prehistory andproto-history, the study of which requires great eort, can also be observedin our own societies, but usually at a lower organizational level.

2. The Indo-European Aspect

Background

If, in Ranke’s famous words, the basic task of the historian is to nd outhow it actually has been ( wie es eigentlich gewesen ist ), then every bit of thepast is fair game. But an understanding of any situation in the past isenhanced by knowing what preceded it. This will always lead us furtherback, to the border area between history and prehistory, when writtensources are getting ever scarcer, until in the end only mute objects allow

some kind of reconstruction of the distant past.Legal history is particularly vulnerable in this respect, because knowl-edge of law depends heavily on what has been written down. Even in thepresent, it is often dicult to establish the contents of unwritten law,although few would doubt its existence.

It is possible to construct theories about the emergence of law, andit certainly has been done; such theories can be tested to some extentby looking at phenomena that can be observed in the present, legal developments in our modern Western society, or in very dierent cultures,

surviving today. But this would only lead, as a rule, to an abstract con-ceptualization of the origins of law: at some time and place in the distantpast, in primitive communities, social devices evolved which provided the




fertile soil for the genesis of law, rst in unwritten form, and ultimatelyxed in writing.

The preferred approach in this chapter is to work backwards, in thetraditional way of the historian, by asking the question: What was therebefore it?

In today’s globalized world, Western law has become completely domi-nant and its impact is inescapable. The study or denition of “Westernlaw” is outside the scope of this study; it will be sucient to point outthat Western law itself consists of a vast compact of very dierent legalsystems, themselves highly complicated. Its traditional division into codi-ed systems and common law systems has some convenience value, but

nowadays needs many corrections.8 When we go back in history, however,the paths of development of the various Western legal systems converge.This is to a large extent, although not exclusively, connected with thepreponderance of Roman law. The Romans constructed a legal system ofmuch greater sophistication than those of the nations with which theycame into contact; in the course of time, rejection or disregard of theRoman model stopped being an option. But Roman law did not inuenceits neighbouring systems all in the same way. It was digested (the “recep-tion” of Roman law) over a long period, in legal systems which were often

sharply dierent among themselves. The main other component, in mostEuropean countries, was a system of Germanic origin. This was not only thecase in the countries of North-Western Europe, predominantly populatedby Germanic tribes, but also in several Latin countries, where kingdomsof Germanic invaders, bringing their own laws, were established in theearly middle ages ( e.g . various Germanic tribes in France, the Langobardsin Northern Italy and the Visigoths in Spain). The resulting legal varietybecame even richer when the European cultural space came to includethe nations of Central and Eastern Europe.

The continuing presence of Roman law, albeit with dierent intensity, guaranteed a degree of intellectual unity of legal thought. Modern think-ing about basic concepts, such as contract, obligation, property, etc., isfundamentally indebted to Roman law; in this way, legal discourse acrossthe borders of dierent legal regimes has been greatly facilitated.

8 Judge-made law is important, and in some areas dominant, in many codied systems, while on the other hand systematic legislation, which might come close to genuinecodication, is widely practiced in common law systems. I believe that the valueof the distinction between the two legal worlds is not so much in the antithesiscodication/judge-made law, but in the importance assigned to the concept of “legalsystem”. The latter concept is more central in legal thinking and discourse in thecivil law countries, and this may be connected with dierent views of the role of thestate.




The ineaceable preponderance of Roman law in European legalhistory tends to obscure the fact that there has also been a time when

the archaic law of the Romans was in many ways comparable to the legalsystems of other European cultures at a similar level of development.9 When the obvious question is then asked: “What preceded this stage?”,the numerous parallels and similarities suggest a search for certain com-mon origins.

Indo-Europeans?

The basic and most obvious parallels are of a linguistic nature. The texts ofthe earliest laws of many European peoples have often been written in the

vernacular,10 and these languages all belong to the linguistic family knownas Indo-European.11 Would it be possible to trace the common roots ofcertain legal institutions in the Indo-European past? A well-known attemptin this direction was undertaken by É. Benveniste in his vocabulary ofIndo-European institutions.12 Considerable detail was added by S. Zimmerin a study specically devoted to “Indo-European law”.13

This approach, of course, implies the assumption that at a certainmoment in the past there existed an ethno-linguistic community of peoplepossessing a common language (or, at least, a series of related languagesor dialects) which may be regarded as the ancestor of the subsequentlyevolving Indo-European languages, and a set of societal institutions (the9 This aspect of Roman law studies may not have received much attention through

the ages. For a recent study in this area, see B. Sirks, “An Aspect of Archaic RomanLaw: Auctoritas tutoris”, in Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings, 45-58.

10 The Germanic leges barbarorum, written in a corrupt Latin and often containingGermanic expressions, being the main exception; other Germanic laws, such asthose of the Anglo-Saxons and various Scandinavian peoples, are in the vernacular;the same goes for the impressive body of Old-Irish law and for most early Slavic

codications.11 The volume on which this chapter (Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings ) is based containsstudies on ancient Indian, Greek, Roman, Irish, Frisian, and Russian law:

D. Kol, “Early Law in India”, 11-22; E. van der Vliet, “Justice and Written Laws in the Formation of the Polis”, 23-43; B. Sirks, “An Aspect of Archaic Roman Law: Auctoritas tutoris”, 45-58; D. Edel, “An Emerging Legal System in an Embryonic State. The Case of Early

Medieval Ireland”, 59-76; N. Algra, “The Lex Frisionum. The Genesis of a Legalized Life”, 77-92; F. Feldbrugge, “The Earliest Law of Russia and its Sources”, 93-113.

12 É. Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, Paris, 1969; English trans-lation, London, 1973; German translation, Frankfurt a/M., 1993; Russian translation,Moskva, 1995. Chapter 2 of Part 2 is devoted to law.

13 S. Zimmer, “Glimpses of Indo-European Law”, in Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings, 115-136.




question whether such institutions should already be termed “legal” maybe left aside for the moment) which were at the source of legal institu-

tions encountered later on among various Indo-European peoples anddisplaying a sucient degree of similarity.The rst part of the assumption (the existence of an Indo-European

ethno-linguistic community at some time in the past) is not seriouslydoubted by modern linguistic and archaeological scholarship. Althoughthe time and place of this existence have been the subject of intensedebate for several centuries, the dominant view nowadays is that oneshould look at the period from the 5th to the 3rd millennium B.C. in thePontic-Caspian area.14

14 Cf . J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth, Lon-don, 1989, 186. In his paper, Zimmer takes the position that Proto-Indo-European(the reconstructed language of the as yet “undivided” Indo-Europeans) cannot bedated earlier than 3500 B.C., and that 3000 or even 2500 would be a more likelydate. The latter date is more amply adstructed in the author’s Ursprache, Urvolk und Indogermanisierung. Zur Methode der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde, Innsbruck, 1990.The hypothesis presented in the latter work is that the emergence of Proto-Indo-European (and of the people speaking it) was the result of amalgamation processesof ethnic elements (individuals and small groups) of dierent origins, who had beenejected or had migrated from their own homelands. Such processes, resulting in the

comparatively rapid and sudden formation of new cultures and ethnic entities, areknown from history and anthropology, and can be accompanied by very fast languagechange by means of so-called creolisation. The congeries of migrants, vagrants,adventurers, robbers, etc. who were the carriers of this development is character-ized as a colluvies gentium by the proponents of this theory. As the theory would alsoinvolve the occurrence of several of such amalgamation processes, it could explainthe considerable dierences between various Indo-European language groups ata very early stage. It would also allow the denial of an Urvolk and an Ursprache forthe Indo-Europeans, in other words, it would be perfectly possible that an ethno-linguistic entity speaking the—theoretically reconstructible—Proto-Indo-Europeanlanguage never existed as such, and neither an ethnos that could be identied as“Indo-European”.

On the other hand, although this theory may be able to explain certain phenomena,it also evokes numerous questions to which it does not provide answers. If Proto-Indo-European was such a recent phenomenon, what were its constitutive elements? Thehistory and archaeology of the Near East and the western part of Eurasia around themiddle of the 3rd millennium B.C. are suciently well-known to suggest a numberof candidates, if there would be any. How can the Indo-European acquis be explainedby the languages and cultures of these civilizations? Can the theory be supported byevidence or at least indications from non-linguistic sources?

The archaeological evidence certainly points in a dierent direction. This can

no longer be countered by the nostrum that pots have no language. The main linesof the scenario of cultural development in the Pontic-Caspian area since the 5thmillennium B.C. are quite clear by now. Starting with the earliest and most primi-tive Pit-Grave culture in the North Caspian area this development and its gradualdierentiation can be traced in considerable detail until the rst historical ethnicentities of undoubtedly Indo-European origin appear.




The examination of the earliest known law of various Indo-Europeanpeoples easily leads to the hypothesis of a common core of legal institu-

tions, which would take us back to these times and places. In his paper,Zimmer has identied a number of such institutions, of which marriagelaw and sick-maintenance15 are discussed in greater detail, together witha survey of terms having signicant legal connotations and a commonIndo-European origin. Additional parallels have been suggested in otherstudies.

A general caveat should precede such an investigation. The occurrenceof similar institutions in the legal systems of several, or even all, historicalcultures of peoples of Indo-European stock does not constitute absolute

proof of the existence of similar institutions in the prehistoric Proto-Indo-European phase and, even if we could assume such an existence,of a genetic link between earlier and later phenomena. But the progressof science requires a combination of common sense, imagination andintuition (and good luck).

Indo-European Patriarchy

Patriarchy is not so much a legal institution as a fundamental principleunderlying the organization of Indo-European society and, therefore, alsoits law. It aects rst of all the legal status of individuals, then marriagelaw, property law, and also ‘public’ law. In a general sense, patriarchy ap-

This area, or to be more precise, the steppe area to the north of the Caspian Seaand westwards to the river Dniepr had often been singled out in the past as the mostlikely staging area from where the Indo-Europeans spread out in several directions.The subsequent accumulation of archaeological data has made it possible to drawup a more detailed map in time and space of the expansion and transformationsof the South-Russian kurgan grave cultures. This map ts so well what is known

about the spreading and variegation of Indo-European languages, that it would be very hard to produce another explanatory model of comparable persuasive power. Although denitive proof is dicult to present in such matters, the thesis about theSouth-Russian kurgan cultures and their link with the diusion of Indo-Europeanlanguages is now widely, although not universally accepted.

See, generally, Mallory, op.cit . Older fundamental Russian (Soviet) archaeologicalliterature is quoted in my The South-Russian Pit-Grave Culture and the Problem of the Homeland of the Indo-Europeans (published as a manuscript, Leiden, 1964).

15 Zimmer ( op.cit ., 127-128) points to the occurrence of the institution of sick-maintenancein Old Irish and in Hittite law (separated by thousands of kilometers and years). Onemight add very brief references to something similar in Germanic and Slavic law:the Salic Law allows the costs of medicatura on top of the composition for injuries( Lex Salica, 19-6, Pactus legis salicae, 17-4); the Russkaia Pravda (Short Version, art.2) grants the doctor’s fee ( lettsiu m’zda ), also on top of the composition for injuries. ForOld-Irish law, where the subject is of considerable importance, see D.A. Binchy, “SickMaintenance in Irish Law”, Eriu, Vol.12 (1938), 78-134.




pears to be a dominant aspect of social organization at a certain level ofdevelopment and as such occurs in a great variety of cultures.

The peculiarities of Indo-European patriarchy come to the fore mostprominently in archaic Roman law.16 Roman patriarchy was of exceptionalhistorical importance, because its elaboration in the form of patria potestas was of enormous inuence in the development of European and Westernlaw and thereby on the legal status of, and the relationships between, thesexes.

In his study of archaic Roman law, Sirks has argued that it was notmale dominance as such which determined Roman patriarchy, but the ideaof the unity of the gens and its genius, manifesting itself in the vis genitalis

of the sexually mature male members of the gens.17 As the mana of thefather or grandfather would obviously be superior to that of his ospring,the status of his sons and grandsons remained very considerably reduced while he was alive. Once the father died, his sons would move into hisplace as fully empowered representatives of the genius, each becoming apaterfamilias in his own right.

Similar arrangements occur among other Indo-European peoples,although the power of the paterfamilias is generally not as exclusive asit is in Rome (a point already made by Maine18 ).The dynastic histories of

Germanic and Slavic peoples indicate that it was not so much the rulerbut, rather, the ruling house which was regarded as the decisive factor. Among the Merovingian and Carolingian kings of the Franks, the realm was usually divided among the surviving sons of the deceased ruler. Theidea of power belonging, not to individuals, but to the ruling house wasparticularly strong among the Russian Rurikids. An informal hierarchyamong the male members of the house was based, rst on generation,then on age. The most senior prince would rule in the nominal capitalKiev, the other princes in the provincial capital (also ranged in order ofimportance). The death of a prominent ruling prince would occasion akind of game of musical chairs, all lower ranking princes moving one stepup. The underlying idea was very clearly that every adult male member ofthe house had a right, according to his position in the family hierarchy, toshare in the family ‘estate’—the government of Kievan Rus’. Primogenitureand substitution (of predeceased fathers by their sons) appeared only later

16 See the paper by Sirks, quoted above.

17 Sirks refers to H. Wagenvoort, whose original studies have been inuential in ex -pounding these views: H. Wagenvoort, Imperium. Studiën over het ‘Mana’-begrip in zedeen taal der Romeinen, Amsterdam, 1941; English edition: Roman Dynamism, Oxford,1947.

18 Maine, op.cit ., 85.




on in medieval Germanic and Slavic legal systems (this topic is discussedin more detail in the chapter on “The Elder Brother in Russia”).

A similar institution seems to have existed among the Celts, wherethe four generations descended from one great-grandfather, the derbne, were all entitled to a certain share.19

The ideological background of Indo-European patriarchy is unques-tionably of a religious nature. For ancient Rome, this has been arguedconvincingly by Wagenvoort in his seminal works. The ancestors livedon in the following generations and continued to be part of the gens.The performance of certain rituals was essential in this respect and thisexplained the need to secure the continuation of male ospring, because

the vis genitalis was transmitted by them only. A very similar view seemsto have been taken in Old Indian society.20 The religious foundation ofpatriarchy faded among other Indo-European peoples, but obvious indica-tions remained. Celtic and Germanic rulers of pagan times regularly tracedtheir descent back to tribal deities; this is especially well documented forScandinavian rulers of the earliest historical periods.

In Marxist and neo-Marxist historiography this perspective is reversed, because religious views are regarded as part of the superstructure.The male half of the population is then seen as a kind of exploiting class,

controlling the means of production and inventing an ideology to legiti-mate its dominance. One need not deny the relevance of material andeconomic factors to reject this approach as too simplistic.

In its schematic approach to historical development, Marxism alsoassigns a special place to a matriarchal ordering of society. Much has been written about matriarchal survivals in the cultures and attitudes of dier-ent Indo-European peoples. Some of these may obviously be connected with cultures which ourished before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans.Whether Proto-Indo-European culture also contained matriarchal ele-ments is a question which cannot be answered here. Particularly amongthe Germanic peoples there are a few indications.21

19 Cf . N. Chadwick, The Celts, London, 1970, 113-114; Edel, op.cit ., 62.20 Cf . Kol, op.cit ., 11-12.21 One of the best known is Tacitus’ communication in Germania (20): “Sons of sisters

enjoy the same honour with their maternal uncle as with their father. Some [nations]consider this blood relationship as more sacred and closer, and demand preferably[sons of sisters] as hostages, because [in this way] they would have a better control ofthe minds and a broader grip on the family.” Matriarchal survivals among Germanicpeoples may of course also be the result of pre-Indo-European substrata. In the oldest version of the Russkaia Pravda, among the relatives entitled to the blood feud, along with male relatives on the paternal side (son, father, brother, sons of brothers), thesons of sisters are included (see, also, the chapter on the Russkaia Pravda ).




Chieftaincy and Kingship

It is not overly speculative to assume that the Indo-European patriarchal

principle was also at the basis of the development of social leadership formssuch as chieftaincy and later on kingship. Ancient Irish society appears torepresent a comparatively early stage where the numerous kings of variousrank were in fact not much more than tribal chiefs.22 The Germanic tribes,at the threshold of history, were already amalgamating into larger, nation-like units, but Gregory of Tours relates in his Historia Francorum how theearly Frankish kings, such as Clovis and his ancestors, were engaged inthe elimination of petty kings among the Salic Franks.23 The same thinghappened in Russia, as related in the Primary Chronicle. The eliminationof non-Rurikid Slavic princes was completed under St.Vladimir.

If we accept that there was an original idea of vis genitalis, a life-givingforce, by which the life of the ancestors perpetuated itself in posterity,transmitted by males, but present in females as well, then a living paterfamilias could evolve into the leader of a large family group and, then,achieve the chieftaincy of a tribe. This could be accompanied by theelaboration of the religious/ideological dimension connecting the welfareof the community with the recognition of the divine framework in which

the social relationships were anchored. A series of small steps would thenlead to the transition from tribal chieftain to tribal king and then to kingof the entire people.

After the baptism of Europe, many elements of divine kingship wereretained in a christianized form: the divine right of kings, the elaboratereligious ceremony around the assumption of kingship (anointing, corona-tion), the king as healer, etc.

The Professionalization of Law

Professionalization of law, in the sense of the emergence of a class ofpersons who are more or less exclusively engaged in legal business, is animportant aspect of the processes around the origins of law, as argued atthe beginning of this chapter. “Exclusively”, in this context, refers both tothe fact that such persons do little else but law, as to the fact that othershave little concern with legal matters (except as occasional parties in legaldisputes). Law becomes “lawyers’ business”.

Professionalization of the law was most pronounced, among thedierent early Indo-European legal systems, in ancient Irish law, where a

socially prominent class of lawyers, the brithemain, existed, who had split22 See the Edel paper, quoted above.23 Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks, translated with an Introduction by Lewis

Thorpe, London, 1974.




o from the general class of learned men, the lid .24 In India, a profes-sion of legal councillors had gradually detached itself from the learned

brahmin class, while also the administration of justice in the royal courtsmust have produced its own specialized personnel. Among the Germanic peoples legal professionalization was not as

well developed but still well attested. The old Frisian asega was expectedto know the law by heart; he was in fact the mouthpiece of an oral codeof law. The laws of the Salic and Ribuarian Franks describe the task of the rachineburgi as the enunciation of the law.25 Both the Frisians and the Franksleft the actual judgment to the popular assembly (the “thing”). Germanlegal historians generally regard the institution of the ‘law-sayer’ ( asega,

iuridicus ) as an innovation, assuming that originally the statement of theapplicable law and the judgment based on it belonged to the competenceof the assembly.26 The main foundation for this view seems to be Tacitus’brief description of Germanic procedure in his Germania, where he statesthat at the trial rst the king or a chief would express his opinion (pos-sessing authority but no decisive force) and propose a judgment, whichthen would be either rejected by public grumbling or accepted by thebystanders’ beating their spears together.27

In a more circumstantial way, some adstruction for the more recent

character of the ‘law-sayer’ in Germanic procedure could be derived fromprovisions in the Frankish laws which speak about the appointment of rachineburgi by the grao (roughly: the presiding judge).28 This might suggest that more or less anybody could serve as ‘law-sayer’.

The weakness of these arguments is obvious. Tacitus’ statement isbrief and refers to all kinds of decisions made by the assembly (includingpolitical ones). It does not at all exclude that, in specically legal disputes,the exposition of the case and the applicable law would be referred to an‘expert’. The provision about the appointment of rachineburgi by the judgerefers to a very specic situation during the execution of a claim; also, itappears that the judge did not, in fact, appoint a few chance citizens as24 Edel, op.cit ., 64-65.25 Pactus legis salicae 57, Lex Salica 60, Lex Ribuaria 55.26 H. Brunner, Grundzüge der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, Leipzig (2nd ed.), 1903, 17; R.

Schröder, Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, Leipzig (3rd ed.), 1898, 43-44; K. von Amira, Grundriss des germanischen Rechts, Strassburg (3rd ed.), 1913, 255; H. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. Band I: Frühzeit und Mittelalter , Karlsruhe (2nd ed.), 1962,

28.27 Tacitus, Germania 12: “mox rex vel princeps […] audiuntur, auctoritate suadendi magisquam iubendi potestate. Si displicuit sententia, fremitu aspernantur; sin placuit,frameas concutiunt [...].”

28 Pactus legis salicae 60, Lex Salica 52.




rachineburgi , but collected seven suitable ocials from an available poolof rachineburgi .29

The size and level of complication of some of the Germanic leges,particularly the Salic Law, would be hard to explain if there were no personspossessing extensive specialized legal knowledge. Some of them are, infact, mentioned by name in the prologue of the version of the Salic Lawknown as the Pactus legis salicae.30

In the oldest Russian law, the Russkaia Pravda, various princely ocialsare mentioned31 and some of them may have served as judges or courtocials (baili, sheri, etc.), but there is no evidence of the presence oflegal professionals in the sense outlined above. Professional administra-

tive expertise, which would include knowledge of the law, developed inthe later middle ages among the clerical servants in the chanceries of theprinces; but compared to the situation in Western Europe, the rise of aprofessional class of lawyers was a late phenomenon in Russia.

On the basis of what is known about the existence of a legal profes-sion in the early Irish, Indian and Germanic cultures, and about its geneticconnection with the more general class of learned men in these cultures,the hypothesis could be advanced that—at an early stage of the evolutionof Indo-European peoples—there existed a class of people who served as

a repository of knowledge about what was right and proper in the eldsof religion, ritual, ethics, social mores and law (if it is possible to speak oflaw as a separate entity at this stage).

The Penalty Catalogue

One of the most striking features of the earliest legislative layers is theprominence of catalogues of penalties or, rather, private nes (Germ. Busskatalog ) or xed compensations. The Germanic leges barbarorum, at

least those in which not Roman but Germanic law is dominant,32

consistalmost entirely or at least for the greater part of such catalogues. Thesame goes for the oldest layer of the Russkaia Pravda. The oldest laws ofother Slavic peoples are mostly of a somewhat later era, but still displaythe same pattern (see the chapter on the Russkaia Pravda ).29 Ibidem: “Then the count [judge] will collect 7 suitable rachineburgi and go with them

to the house of the debtor […].”30 Visogast, Bodogast (Arogast), Salegast and Vidogast.31 The iabetnik (agent, sergeant?), mechnik (lit. “sword-man”, sheri?), ognishchanin (lit.

“hearth-person”, domesticus, steward, baili?), tiun (steward), virnik (collector of thevira, the ne replacing the wergeld).

32 Most clearly the laws of the Salic, Ripuarian and Chamavian Franks (the Ewa ad Amorem, for the latter), of the Saxons, Frisians and Thuringians, and of the Langobards;somewhat less the laws of the Visigoths, Burgundians, Alamans and Bavarians.




In Old-Irish law, the situation is more complex, mainly on accountof the wealth of sources. There can be no doubt, however, that Old-Irish

law also knew an elaborate scale of nes (usually called “honour-price”, lóg n-enech or díre ) for oences against persons.33 While in most other sys-tems the emphasis is on the ne itself, related to the status of the victimand the seriousness of the injury or oence, Old-Irish law was before allconcerned with the determination of status.34

The Hittite laws, to be dated roughly about 1500 B.C., antedatingcomparable European sources by about two millennia, also consisted toa considerable extent of catalogues of xed compensations for personalinjuries. Its rst article, as in the Russkaia Pravda, is devoted to homicide:

“If anybody kills a man or a woman in a ght, he shall give four persons,men or women [slaves], as compensation.”35 The following articles deal withthe killing of slaves and various forms of injuries, oering many parallels with the Russkaia Pravda and the leges barbarorum. Otherwise, there arealso numerous parallels with the laws of non-Indo-European peoples of the Ancient Near East, which should not surprise in view of the chronologicaland geographical surroundings of the Hittite laws.36 One of the strikingdierences remains the treatment of manslaughter and physical injuries;

33 Edel, op.cit ., 32; F. Kelly, A Guide to Early Irish Law, Dublin, 1988, 126.; N. McLeod,“Interpreting Early Irish Law: Status and Currency”, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie,Band.42, 1987, 41-115.

34 Cf . E. MacNeill, “The Law of Status or Franchise”, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy,Section C, Vol.36, 1923, 265-316. This paper contains the English translations of thetwo most important texts on this subject, the Crith Gablach (“Branched Purchase”)and the Uraicht Becc (“Little Grammar”). An annotated edition of the Crith Gablach by D.A. Binchy, as Vol.XI (Dublin, 1941) of the Mediaeval and Modern Irish Series.For the honour-price topic, the most important texts are Bretha Crólige en Bretha Déin Checht ; English translations (by D.A. Binchy) in Eriu, Vol.12 (1938), 1-77 ( Bretha

Crólige ) and Eriu, Vol.20 (1966), 1-66 ( Bretha Déin Checht ). The rst text is followedby D.A. Binchy’s study on “Sick-Maintenance in Irish Law”, quoted above, whichcontains the apposite statement: “Students of comparative law have long realizedthat the rules governing compensation for personal injuries oer perhaps the mostfruitful eld for the drawing of parallels between ancient legal systems” (at 78).

35 Based on the German translation of J. Friedrich, Die Hethitischen Gesetze, Leiden,1959; English translation by A. Goetze in J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament , Princeton, 1950. Russian translation by I.M. D’iakonovin Vestnik drevnei istorii , 1952, No.4, 259-308. In the parallel text of the Hittite Law,the rst article is split into two parts, treating the killing of a man or a woman as

dierent torts.36 Cf . H. Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammurabis, Leipzig, 1902; I.M. D’iakonov, “Zakony

Vavilonii, Assirii i Khettskogo tsarstva”, Vestnik drevnei istorii , 1952, No.3, 199-303,No.4, 205-321. Old Testament legal prescriptions are primarily to be found in Deu-teronomium 21-26 and Exodus 21-23.




the laws of the Semitic peoples regularly prescribe capital punishment orat least a reaction based on the principle of “an eye-for-an-eye”, while the

oldest layers of the laws of Indo-European peoples prefer some form ofmaterial compensation of the victim or his relatives.In archaic Greece no catalogue, along the lines of those mentioned

above, is known, although there are indications in Homer’s Iliad that therelatives of the murdered man had to be placated by the payment of axed amount (ποινή ).37

According to all these sources the ne was to be paid to the injuredperson, or his close kin in the case of homicide, but in some instances(such as in Russian law) subsequent legislation diverted the payment to

the coers of the ruler, reecting increased assertion of public power. A close comparison of the rates set for various injuries often suggeststhat the personal ne did not primarily aim at repairing the material dam-age caused by the injury, but at restoring the victim’s status, diminishedby the oence.

There are also indications that the catalogues of injuries and theappropriate nes contained a considerable element of case law; in other words, much of it was based on precedent. This suggests the hypothesisthat, if there was a common Indo-European core in all these systems, it

was probably not very extensive. In the oldest layer of the Russkaia Pravda (see the chapter on this subject), the catalogue was quite short and listedonly the most basic oences (homicide, grievous bodily harm, light bodilyharm, physical violence, insults). This may have been close to the originalsituation. Case law would then produce further renements. In some ofthe Germanic laws, the catalogues go into ludicrous detail, such as listingnes for separate parts of individual ngers.

Collective Liability

The connection with the penalty catalogues is obvious, if one taken intoaccount that reparation of the oence by paying a sum of money was itselfa substitute for revenge (this is clearly illustrated by the rst provisionof the Russkaia Pravda ). Revenge was a matter for the family or the clan.Originally, one would presume, the oence would be regarded as an insultof the family or clan to which the actual victim belonged. Conversely, theoender’s family or clan could be held responsible for the misdeeds of oneof their members. Several systems have retained traces of such collective

responsibility or liability.The Germanic laws are the most clear in this respect. The Lex Sax-onum (XIX) provided that, in cases of homicide, one-third of the wergeld37 I 632-636, payment of ποινή for the murder of a brother or a son; Ο 497., the famous

description of the court scene on Achilles’ shield, where two men submit a disputeabout the ποινή for a murdered man to the city court.




was to be paid by the close relatives ( proximi ) of the perpetrator and twothirds by himself. The other side of the coin was that, on the side of the

injured party, the wergeld had to be divided and several Germanic lawscontain pertinent rules.38

In the Expanded Version of the Russkaia Pravda, the verv’ bearscollective responsibility for the payment of the wergeld of a personkilled within its territory, if the murderer remained unknown. The exactmeaning of verv’ has been the subject of endless debates; it has obviousterritorial connotations, i.e. it covers a group of people inhabiting a par-ticular territory, but it is uncertain whether it would embrace everybodyor consist of a voluntary association. Moreover, the question has been

asked whether, beyond its territorial aspect, an element of consanguinity was also included.39

In the Hittite Law Code (art.173), there is a single provision whichcould point to collective responsibility: “If anyone opposes the judgmentof the king, his house shall become a ruin.”40 But this rule could very wellrefer to the situation which may occur in any legal system, where a penaltyentailing material consequences inevitably aects not only the oenderhimself but, also, his close relatives.

The collective liability which we have in mind here is a much more

specic institution, connected with a particular type of patriarchal socialsystem. If the unity of the patriarchal clan is considered to be based on acommon origin and a common vital force, then an attack against a singlemember may be regarded as an attack against all. A similar thought proc-ess may make the entire clan or family group of the attacker responsiblefor the attack. The wergeld or composition, which emerged at a certainstage as a substitute for the original revenge, would then be due by theentire group, with the victim and his family as a collective creditor. Theevidence suggests that this stage did not last long in most cultures, be-cause the consolidation of a central authority soon brought about theelimination of private individuals and groups from the process of reac-tion against breaches of the peace. As soon as kings appear, they tend toforbid feuds and monopolize the punishment of oenders; the wergeldthen disappears.

38 E.g . Lex Salica 65 ( Pactus legis salicae 62).39 For an extensive overview of the various viewpoints advanced since the 19th century

on the meaning of the verv’ , see B.D. Grekov (ed.), Pravda Russkaia II ( Kommentarii ),Moskva/Leningrad, 1947, 261-274; and also B.D. Grekov, “Bol’shaia sem’ia i verv’Russkoi Pravdy i politskogo statuta”, Izbrannye Trudy, Vol. II, Moskva, 1959, 564-575.

40 See O.R. Gurney, The Hittites, London (rev. ed.), 1961, 93, 99.




Some Preliminary Conclusions

Indo-European scholarship is a vast eld. In the preceding sections,

we have tried to identify a few common strands in early legal systemsof Indo-European peoples, in order to pose the question whether thesimilarities established may perhaps be based on a common origin. Thepainstaking reconstruction of what one might call the proto-legal systemof the proto-Indo-European could be somewhat advanced in this way, anexercise which is worthwhile on its own merits, as well as for the light itmight shed on the processes surrounding the origins of law.

Of the many aspects that have not been discussed above, two shouldat least be mentioned briey. One is the importance of procedure.41 Theemergence of law is nearly always closely connected with the solidicationof procedures. A famous saying of American legal realism is: Procedureis the heart of the law. Several terms suggesting articulate proceduralinstitutions at an early stage of Indo-European developments have beenidentied by Zimmer in his review of a possible Indo-European legalterminology.42 The earliest documented phases of the legal systems ofseveral Indo-European peoples show already the existence of xed pro-cedural institutions. One example (surviving to this day in the jury of

Anglo-American law) is the occurrence of a group of twelve men to whomcertain duties are entrusted.43

The second aspect is the religious one. In the ‘early law’ phase, whichis the focal point of this chapter, the religious dimension of the law hasalready faded in most of the systems under consideration. There are indi-cations, however, that in the prehistoric phase of law (before we have any written sources) the links between law and religion, between the entirecomplex of what was considered divinely ordained, proper, right, ethi-cal, common practice, socially benecial, and legally binding, were much

narrower. As this complex became more elaborate and the knowledge ofit more xed and formalized, a class of experts arose, people who knewhow things should be and how they should be done, and who transmittedtheir knowledge to new generations of experts.

41 This point is also noted in the papers of van der Vliet and Algra, cited above.

42 Cf . the paper by Zimmer quoted above.43 The “twelve” occur in nearly all Germanic laws; see the paper by Algra, or, e.g . the Lex

Saxonum XVI. For Russian law, see art.15 of the Short Russkaia Pravda. Alkinoos, kingof the Phaeacians, ruled his country as the leader of twelve chieftains, in Homer’sOdyssee, η 390.




3. Looking beyond the Indo-Europeans

A simple logical consideration leads us to the next step. Certain legal sys-tems possess common or at least similar institutions; they also belong toIndo-European peoples. If such institutions do not occur anywhere else,then there would be good reason to assume an Indo-European origin. It would therefore be appropriate now to have a brief look at certain otherlegal systems, in particular such early codications as may help in identify -ing the peculiarities of the Indo-European systems. These may producea general image, limited of course and possibly one-sided, of societies which were roughly at the same level of socio-cultural development, no

matter how dierent their cultures and world-views might have been. Thechoice of suitable candidates is wide and a selection is inevitable. Practi-cal considerations ( i.e. the materials must be available and accessible tothe author) lead to a choice embracing the Code of Hammurabi ( ca. 1760B.C.), the law code of Bagrat Kuropalates, ruler of Southern Georgia inthe middle of the 9th century A.D., and the Great Statute ( Ikh Tsaaz ) ofthe Oirat Mongols of 1640.

The Code of Hammurabi 44

If we restrict our attention to the contents of the Code,45 the rst thingthat will be noticed is that the overall picture produced by the Code is ofa society considerably more complex and sophisticated than those of thetribal societies and incipient principalities of early medieval Europe, fromIreland to Russia. The legal culture in particular is much more advanced:the Code is preceded by centuries of legislation on specic topics andeven a few earlier attempts at codication; the courts possessed recordsof earlier decisions; written contracts concerning land, houses and slaves were a long-established practice, etc.

Although the Code is based, to a great extent, on earlier precedents,or on case law in other words, its level of systematization is respectable. Itsrst hundred or so articles oer a broad view of the commercial relationsin a developed agricultural society with a clear and strong central author-ity residing in its urban centre. The next (about) hundred provisions aremainly devoted to relationships within the family, which includes personnel

44 As mentioned above, I have used the German translation by H. Winckler, publishedin the same year as the editio princeps by V. Scheil, in Textes élamites-sémitiques, deuxième

série; Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, Vol. 4, Paris, 1902.45 The history leading up to the Code of Hammurabi, its genesis, socio-economic

context and general tenor have been discussed in K.R. Veenhof, “Before Hammurabiof Babylon. Law and Laws in Early Mesopotamia”, Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings, 137-159.




and slaves. The last third of the Code displays more similarity, as to thecontents, with the early European laws. It deals mostly with homicide

and all kinds of personal injuries. A major dierence with the Europeanlaws, as already noted above, lies in the dominance of the retributiveprinciple of “an eye for an eye”, as known from the Old Testament. Onlyless signicant oences entail monetary sanctions, nes to be paid to the victim. A large number of oences are punishable by death, while capitalpunishment was absent or rare in early European law.

The general conclusion has to be that the Babylonian legal system was very dierent from the early European systems mentioned above.Occasionally, however, curious parallels appear. When a person had been

robbed and the identity of the robbers could not be established, the com-munity inhabiting the locality where the robbery took place must make good the losses (art.23). This is very much like the situation discussedbefore in connection with the Old-Russian verv’ , except that the latterconcerned the composition in a case of homicide. Another example isarticle 9, the standard case for rst-year law examinations: acquisition byand revindication from a third owner (possessor). If the latter’s ownershipis in dispute, he has to produce his predecessor(s) in order to prove thatthe property was acquired in the correct manner. A quite similar procedure

is described in the Russkaia Pravda (art.16 Short Pravda, art.38 ExpandedPravda; these provisions will also be discussed in the chapter on Romanlaw and early Russian law). In Babylon the rst seller, if he had pocketedthe price twice, was to be killed as a thief, a consequence not foreseenby Old-Russian law.

The latter case suggests a marginal remark which may be relevant incomparing legal institutions from very dierent legal systems. The similar-ity between legal institutions may actually be caused, not by any kind of genetic connection, but by the simple fact that the underlying situationsare similar.46 A similar legal solution may then be dictated by the situa-tions themselves. If we nd something belonging to us (either originally,or because it had been bought but not yet delivered to us) in the hands ofa third person, it stands to reason that we demand that person to discloseto us the identity of the person who had sold or given it to him, and torepeat this procedure until we can nally confront the person who sold itto us (without delivering it) or who came to possess something we owned without our intention of making him the owner ( e.g . through a loan, or by

theft). Many legal systems, once they proceed to regulate such matters, will work out a solution like the one described.46 For this reason I would not include debt slavery, common in Babylonian law and

encountered in many early Indo-European systems (Greece, Rome, and among theSlavs), in the list of interesting parallels.




The Law of Bagrat Kuropalates

The medieval law of Georgia is of special interest in the context of our

investigation for two reasons: it reects the legal system of a non-Indo-European people which retained its own character in a cultural and geographical context, not too dierent from medieval Europe, and Georgianlaw has been extraordinarily conservative through the ages (see the chapteron “Medieval Law in Transcaucasia”).

The prevailing opinion about the author of the Law is that it wasBagrat I, who ruled Southern Georgia from 826-876, and who had been given the title of Kuropalates by the Byzantine emperor.47 His descendantslater on became rulers and kings of Georgia, where the Bagratid dynastylasted until the Georgian kingdoms were incorporated into the Russianempire at the beginning of the 19th century.

The Law of Bagrat has survived in later medieval collections and was ultimately included in the law collection of king Vakhtang (Vaxtangin the ocial Georgian transliteration) VI, compiled between 1703 and1709 (see the chapter on “Medieval Law in Transcaucasia”). It consists of62 provisions, of which the rst third part is devoted to rules protectingthe church and its dignitaries. The reason for this is presumably that the

church and all clerical personnel would lack the protection which laypeople enjoyed, who could all fall back on their own family or clan. Theremaining part of the law is generally similar to the Germanic and Slaviclaws of the same period, in providing a catalogue of nes (xed compensa -tions) to be paid to the victims of oences (or their kin).

Social stratication was also comparable to that prevailing amongearly European peoples: the ruler or king at the summit and the bishopsat more or less the same level, then the grandees ( didebuli ), the ordinarynoblemen ( aznauri ), and the common peasants ( glexi ). In the later middle

ages, the system became more complicated.The compensation to be paid (called sisxli = blood) was dependent onthe rank of the victim and on the seriousness of the oence.48 Full sisxli wasdue in case of homicide, a fraction thereof (usually half) in cases of injuriesor insults. The sisxli is usually in amounts of 12 or multiples of 12, whichagain is very much like the Germanic and Slavic systems. This numericalsimilarity is even more striking in the case of certain oaths, to be sworn47 A title usually reserved for members of the Byzantine imperial family. It had rst

been given to Bagrat’s father, Ashot Bagrationi, the founder of the dynasty, and was

used by Bagrat’s successors as a secondary title once they had assumed the title ofking ( mepe, Russ. tsar’ ) of Kartlia. See M.D. Lordkipanidze & D.L. Mushkhelishvili(eds.), Ocherki istorii Gruzii. Tom II: Gruziia v IV-X vekakh, Tbilisi, 1988, 314-315.

48 The system even applied to the desecration of icons: the double amount for desecra-tion of the icon of Christ (art.23).




with the aid of twelve or twenty-four helpers, a procedure well known inGermanic law (something similar also in the Short Pravda, art.15).

With regard to the similarities with Germanic and Slavic models,direct borrowing one way or the other is practically excluded in view ofthe geopolitical circumstances of the period. Borrowing from neighbouringIndo-European peoples (or the other way around) in an earlier period is amatter of speculation. Another possibility would be to look for commonroots in a more distant past. As next to nothing is known about the eth-nic origins of the Georgians, this road leads nowhere for the time being.The phenomenon known as convergence could also oer an explanationfor certain similarities. Without direct connections or genetic links,

dierent legal systems could develop along similar paths, most likely onaccount of similar socio-economic conditions, and thus reach stages ofdevelopment which at a given moment were quite similar. The use of thenumber ‘twelve’ is wide-spread, although by no means universal amongdierent cultures.

The Law of Bagrat does not refer to courts or professional judges.It simply states the xed compensations to be paid for various types ofbehaviour injurious or harmful to others. The short preamble (art.1) shedssome light on the way justice was to be administered. It exhorts those who

will sit in justice to act justly and fairly, and then adds that a person whoknows the law or whom the king considers to be educated and experienced,or a well-to-do merchant, or a good family chief in the country, shouldact as a judge, “he will be sensible and will well understand the work of ajudge, and will not say anything that is unjudicious”.

The Great Statute of the Oirat Mongols of 1640

Mongol law is not as exotic as one might think in the framework of

comparative legal history. Favoured by harsh geographical conditions, theMongols have succeeded in maintaining their independence while sur-rounded by powerful cultures and empires: China and Japan in the East,and Russia and the whole of Europe in the West. For a while, they evenachieved political and military superiority in the entire Eurasian area inthe 12th and 13th century under Chingis-Khan and his successors.49

During the reign of Chingis-Khan, a short code was compiled, knownas the Iasa of Chingis-Khan.50 It contained legal norms, along with moral49 Cf . A.M. Khazanov, “The Early State Among the Eurasian Nomads”, H.J.M. Claessen

& P. Skalník (eds.), The Study of the State, The Hague, 1981, 155-175.50 This at least is the prevailing view nowadays. The two main commentators are

V.A. Riasanovsky (Riazanovskii) and G.V. Vernadsky (Vernadskii). The rst authorpublished a long study in Russian (“Velikaia Iasa Chingiz-Khana”) in the émigréjournal Izvestiia iuridicheskogo fakul’teta v Kharbine, Vol.10, 1933, and then a mono-




adhortations and ritual prescriptions. The text has not survived, but anextensive summary has been given by the Egyptian historian Makrizi,

writing in the 15th century. Smaller excerpts in other sources conrmthe reliability of Makrizi’s communications.51 The legal part of the Iasa consisted mainly of what we would consider as criminal law provisions,intended to maintain discipline in the vast and militarized empire, andordaining the death penalty in most cases.

In later centuries, the Mongol empire broke up in many parts andthe central Mongolian part of it reverted more or less to the old order, orrather disorder, of strife and warfare between nomadic tribes of herdsmen.In the meantime, the Mongols had adopted a Tibetan form of Buddhism,

which caused a complete transformation of Mongolian culture.The Great Statute of the Oirat Mongols was agreed upon in 1640at a conference of all the important leaders of the Oirat and KhalkhaMongols (the Mongol population from Eastern and Southern Mongolia,under the sway of the Manchurian emperors, was not represented).52 Thefairly extensive text (almost 200 articles) oers a detailed picture of thenomadic Mongol society of the period. Social stratication was quiteoutspoken: higher princes, lower princes, nobles, freemen of variouslevels, serfs and slaves.

The Great Statute was preceded by, and was in part based on previouslegislation of which signicant parts have survived.53

From the point of view of legislative technique, the Great Statuteis comparable to the early European codes; it is basically a long list ofoences and misdemeanours and the penalties entailed. As in the earlyEuropean codes, the penalties are usually not of a public nature, i.e. they were paid to the injured party. A peculiar feature of the Statute is, however,

graph Fundamental Principles of Mongol Law, Tientsin (1st ed.), 1937, Bloomington/

The Hague (2nd ed.), 1965. Vernadsky also published in Russian and English: “TheScope and Content of Chingis-Khan’s Yasa”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol.3,1938, 337-360; Istoriia Rossii. Mongoly i Rus’ , Moskva/Tver’, 1997, 106-115 (chapter onthe Iasa ) and the same in English in The Mongols and Russia (Vol.3 of M. Karpovich& G. Vernadsky, A History of Russia ), New Haven, 1953, 99-110.

51 Vernadsky suggests that the unavailability of the Iasa may perhaps be explained bythe sacred and magical character attributed to it, on account of which only veryfew people were allowed access to the actual text. Medieval Mongol sources fromRussia refer to the Iasa; e.g . the charter ( iarlyk ) of khan Mengu-Timur of 1279 to theRussian metropolitan, PRP III, 467-468 (see, also, the chapter on treaties).

52 S.D. Dylykov (ed.), Ikh Tsaaz (“Velikoe Ulozhenie”). Pamiatnik mongol’skogo feodal’nogo prava XVII v., Moskva, 1981 (Mongolian text and Russian translation and commentary).

53 Cf . A.D. Nasilov, Vosemnadtsat’ stepnykh zakonov. Pamiatnik mongol’skogo prava XVI-XVII vv., S.Peterburg, 2002. This work also oers an overview of Mongolian, Russian, andWestern scholarship on Mongolian law.




that it also deals with entirely lawful behaviour, where it then sets a xedaward. This may perhaps reect the harshness of conditions in the steppe,

where it was common to be in great danger and dependent on the help ofa passer-by. Many provisions set awards for saving persons and animals,dealing with stray cattle, extinguishing res, salvaging booty, etc.

The existence of courts is mentioned only twice and in passing. It would agree with the general character of the Statute if there were noregular courts and the administration of justice would be one of the tasksof the appropriate leaders, from princes to village elders.

The semi-military character of Mongol society is still very noticeablein the many provisions devoted to military discipline, behaviour in battle,

treatment of equipment, etc. An obvious, but not entirely successful, eort has been made topresent the material in a systematized manner; the statute consists ofblocks of provisions on specic topics, but many items such as theft,insults, homicide, etc. are regulated in two or more places.

The former severity of Mongol law has been replaced completely bya system of material compensation. In only one case (petty theft) is thecutting o of the thief’s nger ordained, but the provision adds: “if hedoes not want to miss his nger, then he pays [so much].” The basic unit

of compensation was the “nine”: four cows and ve sheep, but in specialcases the compensation could rise to one hundred cuirasses, one hundredcamels and one thousand horses ( e.g . a leading prince who failed to defendhis territory against an invader; in this case the penalty would obviouslycome close to a genuine public ne, because the entire population hadbeen victimized).

4. Law and State

The relationship between law and state, both in an early form, is inevi-tably a central issue in all studies of early law. A reasonably sophisticatedlegal system may function in a still embryonic state (Ancient Ireland), theopposite may occur (certain early African states54 ), the emergence of thetwo may be more or less synchronous (early Germanic and Slavic states),the articulation of early law in the form of codication may actually beconnected with the loss of statehood, or at least of political independ-ence (the ancient Frisians and Saxons, absorbed by the Frankish empire,and, in a dierent setting, the xation of the previously unwritten law of

modern minority peoples).

54 Cf . H. Claessen, “Aspects of Law and Order in Early State Societies”, Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings, 161-179.




If we use the term “state” in this section, it should be rememberedthat in most early states a king appears as the personication of the state.

A very sizeable literature exists on the subject of early kingship, withobvious connections with the subject of the early state, but also withconnections with ideology and religion. Some reference has been madeto these questions in preceding sections on Indo-European patriarchy,kingship and chieftaincy.

As with early law, the concept of emerging statehood may be consid-ered to require some sort of denition. Much work on the “early state”has been done by Claessen and his colleagues.55 In the present context, thecentral question should be the clarication of the relationship between

early law and the early state. A rst observation could be that law and state are often used to deneeach other. One of the authors in the Claessen-Skalník volume on “TheStudy of the State”, Tamayo y Salmorán, reaches the conclusion:56

“We have considerable evidence that shows that the state is nothing other thana complex of legal acts, a set of legal rules suciently centralized and having themonopoly of the use of force. Now, if the state is only a specic legal system, theproblem of how the state comes into being, how it functions, how it changes, turnsinto the problem of how legal rules come into being, how they function, and howthey change.”

In this view, a state cannot exist without law and outside law. This is it-self a debatable proposition. Both in the past and in modern times therehave been ‘lawless’ states, or at least organizations which pretended tobe states, acted as states and were treated as states by others. Such statesdid not rest on legitimizing rules, but on the acquisition and retention ofparamount power; this power was exercised, not according to a systemof rules and through the imposition of rules of behaviour, but throughadministrative commands. Although the USSR in the heyday of Stalinist

terror still displayed some legal attributes of statehood (a constitution,codes of law, courts), it functioned predominantly through centrally issuedand mostly secret bureaucratic instructions.

On the other hand, modern law is usually (and, generally, satisfactorily)dened by reference to the state: law are those rules of behaviour whichare issued by the state and backed and enforced by the power monopolyof the state.

55 Cf . H.J.M. Claessen & P. Skalník (eds.), The Early State, The Hague, 1978, and the work by the same authors, mentioned above ( The Study of the State ); H.J.M. Claessen& J.G. Oosten (eds.), Ideology and the Formation of Early States, Leiden, 1996.

56 R. Tamayo y Salmorán, “The State as a Problem of Jurisprudence”, Claessen-Skalník,The Study of the State, 387-407, at 504-406.




This approach is, of course, unsuitable to deal with early law. It is oftenunclear whether we can speak of a state at this stage; if we assume the

presence of law, it is often not enforced by a state or a state-like agency.Claessen and Skalník employ a denition of the early state of whichthe central core is: “the centralized socio-political organization for theregulation of social relations.”57 This denition is descriptive, in the sensethat it was based on the study of a large number of early states and thenattempted to summarize what these states had in common. It implies thatthe authors, in selecting their sample, had a preconceived idea of whatconstituted an “early state”.

An interesting aspect was added by R. Cohen, who argued that the

existence and eectiveness of anti-ssion devices provided the decisivecriterion for distinguishing between early states and early centralized so-cieties.58 Surely, an early society that lacked coherence would most likelynot transform itself into an early state, and an early state, the more itconsolidated itself, showed that it possessed the instruments to sustainitself as an organization. But does the criterion do what it is supposed todo: help us to distinguish between states and non-states? Only afterwards,I am afraid, once a society has transformed itself into a state, or not, asthe case may be, and we can establish a posteriori that it had or did not

have the potential to maintain itself as a state.What one might discern behind this complicated denitional debate

is a dierence in approach to the question of denition in the social sci-ences and in jurisprudence. Laws are full of denitions—instruments,tools, to delimit, to demarcate, to dene, the applicability of rules. Ifthe law grants certain rights or imposes certain duties on e.g . policemen,parents, buyers, etc., one has to know exactly who is included in the cat-egory concerned and who is not. A denition which provides maximumprecision is required. Much of the actual work of lawyers concerns theprecise establishment of the limits, the nes, of such denitions. Suchdenitions are partly descriptive, in that they usually refer to and attemptto describe collections of entities that are known in a general fashion(such as policemen, parents, buyers). But they are also prescriptive, or, in

57 The Early State, 640. The full denition is: “the centralized socio-political organiza -tion for the regulation of social relations in a complex, stratied society divided intoat least two basic strata, or emergent social classes—viz. the rulers and the ruled—, whose relations are characterized by political dominance of the former and tributary

obligations of the latter, legitimized by a common ideology of which reciprocity isthe basic principle.” This denition then played an important role in the following volume on “The Study of the State”, edited by the same authors.

58 R. Cohen, “Evolution, Fission, and the Early State”, Claessen & Skalník, The Studyof the State, 87-115.




other words, they reect political choices, because they contain explicitor implicit choices about including or excluding specic sub-collections.

Do policemen include military policemen, do parents include adoptiveand/or foster parents, does purchase/sale include the contract of barter?The prescriptive character of the denition derives from the authorityof the agency which produced the denition (in a modern legal system:the legislator or the court). The denition may be regarded as politicallyundesirable, legally unfortunate, or socially ineective by the communityto whom it is addressed, but there can be no question of it being wrong,faulty or invalid (provided it has been expressed in the proper manner),that point being irrelevant.

When we speak of early law, or rather an early legal system, or the earlystate, we do have a general idea of what is meant. We may then attemptto describe more precisely what we have in mind. The description maybe more or less successful, i.e. it may succeed in expressing completely oradequately what we had in mind. But it is not prescriptive in the sense thatit can decide for ourselves and a fortiori for others whether a legal systemor a state is or is not ‘early’. Such a judgment could always be overridden,also by ourselves. In such a case, we would have to admit that that ourdenition was inadequate or ineective.

Since no authoritative denitions of early law or the early state canbe given, all we can do is look for a more or less general consensus on various aspects of them. Then the problem becomes manageable. Thefact that law and state (both with regard to their early manifestationsand with regard to the present) usually participate in each other’s deni-tion is not a logical handicap, but a pointer to the solution. If early lawand the early state would be tied to prescriptive denitions (“this is whatconstitutes early law”, “this is what constitutes an early state”), then they would appear suddenly, the moment all the elements of the denition werepresent. We know in fact that they each emerge gradually, by a process ofconsolidation, of coalescence, of incremental change.

In the beginning of this chapter, the question of the denition oflaw has been discussed and three phases in the genesis of law were pro-posed:

— the emergence of dispute settlement by a third party; — further elaboration of this function;

— monopolization of rule creation, dispute settlement, and enforce-ment.




The third phase obviously requires the presence of something like astate.

The emergence of the state occurs in similar fashion. The enlargement

of the scale of social organization requires more formal arrangements,including clear relations of power and authority. At a certain stage, thepatterns of relationships will acquire a degree of rigidity that producesreliable rights and duties.

Law and the state arise in tandem; in more developed situations they will always be found together (barring exceptional circumstances); theycontribute to each other’s denition; the more eective the legal system,the more successful the state. And conversely, a well-organized state willbe in a better position to maintain an eective legal system.

At the earliest stages of their development, however, law and thestate may still be separate. Professionalization of dispute settlement with all it entails (judges, precedents, xation of rules, etc.) will producea law-like phenomenon, may in fact be called law, but it can occur also inthe absence of clear state-like formations. On the other hand, there havebeen well-organized, stable and lasting (non-ssile in Cohen’s terminol-ogy) societies where law-like structures were almost absent or seriouslyunderdeveloped.

5. The Origins of Legislation

At the beginning of this chapter, a three-stage development of law wassuggested. At the rst stage, which might be called pre- or proto-legal, themost basic institutions on which any legal system rests are formed.

Where human beings live together, dierences of opinion, clashesof interests, will occur. If these cannot be settled by mutual agreement,resorting to violence will appear as the rst option, as in the story of Cainand Abel ( Genesis, Ch.4). For the group at large, but often also for the

person who prevails, violence will in the end turn out to be an expensivesolution. Other members of the group may, therefore, involve themselvesin trying to avoid violence; a third party begins to participate in disputesettlement. This may be in the form of independent mediation, on thebasis of persuasion, or in a more authoritative form, where the mediatoruses not only persuasion but also his status and the authority and powerderiving from it. All this is simple everyday stu: schoolboys sorting outtheir dierences among themselves, parents interfering when childrenare ghting.

Claessen describes how agricultural societies rst attempt to settledisputes between their members through negotiation and mediation; andthen how adjudication by a third party develops in stages.




In this process, inevitably, some kind of regularity will assert itself.When certain disputes occur more frequently and are solved more or less

satisfactorily, parties will be inclined to stick to the same mediators orarbitrators, and the latter will adhere to a certain manner of operation (aprocedure), everybody involved in the dispute will refer to similar disputesin the past and to the way they were handled (the power of precedent).The capping-stone of this development is the acceptance of the solutionof the dispute, arrived at in this way.

This entire phase can be called pre- or proto-legal, because on theone hand it concerns situations and relationships which could only beregarded as legal by stretching the concept beyond its accepted usage, but

on the other hand the emergence of law would not be possible withoutthe institutions, values and attitudes developed at this stage.The actual emergence of law, in the shape of “early law”, can be ob-

served at the next stage. Third party dispute settlement is then becomingprofessionalized, to a degree. Certain individuals are habitually involvedand thereby build up professional skills. Precedents develop into rules,although that is not the whole story.

Several authors have observed that the modern era of legislation(centrally issued written law) is not simply preceded by an era of custom

and then customary law (based on precedent).59 At the stage of early law,as nowadays, new situations and problems arose which required new solu-tions. Inevitably therefore, anybody exercising a judicial function wouldoccasionally be called upon to propose or impose such a solution whichthen, if it would be accepted, could acquire the power of precedent.60 This is also one of the central ideas of that classic description of early law,Llewellyn and Hoebel’s The Cheyenne Way.61 Unwritten law is, therefore, amore precise term; it may occur in the form of customary law or of “cre-ated”, judge-made law.

The professionalization of dispute settlement, both by the utilizationof precedent and the creation of new precedents, involves the articulationof law, its xation in formulas. There are many and various manifestationsof this phenomenon in early law. The Frisian asega, who was expected to

59 See, for instance, the papers by Algra and Hoekema, quoted above, in Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings.

60 A classical example is referred to by E. van der Vliet, “Justice and Written Laws in theFormation of the Polis”, Feldbrugge, Law’s Beginnings, 23-43, at 29, and is described in

Homer’s Iliad Σ 497-509: In a dicult dispute, the city elders had to decide; they sattogether on the polished seats of honour, wearing judge’s stas, and in their midstlay two talents of gold, to be given to the one who would give the best judgment.

61 K. Llewellyn & A. Hoebel, The Cheyenne Way. Conict and Case Law in Primitive Juris- prudence, Norman, OK, 1941.




know the law by heart; the extensive formulary of older Roman law, wherecertain sentences must be spoken in exactly the right words; the extraor-

dinary similarity between a number of basic provisions in the Germanic leges barbarorum; also in the Russkaia Pravda there are traces of ancientxed formulas. Before the law came to be written down, it had alreadybeen xed in the minds of the professionals of the law. If the rst stageof the development of early law can be called pre-legal, then the secondstage can be called pre-legislative.

The professionalization of the law is thus intimately connected withthe articulation, the enunciation, of the legal rules, both old and new.Once this rule enunciation became a monopoly, the second stage of the

development of early law attained its conclusion and the stage was setfor the last phase.When the law can only be expressed authoritatively by certain persons

or agencies, such as judges and courts, then the next step is to take thispower and extend it to include also the power to create new rules without waiting for disputes to arise. Once such a power has asserted itself, theexistence of the state cannot be doubted any longer. The older judicialmonopoly, when only designated persons or agencies were considered tohave the power to formulate the law, is then transferred to the state, which

claims the exclusive power, the monopoly, to dictate new legal rules. Thisphase is concluded by the acquisition by the state of the monopoly toenforce the law. The period of early law, of the emergence of law, is overonce this point has been reached.

As can be expected, the later the stage of development, the moreabundant the information about it. This is directly connected with theintroduction of writing, in two ways. The availability of writing allowed amuch more reliable and permanent xation of texts. On the other hand,the perceived need to preserve information, including legal knowledge, fora longer period led to the invention of writing. Another aspect of writingis that it allowed knowledge to become de-personalized. Previously, law was the possession of persons who were trained in it, who had experiencein the legal profession, whether specialized brahmins, Homeric gerontes,Irish brithemain or Frisian asegas. Once law was written down, it becameaccessible to anyone who could read, and control over the law passed fromthose who ‘possessed’ the knowledge of it to those who wrote it down orhad the power to have it written down. Legislation, the purposeful crea-

tion of new rules, is therefore the most important corollary of writing inthe sphere of law. There are, to be sure, indications that legislation wasnot unknown in oral cultures, alongside the prevalence of custom and




judge-made law, but it could only take o once its preservation was notbound any longer to the mnemonic capacity of individuals.

In modern times, legislation is the monopoly of the state, in its vari-ous emanations (central and subordinate local and specialized agencies).The manner of creating and recording legislation is itself regulated bylaw. Lawyers will argue about the exact meaning of the words of the law,but not, as a rule, whether a certain text deserves to be regarded as law.One of the fascinating aspects of early law is that it requires answers toquestions which need not be asked anymore in a modern legal system.Discussing ancient legal texts, one rst has to address the question: Whatdoes this text represent? The authentic texts of early legislation have

rarely come down to us. They have been copied again and again and inthe course of time variant versions have emerged. A careful comparisonof what is available should then lead to a text which would be as close aspossible to the original.

But uncertainty about the text also occurs along another axis. Evenif we would have an authentic text, it still would not always be clear who was the author. An ostensibly legislative text (a more or less systematicenumeration of legal rules) could be (but rarely is) the ocial recordingof a genuine act of legislation ( e.g . the stele of Hammurabi), comparable

to the publication of a law adopted by a modern parliament in its ocial gazette; or it could be a semi-ocial directive to courts, or a private reg -istration of an ocial act, or the ocial xation in writing of customarylaw, or a private registration of what the author considered to be the law,or a scholarly systematization of various pieces of legislation, and so on.

The background of all this is that in the early legislative period there was still some confusion about the scope of legislation and the manner ofrecording it. The main lines of development appear to be that at a certainstage the judicial function—enunciation of the law—, the emergence ofcentral authority—the state—, and the introduction of writing cametogether. The law, hitherto the exclusive possession of knowledgeableindividuals, was caused to be written down by the newly emerging centralpower. The realization that writing down the law as it stood could eas-ily be extended to writing down the law as the ruler would like it to be, was then the next step. This process is observable in some detail in thesubsequent phases of the oldest Russian law, the Russkaia Pravda (see thechapter on this topic). Once this step had been made, the relatively pas-

sive registration of customary law soon disappeared and was replaced bypurposeful legislation as an instrument of government policy.The decisive factor, the catalyst which ushered in the era of genuine

legislation, was usually the occurrence of social friction requiring major




adaptations of the traditional (mainly oral and customary) order. AncientGreek legislation rst appeared in the new colonies.62 The Frisian law, and

some of the other of the Germanic leges barbarorum were issued soon afterthe imposition of Frankish overlordship. Several phases of the Russkaia Pravda can be connected with major social and political upheavals inKievan Russia. For a much earlier era, Zimmer has noted the emergenceof law as connected with the mixing of socio-ethnic groups.63

This illustrates an aspect of early law which has been left underexposeduntil now: its contractual character. Many of the important monumentsof early law were also the result of negotiated settlements. One of thetwo main versions of the Law of the Salic Franks bears the name of Pactus

Legis Salicae. Occasionally, the texts inform us about the circumstancessurrounding the adoption of an ancient law and then it is often that theruler, together with members of the elite and (representatives) of thepopulace had reached agreement about it beforehand.

This thought returns us to Maine, with whom we started this chap-ter; at the end of his central chapter V (“Primitive Society and AncientLaw”) of his Ancient Law, he summarizes his ndings as “from Status toContract”.

62 Cf . Van der Vliet, op.cit .63 Cf . Zimmer, op.cit .



Chapter 2

The Russkaia Pravda

1. Introduction

By far the most important monument of early Russian law is the Russkaia Pravda (the “Russian Law”, hereafter RP ). More than two centuries ofscholarship have resulted in a vast body of studies and commentaries. Thepurpose of this chapter is not so much to add to this, as to look at the RP from a specically legal perspective, involving such aspects as legal theory,

legal history and anthropology. The underlying idea, as elaborated in thechapter on “Law’s Beginnings and Early Law”, is that law, as we know it ,has not existed since time immemorial, but emerged at a certain stage ofsocietal development. Its origins, like those of history, are closely connected with the appearance of writing. That there could not have been history orlaw before there was writing is an untenable proposition, in view of theample availability of documentation about oral cultures. The invention of writing, however, did improve and alter the possibilities of communicationbetween human beings from dierent times and places to such an extent

that the world became a dierent place from that moment on. The studyof the earliest written legal sources of any society is therefore of particularinterest from the legal point of view, because it allows us to witness thebirth of a number of institutions, practices and techniques which togetherconstitute the world of modern law. But although the process of writinginaugurated a new phase in the development of the law, the new elements were not created ex nihilo; something preceded them, they were inventedor rather cobbled together on the basis of existing institutions, practicesand techniques. The latter may be hard to identify, on account of the

paucity of available information, but the eort is worth its while, even ifit has to involve a certain amount of speculation.

2. General Remarks

After the RP lost its practical importance, it fell into oblivion and remainedunknown for centuries until in 1738 the grandfather of Russian histori-ography, V.N. Tatishchev, discovered a copy of it in the First NovgorodChronicle. 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 andkept in Russian monasteries (see the chapter on “Roman Law in Medieval




Russia”).1 The standard edition by the USSR Academy of Sciences fromthe middle of the last century made use of 88 dierent copies, but at that

time more than 100 copies were already extant.

2

A considerable numberof new copies has emerged afterwards.3

As soon as more copies of the RP had become available, it becameobvious that there were at least two basic versions, a shorter one, num-bering about 850 words, and a longer one about four times as long. These versions are known, respectively, as the Short and the Expanded Pravda.4 The two versions are intimately related, not only because in most manu-scripts they go under the name of Russkaia Pravda, but, more importantly,because virtually all provisions from the Short Pravda reappear, although in

sometimes slightly dierent wording, in the Expanded Pravda. The generalconsensus 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 Extensive accounts of the historiography of the RP in M.N. Tikhomirov, Issledovanie o Russkoi Pravde. Proiskhozhdenie tekstov, Moskva/Leningrad, 1941 (hereafter: Tikhomirov, Issledovanie ), ch.2; A.A. Zimin, Pravda Russkaia, Moskva, 1999 (hereafter: Zimin, PR;this work was published on the basis of a manuscript completed shortly before theauthor’s death in 1980), 11-30; G. Baranowski, Die Russkaja Pravda–ein mittelalterli-ches Rechtsdenkmal. Rechtshistorische Reihe, Band 321, Frankfurt a/M., 2005 (hereafter:Baranowski), 44-157. Shorter accounts in G. Vernadsky, Medieval Russian Laws, NewHaven, 1947 (hereafter: Vernadsky, Medieval Russian Laws ), 12-14; M.N. Tikhomirov, Posobie dlia izucheniia Russkoi Pravdy, Moskva, 1953 (hereafter: Tikhomirov, Posobie ),9-15; D.H. Kaiser, The Growth of the Law in Medieval Russia, Princeton, 1980 (hereafter:Kaiser, Growth ), 29-37.

2 B.D. Grekov (ed.), Pravda Russkaia, Part I: Teksty, Moskva/Leningrad, 1940; Part II: Kommentarii , Moskva/Leningrad, 1947; Part III: Faksimil’noe vosproizvedenie tekstov,Moskva, 1963 (hereafter: Grekov, PR I, II, III). English translation in D.H. Kaiser(transl. & ed.), The Laws of Rus’–Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries, Salt Lake City, 1992(hereafter: Kaiser, Laws ), 14-40; Vernadsky, Medieval Russian Laws, 25-56. German

translation in Baranowski, 13-43 (there are also 19th century German translations byI.Ph.G. Ewers, Das älteste Recht der Russen in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung , Dorpat/ Hamburg, 1826, and E.S. Tobien, Sammlung kritisch bearbeiteten Quellen der Geschichte des russischen Rechts, Band 1. Die Prawda Russkaja und die ältesten Tractate Russlands,Dorpat, 1844). French translation in M. Szeftel & A. Eck, Documents de droit public relatifs à la Russie médiévale, Bruxelles, 1963 (hereafter: Szeftel & Eck), 21-116.

3 See, especially, Ia.N. Shchapov, “Novoe o spiskakh Russkoi Pravdy”, Istoricheskii Arkhiv,1959, No.4, 209-211; id ., “Novye spiski kormchikh knig, soderzhashchie RusskuiuPravdu”, Istoriia SSSR, 1964, No.2, 100-103; id ., “Russkaia Pravda v novykh spiskakhkormchikh knig XVI-XVII vv.”, Arkheogracheskii Ezhegodnik za 1969 god , Moskva,

1971, 70-72. The new additions to the already large collection of manuscripts havenot given rise to fundamentally new insights.

4 There is also a third version, numbering about 1100 words, known as the Abridged( Sokrashchennaia ) Pravda. It is generally regarded as a later abridgment of the ExpandedPravda and of no direct interest for the present topic.



The Russkaia Pravda 35

3. The Short Pravda

After article 185 of the Short Pravda there is a line which reads as a pre-amble: “The law established for the Russian land, when Iziaslav, Vsevolod,Sviatoslav, Kosniachko, Pereneg, Mikyfor the Kievan, Chudin [and] Mikulamet together.” The rst three persons were the sons and successors ofthe Kievan grand prince Iaroslav the Wise (Iaroslav Vladimirovich, whoruled in Kiev from 1019 to 1054). This preamble is repeated in article 2of the Expanded Pravda in a dierent and more precise wording: “AfterIaroslav [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 establishedthe same.” Most copies of the Expanded Pravda carry the heading: “TheLaw of Iaroslav Vladimirovich.”

It is primarily on the basis of these texts that it is generally recognizedthat the Short Pravda consists of two main parts: the rst 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 usuallyreferred 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 ofthe Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons: the law on the payment of bloodwite ( vira ):the pokon virnyi (art.42), and the bridgebuilders’ statute ( urok mostnikov ),identied as “a law of Iaroslav” ( to ti urok iaroslavl’ ), art.43.

More speculatively, one may discern dierent chronological layers inthe Oldest Pravda, the Pravda of Iaroslav. The rst ten articles are verysimilar in scope and terminology; they are all concerned with the paymentof wergeld for homicide and other personal injuries; article 11 seems to

belong to the same layer.6 Articles 12-18 deal with a greater variety of casesconcerning property claims—runaway slaves and loss of possession by theowner being the two central themes.

5 The manuscript texts of the RP do not use article numbers; in some manuscriptsnew provisions are started on a new line and/or with a capital letter in red ink. Thedivision in numbered articles is something introduced by editors for easy reference.It may be obvious that an unfortunate placing of numbers may distort the context.The system introduced by the Academy of Sciences edition is generally followednowadays, but older studies (such as those by Kalachov or Sergeevich) often use

dierent systems.6 Art.11 does not deal with personal injuries but with the runaway slave. The reference

to Varangians and Kolbiags, however, connects it with art.1. Also, art.16 is devotedto the same topic, which would argue in favour of the viewpoint that the two provi-sions originally belonged to separate complexes. See Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 61.




In the second part, the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons, the rst block ofprovisions (arts.19-29) may very well be viewed as an addition or amend-

ment to the wergeld provisions of the rst part; articles 19-29 deal withspecial and increased nes for killing or injuring the prince’s ocials. Article 30 stands somewhat isolated,7 but the next series of provisions(arts.31-40) continues the focus on the prince’s interests, with the accentnow on his property interests. As what appears to represent a short lawcode of princely domanial law, the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons has thereforerepeatedly been compared with Charlemagne’s Capitulare de Villis (datingfrom shortly after 800). Article 41 concerns the distribution of the moneycollected in nes and articles 42 and 43 have been mentioned above.

4. The Chronological Framework of the Short Pravda

It is abundantly clear from the above that the Short Pravda consists ofdierent chronological layers which have been combined into a singledocument at a certain moment. The rst step in achieving a more de -tailed understanding of this process is a more precise determination ofthe emergence of the oldest part of the document, the Oldest Pravda orPravda of Iaroslav.

Two medieval chronicles are of decisive importance in this respect,the Primary Chronicle and the First Novgorod Chronicle. These chroni-cles relate how Iaroslav, in accordance with the prevailing practice (seethe chapter on “The Elder Brother in Russia”) among the descendants ofRurik, the legendary founder of the dynasty, had been appointed by hisfather St.Vladimir, grand prince of Kiev, to rule in Novgorod (Novgorodthe Great, south-west of the present St.Petersburg). One of Iaroslav’sduties was the payment of an annual tribute of 2000 pounds ( grivny )to Kiev.8 When Iaroslav, most likely at the insistence of the Novgorod

population, decided to cease the payment of this sum, probably around1013 or 1014, his father summoned his troops and began to prepare an at-tack on Novgorod. Iaroslav thereupon reinforced his army, especially by

7 In substance, it concerns evidence: open wounds and bruises need no further cor-roboration by witnesses, but at the same time this rule repeats the rst part of art.2of the Short Pravda, i.e. an older provision, from Iaroslav’s Pravda.

8 An extensive and recent explanation of the Old-Russian monetary system by A.V.Nazarenko, “Proiskhozhdenie drevnerusskogo denezhno-vesovogo scheta”, A.P.Novosel’tsev (ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 1994 god. Novoe v nu- mizmatike, Moskva, 1996, 5-79. See, also, M.B. Sverdlov, “Istochniki dlia izucheniiarusskogo denezhnogo obrashcheniia v XII-XIII vv.”, Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny, Tom IX, Leningrad, 1978, 3-16; S.N. Kisterev, “Spornye voprosy nachal’noiistorii russkogo denezhnogo obrashcheniia”, S.N. Kisterev (ed.), Ocherki feodal’noi Rossii , 1, Moskva, 1997, 197-220.




recruiting Varangian forces from Scandinavia. These Varangians (Vikings),in keeping with their reputation for violence and unruliness, created much

unrest among the Novgorod population, and this culminated in riots in which many Varangians were killed. Iaroslav reacted by having a numberof prominent Novgorod citizens treacherously murdered. At that moment,in 1016, he received news of the death of his father Vladimir in Kiev andthe usurpation of the Kievan throne by his brother Sviatopolk, who lostno time in eliminating two other brothers, Boris and Gleb (subsequentlyto become two of the most popular Russian saints). In the face of thisthreat, Iaroslav was forced to make peace with his Novgorod subjects.He then marched with an army of Varangians and Novgorodians against

Sviatopolk, overcame the latter on the banks of the Dniepr near Liubech,and ascended the throne of Kiev. Up to this point the two chronicles runclosely parallel. The so-called Younger version ( Mladshii Izvod ) of theNovgorod Chronicle then continues by relating how Iaroslav rewardedhis troops:

“[…] and he began to distribute pay to his troops, to the captains ten grivny each,and to the [common] soldiers one grivna each, and to all the men of Novgorod ten grivny each, and he dismissed them all to their homes; and he gave them a code[ pravda] and wrote down a law [ustav], saying to them: Live according to this charter

[ gramota], as I have written it for you, and observe it.”These words are followed immediately by the text of the Short Pravda.The Primary Chronicle makes no mention of a law code granted by Iaro-slav, but instead goes into greater detail about the following campaignagainst Sviatopolk.

If the story from the Novgorod Chronicle is to be believed, it can ofcourse refer only to the rst part of the Short Pravda ( i.e. Iaroslav’s Pravda),although the text given by the Chronicle also includes the Pravda of Iaro-slav’s Sons (who were not even born at that time). The debate around this

question has been going on for a long time; most pre-revolutionary andSoviet, and indeed also modern scholars are inclined to give credence tothe story of the Novgorod Chronicle, at least in the general sense that theorigin of the Oldest Pravda was connected with the events in Novgorodas related in the Novgorod Chronicle.9 The fact that the RP text was atsome later moment appended to the Novgorod Chronicle for some localpolitical reason does not really undermine the essential truthfulness of thestory. Locating the emergence of the Oldest Pravda in 1016 and connecting

9 Among more recent authors connecting the origin of the Oldest Pravda with eventsin Novgorod in 1016 are: Zimin, PR, 98; Kaiser, Laws, xvii; Baranowski, 148. Theproposition is rejected by I.Ia. Froianov, Drevniaia Rus’ , Moskva, 1995, 97-112. Theolder phase of the debate is related by Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, ch.6 and also byZimin, PR, 89-98. See, also, the discussions reviewed in PRP I, 74-75 and RZ I, 35.




it with Iaroslav’s political diculties in his relationship with Novgorodand his own followers (his druzhina ) are not only consistent with the text

of the RP , but are also helpful in explaining a number of peculiarities ofit. Alternative interpretations ( e.g . the Oldest Pravda would have emergedat some other date, and has no particular connection with Novgorod, butrather with Kiev) lack these advantages of what must be considered thepredominant view.

All this applies only to the rst ten or eleven articles of the OldestPravda in my view; the following provisions (arts.12-18) seem to representanother legislative fragment. I follow Tikhomirov in this respect.10 Wemust return to this question in more detail when the origins of the RP

are examined.

5. The Short Pravda: Composition and Status

The Short Pravda, as argued above, consists of two main parts, the Old-est Pravda or Pravda of Iaroslav, and the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons, plusa few minor enactments. More speculatively, both parts may be brokenup in two parts each, all of them representing specic items of princelylegislation.11

Eventually this entire legislative mass was united into a single docu-ment, which has come down to us through monastic manuscripts as theShort Pravda. Very little is known about the actual process of compilation.Most authors agree that it was the work of monastic scribes.12 Whether they were acting under instructions from the prince’s administration, or inde-pendently, or in some intermediate position, is unclear. There are denitetraces of editorial interference in the production of the nal compilationknown as the Short Pravda. As to the date of this compilation, varioussolutions have been proposed, as early as 1054 and as late as 1136.13

The principal conclusions to be drawn are that the Short Pravda asa whole, unlike its constituent parts, is not an actual piece of legislationand that the legislative portions it contains have not necessarily beentransmitted in their original form.

10 Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 61.11 The proposed subdivisions of the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons are of little relevance in

this chapter; I refer to Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 62-70 and Zimin, PR, 99-123.12 Cf . Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 74-78; Zimin, PR, 133-150.13 Cf . Zimin, PR, 133-150.




6. The Expanded Pravda

The Expanded Pravda is of less interest to the specic focus of this chapterand a brief overview will be sucient.14 A great many copies are extant andthis has made the problem of their classication prominent. The oldestcopy, dated by the copyist himself, is from 1282.

The Expanded Pravda appears to consist of two main parts, entitled inthe text “The Law of Iaroslav Vladimirovich” and “The Statute of VladimirVsevolodovich”. There is no doubt about the identity of these two princes,the rst one is Iaroslav the Wise whom we met before as the legislatorof the rst part of the Short Pravda, and the second one is his grandson

Vladimir Monomakh (so named after his mother, who was a Byzantineprincess of the Monomachus family), who ruled as grand prince of Kievfrom 1113 to 1125. A closer examination of the text shows that the ExpandedPravda is by no means a simple conjunction of the Short Pravda and a laterlaw by another Kievan prince. The Short Pravda has been incorporatedalmost entirely into the Expanded Pravda, but not in a single block. Itsprovisions, edited but still recognizable, are found scattered through theentire text of the Expanded Pravda, also in the Statute of Monomakh.Moreover, most commentators agree that only a small portion of the lat-

ter part of the Expanded Pravda represents a specic law promulgated byVladimir 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 Monomakhin 1125) on the basis of the Short Pravda, the original statute of VladimirMonomakh of 1113, and other Kievan princely legislation, all of thesehaving been subject to considerable editorial reworking. As to its status,the safest course may be to follow Tikhomirov who suggested that itscompilation was ocially inspired in order to be used as a practical work

of reference in the courts, but that it was not enacted as a separate pieceof legislation.15

7. Other Contemporary Sources

The Treaties of 912 and 945

The Primary Chronicle contains, under the years 907, 912, 945 and 971, what purport to be the texts of treaties between the Kievan grand prince

and the Byzantine emperor. These treaties have given rise to a very ex-14 I refer generally to Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, chapters 10-20 and Zimin, PR, 153-

278.15 Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 225.




tensive literature, but in the context of this chapter only the treaties of912 and 945 are of interest.16

The treaty of 912, according to its preamble was concluded betweenthe emperors Leo, Alexander and Constantine17 on the one hand and“Oleg, grand prince of Russia, and all the serene and grand princes and great boyars under his sway” on the other. It contained fairly detailed rulesabout a number of subjects which we would regard as belonging to civil,commercial and criminal law, in which both Russians and Greeks wereinvolved: homicide, assault and theft, damages for torts, inheritance andsuccession, redemption of prisoners, runaway slaves, etc. Some of the legalarrangements obviously reect Russian usages and in one case (assault)

this is stated explicitly: “he shall, according to Russian custom [ po zakonu russkomu], pay ve pounds of silver.”

The treaty of 945 follows the general format of the treaty 912 (thelatter clearly not being the rst of its kind either); the parties mentionedare the emperors Romanus, Constantine and Stephen18 and the Russian grand prince Igor “and his princes and boyars and the whole people of Rus-sia”. The topics covered are similar to those mentioned in the 912 treaty,but generally less favourable to the Russians. There are several explicitreferences to Russian custom ( po zakonu russkomu ).19

Both treaties give the names of the envoys of the Kievan prince; inthe 912 treaty all the envoys bear Scandinavian names; in the 945 treatya large number of names is given as “the envoys and merchants of theRussian nation”. The list also indicates the persons represented by the 2516 See, especially, A.N. Sakharov, Diplomatiia Drevnei Rusi–pervaia polovina X v., Moskva,

1980, with extensive bibliography. Also PRP I, 3-70 (text, modern Russian translation,commentary); I. Sorlin, “Les traités de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe siècle”, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique, II (1961), 313-360 and 447-475; Kaiser, Laws, 1-13 (Englishtranslation).

17 The iconoclast emperor Leo the Wise and his co-emperors, his brother Alexanderand his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

18 Romanus Lecapenus and sons as co-emperors.19 In arts.3, 6, 9 and 14 (according to the accepted numeration); art.6 has the formula

“according to Greek custom and Russian law and custom” ( po zakonu Grech’skomu, pousta[v]ou i po zakonu Ruskomu, in the Laurentian manuscript); two other mss. (Radzi- will and Academy) have “according to Greek custom and Greek law, and Russiancustom” ( po zakonu gretskomu i po ustavu gretskomu i po zakonu russkomu ). The latterreading seems to be correct from the point of view of legal history, because it wouldbe far-fetched to assume that the matter was regulated by (statute) law among thestill largely illiterate Russians, while the sophisticated Byzantine empire would haveleft it to custom. Also, the other places mentioned all refer to Russian custom ( zakon russkii ) only. Cf . PSRL, Vol.1, 49-50; Sakharov, Diplomatiia, 245, and Zimin, in PRP I,45-46, implicitly accepting the correctness of the formula from the Laurentian ms.,regard the reference as an indication of very early Russian legislation.




envoys, and then the names of the 25 merchants follow. The overwhelmingmajority of these 50 persons bear Scandinavian names again. The “Rus-

sian custom” of these two treaties may therefore very well have been thecustom of the Viking warriors who constituted the immediate entourage(the druzhina ) of the Kievan princes.

The Treaty of 1229 between Smolensk and Riga

The date of this treaty can be established exactly because the text indicatesthat it was concluded between prince Mstislav Davidovich (of Smolensk)and the city of Riga, in the year bishop Albrecht (Albert of Adalbert, therst bishop of Riga) died. The contents of the treaty are in many ways

close to the Expanded Pravda, and 1229 is therefore the certain terminus ante quem of the latter. The Smolensk-Riga treaty provides a short lawcode for disputes arising between Smolensk citizens and the Hanseaticmerchants living in Riga and Visby (see, also, the chapter on the Skra ofNovgorod). It oers the earliest link between the RP and later Russianlegislation, especially the important Court Charter of Pskov of the secondhalf of the 15th century.20

8. The Contents of the Short Pravda: Wergeld and Composition

The oldest layer of the Short Pravda (the rst eleven provisions in the viewput forward above) is about the most ancient legislative enactment in Rus-sia that we know of. One cannot exclude that certain written ordinancespreceded the Oldest Pravda. The Primary Chronicle relates how the ruling grand princess of Kiev, Igor’s widow Olga, travelled through the land ofthe Derevlians in 946, establishing laws ( ustavy ) and tribute ( uroki ). Ustav,in the language of Kievan Russia, refers to what has been ordered from

above, as opposed to zakon or pokon, referring to tradition and custom. Anustav, in later times, would always be in writing and would then have themeaning which it still has: a statute or charter. It is, however, more likelythat at that early date Olga’s ustavy were simply oral directives.

The existence of Russian customary law is well documented in thetreaties with Byzantium of 912 and 945, which were briey discussed above.There is, apart from an apparent scribe’s mistake (as explained above), noindication of any written Russian law in these treaties, nor in the text ofthe last-known Russian-Byzantine treaty of 971, where the Russian sideswears by its gods Volos and Perun.

Moreover, the RP , including its most ancient parts, continued toexercise its inuence over the development of the entire Russian legal20 Text in PRP II, 57-71, commentary by A.A. Zimin, 75-87; also in RZ 331-243.




system during the next few centuries, without any visible competitionfrom older or contemporary Russian legislation.

The signicance of the legislation of 1016 may best be illustrated byexamining its rst provision, which deals with homicide.“If a man kills a[nother] man, [the following relatives of the murdered man avengehim], the brother avenges the brother, or the son the father, or the father the son, orthe son of the brother or the son of the sister [avenge their respective uncles]; if thereis no one to avenge [the murdered man], then 40 grivna wergeld; be [the murderedman] a Russian: a bodyguard [ gridin], a merchant, a steward [iabetnik], or a sheri[ mechnik], or [rather] an izgoi or a [Novgorodian] Slav, his wergeld is 40 grivna .”21

All translations make clear that one of the central points of the provisionis the distinction made between two categories of homicide victims andthe explicit indication that they are to be treated equally where the pay-ment of wergeld is concerned. The rst category is called “Russians” andthis is often taken to mean “Kievan Russians” as opposed to people fromNovgorod. In the treaties with Byzantium, however, the term “Russians”is also used and there it unquestionably refers to the persons accompa-nying the prince, who were, with rare exceptions, ethnic Scandinavians,Varangians, Vikings, members of the prince’s druzhina. The four speci-ed sub-categories of the “Russians” in article 1 of the Short Pravda are

all druzhina members, according to most scholars. The gridin is a juniormember, a bodyguard; about the iabetnik there is much uncertainty, but itis at least clear that he is a man who belongs to the prince’s household; the mechnik (lit. sword-man) is generally taken to be a person connected withthe administration of justice; the merchant can be seen as somebody whois active in representing the commercial interests of the prince. It mustbe stressed that at the time it would be too early to speak of a genuineprincely administration; the prince’s retinue, his druzhina, originally hiscomrades-in-arms and drinking companions, is not yet his court or his

government.22The “non-Russians” ( slovenin ) envisaged in article 1 are the Novgoro-

dians, which makes perfect sense in the perspective adopted here, and theizgoi ; the exact meaning of this term is the subject of endless speculation,but one thing that is certain is that the term refers to persons who forone reason or another had ended up outside the traditional relationshipsof family, clan or class.

The equal treatment principle, regardless of the origin or ethnicityof the victim, was itself not an innovation. It was also included in the 912

21 My translation diers on minor points from those of Vernadsky and Kaiser.22 This aspect is elaborated in a recent study by S.L. Nikol’skii, “O druzhinnom prave

v epokhu stanovleniia gosudarstvennosti na Rusi”, A.A. Gorskii (ed.), Srednevekovaia Rus’ , Vyp.4, Moskva, 2004, 5-48, at 26-28.




and 945 treaties with Byzantium, which explicitly stipulated that in casesof homicide the same rules would apply to Greeks and Russians.

Blood vengeance by relatives ( blizhnye ) as the basic sanction in thecase of homicide, with the alternative of a substituting nancial compen-sation, was also the system followed in the foregoing centuries, as shownby the treaties of 912 and 945. The innovation of the Pravda of Iaroslav was that it restricted the right of blood vengeance to male relatives upto the third degree.23 If none of these are available, the 40 grivna wergeldbecomes the only sanction.

It should go without saying that the wergeld was paid to the family ofthe victim; this is quite clear in the treaties, and also from the following

provisions of the Short Pravda, which mention several times explicitlythat the compensation for injuries goes to the victim. The opposite viewhas been defended by some Russian and Soviet historians, who held thatthe sums mentioned were payable to the prince.24

It would be correct to say that the Pravda of Iaroslav was by and largea conrmation of the existing legal order, based on custom, with a minoradjustment to tip the balance in favour of wergeld at the expense of blood vengeance—an entirely understandable innovation in view of the dangersposed by inter-ethnic violence.

The second half of the Short Pravda, the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons,especially articles 10-27, heralded a new and more active approach to legisla-tion. The general system for dealing with homicide as described in article1 is not mentioned and presumably left in place, but a special regime isintroduced to deal with the killing of various ocials and servants of theprince: the stewards of his domain ( ognishchane ), his messengers ( pod”ezdnye ),sheris ( tivuny ), assistant sheris ( tivuntsy ), the stable master ( koniukh staryi ), farm managers ( sel’skie starosty ), contract labourers ( riadovnitsy ),eld overseers ( ratainie ), peasants ( smerdy ), slave herdsmen ( kholopy ), andslave turors and nurses ( kormilitsy and kormilichitsy ). The killing of any ofthese persons leads to the imposition of a ne, ranging from 80 grivna ( i.e.twice the amount of the wergeld of a free man) for the most important23 Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 75 and A.A. Zimin in PRP I, 86, suggest that female relatives

of the same degree are also included. The question was examined in more detail byS.L. Nikol’skii, “O kharaktere uchastiia zhenshchin v krovnoi mesti”, Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 1999, Moskva, 2001, 160-168, who reached the conclu-sion that women as victims were equally protected by the blood feud, that women were not prevented from participating in blood feuds (princess Olga being a famous

example), and that the exercise of blood feuds against women was considered asreprehensible.

24 Notably S.V. Iushkov, who reasoned that Kievan Russia, being a ‘feudal’ state, hadregular legislative institutions and a formalized court system, and therefore legallyimposed penalties would end up in the coers of the prince.




servants to 5 grivna for the smerdy and kholopy. The name of this ne isvira (bloodwite) and it is to be paid to the prince; this is obvious from the

following provisions and from the entire context.The rule concerning the stable master ( koniukh staryi ) is of specialinterest, because it throws light on the development of the legislativeprocess: “And for the senior stable master [who is murdered] while [he is] with the herds [pay] 80 grivna, as Iziaslav [1054-78] established when theresidents of Dorogobuzh killed his stablemaster” (art.23, Kaiser’s transla -tion). The 80 grivna ne for killing the stable master returns in article 12of the Expanded Pravda, but then the reference to its origin is omitted.

The further evolution of the law of homicide is illustrated by the

reworking of the basic provisions of article 1 of the Short Pravda andthe preamble to the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons in articles 1 and 2 of theExpanded Pravda:

“[1] If a man kills a man, then a brother avenges his brother, or a father [his son],or a son [his father], or a cousin [=a son of the father’s brother][his cousin], or abrother’s sons [their uncle]; if there is no one to avenge [the murdered man], thenthe wergeld is set at 80 grivna in the case [the murdered man was] the prince’s manor the prince’s sheri [tiun]; if he was a Russian–a bodyguard [ grid ’ ], or a merchant,or a boyar’s sheri [tiun], or a sheri [ mechnik]–or [rather] an izgoi or a [Novgorodian]Slav, then the wergeld is set at 40 grivna .”

“[2] And after Iaroslav his sons: Iziaslav, Sviatoslav, Vsevolod, and their men: Kos-niachko, Pereneg, and Nikifor came together again and abolished blood revengebut [instead ordered] composition by payment of money; and as to everything else,decided by Iaroslav, his sons established the same.”

There are many uncertainties in translating these texts,25 but the contrastbetween the two provisions catches the eye, because article 2 cancels what has been established in article 1: blood revenge by close kin. It isto be explained by the complicated genesis of the text. The three-stage

development of the law of homicide is clear: rst, blood vengeance withthe possibility of substituting payment of wergeld for revenge, all thisbeing the customary law arrangement of the pre-Christian era; secondly,restriction of the right to blood vengeance to a circle of close relatives,

25 One of the most contested phrases is liubo bratochado, li bratniu synovi . I have followedthose authors who regard bratochado (lit. brother’s son) as referring to a cousin inthe male line (a son of one’s father’s brother) and bratniu synovi as nephews (son’sof one’s brother). This would mean that the inclusion of sons of sisters among thecircle of possible avengers, as provided by the Short Pravda, had been deleted in theExpanded Pravda. See the extensive discussion in Baranowski, 336-338, who reachedthe same conclusion.

The translations of the names of the various ocials can also only be regarded astentative.




in the earliest phase of written law; thirdly, abolition of blood vengeancealtogether.

The appearance of princely servants in the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sonsalso heralded the disappearance of the wergeld. The various texts of the RP do not indicate, as a rule, to whom the amounts of money connected with various oences were to be paid. In the otherwise very extensiveliterature on the RP this aspect is usually given little attention. The wergeld, replacing blood vengeance, was paid to the relatives of the victim;both versions of the RP use the term za golovu (“for the head”) and theExpanded Pravda also has golovnichestvo (“head money”) as the equivalentof wergeld. The payments for lesser injuries, which follow in the text of

the Short Pravda immediately after the provision on homicide, are madeto the victim; articles 2 and 3 are explicit on this point. The situationchanges in the case of princely servants, enumerated in articles 19-27,beginning with the prince’s steward ( ognishchanin ) and ending with theunfree peasant ( smerd ). One has to assume that payment for their killing would go to the prince; this would be obvious in the case of the smerd , andfrom the uniform structure of the list one would conclude that the same would apply to all those mentioned there; otherwise there would have tobe some kind of break in the middle of the list.

The composition paid to the prince is called vira (or virnoe ), usuallytranslated as “bloodwite”; the term appears more frequently in the Ex-panded Pravda. Article 41 of the Short Pravda, without using the term,regulates the way the amount collected was to be distributed between theprince himself and the ocials involved.26 Article 5 of the Short Pravdadierentiates quite clearly between the wergeld ( golovnichestvo ), to be paidby the killer to the victim’s family, and the bloodwite ( vira ), for which thekiller’s community is jointly liable.

The point to be made here is that the insertion of the list of theprince’s servants in the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons represented the transi-tion from wergeld (in this case payable to the master of the victim) tobloodwite (a ne for killing another person, payable to the ruler). The wergeld survived for a long time, but eventually the state monopolizedthe legal reaction to homicide.27

If one takes a closer look at the oldest rules concerning wergeld, it isnot hard to see that the original character of wergeld was not compensa-

26 The interpretation of this rule bristles with diculties; cf . Baranowski, 318-324;Grekov, RP II, 232-234.

27 The modern extension of the law concerning damages, particularly through theemergence of the concept of xed immaterial damages, signies to some extent areturn to the ancient institution of wergeld.




tion for material losses, but reparation of honour and status.28 The varioustaris give a clear indication. Striking a man with the hilt or the sheath of

a sword resulted in a penalty of 12 grivna, and the same applied to pullingout or shaving somebody’s beard or moustache (arts.4 and 8). On the otherhand, cutting o somebody’s nger (something a modern person wouldconsider far more serious) came at 3 grivna (art.7). When imposing sanc-tions, the Short Pravda often adds the words “for the insult” ( za obidu ); inthe Expanded Pravda the expression is only used twice (in arts.23 and 34, which correspond to arts.4 and 13 of the Short Pravda), against ten timesin the Short Pravda.

9. ProcedureProcedural arrangements represent the second main cluster of rules whichmake up the Pravda of Iaroslav. The precise meaning of most of the provisions is still much contested, but certain aspects are clear. There is aprocedure referred to as svod in article 14, and a procedure called izvod in article 15. Some authors regard the terms as synonymous, others stressthe dierences,29 but there is little doubt that in both cases one has toassume, not the involvement of the prince’s court, but of an older jury-

type agency, consisting of twelve men.30

Articles 13 and 14 describe two instances of the classical law schoolproblem (the students’ despair and the professors’ delight) of the retrievalof assets which ended up in the possession of another person, against the will of the owner or independent of his will. If this happened within thecommunity ( mir ) of the owner, a simple taking back is allowed (art.13).Outside the mir , the svod procedure was required (art.14; Kaiser’s transla -tion):

“If someone recognizes [his property], he is not to take it back, and ought not to

say to him [who possesses his property]: ‘This [property] is mine’; instead he ought28 Cf . A.A. Zimin, PRP I, 88-89; L.V. Cherepnin, A rkhivy I, 245. S.L. Levitsky, “Protec-tion of Individual Honour and Dignity in Pre-Petrine Russian Law”, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis/Revue d’histoire de droit , 1972, 341-436, at 342-346, does not speci-cally argue this point, but it is implicit in his entire treatment of the question; thisarticle also contains abundant references to older Russian literature.

29 Zimin, PRP I, 82, 90-91, considered both svod and izvod as a survival of a kind ofjudicial council of the community; most authors, however, remaining close to thetext of art.14, regarded svod as a form of confrontation, leaving unanswered thequestion before whom this confrontation took place; Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 78-79;

Vernadsky, Medieval Russian Laws, 28-29; Szeftel & Eck, 33.30 Such a body also turns up in the earliest known treaty between Novgorod and the

Hanseatic League, of 1189/1199; GVNP , No.28, 56. Vernadsky points to the similaritybetween the svod and possessorial proceedings in Germanic law; see K. von Amira,Grundriss des Germanischen Rechts, Strassburg (3rd ed.), 1913, 210-211.




to say: ‘Come to a confrontment [to disclose] where you obtained [the property]’;if he [who is asked to appear] does not come, then [he is to provide] a guarantor within ve days.”

The provision returns in more elaborate form in the Expanded Pravda(art.35), where it is followed by a few more detailed rules about the svod (arts.36-39). Article 16 of the Short Pravda supplements article 14 in thatit deals with the recuperation of a lost slave. It makes of course goodsense to devote a separate rule to this eventuality, because the slave canspeak for himself and explain how he was transferred from one masterto another (the question of the lost or runaway slave also turns up inconnection with possible Byzantine inuences in early Russian law; see

the chapter on “Roman Law in Medieval Russia”). Article 16 requires theoriginal master of the slave to go to the predecessor of the last masterand then to the next predecessor, to whom he must say: “Hand me backmy slave and look for your money with [the help of] witnesses.” The ruleimplies that the chain of transactions is reversed, that the last master getshis money back and hands the slave over to his predecessor, and the latterdoes the same. This procedure can be repeated three times and has beenretained, with more detailed rules, in the Expanded Pravda.

The svod , so much is made clear by these provisions, is a procedure

in which the person who is in possession of the property has to justifyits origin by identifying the person from whom he acquired. By retracingthe chain of legal events one should, ideally, reach the point where theoriginal owner was deprived of his property. The more detailed rules ofthe Expanded Pravda obviously reect a situation of greater commercialcomplexity and of increased prominence of market transactions. Theydo not oer the opportunity anymore of not immediately coming to the svod (confrontment) and oering bail instead. The svod as mentioned inthe Short Pravda may therefore be a more simple and informal procedure,

not requiring the involvement of a proper court.31

The izvod of twelve men (art.15) deals with claims where one partydemands the payment of a debt (in money or in kind32 ); the exact meaningof the rst words of the provision are dicult to establish, but the legalconsequences are fairly clearly spelled out (Kaiser’s translation):

“If somewhere someone seeks from another person the balance [of money owedhim], but that person begins to resist, then he is to appear at an investigation beforetwelve men; and if he wrongfully did not give [the money] back, then he is [to return]the money [to its rightful owner], and [pay] 3 grivna for the oense.”

31 Zimin, who tends to equate svod and izvod , regards the former therefore as consistingoriginally of 12 men; PRP I, 91.

32 There is no reason, as Kaiser does in his translation, to limit the applicability of theprovision to money debts.




The corresponding provision in the Expanded Pravda is article 47, but in-stead of presenting the claim to the twelve men, the creditor must produce

witnesses who will swear that the claim is true ( rota, judicial oath).The last two provisions of the Oldest Pravda, articles 17 and 18, alsoemphasize procedure. Article 17 deals with the slave who has struck some-body and who then hides in his master’s house. If the master refuses tohand him over to the oended person (for punishment), he must pay 12 grivna and the victim retains the right to chastise the slave. 33 Article 18,concerning damage done to another person’s weapons, is closely connected with the “Court Law for the People”, and will be discussed below.

10. The Origins of the Russkaia Pravda

The question of the origins of the oldest nucleus of the RP may be looked atfrom at least three dierent perspectives. There are rst of all the concretepolitical and historical conditions under which the law code was created.They elucidate the legal character of the code—it may be anything rangingfrom the actual text of an ocial legislative enactment to a purely privatecollection of observations concerning legal matters. We have consideredthis matter briey above and tentatively accepted the version oered by

the Novgorod Chronicle. Then there is the closely related, but still to bedistinguished, question of the underlying causes: what were the problemsthe code was supposed to deal with, and why was it considered necessaryto create new solutions—as provided by the code—to these problems?Finally, what were the origins of these new solutions? Were they originalinventions, or based on the experience of the society concerned, or takenover from others?

To recall the perspective adopted in the beginning of this chapter:our attention is directed primarily at law in statu nascendi , the moment

of metamorphosis when custom and traditional social arrangements aretransformed in a xed order of rules which at the same time institutional-ized a central social authority. In this perspective, it is especially the oldestpart of the RP , the Pravda of Iaroslav, or the Oldest Pravda, and moreparticularly the rst half of this text, that claims our attention.

33 Arts.16 and 17 use dierent terms to denote a slave, cheliadin and kholop. There areseveral theories to explain this dierence, but the dominant opinion is that the che-

liadin (related to terms denoting children, ospring, and comparable to Latin lius )is the older term. Cf . A.A. Zimin, Kholopy na Rusi (s drevneishikh vremen do kontsa XVv.), Moskva, 1973; also: S.N. Kisterev, “Cheliadin v russko-grecheskikh dogovorakhX v.”, I.G. Konovalova (ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2002 god. Ge- nealogiia kak forma istoricheskoi pamiati , Moskva, 2004, 200-214; and M.B. Sverdlov,“Ob obshchestvennoi kategorii «cheliad’» v Drevnei Rusi”, Problemy istorii feodal’noi Rossii [Mavrodin Festschrift], Leningrad, 1971, 53-58.




The debate about the origins of the RP has gone on a long time andis very complex. It is obvious that the rst part of the Short Pravda, the

Pravda of Iaroslav, is the oldest component. But the Short Pravda itself isthe product of an editorial reworking of several texts, including an earlytext of the Pravda of Iaroslav, while the same can be said of the ExpandedPravda, compiled a century or so later. It is therefore possible that certainelements of the Pravda of Iaroslav have been retained in more pristineform in the later text of the Expanded Pravda. This, however, is still acollateral issue (where do we nd the best text of what was actually theoriginal Pravda of Iaroslav?).

The fact remains that we only have the text which the Short Pravda

oers (possibly to be corrected then by comparison with the correspondingprovisions of the Expanded Pravda). Was this text, or at least its original version, a statute granted to Novgorod by Iaroslav, more or less as narratedin the Novgorod Chronicle? Or was the oldest part of the RP a piece ofearly legislation by the Kievan grand prince, applying to the whole of KievanRussia, and only at a later date interpolated by a monastic scribe in theNovgorod Chronicle?34 Or was there a specic connection with Novgorod,but not with the events of 1016? These are some of the hypotheses whichhave been discussed among Russian and Soviet medievalists. During the

Soviet era the debate was further complicated by the necessity to insertclass struggle into every kind of historical investigation. It was consideredaxiomatic that the common people of Novgorod (or of Kiev) were beingexploited by their own aristocracy, by the wealthy merchants, but alsoperhaps by the Viking retinue of the prince, his druzhina.

For lack of a better option I would be inclined to accept, provisionally,the theory that the origins of the oldest part of the RP are to be connected with the Novgorod events of 1016, as related by the Novgorod Chronicle.If the opponents of this theory point to the defectiveness of the argumentsin favour of it, one can answer that there are fewer arguments for othertheories. There is, after all, the clear indication given by the NovgorodChronicle. Then there is the argument of internal consistency: the theorybased on the Novgorod Chronicle is better able to explain the contentsof the Oldest Pravda than any other theory.35 One may also give weight to

34 The formula in the Novgorod Chronicle, quoted above (“and he gave them a statute”),can be read so that it would refer only to the inhabitants of Novgorod or to all theRussian troops being sent home.

35 One could point to the references to Scandinavians ( Variagi and Kolbiagi ) in the textof the Oldest Pravda (arts.10 and 11), where the law takes account of their limitedpossibilities in presenting evidence; some of the ocials mentioned in art.1 andother provisions (the gridin, the iabetnik, the mechnik ) are also regarded by mostcommentators as belonging to the Viking population.




the authority of the majority of scholarly opinion, favouring the Novgorodtheory.36 This theory, as pointed out before, does not necessarily lead to

the conclusion that the Oldest Pravda should be regarded as an enact-ment specically meant for Novgorod and applicable only there. On thecontrary, the entire subsequent history of the RP suggests that it appliedto the whole of the Kievan empire, as the second part of the Short Pravda,the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons undoubtedly did. 37

If the leading opinion is followed and the connection recognizedbetween the events in Novgorod in 1016 and the promulgation of the RP ,then the enactment resulting from the hostilities between the Novgoro-dians and Iaroslav’s Vikings must be reected in the rst ten provisions

of Iaroslav’s Pravda and possibly also in the remaining provisions ofIaroslav’s Pravda. Allowing for the possibility or rather likelihood of some later edito-

rial reworking, the extant text may therefore be regarded as the oldestRussian legislation.

The question of the underlying causes—What was the political andsocio-economic context of this legislation?—is not too hard to answer.Obviously, both Novgorodians and Vikings had their own traditionalsystems of dealing with behaviour as described in the Pravda of Iaroslav.

Where homicide and personal violence were concerned, vengeance and itssubstitute—composition—were the main instruments. Enforcement wasembedded in the still dominant system of the large patriarchal family orclan. The essential element of the kind of violence the Short Pravda dealt with was not the suering of the victim, nor the economic loss caused byhis death or injuries, but the violation of his family’s honour.

The presence of a considerable number of foreigners in Novgorod,under the command of the prince of Novgorod, required an adaptationof the traditional system of both ethnic groups involved, in order to dealeectively with inter-ethnic violence. The vital threat to all concerned,Iaroslav himself, the Novgorodians and the Vikings, posed by the imminent war with the Kievan prince, Iaroslav’s brother Sviatopolk, was the catalystfor articulating this adaptation in the form of new legislation. At the sametime, it should be remembered, this legislation was a pact between thethree parties, as is often the case with incipient legislation.

36 Among modern Russian historians, as mentioned above, Froianov, Drevniaia Rus’ ,

97-112, rejects the Novgorod theory; it seems, however, that his criticism is in factdirected against the position that the Oldest Pravda was a law for Novgorod; he doesnot deny that the events of 1016 were probably closely connected with the origin ofthe Pravda of Iaroslav.

37 Cf . PRP I, 94.




11. The Sources of the Oldest Pravda

When explicit legislation appears for the rst time one can usually distinguish between three kinds of sources. Domestic unwritten law is generallythe most important contributing factor, supplemented by borrowingsfrom other systems and by pure innovation, the invention of entirelynew solutions. This last approach is dicult to demonstrate in the caseof legal documents of great antiquity, because of the modest amount ofinformation at our disposal. By a process of deduction, one may merelyexpress the presumption that if something was apparently not presentin the past and has also not been taken over from elsewhere, it was prob-ably invented then and there. This leaves us with the need to examine thequestion of Russian law before the RP and the search for possible external(non-Russian) sources.

12. The “Russian Custom” (Zakon russkii )

The Zakon russkii , Russian custom or customary law, has been referred toabove in connection with the Russo-Byzantine treaties of the 10th century.It is generally assumed that such unwritten law would have been the mostimportant component of the Oldest Pravda. What is known about such

law has to be derived almost entirely from later written law, primarily the RP itself. Looking at the chronological layers of the RP , one may easilyobserve that at an early stage blood feuds were a legally accepted meansof solving disputes, that they were still being practised at the time of theOldest Pravda, then abolished under Iaroslav’s sons, and that they haddisappeared in the 12th century. In this way, by extrapolating backwards intime, a very rough picture can be constructed of what Russian customarylaw may have looked like in the 9th and 10th centuries. Such a picturedoes not contribute much to a better understanding of the RP , becauseall information comes from the RP itself.38

The only other sources left are the treaties of 912 and 945. Both ofthem contain provisions which are reasonably close to provisions in the RP . It concerns articles 4, 5 and 6 of the 912 treaty and 3, 4, 13 and 14 ofthe 945 treaty (in the numeration of PRP I). The corresponding provi-sions in the Short Pravda are articles 1 (homicide), 3, (hitting someone with a stick, a cup, the at of a sword, etc.), 4 (hitting someone with an

38 Zimin devotes a section to the Zakon russkii in his posthumous work on the Pravda Russkaia (Moskva, 1999, 65-69), but does indeed not get beyond paraphrasing someof the provisions of the Oldest Pravda. M.B. Sverdlov is quite explicit on the Zakon russkii in his study on the Short Pravda “K istorii teksta Kratkoi redaktsii RusskoiPravdy”, Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny, Tom X, Leningrad, 1978, 135-158. His views are generally close to those developed in this chapter.




unsheathed sword or a sword handle), 11 (hiding someone else’s slave) and38 (killing a thief caught in the act). In most of these cases the treaties use

the formula “according to Russian custom [or law]” ( po zakonu ruskomu ). All this strongly suggests that customary law was to a great extent xedin an oral tradition. This means that the Zakon russkii was more than a general and abstract item: “Russian custom”, but a specic body of unwritten rules. This would agree with the situation encountered with otherIndo-European peoples at a comparable stage of development, where theunwritten law constituted a denite entity, to be enunciated by certainexperts, the “law-sayer” ( iuri-dicus, the Frisian asega ).

Whether there was any genuine legislation preceding the RP is

mostly a matter of speculation. There are a few vague indications in thisdirection. One (already noted above) is the reference under the year 946in the Primary Chronicle to Olga, who ruled in Kiev after her husband,the grand prince Igor, had been killed by the Derevlians. After defeatingand punishing the latter, she established ustavy i uroki , usually translatedas “laws and tribute”.39 Other pointers are even vaguer.40

The existence of genuine princely legislation preceding the RP cannotbe excluded on the other hand. The series of treaties between Novgorodand the Hanseatic League oers a useful parallel. The oldest known treaty,

of 1189/1199, explicitly conrmed “the old treaty” (of which nothing isknown, except what can be derived from the text of 1189/1199 treaty). Itis certainly conceivable that the text of the Oldest Pravda as it has comedown as a part of the Short Pravda was based on earlier legislation of grand prince Iaroslav or even his father St.Vladimir. The latter, after all,is generally assumed to be the legislator of the so-called Church Statuteof Vladimir Sviatoslavich (or at least of its oldest nucleus), a short statuteregulating church-state relationships of the recently baptized Kievan Rus’(see, also, the chapter on “Roman Law in Medieval Russia”). On the otherhand, the RP appears without any doubt as the basic legislative documentfrom the earliest times and subsequent medieval Russian legislation con-tinued to build on its foundation. There has never been any mention ofother legislation which could in any way be regarded as a competitor inthis respect.

39 Zimin, op.cit ., 81-85. Elsewhere ( ibidem, 94), Zimin advances the intriguing hypothesisthat the ‘domanial’ law contained in arts.19-27 of the Short Pravda could perhapshave been based on Olga’s directives for the management of her estates, given a littlemore than a century earlier.

40 Cf . Zimin, op.cit ., 71-80.




13. Other Contemporary Slavic Legislation

The only early Slavic legislation relevant in considering the origins of the RP is the “Court Law for the People” ( Zakon Sudnyi Liudem, hereafter ZSL ).Its relationships with the various versions of the RP have been examinedin the chapter on Roman law in medieval Russia, and only the most im-portant points relevant to the present chapter will be repeated here.

Of the three existing versions of the ZSL, only the Short Version willhave to be considered, the other two (the Expanded and the Concord-ance Versions) being of a later date than the Short Pravda. The Short ZSL originated outside Russia (Bulgaria, Moravia or Macedonia) sometimeduring the 9th century and reached Russia before the 13th century. It was almost entirely based on the Greek Ecloga, but the latter’s system ofsanctions was fundamentally changed.

The parallels between the ZSL and the Short Pravda all concernsuggested borrowings from the Expanded ZSL; there are no parallel provisions between the Short ZSL and the Short Pravda. As the Expanded ZSL was compiled in Russia, probably during the rst half of the 14thcentury, any borrowing must have been from the Short Pravda, and notthe other way around.

The RP antedates the earliest codications of other Slavic peoples, with the exception of the Short ZSL. Closest to the RP , in time, place and general tenor, is the nameless Polish law book, written in the 13th centuryin German.41 Another comparable source is the Statute of Vinodol of 1288,an early medieval law code from the Dalmatian coast.42

14. Germanic Contacts

The relationship between early Slavic (Russian) and early Germanic lawhas long been a politically sensitive subject, especially during the Sovietera in the period following the Second World War. These feelings apart,two major considerations remain: there is a considerable amount of simi-larity between the RP and the early Germanic laws of the type of the legesbarbarorum; and, secondly, historical conditions would suggest at least acertain amount of Germanic, particularly Scandinavian inuence on thedevelopment of early Russian law.

41 Cf . B.D. Grekov, “Pol’skaia Pravda. Opyt izucheniia obshchestvennogo i politichesko-

go stroia Pol’shi XIII v. po Pol’skoi Pravde (‘Kniga Prava’)”, B.D. Grekov, Izbrannyetrudy, I, Moskva, 1957, 267-442 (includes German text and Russian translation).

42 Cf . B.D. Grekov, “Vinodol’skii Statut ob obshchestvennom i politicheskom stroieVinodola”, B.D. Grekov, Izbrannye trudy, I, Moskva, 1957, 33-110. Russian translationby V.V. Iagich, Zakon Vinodol’skii , S.Peterburg, 1880.




The similarity is most obvious if one looks at the batch of Germaniclaws adopted or approved at the imperial diet of 802/803 in Aachen: the

laws of the Saxons, Frisians, Thuringians and Chamavian Franks ( LexSaxonum, Lex Frisionum, Lex Thuringorum or Lex Angliorum et Werinorum,and the Ewa ad Amorem or Lex Francorum Chamavorum ).43 Disregardinglinguistic dierences (the old English laws were written in Anglo-Saxon,the Old-German laws in corrupt Latin, and the RP in Old-Russian), the RP would t eortlessly into the otherwise purely Germanic collection. Atripartite class structure (nobles, freemen, and unfree persons) is dominantin the Germanic laws and less so in the RP . In the Oldest Pravda the focusis on the freeman, the boyar appears in chronologically younger layers of

the Expanded Pravda.In the rst part of the Lex Saxonum, the similarity with the OldestPravda is the most striking. This is the more intriguing since the Saxonterritory, in North-West Germany, was the direct neighbour of Jutland,the region from which Rurik, at least according to some of the currenttheories, originated.

An intriguing footnote to the debate concerning the relations betweenearly Germanic and Slavic legislations is provided by the medieval lawsof several Baltic nations. There is undeniably an important and perhaps

dominant German inuence to be observed in these laws, but the fewauthors who have concerned themselves with this topic have also notedan indigenous element. The oldest layers of these laws resemble both theRP and sections from the early Germanic laws.44

Similarity can always be explained in three ways: common origin,borrowing, or accident. The latter becomes more unlikely as similaritybecomes more striking.

The idea of borrowing takes us to the second point mentioned above:the presumed legislator of the Oldest Pravda, the Kievan grand princeIaroslav Vladimirovich, was still surrounded by many Scandinavian ele-43 Cf . H. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, I, Karlsruhe, 1962, 131-134; R. Schröder,

Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, Leipzig (3rd ed.), 1898, 243-248. The earliest Anglo-Saxon laws, the laws of the Kentish kings, beginning with the Law of Aethel-berht of around 600, belong to the same general type. The actual format of the lawsof the Germanic tribal nations belonging to the Frankish empire also owed a lot tothe particular circumstances of their xation in a written document. The Law ofthe Saxons, for instance, bears the traces of the recent war with the Franks and theforceful establishment of Frankish rule.

44 The main publication of these Baltic laws was the work of F.G. von Bunge in several volumes, during the rst half of the 19th century. A new bi-lingual publication (LowMiddle German and Russian) by E.L. Nazarova, “«Livonskie Pravdy» kak istoricheskiiistochnik”, V.T. Pashuto (ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR 1979 god ,Moskva, 1980, 5-218.




ments. He was himself the descendant of Viking chiefs, his mother wasalso of Viking descent,45 and his wife Ingigerd was the daughter of the

king of Sweden. His great-grandparents Igor and Olga, according to thepreamble of the treaty of 945, were accompanied by a large number ofmagnates and merchants, during their raid on Byzantium, all of whombore Scandinavian names.

Iaroslav (‘Jaritsleif’) and his father Vladimir (‘Waldamar’) gureprominently as rulers of Novgorod (‘Holmgard’) in several Scandinaviansagas, especially the one about Olaf Tryggvason and Eymund, and contacts with Viking leaders from Scandinavia were obviously close and frequent.46 When political and military problems arose for Iaroslav as ruling prince

of Novgorod in 1015-1016, calling in help from his allies and relatives inScandinavia, as related by the Chronicle, must have been an easily avail-able option. And when, somewhat later, there was a need to negotiate asettlement between the population of Novgorod and his Viking soldiery,falling back on Scandinavian customary law, with which Iaroslav musthave been familiar, would have been an equally obvious option. This byitself could explain the strong similarity with Germanic law from North-Western Europe, as we know it from two centuries later.

Several modern Russian authors have stressed the importance of the druzhina aspect in the political and legal culture of early Kievan Russia.47 In this view, the “Russes” of the treaties with Byzantium are the druzhina members and the “Russian custom” ( Zakon russkii ) is actually the custom-ary law of the druzhina. If these considerations are combined with the45 In the entry for 980, the Primary Chronicle mentions Rogneda, the daughter of

prince Rogvolod or Rognvald of Polotsk as his mother. As to her Scandinavian background, see E.V. Pchelov, Genealogiia drevnerusskikh kniazei , Moskva, 2001, 165. Theold Western standard work on Rurikid genealogy, N. de Baumgarten, Généalogies et mariages occidentaux des Rurikides russes du Xe au XIIIe siècle, Orientalia Christiana, Vol.

IX-1, No.35, Roma, 1927, 7-8, erroneously regards an “unknown pagan spouse” as themother of Iaroslav.

46 Cf . E.A. Rydzevskaia, Drevniaia Rus’ i Skandinaviia v IX-XIV vv. Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR. Materialy i issledovaniia 1978 g ., Moskva, 1978. Of particular interestin this respect is the study by E.A. Mel’nikova on the connections between the (earliersections of the) Primary Chronicle and the Ynglingasaga: “Istoricheskaia pamiat’ v ustnoi i pis’mennoi traditsiiakh (Povest’ vremennykh let i «Saga ob Inglingakh»”,E.A. Mel’nikova (ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2001 god. Istoricheskaia pamiat’ i formy ee voploshcheniia, Moskva, 2003, 48-92.

47 Especially the group of younger scholars around the yearbook Drevneishie gosudarstvaVostochnoi Evropy ( DGVE ), the successor of Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR,founded in 1978. See e.g . E.A. Mel’nikova, “K tipologii predgosudarstvennykh i ran-negosudarstvennykh obrazovanii v Severnoi i Vostochnoi Evrope”, DGVE 1992-1993,Moskva, 1995, 16-32; N.F. Kotliar, Drevnerusskaia gosudarstvennost’ , S.Peterburg, 1998,63-70; A.A. Gorskii, Drevnerusskaia druzhina, Moskva, 1989 (not available to me).




acceptance of the theory of the origin of the Oldest Pravda in connection with the events in Novgorod in 1016, then the conclusion that the Old-

est Pravda reects predominantly Viking customary law presents itselfmore urgently.In this connection, an old argument in favour of the presence of vig-

orous Scandinavian traditions at the court of the early Russian rulers hasrecently re-emerged. Rurik, the ancestor of the Kievan ruling house, who would have come from Scandinavia in 860/862 according to the PrimaryChronicle, is identied by some 19th century authors and several émigréRussian historians as being the same as a Rurik, a member of the Vikingdynasty of the Ynglinger, who was active in Jutland and Northern Germany

on the fringes of the Carolingian empire; he appeared as a liegeman of theemperors Louis the Pious and Lotharius in the period between 830 and850. In a recent study, E.V. Pchelov has reviewed the evidence in detailand reached the conclusion that, although the identity of the two Rurikscannot be considered proven, there are nevertheless strong argumentsin favour of it.48

A number of caveats have to be inserted however. Old-Russian cus-tomary law may have been quite similar to Germanic customary law andthen there would be no way of telling what would be Slavic or Germanic

in the oldest Russian legislation. The earliest law of other Slavic peoples, where there is no reason for assuming any signicant Germanic inu-ence, appears to be quite similar to Old-Russian law. Secondly, althoughthe Old-Russian druzhina may originally have consisted of Vikings, theevidence from the Chronicles shows that other ethnic elements were alsopresent in Early Kievan times: Slavic, Finnish, and Turkic (Pecheneg). Also, the Viking element, although very visible, must have been small inquantitative terms and was quickly absorbed into the Russian populationand Russian culture.49 Thirdly, the Oldest Pravda served as an importantingredient of the Expanded Pravda, which unquestionably was the generallaw for the entire Kievan empire. This suggests that the Viking contentof the Oldest Pravda was either not very signicant, or was suciently

48 E.V. Pchelov, Genealogiia drevnerusskikh kniazei IX-XI vv., Moskva, 2001, 68-98. An-other recent study by V.I. Merkulov, based primarily on obscure German sources,advocates a North German origin of the dynasty of Rurik; V.I. Merkulov, Otkuda rodomvariazhskie gosti? Genealogicheskaia rekonstruktsiia po nemetskim istochnikam, Moskva,

2005.49 The Russian signatories of the 945 treaty, although clearly Vikings, judging by their

names, did not swear by Thor, but by Perun, the Slavic god of thunder, indicatingthat the Varangian retinue of the Kievan prince had already adopted the religion oftheir Slavic surroundings.




similar to what already constituted Russian custom and could thereforeeasily be absorbed.

15. What does the Oldest Pravda Represent?

At a certain moment in the history of the Eastern Slavs, law came to be written down in a document which can more or less be identied as theOldest Pravda (the rst half of the Short Pravda), or which at least formedthe basis for the Oldest Pravda. So much can safely be assumed. Beforethis, customary law ruled, and learned opinion would generally agree thatmost of the provisions of the Oldest Pravda reproduced, either directlyor in some amended form, the old customary law. The question then is:Why was the transition made, from customary to written law? The answersuggested by modern experience, by similar events in the history of otherlegal systems, and also by what is known about the conditions surroundingthe genesis of the Oldest Pravda is that a change of circumstances, theoccurring of a new situation, produced a conviction that some of the oldarrangements had become inadequate and that new ones were required.

The customary laws of the Russians and the Vikings were probably nottoo divergent, as argued before, but together they were presumably unable

to cope fully with the new problems arising from the forced symbiosisof the two groups. The simple fact already that the Varangian warriors were away from home meant that they lacked the protective shell of theextended family, which was so important in defending the legal interestsof the individual.

Those customary arrangements that were inadequate (concerningmostly inter-ethnic violence and trade disputes) had to be replaced, orrather amended, to restore peace and order. This also explains why thecoverage of the Oldest Pravda is quite limited. Very likely, almost inevitably,

the old customary law remained in force in areas not mentioned. As the new arrangements aimed at restoring peace and order betweenantagonistic groups, they should preferably be based on an agreementbetween those groups; early laws are often both legislation and pact ortreaty. The new situation should be advantageous to both sides. The prince,initially, was a broker rather than a legislator. Iaroslav, faced with an im-mediate military threat from the side of his brother Sviatopolk, grandprince of Kiev, was forced to raise quickly an army of suitable size, andhe needed both the military prowess of his Viking mercenaries and the

numbers of the Novgorod militia. The recent enmity between these two groups could be overcome by the common danger which they all faced,but some kind of pacicatory instrument was needed. The Oldest Pravda(or an older document which formed the basis of it) fullled this func-




tion. The independent legislative input of the prince was probably small,although of decisive importance with a view towards the future. Iaroslav’s

sons already appear as genuine legislators, where the Expanded Pravdanames them in article 2 as the princes who abolished the blood feud. Inthe second half of the Short Pravda (the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons), thereare also other indications of the legislative activities of the princes.50

The entire history of the RP in its subsequent chronological layersillustrates the complexity which the process of emerging law may display.In the beginning, there was a system of unwritten law, the Zakon russkii , asRussian tradition calls it, probably of considerable size and xed throughmnemonic devices, as witnessed by the stability of the formulas appearing

later on in written texts. When this system turned out to be inadequateto deal with new challenges during a crisis, new arrangements were cre-ated. This had probably happened many times in the past—the creationof new customary law. But the availability of writing after the baptism ofRussia changed the nature of this procedure. Those who caused the newarrangements to be written down, and who already enjoyed the power tocommand, soon discovered that simple recording could easily be expandedinto the issuing of written orders, and that such orders were generallymore eective than oral ones.

In the rst centuries of Russian law, there still was considerable confu-sion about who did the writing. The Oldest Pravda is regarded by most as genuine legislation albeit embryonic—a pact brokered by prince Iaroslavbetween Novgorod and his Varangian soldiery. The Pravda of Iaroslav’sSons also has the appearance of legislation or rather a collection of actsof legislation of these princes. The combination of the two texts (plus afew smaller fragments) into the document known as the Short Pravda was probably the work of monastic scribes. The genesis of the ExpandedPravda was even more complicated, but does not belong to the phase ofearly law anymore.

50 E.g . the episode discussed above about the stable master of Iziaslav, killed by themen of Dorogobuzh, for whom an amount of 80 grivna was established.



Chapter 3

Roman Law in Medieval Russia

1. Introduction to the Problem

Whether Roman law exercised any inuence on the development ofRussian law, and if so, when, how and to what extent, presents a complexof questions which have continued to intrigue Russian and foreign legalhistorians for almost two centuries. In one of the great overviews of theimpact of Roman law through the ages on Western culture, Paul Koschaker

confessed that he had been unable to come up with clear answers.

1

To eliminate one issue already at the start: the following discussion onlyconcerns the earlier phases of Russian legal history. In the course of the 19thcentury, the Russian government regularly sent promising young academiclawyers to the great German universities of that time (mainly Berlin andHeidelberg) where the study of the Pandectae constituted the backboneof the curriculum. This policy resulted in a powerful injection of Romanlaw thinking into the study of law in Russia, which in one way or another was maintained in later years, even under Soviet rule, and with renewed

vigour in post-Soviet times.2

One reason why the problem indicated above refuses to go away isthat one side of the discussants seeks to nd a negative answer: viz. Ro-man law did not inuence the early phases of Russian law. The absence ofsomething may occasionally be proven by arguing irrefutably that it can-not be present (a matchbox cannot contain an elephant, therefore thereis no elephant in this matchbox). Usually, however, one has to be satisedby conducting a very thorough search and concluding that what one hasbeen looking for has not been found and is therefore most likely not there.

Such a conclusion is not denitive (that is why atheists can never win). Inthe present case, one could simply ask those who claim that Roman lawinuenced early Russian law to mention one provision of, say, the Russkaia Pravda that has been taken over from Roman law or is at least so similarin its wording to a Roman counterpart that common sense and probabilitycalculus would tell us that the Roman rule is its ancestor. Nobody, to the1 P. Koschaker, Europa und das römische Recht , München (1st ed.), 1947. Three more

editions followed, without a change in page numbers (1953, 1958, 1966). I have usedthe 3rd edition of the Dutch translation, edited by Th. Veen (Deventer, 2000), which

maintains the pagination of the original German publication. Koschaker’s views onRussia and the Roman law are to be found on pp.15, 130-134.

2 Cf . the small but very informative study by M. Avenarius, Rezeption des römischen Rechts in Russland–Dmitrij Mejer, Nikolaj Djuvernua und Josif Pokrovskij (Quellen und Forschungen zum Recht und seiner Geschichte XI), Göttingen, 2004.




present author’s knowledge, has yet come up with a wholly convincingexample, but of course it could still happen.

In Western scholarship, one could have expected that Darrell P.Hammer’s short study on “Russia and the Roman Law”, published half acentury ago, would have settled the matter once and for all.3 Hammer’sconclusion is worth quoting in full.

“In summary, then, the Corpus iuris civilis, the nal epitome of the law of Rome andthe basis of the Roman-law tradition in the West, was wholly unknown in Russiauntil the end of the Muscovite period. Certain elements of Justinian law did ndtheir way to the Russians through Greek and Slavonic translations, but these wererare and had been merged with later Byzantine legislation. The Russians knew onlya few of the novellae and some other scattered fragments, but such accidental bor-

rowing does not amount to a ‘reception’ of Roman law.”4

Although this conclusion was based on only a very brief (but competent)survey of the available evidence, other scholars did not return to the ques-tion and either concurred with Hammer’s view 5 or continued to regardthe matter as unsolved, as Koschaker had done.6

Nevertheless, the fty-odd years elapsed since Hammer’s study haveproduced a certain volume of materials which are at least relevant tothe problem and this alone would warrant a second look at it. But moreimportant is a complex of factors connected with the new politico-legalsituation in Russia. The question concerning the inuence of Roman lawon early Russian law was not completely disregarded during the Soviet era,but it often became caught up in wider-ranging and politically sensitiveissues. This inevitably impeded a sober and objective approach. In thepost-Soviet era, the topic was moved to another plane. The new Russia was in need of new legislation in many major elds, particularly that ofcivil law. There was less incentive to adopt an exclusivist and often hostileattitude towards foreign law and inuences from abroad. The Roman law,

as the mother of all Western legal systems, appeared therefore in a newlight in Russia and came to enjoy renewed interest. Russian legal scholarsbegan to study and explain the connections which Russian law had had with other European legal systems through the ages. The common ancestryunder Roman law was one factor which would easily attract attention inthis regard. One author even went so far as to claim that Roman law had

3 D.P. Hammer, “Russia and the Roman Law”, The American Slavic and East European Review, Vol.16 (1957), 1-13.

4

Ibidem, 6.5 Most outspoken is D.H. Kaiser, The Growth of the Law in Medieval Russia, Princeton,1980, 173-174.

6 E.g. M. Szeftel & A. Eck, Documents de droit public relatifs à la Russie médiévale, Bruxelles,1963, 23: “la problème reste encore à étudier”.



Roman Law in Medieval Russia 61

deeply inuenced Russian law from its very beginnings (E.V. Salogubova,to whose writings we shall return below).7

The question concerning external inuences on a country’s law be-comes more clear once the concept of “inuence” has been dened moreprecisely in this context. One could speak of the inuence of legal ideas orinstitutions on other legal ideas and institutions when an awareness of theexistence of the former has had an eect on the shaping of the latter. Thiseect is maximal when (the idea or) the institution is taken over lock, stockand barrel. Often, however, in the case of legal borrowing, the borroweradapts the institution to his own existing law. In other cases, a legislatoror court may consider the foreign solution, reject it as unsuitable, and opt

for a dierent course. Although one might still regard this as an exampleof (negative) inuence, its occurrence will usually be dicult to establishif the events took place long ago.8 In any case, inuence ranges from acomplete and considered take-over to a barely perceptible eect.

Our study is structured as follows:The following ( second ) section continues and expands the brief survey

of this introduction, by having a closer look at the various views which havebeen advanced through the years on the question of Roman law inuenceon early Russian law. The attention will focus on pre-revolutionary, Soviet

and post-Soviet scholarship in Russia (the USSR) itself.The actual investigation could be compared to a (continental) crimi-

nal trial, where a charge is brought, the evidence is collected, and theninvestigated, whereupon a decision is reached.

Before the investigation gets underway the parties must be identied: who are the ‘lenders’, who the ‘borrowers’? In other words, which laws,in the context of this investigation, are to be considered as inuencing,and as being inuenced? These will be the subject of the third and fourth sections.

7 E.V. Salogubova, “Vliianie rimskogo prava na rossiiskoe grazhdanskoezakonodatel’stvo”, Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, seriia II. Pravo, 1997, No.2, 29-37;id., “Elementy rimskogo prava v rossiiskom proizvodstve X-XVII vv.”, Ius Antiquum– Drevnee Pravo, 1999, No.4, 173-179. (The second article is a slightly expanded ver-sion of the rst one, but lacks the last two pages of the rst paper, which deal withdevelopments in the last three centuries.)

8 There is a famous example in early Russian legal history, discussed by several Russianlegal historians, in the entry for the years 994-996 in the Russian Primary Chronicle.Shortly after Russia’s conversion to Christianity, the bishops (Greeks at that time)exhorted prince Vladimir to execute robbers and brigands (which would have beenaccording to Byzantine law), but Vladimir refused, pleading that he was “afraid to sin”(it would be contrary to Russian customary law). The verb kazniti is often translatedas “punish”, but the arguments for having it refer specically to capital punishmentin this case are convincing in my view.




The short fth section will consider in a general way what is to beunderstood by inuences of one legal system on another. This would also

be the logical place to present the ‘charge’, in other words to present the various arguments, from the very general to the very specic, for Romanlaw inuences in early Russian law, as they have been put forward in thescholarly literature. It is, however, more practical to do so in combination with their evaluation, in the seventh section, in order to avoid unneces-sary repetition.

The sixth section will look more closely at the ‘evidence’. There is general agreement that Roman law can have aected early Russian lawonly through the intermediary of Byzantine law. We shall have to consider

therefore which Byzantine legal sources would be relevant in this respect.Byzantine texts would reach Russia mainly in the form of ecclesiasticalcollections of the Nomocanon type, known as kormchie in Russian history.

The seventh section will be devoted to a critical examination of thearguments in favour of Roman and Byzantine legal inuences on medievalRussian law, in light of the evidence presented in the sixth section.

The eighth section will consider subsequent developments in Russianlaw in less detail, in the manner of an obiter dictum, to be followed by afew general conclusions.

2. How the Views Developed over Time

The question concerning the inuence of Roman law on early Russian lawhas a history of its own. It could only be posed after something becameknown about the earliest law of Russia itself. Such early law has been trans-mitted in the form of fragments, individual legal texts, and not as a moreor less complete legal system. It is possible to argue in a general mannerthat Roman law has inuenced early Russian law and some authors have

indeed done precisely that. But once such an argument is investigated moredeeply, it will always be necessary to turn to the few individual legal texts which embody this law. Foremost among these are the various versions ofthe Russkaia Pravda (hereafter: RP ), then the so-called church statutes ofthe princes Vladimir and Iaroslav, a small group of other princely statutesand a few local or regional charters. As these sources were rediscovered,mainly in the course of the late 18th and the 19th century, some scholarsasked themselves how these texts had originated and in that context thequestion of Roman law inuence could arise.9

9 A short overview of the historiography in this matter is given by Hammer, op.cit.,2-5, and a more elaborate overview, referring especially to the Russkaia Pravda, maybe found in S.V. Iushkov’s monograph Russkaia pravda. Proiskhozhdenie, istochniki, ee znachenie, Moskva, 1950, 360-371. The question of Roman/Byzantine inuences inthe Russkaia Pravda is also discussed in G. Baranowski’s recent study of this text: G.Baranowski, Die Russkaja Pravda –ein mittelalterliches Rechtsdenkmal. Rechtshistorische Reihe 321, Frankfurt a/M., 2005, 723-726.




In the rst major Russian study of the RP , by N.V. Kalachov, the ques-tion of possible Roman-Byzantine inuence was extensively discussed in a

special chapter,10

but later 19th century (legal) historians in Russia limitedthemselves mostly to general statements, usually in connection with theirdiscussions of the RP . On the basis of his overall view of the Kievan Rus-sian state and its law, an author would conclude that Byzantine (or evenRoman) law would have been a signicant or less signicant source in theformation of early Russian law, or perhaps of no relevance at all. A typicalexample of this approach is Kliuchevskii:

“These private manuals [various versions of the Ecloga and the Epanagoge, FF] wereused by the Greeks in the same 11th and 12th centuries when similar codication

eorts according to Byzantine examples were under way with us. The requirementsof local church jurisdiction led to this work, and the synoptic Byzantine codicationprovided it with a ready form and methodology.”11

Vladimirskii-Budanov, the author of the most important pre-revolution-ary legal history textbook, devoted a short paragraph to the receptionof Byzantine law in Russia and stated simply that the RP undoubtedlycontained close borrowings from the secular legal texts included in theRussian versions of the Byzantine Nomocanon (the kormchie ). The principalByzantine legal texts involved in the reception in Russia, according to him,

were the Ecloga and the Procheiron.12

S.M. Solov’ev, in the rst book of hisfamous four-volume “History of Russia From the Most Ancient Times”,simply stated that “Greek legislation had […] a strong inuence on thelegal life of Russia” after the adoption of Christianity. He rejected anyGermanic inuence, particularly of the Vikings, on the earliest Russianlaw, because the Vikings did not nd themselves on a higher social levelthan the contemporary Russians.13

10

N.V. Kalachov, Predvaritel’nyia iuridicheskiia svedeniia dlia polnago ob”iasneniia Russkoi Pravdy, S.Peterburg, 1846. I have used the 2nd (unamended) edition of 1880; thechapter concerned is on pp.231-263. Most of the examples mentioned by later authorshad already been indicated in Kalachov’s remarkable study.

11 V.O. Kliuchevskii, Kurs russkoi istorii , Lecture 13; I have used the Collected Works( Sochineniia ) in the 8-volume edition of 1956-1959 (Moscow), where the quotationis found on pp.214-215. It was rst published in 1904, but written some time duringthe 1880s. Kliuchevskii occupied a somewhat dissident position in respect of thenature of the RP . He regarded it primarily as a manual for ecclesiastical courts andthis quotation has to be read in this light.

12 M.F. Vladimirskii-Budanov, Obzor istorii russkogo prava, Kiev, 1886. The last (seventh)pre-revolutionary edition was published in Kiev in 1915, and republished in 1995 inRostov-na-Donu. It is the latter republication which I have used. The section onthe reception of Byzantine law is on pp.114-115.

13 S.M. Solov’ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, Book 1, S.Peterburg, 1851, 231-238.




Other authors were somewhat more specic and adduced one or moreexamples of what they considered as indications of Byzantine inuence.

One of them is D’iakonov who mentioned Byzantine law as the fourthsource of early Russian law, along with customary law, princely legislation,and court practice.14 In support of this, he pointed to the rules of RP onthe unauthorized use of another person’s horse and on the killing of a thiefcaught in agranti during the night, which he suggested had been borrowedfrom the so-called Court Law for the People ( Zakon Sudnyi Liudem, tobe discussed below), itself based almost completely on the Ecloga. There were probably many more of such borrowings in the Expanded Version ofthe RP , he added. A quite similar position was occupied by Sergeevich.15

Both authors made the point that the Byzantine provisions were not justsimply taken over, but were reworked in order to make them agree withexisting Russian legal tradition. Inheritance law is discussed in particulardetail by Sergeevich, who regarded the Ecloga as the principal source ofthe Expanded Pravda on this point.16

The most outspoken of all pre-revolutionary scholars was N.A.Maksimeiko. He published a special study on the so-called Short Versionof the RP , in which he identied a number of borrowings, not only fromByzantine law, but also directly from the Corpus Iuris.17

14 M. D’iakonov, Ocherki obshchestvennago i gosudarstvennago stroia Drevnei Rusi ,S.Peterburg (2nd ed.), 1908, 48-50.

15 V. Sergeevich, Lektsii i izsledovaniia po drevnei istorii russkago prava, S.Peterburg (4thed.), 1910, 43 and 94.

16 Ibidem, 548-572.17 N.A. Maksimeiko, Opyt kriticheskago izsledovaniia Russkoi Pravdy, Vyp.1, Khar’kov, 1914.

This work has not been available to me, but extensive excerpts have been includedin the three-volume edition of the RP by the USSR Academy of Sciences, published

under the general editorship of B.D. Grekov. Vol.1 (Moscow/Leningrad, 1940) containsthe texts of the available manuscripts, Vol.2 (Moscow/Leningrad, 1947) a survey ofthe scholarly literature, mostly in the form of direct quotations, arranged accordingto the provisions of the RP , and Vol.3 (Moscow, 1963) a facsimile reproduction of themajor manuscripts. References to Maksimeiko’s work in this chapter have been madeas follows: “ RP II” (referring to the second volume of Grekov’s edition of the RP ),followed by the page number and a number in brackets (referring to the page numberof Maksimeiko’s work, as mentioned by Grekov). Large parts of Maksimeiko’s work,including the chapter on the inuence of Roman law on the Short Pravda, have alsobeen included in Iu.S. Shemshuchenko (ed.), Antolohiia ukrains’koi iurydychnoi dumki ,II, Kiev, 2002, 280-326.

Maksimeiko continued to work as a legal historian in Khar’kov after the OctoberRevolution. His views on Roman-Byzantine inuences in early Russian law were thesubject of a special refutation by E. Chernousov, “K voprosu o vliianii vizantiiskagoprava na drevneishee russkoe”, Vizantiiskoe obozrenie (published by the Universityof Iur’ev faculty of history and philology), Vol. II, part 2, Iur’ev, 1916. Although the




The most important two points emerging from the pre-revolutionarydiscussion are: (1) that the question of foreign inuences on early Russian

law concerned above all the RP , as the outstanding monument of earlyRussian law, and (2) that the inuence of Roman/Byzantine law was oftendiscussed in connection with the possibility of Germanic inuences.

This pattern was carried over into the Soviet era. Just before theUSSR became involved in the Second World War, M.N. Tikhomirovpublished a new study on the RP which was generally positive towardsMaksimeiko’s views.18 Tikhomirov agreed with those pre-revolutionaryauthors who had detected borrowings from the Court Law for the People(the ZSL ) in the RP .19

The leading medievalist of the rst half of the Soviet era, B.D. Grekov(1882-1953), who published widely on the Kievan period and on the RP ,hardly mentioned any Byzantine connections, but went out of his way toreject Germanic inuences.20 The most prominent Soviet legal historianof the same period, S.V. Iushkov, who had been writing about the RP sincethe 1920s, published a major monograph on the subject in 1950. His anti-Germanic feelings echoed those of Grekov and may be explained by thecircumstances of the time, just after World War II and while Stalin wasstill alive. But unlike Grekov, he devoted much attention to the question

of Byzantine inuences and oered an extensive and devastating critiqueof the views of Maksimeiko.21 He concluded that the RP had its sourcesexclusively in Eastern Slav law and that any similarities with Germanic orByzantine law should be explained as the result of parallel developmentsbased on similar socio-economic circumstances.22

seriousness of Maksimeiko’s scholarship is beyond doubt, he also displayed his predi-lection for unusual points of views in other studies on the RP , for instance “Mnimye

arkhaizmy ugolovnago prava Russkoi Pravdy”, XXXV Vestnik Prava, (S.Peterburg),1905, No.3 (124-152) and No.4 (135-161), presenting a picture of Kievan Russia whichappears utterly unrealistic after a century of RP scholarship.

18 N.[ recte M.]N. Tikhomirov, Issledovanie o Russkoi Pravde. Proiskhozhdenie tekstov,Moskva/Leningrad, 1941.

19 Ibidem, 59.20 Esp. in “ Russkaia Pravda i ee slavianskoe okruzhenie”, an address to the annual as-

sembly of the USSR Academy of Sciences, published in B.D. Grekov, Kievskaia Rus’ ,Moskva, 1953, 534-546, and in Izvestiia AN SSSR, Seriia istorii i losoi , Vol. IX, No.2,

105-114.21 S.V. Iushkov, Russkaia Pravda. Proiskhozhdenie, istochniki, ee znachenie, Moskva, 1950,360-368. Iushkov had already made the same point briey in his more general workObshchestvenno-politicheskii stroi i pravo kievskogo gosudarstva, Moskva, 1949, 189.

22 Ibidem, 370-371.




In a new study on the RP , published in 1953, Tikhomirov changedcourse and associated himself with the position of Grekov and Iushkov,

declaring that“All eorts to prove some kind of inuence on the Russkaia Pravda by Byzantine,Southern Slav, Scandinavian or any other legislation have turned out to be altogetherfruitless. The Russkaia Pravda arose completely on Russian soil and was the result ofRussian legal thought of the 10th to the 12th century.”23

After Iushkov’s spirited refutation of Maksimeiko’s theory concerningRoman-Byzantine inuences in early Russian law, no Soviet author returnedto the question for a long time. A.A. Zimin, one of the most brilliantrepresentatives of the next generation of Soviet medievalists, completed

work on a monograph on the RP shortly before his death in 1980, but this work was published only in 1999.24 Zimin’s opinion as to the origins of the RP did not dier signicantly from the views of the foregoing generation.He had already briey expressed himself in similar vein in 1952, but that was at a political juncture (late Stalinism) and at an early moment in hiscareer, when he could only be expected to support his ‘elders and betters’such as Grekov, Iushkov and Tikhomirov.25

The appearance of Ia.N. Shchapov’s study on the Byzantine andSouthern Slav legal heritage in Russia in the 11th-13th century in 1978

must be regarded as the next major event in the history of the question which concerns us here.26 This work, as suggested by its title, presentedan in-depth analysis of the actual process through which Byzantine legalmaterials reached Russia during the period indicated. Shchapov’s earlierstudies on the so-called church statutes (primarily the Church Statutesof Vladimir and his son Iaroslav) had already provided a solid basis for afurther inquiry into the complex relationships between Byzantine eccle-siastical legislation, the legal position of the Russian church and Russian

23 M.N. Tikhomirov, Posobie dlia izucheniia Russkoi Pravdy, Moskva, 1953, 7.24 A.A. Zimin, Pravda Russkaia, Moskva, 1999.25 Zimin was the author of the commentary to the two versions of the RP as published

in the 8-volume series of Pamiatniki russkogo prava; the rst volume Pamiatniki kievskogo gosudarstva, X-XII vv. (Moskva, 1952) contained a.o. the RP ; the relevant text is onp.74. The last volume of these Pamiatniki (Vol.7) appeared in 1963 (after Vol.8). A newseries ( Rossiiskoe zakonodatel’stvo X-XX vekov ) was planned of which the rst volume( Zakonodatel’stvo Drevnei Rusi ) appeared in 1984. In his introduction to this volume,O.I. Chistiakov, who was also the general editor of the entire series, still repeated

most of the standard opinions of the preceding generations of Soviet scholars, butin a more moderate form, making allowances for hitherto divergent opinions. Seeesp. pp.22-26.

26 Ia.N. Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe i iuzhnoslavianskoe pravovoe nasledie na Rusi v XI-XIII vv.,Moskva, 1978.




secular legislation.27 The central role in this matter was played by the sev-eral and interrelated Byzantine collections known variously as Nomocanon

or Syntagma canonum.The outcome of Shchapov’s investigation agreed with the positionof his predecessors, insofar as he concluded that the main monument ofsecular law in Kievan Russia, the RP in its two main versions, hardly re-ected any traces of Byzantine inuence. However, Shchapov was of theopinion that the RP did not only show signicant similarity with otherearly sources of Slav law (as had been argued forcefully by Grekov), butalso with West European sources such as the Germanic leges barbarorum(a view vehemently rejected by Grekov and Iushkov). The Russian church

statutes on the other hand, although a much less important source ofsecular law, were undoubtedly connected with Byzantine law, althoughShchapov did not really sketch a clear picture on this point.28

To some extent this defect was corrected in a paper Shchapov pub-lished in 1987, which was entitled “Roman law in Russia until the 16thcentury”. The title of this paper was misleading in so far as the paper dealtpredominantly with the impact of later Byzantine law, such as the Ecloga and the Procheiron, on Russian law.29

In the present post-Soviet period the most prominent and prolic

author on the Kievan era, I.Ia. Froianov, has not expressed himself ex-plicitly on this topic.30

I.A. Isaev, the author of a prominent university textbook on Rus-sian legal history, in his section on “Church statutes and Byzantine law”,considered Byzantine law (esp. the Ecloga and the Procheiron ) as importantsources, while at the same time agreeing with the view put forward byearlier authors, that Byzantine law was generally subject to considerablereworking in the process of being integrated into Russian law.31 With regard27

Ia.N. Shchapov, Kniazheskie ustavy i tserkov’ v Drevnei Rusi XI-XIV vv., Moskva, 1972;id., Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy XI-XV vv., Moskva, 1976.28 Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe …, 251-254.29 Ia.N. Shchapov, “Rimskoe pravo na Rusi do XVI v.”, V.L. Ianin (ed.), Feodalizm v

Rossii [Cherepnin memorial collection], Moskva, 1987, 211-219.30 Froianov published three books on Kievan Russia, all of them titled Kievskaia Rus’ ,

which were later on collected in a single volume, together with other papers. Kievskaia Rus’. Ocherki sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi istorii , Leningrad, 1974; Kievskaia Rus’. Ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii , Leningrad, 1980; Kievskaia Rus’. Ocherki otechestvennoi istoriograi , Leningrad, 1990; published together

in Nachala russkoi istorii. Izbrannoe, Moskva, 2001. Another volume, covering some of the same terrain is I.Ia. Froianov, Drevniaia

Rus’. Ocherki i issledovaniia istorii sotsial’noi i politicheskoi bor ’by, S.Peterburg, 1995.31 I.A. Isaev, Istoriia gosudarstva i prava Rossii , Moskva (3rd edition; rst edition in 1998),

2006, 36-39.




to the RP, he followed the lead of Kliuchevskii, who saw the RP as a legalmanual for the use of ecclesiastical courts.32 From this, he appears to con-

clude that the RP was based a.o. on the Kormchaia, the Ecloga, the Procheiron,the Court Law for the People ( ZSL ), and the Nomos Georgikos.33 A dierent, but equally adventurous position was taken by another

recent author, E.V. Salogubova, who, like Maksimeiko many years ago,perceived the presence of Roman law in many instances in early Russianlaw.34 In this connection Baranowski, in his recent magnum opus on the RP ,observed that renewed interest among Russian legal historians in Byzantineinuences in Russian law is certainly to be welcomed.35

In Western scholarship, the question of Roman or Byzantine inu-

ences in early Russian law occurs as a secondary issue in a number of works which provide an overview of the history of Russian law or of a similarbroad topic. The answer to the question is then often not sought in a pre-cise examination of the available materials but in a deduction from more general conceptions. Christianity came to Russia through Byzantium, andin the person of Greek bishops and priests steeped in the ecclesiastical lawof Byzantium; therefore Byzantine law, and through its prism also Romanlaw, would have reached Russia in this early period.36

The very few authors who looked more closely at the sources them-

selves were usually more circumspect in their judgment. A. Soloviev, in a wide-ranging overview of the inuence of Roman law in the Balkans and

32 V.O. Kliuchevskii’s Kurs russkoi istorii takes up the rst ve volumes of the 8-volumecollected works ( Sochineniia ), published in Moscow, 1956-1959 (the edition which Ihave used). His views on the ecclesiastical origins of the RP in Vol.I, 208-209.

33 Isaev, op.cit ., 37, 41.34 E.V. Salogubova, “Vliianie rimskogo prava na rossiiskoe grazhdanskoe

zakonodatel’stvo”, Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, seriia II. Pravo, 1997, No.2, 29-37,

and id., “Elementy rimskogo prava v rossiiskom sudoproizvodstve X-XVII vv.”, Ius Antiquum–Drevnee Pravo, 1999 (No.4), 114-116. The two papers are largely identi-cal.

35 Baranowski, op.cit , 726.36 This appears to have been the view of S. Kucherov in “Indigenous and Foreign In-

uences on the Early Russian Legal Heritage”, Slavic Review, Vol.31 (1972), 257-282,esp. 280. Also, H. Berman acknowledged a signicant inuence of Byzantine law onthe RP in his well-known work Justice in the U.S.S.R. An Interpretation of Soviet Law,Cambridge, MA (Revised and Enlarged edition), 1962, 192. In an overview “TheRomanist Substratum in the Civil Law of the Socialist Countries” ( Review of Social-ist Law, 1988, 65-86, at 71), R. Sacco recognized the predominantly native Russiancharacter of the RP , but also the direct inuence of the Ecloga and the Procheiron.H. Küpper, in his Einführung in die Rechtsgeschichte Osteuropas, Studien des Instituts fürOstrecht München, Band 54, Frankfurt a/M., 2005, 66, acknowledges Byzantine inu-ences in early Russian law, but characterizes them as supercial.




in Eastern Europe, considered Maksimeiko’s argument “a failed attempt”and concluded that the earliest Russian law showed no signs of Byzantine

or Roman inuence.37

D. Obolensky, in The Byzantine Commonwealth, con-cluded that the RP “taken as a whole, shows little evidence of being basedon a Byzantine model” and that “Nor has any Byzantine inuence beendetected in the late medieval Russian codes, the most notable of whichare the ‘charters’ of Pskov and Novgorod.”38

The views of D. Hammer have been referred to above. One of themost thorough Western studies of early Russian law has been D. Kaiser’sThe Growth of the Law in Medieval Russia.39 Although the main subject ofthis book, as indicated by the title, is legal change, an extensive chapter

on the sources of medieval Russian law has been included. This chaptertakes account of the important Soviet literature which had appearedafter Hammer’s article, and particularly, in its section on the Kormchaia,of Shchapov’s pioneering work, mentioned above.

Kaiser’s views on Roman and Byzantine inuences could be sum-marized as follows: Roman law reached medieval Russia through theintermediary of churchmen, and mainly in the form of the Ecloga andthe Procheiron, neither of them true to Roman roots. There were sometraces of clerical inuence in secular law (testimony and inheritance),

but “the Roman inheritance that ltered into Russian judicial texts wassignicantly altered from the Justinianic texts that played an importantrole in the revival of Roman law in the West”.40

Baranowski, in his recent work on the RP , limited himself to present-ing a convenient survey of modern views on the question being discussedhere. In accordance with the general format of his work he refrains fromexpressing an outspoken position, although his overall judgment seemsto be that only the Court Law for the People (the ZSL, in its Short Ver-sion) is a realistic candidate for having had a signicant inuence on the RP , and that, additionally, the Ecloga and the Procheiron may have aectedindividual provisions of the so-called Expanded Pravda (the later andlonger version of the RP ).41

37 A.V. Soloviev, “Der Einuss des Byzantinischen Rechts auf die Völker Osteuropas”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, Romanische Abteilung , Band 76 (1959), 432-479, at460.

38 D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, Oxford, 1971, 319.39 Princeton, 1980.40 Kaiser, op.cit., 173-174.41 Baranowski, op.cit ., 724-726.




3. The Legislation Involved:Roman and Byzantine Law–The ‘Lenders’

What is meant by Roman law or Byzantine law inuences? As Hammerhas observed, the development of the law of Justinian in the West andparticularly in the Middle Ages, of such decisive importance for modernWestern law, hardly aected Russian law and may therefore be put asidehere.42 The great edice of Roman law, culminating in Justinian’s Corpus Iuris Civilis (529-535), provided the foundation for the law of the Byzan-tine empire and practically the only way Roman law could have reachedRussia would have been through the intermediary of Byzantine law. In

the context of this paper, Roman law therefore embraces the legislationof Justinian itself and the Roman law that preceded it; the subsequentlegislation of the Byzantine empire may be regarded as Byzantine law. As we shall see, this would also include ecclesiastical law.

Roman Law

An occasional author has contemplated the possibility of somebody involved with law and legislation (a judicial ocial, a monk, a scribe) in medi-eval Russia having the Corpus Iuris on his table, to assist in deciding a case,

copying an obscure legal text, or drafting new laws. The utter improbabilityof such a scenario is almost universally recognized. The Corpus Iuris (andany other direct sources of Roman law) existed only in a limited numberof manuscript copies;43 they would have to be brought from Byzantium,as they would not have been available in Western Europe at the time andcultural contacts with Western Europe were very modest anyway. Even inByzantium, a sucient knowledge of Latin to read legal texts had becomea scarce commodity.44 Moreover, socio-economic circumstances dieredradically and although this would not per se prevent borrowing, it is hardto think of any serious advantage early medieval Russian law could reapfrom the study of Roman law. If Roman law came to Russia in this period,it could only have been through the vehicle of Byzantine law.

42 Hammer, op.cit ., 5-6.43 N. van der Wal & J.H.A. Lokin in their Historiae iuris graeco-romani delineatio. Les sources

du droit byzantin de 300 à 1453, Groningen, 1985, 99, accept the probable availability of

copies of the Institutes, the Digest and the Code of Justinian in Constantinople inthe middle of the 11th century, but consider it very uncertain whether the expertsconcerned would be able to read them.

44 Ibidem, and 63 (as regards the 7th century) and 72 (concerning the period of theiconoclast emperors, 717-842).




Secular Byzantine Law:

a. The Nomos Georgikos or Farmer’s Law In connection with medieval Russian law, the rst signicant secularlegislative document in Byzantium after the Corpus Iuris was the NomosGeorgikos ( Lex rustica ) or Farmer’s Law. This law, consisting of 85 articles(in the oldest available and most reliable version), creates a vivid pictureof the life of small and independent farmers and the manifold disputesand collisions that could arise among them. A minor part of its contentscan be traced to the law of Justinian and earlier Roman law, but there arealso inuences from Old Testament (Mosaic) law. A considerable part ofits contents seems to reect customary law.45

There is still much disagreement about all the external aspects of theFarmer’s Law. Its authorship is unclear, as well as the time and place ofits origin. There are now few supporters of the theory that ascribes thelaw to Justinian II Rhinotmetes (685-695, 705-711), and a somewhat laterdate, in the beginning of the era of the iconoclast emperors, is preferred.Whether it was promulgated as an ocial law or represents the work ofprivate persons is uncertain. There can be no doubt, however, that after

its reception in Russia it was regarded as a genuine piece of Byzantinelegislation.The so-called Slavic-Russian version of the Farmer’s Law constitutes

the greater part of a manuscript collection known as the Knigi Zakonnye (Law Books). The other parts of the collection are the “Law on penalties”( Zakon o kaznekh ), a law “On divorce” ( O razdelenii brakom ), and the “Chapterson witnesses” ( Glavy o poslusekh ).46 (More on the Knigi Zakonnye below.)

The Farmer’s Law is one of the three Byzantine leges speciales, of whichthe Lex Rhodia and the Lex militaris represent the other two, all dating from

the same era. The Lex Rhodia, of great importance in the developmentof maritime law, was of little interest to a land-logged legal system suchas that in medieval Russia (although it was included in several medievalRussian manuscript collections). The same goes for the Lex militaris.

45 I.P. Medvedev (ed.), Vizantiiskii Zemledel’cheskii zakon. Nomos Georgikos, Leningrad,1984. This edition contains an extensive historiography (also of Western scholar-ship), annotated texts of the main Greek manuscripts and a Russian translation, anextensive commentary (by E.E. Lipshits), the Slavic-Russian text of the Law with

notes and comments, and various additional materials. See, also, van der Wal & Lokin,65, 73-75, and I.P. Medvedev, Pravovaia kul’tura vizantiiskoi imperii , S.Peterburg, 2001,148-150;

46 Included with comments by Lipshits in Medvedev, Zemledel’chskii zakon, 233-259.Briey on the Knigi Zakonnye also Kaiser, Growth of the Law, 144-145.




b. Ecloga47

Taken at face value, the Ecloga is a law code of modest size, mainly devotedto private law, and promulgated by the emperors Leo and Constantine.48 As its date, the years of 726 and 741 are mentioned, depending on themanuscript used.49 After a lengthy preamble, the rst 16 chapters (titles)of the Ecloga deal with various civil law topics, including family and in-heritance law. The preamble points in particular to the fact that the massof preceding legislation had become incomprehensible to judges outsidethe capital itself. The Ecloga is therefore to be understood primarily asa paraphrasing of the practically most important legislation in simpler

language, and not so much as a major law reform.

50

Its contents can betraced back to the Corpus Iuris and subsequent imperial legislation, witha few exceptions. Most innovations are contained in the 2nd and 17thchapters, devoted respectively to matrimonial and criminal law. They arealso by far the longest chapters. In the 17th and longest chapter, corporalpunishment and various amputations constitute the standard penalty, along47 Cf . L. Burgmann (ed.), Ecloga: Das Gesetzbuch Leons III. und Konstantinos’ V , Frankfurt

a/M., 1983 (not available to me). See, also, van der Wal & Lokin, 72-73, and a usefulbibliography at 132. E.E. Lipshits, Ekloga. Vizantiiskii zakonodatel’nyi svod VIII veka,Moskva, 1965, presents a Russian translation, an introduction and comments, andextensive other explanatory and bibliographical materials. See, also, I.P. Medvedev, Pravovaia kul’tura, 138-148. An older but still valuable Russian source is V.G. Vasil’evskii,“Zakonodatel’stvo ikonobortsev”, Trudy V.G. Vasil’evskogo, IV, Leningrad, 1930, 139-235(originally written and published in the beginning of the 20th century, but republishedby the USSR Academy of Sciences).

48 Leo III, also known as Leo the Isaurian, was emperor from 717 to his death in 741.His son Constantine V, nicknamed Copronymus, was born in 718 and crownedco-emperor in 720. He ruled from 741 until his death in 775. They were the rsticonoclast emperors.

49

Lipshits, Ekloga, 16-18, refers to a study by D. Ginis (“Das Promulgationsjahr desisaurischen Ecloge”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift , Band 24, 1924) which demonstrates(according to Lipshits) clearly that 726 is the correct date. Van de Wal & Lokin (132)point to a paper by O. Kresten (“Datierungsproblemen isaurischer Eherechtsnovel-len”, Fontes minores IV, Frankfurt a/M., 1981, 37-106) which they believe settles thematter ultimately in favour of the 741 date. For the purpose of our study, the questionis not of great relevance. I note the point made by Vasil’evskii (173) that the Ecloga (XVII, 52) prescribes the death penalty for Manichaeans and Montanists, but issilent about icon worshippers. As the Ecloga was promulgated in March, this wouldfavour the 726 date, because Leo’s iconoclast policies began to be applied later onin the same year and remained a major concern all through his reign.

50 Cf . van de Wal & Lokin, 72-73, who stress this point against what they consider tobe the erroneous view of Zachariae von Lingenthal and his followers in the 20thcentury, such as Lipshits ( Ekloga, 8.), who insist on the reforming character of the Ecloga. I am inclined to occupy a middle position: if it did not constitute a majorchange of course, it was not just a change of words.




with double nes for minor oences. The Corpus Iuris content amountsto about two-thirds of the chapter. One provision (XVII, 40) is almost

identical with article 57 of the Farmer’s Law,51

otherwise, as many authorshave noted, there is no overlap between the two laws. This might suggestthat the Farmer’s Law was already in operation at the time the Ecloga was written and that there was no need to provide regulation for typicallyagriculture-connected topics. There is a short nal (18th) chapter on thepartition of war booty.

In the course of the 8th century, several revised versions of the Eclogasaw the light, the Ecloga aucta, also known as the Eclogadion, the Ecloga privata and the Ecloga privata aucta. The Appendix Eclogae consists of a

considerable number of texts of various origin, added on to manuscriptsof the Ecloga in one of its forms.52 Of a later date is the so-called Ecloga ad Procheiron mutata, a text which is closer to the latter than the former.53

c. Basilika54

The Basilika, the Epanagoge and the Procheiron are all from the same pe-riod, the end of the 9th century, the reign of the rst two Macedonianemperors, Basil I (867-886) and Leo VI the Wise (886-912). There are various theories about their relationship, although this matter is of no

great relevance for the central question in this chapter. The most recentand by now dominant theory is that the most ambitious codicationprogramme in Byzantium since the Corpus Iuris was started by Basil I, with the aim to provide a complete and systematized Greek restatementof the law. This ultimately resulted during the reign of Basil’s son Leo theWise in the completion of the Basilika, a huge collection divided into 60books.55 Already during the reign of Basil, the need was felt to have alsoa more concise and convenient summary of the law. This need was met51

On arson or cutting down trees in somebody else’s wood, possibly based onD.47,7,1.52 Cf. van der Wal & Lokin, 75-76; Medvedev, Pravovaia kul’tura, 152-167.53 Cf . van der Wal & Lokin, 94.54 The following short survey of the Basilika, the Epanagoge and the Procheiron is based

mainly on Medvedev, Pravovaia kul ’tura, 167-187, whose argument in turn is basedespecially on A. Schminck, Studien zu mittelbyzantinische Rechtsbüchern, Frankfurt a/M.,1986. Previously, the names of the emperors cited in the beginning of the Procheiron and the Epanagoge provided the main argument for dating these two texts as fromthe 870-879 period, the Procheiron being considered the earliest of the two. Cf ., for

instance, van der Wal & Lokin, 78-81.55 The publication of the Basilika in 17 volumes has been achieved by a group of scholars

from the University of Groningen, H.J. Scheltema, N. van der Wal & D. Holwerda(eds.), Basilicorum libri LX, Series A (Textus), Vols.I-VIII, Groningen, 1953-1988, Series B (Scholia), Vols.I-IX, Groningen, 1953-1988.




at rst by the Epanagoge, written under the direction of the energeticand learned patriarch Photius in 885-886.56 Because certain parts of the

Epanagoge were politically unpalatable to the emperor, Leo the Wise hadanother summary drawn up in 907-908, the Procheiron.The Basilika was based on the law of Justinian, not the original Latin

text of the Corpus Iuris, but as it had come down through various Byzantine(Greek) works. Of course it also incorporated later Byzantine legislationin the form of imperial constitutions. The question of its character hasbeen debated extensively. Modern lawyers are conditioned by a strictlycircumscribed concept of law, but such views may not be quite adequatefor understanding legal sources from other times and other cultures. Ac-

cording to present-day denitions, the Basilika is not to be regarded aslegislation, but rather as a work of reference. Only much later, in 1175, wasit ocially recognized as a source of law.

On account of the respective sizes of the works, the Basilika is ofcourse of much less interest in connection with medieval Russian law thanthe more convenient and user-friendly Epanagoge and Procheiron. There areno indications that the Basilika ever came to Russia during this period andnobody has ever suggested that it did inuence medieval Russian law.

d. Epanagoge ( Eisagoge )The 40 titles (chapters) of the Epanagoge (“Restoration”, “Returning”, sc.to the ‘pure’ law of Justinian) correspond to the 40 books of an earlierstage of the Basilika. Of particular interest are the chapters 2 and 3, whichput forward a view on the position of the emperor and of the patriarch where these two appear as more or less equal partners. This theoreticalapproach obviously reected the ambitions of the patriarch Photius, butat the same time it ensured that the Epanagoge would never acquire thestatus of a law. The following chapters cover many areas of private law andprocedure, the 40th chapter is devoted to criminal law. They generallyreturn to the old law of Justinian by oering a more literal Greek render-ing of the Corpus Iuris texts.

e. Procheiron

The Procheiron or Procheiros nomos (the “law at hand” or the “law handbook”) was (according to more modern theories) produced under the directionof Leo VI, with the specic additional purpose of getting rid of Photius’unacceptable statements on the church-state relationship. According toits lengthy introduction, it was explicitly meant to replace the Ecloga andto return to the old law of Justinian. It was more than twice the size of the

56 As Medvedev notes (176), the proper name is actually Eisagoge (“Introduction”), butas Epanagoge is the name which has been in use in the literature for very many years,I shall conform to this usage.




Ecloga, numbering 40 chapters (titles). The 39th chapter covered criminallaw and took over many of the innovations of the Ecloga. The 40th chapter,

on war booty, was identical to the last chapter of the Ecloga.57

Otherwise,its contents parallel those of the Epanagoge.The Russian translation of the Procheiron included in several medieval

Russian collections is sometimes named the “City Law” ( Zakon gradskii ).

f. Epitome

In the rst year of the reign of the emperor Romanus Lecapenus (920-944)another collection of legal texts appeared, known by the name of Epitome, which contained texts of Corpus Iuris provenance, quite similar to those

included in the Epanagoge and the Procheiron, texts from the Procheiron itself, and a few others.58

Byzantine Canonical (Ecclesiastical) Law

For the modern lawyer, as pointed out above, law is a clearly dened bodyof rules which exist because they have been created or at least ociallysanctioned by the state. Of course, this view is nuanced nowadays by theadmission that a certain grey area may occur, where we nd such things as‘soft law’, obsolescent rules, unenforced prohibitions, etc. But the blurring

of the concept of legislation, which a study of ancient and medieval legalsources occasionally seems to suggest, is more dicult to accommodatein a modern understanding of law. A very much related feature is theconcurrence of more or less equivalent legislatures in a single jurisdictionas this emerged in the early Christian world.

Patterns of church-state relations varied widely in this world, butthe dominant position of the church in certain areas of the law was acommon factor. In the Eastern Christian world, as distinct from earlymedieval Western Europe, the symbiosis between church and state wasmore intimate, more complex and longer-lasting. The church, as an organization functioning in the secular world, needed rules. Some of these were derived directly from Scripture, mainly the Old Testament and es-pecially the book of Exodus. But then the church councils, particularlythe ecumenical councils which were held before the Eastern and Westernchurches drifted apart, had formulated more detailed rules about per-sonal life and the organization of the church itself. Some of these rulesconcerned matters (family relationships in particular) which had previ-

57 Cf. Medvedev, Pravovaia kul’tura, 178-182; van der Wal & Lokin, 78-79. A Russiantranslation of the Procheiron was included in the collection of the Merilo Pravednoe (see below); see M.N. Tikhomirov (ed.), Merilo Pravednoe v rukopisi XIV veka, Moskva,1961, 463-663 (ms. 231-331).

58 Cf. van der Wal & Lokin, 90.




ously remained outside the scope of the state’s regulation, having been amatter of time-honoured custom. In other areas the state, or rather the

ruler, who understood himself as a Christian prince, ruling by the graceof God, was content to leave regulation to the church. At the same time,one should keep in mind that the secular and spiritual rulers in Byzantium(the emperor and the patriarch), and later on in Russia as well, did notoperate in separate spheres but were continually involved in numerouscommon issues where they co-operated, quarrelled, pulled together oragainst each other, in short, inter-related intensively. Many constitutiones (legislation of the Byzantine emperor) regulated issues which one wouldregard as canon law.

The Early Collections up to the Nomocanon XIV titulorum59

At the time the great codication of Justinian, the Corpus Iuris, was be-ing completed (534), work was under way to collect the church canonsinto a single volume. The result was the Collectio LX titulorum, the textof which has not survived.60 This collection was probably provided withan appendix, which has survived and goes by the name of Collectio XXVcapitolorum. It contained secular law aecting the church, taken from theCorpus Iuris.

A new collection of canon law was put together by John the Scholasticaround the year 550 (he became patriarch of Constantinople in 565, the year of emperor Justinian’s death). This Collectio L titulorum contained thesame materials as its predecessor (with a few additions), but the variouscouncil decisions were systematized and distributed over 50 chapters. Theauthor added an appendix, the Collectio LXXXVII capitolorum, consistingof fragments of Justinian’s Novellae relating to ecclesiastical subjects.61

The third collection was probably compiled by John the Scholastic’s

successor as patriarch of Constantinople, Eutychius, and dates from around580. Some new materials were added to this Syntagma canonum, but themajor innovation was that it had been divided into two parts: a systematicsurvey consisting of 14 chapters, and then a full collection of texts. Again,an appendix of secular law had been added, the Collectio tripartita, whichdid not oer a selection of actual imperial legal texts but instead a moresystematic survey of legislation concerning the church, divided into three

59 This part of the survey is based on van der Wal & Lokin, 51-54, 60-62, 66-70.

60 The Collectio LX titulorum embraced the so-called 85 canons of the apostles, the 193canons of 8 church councils forming the old corpus canonum, the so-called canons ofthe Council of Ephesus (431), and the canons of the Council of Sardica (343).

61 The greater part of the collection is taken up by Novella 123 “De sanctissimis epis-copis et Deo amabilibus et reverendissimis clericis, et monachis”.




parts (hence the name). Most of the material of the Collectio tripartita goesback to the Corpus Iuris, but it also embraced later novellae.

A new version of the Syntagma canonum was the result of the work ofan author known as the Anonymus or Enantiophanes.62 He merged thecanon law properly speaking, which had been the subject matter of theprevious collections, with the secular law pertaining to the church, whichhad previously been located in appendices. References to the latter law were included in the systematic survey of the 14 chapters. This part of theSyntagma (together with the collection of texts which followed it) lateron became known as the Nomocanon or more exactly, the Nomocanon XIVtitulorum. The three secular law collections (the Collectio XXV capitolorum,

the Collectio LXXXVII capitolorum, and the Collectio tripartita ) are foundafter the texts of the canons in most manuscript versions of this revisedSyntagma. This revision of the Syntagma has probably been realized atsome time within the period between 612 and 629.

Not much later, the Collectio L titulorum of John the Scholastic wasrevised in a similar way, which resulted in the Nomocanon L titulorum. Other,hybrid versions of the Nomocanon appeared later on.

Subsequent Developments in Byzantine Canon Law

In 692, a council of the Byzantine church was held in the imperial palacein Constantinople; it is known by the name of Quinisextum, or in Trullo(the name of the hall in which it was held). One of the most importantcanons adopted contained a list of recognized sources of canon law. Thislist corresponded to a large extent with the contents of the Syntagmacanonum, but added some new materials.

No great change in canon law occurred during the iconoclast period. A revised version of the Syntagma was adopted after 787, called the Redactio

systematica sive Tarasiana. After the death of patriarch Tarasius (in 806), another redaction ap-peared which included the decisions of the second Council of Nicea (of787). This Syntagma has been of particular importance in connection withthe compilation of the rst Slavonic translation of the Nomocanon.63

62 There is also an older Anonymus, a Byzantine scholar from the age of Justinian. Thedesignation Enantiophanes, “somebody who appears to be opposed or contrary tosomething”, is apparently not a real name.

63 This redaction is not mentioned by van der Wal & Lokin, but Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe,53, points out that this redaction (called the Third Redaction by him) contains theSecond Nicea Council decisions (which are absent in the 790 Syntagma ) and lacksthe letter by patriarch Tarasius to pope Adrian in 790, which is included in the 790Syntagma.




The Syntagma canonum was modernized in 883 by the inclusion of newmaterials, particularly the 102 canons adopted by the Quinisextum council.

The Syntagma of 883 has for a long time been ascribed (incorrectly) to thepatriarch Photius, mentioned above. A new revision of the Syntagma in 1089/1090 by Theodore Bestes

added the full text of the secular laws pertaining to church matters tothe Nomocanon.

The twelfth century is characterized by the activities of three impor-tant authors who each contributed extensive commentaries to the by then vast body of Byzantine canon law: Zonaras, Aristenes and Balsamon.64

Summary of Byzantine Canon LawThe reader who has now come to the conclusion that Byzantine canonlaw was confusingly complicated, has a point. The following text thereforesummarizes the narrative of the foregoing pages.

(a) Collectio LX titulorum (around 534, text did not survive): 85 canonsof the apostles, 193 canons of 8 church councils, forming the oldcorpus canonum, canons of the councils of Ephesus and Sardica; anappendix containing secular law pertaining to the church: the Col- lectio XXV capitolorum (survived).

(b) Collectio L titulorum (of John the Scholastic, around 550): same ma-terials as (a), with some additions, but systematically arranged in 50chapters. An appendix, called the Collectio LXXXVII capitolorum,consists of fragments of Justinian’s Novellae, pertaining to ecclesi-astical subjects.

(c) Syntagma canonum (probable author: Eutychius, around 580): samematerials as (b), with some additions, but subject matter divided into

two parts, a systematic survey consisting of 14 chapters, followedby a full collection of texts. An appendix, consisting of three parts(the Collectio tripartita ), contains, not a collection of actual secularlegal texts, but a systematic survey of legislation concerning thechurch. The material referred to in this Collectio tripartita is mostlyfrom the Corpus Iuris, but also from later novellae.

(d) Revised Syntagma canonum (between 612 and 629, Anonymus orEnantiophanes): dierent organization of the material. Refer-ences to secular law pertaining to the church were now included

in the rst part, the systematic survey of canon law consisting of14 chapters; this was followed by the texts of the canons, and thethird part consisted of the three earlier collections of secular law (as

64 Cf . van der Wal & Lokin, 108-112.




mentioned in (a), (b) and (c)). The rst two parts together becameknown as the Nomocanon XIV titulorum.

(e) The Redactio systematica sive Tarasiana, in or shortly after 790: minoradditions.(f) The Third Redaction (in the terminology of Shchapov), around or

shortly after 806: added decisions of the Second Council of Niceaof 787.

(g) The Syntagma canonum of 883: added the canons of the Quinisextum and some other texts to d.

(h) Secular law texts were added to the Nomocanon by Theodore Bestesin 1089/1090.

4. The Legislation Involved: Russian Law–The ‘Borrowers’

The Court Law for the People

The Court Law for the People ( Zakon Sudnyi liudem, ZSL ) occupies a middleposition between ‘lenders’ and ‘borrowers’. It is neither a Byzantine, nora Russian law; its content is predominantly Byzantine, but it functioned

exclusively in medieval Russia. It is, therefore, most conveniently treatedat this particular place.The ZSL has survived in three dierent versions or redactions, the

Short ( Kratkii ), Expanded ( Prostrannyi ) and Concordance ( Svodnyi ) ZSL.Of these redactions, the Short one is unquestionably the oldest.65

Most copies of the Short ZSL have been found in various kormchie (theRussian Nomocanon ) and some others in Merilo Pravednoe manuscripts.66 There are several theories about the place of origin of the ZSL (Moravia,Bulgaria, Macedonia), but it is generally accepted that the text (of the

Short ZSL, or its predecessor) reached Russia before the 13th century. Asthe date of its origin, the dierent theories mention 862, 866-868, and atime between 830 and 840.67

65 The principal editions of the Short ZSL are: M.N. Tikhomirov (ed.), Zakon Sudnyi liudem Kratkoi redaktsii , Moskva, 1961; V. Ganev, Zakon Soudnyi Liud ŭ m, Soa, 1959;H. Oroschako, “Ein Denkmal des bulgarischen Rechts”, Zs. f. vergl. Rechtsw. Vol.33(1916), 141-282. An English translation with introduction and commentary by H.Dewey and A. Kleimola has been published as Zakon Sudnyj Ljudem (Court Law forthe People), Michigan Slavic Materials, No.14, Ann Arbor, MI, 1977.

66 On the Merilo Pravednoe (“Just Measure”), see Kaiser, The Growth of the Law, 23-25. A facsimile edition of the oldest manuscript, of the middle of the 14th century, hasbeen published by Tikhomirov: M.N. Tikhomirov (ed.), Merilo Pravednoe po rukopisi XIV veka, Moskva, 1961.

67 The Moravian theory opts for 862 or slightly later; according to the Bulgarian theory




The Short ZSL is almost completely based on the Ecloga; only for theintroductory provisions (chapters 1 and 2) and the end of the last chapter 33

no close parallels can be found. Moreover, the Short ZSL borrows almostexclusively from Title 17 of the Ecloga, the chapter on criminal law. Notonly is there great textual similarity, but also the sequence of the provisionsis more or less maintained. The principal innovation is in the system ofpenalties. Corporal punishment is frequently replaced by other penaltiesand there is also a peculiar system of two-track penalties, secular as wellas ecclesiastical (church penance).

The inclusion of the Short ZSL in collections with strong churchconnections has suggested to most commentators that the text must have

been in use with ecclesiastical courts.The Expanded ZSL has probably been compiled in Russia during therst half of the 14th century, according to Tikhomirov, the principal Sovietscholar in the study of the ZSL.68 The Short ZSL has been incorporated inthe Expanded ZSL, sometimes with amendments. Other provisions havebeen taken from the Ecloga, the Procheiron, and other sources.

The Concordance ZSL is known from a single copy included in amanuscript from 1402. It consists of an amalgamation of the texts of theShort and the Expanded ZSL.

The Russian-Byzantine Treaties

In the oldest and most famous Russian chronicle, known variously as thePrimary Chronicle ( Nachal’naia letopis’ ), the Tale of Bygone Years ( Povest’ vremennykh let ), or the Nestor Chronicle, the entries for the years 907, 912,945 and 971 contain the texts of what purport to be treaties between theearliest Kievan princes and the Byzantine emperor.69 The treaties wereapparently the outcome of negotiations following Russian raids against

the original ZSL was enacted by the rst Christian ruler, tsar Boris, in 866-868; the830/840 date in the Macedonian theory is connected with the view that the ZSL was an adaptation of the Ecloga, intended for irregular Slav troops in the service ofByzantium.

68 Cf . M.N. Tikhomirov (ed.), Zakon Sudnyi liudem Prostrannoi i Svodnoi redaktsii , Moskva,1961.

69 The principal copies of the Primary Chronicle are the Laurentian and the Hypatianmanuscripts. They have been published as the rst and second volumes of the Polnoe

Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei by the Archeographical Commission in S.Peterburg in 1846and 1843 (reprints Leningrad, 1926 and 1923). English translation of the LaurentianCopy by S.H. Cross & O.P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor,The Russian Primary Chronicle. Lauren-tian Text , Cambridge, MA, 1973. Translation of the four treaties also in D.H. Kaiser,The Laws of Rus’–Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries, Salt Lake City, 1992.




Constantinople.70 Among the numerous questions which surround thesetreaties many still remain unsolved.71 For our purpose only the treaties of

911 and 944 (the correct dates according to most experts) are of interest.72

They both provide a kind of miniature law code for the various legal prob-lems that could arise in Russian-Greek contacts (homicide, assault, theft,runaway slaves, trade regulation, shipwreck, inheritance, etc.).

The ‘Russian Law’ ( Russkaia Pravda )(See, also, Chapter 2)

Together with the Primary Chronicle, the Russkaia Pravda ( RP ) constitutesthe principal written monument of Kievan Rus’. Most surviving copies of

the RP have come down to us as parts of kormchaia manuscripts, othershave been included in manuscripts of chronicles and of collections suchas the Merilo Pravednoe (see above and below). Literature on the RP goesback to the 18th century when it was rediscovered by V.N. Tatishchev andhas by now grown into a vast body.73

The rst impression received upon acquainting oneself with an RP textis that it is not unlike the texts of the early medieval Germanic laws, suchas the Anglo-Saxon laws or the so-called leges barbarorum. The next thingone notices is that that are in fact two dierent RP texts, a shorter and a

70 The texts of the treaties have only been transmitted through the Primary Chronicle.Byzantine sources do not even mention the raids (if there were in fact two) of 907and 911.

71 A.N. Sakharov, Diplomatiia Drevnei Rusi. IX–pervaia polovina X v., Moskva, 1980,provides a good introduction to the very extensive literature. See, also, I. Sorlin, “Lestraités de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe siècle”, Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique,Vol.II (1961), 313-360, 447-475.

72 The texts of the four treaties have been published separately in PRP I, Moskva, 1952,

3-72; also in M. Vladimirskii-Budanov (ed.), Khristomatiia po istorii russkago prava,Vyp.1, S.Peterburg (5th ed.), 1899, 1-22.73 A recent and extensive bibliography, covering both Russian-language and Western

scholarship, in G. Baranowski, Die Russkaja Pravda– ein mittelalterliches Rechtsdenkmal. Rechtshistorische Reihe, Band 321, Frankfurt a/M., 2005, 741-769.

The basic edition is still B.D. Grekov (ed.), Pravda Russkaia, Part I: Teksty, Moskva/ Leningrad, 1940; Part II: Kommentarii , Moskva/Leningrad, 1947; Part III: Faksimil’noevosproizvodenie tekstov, Moskva, 1963. The rst volume of the PRP (see above) ismostly devoted to the RP and oers texts, notes, commentaries, tables etc.

Other basic studies on the RP are: M.N. Tikhomirov, Issledovanie o Russkoi Pravde. Proiskhozhdenie tekstov, Moskva/Leningrad, 1947; M.N. Tikhomirov, Posobie dliaizucheniia Russkoi Pravdy, Moskva, 1953; S.V. Iushkov, Russkaia Pravda. Proiskhozhdenie,istochniki, ee znachenie, Moskva, 1950; A.A. Zimin, Pravda Russkaia, Moskva, 1999.

English translation, occasionally controversial, by G. Vernadsky in his Medieval Russian Laws, New York, 1947. A new English translation is oered by D. Kaiser, The Laws of Rus’–Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries, Salt Lake City, 1992.




longer one.74 These are generally known as the Short and the ExpandedPravda. The 40-odd provisions of the Short Pravda (the number varies,

according to the numbering system employed) return in the ExpandedPravda (with a few exceptions), but usually in an edited version and not asa single block, but dispersed through the text of the Expanded Pravda.

The Short Pravda is generally considered the older of the two, at leastits older parts.75 It quite clearly consists itself of several chronological lay-ers. Its rst 18 provisions76 are known as the Oldest Pravda ( Drevneishaia Pravda ) or the Pravda of Iaroslav. After article 18 follows a kind of preamble which precedes the second half of the Short Pravda: “Law established forthe Russian land when Iziaslav, Vsevolod, Sviatoslav, Kosniachko, Pereneg,

Mikyfor the Kievan [and] Chiudin Mikula met together.” The rst threepersons were sons of Iaroslav who together succeeded him.77 The secondpart of the Short Pravda is, accordingly, known as the Pravda of Iaroslav’sSons ( Pravda Iaroslavichei ).

The Pravda of Iaroslav itself probably also consists of at least twodistinct layers, the rst ten articles, which are very reminiscent of similarGermanic laws, and the following eight articles which form a less con-sistent block.

The Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons is primarily concerned with the protec-

tion of the prince’s servants and property. The Short Pravda is concludedby two separate provisions, the pokon virnyi (the law on the payment ofbloodwite) and the urok mostnikov (the bridgebuilders’ statute).

The origin of at least the rst half of Iaroslav’s Pravda is often soughtin certain events in Novgorod in 1016. Tikhomirov has argued that thefull text of Iaroslav’s Pravda was enacted or at least composed in 1036.For the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons, the year 1072 is usually accepted. Thenal compilation of the Short Pravda could have taken place (accordingto Tikhomirov 78 ) during the reign (1117-1136) of Vsevolod Mstislavich,prince of Novgorod.74 And even three, if one also counts the so-called Abridged Pravda ( Sokrashchennaia

Pravda ), a text of much later origin, which will be left aside in this paper.75 11 of the 13 available copies of the Short Pravda are recent (18th and 19th century).

The two older copies, the First Academic Copy and the First Archeographical Copy,date from the middle of the 15th century and form part of dierent manuscripts ofthe First Novgorod Chronicle (in the so-called Younger Version).

76 Using the by now generally accepted system employed in the Academy of Sciences

edition.77 The version in art.2 of the Expanded Pravda is much clearer to a modern reader:“After Iaroslav, his sons got together again: Iziaslav, Sviatoslav, Vsevolod and theirmen: Kosniachko, Pereneg [and] Nikifor […].”

78 Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 74-78.




The composition of the Expanded Pravda is perhaps even morecomplex than that of the Short Pravda. Supercially, there are two main

parts, each preceded by a title-heading in most of the manuscripts, the rstpart bearing the title “The Law [Sud ] of Iaroslav Volodimerich—PravdaRusskaia”, the second one “The Law [Ustav] of Volodimer Vsevolodich”.There is no doubt about the identity of the second legislator either: thefamous Kievan prince Vladimir Monomakh, who ruled as grand princefrom 1113-1125. Most of the provisions taken over, albeit in amended form,from the Short Pravda are indeed found in the rst part of the ExpandedPravda, but some turn up in the second part. Only a section of the secondpart is considered the actual Law of Monomakh. Within the Expanded

Pravda certain clusters of provisions can be identied, devoted to a par-ticular topic, such as interest, slaves, inheritance law, etc. These clustersof provisions will have arisen at dierent dates, the oldest layer of coursebeing the rules that can be traced to the oldest part of Iaroslav’s Pravda.Several partial codications or consolidations may have occurred, untilnally all the elements were brought together into what came to be knownas the Expanded Pravda.

The question is also complicated by the existence of more than 100copies of the Expanded Pravda. They have been divided into dierent

groups and families, and the dierences among them are sometimes con-siderable. All of which makes it more dicult to make general statementsabout the Expanded Pravda.

As to the time of the nal compilation of the protograph of theExpanded Pravda, an indisputable terminus ante quem is 1280, the dateof the earliest manuscript copy of the Expanded Pravda. Various otherdates have been suggested after 1125 (death of Monomakh): 1160-1168, or1210-1215.79

The Church Statutes of the Princes According to the Primary Chronicle, in the entry for the years 994-996,the Kievan grand prince Vladimir had a church built in honour of theMother of God and pronounced: “I bestow upon this church of the HolyVirgin a tithe of my property and of my cities.” He then wrote out a do-nation and deposited it in the church, declaring: “If anyone violates thispromise, may he be accursed.” More than 200 copies of the Church Statuteof Vladimir are extant, dating from the 14th to the 19th century, most of

them included in kormchie, and it is generally assumed that it, or rather itsoldest nucleus, is the deed referred to in the Chronicle. Through the ages79 Cf . Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 225. If one accepts the view of most commentators that

the treaty between Smolensk and Riga (see the chapter on treaties) of 1229 bearstraces of RP inuence, then an earlier date is indicated.




numerous additions have been made, but a reconstruction of the mostlikely original text indicates two main points that probably constituted a

very short text as the initial nucleus.80

The rst is the bestowal of tithesupon the church in Kiev. This favour was soon extended to all churches.The second element which probably goes back to the time of Vladimiris the granting of exclusive jurisdiction to the church in certain mattersconcerning the family and morality in general (oences against sexualmorality, church thefts, witchcraft, etc.). At a later stage, a third elementmay have been added: exclusive church jurisdiction in all matters overpersons connected with the church.81

The second major text in this category is known as the Church Stat-

ute of Iaroslav. The majority of the more than 90 copies of this text formpart of kormchie, other copies have been included in chronicles and othercollections. The oldest copies are from the second quarter of the 15th cen-tury. The textual history of the Church Statute of Iaroslav is much morecomplicated than that of the Church Statute of Vladimir; at this point,it will be sucient to summarize some of the ndings of Shchapov, whocarried out the most detailed study of the various church statutes.82 Thebulk of the provisions of the Statute (which is much longer than that ofVladimir) are what we would regard as criminal law: denitions of oences

and the appropriate penalties. It completes what was only indicated in a general way in Vladimir’s Statute (certain types of oences being assignedto church jurisdiction) by dening these oences and setting the penal-ties. It complements the RP , which regulates the purely secular types ofoences. Most penalties consist of nes forfeited to the church, but in asmaller number of cases the formula “and the prince shall punish” is added. According to Shchapov, the key to understanding the Statute of Iaroslav

80 Reconstruction of the original text in Shchapov, Kniazheskie ustavy, 120-121. Also

in PRP I, 235-256; RZ I, 137-162; V.N. Beneshevich, Sbornik pamiatnikov po istoriitserkovnago prava, I, Petrograd, 1915, 59-77.

81 The works of Ia.N. Shchapov provide a very full treatment of the so-called churchstatutes and discuss all previous literature: Ia.N. Shchapov, Kniazheskie ustavy i tserkov’v Drevnei Rusi XI-XIV vv., Moskva, 1972 (the basic study), and Ia.N. Shchapov (ed.), Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy XI-XV vv., Moskva, 1976 (text edition).

82 Reconstruction of the original text in Shchapov, Kniazheskie ustavy, 293-296. See,also, PRP I, 257-285; RZ I, 163-208; Beneshevich, op.cit ., 78-89. The reconstructionof the original text (archetype) starts from a comparison of the so-called ExpandedRedaction, which emerged in the 12th century or the beginning of the 13th century,and the Short Redaction, which is from the middle of the 14th century (Shchapov,257 and 243). The two redactions do not dier as much as the short and expandedredactions of the RP do; the Expanded Redaction of the Statute of Iaroslav is aboutone-quarter longer. Both redactions are independent modernizations of the arche-type.




is, the harder its presence or absence is to prove or disprove. All this isof relevance to the question of the inuence of Roman and/or Byzantine

law on early Russian law. Adopting the criminal procedure approach indicated above, onecould begin by asking the advocates of Roman/Byzantine inuence topresent proof of their allegations. The eld will then quickly divide intotwo groups. The rst one embraces those who argue from a more generalposition, without adducing any concrete examples. This group wouldcount among its members important pre-revolutionary authors such asKliuchevskii, Vladimirskii-Budanov and Solov’ev. The second group con-sists of those who point to specic rules or institutions in early Russian

law which they claim to have been borrowed from Roman or Byzantinelaw (esp. Maksimeiko and nowadays Salogubova). Some scholars occupyan intermediate position by suggesting only certain elds or topics wherethey discern Roman or Byzantine inuences ( e.g. D’iakonov).

The general position of the rst group can be summarised by referenceto the known historical circumstances of the period concerned. Aroundthe end of the 10th century, Russia received Christianity from Byzantium.Greek bishops and clerics came to Russia.85 The Byzantine system of aclose symbiosis of state and church was maintained in Russia, albeit in a

dierent form. This symbiosis expressed itself also in the intricate con-nections between secular and ecclesiastical legislation. In Byzantium,many areas were covered by church law, but at the same time the emperor would often legislate in matters concerning the church. The Byzantinecollections of ecclesiastical law ( Nomocanon or Syntagma canonum ) also con-tained sub-collections of secular law. The Nomocanon was translated intoOld-Slavonic at an early stage. The Greek leaders of the Russian churchtherefore had rule-books, manuals at their disposal which also containedsecular Byzantine law. As “church people” were subject to ecclesiasticaljurisdiction in almost all matters and the remainder of the population inregard of a more limited but still ample range of topics (such as marriageand family, inheritance, certain criminal matters), the Byzantine Nomo-canon, in its Russian form of the Kormchaia, would be an obvious guide tothe church court, and those collections also contained secular Byzantinelaw with Roman law roots. This, in a general way, is how the penetrationof Roman law into medieval Russian law could be argued.

Although such a line of reasoning would be insucient in a criminal

trial to prove the charge, this parallel cannot be maintained to the end.The writing of history will always involve the identication of certain85 According to Ia.N. Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov’ Drevnei Rusi X–XIII vv., Moskva,

1989, 191-206, of the 24 Kievan metropolitans during the period of 988-1304 onlytwo were Russians.




reasonably secure data, the construction of a more general view on thebasis of such data, and the assumption that other uncorroborated elements

would t into the general view. Where the Russian chronicles report thefall of all the most important Central Russian towns in 1238, one can as-sume that another town in the same area, not mentioned in the report, was also taken by the Mongols. The burden of proof, so to say, is invertedin such cases. In the matter examined in this chapter, this would meanthat, as there is a credible framework for explaining how Byzantine law would have come to Russia, one would actually have to show that there were no signicant examples of Roman-Byzantine legal inuence in earlyRussian law.

That takes us to the second group, those who point to specic ex -amples of the inuence of Roman and/or Byzantine law on early Russianlaw. The RP is central in this discussion, as the principal monument ofearly Russian law. After that the Church Statutes of Vladimir and Iaroslavcome into purview.

6. The Kormchaia as the Main Vehicle of ByzantineLegal Inuence and Other Collections

One easily forgets that before printing was invented a written text had tobe copied, in order to reach a larger number of people. Accounts, notes,letters, contracts, etc. would normally exist in one copy only and couldbe kept, if required, in a box or chest.86 For longer texts, especially if they were meant to be consulted time and again, a bound volume would be themost appropriate solution. Some texts (the Old and New Testaments, theCorpus Iuris, a chronicle, etc.) would be long enough to take up an entire volume. But most of the texts discussed in this chapter were not of su-cient length to justify the trouble and expense of binding them separately.

They would therefore be combined with other shorter texts to make up asuitable collection. Such collections would also be copied when this wouldbe required, but the copier would of course be free to leave out materialsconsidered irrelevant for the new user and to insert new texts.

As a result of this procedure, medieval Russian laws have come downto us in a great variety of ‘convoys’ (as they are called) of other texts, andthe manuscript volumes in which they have been inserted have mostly86 For this reason, such documents have generally survived better in originali than the

longer texts which were copied over and over again, and where there was thereforelittle incentive to preserve the original. The best conditions prevailed in Novgorod, where the bishop was more important than the prince and which was never occupiedby the Mongols. When Novgorod lost its independence, its archives were transferredto Moscow, and as a result some 12th century documents have survived. Examplesin S.N. Valk (ed.), Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, Moskva/Leningrad, 1949.




Christian religion, Holy Scripture was an essential element, but, besides,it made use of many other written sources: decisions of church councils,

writings of church fathers, etc. As a highly organized body it also neededrules. In the Eastern church, as outlined above, collections of rules hadbeen put together at a very early date already and in time these collec-tions had solidied into xed bodies of documents, bearing such names asCollectio or Syntagma or Nomocanon. In order to be used in newly baptizedcountries, such collections had to be translated.

The translation of church texts into Slavonic has been the subject ofscholarly interest for a long time, resulting in the publication of impor-tant sources and studies.88 But in more recent times it was especially the

extensive work of Ia.N. Shchapov which has increased our understandingof the process through which Byzantine law penetrated into the earlySlavic world. Particularly in his study of the “Byzantine and Southern Slavlegal heritage in Russia in the XIth-XIIIth century”, Shchapov, throughhis painstaking analysis of the vast repertoire of kormchie, has succeededin drawing a consistent picture of this process, which can be divided intothree stages.89

The rst Slavonic translation, of the Collectio L titulorum of Johnthe Scholastic of 550, was made (some time around 862) by Methodius,

known together with his younger brother Cyrillus as the apostles of theSlavs (825-885). Little is known about the role, if any, of this translationin the development of medieval Russian law.90

Another version of the Syntagma, connected with the conversionof Bulgaria, was based on the Third Redaction (in Shchapov’s terminol-ogy; from 806 or around that date). The story of its composition, asreconstructed by Shchapov, is complicated; it will be sucient to relatesome of his conclusions which are of relevance to our present topic. TheSyntagma version from around 806 was provided with some additions andamendments shortly before 912, probably in Constantinople itself. Thisnew collection reached Bulgaria (possibly after having gone through otherhands) where it was translated by a team of translators (which may explainits sometimes inconsistent terminology).91

88 Such as V.N. Beneshevich, Drevneslavianskaia kormchaia XIV titulov bez tolkovanii ,S.Peterburg, 1906-1907; A.S. Pavlov, Pervonachal’nyi slaviano-russkii nomokanon, Ka-zan’, 1869, to mention only two older Russian works. I have not been able to consultI. Žužek, Kormčaja Kniga. Studies on the Chief Code of Russian Canon Law. OrientaliaChristiana Analecta, 168, Roma, 1964.

89 Ia.N. Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe i iuzhnoslavianskoe pravovoe nasledie na Rusi v XI-XIII vv.,Moskva, 1978.

90 Cf. Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe, 36.91 Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe, 88-100, esp. 96-98. The entire story of the dierent kormchie

reaching Russia is conveniently summarized by Kaiser, The Growth of the Law, 19-23.




The general rationale behind this editorial process was that a nomo-canon or kormchaia was not itself a sacred text, immune to editorial in-

terference, but rather an ad hoc collection of texts for the use of churchdignitaries. Conditions among the newly baptized Slavic peoples, still closeto their pagan past and tribal customs, were very dierent from those inthe Byzantine empire.

The main elements of the Syntagma of 806 were the so-called canonsof the apostles, the canons of the general church councils and of certainregional councils, the collection of 14 titles from the old Syntagma canonum,and the three collections of secular law pertaining to church matters in-cluded in the Revised Syntagma of the Enantiophanes (consisting almost

entirely of novellae ).The (edited) Slavonic translation of these texts, which did not itselfsurvive and has been reconstructed on the basis of surviving kormchaia copies based on it, is supposed to have consisted of the following threeparts:92

(I) Introductory part: (a) Introduction, (b) the Collectio XIV titulorum (a systematic survey of canonical texts), (c) a list of council rules,rules of church fathers, and imperial constitutions;

(II) Main part: (a) the (185) canons of the apostles, (b) the canons of the general (6) and regional (7) councils, (c) the writings and rules ofthe church fathers, (d) the Collection of imperial constitutions in93 chapters;93

(III) Additional part, consisting of various materials, which can be grouped into four categories: (a) chronological and historical surveyof data and lists, (b) two theological treatises, (c) excerpts from the Procheiron and the Ecloga, concerning the calculation of degrees ofconsanguinity, (d) rules of various origin concerning bishops.94

It is to be noted that the main dierence between this Kormchaia and itsByzantine model was in the additional materials, which were mostly basedon other Byzantine texts.

92 Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe, 47.93 This Collection of 93 chapters corresponds with the old Collectio LXXXVII capitolorum

of John the Scholastic, to which the novellae from the old Collectio XXV capitolorum which had not been included in the latter had been added. It constituted therefore

a fairly complete collection of the post-Justinian novellae concerning ecclesiasticalaairs and the dierence with the three collections included in the Syntagma of 806is insignicant. Cf. Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe, 54.

94 This item includes titles 24 and 28 of the Procheiron, concerning the property ofbishops and monks and the right to appoint bishops.




Shortly after the conversion of Russia, possibly during the reign ofIaroslav the Wise, this Slavonic Kormchaia reached Russia.95 Its oldest sur-

viving copy is from the 12th century (the defective Efrem copy, in whichthe text is broken o at the end of the Collection of 93 chapters).The second stage is represented by the emergence of the so-called

Serbian redaction of the Kormchaia, connected with the name of Savva, who became the rst Serbian archbishop in 1219.96 This kormchaia wasbased on more up-to-date Byzantine materials, particularly the canon lawcollections with comments by the great 12th century canonists Zonaras and Aristenes. The secular law section contained a.o. the Collectio 87 capitolorum, more recent imperial constitutions, and the entire Procheiron text.97

Although the original Serbian redaction did not include any specicallySlavonic materials, it did not have a Byzantine example or counterpartand was apparently put together in Serbia.

A copy of the Serbian redaction of the Kormchaia was sent to Kievfrom Bulgaria, at the request of Cyril II, the last Kievan metropolitan,98 shortly before 1273. A considerable number of copies of the Serbian re-daction of the Kormchaia has survived in Russia, the oldest (the Riazan’Copy) from 1284.

The arrival of the Serbian Kormchaia text in Russia signied simulta -

neously the beginning of the third stage. At a Russian church council heldin Kiev in 1273, it was decided to create a new Russian kormchaia which would better satisfy the needs of the church at that time.99 Although theSerbian redaction constituted the main source for the new text, the earlier version (the Efrem Kormchaia ) was also utilized and many new materials

95

Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe, 101. The work by A.S. Pavlov, quoted above, is devoted to theEfrem Kormchaia. See, also, by the same author, Nomokanon pri Bol’shom Trebnike; egoistoriia i teksty, S.Peterburg, 1897.

96 Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe, Ch. III (117-155).97 The penetration of the Procheiron is the subject of a special study by Shchapov:

“Prokhiron v vostochnoslavianskoi pis’mennosti”, Vizantiiskii vremennik, Vol.38 (1977),48-58.

98 Cyril’s successor, the Greek Maxim, moved the see to Vladimir on the Kliazma in1299. Cyril himself died in 1281, after almost 40 years as metropolitan of the Russianchurch. Cf. on Cyril II: Ia.N. Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov’ Drevnei Rusi X-XIII vv.,

Moskva, 1989, 204-206.99 The loss of the rich cathedral library of Kiev, which undoubtedly included several

kormchaia copies, during the Mongol sack of Kiev in 1240, may have been a centralconsideration in Cyril’s eorts to bring about a new version of the Russian kormchaia;cf . Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe, 172.




of Russian origin were included as well.100 This new product is known,therefore, as the Russian redaction.

The work actually proceeded in two phases; the rst phase (whichoccurred between 1273 and 1280) is represented by a family of mainlySouth-West Russian copies which can be traced to the Volynian protographof 1284. In the second phase, following immediately, more Byzantine andnon-Byzantine materials were added, including the Short Redaction ofthe ZSL, as well as other amendments and additions.101 Some of the result-ing North-West and North-East Russian families of kormchie, at a laterstage, also came to include dierent versions of the Expanded RP . Thisoccurred rst in Novgorod, where as a result of the particular politico-

legal situation the bishop’s jurisdiction also began to extend to certainsecular cases. It made sense, therefore, to include the RP as a secular lawcode in the general ‘rule-book’ ( kormchaia ) at the disposal of the bishop.The oldest extant version of the Expanded Pravda is as the last item inthe Novgorod Synod Kormchaia of 1282.

The Merilo Pravednoe or ‘Just Measure’

As pointed out above, legal texts in medieval Russia are usually encounteredin larger collections, which make up an actual book. After the numerous kormchie, the collections knows as Merilo Pravednoe must be mentioned. Ofits oldest version, four almost identical volumes are known, while a fth volume oers a number of dierent texts. The Trinity Copy of the secondhalf of the 14th century is considered the standard text.102 It consists oftwo parts. Its rst part, 69 sheets, presents a large number of short ex -hortative and religious texts, mostly of Greek origin, but containing alsosome texts of Russian origin. The general tenor is to admonish judges.The second part counts 275 sheets and represents the explicitly legal side

of the work. The 30 texts are numbered separately. Most of them are ofByzantine origin, such as might be found in the kormchie. Among them arethe complete (Russian) texts of the Procheiron and the Ecloga. But the ZSL (Short Redaction) is also included and at the end the Expanded Pravda. Thelatter is the so-called Trinity or Troitskii I Copy, generally used in moderncollections as being closest to the Expanded Pravda’s protograph.

According to Tikhomirov, the rst nucleus of the MP may have beenput together by the Kievan metropolitan Nikifor in the beginning of the

100 A detailed comparison of the contents in Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe, 165-171.101 Cf . Shchapov, Vizantiiskoe, 163-164.102 Published in facsimile edition by M.N. Tikhomirov, Merilo Pravednoe po rukopisi XIV

veka, Moskva, 1961.




12th century for the Kievan grand prince Vladimir Monomakh.103 Lateron, other legal texts, including the Expanded Pravda, were added. In the

end, this resulted in what is sometimes (a.o. by the leading Soviet legalhistorian S.V. Iushkov) called the Collection of 30 texts. Then this Col-lection of 30 texts was expanded by a much shorter collection of texts ofa religious-educational character, in the manner of an extensive foreword,extolling the virtues of the ‘just judge’. Although the MP had its origin inecclesiastical circles, one can certainly not exclude that it was also usedin secular courts.

A revised version of the MP emerged in the 15th century, with theinclusion of a number of new texts and the omission of certain others. This

version is found merged with, or as part of, a kormchaia. The Rozenkampf(or Chudov) and Ferapontov groups of Expanded Pravda copies are partof these collections.

The Knigi Zakonnye or ‘Law Books’

The Byzantine Farmer’s Law, which may have been available in a Russian version at an early date in Kievan Russia, is only found in its Russian ver-sion in the collection known as the ‘Law Books’ or Knigi Zakonnye ( KZ ).104 A small number of manuscripts of the KZ is extant, of which the earliestis from the rst half of the 15th century.105 As has been mentioned above,the Farmer’s Law constitutes the major part of the KZ; the other parts arethe “Law on Penalties”, “On Divorce”, and the “Chapters on Witnesses”.The entire KZ is in substance Byzantine law, with some Russian editorialreworking. The Law on Penalties has been taken almost completely fromthe 39th and 40th titles of the Procheiron (and thus indirectly from thesame chapters of the Ecloga ), the section “On Divorce” from title 11 ofthe Procheiron, and the Chapters on Witnesses from title 27 of the same

103 Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 92-93.104 The rst substantial study of the KZ was by A.S. Pavlov, “Knigi Zakonnye”, soderzhashchie

v sebe v drevnerusskom perevode vizantiiskie zakony zemledel’cheskie, ugolovnye, brachnye i sudebnye, S.Peterburg, 1885.

105 I.P. Medvedev (ed.), Vizantiiskii Zemledel ’cheskii Zakon, Leningrad, 1984, 190-191, 199.The comments in this volume are from the hand of E.E. Lipshits. This work alsooers the complete text of the KZ at 233-256. A.V. Soloviev in “Der Einuss desByzantinischen Rechts auf die Völker Osteuropas”, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, Romanische Abteilung , Band 76 (1959), 432-479, states that the KZ reached Russia inthe 14th century, without oering any corroboration. Kaiser (in The Laws of Rus’ ,li) believes that the KZ may already have been in circulation in Russia in the 13thcentury.




law with some additions from title 14 of the Ecloga.106 The Chapters onWitnesses appear also in other medieval Russian collections.107

7. Weighing the Evidence

In the fth section, a distinction was made between general and specicarguments in favour of Roman/Byzantine inuences in early Russian law.It will be convenient to discuss the specic arguments rst. If such adiscussion yields a positive answer it becomes unnecessary to investigatethe general arguments in favour. We could debate, for instance, whetherconditions on the planet Mars would allow the existence of some form

of life. Once a space craft has returned from Mars with a specimen ofsuch a form of life, the debate becomes irrelevant. It is, moreover, alsoconvenient to begin by examining the most ambitious claims: that earlyRussian law was directly inuenced by Roman law itself.

Roman Law

The only authors who claim specically that Roman law directly inuencedearly Russian law, and particularly the RP , are Maksimeiko and Salogubova. A general and already persuasive argument against these claims, as has been

mentioned before, is that it is utterly improbable that those responsiblefor shaping early Russian law, and especially the RP , had access to thenecessary Roman law sources.

Maksimeiko detected Roman law inuence especially in the older ver-sion of the RP , the Short Pravda, in the following provisions.

Article 1: The enumeration of relatives entitled to exact blood venge-ance for homicide has probably been borrowed from Justinian’s Institutes’treatment of impediments to marriage in Inst. 1, 10, 1-3.108 Maksimeiko

doubted “that Old-Russian practice could independently work out sucha precise, specic and comprehensive list of persons entitled to pursuethe murderer”.

Evaluation: The point seems to be extremely far-fetched. Almost alllegal systems, from the most primitive to the most sophisticated, containsimilar prohibitions of marriage between close blood relatives. Should106 Cf. Medvedev, 191.

107 Cf. D.H. Kaiser (transl. & ed.), The Laws of Rus’–Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries. The Lawsof Russia. Series I: Medieval Russia, Vol.1, Salt Lake City, 1992, li; English translation ofthe Chapters on Witnesses at 116-121. The dierent texts of the Chapters on Wit-nesses show that they go back to dierent translations of the original Greek text.

108 RP II, 27 (169).




they therefore be considered to have been inuenced by Justinian?109 Ifso, how to explain similar pre-Roman rules, as, for instance in the Hittite

laws? And the Short Pravda provision does not even concern marriageimpediments but a completely dierent subject: blood vengeance in casesof homicide. Also, as most of the other provisions of the Oldest Pravda,the rule most likely reects customary law and was not the product oflegislative ingenuity.

Article 10: Maksimeiko notes that the distinction between push-ing another person (as mentioned in this provision) and hitting him (asmentioned in other provisions), is also known in Roman law (Ulp. D. 47,

10, 5).110

Evaluation: The longish text of Ulpian referred to is devoted to adiscussion of the Lex Cornelia de iniuriis (from 81 BC) which deals withremedies against unlawful violent behaviour: shoving, beating, and enteringa residence by force ( pulsare, verberare, domum vi introire ). In this context, thedistinction between pushing (shoving) and hitting (beating) is explained:hitting hurts, pushing does not. Article 10 of the Short Pravda concludesthe catalogue of personal injuries which begins with homicide and then

other personal injuries in descending order of seriousness. Pushing orpulling another person without injuring him is about the least harmfuland entails a payment of 3 grivna (40 grivna for homicide). Identifyingpushing (shoving) or pulling another person as a not too serious personalinjury in the course of a general treatment of personal injuries is not a very remarkable procedure. The fact that the Short Pravda does so hardlysuggests that it must have been inspired by the Romans having had similarthoughts (which Maksimeiko does not claim anyway).

Article 11: The author of the Short Pravda has followed the Romanexample that the person who hides a fugitive slave is considered a thief(Ulp. D. 4, 1, 1).111

Evaluation: In slave-owning societies, runaway slaves will usually bea common occurrence. Concealment of runaway slaves would then, inlegal terms, nd its closest parallel in the unlawful appropriation of stray109 Anyway, the text of Justinian’s Institutes repeats almost verbatim the Institutes of

Gaius, 1, 58., a point Maksimeiko apparently missed.110 RP II, 84 (163).111 RP II, 89 (182). The positions of the kholop of Kievan Russia and the Roman slave

were not identical. Baranowski leaves kholop untranslated; other German translationsuse Knecht . I have followed Vernadsky’s and Kaiser’s usage.




cattle, because in both cases the ‘property’ that has been appropriateddiers from ordinary property by the fact that it is able to move around

by itself. Characteristically, the rst statement in the title on fugitiveslaves in the Digest (11, 4, 1) is Ulpian’s lapidary: “He who hides a fugitiveis a thief.” The independent will of the slave and his physical possibil-ity of moving around independently distinguish the ‘appropriation’ of aslave from ordinary theft to such an extent that it becomes necessary toequate them explicitly in legal terms, if that is considered desirable. Thisequation, moreover, requires more detailed regulation, precisely becauseof the fact that concealment of a runaway slave is actually rather unlikeordinary theft. Consequently, one nds in classical Roman law additional

rules concerning periods of grace granted to those harbouring runawayslaves, allowing them to return the slave to its master or to the authori-ties, or to notify them.

Byzantine law retained the principle of the unlawfulness of hidingrunaway slaves, but introduced various amendments in the major laws of therst millennium. The Codex of Justinian (534) allowed the replacement ofthe standard ne of classical Roman law of 20 solidi (on top of the handingover of the fugitive slave) by supplying a second slave of the same value asthe fugitive.112 This feature was taken over in later Byzantine legislation.113

The Ecloga (XVII, 17) introduced an additional requirement by deningthe oence as “luring away and hiding the slave of another person […]”[italics added, FF]; the slave had to be returned to its master together withanother slave, or an equivalent sum of money. The Procheiron (XXXIX,24) dropped the additional requirement again but otherwise took over theEcloga’s rule. Lipshits points out that this approach of the Ecloga and the Procheiron demonstrates how far the Byzantine system had moved awayfrom its Roman roots. The same two laws contain provisions on theft inthe same titles which treat the common thief as a criminal: he is to returnthe stolen goods to their owner and on top of that he has to pay him twicetheir value; if he is unable to do so he is to be whipped and exiled. In caseof recidivism his hand is cut o. The sanctions against concealment of arunaway slave are mild, compared to those for the thief.

The rule of the Ecloga has been taken over in the early (Short) versionof the Court Law for the People ( ZSL ), but with considerable amendments.The possibility of returning the slave voluntarily to its owner as an escape112 This innovation goes back to a 4th century constitution of the emperor Constan-

tius.113 A very similar formula (“alium paris meriti cum eodem servum domino dare cog-

atur”) is found in the 6th century Lex Visigothorum (XI, 1, 1). As this law is known tobe heavily inuenced by Roman law, the rule in question is presumably of Romanorigin.




route is not mentioned anymore. The ZSL retained the additional require-ment of the Ecloga (“luring away”) and added another requirement: that

the concealment is carried out clandestinely. It was not required that theslave be returned to his master, only that “another such slave” was to besupplied, or an equivalent amount of money. Dewey and Kleimola suggestthat this excessively mild penalty is due to a mistake of the scribe.114 TheExpanded Version of the ZSL (art.36) does indeed insert the obligatoryreturn of the slave again, to be replaced by the price of a new slave in theevent the original owner has bought one; also, the guilty person is to beogged.

With all this, the connection between the detailed regulation in

Roman law and the specicity of the Short Pravda provision has become very tenuous. Two points of similarity remain: that the concealment of arunaway slave is identied as an issue to be regulated by law; and that theperson hiding the slave is granted a certain period of time to hand overthe slave. The rst point means almost nothing; in a slave-owning societyone can expect some sort of legal device for dealing with the situationdescribed above. The second point of similarity is at least quite unspe-cic. The characteristic features of the Byzantine law on this point (thepenalty in its alternate form: another similar slave, or an equivalent sum

of money, and the “luring away”) are absent in the Short Pravda. If anyinuence on the rule of the Short Pravda is to be assumed, the Short ZSL would be the only realistic candidate, although it is uncertain whether itstext would have been available at that early stage of formation of the RP .The Russian rule only deals with a specic case: when the slave is hiding with a Viking or a Kolbiag (and presumably any other foreigner), and thists well into the view of the Pravda of Iaroslav as an enactment to deal with a specic situation in Novgorod around the year 1016.115 In this view,the Pravda of Iaroslav was meant to solve a number of urgent problemsarising from the co-habitation in Novgorod of a local Slavic populationand the Scandinavian followers of the prince. It is unlikely that the timeand expertise would have been available to consult foreign laws in thisprocess. When in the course of the next century the text of the ShortPravda was edited into the compilation out of which the Expanded Pravda

114 H. Dewey & A. Kleimola, Zakon Sudnyj Ljudem (Court Law for the People), MichiganSlavic Materials, No.14, Ann Arbor, MI, 1977, 29.

115 In his new translation of the RP , Kaiser (16) translates the mysterious Kolbiagsimply as “another foreigner”. It is to be noted that the corresponding provision ofthe Expanded Pravda (art.32) drops the restriction to foreigners and applies the rule generally to anybody who hides a runaway slave. On the meaning of art.11 in general,see Baranowski, 214-220.




arose, there was no need anymore to restrict the eect of the provisionto foreigners.

Article 12: Riding another person’s horse, without permission, entailsa ne (3 grivna ). This is directly inspired by the Roman concept of furtum, where intentional unlawful appropriation in any form, with the intent toderive prot ( lucri faciendi animo ), constitutes theft.116

Evaluation: Maksimeiko fails to indicate a precise source. His un-derstanding of this rule is quite implausible, given the context of it (notto mention of course the general point made above already, that it is

completely improbable that the drafter of the Oldest Pravda had anyknowledge whatsoever of Roman law). The Short Pravda deals with vari-ous forms of theft, termed tat’ba or krazha, in articles 1, 31, 35-40, i.e. asubstantive part of the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons is devoted to the subject.In the Oldest Pravda (Iaroslav’s Pravda), the accent is on personal injuriesand additionally on property disputes where the aspect of theft is absentor in the background only; article 11— concealment of a fugitive slave,article 13— recognizing one’s property in his own community ( mir ), article14— the procedure to be followed in property disputes, article 16— the

procedure to be followed to reclaim a stolen slave. Article 12 ts into thissystem. In fact, the context suggests that this early form of joy-riding is not regarded as theft.

If one accepts that the direct origins of this provision cannot beRoman, the question may still be asked whether the rule may not haveRoman roots indirectly. This is precisely what some other commentatorshave argued and this question may most conveniently be discussed here.The starting-point is in classical Roman law where several authors mentionthe unauthorized use of a horse supplied in commodatum, or ‘loan for use’.Gaius, in his treatment of theft ( furtum ), mentions such use of a horse asa form of ‘theft of use’ (G. 3, 196). Ulpian mentions the unauthorized useof a loaned horse in his long discussion of commodatum, without gettinginto the theft aspect (D. XIII, 6, 7).

In the original text of the Farmer’s Law (art.36), a dierent but re-lated situation is described: the use of an ox or a donkey or another farmanimal for farm work, without the owner’s permission. The culprit mustreturn the owner (the animal and) twice the yield of such use, in accord-

ance with the general Roman system. In the Slavonic translation of theFarmer’s Law, the words “or a horse” have been inserted.

116 RP II, 97-98 (177-184).




The Ecloga contains a provision which in its wording is more remi-niscent of the classical texts (Title 17, art.7), although it does not provide

for the double compensation. It talks about “taking the horse beyond theagreed point” (as Gaius and Ulpian did), but only envisages the situation when the horse gets injured or dies. This provision has been taken overalmost verbatim by the Short ZSL (art.24). In the Expanded ZSL, theprovision returns in signicantly amended form (art.26). It does not deal with unauthorized use anymore, but only with the risk aspect: if the horseperishes before the agreed place has been reached, the risk is the owner’s;if the horse perishes after the agreed place has been reached, the user hasto pay the value of the horse. Then a new provision is inserted (art.27),

which lacks a parallel provision in the Short ZSL: the unauthorized useof another person’s horse (“If anyone rides another’s horse without [theowner’s] bidding […]”).117

It is this complex of interrelated rules which has given rise to thetheory of the Byzantine roots of article 12 of the Short Pravda (furtherdetails below). The theory was already rejected by N. Lange in 1859, whose words are worth to be quoted here:

“[…] the article on the horse is not at all of Germanic and neither of Byzantine, butsimply of native origin, otherwise, if one bases oneself on the similarity of certain

laws, it could be proved that the Russkaia Pravda would have been borrowed fromthe Chinese Law Code.” 118

Pace Lange, the Germanic parallels are much more intriguing than theRoman/Byzantine ones. But leaving that aside for a moment, the onlyclear ‘Byzantine’ parallel is the above-mentioned article 27, insertedafter Iaroslav’s Pravda had already been drafted. Considering that theExpanded ZSL was composed in Kievan Russia, the conclusion that therule on ‘joy-riding’ was taken over from the already existing Short Pravdais obvious.

The Germanic parallels of article 12 have had a rather unhappyhistory. The theory was introduced early in the 19th century by Strube, who referred to a very similar rule in the Law of the Jutes. When it waspointed out that this Law appeared long after the RP , attention focusedon Byzantine law as the source of the provision. During the Soviet eraand especially after the Second World War, references to Germanic con-nections of the RP were unpopular, to say the least. Nevertheless, the leges barbarorum oer quite a list of close parallels to article 12, beginning

117 In the translation of Dewey & Kleimola.118 RP II, 96 (292).




with the Salic Law (title 25 of the Pactus Legis Salicae ) and the Law of theRipuarian Franks (art.40).119

Without attempting to solve this riddle here, the most defensibleprovisional answer (as also suggested by several pre-revolutionary Russianauthors) might be that at the cultural level of early Slavonic and Germanicpeoples the unauthorized use of the most important means of transport was a frequent occurrence which could be very harmful and upsetting forthe master of the horse. That alone would already explain the strikingsimilarity between the dierent provisions, the almost uniform wordingof which is obvious (how else could you describe the oence simply?).

Article 17: This provision deals with the liability of the master whorefuses to hand over his slave who has struck a freeman; Maksimeiko pointsto D. 47, 10120 and D. 9 ( Ad Legem Aquiliam ), esp. D. 9, 4 ( De Noxalibus Actionibus ),121 and adds that the author of the RP was inuenced by Book9 of the Digest.

Evaluation: The situations described in this provision and in D. 47, 10,17, 4 are similar: a slave has struck a freeman and has sought refuge withhis own master; the Roman rule refers more generally to an iniuria com-

mitted by a slave. The Short Pravda oered the master a choice betweenpaying 12 grivna or handing over the slave to be punished by the aggrievedparty; in Roman law the choice was between handing over the slave to beogged, or being sued in a noxal action. Noxal actions (actions for damagescaused by delicts of dependents, such as family members or slaves) werediscussed at length in D. 9, 4, but the situation described in article 17 ofthe Short Pravda is not specically mentioned in this chapter.

The similarity between the situations described article 17 and D. 47,10, 17, 4 is undeniable; on the other hand, this similarity is still general.The provisions dier strongly in their wording and also in context. TheDigest, in the chapters concerned, oers in its usual way a vast array ofcasuistic material discussing all possible variations of delicts and injuries,devoting ample attention to liability for acts of dependents. Among the18 provisions of the Oldest Pravda (the Pravda of Iaroslav) three mentionslaves: article 11 (discussed above), article 16 (the procedure for reclaim-ing a stolen slave) and the present article 17. In the Pravda of Iaroslav, the119 In the latter Law, the formula is almost exactly the same as in the Short Pravda art.12:

“Si quis caballum extra consilium domini sui ascenderit […]” and “Ashche kto poedet’na chiuzhem kone, ne proshav ego, […]”.120 More precisely, D. 47, 10, 17, 4-7; see W.W. Buckland, A Textbook of Roman Law From

Augustus to Justinian, Cambridge, 1932, 600.121 RP II, 115 (164, 171-173).




Maksimeiko held that the rst part of the provision envisaged the situation when the owner wished to keep the damaged property and claim damages

for whatever he had lost; he felt that this arrangement had been inspiredby Roman law views, based on the system of the Lex Aquilia. As Maksimeiko’s understanding of this provision does not have follow -

ers anymore and his reference to Roman inuence is unworkably general, we need not pay any more attention to his views on this matter.

Article 19: Fines for killing (high-ranking) servitors of the prince,equally based on the same Roman law.126

Evaluation: The second part of the Short Pravda (the Pravda of Iaro-slav’s Sons) consists (with the exception of the last few provisions) of acoherent set of rules, obviously intended to protect the interests of theprince by providing increased penalties for oences against his servitorsor aecting his property.

Maksimeiko supports the generally-held view that in this part of theShort Pravda the emphasis has shifted from the immaterial interests ofstatus and reputation (of the freeman in general) to the material interestsof the prince. There is no doubt that the nes indicated in this part of

the Short Pravda are destined for the prince’s coers (where else wouldthey go?). The unfree status of most of the princely servitors mentionedin this part of the Short Pravda is obvious; but the higher-ranking personscovered by articles 19-24,127 comparable perhaps to the court functionar-ies of Carolingian times in Western Europe, probably belong to the samecategory, at least as a general rule.

Where it becomes more dicult to follow Maksimeiko is where heargues that the entire treatment of the killing of the prince’s (unfree)servants, as well as the damaging of his property, is inspired by the Lex Aquilia. The most important provisions of this Law concerned the com-pensation for the unlawful killing of somebody else’s slave, and for otherunlawful damage to his property. The character of the compensation (thehighest price during the last year for the slave that had been killed, or theproperty that had been destroyed) illustrated very clearly that the matter was viewed exclusively from a nancial point of view.

126 RP II, 137 (139-150).

127 The ognishchanin, the pod”ezdnoi , the tivun, the koniukh staryi , the sel’skii starosta andthe ratainyi . Kaiser translates these resp. as “steward”, “collector of nes”, “overseer”,“senior stablemaster”, “eld supervisor” and “plowland supervisor”. The rst fourocials are far more prominent, their bloodwite having been set at 80 grivna, whilethe latter are worth only 12 grivna.




The rules concerned from the Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons do not suggestthat they were also based on such a viewpoint. And even if they were, then

that would hardly indicate that they had been inspired by Roman law. Ifthe prince felt that he had suered a loss, he would naturally like to get hismoney back. But the xed nature of the compensation indicated suggestsrather that the immaterial aspect, so prominent in the Oldest Pravda, was still very much present in the second part of the Short Pravda. If thecustomary compensation for killing a freeman (which replaced earlierblood feuds) was 40 grivna, the prince, who began to assert himself inthose days, warned the community that his high-ranking servitors (suchas the ognishchanin ), even if they were not freemen, were under his special

protection and that their killing would be regarded as a more serious mat-ter than ordinary homicide. The legislative innovation of the Pravda ofIaroslav’s Sons on this matter was the transition of the private handling ofpersonal injuries as an aair between two families to the intervention of“the state”, claiming the compensation for itself. The further elaborationof this trend is very noticeable in the parallel provisions in the ExpandedPravda (taken over, in edited form, from the Short Pravda).

Article 20: The rural community being liable to a xed ne in the

case of the unsolved homicide of a princely servitor; Maksimeiko pointsto Inst. 4, 3 and D. 9, 3, 5 and the underlying principles.128

Evaluation: The indicated chapter of the Institutes is devoted to the Lex Aquilia in general and summarizes its main elements; there is nothingthere about collective liability. The chapter from the Digest concerns theaction for damages caused by (carelessly) throwing away or pouring outsomething ( de deiectis et eusis ). It has nothing to do with homicide andcollective liability for it.

Article 21: Concerning the killing of a cattle-thief, caught in the act;inspired by the Lex Aquilia.129

Evaluation: Maksimeiko’s cavalier statement that this provision showsthe “inspiration” ( veianie ) of Roman law and the Lex Aquilia in particular, without any further argument, does not need any refutation.

The provision is otherwise one of the most cryptic of the Short

Pravda and has given rise to extensive discussion.

128 RP II, 153 (151.).129 RP II, 157 (147-150).




than one person took part, then the ne is 3 grivna and 30 rezana each.Maksimeiko connects the separate liability of each individual thief with

Roman law. There is a rule in the Codex (4, 8, 1) which provides that pay-ment of what is due by one thief does not liberate the others. D. 47, 10,34 oers a comment by Gaius that an injury inicted by several personsis in itself more serious: tot iniuriae sunt, quot et personae iniuriam facientes (“there are as many injuries as there are persons inicting them”).

The similarities are too general and the specic dierences too greatto attach much weight to Maksimeiko’s argument in this matter,

Article 33: Fines for torturing the prince’s peasant, or a higher-ranking

servitor, oences already dened in Roman sources (D. 47, 10).134

Evaluation: This provision is found in a part of the Pravda of Iaroslav’sSons which deals with oences aecting the prince’s property. Maksimeikorefers generally to the long chapter on “injuries” ( De iniuriis et famosis li-bellis ) in the Digest where the understanding of the slave as an object ofownership is one of the basic ideas.

Unlike Maksimeiko whose observations concerned only the RP ,Salogubova examined the possible traces of Roman law in a number ofearly Russian legal sources. In the Russo-Byzantine treaties of 911 and944 she discerned the inclusion of Roman rules of evidence. After Russiaadopted Christianity in 988, the Greek Nomocanon, she argued, formed thebasis of the church statutes of the princes Vladimir, Iaroslav and Vsevo-lod, and also of the Court Law for the People. The latter Law, accordingto Salogubova, was passed during the reign of Vladimir, consisted of acollection of Byzantine rules of ecclesiastical law, and came to be used

as a manual in all civil cases. It introduced the testimony of witnesses asa basic form of evidence in Russian law. Its numerous rules on evidence were directly borrowed from Justinian’s Code and from the Ecloga.

In the RP (still according to Salogubova), a number of provisions was taken over from the Court Law for the People (itself considered asByzantine law on account of its content), and other provisions directlyfrom the Ecloga. Corporal punishment, until then widely applied in Russia, was replaced by a system of nes. Other provisions taken over concernedthe securing of claims, guarantee, and procedural terms.135 An attempt

was made to distinguish between actiones in personam and actiones in rem,134 RP II, 201 (173-176).135 Salogubova, op.cit. (1997), 31, and op.cit. (1999), 176, refers on this point to I.D. Beliaev,

Lektsii po istorii russkogo zakonodatel ’stva, Moskva (2nd ed.), 1879, 120




and a distinction was made between two kinds of oath (exculpatory andsupplementary). Also, the ordeal by re was a Byzantine innovation. The

Greek Nomocanon in its Slavic variety (the Kormchaia ) and the RP had equal validity. So far Salogubova.

Evaluation: We shall deal here only with those instances whereSalogubova alleges direct inuence of Roman law. The question ofByzantine legal inuences on early Russian law will be discussed below.Unlike Maksimeiko, who usually cites chapter and verse, Salogubovaconnes herself to sweeping statements and only identies the Russian-Byzantine treaties of 911 and 945 as actual examples of direct Roman law

inuence.With regard to the treaty of 911 she points to its provisions reectingan amended Roman system of evidence, and avers that from that momenton the judicial oath, judicial searches and testimony by witnesses beganto appear in Russian law as means of evidence.136 Roman inheritance law was contained in the provision which for the rst time in Russian lawdierentiated between intestate and testate succession.

As to the 945 treaty, Salogubova notes that the dierences between thelaw as reected by the treaty and contemporary Old-Russian law cannot

be explained if one does not accept the inuence of Roman-Greek law.Instead of identifying those places in the treaty which might illustrate herpoint, she refers to several pre-1917 authors of whom only V.I. Sergeevichappears to agree with her. In his special study on the relationship betweenGreek and Russian law in the 10th century treaties, Sergeevich’s generalargument is that the Greeks succeeded in maintaining the prevalence ofByzantine law in most questions.137 His rst example is homicide, wherethe traditional Russian alternative of blood-feud or compensation (wergeld) was replaced by capital punishment or, in some cases compensation asan alternative (art.4).138 The provision dealing with the justiable killingof a thief (art.6) appears to be a compromise between Greek law and theharsher Russian custom.139 The double or threefold penalty for theft wasGreek, not Russian (arts.6 and 7).140 The same goes for the institution of136 Only in the 1997 paper does Salogubova refer to the provisions of the 911 treaty by

numbers: 8, 2 and 11. These numbers dier from the usual numeration laid down byZimin in PRP I. I suppose that the provisions the author had in mind were, accord-ing to the usual system of numeration, 9, 3 and 13.

137 Sergeevich, Lektsii , 626-666. My references are to the fourth edition of 1910, whileSalogubova quotes from an unknown 1899 Moscow edition.

138 Ibidem, 645-646.139 Ibidem, 652-654.140 Ibidem, 655.




redeeming prisoners (of war) (arts.9 and 11).141 The rule about intestatesuccession (art.13) is so close in its wording to a corresponding provision of

the Twelve Tables Law, according to Sergeevich, that a genetic connectionis very probable.142 Both legal systems made use of the oath as a proceduraldevice, but in Old-Russian law the oath was intimately connected with theordeal and both institutions had a sacral character; the oath in Byzantinelaw and in the treaties were purely secular institutions, when other meansof evidence were lacking.

The dierence between Sergeevich and Salogubova is that the formerevaluates the treaty rules with regard to the preponderance of Greek orRussian elements. Salogubova goes a step further and argues that the Greek

(or Roman) elements present in the treaties became part of Russian lawfrom that moment.There is not a shred of evidence for the latter position; on the con-

trary, it can easily be demonstrated that Old-Russian law, as exemplied bythe Oldest Pravda, is a continuation of those few elements in the treaties which can without doubt be identied as traditionally Russian. There isa wealth of literature concerning the Byzantine-Russian treaties of the10th century which is in full agreement that the treaties (and how couldit be otherwise?) represent mixed compacts of Byzantine, Russian and ad hoc legal prescriptions. The presence of Byzantine and even Romanelements in the treaties does not say anything about their subsequentsurvival in Russian law. This would have to be demonstrated and that is what Salogubova has failed to do.

As to Salogubova’s allegations about the ZSL, it is quite uncertain when it rst came to Russia. To state simply that it was adopted as a lawby Vladimir is completely untenable. The ZSL functioned primarily as a guide to church courts, and not as a manual for all civil cases. Also, nobodyhas ever held that its rules on evidence were “directly borrowed” fromthe law of Justinian.

Some authors (such as Tikhomirov) have occasionally argued thatparticular RP provisions were taken over from the ZSL, but it seemsthat nobody defends this position any longer. To propose (as Salogubovadoes) that the RP also borrowed directly from the Ecloga is completelyunsubstantiated.

141 Ibidem, 664.

142 Ibidem, 659. The Roman rule (Tabula V, 4) is: Si intestato moritur, cui suus heres nec escit, adgnatus proximus familiam habeto. The corresponding rule from the 911 treaty (art.13)is (in Kaiser’s translation): “If someone of them die, not having created a testamentfor his property, and if there be none of his [kinsmen] with him in Greece, then letthem return his property to his closest kinsmen in Rus’.”




The statement that corporal punishment was widely applied in Russiaand replaced by a system of nes under the inuence of the Ecloga is in-

comprehensible, because corporal punishment was common in Byzantiumand unknown in Russia, as numerous authors have pointed out.I shall leave it at that.

Byzantine Law

Byzantine law was much closer to Kievan Russia in time and place thanclassical Roman law and this may easily explain why both the parallelsand possible borrowings, and the authors suggesting these are much greater in number. There is, however, one consideration of overwhelming

importance which should be expressed at this point. Byzantine law doesnot equal Roman law, because—besides its numerous and wide-spreadroots in the latter— it also embraces a vast corpus of rules and institutionsof non-Roman and especially Christian origin. These are of particularimportance in those branches of law in which the Christian church tookan active interest, such as marriage and family law, but also inheritancelaw and certain parts of criminal law. And, it was precisely through the vehicle of the Greek church hierarchy that Byzantine law reached thenewly converted Slavic populations of Eastern Europe.

Already in 1846 Kalachov, in his pioneering study on the RP , devotedan entire chapter to possible borrowings, most of them from variousByzantine sources. The rst examples he mentioned were the Old Testa -ment precursors of several provisions of the Expanded Pravda: the bookof Exodus (ch.21, 18-19 and ch.22, 1-2) and articles 29, 30, and 40 of theExpanded Pravda (injuries sustained in a ght, and the killing of a thiefcaught red-handed).143 Biblical sources, especially the so-called Mosaiclaws, were usually included in the various kormchie.

The other sources mentioned by Kalachov are mostly Byzantine orclosely connected with Byzantine legislation. They include the “Farmer’sLaw” ( Nomos Georgikos ), the Ecloga, the Procheiron, the Court Law for thePeople, the “Chapters on Witnesses”, and the Church Statutes of theprinces Vladimir, Iaroslav, and Vsevolod. References to Byzantine lawmade by later authors all return to these sources, and especially the CourtLaw for the People; it will therefore be convenient to discuss the suggested borrowings from Byzantine legislation by surveying these sourcesin chronological order.

143 Kalachov, op.cit., 233-235. Sergeevich, Lektsii , 94, also mentions the case of art.40(art.38 of the Short Pravda) as having been taken over from the Old Testament. Ad-ditionally, Kalachov mentions a provision which only occurs in a single ms. of the RP (the Rostovskii Copy), published by Tatishchev, but lost later on; the RostovskiiCopy has not been included in the Academy of Sciences edition, see RP II, 60.




Nomos Georgikos

Kalachov points to several parallel provisions in this law and the RP : articles

10 (9) and 67 (62)144 could be connected in his view with certain provisionson interest which appear in a few copies of the Expanded Pravda,145 andarticle 45 (43) with articles 46 and 121 of the Expanded Pravda (on themaster’s liability for thefts committed by his serf). Moreover, he notesthe similarity between the preambles of certain versions of the Byzantinelaw and of the RP.146

In more recent times, only E.E. Lipshits (among Russian authors)has concerned herself extensively with the relationships between the RP(both the Short and the Expanded Pravda) and the Farmer’s Law. In hercommentary to the Russian translation of the law she mentions articles 12,31, 32, 34 and 40 of the Short Pravda and articles 33, 41-42, 43, 44, 46, 71-73and 121 of the Expanded Pravda and parallel provisions in the Farmer’sLaw. She refrains from suggesting any borrowing one way or another, butconsidering the greater age of the original Greek version of the Farmer’sLaw it seems reasonable to interpret her approach as viewing the Farmer’sLaw’s provisions as having served as a model for the RP .147

Evaluation: As the Roman law ancestry of the Farmer’s Law can onlybe assumed for part of the latter law’s provisions, any possibility of Russianborrowing from the Farmer’s Law has to be seen in this light.

The chronological framework presents another problem. Accord-ing to Lipshits’ detailed study of the Russian translation of the Farmer’sLaw as a component of the Knigi Zakonnye, the latter compilation may very tentatively be dated in the 12th century.148 Whether the text of theFarmer’s Law, in its Old-Russian translation or in its Greek original, couldhave been available in Russia before that time is even more problematic.

The possibility of its having inuenced the Short Pravda is therefore veryremote.Kalachov’s rst examples concern a few provisions which appear

only in a few copies of the Expanded Pravda belonging to the Karamzin

144 According to the numbering of the provisions in Medvedev’s Russian edition of the Nomos Georgikos, I.P. Medvedev (ed.), Vizantiiskii Zemledel ’cheskii Zakon, Leningrad,1984; the rst number refers to the original Greek text as reproduced in this edition,the second number (in brackets) to the Russian translation as oered in the Knigi Zakonnye.

145 In the Obolenskii and Museum recensions of the Karamzin group.146 Kalachov, 236-237.147 Medvedev, Zemledel’cheskii Zakon, 257-260.148 Ibidem, 223-230.




group. It has now been established beyond any doubt that these provi-sions, which are absent in the vast majority of other (and older) copies,

have been inserted some time during the 15th century.149

Moreover, thesimilarity between the provisions concerned of the Farmer’s Law and theExpanded Pravda is far from obvious. Their evidentiary value for sup-porting the argument of Roman law inuence on the Expanded Pravdais therefore zero.

With regard to article 45 of the Farmer’s Law (a slave killing cattle— the owner pays up), Kalachov points to articles 46 and 121 of the Ex-panded Pravda. These provisions concern theft by a slave, and are amonga considerable number of provisions dening noxal liability of the owner

of the slave, as can be expected in a law code of a slave-owning society.This subject was of course extensively regulated and commented uponin classical Roman law, but related rules can also be found in completelydierent legislations, such as those of the Babylonians and the Hittites.The similarity which Kalachov perceives is very vague.

The similarity between the preambles concerns only a few copiesof the Expanded Pravda. The preamble is absent in the vast majority ofExpanded Pravda copies and is the result of a comparatively late insertionin the so-called Pushkin Copy and the ve copies of the Archeographic

recension.150 The preambles contain exhortations on judicial ethics andare based on biblical prescriptions and especially on the writings of earlyChristian saints. The preamble which immediately precedes the Farmer’sLaw is explicitly identied as the preamble to the entire Knigi Zakonnye and appears only in the Russian, not in the Greek texts. Its source is mostlikely a short text entitled “The word of the great Saint Basil on judgesand slander”, which is also found in the Merilo Pravednoe. The preambleto the Ecloga represents a similar rhetorical exercise.

Lipshits, who frequently quotes Kalachov and is very familiar withhis work, refers to an almost completely dierent set of parallels betweenthe Farmer’s Law (in its Russian version) and the RP . She notes the generallikeness between articles 12 of the Short Pravda and 33 of the ExpandedPravda (‘joy-riding’, a horse only) and article 36 (34) of the Farmer’s Law(using other people’s domestic animals without permission). This questionhas been discussed above already; the provision of the Farmer’s Law isclearly of Roman law origin, but is not connected with the RP provisions(as argued above).

Article 41 (39) of the Farmer’s Law is devoted to theft of an ox or adonkey; the thief will be thrashed, pays twice the value of the animal, as

149 Cf . Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 178-180.150 Ibidem, 144.




well as any prots that accrued to him. Lipshits points to articles 31 and40 of the Short Pravda and the corresponding articles 41 and 42 of the

Expanded Pravda. The contents and the legislative context of the Russianrules are so dierent that the only remaining similarity is that all provi-sions concerned deal with theft of domestic animals.

Damaging someone else’s forest through arson or by cutting trees isthe subject of article 57 (55) of the Farmer’s Law.151 The usual double-valuepenalty applies, plus (only in the Russian version) marking the arsonist’shand by re. Parallels oered by Lipshits are article 32 of the Short Pravdaand article 83 of the Expanded Pravda. Again, the similarity is remote,both in the denitions and in the penalties to be applied.

The same conclusion has to be made about the suggested parallelbetween articles 1-2 of the Farmer’s Law and article 34 of the Short Pravdaand articles 71-73 of the Expanded Pravda. All of these provisions concernthe violation of borders between elds, but there the similarity stops.

A number of provisions in the Farmer’s Law deal with thefts com-mitted, or damage caused by a slave (arts.45-47 (43-45), 71-72 (69-70)).Lipshits refers to articles 46 and 121 of the Expanded Pravda. Article 46of the Expanded Pravda, however, is only concerned with the questionof the competent court, something the Farmer’s Law does not envisage.

The situation discussed in article 121 of the Expanded Pravda does notcorrespond with any provision of the Farmer’s Law (although closer paral-lels may be found in other Byzantine/Roman sources).

Finally, Lipshits connects article 43 of the Expanded Pravda (theftof grain from a storage place, and the responsibility of each individualparticipant in the theft) with articles 60 (57), 61 (58) and 68 (63) of theFarmer’s Law (theft of grain from the elds, of fruit from orchards, of grain from storage places). The Farmer’s Law, in accordance with its general tenor, prescribes various forms of physical punishment, and this would naturally apply to all participants. The Russian law only indicates amonetary sanction and therefore the legislator made sure to indicate thatevery individual participant would have to pay up in full. The similarityagain is remote.

Ecloga

Article 12 Title 17 of the Ecloga regulates theft committed by a slave;Kalachov makes the connection with articles 63152 and 121. The Ecloga

151 Title 17 art.40 of the Ecloga, however, is very close to the original Greek provisionof the Farmer’s Law. This, incidentally, appears to be the only close parallel betweenthe Farmer’s Law and the Ecloga.

152 47 in Kalachov’s numeration (=63 Exp. Pravda), Kalachov, 243; I suppose this is aprinting error and 46 (=46 Exp. Pravda) is meant.




also forbids slaves to testify against their masters (Title 14 art.5); theExpanded Pravda contains a general prohibition for kholopy to appear as

witnesses.153

As already outlined above, Sergeevich regarded the Ecloga as the prin-cipal source of Byzantine inuence, but stressed that the Russian courtsdid not have direct access to it. They were only aware of judicial practicethat was based on it.154 He discerned Byzantine inuence especially inthe provisions of the Expanded Pravda which dealt with inheritance law(arts.90, 92-94, 99-102, 104-105).155

Kliuchevskii’s view was similar; he held that the author of the RP wasaware of the situations regulated by the Ecloga (and the Procheiron ) and

then provided his own solutions, inspired to some extent by the Byzantineprovisions. As examples he mentions the rules about using another person’shorse without the latter’s permission and about the value of testimony given by slaves or serfs.156

Evaluation: Presumably the reference is not to article 63 of the Ex-panded Pravda (slave stealing horse), but to article 46, the general provi-sion dealing with theft by a slave. The Ecloga provision Kalachov has inmind is Title 17 article 12. Its parallel in the Expanded Pravda is article

121, not the general rule of article 46. The two provisions follow (rst theone from the Ecloga, then the Russian provision, in Kaiser’s translation).

“If the owner of a slave who has committed theft wants to keep his slave, let himcompensate what has been stolen. If he does not want to receive his slave [back], lethim hand him over in full ownership to him who suered the theft.”

“If a slave steals from someone, then [the slave’s] lord is to redeem him or give himup together with him with whom he stole, but he need not give up the [slave’s] wifeor children; but if they will have stolen and hidden what they have stolen together with the slave, then [the lord] may either give them all up, or redeem them; if those

who stole and hid [the stolen goods] with him be free [men], then [they are to pay]the prince a ne.”

The option for the slave’s master to pay up or hand over the slave incase of theft or other injuries caused by the slave is well-known in Ro-man law.157 Article 121 is the last provision of the Expanded Pravda and153 Kalachov, 243.154 Sergeevich, Lektsii , 94. In similar vein, D’iakonov, Ocherki , 50. In his chapter on

inheritance law, Sergeevich returns more extensively to this matter.155

Sergeevich, Lektsii , 94; D’iakonov, Ocherki , 49, remarks that certain provisions ofthe Expanded Pravda on inheritance and guardianship are very similar to Ecloga provisions.

156 Kliuchevskii, Vol.1, 210-211.157 See Inst. 4, 8, 1-5 and other sources which deal with the so-called noxal actions.




probably belongs to its most recent layer, in any case after the rule ofVladimir Monomakh (1113-1125), and possibly as late as the end of the

12th century. But even at such a relatively late date, the availability of theappropriate Byzantine texts ( Ecloga or Procheiron ) is unlikely, as has beendemonstrated above.

Article 46 of the Expanded Pravda, referred to above (on theftsby slaves in general), oers a curious feature which, to the best of myknowledge, has escaped the attention of the numerous scholars whohave concerned themselves with the question of Roman law inuence inearly Russian law. Among the considerable number of Expanded Pravdaprovisions which in one way or another deal with theft, article 46 is the

only one which sets a double-value ne. This was a typical Roman lawinstitution and it appears as a corpus alienum in the Russian law. It is inthe rst part of the Expanded Pravda, but is absent in the second part ofthe Short Pravda (the Pravda of Iaroslav’s sons), so it could tentatively bedated in the last decades of the 11th century. The double-value ne hasdisappeared in later legislation, especially in the Statute of Monomakh(the second main component of the Expanded Pravda). Would it have beena one-o legislative attempt by a Kievan prince, suggested by his Greekbishop, and subsequently abandoned because it did not agree with Rus-

sian tradition? As mentioned earlier, the 911 treaty between the Russiansand the Greeks included the threefold ne for theft; in the 944 treatythis was replaced by a double-value ne.

As to the question of testimony given by slaves or unfree persons,Kalachov’s reading of the provisions concerned is imprecise. The rule isnot (as Kalachov avers): “A slave does not testify.” But: “Neither againstor for his master does the slave testify.” ( Ecloga, XIV, 5)158 According toarticle 66 of the Expanded Pravda in Kaiser’s translation:

“[Free men] do not rely on the testimony of a slave; but if there be no free man [totestify], then, if necessary, refer to [the testimony] of a boyar’s overseer, but do notrely upon other [slaves]. And in a suit [over] a small [sum] refer to [the testimonyof an] indentured labourer.”

Three dierent legal systems (Justinian, the Ecloga, and the ExpandedPravda) each attempt to cope in their own way with the problem of theslave’s testimony; none of them exclude it outright.

In the second half of the Expanded Pravda, the so-called Statute ofMonomakh, there is a clearly discernible block of provisions devoted to

158 Whether this rule has actual Roman law roots seems quite uncertain. The chapteron witnesses in Justinian’s Novellae (90, esp. 1 and 6) demonstrates a general aversionagainst the testimony of witnesses, especially when the social position of the witnessis inferior, without forbidding testimony by slaves outright.




inheritance law (arts.88-106).159 Sergeevich has been the chief advocate160 inarguing the Byzantine origin of at least part of the contents of this section

of the Statute of Monomakh.161

The chief Byzantine source considered inthis connection is always the Ecloga. It is worth repeating that Sergeevichdoes not claim that the authors of the corresponding sections of the Ex-panded Pravda consulted the Ecloga (it is generally agreed that around thetime of the compilation of the Expanded Pravda the text of the Ecloga,and certainly not its Old-Russian translation, were available), but that a general knowledge of Byzantine inheritance law, as reected by the Ecloga,could have been present in the ecclesiastical courts which would deal, as arule, with cases of inheritance law. Byzantine law would then have reached

the Expanded Pravda through a kind of osmotic process.The basic provision of the ‘inheritance block’ is article 90. It consistsof two separate rules, the rst one, in Kaiser’s translation: “If a peasantdies, then his estate [escheats] to the prince.” Commentators agree that therule refers only to the case that the peasant dies without sons. Sergeevichconnects it with Ecloga VI 6, which states that half the estate of a person who does not have relatives as heirs passes to his wife, and the other halfto the scus, and that the whole estate passes to the scus if he also doesnot have a wife.162 The similarity is obviously remote. The question has

been extensively discussed in Russian literature and nobody appears toagree with Sergeevich. Baranowski oers an extensive summary of thediscussion and has added his own reasoned refutation of Sergeevich inthis matter, so I shall just refer to him here.163

The second sentence of article 90 concerns the case when the peasantdies without sons, but leaves daughters. They then receive a certain portion,but only when they are “at home”, not when they are married. Sergeevichasserts “Greek-Roman” inuence, but does not indicate a source.

The rules of article 90 can be regarded as basic in this section of theExpanded Pravda, because they concern the bulk of the population, the159 Arts.88 and 89 concern the general status of women and unfree persons and can be

considered as connected with inheritance law. Arts.96 and 97 have no connectionat all with inheritance law and must have been inserted at this place at some latermoment.

160 A few other pre-1917 authors (such as Nevolin) have expressed themselves morebriey, but in similar vein as Sergeevich; see the summaries of their views in RP IIand in Baranowski under the provisions concerned, esp. art.90.

161

Most authors agree on considering Vladimir Monomakh as the source of this section.See, for instance, an authoritative scholar such as Zimin in Pravda Russkaia, 232-234, who presents plausible arguments for such a view.

162 Sergeevich, Lektsii , 556.163 Baranowski, 604-616, esp. 609.




smerdy, the dependent peasants. The next provision (art.91) discusses theinheritance of the sons and daughters of boyars.

The only reason Sergeevich mentions art.92 of the Expanded Pravdaas an example of Byzantine ( Ecloga ) inuence is the fact that the rule ofart.92 does not distinguish between sons and daughters as beneciariesof their father’s will.164

Articles 93-94 and 101-102 are mentioned together by Sergeevichas reecting the principle from the Ecloga (II 6) that after the death ofone of the spouses the estate was not divided amongst the children butremained in the hands of (under the management and in the possessionof) the surviving spouse. This rule is apparently not derived from older

Roman law. Article 93 does not conrm this principle but only providesthat the widow is entitled to what her husband has specially assignedto her. Article 94 regulates the fate of the estate in case of a subsequentmarriage of the widowed father; then the children of the rst wife taketheir mother’s share. This can also hardly be considered a conrmationof the Ecloga principle.165

The text of article 102 also does not support Sergeevich’s allegation;it concerns the case that (adult) children do not wish to stay with theirmother in the family residence ( dvor ); then the mother is allowed to stay

and enjoy the share the husband left her. Only article 101 is fully compat-ible with the argument of Sergeevich: “If a woman promises to remaina widow after her husband’s death, then squanders [her late husband’s]property, she is to repay her children [the property she lost].” (Kaiser’stranslation.) However, it only conforms to the principle underlying Ecloga II,6 (that the surviving spouse retains possession and management of thedeceased spouse’s estate). The lengthy Ecloga provision describes varioussituations covered by this principle in detail, but not the case covered byarticle 101 of the Expanded Pravda. As precisely this provision is the onlyone to support Sergeevich’s theory, the argument becomes very feeble.

Article 104 is devoted to the mirror image of article 94: what happensin case a widow remarries and has children from the second marriage?Sergeevich only mentions it as evidence of Byzantine inuence because164 Sergeevich, 554.165 Nevolin ( R II, 646) notes that art.94 is close in content and wording to a parallel

provision in the Ecloga, but does not indicate which provision. Baranowski observes(630), correctly I believe, that Nevolin obviously thought of Ecloga II 7, which alsodeals with the case of the remarriage of the widower and the rst wife’s estate. I failto see any close parallel between the two provisions. A second marriage of a widowedfather was a common occurrence and any treatment of inheritance law that was morethan summary would deal with the question. The fact that the Expanded Pravda which contains almost an entire ‘chapter’ on inheritance deals with the subject isby itself no indication that the rule was taken over from Byzantine law.




the provision does not distinguish between sons and daughters. The rulesimply provides that the children of the rst marriage inherit their fa -

ther’s estate and those from the second husband the latter’s estate. Theevidentiary force of this totally obvious arrangement is zero. Article 105 is only mentioned in passing by Sergeevich as reecting

the principle of equality of sons and daughters; he does not return to itin his discussion of inheritance law.

The Court Law for the People

The Court Law for the People ( Zakon Sudnyi Liudem, ZSL ) is the mostfrequently quoted foreign source for the RP . Kalachov mentions the

following provisions: on damaging arms, which is almost identical in theso-called Concordance version of the ZSL (and in some copies of theExpanded ZSL ) and in article 18 of the Short Pravda;166 the provision onbezchestie (dishonour, insults) in some of the Concordance copies and insome of the Karamzin group copies of the Expanded Pravda;167 and theprovision o stoge (haystack), also in some of the Concordance copies (andin some copies of the Expanded ZSL ) and in some of the Karamzin groupcopies.168

D’iakonov’s views have already been referred to above: he consideredthe ZSL the most important conduit for Byzantine inuence. From theShort Pravda he mentioned articles 12 and 38 (unauthorized use of anotherperson’s horse and the killing of a thief during the night), adding that there were probably many more borrowings in the Expanded Pravda.169

Among the Soviet authors, Tikhomirov is the one who has been mostinvolved in comparative studies of the ZSL and the RP . In his main workon the RP , he referred to the rules in the Short Pravda on the unauthor-ized use of another person’s horse (art.12) and the damaging of another’s

weapons or clothing (art.18) as having been borrowed from the so-calledExpanded Version of the ZSL.170 But twenty years later (in 1961) in his studyon the Expanded ZSL, he stated explicitly that the situation was actually

166 Kalachov, 247; the same rule also appears in a few copies of the Pushkin group ofthe Expanded Pravda.

167 Kalachov, 247.168 Ibidem. V. Ganev, in the fundamental Bulgarian study on the ZSL, Zakon Soudnyi

Liud ŭ

m. Pravno-istoricheski i pravno-analitichni prouchvaniia, Soa, 1959, 112, agrees with Kalachov and simply refers to the latter’s argumentation.169 D’iakonov, Ocherki , 49. Kliuchevskii, Vol.1, 211, mentions the same provision, as being

connected with the ZSL.170 Tikhomirov, Issledovanie, 58-59.




the other way around and that the RP was the lender and the ZSL theborrower, without oering much explanation for this conversion.171

Evaluation: Kalachov’s references are all to provisions which appearonly in the Concordance version of the ZSL.172 This version is reliablydated in the beginning of the 15th century.173 The Expanded Pravda itselfis of a much earlier date. Kalachov’s parallels concerning insults and thehaystack are found, however, in most copies of the Pushkin and Karamzin groups of Expanded Pravda manuscripts. In these copies, they are insertedat the end of the Expanded Pravda manuscript as an appendix. The convoys of which these copies form part all include the ZSL. In some copies,

the texts of the RP and the ZSL have been mixed up. In the Academy ofSciences edition of the RP , it is suggested that the editor or editors ofthese collections have tried to streamline the regulative material of thetwo sources.174 What can be said here without an exhaustive enquiry intothe origins of these so-called Russian articles ( russkie stati ) from the ZSL,seemingly appended to some copies of the Expanded Pravda, is that theyare unquestionably of comparatively late origin, that they belong to theoriginal cores of neither the Expanded Pravda, nor the Expanded ZSL,and that their origin in any case is not— as it is for most other provisions

of the ZSL— in the Ecloga or any other Byzantine source. Article 18 of the Short Pravda and the ZSL provision (found in the

Concordance version and in some copies of the Expanded ZSL ) concern-ing the damaging of arms or clothing represent a special story.175 The ruleappears in the Short Pravda, is absent in most copies of the ExpandedPravda and included only in the Pushkin and Karamzin groups of copies(in the latter as part of the ‘Russian articles’). The wording of the provi-sion in the various texts of the Expanded Pravda and the ZSL is almostidentical, but signicantly dierent in the Short Pravda. In view of thefar greater age of the Short Pravda, as compared with the Expanded andConcordance versions of the ZSL (note that the provision is lacking in

171 M.N. Tikhomirov, Zakon Sudnyi liudem. Prostrannoi i Svodnoi redaktsii , Moskva, 1961,21. Baranowski, 222, also points out this incongruity.

172 The provisions on the destruction of arms or clothing and on the haystack are alsoincluded in the so-called Archeographic Copy of the Expanded ZSL. See Tikhomirov,op.cit ., 77-78.

173 Tikhomirov, op.cit ., 26.174 RP I, 296, 325.175 It has briey been discussed above in connection with Maksimeiko’s claim that the

rule is inspired by the Lex Aquilia.




the older Short ZSL ), the Short Pravda must be regarded as the originalsource.176

As to the suggestions of D’iakonov, the case of riding another per-son’s horse without the latter’s permission (art.12 Short Pravda) has beenextensively discussed above in connection with the views of Maksimeiko. Article 38 concerns the killing of a thief during a night-time break-in,this remains unpunished. If he is captured, he must be handed over tothe prince’s court the next day and may not be killed. A very similar rulemay already be found in Exodus XXII, 1. The Expanded ZSL has a paral-lel provision, but its wording diers signicantly. Even if the chronology would allow it, borrowing from the Expanded ZSL would therefore be

less likely than from the Old Testament. Baranowski observes correctlythat the rule is found in the most diverse legal systems.177

Procheiron

Two provisions from the Procheiron are suggested by Kalachov as paral-leling similar provisions of the RP : Procheiron 39, 3 (on killing a burglarduring night-time) and articles 21 and 38 of the Short Pravda and article40 of the Expanded Pravda; and Procheiron 39, 55 (on the master’s liabil-ity for theft committed by his slave) and articles 63, 120 and 121 of theExpanded Pravda.178

Evaluation: Article 21 of the Short Pravda (concerning the killingof the prince’s steward) is obviously not connected with Procheiron 39,3. Articles 38 of the Short Pravda and its counterpart in the Expanded176 A not unimportant element in the discussion concerning these provisions is the term

port (clothing) in art.18 Short Pravda against topor (axe) in the other texts. In his older writings, Tikhomirov ( Issledovanie, 58-59) argued that “axe” followed logically after“lance” and “shield”, and that port was a scribe’s error; the Short Pravda had borrowed

accordingly from the ZSL, and not the other way around; he speculated that elementsof the ZSL were already available in Kievan Rus’ at a very early moment, before theactual text of the ZSL reached Kiev. As mentioned, Tikhomirov later retracted this view. The speculation is indeed unwarranted and, moreover, it is improbable thata scribe would change a perfectly understandable word ( topor ) which was more orless what could be expected after lance and shield, by something quite dierent. Itis of course much more likely that the expression port in the sense of clothing didnot quite make sense to a scribe who was working on the text a few centuries later;by replacing it by topor he found an acceptable escape out of his dilemma. This alsoseems to be the view of Baranowski in his recent commentary to the RP , op.cit ., 248,

who also points to the chronological impossibility of the Short Pravda borrowingfrom the ZSL.177 Baranowski, 313.178 Kalachov, 244-245; additionally the same provision from the Rostovskii Copy is

mentioned, as referred to above.




Pravda (art.40) come closer, as they also concern the excusable killingof a night-time burglar. The contents of the Russian provisions are still

quite dierent from the short Procheiron provision; they are in fact muchcloser to Exodus 22, 1, which also explicitly indicates that if the thief isapprehended after sunrise, he may not be killed. The distinction betweennocturnal and daytime killing of a thief is also made in classical Romanlaw, according to a statement by Gaius who quotes the Twelve Tables law(D. 9, 2, 4). The biblical rule still appears to be closest to the RP provisionsand may very well be their source.

The second case (the master’s liability for theft committed by hisslave) has already been discussed above. In such cases, he may either re-

imburse the victim or hand over the slave. The wording of the ExpandedPravda provisions bears little similarity to the corresponding rules of the Procheiron.

Chapter on Witnesses

(This text has nothing to do with the text “On Witnesses” included inthe Knigi Zakonnye, discussed above; the latter text is of predominantlyByzantine origin and based mainly on the Procheiron and the Ecloga.)

In a number of copies of Expanded Pravda manuscripts (of the Ro-zenkampf and Ferapontov recensions), the RP text is immediately precededby a few provisions “On Witnesses” and “On the Bloodied man”. Theseprovisions are based, according to Kalachov, on various Byzantine sourc-es.179 The text of the provisions is very similar or identical to articles 66,29, 30 and 31 of the Expanded Pravda. With regard to article 66 Kalachovrefers to the Byzantine rule “A slave cannot testify”. This question hasalready been discussed above in the section on the Ecloga.

As to the “bloodied man” ( krovavyi muzh ), he rst appears in the Short

Pravda (art.30); the main point of the rule is that a man who is bloodiedand bruised does not have to produce an eyewitness of the ght he hadbeen in. Kalachov does not present any Byzantine parallels. Article 29 ofthe Expanded Pravda oers a more elaborate version of the rule.

Together with the provision on the “bloodied man” the followingtwo provisions of the Expanded Pravda (arts.30 and 31) are presented byKalachov in the same argument: they appear together in a separate clus-ter in kormchaia collections in a context which consists predominantly ofByzantine texts— so they are probably also of Byzantine origin, and the

identical or similar provisions of the Expanded Pravda therefore too.

179 Kalachov, 248-251. The texts concerned may be found in RP II, 231, 262-263.




Evaluation: The argument is upside-down. All provisions concernedhave their roots in the Short Pravda, while on the other hand no Byzantine

parallels have been produced. A Byzantine origin is therefore very improb-able. Of course, this still leaves the problem of why a few provisions fromthe RP have been included almost verbatim (and superuously) in the kormchaia collections, in almost all cases even just before the text of the RP itself. A possible explanation would be that they originally constituteda separate enactment of an early Kievan prince and that this enactment was subsequently, together with many others (including also the ShortPravda), incorporated during the nal editorial process of the ExpandedPravda. The latter text was frequently included in the kormchaia, but, sup-

posedly, by some editorial oversight, the original legislation on witnesses was also added.

Church Statutes

The three church statutes of, respectively, Vladimir, Iaroslav and Vsevo-lod are discussed by Kalachov as possible sources of the RP .180 They arementioned here for the sake of completeness. Considering that theythemselves belong to the principal sources of early Russian law, they mustrst be investigated in the context of this paper, not as sources of the RP ,but for traces of Roman or Byzantine inuences.

Evaluation: The church statutes of Vladimir and Iaroslav — unlike the RP which was lost for many centuries and then rediscovered— deningthe fundamental relationships between the Russian church and the state,survived in numerous copies from dierent times. They were studied moreextensively during the 20th century and this work culminated in severalstudies by Ia.N. Shchapov.181

Shchapov demonstrated convincingly that the original nuclear textof Vladimir’s statute, dating from the period immediately following theconversion of Russia, provided the church (which at that time was not yet a signicant landowner) with the necessary income to carry out its work, while incorporating it at the same time into the state’s governmentalstructure. This was done by granting the church tithes from all princely

180 The church statute of Vsevolod is only mentioned in passing in Kalachov’s text. It

is based anyway on the church statute of Vladimir.181 Kniazheskie ustavy i tserkov’ v Drevnei Rusi XI-XIV vv., Moskva, 1972, and Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy XI-XV vv., M., 1976, as well as numerous other papers. A full bib-liography of Shchapov’s works in A.N. Sakharov (ed.), Ot Drevnei Rusi k novoi Rossii [Shchapov Festschrift], Moskva, 2005, 389-411.




income182 and jurisdiction in certain matters violating the new Christianmoral precepts. These matters concerned primarily marriage and sexual

morality, but also sorcery and other pagan survivals and inheritance dis-putes.Half a century later, the list of oences was further elaborated in

Iaroslav’s statute which (in its nuclear form) constituted a kind of penalcode devoted mainly to oences against sexual morality; a few other of -fences harmful or objectionable to the church were added. Moreover,people connected to the church (clerics, but also lay people attached tothe church) were removed from secular jurisdiction and placed under thejurisdiction of the bishop (metropolitan).

The system introduced by these statutes represented a fundamentalreform of Russian law, because nothing like it had existed before. Manyauthors have noted that the RP and the church statutes complement eachother in that there is hardly any overlap; the oldest core of the RP consistedof customary law, which then was subsequently replaced and eased outby princely legislation. This core dealt mainly with a traditional range ofoences (violence against persons, insults, theft, etc.), to which the churchstatutes added a list of new oences reecting behaviour rejected by thenew religious doctrine, and dealt with, if necessary, through extra-legal

procedures in pre-Christian times.Obviously, the basic ideas underlying the church statutes were of

Byzantine origin, but they received a peculiarly Russian twist: churchand state did not co-exist as two more or less equivalent powers, as in theByzantine world, but the church was incorporated to a great extent intothe texture of the state’s institutions; in exchange for its loss of independ-ence it received important judicial powers.

This explains why no direct textual borrowings from Byzantinesources have been identied in the church statutes, although the generalidea of assigning the church an important role in the administration ofjustice is of course of Byzantine origin; the contents of the statutes ofVladimir and Iaroslav, the latter in particular, inspired by the new Christianteaching, have equally been derived from Byzantine examples. Shchapovhas pointed out that none of the descriptions of sexual oences in thestatute of Iaroslav can be connected to a particular Byzantine example,although generally similar situations are dealt with in the Procheiron, the Ecloga, the ZSL, the Knigi Zakonnye, and other Byzantine or Byzantine-

inspired sources.183

182 A.E. Presniakov, Lektsii po russkoi istorii, Vol.I, Kievskaia Rus’ , Moskva, 1938, 115., hasdrawn attention to the fact that the Old-Russian tithe, payable only by the state (theprince), diered from the more comprehensive West-European tithe.

183 Shchapov, Kniazheskie ustavy, 250.




To return to Kalachov’s observation concerning the similarity betweenarticles 2 and 31 of Iaroslav’s statute (concerning rape and calling a woman a

whore) and the provision on sexual insults ( bezchestie ) in a number of copiesof the Karamzin group of the Expanded Pravda, and between article 49of the same statute (arson) and article 83 of the Expanded Pravda:

The provision on bezchestie is part of the so-called ‘Russian articles’, which have been discussed above. They constitute a comparatively lateaddition to certain manuscripts of the RP . Their origin is not yet quiteclear. Moreover, the similarity between the provisions is only very general,in that they deal with related subjects.

The similarity between the two arson provisions is somewhat closer,

inasmuch as they both deal (among other things) with setting re to abarn ( gumno ). The provision in the statute of Iaroslav represents a lateraddition (according to Shchapov’s view on the archetype of the statute)and could therefore very well have been taken over from the older provi-sion in the Expanded Pravda.

Treaties With Byzantium

These are not mentioned by Kalachov, but as referred to above in thediscussion of the views of Salogubova, they form part of the debate. Ser- geevich, for instance, points to several provisions which must be consideredas originating in Byzantine law.184 Sergeevich presents a credible argumentfor the viewpoint that in fact the Greeks were successful in securing thedominance of Greek law. The treaties of 911 and 944 do refer a few times tothe applicability of “Russian custom” (this is probably the best equivalentof zakon russkii ), and this has been gratefully picked up by many authors asthe earliest written reference to Old-Russian law. Sergeevich indicated anumber of crucial instances where Greek law appeared to prevail: capital

punishment for homicide, instead of the traditional Russian blood feud;the double or threefold penalty for theft; the right to inherit of distantrelatives in the absence of close relatives, etc.

However, the Greek (Byzantine) elements in the treaties do not reap-pear in later Russian legal sources and apparently had no further eect onthe development of Russian law.

8. Later Developments

As has been noted above, major Byzantine legal texts, in particular the Procheiron, became accessible in Russia through Russian translations afterthe arrival of the Serbian kormchaia and the emergence of the so-calledRussian redaction of the kormchaia in the last quarter of the 13th century.184 Sergeevich, Lektsii , 639-666.




At about the same time or somewhat later, a Slavonic translation of the Ecloga will also have reached Russia, where it was subsequently included,

together with the Procheiron translation, in the text of the Merilo Praved- noe. In this period, Russia — broken up into separate principalities, butstill united under a single metropolitan— was slowly recovering from thedevastation caused by the Mongol conquest of most of the country.

No major legislative monuments from the 14th century have survivedor have in fact existed. If they had, they would have been included in kormchie and other collections of legal texts, as were older texts from thepreceding three centuries.

In surveying developments in Russian legal history in the post-Kievan

period, it is important to stress that Byzantine inuence was not a matterof continuous interaction, by the exchange of personnel and/or texts, butthe result of the availability of a very small number of translated Greektexts. Once they had arrived, they could exert their inuence over a verylong period. Greek experts were not needed.

The most important legislative milestone between the RP and thelegal code ( Ulozhenie ) of the Moscow grand prince Ivan Vasil’evich (IvanIII) of 1497 was the Judicial Charter of Pskov ( Pskovskaia sudnaia gramota ).185 Several commentators have noticed that there are minor, but clear, traces of

Byzantine inuence in a small number of provisions of the Pskov Charter.The Byzantine texts concerned are the Ecloga and the Farmer’s Law (andother texts from the Knigi Zakonnye ).186

Another legislative text which bears clear traces of Byzantine inu-ence is the “Metropolitan’s Justice” ( Pravosudie Metropolich’e ), a short andsomewhat enigmatic text, as opinions on its date of origin dier widely,from the 13th to the 16th century.187

The Code of Ivan III of 1497 marks the denitive end of the Kievanperiod of Russian legal history. By this time, Byzantium had succumbed tothe onslaught of the Turks and had exited from the political stage, whichimplied the disappearance of the Byzantine legal system as a living entity.185 The most recent comprehensive study of the Pskov Charter is Iu.G. Alekseev, Psko-

vskaia sudnaia gramota. Tekst. Kommentarii. Issledovanie, Pskov, 1997 (not available tome). See, also, the introductions to the Pskov Charter text in PRP II, 282-285 (by A.A. Zimin) and Rossiiskoe Zakonodatel’stvo I, 321-331 (by Iu.G. Alekseev). The oldestpart of the Pskov Charter, which consists of several chronological layers, is probablyfrom 1397, if we follow Alekseev on this point.

186 Alekseev, op.cit , 331; E.K. Piotrovskaia, “Pskovskaia sudnaia gramota i kompiliatsiia

«Knigi Zakonnye»”, A.P. Pavlov (ed.), Rossiiskoe gosudarstvo v XIV-XVII vv. [Iu.G. Alekseev Collection], S.Peterburg, 2002, 167-172.

187 Text in PRP III, 429-432, commentary by V.N. Avtokratov, 438-457; also (Russiantext and English translation) in Kaiser, Laws, 107-110. See, also, Cherepnin, Arkhivy II, 25.




In the extensive literature on the Code of 1497, nobody has claimed thepresence of Byzantine or Roman elements.188 The Code connes itself

anyway mainly to topics concerning criminal law and procedure. The same goes for its successors in the following century, the Codes of 1550 and 1589and the so-called Combined Code ( Svodnyi Sudebnik ) of 1606/1607.

The Code of 1550 was accompanied by a comprehensive text embody-ing church law, phrased in the form of answers to 100 questions posed bytsar Ivan IV and known accordingly as the “Hundred Chapters” or Stoglav of 1551.189 Many provisions of the Stoglav are derived from dierent kormchie and in this way Byzantine law could penetrate.190 Interestingly, the era ofIvan IV ( Groznyi ) was characterized (among other things) by increased

contacts with Western Europe. Ivan’s library contained manuscript copiesof the Corpus Iuris and other Roman law texts according to a protestantminister from Livonia who was allowed access. The library was lost in are when the Poles occupied Moscow in 1612.191

To return to a point made in the beginning of this section, the rec-ognition, if not the impact, of Byzantine law reached its climax long afterByzantium had become the capital of the Turkish empire. Medieval Russianlaw ended and modern Russian law made a beginning when a new com-prehensive code of law was enacted by the second Romanov tsar, Aleksei

Mikhailovich, in 1649, the Sobornoe Ulozhenie (the Council Enactment orCode), as it was adopted in consultation with the Church Council and with the boyars and other nobles.192 The Sobornoe Ulozhenie remained of-cially in force until the October Revolution and was the starting-pointfor the Full Collection of Laws ( Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov ), eected in themiddle of the 19th century under the direction of M. Speranskii, which inturn was the basis for the new codication which was gradually embarkedupon in the Russian Empire.

188 On the Code of 1497 generally: I.Ia. Froianov (ed.), Sudebnik Ivana III. Stanovlenie samoderzhavnogo gosudarstva na Rusi , S.Peterburg, 2004. Text of the Code in PRP III,346-374, commentary (by A.G. Poliak), 374-413; RZ II, 54-62, commentary (by S.I.Shtamm), 62-97.

189 Text with comments by T.E. Novitskaia in RZ II, 242-500.190 Ibidem, 248.191 A.V. Soloviev, “Der Einuss des Byzantinischen Rechts auf die Völker Osteuropas”,

Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, Romanische Abteilung , Band 76 (1959), 432-479, at

464.192 The entire volume of PRP VI is devoted to text and commentary of the Sobornoe

Ulozhenie. Also in RZ III, 75-443 and in the volume edited by A.G. Man’kov, men-tioned below. English translation by R. Hellie, The Muscovite Law Code (Ulozhenie)of 1649, Part 1: Text and Translation, Irvine, CA, 1988.




In its Preamble, the Code of 1649 stated unequivocally that the “citylaws” ( gradskie zakony, a term which usually referred to the Procheiron and

the Ecloga ) of the Greek emperors were among the sources consulted andutilized. Opinions dier as to the exact size of the element borrowed fromByzantine law. In a special study by Tiktin, more than 100 places wereidentied.193 Later authors reduced this number very considerably, andsome indeed deny or disregard the Byzantine element completely.194

With Peter the Great, Russia opened itself up to Western Europeand this implied that the knowledge of Roman law and of legal institu-tions based upon it could reach Russia directly, without the Byzantineintermediary. This process accelerated in the 19th century and constitutes

an on-going story.

9. Conclusions

The most convenient way to start the conclusions is by pointing out thatthe claims for direct Roman law inuence on early Russian law cannotin any individual case be corroborated. Moreover, such inuence is alsoextremely unlikely if one considers the conditions of early ChristianRussia. Virtually the only contacts at a more intellectual level between

Russia and the Christian world were in the presence of a small numberof Greek clergy. Some of these will have had a knowledge of Byzantinecanon law and, as explained above, this included certain sections of secularlaw. This knowledge was based exclusively on Greek-language sources, so whatever elements of Roman law would have been present would at leasthave to pass through this lter. The only example we have come acrossin our investigation and which might possibly qualify in this respect isthe double-value ne in one particular instant of theft, dened in article46 Expanded Pravda. The double-value ne is well known in Roman law

and otherwise unknown in Russian law. A dierent picture emerges when Byzantine law from the great leg -islative era of the 8th and 9th centuries is considered ( Nomos Georgikos, Ecloga, and Procheiron ). According to the most recent and reliable studies,the presence of a Slavonic translation of the Procheiron is at least certain with the arrival of the Serbian Kormchaia in Russia in 1273. Small and rela-tively unimportant parts of the Ecloga and the Procheiron were included in193 N.I. Tiktin, Vizantiiskoe pravo kak istochnik Ulozheniia 1649, Odessa, 1891.194 Cf . A.G. Man’kov, Ulozhenie 1649 goda. Kodeks feodal ’nogo prava Rossii , Leningrad, 1980,

18-19. (ed.), Sobornoe Ulozhenie 1649 goda. Tekst. Kommentarii , Leningrad, 1987, regardsthe Lithuanian Statute of 1588 as the principal source of the Sobornoe Ulozhenie.K.A. Sofronenko regards the words in the Preamble about the “laws of the Greekemperors” as sheer window-dressing in order to enhance the status of the Code; inhis introduction to the text of the Code in PRP VI, 12.




the early Slavonic Kormchaia which came to Kiev perhaps as early as the11th century; as explained above, almost nothing is know about the fate

or impact of this document.It is, of course, not at all impossible that Slavonic translations of the Ecloga and Procheiron had already reached Russia in the course of the 12thcentury. The composition of the earliest version of the Merilo Pravednoe (which in its known copies included the two Greek laws) is sometimesdated as far back as the 12th century.

A third known channel is the collection known as Knigi Zakonnye, of which the Nomos Georgikos is the main component, but which also includesa ‘Law on Penalties’, based primarily on the criminal law parts of the Ecloga

(Title 17) and the Procheiron (Title 39).When we consider the possible inuence of Byzantine law on earlyRussian law, the following points deserve to be stressed:

— the church hierarchy, in particular ecclesiastical jurisdiction, wasthe medium through which this inuence was exercised;

— the subject matter of this inuence consisted mainly of questions in which the church had a special interest because of their connection with the church’s teaching;

— this implied that the legal rules concerned usually had their roots,not in Roman law, but in the moral precepts of the Christian religion;

— full-scale inuence of Byzantine canon law through the church courtsonly started late in the 13th century, although incidental incursionsmay have occurred as early as the 11th century.

With these considerations in mind, one could expect the presence ofByzantine elements especially in the church statutes of the princes. Ithas been noted that the Church Statute of Iaroslav, a brief penal code in which oences against sexual morality predominate, seems to be close inspirit to, for instance, Title 17 of the Ecloga, without any clearly identi-able borrowings.

In the purely secular law of early Russia, especially the RP in its two versions, not only the Roman, but also the Byzantine element is absent.This trend continued for a long time, as evidenced by the Charter ofPskov in the later middle ages. The explanation, as several Russian and

Soviet legal historians have pointed out, is that traditional Russian law, asit kept developing independently, appeared to be more in tune with thesocial needs of medieval Russian society, apart from the quite considerableswathe eectively under the control of church jurisdiction.




In this respect, the incident referred to in the beginning of this chapteris worth recalling. Its inclusion in the Primary Chronicle has often served

as an illustration of a range of factors dening early Russian conditions:the relationship between prince and church and their respective roles, therelationship between Russian custom and innovative Greek legislation,the emergence of the state, a.o. The prince protested against the (Greek)bishops’ suggestion that he should execute robbers and brigands, sayingthat he was afraid to sin ( i.e. act against the Russian custom of coping with homicide through blood-feuds and composition payments). Thenthey assured him that it would be his duty as a Christian ruler and thathe could use the wergild to pay for his army.

Beyond the question which has been central in this chapter, the de-bate itself about this question, which has been going on for more than acentury and a half, invites a few comments.

The rst one concerns the danger of value judgments in legal historyor comparative law: one legal system is considered as better than another.In the present discussion, it occurs in two forms. Among Western lawyers,the superiority of Roman law is almost axiomatic. What is meant by it,presumably, is that the Romans had developed a legal system which pos-sessed not only great sophistication, but which was also able to adapt itself

eectively to changing circumstances. It also excelled in clear denitionsand had given rise to a culture of brilliant legal rhetoric.

The idealization of Roman law is most obvious in the evaluation ofByzantine law. Some of the authors active in this eld make no eort tohide their disdain; Sohm-Mitteis-Wenger speak of a history of continuousdecline, ending in an “unrecognizable dried-out mummy”.195

The other value judgment is current among Russian and especiallySoviet authors. The superiority of anything indigenous is then consideredso important that any sign of foreign inuence is looked at suspiciouslyor even rejected out of hand.

Both judgments, or rather prejudices, disregard that legal systemshave a purpose, have a job to do. There can of course be much disagree-ment about such a purpose, but most people would at least be able toreach agreement on a few points. Then one should try to establish how well a particular legal system succeeds in doing its job. There is no reasonto assume that Byzantine politicians and lawyers were unusually stupid inpreferring their actual legal system over Roman law. Medieval societies in

general coped much better with their legal needs without Roman law. Thedistinction between primitive and more sophisticated legal systems maybe good for the morale of lawyers; otherwise, it does not serve a useful195 R. Sohm/L. Mitteis/L. Wenger, Institutionen. Geschichte und System des Römischen Pri-

vatrechts, München/Leipzig, 1931, 137.




purpose. The nationalist bias against foreign legal inuences is even moredysfunctional; why reject a legal institution which could play a useful role

for the only reason that it has been imported?The second comment concerns the rigidity of many lawyers, includ-ing legal historians, in the selection of their conceptual instruments.Medieval law is generally described according to present-day categories,such as public law, civil law, family law, criminal law, etc. Often enough,this approach is then combined with the prejudice indicated above: the Russkaia Pravda or the early Germanic laws are called primitive becausethey fail to distinguish between civil and criminal law.

The circle of dubious concepts may also be widened to include such

things as “the state”, “legislation”, and in fact law itself. One should neverforget that all these things (unlike language, for instance) did not exist until we thought of them, or rather invented them. It is therefore meaninglessto observe, as Russian historians often do, the emergence of the state ata certain moment in Russian history, or to debate whether the Russkaia Pravda or the Ecloga or any other medieval legal source constituted “legisla-tion”. In such discussions, everything depends on the denition preferredand there are no objective yardsticks to decide whether one denition isbetter than another.



Chapter 4

Land Tenure, the Druzhina and the

Nature of Kievan Rus’

The question of land tenure, of how land was used, and by whom, is ofparticular importance for an understanding of Kievan Russia. This ques-tion can also be considered from a legal point of view and such an ap-proach would even have certain advantages by encouraging a more precisedetermination of the ramications of the usage of land. A legal approach would require an adequate set of conceptual tools.

The importance of the question rests on a variety of reasons. The rst one is that an elucidation of the system of land tenure contributespowerfully to the visualization of Kievan Russian society and culture.The same can, of course, be said of, say, the study of the role of towns inKievan Russia or of the system of social classes. But the way a society, apolity, handles the use of land would normally also embrace the rural-urbanrelationship and the social hierarchies. If a suciently clear picture of theuse of land can be assembled, we already have the landscape in front ofus in which the other details can be painted.

Such a visualization is less problematic where historical periods andsocieties are concerned which are closer to us in time and anity and where a multitude of sources of information is at our disposal. For KievanRussia, the literature may be vast, but the primary sources (as explained inthe chapter on sources) are scarce. This has resulted in strongly diverging views on its socio-political and economic characteristics.

A second point concerns the role Marxist-Leninist ideology has played,and in fact continues to play, in the study of Kievan Russia. Land, as oneof the primary factors of production, is one of the most basic concepts

for dialectical materialism and Soviet historians of Kievan Russia haveassigned it a correspondingly central place in their studies.Thirdly, the land issue has also loomed large in Western scholarship

concerning Kievan Russia. It has often been expressed as the questionconcerning the feudal character of Kievan Russia. In Soviet scholarship,the feudalism question is of course intimately bound up with the more general question of land tenure.

The conceptual framework of the legal aspects of land tenure, landownership and related subjects lends itself to being treated separately. The

other three questions (the ‘visualization’ of Kievan Russia, the Marxist-Leninist approach to it, and the question of the feudal character of KievanRussia) are so intimately related that they cannot very well be discussedin isolation.




1. Land Tenure: The Legal Perspective

An adequate set of conceptual tools would be required for a meaningful

legal analysis, as we stated above. Modern concepts might not always besuitable. In particular, the ownership concept based on Roman law anddominant in the West since Napoleon is defective in this respect. It hasmade ownership the fundamental and pivotal right from which all otherprivate law rights ow. The determination of ownership then becomes therst and most fundamental question to be solved in any legal relationship.Moreover, lawyers are often inclined to regard ownership as an inherent,almost physical, quality of a material object, to be established through‘scientic’ observation and analysis.

Marxism, true to its 19th century origins, did not oer an exceptionin this respect; ownership of the means of production was considered thebasically decisive and determining factor for the entire economic, social,political and ideological superstructure.

Outside the socialist world, this absolute ownership concept hasretained its function as the central organizational principle of private law,although not without causing considerable strain. In the Soviet Union,this principle, notwithstanding its ideological qualications, did not t

well into the political and economic reality. Declaring the land the inal-ienable heritage of the Soviet people was translated in legal terms as thesingle and indivisible state ownership of the land. Land ownership had,thereby, become almost irrelevant from a practical legal point of view. Thereal question was not any longer: Who is the owner? but: Who enjoys aparticular (limited) right with regard to this piece of land?

In constructing the socialist law concerning real property, the legalscholars of the Stalin era used the comparison with medieval law to nda way out of the dilemma. In his discussion of the rights in rem in a feudal

system, the leading civil law scholar of that time, A.V. Venediktov, pointedout in his basic work on state socialist property, published in 1948, that thedistinction between ownership and possession in such a system was blurred,that there was also not a clear line of distinction between ownership and various rights in rem, and that as a result several types of ‘ownership’ inone and the same object might co-exist.1

The same thought was expressed by the historian A.L. Shapiro, whoeven went so far as to assert that the Marxist denition of ownership didnot embrace “all varieties of ownership existing under feudalism”.2 In a

1 A.V. Venediktov, Gosudarstvennaia sotsialisticheskaia sobstvennost’ , Moskva, 1948, 102-106. In the West, V. Gsovski had made a very much similar point in his work onSoviet Civil Law, Ann Arbor, MI, 1948, I, 576, 789.

2 A.L. Shapiro, “O prirode feodal’noi sobstvennosti”, Voprosy istorii , 1969, No.12, 57-72.



Land Tenure, the Druzhina and the Nature of Kievan Rus’ 131

similar vein, at about the same time, A.Ia. Gurevich wrote in a discussionof West European feudalism:

“Man did not relate to the land as to something alien and outside himself. Land wasthe condition for his existence, but there could not yet be any talk of any kind ofexclusive rights to specic tracts of land […].”3

Similar views were expressed by other Soviet historians. O.M. Rapov wrote that the collection of tribute ( dan’ ) by the Kievan prince duringhis winter circuit ( poliud’e )4 was an expression of his supreme ownership( verkhovnaia sobstvennost’ ) of the lands of the tributary tribes.5 Shapiroremarked, not without justication, that the introduction of a term like“supreme ownership” was wordplay,6 but he himself had emphasized that

in the case of dan’ we were dealing with a princely right over the land ofhis own principality.7

Some passages of the Primary Chronicle illustrate the various levelsof princely rights of land tenure. One of the most famous concerns theentries for the years 946 and 947, after the grand princess Olga had in-icted a crushing defeat on the Derevlians who had killed her husbandIgor in 945:

“She imposed on them a heavy tribute, two parts of which went to Kiev, and the thirdto Olga in Vyshgorod; for Vyshgorod was Olga’s city. She then passed through the land

of Dereva, accompanied by her son and her retinue, establishing laws and tribute.Her trading-posts and hunting-preserves are still there. Then she returned with herson to Kiev, her city, where she remained one year. [947] Olga went to Novgorod,and along the Msta she established trading-posts and collected tribute. She also col-lected imposts and tribute along the Luga. Her hunting-grounds, boundary-posts,and trading-posts still exist throughout the whole region, while her sleighs stand inPskov to this day. Her fowling preserves still remain on the Dniepr and the Desna, while her village of Olzhichi is in existence even now.”8

One notices the existence of rights at three or four levels: the land of theDerevlians, where Olga established laws and tribute; her own principal-ity of Kiev; the town of Vyshgorod, which appears to be more of herprivate property; her trading-posts and hunting-grounds; and her village3 A.Ia. Gurevich, Problema zemel’noi sobstvennosti v dofeodal’nykh i rannefeodal’nykh

obshchestvakh Zapadnoi Rossii, Voprosy Istorii , 1968, No.4, 88-105.4 A description of the poliud’e is given by the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII

Porphyrogenitus (913-959) in his De Administrando Imperio; English translation ofthe relevant text in S. Pushkarev (comp.), A Source Book for Russian History from EarlyTimes to 1917, New Haven, 1972, 62.

5 O.M. Rapov, “K voprosu o zemel’noi rente v Drevnei Rusi v dofeodal’nyi period”,Vestnik MGU. Istoriia, 1968, No.1, 52-65.

6 Shapiro, op.cit .7 Ibidem.8 From the Cross/Sherbowitz-Wetzor translation.




of Ol’zhichi, which as the name indicates is very much her own property(it would hardly have been mentioned otherwise).9

Another, even earlier passage in the Primary Chronicle, suggesting amulti-tiered system of land tenure, is an entry which deals with the earliesthistory of the Slavs in Russia. About one of the Slavic tribes, it reports:

“The Polianians lived apart and were governed by their clans. For the Polianianshad already existed even before the time of these brothers, and each one lived withhis clan on his own place, belonging each to his clan. And there were three broth-ers […].”10

This text indicates, as was pointed out by Mavrodin and Froianov, thatthere was an awareness of tribal territory (where the Polianians “lived

apart”) which was divided into a number of clan territories; smaller family groups would presumably ‘own’ land within the clan territory.11

Western authors, in tackling the question of land tenure in pre-Kievanand Kievan Russia, have occasionally demonstrated an awareness of theinadequacy of the modern ownership concept. Blum, for instance, whopublished several important papers in this eld during the 1950’s and 1960’sand freely used the term “landownership”, observed that territorial peas-ant communes used land of which the prince was the nominal supremeproprietor, but which were de facto owned by them; the individual peasant

held his land from the commune.12

2. The Nature of Kievan Russia: Soviet Approaches

The plural “approaches” is not used without a reason. More recent Rus-sian works, in particular by M.B. Sverdlov,13 have shown that even dur-ing the most repressive periods of Stalinism Soviet historians were lessmonolithic in their treatment of Kievan Russia than one would perhapsexpect. Still, the unsuspecting Western reader will be struck by many

common traits in the style and argument of Soviet historiography of theperiod in question. The most comprehensive factor is the acceptance(or rather imposition) of Marxism-Leninism as a scientically veried9 I.Ia. Froianov, in accordance with his generally dissident views, oers another inter-

pretation of this passage; in Kievskaia Rus’. Glavnye cherty sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo stroia, S.Peterburg, 1999, 137-139.

10 From the translation by Pushkarev, op.cit ., which is clearer on this point than Cross/ Sherbowitz-Wetzor.

11 V.V. Mavrodin & I.Ia. Froianov, “F. Engel’s i nekotorye voprosy obshchinnogo zem-

levladeniia na Rusi IX-XII vv.”, Sovetskaia etnograia, 1972, No.1, 14-23.12 J. Blum, “The Smerd in Kievan Russia”, The American Slavic & East European Review,Vol.12 (1953), 122-130, at 124.

13 M.B. Sverdlov, Obshchestvennyi stroi Drevnei Rusi v russkoi istoricheskoi nauke XVIII-XXvv., S.Peterburg, 1996, Chapter 3 (168-321).




and therefore true doctrine, constituting the foundation of all scholarly work, including that of historians. For the latter, the tenets of historical

materialism were of prime relevance. This doctrine postulated the phasedadvance of societal development through the stages of the ‘clan-tribal way-of-life’ ( rodo-plemennyi byt ), slave-owning, feudalism, and capitalism, untilthese various exploitative forms of production would be overthrown by arevolution which would introduce socialism, gradually to be transformedinto communism.

This pattern required Soviet historians to qualify the various phasesof pre-Kievan and Kievan Russian history as either clan-tribal, slave-owning, or feudal. Once this had been done, the position taken could be

used to draw further conclusions. The leading historian from the Stalinistera, B.D. Grekov, for instance, in his discussion of the formation of therst towns, rst pointed to the existence of early towns, such as thosementioned in the 907 treaty with Byzantium. Then he continued thatsuch early towns were not real towns, because a town would imply theexistence of private property and a class society.14 So, on the basis of anallegedly scientic ideology Grekov stated that there were no towns inRussia at the beginning of the 10th century and the towns which he hadidentied before were declared to be non-towns. Another phenomenon,

baing to the uninitiated observer, was the mental anguish of some Soviethistorians about slave-owning in early Russian history. If Kievan Russia was declared to be a feudal society and the prehistoric Slavic populationfound itself obviously at the stage of the clan-tribal existence, then howabout slave-owning in Russia? Would it be possible, without oendingagainst the scientic laws of social development, to pass directly fromthe tribal-clan phase to feudalism?

The rigid schematism of the Marxist-Leninist approach was mostdebilitating in the Stalin era, although, as explained by Sverdlov, eventhen authors found ways around the most awkward ideological obstaclesand engaged in debates appearing esoteric and abstruse to outsiders, butin fact usually concerning very real scholarly issues which however couldnot be discussed in plain language.

The removal of the worst constraints after the death of Stalin andKhrushchev’s de-Stalinization campaign of 1956 created more space forscholarly debate, but left the Marxist-Leninist ideology more or less intact.Soviet scholars would still argue about the feudal character of Kievan Rus-

sia, a question of immediate relevance to the land tenure issue, becausein the Soviet Marxist view of feudalism ownership of agricultural landby a class of feudal lords, making use of the labour force of a dependent14 B.D. Grekov, Kievskaia Rus’ , Moskva, 1953, 58-59; in the English translation ( Kiev Rus,

Moscow, 1959), 127-128.




peasant population, was the very essence of the feudal system. The entire generation of Soviet medievalists working during the last three decades

of the Soviet system was still imbued with such Marxist ideas, perhaps without always being aware of it. Even after the demise of the SovietUnion and the widespread rejection of Marxist-Leninist ideology amongeducated Russians, the old ideas survive to a considerable extent throughtheir dominance in the traditional Soviet terminology.15 Only among the younger generation of historians, more exposed to international literatureand less to Soviet-style indoctrination, are the habits of the past wearingo.16

The impact of Marxist-Leninist ideology on the study of medieval

Russia can be summarized as occurring at three dierent levels: as an im-mediate source of knowledge, as a conceptual framework, and as mereterminology.

3. The Nature of Kievan Russia: Trade or Agriculture?

The relative importance of trade and agriculture in Kievan Russia is anissue which has been debated for more than a century. At one end of thespectrum, there is the view that agriculture had been the predominant

mode of production and economic determinant from very early, i.e. pre-historic times. Some of the proponents of this view, in particular someof the leading Soviet authors, held that large scale landownership and‘feudalization’ set in as early as the 7th century. The situation of KievanRussia was then considered to be generally similar to that of CarolingianEurope.17 Once the position had been taken, under Grekov’s leadership,that Kievan Russia represented a feudal society (in the Marxist sense),a number of other conclusions became more or less inevitable. Slaverydid not exist or was at least very unimportant, because a feudal economy

rested on the labour of serfs, not of slaves. Foreign trade could be neglected, because feudal economies were generally self-sucient. By thesame token, money did not play a major role in these economies. These

15 This is very noticeable, for instance, in the most recent edition of the leadinguniversity textbook on legal history by I.A. Isaev, Istoriia gosudarstva i prava Rossii ,Moskva (3rd rev. ed.), 2006.

16 A notable example in the eld concerned is the study by S.L. Nikol’skii, “O druzhinnomprave v epokhu stanovleniia gosudarstvennosti”, A.A. Gorskii (ed.), Srednevekovaia Rus’, Vyp.4, Moskva, 2004, 5-48.

17 Grekov’s work on Kievan Russia, quoted above, is an example. S.V. Iushkov, theleading Soviet legal historian from the era, took essentially the same position; cf .S.V. Iushkov, Ocherki po istorii feodalizma v Rossii , Moskva/Leningrad, 1939, 44. In the19th century, there was N. Khlebnikov, Obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v domongol ’skii period russkoi istorii , S.Peterburg, 1871.




considerations produced an already detailed picture of Kievan society,although not necessarily a correct one.

The opposite view was that the Kievan elite, the princes and boyars,derived their wealth primarily from trade, augmented by hunting and theacquisition of booty, and that large scale landownership did not assumesignicant importance before the 12th century. Parallels with Caroling -ian Europe would, therefore, be inappropriate and misleading. An earlyprotagonist of this view was Kliuchevskii.18 The few Western authors whoexpressed themselves occupied a more intermediate position; Blum, forinstance, agreed with earlier writers that large scale landownership did notappear in Kiev before the 11th century, but stressed that agriculture on

communal land still would have been the basic occupation of the bulk ofthe population.19 A similar view had been put forward by M. Szeftel.20

Vernadsky pointed out that in Kievan times hunting (including bee-keeping), agriculture and cattle-breeding, crafts and trades, as well asinternal and foreign trade, were all major economic factors. His ultimateconclusion was that Kievan Russia was more like Byzantium than likemedieval Europe; slavery was still a factor of some importance; serfdomexisted, but was in no way universal or even dominant as a source of la-bour; large scale landownership was present, but the landowners did not

constitute a closed class as in Europe, and small scale landownership wasstill a signicant phenomenon; the position of the elite rested more ontheir nancial strength, mainly based on their trading activities, than ontheir ownership of land.21

Among Soviet authors, I.Ia. Froianov’s was the most audible hetero-dox voice. His actual appraisal of Kievan Russia was closer to Western views, such as those of Vernadsky; but, at least in his earlier writings, it was clothed in traditional Soviet terminology. His starting-point was therejection of the ‘classic’ view proposed by Grekov, that Kievan Russia was a feudal society. Although Froianov did not deny the emergence of

18 Most explicitly in his Boiarskaia Duma Drevnei Rusi , S.Peterburg (3rd ed.), 1902, 13;in a more implicit form in his Kurs, Vol.1, lecture VII.

19 J. Blum, “The Beginnings of Large-Scale Private Landownership in Russia”, Speculum,1953, 776-790, and Lord and Peasant in Russia From the 9th to the 19th Century, Princeton,1961, 21.

20 M. Szeftel, “Aspects of Feudalism in Russian History”, R. Coulborn (ed.), Feudalismin History, Princeton, 1956, 167-182.

21 I have used the modern Russian edition: G.V. Vernadskii, Istoriia Rossii. Kievskaia Rus’ , Tver’/Moskva, 2004, Chapter V, esp. 179-189 (original English publication:G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, New Haven, 1948). This chapter had been publishedseparately as “On Feudalism in Kievan Russia”, The American Slavic & East European Review, Vol.7 (1948), 3-14.




certain feudal elements, he held that the ‘clan-tribal existence’ was stillthe dominant social form. Communes and individual producers were the

main owners and agents in agriculture, crafts and trade. These ideas havebeen elaborated in very extensive writings on various aspects of KievanRussia.22

In the post-Soviet era, Froianov’s views have found many followers inRussia, but they have in no way become the dominant trend. What ratherhas happened is that, freed from the constraints of the old ideologies,Russian medievalists have dispersed and present a much greater varietyof views on developments in Kievan Russia; as noted above, the old ter-minology still survives in most of the more recent works.23

Before continuing our examination of the question posed at the headof this section (agriculture of trade?), it might be helpful to look at anintermediate question rst, concerning the emergence of feudalism.

4. Interlude: Feudalism

First of all, there is the question of denition. It is not a decisive issue, butstill of considerable importance. Vernadsky has remarked, regarding theSoviet denition of feudalism, that a cat may properly be called a small

tiger, but that we may cause a lot of trouble by shouting “tiger” when wesee a cat crossing the road.24 If one follows Grekov in accepting that “theessence of feudalism was revealed only in the works of the founders ofMarxism-Leninism”, and that “a classical denition of the feudal system was given by Stalin”, then feudalism is the system in which “the basis ofproductive relations is the feudal lord’s ownership of the means of produc-

22 I.Ia. Froianov has authored three volumes entitled “Kievan Rus’” and in each ofthem the debate with the ‘ocial’ Soviet theory is taken up.

Kievskaia Rus’, Ocherki sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi istorii , Leningrad, 1974; this work

was a partial publication of the author’s doctoral thesis. A full publication followedin 1999 under the title Kievskaia Rus’, Glavnye cherty sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo stroia,S.Peterburg, 1999. See, esp., the sections on “Concerning the forms of communalland tenure in Kievan Russia” and “Princely land tenure and management”;

Kievskaia Rus’, Ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii , Leningrad, 1980, esp. the sectionon “The question of supreme landownership of the prince in Kievan Russia” and thechapter “Concerning the question of the seigneurial regime in Ancient Russia”;

Kievskaia Rus’, Ocherki otechestvennoi istoriograi , Leningrad, 1990, esp. the essayson “The economic occupations of the population of Ancient Russia in Soviet histo-riography” and “The genesis of feudalism in Russia in Soviet historiography”,

These three works have been republished in a single volume Nachala russkoi istorii (Iu.G. Alekseev, ed.), Moskva, 2001.23 A short survey of recent literature (until 1996) in the work of M.B. Sverdlov, quoted

above, 315-319.24 G. Vernadsky, in the article quoted above, at 5-6.




much weight as the dierence could in some cases be quite small. Secondly,Vernadsky argued that Kievan estates were more of a Byzantine type than of

a Western European. This is actually a petitio principii , for which hardly anyargument is adduced. The opposite could be stated with equal justication.Thirdly, land in Kievan Russia was not treated dierently, as compared toother private property; it could be disposed of (bequeathed, sold, bought,donated) without restriction. The available evidence, however, points inthe opposite direction. Fourthly, the authority of the Russian lord of themanor over his tenant farmers was more limited than that of his Europeancounterpart; agricultural production on the manor depended rather onslave labour than on the labour of serfs. Slavery admittedly still existed in

Kievan Russia, along with serfdom; it is dicult to determine their rela -tive weight. There is no doubt, however, that slavery was on the way outand that already in the time of the RP the two categories juxtaposed byVernadsky, the slaves ( kholopy ) and the serfs ( smerdy ), were merging. Fifth,the social position of the Russian boyar was signicantly dierent fromthat of the European baron; Vernadsky is, generally speaking, right on thispoint. Sixth, in early medieval Europe a close, natural economy prevailed, while Kievan Russia was primarily a money economy. Few would contestthat the role of trade and money constituted a real dierence with Western

Europe, but the decisive question is rather where the main wealth of theKievan princes and aristocracy was located, in treasure or in land. MostSoviet and Russian historians have put the emphasis on land.

All in all, the case for viewing Kievan Russia as more like Byzantiumthan like Western Europe is not as strong as it is made out by Vernadsky.On the other hand, Soviet historians have neglected important dierencesin the non-economic sphere. In Western Europe, feudalism gave birth to apolitical system consisting of a hierarchy of reciprocal personal relations,a system which, ideally, provided a balance of powers and of rights andduties between the various social classes. For a variety of reasons, sucha system never took root in Russia. For an explanation, one might pointto such factors as the importance of trade; the occupation of all princelyseats by the members of a single dynasty, the descendants of Rurik; theacceptance of Byzantine instead of Roman Christianity, with the ensuingparticular church-state relationship; the continuing incursions of Asiaticnomads, culminating in the Mongol conquest in the 13th century; and oth-ers. Such factors may explain how princely power remained unchallenged

and unchecked from below. The Russian boyar never became a Europeanknight. The essential contractual aspect of the feudal relationship did notdevelop, on account of the dominant position of the prince. Only excep-tionally, in Novgorod and Pskov, did a network of reciprocal rights and




duties arise, but the development of urban independence withered in theend when the power of the rulers of Muscovy had become irresistible.

This dierence between East and West has had a decisive impactin the sphere of political attitudes and spiritual values. The contractualbalance between lord and vassal, so characteristic of European feudalism,has been one of the main sources for the concept of the dignity and therights of the individual vis-à-vis the state (see, also, the chapter on humanrights). In the words of Marc Bloch, the last two sentences of his classic work on feudalism:

“Dans cet accent, mis sur l’idée d’une convention, capable de lier les pouvoirs, résidel’originalité de notre féodalité à nous. Par là, si dur aux petits qu’ait été ce régime, il

a véritablement légué à nos civilisations quelque chose dont nous souhaitons vivreencore.”29

Iushkov, who refers to most of the points of dierence identied abovein his comparison between European and Russian feudalism, is curiouslysilent on the aspect of spiritual values.30

5. The Nature of Kievan Russia: Continued

The main source of our knowledge of Kievan Russia is still the PrimaryChronicle. This may be a reassuring thought when one is faced with abewildering variety of opinions. Authors will attempt to ll the intersticesin the narrative of the Chronicle with bits of information from othersources, and, in the case of the ‘classics’ of Soviet history, with ideologicalpostulates derived from Marxism-Leninism. This then has resulted in anumber of quite divergent views on Kievan Russia.

Some of these additional sources could themselves be termed ‘Russian’:archaeological evidence, other contemporary written sources (althoughthey are not very numerous), later Russian sources which oer informa -

tion that could be extrapolated backwards in time, etc. Apart from allthese, there is the comparative approach, in which Kievan Russia is placedalongside other cultures and societies about which we are better informed.This of course is where the Byzantium/Carolingian Europe dilemmapresents itself. Although Soviet and Russian authors would naturally beinclined to delve rst of all into domestic materials, many of them havetaken account of the comparative aspect. Most of them would regard theWest European (Carolingian) parallels as the most promising, but quite

29 Bloch, as quoted above, last page of text. In a similar vein, but with a shift in em-phasis, Ganshof’s last sentence is: “It is to the sacredness formerly attached to the‘foi’ which bound together lord and vassal, that the high importance still attachedin Western Europe to the virtue of delity directly goes back.”

30 In his Ocherki po istorii feodalizma v Kievskoi Rusi , Moskva/Leningrad, 1939, 250-251.




a few favour the Byzantine connection. In the West, as explained above,the latter approach appears to be the most popular.

One of the arguments for favouring the Byzantine approach couldbe the undeniable cultural inuence of Byzantium on Kievan Russia. Few would deny that this inuence was in both qualitative and quantitativeterms far greater than the eects produced by contacts between KievanRussia and Central and Western Europe. In the eld of law this inuence,as we have argued in the chapter on “Roman Law in Medieval Russia”, was real but not comprehensive, and has been exaggerated by certainauthors.

When one culture is inuenced by another, it will usually become more

like the latter. But inuence says nothing about the degree of initial similar-ity. The fact that Byzantium inuenced Kievan Russia would presumablylead to the taking over of certain Byzantine institutions, attitudes, etc. inthe course of the history of Kievan Russia. But whether Kievan Russia,in its earlier phases, was more like Byzantium or like Western Europe isa question that has nothing to do with inuence.

Once this awareness has penetrated, the West European parallelmoves to the foreground.

During the rst millennium A.D., a number of ‘barbarian’ peoples

surrounded the declining Roman Empire at its northern and north-easternborders: Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic tribes among them. After they hadbeen converted to Christianity and had acquired written cultures, theearliest literatures of these peoples, reecting their recent pagan past,oer a surprisingly homogeneous picture. Old-Irish literature, Germanicepics like Beowulf and the Nibelungenlied (at least its most ancient layers),and the Old-Russian “Lay of the Warfare Waged by Igor” ( Slovo o polku Igoreve ) all present an ‘heroic’ society of kings surrounded by their trustedcomrades-in-arms, where valour in war, loyalty to one’s lord and friends,honour in their company, and the acquisition of wealth which is to beshared generously among them, are the central values. This heroic worldis of course also well known in the Mediterranean region, but in the muchmore distant Homeric past.

6. The Druzhina

For the Germanic, including the Scandinavian, peoples this culture isabundantly documented. In the oldest available evidence from Russia, the

echoes of the heroic era are still very audible. The earliest Kievan princesfrom the Rurikid dynasty are often shown as acting together with theirretinue, their druzhina. The origin of the oldest part of the RP is in fact




closely related to problems concerning the druzhina of Iaroslav the Wise(see the chapter on the RP ).

In Russia, since the 19th century, the druzhina issue has been con-nected with the so-called problem of the Normans which has continued toagitate scholars. Its origin is in the story of the Primary Chronicle aboutthe invitation sent out to the Vikings (in 860-862) after the Russians hadsaid to themselves: “Let us seek a prince who may rule over us and judgeus according to the Law.” Rurik and two of his brothers answered the call:“Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come to rule andreign over us.” Some of the vast literature concerning these events hasbeen coloured by political bias; the idea that Russia would submit to the

political leadership of Germanic princes was considered almost treacher-ous in Stalinist times, and any kind of foreign, let alone ‘barbarian’ Vikinginuence on the culture of Kievan Russia was declared to be impossible.But, even then, some of the more sober observers noted that the culturaldierences between a recently baptized Russia and early Christian or stillpagan Western and Northern Europe would probably not be that great.

Once Kievan Russia began to ourish, contacts with Western Europediminished, although they did not quite disappear (Iaroslav’s daughtersmarried the kings of Hungary, Norway, Denmark and France). Con-

nections with Byzantium then became more intense, until the Mongolconquest after 1240 made these connections more burdensome, althoughnot impossible.

The overwhelming reality of these contacts, however, and this facthas inexplicably been overlooked by the supporters of the ‘Byzantineparallel’, was that Byzantine culture and political institutions existed ina completely dierent setting than their counterparts in Kievan Russia.Byzantium was the heir of more than thousand years of Roman historyand it had very little in common with the ways of early Kievan Russia. Inthis respect, Soviet historians, notwithstanding their overly schematicMarxist approach of a tribal-clan society making the transition to a feudalone, were actually on the right track.

In a recent study by S.L. Nikol’skii, this schematism is criticised, while at the same time the positive achievements of past scholarship arefurther developed. Nikol’skii notes that:

“[…] for a long time in our national scholarship a formation scheme of the historicalprocess was dominant in which the Old-Russian state was considered to be feudalfrom its very start. This postulate compelled students of ancient Russian law tosearch for—and nd—the expression of the feudalization process of the Old-Russiansociety in the oldest written legal records.”31

31 S.L. Nikol’skii, “O druzhinnom prave v epokhu stanovleniia gosudarstvennosti naRusi”, A.A. Gorskii (ed.), Srednevekovaia Rus’, Vyp.4, Moskva, 2004, 5-48, at 5.




“We are the envoys and merchants of the Russian nation: Ivar, the envoy of Igor, grand prince of Rus’, and the general envoys Vuefast for Sviatoslav, Igor’s son, Iskusevi[Isgaut] for the princess Olga [Igor’s wife], Sludy [Slothi] for Igor, Igor’s nephew,

Ouleb [Olaf] for Vladislav, Kanitsar for Predslava, Shikhbern [Sigbjorn] for Sfandr[Svanhild], Ouleb’s [Olaf] wife, Pras’ten’ [Freystein] for Turduv [Thorth], Libiar [Leif]for Fastov [Arfast], Grim for Sr’kov [Sverki], Prasten [Freystein] for Akun [Haakon],nephew of Igor, [and thirteen more of such pairs, plus one single individual Sverki],and the merchants [follows a list of 25 Scandinavian names], sent by Igor, grand princeof Rus’, and from each prince and all the people of the Russian land.”

It is hardly a coincidence that the number of envoys equals the numberof merchants. Of course, the persons represented are of a higher statusthan their envoys (except the separately mentioned Sverki, who appar-

ently turned up himself). Also, the list is headed by Igor’s wife and hisson; other relatives follow and it is safe to assume that Predslava is oneof them. The third woman mentioned, Svanhild, is included on behalfof her husband Olaf (probably deceased). Most of the names of thoserepresented are Scandinavian, except a few who appear to be close andprobably related to Igor himself.

All this ts perfectly into the druzhina construction, where a numberof aristocratic personalities (they are called ‘princes’), each having theirown military and trading interests, combine under the leadership of a

king-like gure.For the same year, the Primary Chronicle oers an entry of particularinterest for understanding the druzhina system. Igor’s druzhina addressedits lord as follows: “The servants of Sveinald are adorned with weaponsand ne raiment, but we are naked. Go forth with us, prince, after tribute,that both you and we may prot thereby.” Sveinald, as later entries in theChronicle show, was a great magnate, who served as commander-in-chiefafter Igor’s death and during the minority of his son Sviatoslav. The treatyof 971 with Byzantium was concluded by “Sviatoslav, grand prince of Rus’,

and by Sveinald”, without any indication of the latter’s status. He obviouslyhad a druzhina of his own and was not an immediate relative of the prince.His absence among the signatories of the 945 treaty is conspicuous.

All through the period covered by the Primary Chronicle, i.e. up to1116, the druzhina remains present as the prince’s retinue, taking an activepart in political and military decision-making and being actually aroundthe prince most of the time. In a few cases (in 996, 1078 and 1093), theChronicle refers to the prince being accompanied by a “small druzhina”;then a small detachment in the nature of a bodyguard is obviously meant.This would agree with the subsequent development of the druzhina; in theFirst Novgorod Chronicle, the druzhina is still in evidence; initially, in thesame sense as in the Primary Chronicle, but later on more and more asan ordinary detachment of moderate size. The members of such a force




were just regular soldiers and not any longer the personal companionsand advisors of the prince. The Novgorod Chronicle relates, for instance,

that Danislav Lazutinich went to Kiev in 1167 with a druzhina to princeMstislav; Nezdila Pekhtinich went in the year 1200 as voevoda (militarycommander) with a small druzhina to a place in Livonia, where he killed40 men and captured their wives and children.

Initially, the druzhina/retinue/ Gefolgschaft from the heroic age wasa small band of companions of the leader, well documented by the epicliterature of various European peoples. The druzhina from the earlyKievan period still possessed most characteristics of its precursor; therst Rurikid princes are shown to function within and partly through their

druzhiny. The essential equality of the druzhina members did not preventa dierence in status among individual members. There are many moreor less indirect indications of this; for instance, the frequent occurrenceof one or two leading persons who seemed to act as the prince’s closestadvisors.34 In 1093, the Primary Chronicle speaks directly of the ‘senior’or rst druzhina of the Kievan grand prince Vsevolod.

Prominent druzhina members are mentioned as receiving importantappointments; St. Vladimir made his trusted mentor and maternal uncleDobrynia governor of Novgorod in 980 and even the founder of the

dynasty, Rurik himself, is reported (860-862) as assigning major towns(Polotsk, Rostov and Beloozero, and their surrounding provinces, as onemay assume) to his followers (his muzhi , which usually refers to druzhina members).

In older Russian and especially Soviet literature, the gifts or grantsmade to druzhina members, particularly where they concerned land, havebeen studied through the prism of a modern ownership concept. TheMarxist perspective made such an approach inevitable. The question, then,became to establish at which moment in the socio-political developmentthe grantee started to acquire ownership. As argued above, this approachhas serious drawbacks. One generally agrees that initially the assignmentof land was for the purposes of government administration and, there-fore, personal and temporary. The appointee obviously would need to get a certain income from his appointment and various possibilities havebeen proposed.35 The personal character of the appointment worked two ways: it only concerned the person of the appointee and it depended on

34

Sveinald, in the times of Igor and Sviatoslav, has been mentioned above. At aboutthe same time and somewhat later, there are Dobrynia, St.Vladimir’s maternal uncle,and the generals Blud and Variazhko (in 980). Several generations later, in the timesof Iaroslav’s sons, we nd Vyshata and his son Ian (1043, 1069).

35 See not only the modern Russian works quoted in the footnotes above, but alsoolder works, such as S.V. Iushkov, Ocherki po istorii feodalizma v Kievskoi Rusi , Moskva/ Leningrad, 1939, esp. 51-53 and 144-158.




the person of the prince as grantor; if the prince was deposed, the grantbecame factually void.

In time, the character of such grants changed; they became morepermanent and in the end also inheritable. One of the chronologically youngest layers of the Expanded Pravda is devoted to inheritance lawand article 91 provides that if a boyar or a druzhinnik dies, his estate doesnot return to the prince. If there are no sons, the daughters will inherit.How this process evolved remains a much-debated problem, because thesources are almost silent on this point.

7. Conclusion

The way a society handles the land it has at its disposal tells us very muchabout that society itself. For a polity such as Kievan Russia, the questionof land ownership is not very suitable as an approach, because a modern‘digital’ ownership concept did not operate then; ownership in land oc-curred at several levels simultaneously.

For similar reasons, the feudalism debate (was Kievan Russia feudal?)is fruitless. The feudalism concept which is still dominant in Russia hasits roots in Marxism and in 19th century ideas about ownership.

The trade-or-agriculture dilemma, in the study of Kievan Russia, isa more realistic issue. It is usually connected with another question: wasKievan Russia more like Byzantium (trade) or like Carolingian Europe (ag-riculture)? The admission that trade was of greater importance in KievanRussia than in Carolingian Europe does not take away from the fact that interms of general cultural level, societal and economic development, KievanRussia was much more like Carolingian Europe than Byzantium.

In this respect, the recent emphasis on the importance of the druzhina,the princely retinue, as a central factor in the politico-legal structure, is

signicant. The origin of the boyar class of landowners of the followingcenturies was primarily in the druzhina of Kievan Rus’.



Chapter 5

Popular Assemblies in Early Medieval Russia:

The Veche in Legal History

Among the ancestors of the Russian State Duma, pride of place belongsto the veche or popular assembly of Novgorod. Its rst recorded meeting was in 1016. It was abolished by Ivan III in 1478 after Novgorod’s subjuga -tion to Moscow. No body of popular representation in Russia can boastsuch a long period of operation.1 The activities of the Novgorod veche,its procedures, its jurisdiction, its composition, have been and still are asubject of lively debate in Russian historiography.2 The primary sources areto be found in the medieval Russian chronicles, rst of all the NovgorodChronicle.

The prominent role of the Novgorod veche in medieval Russia hasunderstandably overshadowed the activities of veches in other Russiancities. In respect of the latter, there is a relative paucity of sources. Also,the role of the veche in other Russian cities diminished sharply after theTataro-Mongol3 invasions in the middle of the 13th century. Neverthe-

1 As explained below, the veche of Pskov functioned until 1510; but Pskov only became

independent of Novgorod in 1347/1348, and little is known about the existence oroperation of a veche in Pskov in the earlier period. A brief survey of the main as-pects of the early Russian veche may also be found in M. Szeftel, “La participationdes assemblées populaires dans le gouvernment central de la Russie depuis l’époquekiévienne jusqu’à la n du XVIII siècle”, Receuils de la Société Jean Bodin, Vol.25, 339-365, at 339-345. Recently a new study on the veche appeared, J. Granberg, Veche in theChronicles of Medieval Rus: A Study of Functions and Terminology, Göteborg, 2004 (notavailable to me); an abbreviated translation (“Veche v drevnerusskikh pis’mennostnykhistochnikakh: Funktsii i terminologiia”) appeared in T.V. Gimon & E.A. Mel’nikova(eds.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2004 god. Politicheskie instituty Drevnei

Rusi , Moskva, 2006. This work also oers a list of direct chronicle references to theterm veche on pp.150-161.2 V.O. Kliuchevskii’s Kurs russkoi istorii, Lektsiia XXIII , is still a good introduction to

the institutions of medieval Novgorod. This work was rst published in 1904 andhas been republished several times in editions of Kliuchevskii’s collected worksSochineniia. I have used the 1956-1959 edition; the chapters on Novgorod are in Vol.2(1957), 54-104. See, also, K. Onasch, Gross-Novgorod. Aufstieg unde Niedergang einer russischen Stadtrepublik, Wien, 1969. The most prominent Novgorod expert amongpresent-day Russian historians is V.I. Ianin; see, for instance, Ianin and M.Kh. Aleshkovskii, “Proiskhozhdenie Novgoroda”, in Istoriia SSSR, 1971, No.2, 32-61; fora recent overview: Velikii Novgorod v istorii srednevekovoi Evropy [Ianin Festschrift],Moscow, 1999.

3 Although the empire founded by Chingis-Khan was Mongol in its origin, its mas-sive absorption of Turkic elements soon resulted in an ethnic metamorphosis which




less, the Novgorod veche can only be understood properly if it is regardedas a specic and perhaps atypical outcome of the developments of the

preceding centuries.There are also other reasons, apart from the importance of the veche of Novgorod, for looking more closely at the early medieval Russian veche.It is, rst of all, an essential component for constructing a comprehensive view of Kievan Russia. There are also interesting parallels with similarinstitutions in West European legal history. And, on a dierent plane, theveche has enjoyed increased interest in recent times when it is often seenas a precursor of present democratic institutions.

Before considering the early Russian veche briey from these various

points of view, a survey of the main sources and the principal character-istics is required.

1. Sources

The basic sources concerning the early Russian veche are the medievalRussian chronicles, especially the Primary or Nestor Chronicle; for theNovgorod veche the Novgorod Chronicle must be added. Although thePrimary Chronicle remains the main source of information on the earlyperiod of Kievan Rus, its narrative stops at 1116, and the next generationof Russian medieval chronicles, such as the Suzdal’ Chronicle, have to beconsulted.4

The earliest reference to a veche dates from 997; there are a handfulof references from the 11th century; after 1100, they get more numerous.For the later period, especially after the Tataro-Mongol invasions around1240, most references, although not all of them, concern veches in Novgorodand Pskov. Medieval Russian legislation provides little information onthe activities of the veche, but still should not be altogether disregarded

in this respect. A useful secondary source is N.M. Karamzin’s monumental IstoriiaGosudarstva Rossiiskago, whose extensive footnotes oer long quotationsfrom the various chronicles on which the work is based.5 Among the pre-revolutionary Russian legal historians, V.I Sergeevich devoted much atten-

made contemporaries look upon the invaders as ‘Tatars’ (at the time, a collectivename denoting the population of Asia). A subsequent association with Greek tartaros

(underworld) was responsible for the common European misnomer ‘Tartars’.4 The Laurentian text of the Suzdal’ Chronicle in PSRL, Vol.1 part 2, Leningrad,1927.

5 N.M. Karamzin (1766-1836), Istoriia Gosudarstva Rossiiskago, 12 volumes, S.Peterburg,1816-1829 (hereafter: Karamzin).



The Veche in Legal History 149

tion to the veche; the second part of his work on Russian legal antiquitiesis entitled “Veche and Prince”.6

Most of the leading Soviet medievalists have written about the veche,but the discussion was mostly about aspects of the veche which wouldassign it a place within the ocially established views on Kievan Russia:How ‘democratic’ was the veche in its composition? How marginal was it within the political system? Was it really an ancient institution?7

2. Five Centuries of Veche History

The rst time the Primary Chronicle mentions a veche is under the entryfor the year 997. In a tale about the siege of Belgorod (a new town foundedby St.Vladimir of Kiev in 9918 ) by the Pechenegs, the chronicler recountshow the population of the town, pressed by starvation, assembled to decideon the best course of action. The decision to surrender the town was thenoverturned by the town-elders, at the request of an old man, who suggesteda ruse. Divested of its legendary aspects (the execution of an elaboratedeception, reminiscent of other stories of Near Eastern origin, to leadthe Pechenegs astray), the brief narrative already contains several of theelements of the functioning of the veche which return in later reports.9

The veche is, in principle, an assembly of the whole town population. Itappears to have the power to decide certain important questions. Localelites (the town-elders) may act independently.10

6 V.I. Sergeevich, Drevnosti russkago prava, vols.1-3, S.Peterburg, 1909, 1908, 1903; therst four chapters of Vol.2 are devoted to the veche (hereafter: Sergeevich, DrevnostiII). Of considerable interest is also the work of M.A. D’iakonov, Ocherki obshchestvennago i gosudarstvennago stroia Drevnei Rusi , S.Peterburg (2nd ed.), 1908, 115-136.

7 The discussion is conveniently summarized by I.Ia. Froianov in Kievskaia Rus’; Ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii , Leningrad, 1980 (hereafter: Froianov, 1980), 150-184. Ofthe Western literature on the veche, along with the study by Granberg (mentionedabove), the work by K. Zernack should be mentioned ( Die burgstädtischen Volksver- sammlungen bei den Ost- und Westslaven. Studien zur verfassungsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Veče, Wiesbaden, 1967). I have not been able to consult this work.

8 PSRL Vol.1, part 2, col.122. This date does not tally with another entry (under the year 980) in the Primary Chronicle, where it is stated that Vladimir, “insatiable in vice”, maintained 300 concubines in Belgorod; one would expect this entry to referto Vladimir’s days as a pagan, i.e. before 988. According to Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor in their translation of the Primary Chronicle, footnote 83, the 991 entryshould be interpreted as meaning that Vladimir fortied an already existing town.

9

Further references in Froianov, 1980, 160-162.10 P.B. Lukin (“K voprosu o tak nazyvaemom sovete v domongol’skoi Rusi”, Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy, 2003, Moskva 2005, 132-142) has recently drawn theattention to the confusion surrounding the unstable terminology in the sources: where terms other than veche are used, such as “council” ( sovet ), many authors haveassumed the presence of another, smaller, body; sometimes, however, an actual general assembly of the population may be meant.




From 997 to 1510, the chronicles report frequently on the holding ofveches in various Russian towns. The last veche of an independent popula-

tion was held in Pskov, in 1510, when the town nally had to submit to theMoscow grand prince. The ve centuries of veche history may neatly bedivided into two equally long periods: before and after the Tataro-Mongolinvasions in the middle of the 13th century. During the second period, asmentioned above, the veche was primarily a matter of the city-states ofNovgorod and Pskov.

The story of the veche during the rst period is told completely ad-equately by Sergeevich in the rst chapter of his second volume on theantiquities of Russian law. It will be sucient to summarize his ndings

here and add an occasional comment.

3. The Veche in Early Kievan Russia

The veche is frequently mentioned by name in the chronicles, but moreoften its activity is implied in other terminology, such as “the people ofsuch-and-such a town assembled and decided that […]”. If all these reportsare collected, a very signicant body of evidence concerning the veche emerges. Novgorod and Kiev appear of course most often in the chroni-

cles, but also most other important towns of the era: Chernigov, Vladimir(on the Kliazma), Polotsk, Smolensk, Suzdal’, Iaroslavl’, Vladimir-Volynsk,Rostov, Riazan’; there are occasional reports about veches in subordinateprovincial towns: Moscow, Zvenigorod, Briansk, Putivl’, Pronsk, and oth-ers. A famous entry in the Suzdal’ Chronicle states (under the year 1176)that the people of Novgorod, Smolensk, Kiev, Polotsk, “and all lands” [ivsia vlasti ] would assemble for consultation at the veche “from time im-memorial” ( iznachala ).11

11

PSRL ,Vol.1, part 2, col.377, cf . Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 1-2; also Froianov, 1980,155-160. On the events in 1176, see, also, Iu.A. Limonov, Vladimiro-Suzdal’skaia Rus’ ,Leningrad, 1987, 117-149.

A few Russian authors, as well as J. Granberg (quoted above in note 1), argue thatonly those places in the chronicles which speak explicitly about the veche as suchshould be taken into account in investigating the nature of the veche. On this ba-sis, Granberg held that the veche was not a political institution, but merely a termdenoting an assembly of the urban population. Although my analysis of the veche is generally close to that of Granberg, I believe that her position on the point indicatedintroduces an unnecessary semantic complication. The juxtaposition of chronicleplaces which explicitly refer to veche meetings and other places which refer to urbanassemblies acting in a similar manner is articial, as has also been pointed out inRussian literature; there are even passages which rst mention popular assemblies,referring to these later on as veche meetings. Cf . T.L. Vilkul, “Konstruirovanie nar-rativa v parallel’nykh letopisnykh soobshchenniiakh o veche”, in the same volumeas Granberg’s study, 210-243, at 212.




The majority of reports about veche meetings is connected with thedynastic crises which occurred with great regularity in Kievan Russia.12

Two examples may be recounted briey.The unity of the Kievan empire, established by St.Vladimir, was moreor less maintained by his son Iaroslav the Wise (†1054); the latter’s eldestson, Iziaslav, inherited the throne of Kiev, and two other sons, Sviatoslavand Vsevolod, became princes of Chernigov and Pereiaslavl’ respectively. A feud already existed between these brothers and their nephew Vseslav,the grandson of Iaroslav the Wise’s elder brother Iziaslav.13 Vseslav hadbeen arrested treacherously by Iziaslav Iaroslavich of Kiev and incarcer-ated in Kiev. In the course of a campaign against the nomad Polovtsians,

Iziaslav, who was already unpopular in Kiev, completely fell out with hisown people, who called a veche and issued an ultimatum to their prince.Iziaslav ed in a hurry and the Kievans proclaimed Vseslav, liberated fromhis dungeon, grand prince of Kiev. After seven months and under threatfrom a counterattack by Iziaslav, Vseslav absconded, and the Kiev veche invited Iziaslav back as their prince.14

The next major crisis erupted in 1097 in the aftermath of the Liubechpeace conference. The sons and grandsons of some of the participants inthe previous crisis met to patch up their dierences, and a solemn pact

of unity was concluded. Soon hostilities broke out again, and this time it was in particular the veche of Vladimir which played an active role, along with the Kiev veche. The following excerpt of the complicated story hasto suce. David Ol’govich, prince of Vladimir, was being besieged by hiscousin Vasil’ko Rostislavich, prince of Terebovl’. The latter demandedthe extradition of three advisors of David, whom he (Vasil’ko) consideredresponsible for David ordering him (Vasil’ko) to be blinded. The people ofVladimir told their prince David at a veche meeting that they would ghtfor him, but not for his advisors, who were then handed over to Vasil’ko.Later on, in the same year, David was driven from the town of Vladimir12 The background of these crises was the peculiar nature of the Kievan confederation

(if one could call it that), based on the collective right to rule of the Rurikid house.This matter is discussed at greater length in the chapters on “The Elder Brother inRussia” and “The Treaties of Medieval Russia”.

13 This Iziaslav, prince of Polotsk, died before his father St.Vladimir. The original sys-tem of Rurikid succession did not allow for substitution in case a son predeceasedhis father; his line remained forever in a disadvantaged position. Traces of a similarsystem may be observed in pre-medieval Germanic dynastic succession, among the

Merovingians and Carolingians.14 Primary Chronicle, 1068-1069; PSRL Vol.1, part 1, col.171-173; Karamzin, Vol.II, 43-

44; I.Ia. Froianov, Drevniaia Rus’ , S.Peterburg, 1995, 173-195 (a reworking of “Veche vKieve 1068-1069 gg.”, V.A. Ezhov (ed.), Iz istorii feodal’noi Rossii [Mavrodin Festschrift],Leningrad, 1978, 38-46).




by his cousins, and Mstislav, son of Sviatopolk, was installed as prince ofVladimir. David returned and laid siege to the town. Mstislav was killed

and the Vladimir veche sent an ultimatum to his father Sviatopolk to theeect that they would surrender the town to David unless Sviatopolk would come and relieve them promptly.15

Similar developments were recurrent all through the 12th century. To grasp the general picture one has to leave aside more modern concepts ofthe state, of sovereignty, federalism, etc.

4. The Kievan ‘Empire’

The polity of Kievan Rus’ was ethnically dened, in principle. The Poles( Liakhi ), the Hungarians ( Ougry ), the Finnish tribes in the North (theChud’ and others), the Turkic nomads such as the Pechenegs and thePolovtsians, were outsiders. The Russians were divided into groups whosedesignations were derived from the major town in their territory: the Ki-evans, the Novgorodians, the people from Smolensk ( Smoliane ), Polotsk( Polochane ), etc. These terms may refer, depending on the context, to theinhabitants of the town or of the entire territory of which the town wasthe focal point. The larger town areas had their roots in earlier tribal

divisions among the Eastern Slavs (Dregovichi, Poliane, Radimichi, etc.),as such divisions are documented for the protohistorical period in thePrimary Chronicle. It was only St.Vladimir and his immediate forbears who eliminated other independent tribal princes. Henceforth, until theruling line of the Rurikid house died out soon after the death of Ivan theTerrible (1584), the title of prince ( kniaz’ ) and the right to rule could belongonly to a member of this house.

5.Veche and Prince

The available evidence suggests that at the dawn of Russian history generalpopular assemblies played an important part in the political decision-making process. Along with the text from the annals, quoted above, thatpeople had been assembling in veches of old in the Russian territories,there are for instance clear references in the 10th century treaties withByzantium. In the treaty of 945, the emissaries stated that they had beensent by the grand prince Igor, his princes and boyars and the whole peopleof Rus’ (which in this instance meant Kiev).16 The treaty of 971 was con-

15 PSRL Vol.1, part 1, cols.256-273; Froianov, 1980, 164-167.16 The text of the 945 (944) treaty is in the Primary Chronicle under the year 945;

PSRL Vol.1, part 1, cols.46-53; also in PPR I, Moskva, 1952, 30-53 (A.A. Zimin, ed.);Russian text and English translation in Kaiser, Laws, 8-12; see, also, I. Sorlin, “Lestraités de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe siècle”, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique, Vol.II (1961), 313-360 and 447-475; and A.N. Sakharov, Diplomatiia Drevnei Rusi–pervaia polovina X v., Moskva, 1980.




cluded by the Kievan grand prince Sviatopolk who stated that his boyarsand “all Russia” agreed with him.17

The two examples from the Primary Chronicle, related above, to which numerous others could be added, demonstrate that the veche couldact independently; it was obviously not only much more than an advisorybody to the prince, but also more than a co-governing body, whose consent was required. The veche in many Russian towns could invite and dismissits own prince. These powers might perhaps go back to arrangements inprehistoric times, but at least for the Kievan period they can be explainedadequately in light of the dynastic peculiarities of Rurikid rule (see, also,the chapter on “The Elder Brother in Russia”).

The dynasty founded by St.Vladimir stood out by its prolicity.Within a few generations, there were scores of princes who had to beprovided with a livelihood, i.e. a place to rule. By virtue of the seniorityor starshinstvo principle, the death of a more senior prince would result ina reshuing of the princely seats. As long as the size of the ruling houseremained modest, the most important princes would each occupy oneof the major town-territories, corresponding roughly to the old tribalprincipalities: Novgorod, Polotsk, Rostov, Vladimir and others, with theirfather or eldest brother residing in Kiev.

The continuous coming and going of princes implied in this systemallowed the towns concerned to strengthen their position vis-à-vis theirprince. The veche could probably claim an ancient right to approve ordisapprove of its prince, perhaps also to elect and dismiss him; but, inthe course of the Kievan period at any rate, the strategic weakening ofthe prince’s position led to the institutionalization of this right by meansof a riad , a contract between the veche and the prince.18 Such a contract was invariably concluded at the prince’s accession, but a new contractcould be concluded when circumstances had changed. There is evidencethat a riad was even concluded with a prince who had imposed himselfby force, usually by ejecting his predecessor. This contract was formallyconrmed by oath by both sides kissing the Cross ( krestnoe tselovanie ).The contractual formula, once the riad started to be written down, wasactually in the form of a request, and a declaration of readiness, to kissthe Cross. This is evidenced by the later contracts (or treaties) betweenNovgorod and a series of princes of Tver’, of which the rst one extantdates from 1264.19

17 PSRL Vol.1, part 1, col.73.18 More extensively on the riad , Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 80-92.19 S.N. Valk (ed.), Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, Moskva/Leningrad, 1949 (here-

after GVNP ), 9-10; see, also, the chapter on “The Treaties of Medieval Russia”.




As no actual texts of riady from the earlier Kievan period have survived, speculation on their contents must mainly be based on inferences

from the generally laconic statements in the chronicles. It is clear thatthe basic duties of the prince embraced military and civil leadership infurthering the interests of his territory and its populace. The chroniclesoften make the point that a town (and it territory) without a prince was to be pitied and was as a defenceless orphan. In those chronicallytroubled times the prince, who had his own armed retinue, the druzhina,at this disposal, was usually the most reliable rallying-point for militaryorganization. The political direction, if one could call it that, of militaryoperations often remained with the veche, as indicated by a number of

incidents where the prince was ordered or forbidden to engage in certaincampaigns. In case of serious hostilities, an army would have to be raisedfrom the population, and this may also contribute to the explanation ofthe veche’s interest in the prince’s military intentions and capabilities, andof its inuence on the policies to be adopted.

In a wider sense, the veche would usually also claim a deciding vote in‘foreign aairs’, that is to say in dening relationships with other Russianprincipalities, in questions of war and peace.

For his eorts the prince received certain revenues, to be raised from

various taxes and court-fees. The latter, in particular, were connected withthe increasing role of organized government which slowly began to assumelegislative and judicial functions.

6. Composition of the Veche

As an institution whose roots went back into prehistory, the veche didnot enjoy a clear-cut institutional framework. Two aspects may be distinguished, its territorial and its social composition. Initially, as mentioned

before, while the dynasty was still small, sons and younger brothers ofthe Kievan grand prince would take up residence in the other majortowns (among which Novgorod ranked rst); with the town came a largeterritory. These towns together with the entire province around them were the origin of the Russian principalities of later centuries. With theproliferation of the Rurikids, individual branches of the family tended tohold on to the territories of their respective ancestors, which resulted insub-dynasties in places like Vladimir, Chernigov, Tver’, Smolensk, etc.20 Within those sub-dynasties, junior princes would usually be granted so-

20 This tendency was already noticeable in the results of the Liubech conference of1097 (mentioned before), where the cousins specically agreed to settle each forthe domains of their respective fathers ( derzhit’ otchinu svoiu ), PSRL Vol.1, part 1,col.257.




called apanage principalities ( udely or udel’nye kniazhestva ). Moscow, forinstance, was originally a minor principality within the old principality of

Vladimir; Pskov was subordinate to Novgorod. In some cases, especially with regard to Kiev and Novgorod, certain relatively important townshad the rank of a suburb ( prigorod ).

Kievan towns like Chernigov, Pereiaslavl’, or Belgorod, often had theirown prince. So did Pskov. Still, these subordinate towns would usuallysend their own representatives to the veche of Kiev, or Novgorod. Veches ofmajor towns, and numerous chronicle reports refer to such events, wouldtherefore encompass, as a rule, participants from other towns subordinateto the regional capital. Equally, members of the rural population of the

province might be present at the veche in the capital town.In other cases, attendance at the veche could be much more restricted.There are several stories of veches assembling during the siege of a town,and then obviously only the townspeople could attend. Aveche might alsobe called in the eld during a military campaign. Minor towns could havetheir own veche meeting. The inescapable conclusion from the abundantevidence in the chronicles is that the veche was actually an assembly ofthe people at hand.

Of all the people? This concerns the second aspect of the composition

of the veche, the social side. Taking account of the mental and culturalsetting of the medieval veche, one may easily understand that womencould not take part and that fathers would speak for their sons. More in-triguing is the eect of social stratication. A number of reports providemore detail by mentioning the various groups of participants: the higherclergy (the metropolitan in Kiev and the bishop in other major towns),the boyars, the leading citizens ( luchshie liudi , narochitye liudi ), merchants,common people ( chernye liudi , the chern’ ), but the enumeration often ends with a formula like “and all the people of […]”. Commentators generallyagree that this formula should be understood as referring to all the freepeople and would therefore exclude slaves, whose existence in early KievanRussia is not in doubt.

That the entire free population was in principle entitled to participatein the veche is further conrmed by several reports about the participantsbeing armed. Inevitably, the annalists wrote mainly about dramatic eventsand crises, and the most common disturbances were war and civil strife. Itis quite conceivable that important peaceful projects, such as the building

of a cathedral or a change in the tax system, were discussed in the veche, and whether people would come to such meetings fully armed is unknown.On the other hand, the democratic character of the veche should

not be understood in the modern sense. Whatever evidence is available




from the chronicles suggests that a more stratied view of society wasall-pervasive: society was looked upon as a hierarchical structure where

every person or group had its proper place: princes and bishops at the top,then the greater nobles (boyars), other leading citizens, ordinary people,dependent persons. This is already the picture presented by the ancienttexts of the treaties with Byzantium, and it remains more or less unchangeduntil in the end the exceptionally exalted position of the Moscow grandprince overshadowed all other social distinctions. Veche debates were un-doubtedly dominated by the socially prominent, but occasionally sociallymotivated anger would are up and the chern’ (the ‘black’ people) wouldrise and chastize the rich and powerful, burn their houses and rob their

wealth, earning themselves the stern disapproval of the annalists.No simple answer can be given to the question of the presence andparticipation of the prince. In the view of those times, there should inprinciple be a prince in every territory. However, the princely throne couldbe vacant, on account of the last prince having died or having been ejected.But even in the normal case when there was a ruling prince, the evidenceshows that it was very well possible to hold veche meetings without him. Among later authors, and possibly also in the minds of some annalists,there exists a concept of an unlawful veche, when a veche is condemned

because of its obviously unsatisfactory composition (when it was littlemore than a conspiracy) or when it grossly violated the deal ( riad ) made with its prince by the purpose of its convocation and the decisions taken.In such a case, the meeting could be regarded as a form of rebellion ortreason ( kramola ). There are, on the other hand, far more instances of veche meetings without the prince and leading to the dismissal of the prince, which are obviously regarded as normal and proper.21

7. Veche Procedure

Another aspect of the low degree of institutionalization of the veche con-cerns its convocation and procedure. There was apparently no dened rightto call a veche; occasionally one sees the prince or the bishop or anotherimportant person taking the initiative, but in most cases the people justassembled. Ringing the church bells was the accepted way of calling thepeople together, at least in later times and in towns. The chronicles report

21 A prominent proponent of the possibility of the ‘unlawful veche’ was M.F. Vladimirskii-Budanov, Obzor istorii russkogo prava, Rostov-na-Donu (rst published 1886), 1995, 74-82, 288-289; Karamzin, Vol.IV, 148 and note 320, also accepts the possibility, withoutany argument. Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 98-101, lists a number of arguments againstthe construction. See, also, Froianov, 1980, 150-158, whose views are generally closeto those of Sergeevich.




the existence of a special veche bell, not only in Novgorod and Pskov, butalso in Vladimir.22

Neither was there a regular procedure to be followed. High clericsoccasionally exercised a moderating inuence and might thus have actedas a kind of chairmen, but on the whole the procedure seems to have beenchaotic. This often led to violence among the participants and, in suchcases, the side that came out on top would carry the day in the veche. Attimes, feelings would run so high that the veche turned into a lynchingmob. There are several reports of veche meetings in which the prince wasdeposed and the crowd then went on to pillage and plunder the prince’spalace and the houses of his supporters.

Sergeevich’s explanation is worth restating.23 The rightness of a deci-sion, he argues, had nothing to do, in the eyes of the medieval Russians, with the number of its supporters. Only unanimity could justify it. Aminority, convinced of the correctness of its position, would not easily give in. Therefore, force would often be the only way out; the weaker sidecould be beaten into submission, or chased away, and unanimity wouldensue. The operation of this mechanism was further reinforced by theabsence, or at least weakness, of a separate executive. The participants ofthe veche themselves had to execute the most important decisions, and this

would be almost impossible if there was no unanimity. To take recourseto sticus was not such a bizarre procedure in a system which regularlymade judicial use of duels to nd out “the will of God”.

8. The Veche after 1240

In 1236 the armies of Baty (or Batu), one of the grandsons of Chingis-Khan,appeared and defeated the Turkic Bolgars of the Middle Volga region.In December 1237 Riazan’, the easternmost and therefore most exposed

of the Russian principalities fell. In 1238, the capital cities of most otherRussian principalities surrendered to the Mongols or were taken by storm.The fall of Kiev in December 1240 signied the end of the era of KievanRus’. Only the city-states of Novgorod and Pskov in the Northwest werespared Mongol invasion.

The particular character of Tataro-Mongol overlordship had a pro-found eect on Russia; but, from a legal point of view, a break with thepast was more dicult to observe, at least in the beginning. In modernterms, the Tatar khan could be designated as the sovereign.24 He was22 Karamzin, Vol.IV, note 302.23 Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 62-72.24 On the conceptualization of Mongol rule in Russia during the Middle Ages and sub-

sequently, see Ch.J. Halperin, The Tatar Yoke, Columbus, Ohio, 1986; D. Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-Cultural Inuences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304-1589, Cambridge, 1998.




generally content with being recognized as such (contemporary Russiansources often referred to him as tsar’ , the same title as enjoyed by theByzantine and Holy Roman emperors) and receiving the taxes imposedby him. He left the actual job of governing the Russian principalities tothe Russian princes, who had to travel to his headquarters, even as far asKarakorum, to be invested with their dignity (bringing suitable presents).By playing the princes against one another and enlisting their support intax-collection, the khan was able to control a vast territory with greatprot and little eort.

In this scheme, there was little room for veche independence. The oldpractice, if one hesitates to call it a right, of appointing and dismissing

princes was incompatible with the new order of things, in which the princeserved by virtue of the khan’s indulgence. There are very few reports ofveches from the second half of the 13th century and beyond; signicantly,the most important one concerned the year 1262 when veches were held inRostov, Vladimir, Suzdal’, and Iaroslavl’, in which it was decided to throwout the Tatar tax collectors.25 A similar uprising took place again in Rostovin 1280.26 In 1304, the local population of two towns, Nizhnii Novgorodand Kostroma, rebelled against the local aristocracy at veche meetings,but the impression is given that these meetings were little else but local

disturbances.27 There is another sporadic report of civil unrest in Brianskin 1340, which expressed itself in a veche meeting.28

There is a nal mention of a veche meeting in 1382, in Moscow, whenkhan Tokhtamish was engaged in a full-scale campaign against the Mos-cow grand prince Dmitrii Donskoi. The latter had ed with his family toKostroma, and Tokhtamish had already captured Serpukhov, in the vicin-ity of Moscow. The people of Moscow, in the words of Karamzin, “at thesound of the bells assembled for a veche, remembering the ancient rightof the Russian citizens to decide their own fate in important situations

by a majority of votes”.29

25 PSRL Vol.1, part 2, col.476 (Suzdal’ Chronicle); cf . Karamzin, Vol.IV, 55 and note105; also Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 36. Karamzin points out that the “Besurmene” ofthe Chronicles were probably not Tatars, but Central Asians who had bought thetax-collection from the khan. It is doubtful whether Russians would dare to rise upagainst the immediate representatives of Mongol rule at that time, when it was stillruthless and eective.

26 Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 36-37.27

Karamzin, Vol.IV, 106 and note 209.28 Karamzin, Vol.IV, 148 and note 320; Karamzin calls this meeting—and the ones inNizhnii Novgorod and Kostroma, mentioned in the preceding footnote—unlaw-ful.

29 Karamzin, Vol.IV, 45 and note 91. Moscow was subsequently taken and destroyedby the Tatars.




In the Northwest of the country, where the eect of Tataro-Mongoloverlordship was less acute and the Polish-Lithuanian state was the domi-

nant power, the veche survived much longer.30

9. The Situation in Novgorod and Pskov

Although a special discussion of the role of the veche in medieval Novgorodand Pskov is not the purpose of this chapter, the topic cannot very well bepassed over completely in a discussion of the veche in medieval Russia.

From the very beginning, Novgorod displayed more independencevis-à-vis its princes than other Russian towns. During the rst decadesof the 12th century, it gradually appropriated the right to elect its own posadnik, who was originally an ocial appointed by the prince to rule thetown during the latter’s absence.31 The posadnik thus became the electedburgomaster. The major showdown took place in 1136, when the men fromPskov and Ladoga (Novgorod ‘suburbs’) were invited to a veche, which thenimprisoned the serving Novgorod prince Vsevolod32 and his family andexpelled him. From then on, the Novgorod veche appointed and expelledthe prince (“showed him the road”, in the standard terminology of theNovgorod Chronicle) at will, and occasionally at the drop of a hat. The

veche even managed to secure the right to appoint its own bishops (arch-bishop since 1165), subject to approval by the metropolitan of Kiev.The social and political organization of Novgorod was complicated,

but the veche remained the centre of Novgorod’s political life right tothe end in 1478, because most of the main actors depended on the favourof the veche. It was generally dominated by clans of boyars and wealthymerchants. The most important ocial after the posadnik was the tysiatskii (chiliarch, ‘thousandman’), originally the military commander. Together with other prominent citizens from the boyar class, in particular their

predecessors, the posadnik and the tysiatskii formed the Council of Lords( Sovet Gospod ), in charge of day-to-day business. The oces of posadnik andtysiatskii stayed in the hands of boyar families. Nonetheless, the NovgorodChronicle contains numerous reports of posadniks being dismissed, ban-ished, or even executed by order of the veche.

30 D’iakonov mentions instances of veche meetings in 1465/1470 in Polotsk and in 1440in Smolensk; M.A. D’iakonov, Ocherki obshchestvennago i gosudarstvennago stroia Drevnei Rusi , S.Peterburg (2nd ed.), 1908, 136.

31 In the course of the 13th century, the posadnik had so clearly become a Novgorodocial that the prince’s representative went by another title, the namestnik; e.g . theentry for 1215 in the First Novgorod Chronicle.

32 Vsevolod Mstislavich, grandson of Vladimir Monomakh; Mstislav had become grandprince of Kiev upon the death of his father in 1125.




The Novgorod veche therefore, although it grew out of the old Rus-sian popular assembly of early Kievan times, became a more structured

institution, functioning in a more mature medieval setting; in many waysit could be compared to similar bodies in Italian and Flemish towns ofthe Middle Ages.

In all this, one has to remember that the territory controlled byNovgorod in its heyday, covering the entire North of European Russia, was larger than all the other Russian principalities taken together.

The relationship between Pskov and Novgorod mirrored to someextent the relationship between the latter and Kiev; originally a subordi-nate town, a ‘suburb’ ( prigorod ) of Novgorod, Pskov gradually worked itself

free, and in the end (in 1347/1348) saw its independence recognized evenby Novgorod itself. The territory of Pskov was quite small, compared tothe huge size of that of Novgorod. There were other dierences as well;but, in general, the character of the Pskov veche was much like that ofNovgorod.33 The crowning glory of the Pskov veche was the adoption, prob-ably shortly after 1462, of the Court Charter of Pskov ( Pskovskaia sudnaia gramota ), the most comprehensive Russian legislation enacted betweenthe Russkaia Pravda and the rst code of laws of the unied Russian state,the Code ( Sudebnik ) of Ivan III of 1497.34

The development of Novgorod independence in the high Middle Ages and the concomitant prominence of the Novgorod veche, and, in the wake of its mother-city, of the Pskov veche, must therefore be traced totwo distinct factors. Novgorod’s independence was already well-developedin early Kievan times, and it was saved from occupation by the Tataro-Mongols. Both factors were of course linked by Novgorod’s favourablelocation in the extreme Northwest of European Russia; this awarded it akey position in Russia’s trade with Northern and Western Europe, and itput maximum distance between it and invaders from Asia.

10. Kievan Rus’ as a Period of Transition

Although history is a continuous process of change and transition, onemay speak of transition in a more pregnant sense when referring to a pe-riod in which several elements or institutions appear to be in an unstablebalance, resulting in one or the other gaining the upper hand. This wouldapply to the period of Kievan Russia, roughly the 11th and 12th centuries, when veche and princely government struggled for hegemony.

33 On the Pskov veche, A. Nikitskii, Ocherki vnutrennoi istorii Pskova, S.Peterburg, 18173,131-139.

34 On the Pskov Charter, see Iu.G. Alekseev, Pskovskaia sudnaia gramota i ee vremia,Leningrad, 1980, where older literature is cited.




factor, and the legal relationships concerning land were decisive. Pre-revolutionary Russian and Western authors were more often inclined to

favour the former view, Soviet authors the latter. The debate was bedevilledfor some time by Marxist dogmatism: feudalism had to follow earlier andmore ‘primitive’ socio-economic arrangements, Kievan Russia was declaredto be a feudal state, and this meant that certain legal and socio-economicrelationships necessarily had to be present there.35 This may also explainthe relative lack of interest in the veche of Kievan Russia among Soviethistorians; the veche did not t comfortably into the scheme of exploitingfeudal lords versus hard-pressed rural masses.36 Modern Russian histori-ans, such as I.Ia. Froianov, have abandoned this approach and come to a

more balanced judgment.37 (See, also, the chapter on “Land Tenure, the Druzhina, and the Nature of Kievan Rus’”.)Without entering into a discussion of the role of the veche in the

above-mentioned debate, we may at least acknowledge that our generalunderstanding of Kievan Rus’ would be highly relevant in elucidating theplace of the veche during the period concerned, while, conversely, detailedinformation about the veche may help in extending our conception of its general legal and political context.

12. The Veche in a Comparative European ContextSergeevich had already drawn the attention to institutions similar to theveche among the Greeks in Homeric times and the Germanic tribes, asrecorded by Tacitus.38 Some four centuries after Tacitus, the last traces ofpopular assemblies among the Franks could be observed. Gregory of Tours,in his history of the Franks, relates how the Ripuarian Franks, after theirking Sigibert had been killed, accepted Clovis, king of the Salic Franks, astheir king by popular assent at an assembly in Cologne, around the year

35 This question is discussed at greater length in the chapter on “Land Tenure[etc.]”.

36 This standard Soviet treatment of the veche may be encountered in the works ofB.D. Grekov, Kievskaia Rus’ , Moskva, 1953, 353-370, and S.V. Iushkov, Obshchestvenno- politicheskii stroi i pravo Kievskogo gosudarstva, Moskva, 1949, 345-359. The entirediscussion is reviewed extensively by M.B. Sverdlov, Obshchestvennyi stroi Drevnei Rusi v russkoi istoricheskoi nauke XVIII-XX vekov, S.Peterburg, 1996.

37 See especially the Introduction to I.Ia. Froianov, Drevniaia Rus’ , Moskva/S.Peter-

burg, 1995, 5-21. Also, by the same author: Kievskaia Rus’: Glavnye cherty sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo stroia, S.Peterburg, 1999 (basically a longer version of a work with thesame title from 1974); Kievskaia Rus’: Ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii , Leningrad,1980; Kievskaia Rus’: Ocherki otechestvennoi istoriograi , Leningrad. The three Kievskaia Rus’ titles have been republished, together with other works by Froianov, in Nachala Russkoi istorii , Moskva, 2001.

38 In the Germania, chapters 11-15; cf . Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 119-149.




504.39 Charlemagne, after conquering and forcibly converting the Saxons,forbade them to hold popular assemblies any longer in 789.40 Some of the

Germanic leges barbarorum were ostensibly adopted by popular assemblies:e.g . the Lex Alamannorum, around 712-725, and the addition to the Lex Baiuvariorum (the so-called decree of Duke Tassilo of 772).41

13. The Russian Veche and Legislation

The era of Kievan Russia is the period in which an organized state structure gradually took shape. This implies that law in the traditional sense beganto be explicitly created and applied by particular institutions. Whether theveche played a role in this process is therefore a legitimate question. Onthe one hand, it is obvious that a large assembly—often called together atthe spur of the moment, enjoying neither a well-dened composition norclear operational procedures—could not bear the legislative responsibili-ties of a modern parliament. On the other hand, in view of the supremepowers the veche appears to have exercised originally and which survivedin some places and to some extent into Kievan times and even beyond, one would expect the veche to be at least occasionally involved in importantdecision-making of a legislative nature. There are, indeed, a few indica-

tions pointing in this direction. As related above, some of the 10th century treaties with the Greeks were concluded on behalf of the whole Russian ( i.e. Kievan) population,and quite possibly some kind of consultation of the population (in thiscase probably the eld army) may have accompanied the negotiations with the Greeks.

The Statute of 1150 of prince Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensk, which regulates certain rights of the Smolensk Church, states that it hadbeen decreed by the prince after consultation with his people ( sdumav s

liudmi svoimi ).42 Similar formulas may be encountered in Novgorod charters which embody treaty texts. Most texts begin with a greeting on behalfof the bishop (or sometimes the prince), the posadnik, the tysiatskii , otherimportant persons, and “all Novgorod” or “all Novgorodians”. But, in some

39 Historia Francorum, ch.II, 39. Another general assembly, called by Clovis, is mentionedby Gregory of Tours in ch.II, 42.

40 Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae, where it says in XXXIV: Interdiximus, ut omnes Saxones generaliter conventos publicos ne faciant.

41 H. Conrad, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. Band I: Frühzeit und Mittelalter , Karlsruhe (2nded.), 1962, 100, 133.

42 PRP II, 37-42. Of course, liudmi could also be interpreted more narrowly as referringto the prince’s advisors, but several knowledgeable commentators have argued thatin this case the term must refer to the Smolensk veche.




cases, the treaty is declared to have been concluded by the said personsand “all Novgorod”, or the principal Novgorod spokesman (the bishop or

the prince) states that he has consulted these persons and “all Novgorod”( sgadav […] so vsem Novgorodom ).43 The Court Charter of Pskov states ex-plicitly (as mentioned above) that it was adopted by the Pskov veche.

It would be an exaggeration to speak of the veche as an importantlegislator or co-legislator in Kievan times. For one thing, the volume ofexplicit legislation was quite small, and for another, most legislation wasclosely connected with what we would regard as the judicial function: theorganization of prosecution, courts, and execution, ant it was preciselythis function which was one of the core elements of princely power.

The best functional parallel of the veche’s legislative impact in mod-ern times would be the referendum: a consultation of the population onbroad issues of great interest to one and all, questions of war and peacebeing foremost among them.

14. Renewed Interest in the Veche

The more recent studies by Froianov are representative of a renewed in-terest in the Kievan period of Russian history and of a willingness, even

eagerness, to review critically the undisputed achievements of Soviethistorians and legal historians.44 It is of course fully understandable, andin fact quite justied, that serious scholarship felt the need to purge itselffrom ideological ballast. The Marxist obsession with class struggle andits rigid classication of historical periods constituted the centre-pieceof a mental straightjacket, which was rst imposed from outside, butsubsequently internalized and freely embraced by most members of theprofession.

But the veche may also be understood as having a symbolic signi-

cance for present-day Russians: it could be argued that Russia, having livedthrough the despotism of the rulers of Muscovy, the autocracy of thetsars, and the totalitarian regime of the Soviets, has now returned to thedemocratic beginnings of the Kievan era.

A sober look at the facts would add a few question-marks to such anargument. The veche reected a socio-political order which was alreadybeing replaced by new relationships at the time from which the rstdocumentary evidence dates. There are no indications that the veche was

43 Cf . GVNP No.29 (pp.56-57), a treaty of 1262/1263 with the Hanseatic cities; GVNP No.31(pp.58-61), a treaty of 1269 with the Hanseatic cities.

44 Cf . S.V. Bushuev, “Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskie otnosheniia i obshchestvennyi stroiDrevnei Rusi”, in S.V. Bushuev & G.E. Mironov, Istoriia gosudarstva rossiiskogo: Istoriko-bibliogracheskie ocherki , Book 1, Moskva, 1991, 95-100.



Chapter 6

The Elder Brother in Russia

The starting-point for this chapter is the curious fact that a concept ofhierarchical ranking or seniority has been prominent in most of the morethan thousand years of the history of the Russian state. In the early periodof Kievan Rus’, it manifested itself in a combination of ranking of princesbelonging to the ruling house and a corresponding ranking of provincialcapitals assigned to various princes. As the Kievan empire was graduallytransformed into a loose confederation of semi-independent principali-ties, the hierarchical order within the Kievan ruling house underwent a

metamorphosis by which a quasi-contractual relationship between “elder”and “younger” brothers became the dominant idea. This arrangement lostits relevance when the grand princes of Moscow acquired supreme powerand exclusive sovereignty in the entire Russian land. Then the concept ofhierarchical ranking returned within the organization of the Muscovy statethrough the institution of mestnichestvo, the attribution of oces accordingto the social position of the prospective incumbent and his family. Thissystem lasted until 1682, and in 1722 Peter the Great introduced his Tableof Ranks which assigned all military, civilian and court personnel to oneof 14 ranks. In an amended form, the Table of Ranks survived until theOctober Revolution. In Stalin’s time, the ‘elder brother’ metaphor enjoyeda certain popularity in Soviet political discourse; during the last decades ofSoviet power, the political hierarchy among Soviet leaders became moreand more formalized, to such an extent that an individual’s status couldbe precisely determined by considering the oce occupied by him.

1. The House of Rurik

From the Kievan grand prince Vladimir (†1016), and until the death oftsar Fedor Ivanovich, the insignicant son of Ivan the Terrible, in 1598,all the rulers of Russia and its component principalities had belongedto the house of Rurik. For a while, leading Soviet historians denied theScandinavian roots of Rurik.1 This politically motivated position is notsupported by anybody any longer. It is equally undeniable that Rurik was

1 B.D. Grekov, in his best-known work, Kievskaia Rus’ , Moskva, 1953, 452-453, is notentirely clear, but seems to deny Rurik’s Scandinavian credentials in a collective work

published in the same year: B.D. Grekov (ed.), Ocherki istorii SSSR, period feodalizma IX-XV vv., Vol.1, Moskva, 1953, 76-77 (the chapter in question was written by Grekovhimself). S.V. Iushkov is quite outspoken in Obshchestvenno-politicheskii stroi i pravo kievskogo gosudarstva, Moskva, 1949, 67.




not just a Viking adventurer but could claim royal rank on account of hisancestry.2 According to the annals (the Primary Chronicle, also called Nes-

tor Chronicle or Tale of Bygone Years), Rurik (Hrörekr) arrived in Russiain 862. His relatives and descendants (the Kievan princes Oleg or Helgi,Igor or Ingvar and his wife Olga or Helga, and Sviatoslav) waged war withand subdued other Slavic tribes populating European Russia. During thisperiod, the Scandinavian element in the ruling house and its attendants was slowly being absorbed by its Slavic surroundings. Whether princelysuccession among the descendants of Rurik had its origin in Scandina- vian or in local Russian tradition is dicult to answer.3 In any case, thetwo systems were probably very similar. The evidence from the Primary

Chronicle and other sources is quite clear and reveals the operation ofseveral interlocking principles.The rst principle, self-evident within the setting of the times, is

that only male members of the house of Rurik were eligible to succeed.4 The second principle discernible, at least during the rst centuries af -ter Rurik, was that the house prevailed over its individual members; ormore explicitly, that rulership belonged to the house, rather than to anyindividual member. The third principle, closely connected to the previ-ous one, was seniority: within the ruling house seniority determined the

sequence of succession.The question may also be approached dierently, as has been doneby several prominent Russian historians in the past: as a way to solve thetension between seniority within the family ( starshinstvo ) and the claimto receive one’s father’s heritage or patrimony ( otchina ).5

2 Cf. E.V. Pchelov, Genealogiia drevnerusskikh kniazei, IX-XI v., Moskva, 2001, ch.1; inhis section on the possibility of Rurik’s Slavic origins, Pchelov does not even discuss

the opinions of Grekov and Iushkov.3 This question was rst asked by E. Shchepkin in his paper “Poriadok prestolo-naslediia u drevnenorvezhskikh konungov”, in Sbornik statei, posviashchennykh V.O. Kliuchevskomu, Moskva, 1909, 164-216.

4 The formidable Olga, who ruled from 945-964, served as a regent for her son Svia-toslav, who assumed the reign when he reached manhood. Generally, the principletypically belongs to patriarchal societies; women may occasionally be in the supremeruling position, but then as mothers, wives or widows of men who are for somereason unable to rule (being too young, absent, incapacitated, deceased).

5 See, e.g ., A. Presniakov, Lektsii po russkoi istorii, Vol.I, Kievskaia Rus’ , Moskva, 1938,232-235, and also by the same author, Kniazhoe pravo v drevnei Rusi , S.Peterburg,1909, 68-70. Also V. Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, Moskva (3rd ed.), 1908, 248-249; V.Kliuchevskii, Kurs russkoi istorii , included in Sochineniia, Vol.I, Moskva, 1956, 180-185; I. Froianov, Kievskaia Rus’, Ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii , Leningrad, 1980,55-57.



The Elder Brother in Russia 169

In its original and strict form, the starshinstvo principle excludedthe application of substitution: sons (or grandsons) taking the places of

their fathers. The rationale for this was apparently that the ruler did notenjoy his position on the basis of an individual right, but on account ofhis position in the family. When he died, his position was taken over bythe most worthy member of the family, the most ‘senior’, and this neednot be his son(s). Another consequence of the principle was that the rightto rule could be broken up in such a way that all more or less equally worthy members of the family received a share in accordance with theirindividual starshinstvo.

The historical origin of the principle is probably in patriarchal pastoral

societies where it governed the process of maintaining and, if required,breaking up of large herds of cattle.6

The peculiar form of starshinstvo in Old Russia displayed two furtherfeatures: there existed a more or less xed hierarchy among family mem-bers, and this hierarchy corresponded with a hierarchy of cities. Familyhierarchy was determined rst by generation, and within the generationusually by age. Uncles preceded nephews, even where the latter weresons of elder and predeceased brothers. In other words, the patrimonialor substitution principle did not operate: sons did not automatically step

into the shoes of their fathers. Especially with regard to succession to thethrone of Kiev (the best documented case, for obvious reasons), there wasa clearly observable tendency in Kievan times to deplete rst an entire generation of potential successors before passing on to the most seniormember of the next generation. It goes without saying that within thesystem fathers and grandfathers were always considered senior in respectof their sons and grandsons.

The hierarchy of Russian cities can be reconstructed on the basis ofhistorical records as: Kiev, Novgorod, Chernigov, Pereiaslavl’, Polotsk,Rostov, Smolensk; among the less prominent towns the proper sequence isless clear. Ideally, when a prince died, all those with lower seniority wouldmove up one step on the ladder.

The principle, as described, of course never operated as such.7 As theruling house of Rurik expanded, the sense of forming a single ruling fam-6 This is suggested by the fact that the principle, in one form or another, occurs in

pre-medieval times not only among Indo-European peoples, but also among variousTurkic and Mongol peoples. The division of Chingis-Khan’s empire among his sons

and later on among his other descendants was quite similar to the older Russiansystem. There are also clear parallels with the systems of royal succession among theMerovingians and Carolingians and with the derbne regulating succession in the caseof Old-Irish kingship. A similar system operates to the present day in Saudi-Arabia.See, also, the chapter on “Law’s Beginnings and Early Law”.

7 The point of view advanced here is by no means uncontested. The central importanceof starshinstvo was rst stressed by S.M. Solov’ev in Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen,




ily weakened and solidarity within sub-divisions of the family increased.Soon, branches of the family ruled almost without interruption for several

centuries in a particular province. Moreover, a powerful prince could by-pass weaker family members and take by force what according to custombelonged to others.

2. From Genealogical to Contractual Seniority

The extraordinary prolicity of the house of Rurik in subsequent centuriesaggravated the inherent defects of the original system of succession inmore than one way. The Kievan realm became fragmented in ever smallerprincipalities. Where the old seniority principle was strictly adhered to,dynastic upheavals ensued, due to the incessant moving around of rulingprinces. The branching out of the ruling house resulted in an obscuringof the seniority pattern based on strict genealogical principles and in aconcomitant insecurity in succession procedures. One important con-sequence of this development was that the patrimonial or substitutionprinciple came to the fore. The tendency of sons succeeding in theirfathers’ principalities, never wholly absent in the early Kievan times, gained new strength and in fact became and stayed dominant right into

the era of Muscovy Russia. Another consequence, of particular interest inthe perspective of this chapter, was that seniority did not disappear as afactor co-determining princely succession, but, having lost its unequivo-cal genealogical denition, became an object of negotiation among theprinces. Even during the earlier periods, seniority would often not besomething that could be established with absolute certainty, and then anelement of negotiation would inevitably be involved.8

After the death of Mstislav the Great, the son of Vladimir Monomakh,in 1132, the paramount position of the Kievan grand prince diminished

and in the end disappeared with the onset of Mongol domination. Thisperiod of ‘separate principalities’ or apanages ( udel’nye kniazhestva ) formallyMoskva, 1851-1879, while his theories were rejected by V.I. Sergeevich in Drevnosti II,195-200. A.E. Presniakov in Kniazhoe pravo, 61-68, occupied an intermediate position.See, also, his Lektsii I, 233-235. D’iakonov (144-146), regarded starshinstvo as one ofseveral principles governing succession in Kievan Russia. Iushkov, Stroi , 339, rejectedSolov’ev’s theory on crude Marxist grounds. Similar to my view is the one taken byL.A. Nazarenko, “Rodovoi suzerenitet Riurikovichei nad Rus’iu (X-XI vv.)”, A.P.Novosel’tsev (ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR. Materaly i issledovaniia1985 god , Moskva, 1986, 149-157.

8 A recent study by A.S. Shchavelev points out that formalized meetings and banquetsof princes played an important role in this respect. A.S. Shchavelev, “S”ezd kniazeikak istoricheskii institut Drevnei Rusi”, T.V. Gimon & E.A. Mel’nikova (eds.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2004 god. Politicheskie instituty Drevnei Rusi ,Moskva, 2006, 268-278.




ended with the annexation of the last independent principality of Riazan’in 1520, although the supreme position of the grand prince of Muscovy

had already been undisputed a long time before. In this entire period, therecognition of seniority among princes remained the most comprehensiveexpression of the politico-legal relationship between the princes.

The relationship could be expressed in unilateral or bilateral (multi-lateral) documents. The former type lent itself to a denition of a father-son relationship, and occurred in two forms: the disposition inter vivos and the testament. Both forms appear at an early stage in Russian history.In 970, still in pagan times, the Kievan prince Sviatoslav set up his sonsIaropolk, Oleg and Vladimir as subordinate princes in respectively Kiev,

Dereva and Novgorod. The rst reported instance of a princely testamentin which the testator divided his realm among his sons was in 1054 whenIaroslav the Wise appointed his sons Iziaslav, Sviatoslav, Vsevolod, Igorand Viacheslav as princes in resp. Kiev, Chernigov, Pereiaslavl’, Vladimirand Smolensk. The testament explicitly conferred seniority on the eldestson Iziaslav by exhorting the other sons to: “Heed him as you have heededme, that he may take my place among you.”

For dening a seniority relationship, however, the bilateral instru-ments, basically princely treaties, were the most important (see, also, the

chapter on “The Treaties of Medieval Russia” in this work, where thistopic is treated from a somewhat dierent perspective). The rst reportedtreaty between princes of the Rurikid dynasty is from 1026, between thetwo senior surviving sons of St. Vladimir, Iaroslav the Wise and Mstislav, who divided the Kievan realm among $themselves. Numerous otherprincely treaties, bilateral as well as multilateral, are mentioned in thePrimary Chronicle and the practice continued into the 16th century. Ofthe surviving texts, most are to be found in the state archives of Muscovyand concern relationships between the grand prince of Muscovy andother princes.9

Some of the treaties were concluded between princes who regardedeach other as equal; in such cases, the treaties would speak of brotherhoodbut refrain from designating one of the parties as elder brother. Thesetreaties are not much dierent from true international treaties, such asthose with the Lithuanian prince. Usually, however, the inequality is ex-plicitly expressed in the text. The standard practice was to refer to oneof the treaty partners as the elder brother and the other as the younger

brother. Occasionally, the relationship was couched in father-son terms.This was only a more emphatic way of spelling out the elder/younger9 The basic publication is S. Bakhrushin (ed.) and L.V. Cherepnin (comp.), Dukhovnye

i dogovornye gramoty velikikh i udel’nykh kniazei XIV-XVI vv., Moskva/Leningrad, 1950(hereafter: DDG ).




brother relationship, because, actual fathers and sons would not concludetreaties (the father would unilaterally impose his will).10

The most common treaties between Russian princes in the Middle Ages were those which established or rearmed seniority of one of thesignatories, by recognizing his status as elder brother. This was invariablydone in the opening address of the documents with the words: “[…] you,my younger brother, prince N.N., should kiss the cross [i.e. swear] to me, your elder brother, prince N.N. […]”.11 The treaties were normally drawnup in two authentic but dierent copies, made out in the name of bothparties, in accordance with established Byzantine practice; the other copy would therefore start: “[…] you, my elder brother, prince N.N., should kiss

the cross to me, your younger brother, prince N.N. […]”. The body of thetext of the treaty would be devoted to dening the exact content of theseniority relationship. A more detailed analysis of this topic is given bythe prominent pre-revolutionary legal historian V. Sergeevich.12

Sergeevich points out that the most important treaty clauses were:the prohibition to negotiate with foreign powers, the duty to rescind orrevoke treaties with other powers, and the duty to go to war in supportof the “elder brother”. The last two duties were typically imposed on the“younger brother”. The prohibition to negotiate with foreign powers ( ne

kanchivati ) was usually bilateral in the sense that both parties would prom-ise not to conclude treaties without informing the other ( a tobe, brate, ne kanchivati ni s kim bez nashego vedan’ia ). In some cases, the younger brother was forbidden altogether to engage in foreign relations or in relations withspecic powers. In particular, the elder brother would in a number ofcases reserve for himself the right to deal with the Mongol overlords, byforbidding the younger brother to enter into contact with the latter ( Ordy ne znati ).13 In this context, “foreign powers” refers to Russia’s neighbours,such as the Golden Horde, Lithuania, the Baltic cities, etc., but also toother Russian principalities, because the chief competitors of a powerfulprince who was trying to build up a network of client princes were otherprinces with similar ambitions.

The duty to render military aid to the elder brother was usuallyexpressed through the younger brother’s promise to mount his horse( vsesti na kon’ ) whenever the elder brother rode to war. If the latter did

10 Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 152.11

E.g. DDG No.9, 25 (treaty of 1375 between the Moscow grand prince Dmitrii Donskoiand the Tver’ grand prince Mikhail Aleksandrovich).12 Sergeevich, Drevnosti II , 200-220.13 E.g. DDG No.36, 101 (treaty of 1439 between the Moscow grand prince Vasilii

Vasil’evich and Vasilii Iur’evich, prince of Galich).




not personally lead his army, it would normally suce for the youngerbrother to send a contingent of troops with a commander, instead of

going himself. This was a consequence of the system of mutual honour,recognized in the treaties, where both parties would usually declare thatthey would maintain each other as elder or younger brother “in honourand without oence”.

The signicance of the third principal clause emphasized by Ser- geevich, the duty to break o relations with other powers ( tselovanie slozhiti ), was in the establishment of the exclusivity of the starshinstvo (seniority) relationship. Where this clause was included, the traditionalseniority structure of the Rurikid dynasty was set aside and, henceforth,

the younger brother had only one single elder brother. In other words,although the starshinstvo clause in a treaty appeared to lend great weightto the institution, it actually destroyed it in its original form, because thesingle hierarchical system of the whole of Russia was thus replaced by anumber of unconnected bilateral relationships.

Apart from the clauses discussed by Sergeevich, a number of otherconditions is usually to be found in the treaties establishing or rearm-ing seniority. Some of these conditions are bilateral (such as the above-mentioned ne kanchivati ), others unilateral (such as tselovanie slozhiti orvsesti na kon’ ). Among the bilateral ones, one invariably nds the rather vague duties to be united ( byti zaodin ) and well-disposed towards each other( dobra choteti ), and the more concrete agreements about respecting eachother’s territories, ocials, courts, taxes, etc. The most important dutiesunilaterally imposed on the younger brother were those of informing theelder brother of anything aecting the latter’s interests,14 and of accept-ing his friends or enemies as such.15 The unilateral duties assumed by theelder brother were naturally more restricted, but included sometimes anundertaking not to acquire land within the younger brother’s territory without the latter’s knowledge.16

14 E.g. DDG No.13, 37 (treaty of 1390 between the Moscow grand prince VasiliiDmitrievich and Vladimir Andreevich, prince of Serpukhov and Borovsk), withthe usual formula: “and whatever you will hear to our advantage or disadvantagefrom Christian or heathen, you will inform us about it truthfully, without trickery,according to oath, without deceit.”

15 E.g. DDG No.14, 40 (treaty of 1390 between the Moscow grand prince Vasilii

Dmitrievich and his brother Iurii, prince of Galich), with the usual formula: “and whoever, grand prince, is your friend, will be my friend, and whoever is your enemy will be my enemy.”

16 E.g. DDG No.27, 70 (treaty of 1433 between the Moscow grand prince Vasilii Vasil’evichand Vasilii Iaroslavich, prince of Serpukhov and Borovsk).




In the treaty practice of the grand princes of Moscow, the hereditaryelement was gradually reinforced. This was eected by inserting several

related provisions. Continuity with the past was emphasized by recallingthat the present seniority connection was identical with the connection which existed between the fathers or even grandfathers of the signatories.17 Then the elder brother stipulated recognition as such, not only for himself,but also for his son and further descendants.18 Finally, the younger brother,in his turn, engaged himself as well as his sons and descendants.19

At the beginning of the discussion of the starshinstvo principle, thepoint was made that princely succession in medieval Russia was deter-mined by the tension between the competing principles of seniority and

of substitution. During the earlier part of the rule of the Rurikid dynasty,the seniority principle was dominant. Once, however, the ruling family hadincreased in size, the principle of starshinstvo was seen to carry the seedsof its own decline. From the moment, it was not any longer determinedby clear genealogical rules, but by shifting power relations, it becamean object for negotiation. At that point, the substitution or patrimonialprinciple returned with a vengeance; princes sought domination overother princes and their descendants, not only for themselves, but also fortheir own descendants. In one sense, nevertheless, the seniority principle

grew in strength: the strict centralizing tendency which accompanied theascent of the substitution principle did not tolerate the division of thelands of the Moscow grand prince among his surviving sons. Accordingly,the testaments of the Moscow grand princes pushed them all aside infavour of the eldest son, who thereby achieved absolute seniority overhis younger brothers.20

3. Muscovy Russia: Mestnichestvo

The 16th century witnessed the nal triumph of the grand princes of Mos-cow as the sole rulers of Russia. By the same token, the seniority principlehad become irrelevant as a means of determining relations between princesof the same house. The numerous remaining subdivisions of the Rurikiddynasty all became servitors of the grand prince and tsar of Russia. Onlytheir princely title distinguished them from other magnates serving thetsar—the boyars. Within this new class of noble servants, a new seniorityconcept emerged, mestnichestvo, the assignment of oces in accordance17 E.g. DDG No.45, 129 (treaty of 1447 between the Moscow grand prince Vasilii

Vasil’evich and Vasilii Iaroslavich, prince of Serpukhov and Borovsk).18 Ibidem.19 Ibidem.20 E.g . the testament of Ivan Vasil’evich of 1504, DDG No.89, 353-364.




with the rank held by the appointee’s family and with the position of theappointee within his own family. “Precedence” would be the closest term

in English, although this general designation does not do justice to thepeculiarities of mestnichestvo.The operation of mestnichestvo is known in considerable detail, on

account of the relative abundance of the surviving materials. Most ofthe leading pre-revolutionary historians of Muscovy Russia discussed itin their works.21 Neither was it neglected by Soviet historians, althoughthey often approached the phenomenon from a one-sided Marxist pointof view.22 In the later Soviet period, a more scholarly attitude prevailed;in particular, the publication of sources received much attention.23

In making important military, civil and court appointments, theMoscow grand prince (tsar since 1547) observed the complicated rulesof the mestnichestvo system. The system owed its name to the term mesto (place), which referred to the rank of an individual within his family andin inter-family relationships. If A was an eldest son, then the followingtwo brothers B and C would occupy the next two places. The fourthplace was shared by the eldest son of A and the fourth brother D of A, Band C. Once more uncles and nephews got involved, the matter becameaccordingly more complex. The system was based in principle on an old

tradition from Kievan times (and probably long before that), derivedfrom the idea of the unity of the family. The weaker position of the fourthbrother (and further brothers) was an innovation of Ivan IV; as Kliuchevskiisuggests,24 it could have been based on the probability that by the time

21 The main prerevolutionary monograph study on mestnichestvo is A.I. Markevich, Istoriia mestnichestva v moskovskom gosudarstve v XV–XVII vv., Odessa, 1888. Further:N.P. Pavlov-Sil’vanskii, Gosudarevy sluzhilye liudi , S.Peterburg, 1898, newly publishedtogether with another work ( Liudi kabal’nye ) by the same author, Moskva, 2001

(references below are to the 2001 publication), ch.II, 65-79. V. Sergeevich, Lektsii ,120-140. M. D’iakonov, 284-294. V.O. Kliuchevskii discusses mestnichestvo in LectureXXVII in his Kurs russkoi istorii (Vol.II, 145-156, in the Sochineniia edition, Moskva,1957, used by me).

22 A convenient overview of the literature in Iu.M. Eskin, Mestnichestvo v Rossii XVI- XVII vv. Khronologicheskii reestr , Moskva, 1994, 7-15.

23 E.g . Iu.N. Mel’nikov, “Mestnicheskie dela v razriadnom proizvodstve 80-kh godovXVI v.”, Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny, Tom IX, Leningrad, 1978, 222-235;K.V. Baranov, “Akty XVI– nachala XVII veka iz mestnicheskikh del”, A.V. Antonov(ed.), Russkii diplomatarii , Vol.7, Moskva, 2001, 35-51; Iu.M. Eskin, “Mestnichestvo,

rodoslovtsy i ‘rodoslovnye paskvili’”, V.L. Ianin (ed.), Ot Drevnei Rusi k Rossii novogovremeni [KhoroshkevichFestschrift], Moskva, 2003, 165-172; Iu.V. Ankhimiuk, Chastnye Razriadnye knigi s zapisiami za posledniuiu chetvert’ XV–nachalo XVII vekov, Moskva,2005.

24 Op.cit ., 148.




the fourth son was born, the eldest son might already have a son himself.This would explain why the fourth son and his eldest nephew are referred

to as sverstniki (coevals).When an appointment had to be made, the ranking of the dierentprincely and boyar families had to be combined with the rst system (ofinternal family hierarchy). In such a situation, precedents were of decisiveimportance, and the more recent the precedent, the more powerful. Forthis reason, a special governmental department, the Razriadnyi prikaz, keptregisters of appointments ( razriadnye knigi ) which allowed the solutionof the frequent disputes about precedence. Additionally, many leadingfamilies maintained their own registers, in order to be able to have the

necessary information at their disposal would the need arise.25

In theory, every nobleman belonging to a princely or boyar family would have a xed place in the governmental hierarchy. In fact, the system was anything but static, because every appointment could change the bal-ance. This also is part of the explanation why the participants attachedsuch great importance to holding on to and improving their position onthe hierarchical ladder. Any appointment which involved a deteriorationin the eyes of the appointee would not only aect his own prospects, butalso those of his family members. The claimant in a typical mestnichestvo

dispute would, for instance, submit that the post which had been proposedto him ( e.g . deputy governor of a particular town) would involve him servingunder a governor whose uncle had served as deputy governor of anothertown under the claimant’s father as governor.

Mestnichestvo claims were dealt with by a panel of boyars, andsometimes by the prince (tsar) himself. Several authors have noted thateverybody, including the prince himself, took such disputes very seri-ously. Even Ivan the Terrible, who was not averse to dealing ruthlessly with troublesome nobles, always displayed great patience and tolerancein mestnichestvo cases.26 A nobleman was expected and actually obliged toobserve the system and to refuse an appointment which he consideredbeneath the dignity of his family and himself. In exceptional cases, hecould be imprisoned for his refusal to accept a position proposed to him,or he could be appointed, without his agreement and as a punishment,to another post.

Although the system was in its heyday in the 16th century, the strainsit imposed on the state’s administration were beginning to show. Legisla -

tion by Ivan the Terrible in 1551 allowed certain military appointments to

25 See the special study by Ankhimiuk.26 Cf. Pavlov-Sil’vanskii, 74.




be made “without places” ( bez mest ); the law stipulated that such appoint-ments would not aect the status of the appointees.27

In the end, the mestnichestvo system, constricting the inux ofnew talent into the administration of the state, became too much of aburden. It had led to endless strife among the leading families and hadseriously hampered the tsar in selecting suitable servants. In 1682, tsarFedor Alekseevich abolished it and the registers were burned, “to the joyof contemporaries and to the sorrow of future historians”, in the wordsof S.G. Pushkarev.28

If the actual operation of the mestnichestvo system is well-documentedand studied, its origins and its functionality are less clear. The views ex-

pressed more than a century ago by Pavlov-Sil’vanskii and, less explicitly,by Kliuchevskii, still seem to oer the best explanation. Appointmentregisters ( razriady ) rst appear during the government of Dmitrii Donskoi(1362-1389).29 In 1408, when his son Vasilii I (1389-1425) was grand prince,the Lithuanian prince Patrikii Narimontovich joined the court of theMoscow grand prince and subsequently married Vasilii’s daughter.30 In thecourse of the 15th century, there was a steady inux of Russian princes ofthe Rurikid house, who had lost their positions as rulers of independentprincipalities and had to look to Moscow for their prospects. The Russian,

Lithuanian and a few other foreign princes had to be accommodated ina governmental hierarchy which in the past had been populated by theindigenous aristocracy of Muscovy. This probably created the need tobalance the factors of family dignity and service record. The eagerness with which all interested parties pressed their claims would favour theemergence of a formalized procedure to evaluate such claims.

The maintenance of a balance between the ambitions and interestsof the competing aristocratic groups may also explain the importance ofobserving mestnichestvo for the prince. There certainly was an element of“divide and rule” in his espousal of the principle. It integrated his formercontenders, the members of the ruling houses of the principalities absorbedby Moscow, into the higher level of the Moscow aristocracy; it hindered,above all, the solidication of a bloc of magnates which would oppose theexpansion of princely power. It was only when these factors became less

27 Texts in PRP IV, 582-586.28 In his Dictionary of Russian Historical Terms From the Eleventh Century to 1917 (compiled

by S.G. Pushkarev, edited by G.V. Vernadsky and R. Fisher), New Haven/London,1970, 60.29 Ankhimiuk, 29.30 Cf . A.A. Zimin, Formirovanie boiarskoi aristokratii v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XV–pervoi

treti XVI v., Moskva, 1988, 29.




threatening and the disadvantages of mestnichestvo more manifest, thatthe negative eects of the arrangement led to its abolition.

4. The Table of Ranks

The abolition of mestnichestvo unquestionably represented a victory ofmerit over birth, as a qualication for public service. This tendency be-came even more pronounced with the introduction of Peter the Great’sTable of Ranks ( Tabel’ o Rangakh ) in 1722.31 The idea was not altogethernew, as an attempt to draw up a Table of Ranks had already been madeduring the reign of Peter’s older half-brother, tsar Fedor Alekseevich.32 The Table of Ranks was one of the best prepared legislative innovations

of the Petrine era. The practice in a number of West European countrieshad been studied. The Table consisted of a hierarchy of 14 steps, embrac-ing the armed services, the civil service, and the court. In theory, every-body had to start at the bottom of the ladder and work his way up. Themeritocratic foundation of the system was combined with the elementof hereditary nobility, a trend which became more dominant with sub-sequent amendments of the relevant legislation. Attainment of a certainrank (the 12th class—lieutenant—for military personnel, the 8th class forcivilians—college assessor) conferred hereditary nobility; the lower ranksonly created personal nobility for the incumbent. In 1856, entrance to thehereditary nobility was restricted to attainment of the 6th class (colonel)for the military and of the 4th class (full state councillor) for civilians.

The background of the institution of the Table of Ranks in 1722 wasthe dominance of the service character of the nobility. The increasingdysfunctionality and ultimate abolition of mestnichestvo, as a means tochannel recruitment of candidates for the higher levels of the militaryand civil service, made it necessary to look for another mechanism. Under

the Moscow grand princes and tsars, the high nobility, princes and boyars,had gradually been reduced to servants of the state. At the same time,access to the higher levels of the bureaucracy had been opened up, to acertain extent, to loyal and eective members of the lower nobility andother classes. Being noble involved serving the state, either as a soldieror in some civilian function.

In one way, the Table of Ranks continued and strengthened thisprinciple by stressing in its preamble that only service to the state con-ferred status. In another way, the Table reversed the old principle by

31 Text in PRP VIII,179-203; and in RZ IV, 52-78.32 Cf. RZ IV, 53. A Table of Ranks was known in the Byzantine administrative system,

see J.B. Bury, The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century. With the RevisedText of the Kletorology of Philotheos (British Academy, Supplemental Papers), London,1911.




connecting the acquisition of nobility with the attainment of a specicrank. Instead of “service follows nobility”, the new principle was “nobility

follows service”.33

In the course of the 18th century the service duties of the nobility were gradually abolished so that only the (mitigated) automatism of conferralof nobility with the attainment of a specic rank remained.

Mestnichestvo, as argued above, resulted in the emergence, but only intheory, of a precise hierarchy between all persons occupying higher posi-tions in the Muscovy state. The Table of Ranks would, again in theory, goeven further because it embraced a far greater section of the state’s person-nel, down to the lowest ocer ranks and modest civilian positions.

5. Postscript: The ‘Elder Brother’ in Soviet Rhetoric

The ‘elder brother’ metaphor experienced a remarkable revival in theSoviet Union, when it came to be applied to the position of the Russianrepublic (the RSFSR) within the USSR. I did not encounter it in Lenin’s works and neither did it occur in the speeches at the 18th Party Congressin 1939, but after Stalin alluded to it on 24 May 1945 at a toast to theRussian nation during a Kremlin reception for military commanders, it

soon became current at ocial Party meetings. Stalin actually called theRussian people “the leading people”, but in the editorial comment to hisspeech, published in Bol’shevik, the Russian people was designated as theelder brother ( starshii brat ) of the other peoples of the USSR.34

At all the Party congresses from the 20th (1956) to the 26th (1981),delegates from the non-Slavic (oriental) republics used the ‘elder brother’designation in referring to Russia.35 Intriguingly, the term was not usedby delegates from the European (Ukrainian, Belorussian and Baltic) re-publics. Also, when a spokesman from one of the ‘oriental’ republics used

the term, it was always someone from the indigenous nation, and not anethnic Russian.

33 The Table of Ranks was of fundamental importance for the peculiar character of thenoble class in Russia, which survived as a legal phenomenon until 1917, because theTable was mainly responsible for the enormous size of this class: 1% of the populationat the beginning of the 20th century (plus another 0.5% of persons enjoying personalnobility). I have discussed the history of the Russian nobility in more detail in “DeRussische adelsgeschiedenis”, Virtus. Jaarboek voor Adelsgeschiedenis, Vol.13 (2006),

62-77 (in Dutch).34 “Russkii narod–rukovodiashchaia sila sredi narodov nashei strany”, Bol’shevik, 1945,No.10, 12.

35 XX S”ezd Kommunisticheskoi Partii Sovetskogo Soiuza, Stenogracheskii otchet , Vol.1,Moskva, 1956, 404, 448; XXI S”ezd , Vol.1, 325, 337, Vol.2, 33; XXIV S”ezd , Vol.1, 362.




The usage also spread to representatives from other countries withinthe Soviet bloc, such as Mongolia and Bulgaria, who dened their rela -

tionship with the USSR as that between a younger and an elder brother.The idea of an innate hierarchy, implicit in the ‘elder brother’ meta -phor, also resurfaced at another point in the Soviet political order duringthe post-Stalin era. Careful ‘Kremlinological’ analysis showed that a ratherprecise order of precedence prevailed at the higher levels of the politi-cal system. At the top was the Politbureau, which itself knew a distinctranking of its members and candidate members. Then came the PartySecretariat, which partly overlapped with the Politbureau. The Secretary-General, at the head of both bodies, was the undisputed leader of the

USSR. All members of the Politbureau as well as all Central CommitteeParty Secretaries (the departmental heads of the Party Secretariat) were(on paper) elected by the Central Committee (several hundred members), which in turn was elected (on paper) by the Party Congress (4000-5000delegates). The entire recruitment process was in fact managed from thetop, the Politbureau. The Central Committee, comparable to the Diet ofthe Holy Roman Empire, consisted entirely of ‘quality’ blocks of members:the 14 Party secretaries of the non-Russian republics, most provincial Partysecretaries, the most important ministers, the military high command, a

number of important ambassadors, a few seats for leading gures fromthe arts and sciences and the media, etc. An individual making a career inthe Party might reach a certain level, justifying his entry into the CentralCommittee. He would then be given a position (such as Party secretaryin a province) to which his status entitled him. There was also a clearlyobservable hierarchy among the Party positions which yielded CentralCommittee membership.

The parallels with institutions from the past are intriguing. Partysecretaries were promoted from one province to another and movedaround regional capitals as the princes of Kievan Russia. The career pat-terns of Soviet bureaucrats were often reminiscent of the old mestnichestvo system.



Chapter 7

The Treaties of Medieval Russia

The purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of the treaties ofmedieval Russia.1 The peculiar nature of the medieval Russian polity, spe-cically the plurality of an ever changing number of semi-states, as wellas their intriguing relationships with the Golden Horde, raises unusualquestions and lends the topic a special scholarly appeal.

1. Dening the Topic

The earliest known Russian treaties date from the 10th century, but itis only from the 14th century on that a sucient number of texts havesurvived to allow more than just speculation or a few general statements.By the end of the 15th century, or at the latest by the beginning of the 16thcentury, a single centrally governed Russian state had emerged. The treatiesconcluded by the ruler of Muscovy, the Russian tsar, are part of the bodyof public international law which continues without a break until 1917,the end of the Russian Empire.2 After a short discussion of the earliesttreaties, we shall focus therefore primarily on the 14th and 15th century,

the period which corresponds to the West European middle ages.The current concept of an international treaty is closely allied to theconcept of the sovereign state. Treaties are agreements between sovereignstates; nowadays sovereign states may unite in setting up internationalorganizations and such organizations may also appear as subjects of publicinternational law and as parties to treaties.

1 The treaties of the Russian Empire are to be found in ocial publications, viz. Pa-

miatniki diplomaticheskikh snoshenii s derzhavami inostrannymi , published in S.Peterburgsince 1851, and its successor Sbornik deistvuiushchikh traktatov, konventsii i soglashenii zakliuchennykh Rossiei s drugimi gosudarstvami , published in S.Peterburg since 1889. Thelatter series was continued with an amended title after the October Revolution. Asemi-ocial publication of pre-revolutionary Russian treaties was Sobranie traktatov i konventsii, zakliuchennykh Rossiei s inostrannymi gosudarstvami , published by the leadingRussian international law expert from the era, F.F. Martens, in S.Peterburg since 1874. An English language register of Soviet treaties from 1917 up to 1957 was published byR.M. Slusser & J. Triska, A Calendar of Soviet Treaties, 1917-1957, Stanford, 1959; this work was continued by G. Ginsburgs & R.M. Slusser, A Calendar of Soviet Treaties,1958-1973, Alphen a/d Rijn, 1981.

2 The rst publication of most medieval Russian charters, including treaty texts, wasin Drevniaia Rossiiskaia Vivlioka ili sobranie raznykh drevnikh sochinenii , S. Peterburg(1st ed.), 1773-1775; more accessible to most scholars will be the major 19th centuryrepublication in the rst two volumes of Sobranie Gosudarstvennykh Gramot i Dogovorov,Vols.1-4, S.Peterburg, 1813-1826 (hereafter SGGD ).




This framework is not fully applicable in a medieval setting. If modernconcepts are employed, one could say that sovereignty was usually frag-

mented in the middle ages and parcelled out among several authorities. Applying another modern concept anachronistically, one could dene amedieval treaty as an agreement between public law parties. The dicultythen is that the public-private law dichotomy is sometimes meaninglessin a medieval context, when for instance there is no distinction betweenthe ‘private’ wealth of the ruler and the powers exercised by him over histerritory. Also, we would not look upon a community of foreign merchantsas a public law party. In medieval Russia, however, agreements in the formof treaties between ‘governments’ (generally ruling princes) and groups of

foreign merchants are quite common and are clearly regarded as something very close to agreements between governments. A pragmatic (some would say opportunistic) approach oers the most

convenient solution to the dilemma. If it looks like a treaty, if then andnow it was and is regarded as a treaty, it will be included in this survey.

Parenthetically, one might add that this approach is probably moreacceptable now than it would have been a generation ago. We have grownaccustomed to a certain dissolution of absolute sovereignty. It has notonly been eroded by the ever increasing role of international and even

supranational organizations, but we also observe a growing independenceand assertiveness of lower range public law corporations. National statesare seen to conclude agreements (sometimes even called treaties) withtheir own provinces or even cities; Russia herself oers a prime example( e.g . the treaty of 15 February 1994 with the Republic of Tatarstan,3 or theagreement between the prime ministers of Russia and Chechnia of 23 No- vember 1996, concerning Chechnia, based on the Khasaviurt agreementof 31 August 1996 between the representative of the Russian presidentand the Chechen supreme commander4 ).

Another denitional aspect concerns the material form: strictlyspeaking, a treaty is a bilateral (or multilateral) legal act (almost alwaysin written form), by which the (‘sovereign’) parties create mutual rightsand duties. In this chapter, the concept is extended to include situationscreated by more than one act, e.g . an exchange of letters. There are nu-merous examples among the documents considered in this chapter, ofprinces whose legal relationships were determined by documents whichthey addressed to each other and in which the mutual rights and duties were spelled out. Such letters then appear as each other’s complements.These situations have a parallel in private law in the contract concluded3 Rossiiskaia Gazeta, 17 February 1994.4 Cf . F. Feldbrugge, “The Elections in Chechnia in the Framework of Russian Con-

stitutional Law”, Review of Central and East European Law, 1997, No.1, 1-7, at 4.



The Treaties of Medieval Russia 183

by separate acts of oer and acceptance. If, as often happened in the caseof medieval documents, only one part of the set of letters has survived,

almost no information has been lost and we may regard the surviving let-ter in a material sense as a treaty.To summarize, the presence of a treaty is presumed when:

(a) there appears to be a formalized agreement, i.e. capable of beingreproduced;

(b) concerning matters that can be regarded as belonging to publiclaw;

(c) between parties enjoying a certain measure of ‘sovereign’ power,

who were, in particular, suciently independent of each other.

Point (a) implies that the presence of a unilateral document (such as a let-ter) may be enough, provided it reects the contents of an agreement.

Point (b) excludes situations which concern predominantly privatelaw relationships ( e.g . princely brothers who settle their father’s privateestate).

Point (c) excludes situations where one party is fully subordinate tothe other. Borderline cases will occur, as usual.

Finally, a small number of documents is included in the survey, althoughtheir character is indisputably unilateral, because they may be equatedto treaties on a functional level. What we have in mind are the charters( iarlyki ), issued by the Tatar-Mongol rulers (more below).

A related question concerns the external form of treaties: what formu-las were used to begin and end treaties, what other aspects of the treaties were determined by a set formulary, etc.? This question, although relatedto the question of the material form, may more suitably be discussed whenlooking at the dierent categories of treaties.

2. The Earliest Times

The rst information on Russia is provided by foreign authors, mainlyGreek and Arab historian and chroniclers.5 The principal domestic sourceis the Primary Chronicle (see the chapter on sources).

Under its entries for the years 907, 912, 945 and 971, the PrimaryChronicle contains what purport to be the texts of treaties concluded5 Cf . E.A. Mel’nikova (ed.), Drevniaia Rus’ v svete zarubezhnykh istochnikov, Moskva,

2000; M.V. Bibikov, Vizantiiskie istochniki po istorii Drevnei Rusi i Kavkaza, S.Peterburg,1999. A collection of English translations of relevant texts in S. Pushkarev (comp.),G. Vernadsky (senior ed.) & R.T. Fisher Jr. (man. ed.), A Source Book for Russian History from Early Times to 1017, Vol.1 “Early Times to the Late Seventeenth Century”, NewHaven/London, 1972.




between Byzantium and Russia. A large body of literature on these treatiesexists, to which almost all leading Russian medievalists have contribut-

ed.6

In this chapter, only a few specic observations concerning aspects,relevant in connection with the subsequent Russian treaty practice, willbe made.

The 10th century Russian-Byzantine treaties were not the rst oftheir kind, just the only ones that survived. The Primary Chronicle men-tions several raids by Russians (Vikings) around the year 860. Byzantinesources add more detail. According to the chronicle written by the authorknown as the Continuator (actually the emperor Constantine VII Por-phyrogenitus, 913-959), the emperor Basil I (867-886) concluded a peace

treaty with the “Russes”, of which their acceptance of baptism was animportant element.7 The relationship between the short treaty of 907 and the treaty of 9128

remains controversial. Most commentators are inclined to regard the twotexts as fragments of a lost treaty text, connected with the hostilities be-tween Byzantium and the Russians in the beginning of the 10th century.

The parties to the 10th century treaties were the Byzantine emperorsand various collectives of Russian (or Viking) chiefs, under the commandof a prince. The fragmentary text of the 907 treaty seemed to have only

Oleg, grand prince of Kiev, appearing on the Russian side. The 912 treatymentioned fteen persons, all with Scandinavian names, claiming to rep-resent Oleg, grand prince of Kiev, and “all the serene and grand princes

6 A.N. Sakharov, Diplomatiia Drevnei Rusi. IX-pervaia polovina X v., Moskva, 1980, themost recent major Russian work on this subject, contains an extensive bibliography. Among later Russian works: S.M. Kashtanov, Iz istorii russkogo srednevekovogo istochnika,Moskva, 1996, 4-59. The most comprehensive discussion by a Western author is I.

Sorlin, “Les traités de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe siècle”, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique, Vol.II (1961), 313-360 and 447-475. Text in PRP I, 3-70 (incl. modern Russiantranslation and bibliography) and in D. Kaiser (transl. & ed.), The Laws of Rus’–Tenthto Fifteenth Centuries, Salt Lake City, 1992, 1-13 (text and English translation).

7 Extensively on the raid of 860: P.V Kuznetsov, “Pokhod 860 g. na Konstantinopol’i pervoe kreshchenie Rusi v srednevekovykh pis’mennykh istochnikakh”, L.V. Sto-liarova (ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2000g.; Problemy istochnikovedeniia,Moskva, 2003, 3-172. Sakharov, op.cit ., 47-82 (chapter 2), also discusses the raids andtreaty (or treaties, there may have been more than one) extensively; pp.59-82 aredevoted to a discussion of the treaty and its possible contents. See, also, Mel’nikova,

op.cit ., 102-111. All authors stress the connection between the raid and the treaty onthe one hand, and the (rst) baptism of Russia on the other. In the Primary Chronicle,the raids and the conversion of Olga (around the middle of the XIth century) arecompletely separate events.

8 On account of the Russians using the March calendar, the correct date of the treatyis generally regarded as 911, not 912.




under his sway”.9 This suggests some kind of alliance of which the Kievanprince was the leader. This understanding is reinforced by the text of the

945 treaty which lists Ivar as the representative of Igor, grand prince ofKiev, and then twenty-three other names, each with the name of the personrepresented, followed by a list of “merchants”, also numbering twenty-three.10 The 971 treaty was concluded on the Russian side by Sviatoslav, grand prince of Kiev, and by Sveinald; the latter was Sviatoslav’s mentorand commander-in-chief. The point to be noted here is that political rela-tions in 10th century Kievan Russia had not yet coalesced into a clear-cutstate structure in which the Kievan prince acted as the undisputed ruler. As could be expected, this is most obvious in the earliest treaty, of 912,

where other princes appear as co-signatories and where the envoys statein the introductory sentences that they are acting “in accordance withthe wishes and the commands of our grand princes”.

As to the contents, the treaties of 907 and 971 are short and of limitedinterest from the legal point of view. The treaties of 912 and 945, referringto previous hostilities between the two parties, outline a legal regime forthe predominantly commercial contracts.

The texts of all four treaties pay considerable attention to the matterof form; each party makes clear that it binds itself in accordance with its

own tradition.11

The general background of the 10th century treaties is well illumi-nated by the Primary Chronicle’s narrative. The conglomerate of Slavictribes of the preceding centuries was gradually consolidating into moresolid political structures. Mobile bands of Viking traders/warriors playeda decisive role in the process of coagulation. Scandinavian chiefs or pettykings, accompanied by their Viking retinue, became russied princes withina few generations. It was under their command that the raids against Con-stantinople were organized. The ensuing treaties show that the membersof the prince’s druzhina were still suciently independent and powerful tobe included as co-signatories (see, also, the chapter on “Land Tenure, the Druzhina, and the Nature of Kievan Rus”). The rulers of Kiev acquired a

9 Of the 15 emissaries, ve were also mentioned in 907 as Oleg’s representatives.10 Nearly all principals and all representatives and merchants bear Scandinavian names;

one emissary, Sverki, is appearing in person, i.e. for himself. Unlike most commenta-tors, A.S. Korolev, in a recent study ( Istoriia mezhdukniazheskikh otnoshenii na Rusi v 40-e-70-e gody X veka, Moskva, 1999, 30-36), regards the Russian delegation in 944 as

multinational, embracing Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, Iranian and Finnish envoys.11 On the form of the Russian-Byzantine treaties: S.M. Kashtanov, “O protsedure zak-

liucheniia dogovorov mezhdu Vizantiei i Rus’iu v X v.”, V.T. Pashuto (ed.), Feodal’naia Rossiia vo vsemirno-istoricheskom protsesse [Cherepnin Festschrift], Moskva, 1972, 209-215.




dominant position within the entire Russian commonwealth in this era.The contacts and treaties with Byzantium must be seen in this light. From

Byzantine sources, we know that the Byzantine emperor did not regardhis Russian counterparts as equal and fully respectably treaty partners,but as irregular freebooters who had to be pacied and bought o, as theByzantines were accustomed to do with ‘barbarian’ invaders.

3. Periodization and Sources

The rst available treaty text after the 10th century treaties betweenByzantium and the Kievans is a treaty which can be dated between 1189and 119912 and which was concluded between Novgorod the Great (VelikiiNovgorod, as opposed to Nizhnii Novgorod, the East Russian city on theVolga which was founded only in 1221) and Hanseatic partners.13 The textof the treaty itself refers to previous treaties between the same parties.

The chronicles oer ample evidence of lively diplomatic trac inthe previous period, but no complete texts of treaties have survived. Forinstance, the Primary Chronicle contains the texts of an exchange ofletters between Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh and prince ofNovgorod at the time,14 and his father’s rst cousin Oleg Sviatoslavich,

prince of Chernigov, in 1096. Of even greater importance was the meet-ing of most of the leading princes the next year, in Liubech, resulting ina formal agreement concerning the division of Kievan Rus’ in a numberof principalities.

The Hypatian Chronicle includes the full text of a letter writtenin 1149 on behalf of Mstislav’s son Iziaslav, grand prince of Kiev, to hisuncle Iurii Dolgorukii, the ancestor of the ruling dynasty of Muscovy. 15 The grandfather of Russian historiography, V.I. Tatishchev (1686-1750),probably had access to treaty texts which have been lost since.16

12 E.A. Rybina, “O dvukh drevneishikh torgovykh dogovorakh Novgoroda”, V.L. Ianin(ed.), Novgorodskii Istoricheskii Sbornik, 3(13), Leningrad, 1989, 43-50, dates the treatymore precisely in 1191-1192.

13 GVNP , No.28; also in PRP II, 124-132.14 He became grand prince of Kiev, like his father before him, in 1125.15 PSRL II, 387; text and commentary in Pashuto, Vneshnaia politika, 153-155.16 A great quantity of ancient documents was lost in the great re in 1812 during the

French occupation of Moscow. Iu.A. Limonov has attempted to reconstruct a treatybetween Vladimir Monomakh and the Volga Bulgars from 1106, the text of which was apparently available to Tatishchev; Iu.A. Limonov, “Aktovo-pravovoe oformlenie vneshnepoliticheskikh otnoshenii Vladimiro-Suzdal’skoi Rusi s Volzhskoi Bolgariei(Opyt rekonstruktsii)”, A.P. Novosel’tsev (ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy. Materialy i issledovaniia 1991 god , Moskva, 1994, 259-264.




The earlier evidence from the chronicles and the small number ofsurviving treaties from the 12th and 13th century are nevertheless in agree-

ment with the more abundant evidence from the 14th and 15th century.The central theme of the internal Russian treaties, the treaties betweenthe Russian princes, was and remained seniority, the subtle hierarchyexisting among the princes and among their respective territories (see,also, the chapter on “The Elder Brother in Russia”).

The Appendix to this chapter lists and categorizes more than 120treaties, covering a period of three hundred years. The list does not claimcompleteness.

As to periodization, it is usually convenient to break up a longer era

into smaller segments. This is done by looking for signicant dierences,new developments, and these are often marked by prominent historicalevents. The danger of this approach is that dierences and changes mayreceive more attention than continuity. In the matter of the Russian mid-dle ages, the problem is aggravated by the fact that the leading Sovietauthors worked in an atmosphere which was not free from politicallyimposed models. The result was often a rigid framework, agreeing withand reinforcing current Soviet values and concepts. In general terms, this would boil down to the following:

(1) Kievan Russia, with its apogee during the reign of the Kievan grandprinces Vladimir I (St.Vladimir) and his son Iaroslav the Wise, anda second owering under Iaroslav’s grandson Vladimir Monomakh(1113-1125): centralized power, greatness.

(2) The period of feudal fragmentation ( feodal’naia razdroblennost’ ) or ofthe apanage principalities ( udel’nye kniazhestva ), with its nadir the fallof Kiev in 1240 and the imposition of the Mongol Yoke ( Mongol’skoeigo ): decline and disaster.

(3) The formation of a centralized Russian state around the Moscow grand prince, culminating in the rule of Ivan III the Great (1462-1505): return of central power and greatness.

The admittedly limited evidence from the treaties of the era concerneddoes not bear out the simplicity of this framework. There was not sucha clear story of rise and fall, of success and disaster; numerous nuancesshould be made; there was more continuity than change.




4. The Treaties between the Princes

The treaties between the Russian princes constitute the most numerous group among the collection surveyed in this chapter, and within this group the vast majority is made up of treaties concluded by the grandprince of Moscow with other Russian princes. This can be explained inpart by the fact that, for at least the latter half of the period under review,the Moscow grand prince was the most important and powerful ruler.There is a direct and unbroken connection between the grand princesof Moscow, the tsars, and the emperors. Ivan IV (the Terrible) solemnlyassumed the title of tsar in 154717 and tsar Peter transformed Russia into

an empire in 1721. The archives of the princes of Moscow were, therefore,the core out of which the Russian state archives grew and understandablythe conditions for document survival were more favourable in Moscowthan elsewhere. An additional reason for the preponderance of Moscowdocuments may be the deliberate destruction of treaties between otherprinces. The Moscow princes, in their ultimately successful struggle forsupremacy, had an interest in doing away with anything that might upsettheir claims.18

For these reasons, the corpus of treaties between Russian princes,

available to us, begins at a comparatively late moment. There can be nodoubt, however, that the practice of concluding treaties among them-selves was by no means new in the second half of the 14th century. Wehave referred above to several instances of treaties between 11th centuryRussian princes, detailed information about which has been provided bythe chronicles.19

The treaties between Russian princes (mostly those of Tver’ andMoscow) and Novgorod are not discussed in this section, but under the general heading of Novgorod treaties.

17 His predecessors, notably his grandfather Ivan III, had already used the title oc-casionally. Assumption of the title, derived from the Latin Caesar, had been facili-tated by the fall of Constantinople in 1454 and the disappearance of the Byzantineemperor.

18 The standard work on the history of the archives of the princes of Moscow andconnected archives is L.V. Cherepnin, Russkie feodal’nye arkhivy XIV-XV vekov, Part1, Moscow/Leningrad, 1948, Part 2, Moscow, 1951 (hereafter: Cherepnin, Arkhivy Ior II). V.A. Kuchkin, Dogovornye gramoty moskovskikh kniazei XIV veka. Vneshnepo- liticheskie dogovory, Moskva, 2003, covers only ve treaties (Moscow-Tver’, of 1318;

Moscow-Novgorod, of 1371; Moscow-Lithuania, of 1375; Moscow-Riazan’, of 1381;and Moscow-Tver’, of 1399).

19 This point was also made a century ago by V.I. Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 150-162.See, also, S.V. Iushkov, Obshchestvenno-politicheskii stroi i pravo Kievskogo gosudarstva,Moskva, 1949, 330.




Starshinstvo

The treaties between the Russian princes of the Middle Ages cannot be

understood properly without consideration of the starshinstvo principle.It is explained in detail in the chapter on “The Elder Brother in Russia”.Its underlying principle was that the right to rule was essentially a rightof the ruling house. The individual right to rule was then apportionedaccording to rank and status of individual (male) members of the house.Precedence was determined rst by generation (fathers and uncles beforesons and nephews) and within the generation by age. Later successionprinciples such as substitution and primogeniture did not operate, at leastnot in principle. The seniority principle established (ideally) a hierarchy within the ruling family. This hierarchy corresponded to a hierarchy ofcities/provinces: rst Kiev, then Novgorod, Chernigov and others. The grand prince of Kiev was not automatically the ruler of Russia, but he wasundoubtedly the rst among otherwise equals.

As the house of Rurik expanded, the substitution principle gradu-ally asserted itself, in that branches of the family became established inparticular provinces, which came to be regarded as their own. Of even greater importance was the fact that seniority or starshinstvo became an

object for negotiation.The Treaties and Testaments of the Princes of Muscovy: Close Relatives

The central legal instrument used by the grand princes of Moscow tobuild up their dominant position was the acceptance by other princes ofthe recognition of the prince of Moscow as their “elder brother”. This ap-proach of course implied that the right to rule was not any longer viewedas dependent on the operation of a xed principle, but as something thatcould be negotiated and freely disposed of. As a consequence of this new

understanding, the ruler would also be free to appoint his own successor.20 The Moscow grand princes usually appointed their eldest sons to succeedand their wills would then instruct their other sons and surviving brothersto accept the successor as “elder brother”.

The surviving collection of last wills of Moscow grand princes illus-trates the process through which the grand prince appropriated the rightto appoint his successor. In the oldest available document, the testamentof Ivan Danilovich (Kalita), from around 1339, the private law characterprevails. Ivan divided what he received from his father (his otchina ) among

his three sons, Semën, Ivan and Andrei, with some assets set aside for his wife and younger children. Semën is mentioned as the eldest ( bol’shoi ) and20 A principle that also seems to apply informally to the presidents of the Russian

Federation.




is exhorted to act as protector ( pechal’nik ) of his mother and brothers andsisters, but otherwise the sons receive equal treatment.21

Some ten years later, however, around 1350-1351, when Semën was well installed as grand prince of Moscow, he concluded a compact withhis brothers Ivan and Andrei in which the latter bound themselves tohonour him as their father. This implied, among other things, that they would support him in war and that they would not conclude treaties with outsiders.22 When Semën died in 1353, his sons had all predeceasedhim without issue, and he left his possessions to his widow, without anymention of his successor.23 His brother Ivan who in fact succeeded himas grand prince of Moscow, wrote his last will in 1358, stating that he left

his patrimony Moscow ( otchinu svoiu Moskvu ) to his sons Dmitrii and Ivan.24 Again, the elder son, Dmitrii (Donskoi), succeeded as grand prince; theother brother, Ivan, died in 1364.

In his last will of 1389, Dmitrii Donskoi again left “his patrimonyMoscow” to his four sons, but the grand princely dignity to his eldestson Vasilii, instructing the younger sons to “honour and obey” their elderbrother.25 When Vasilii died in 1425, he was survived only by his youngestson Vasilii the Blind ( Temnyi ) on whom again the grand princely dignity was conferred.26 After Vasilii the Blind, the practice solidied: the eldest

son was made grand prince of Moscow and the younger brothers weretold to obey and follow him, but they did receive, as in the past, their ownprincipalities ( udely, apanage principalities).27 The accession of Vasilii theBlind was the occasion, however, of a erce family feud (see below).

There exists a modest number of treaties between the grand prince ofMoscow and one or more of his brothers.28 From a modern point of view,one could say that the private law element in these treaties was strong andsometimes dominant, where they mainly concerned the division of the21

DDG , No.1, 7-11. English translation in R.C. Howes,The Testaments of the Grand Princesof Moscow, Ithaca, 1967.22 DDG , No.2, 11-13.23 DDG , No.3, 13-14.24 DDG , No.4, 15-19. Ivan’s younger brother Andrei had been assigned various properties,

among which was Serpukhov. He became the ancestor of the princes of Serpukhov-Borovsk, the subjects of numerous treaties with their Moscow cousins.

25 DDG , No.12, 33-37.26 DDG , No.21, 57-60.

27 See the testaments of Vasilii Vasil’evich Temnyi in 1461, DDG , No.61, 193-199, andof his son grand prince Ivan III Vasil’evich in 1504, DDG , No.89, 353-364.

28 E.g . the treaty mentioned above, between grand prince Semën and his brothers Ivanand Andrei; also a treaty from 1472 between grand prince Ivan III and his brother Andrei, prince of Uglich, DDG , No.66, 214-216.




paternal estate. The public law element resided in the stipulation that the younger brothers could exercise public powers in their apanage principali-

ties, such as administering justice, and in a number of prohibitions; they were especially forbidden to engage in foreign relations and specicallyto have relations with the Mongol overlords. The princely powers of the younger brothers were therefore strongly dependent on the agreementof the Moscow prince. In view of the very restricted ‘sovereignty’ of the younger brothers, their agreements with the Moscow prince can hardlybe regarded as international treaties; they have not been included in the Appendix.

Within the category of treaties between the grand princes of Moscow

and other Russian princes, the largest group is formed by the treaties be-tween the Moscow grand prince and his somewhat more distant relativesfrom the Moscow branch, i.e. descendants of the younger sons of IvanKalita (†1341): the princes of Serpukhov-Borovsk, Galich, Mozhaisk, Dm-itrov, Zvenigorod, Verei, Belozero and Volotsk. These treaties documentin detail how the Moscow prince eectively prevented the fragmentationof his power by severely restricting the powers of his cousins and otherrelatives as rulers of split-o principalities.29

An important and very informative sub-group is formed by the trea-

ties from the period 1422-1436 in which a major dynastic crisis occurredand the new practice introduced by the Moscow grand princes was putto the test.30

Dmitrii Donskoi, in his will of 1389, to which we referred above,had appointed his eldest son Vasilii as grand prince, adding that the nextson would receive Vasilii’s inheritance if the latter were to die (Vasilii waseighteen years old at the time and unmarried). When Vasilii died in 1425,only his youngest son, Vasilii the Blind ( Temnyi ), was alive, and ten yearsold. His eldest uncle, Iurii Dmitrievich, prince of Galich, claimed thethrone, on the basis of his father’s (Dmitrii Donskoi’s) testament. At rst, young Vasilii prevailed, through the support of the church, in the personof the Moscow metropolitan Fotii, and of the Lithuanian grand prince,his maternal grandfather, the formidable Vitovt. After the death of thelatter two, the conict erupted again and in 1431 the dispute was submittedto the khan of the Golden Horde, Ulug Mekhmet, still the titular over-

29 A thorough discussion of these treaties in Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 31-45, 63-80.30 Cf . DDG , Nos.12 (testament of Dmitrii Donskoi), 22 (testament of 1423 of his son,

grand prince Vasilii Dmitrievich), 24 (treaty of 1428 between grand prince VasiliiVasil’evich and Iurii Dmitrievich, prince of Galich and Zvenigorod), 27 (treaty of 1433between grand prince Vasilii Vasil’evich and Vasilii Iaroslavich, prince of Serpukhov-Borovsk), 29 (testament of Iurii Dmitrievich of Galich), 30-36 (treaties from 1433-1439 with a number of princes). See, also, Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 100-128.




lord of the Russian princes (more on this topic below). Vasilii’s emissaryargued that Iurii’s claim rested on the tradition of the Russian princes,

but that his principal referred to the khan’s good favour.31

Not surpris-ingly, Vasilii won the day. In 1433 Iurii briey overran Moscow, assumedthe grand princely dignity, and his nephew retired as apanage prince toKolomna. Soon, however, Vasilii’s side grew in strength and he recapturedthe Moscow throne, only to lose it again, early in the next year, when hisarmy was defeated by Iurii’s. Iurii ruled as grand prince of Moscow untilhis death a few months later. He was succeeded by his son Vasilii Kosoi, who was unable to maintain himself, being deserted by his own brothers.Vasilii Temnyi returned and had Vasilii Kosoi blinded.

The story was more or less replayed ten years later, when Vasilii Temnyi was taken prisoner by khan Ulug Mekhmet, who then oered the Moscowthrone to Vasilii Kosoi’s younger brother, Dmitrii Iur’evich Shemiaka,prince of Galich, like his father. Next, the khan withdrew the oer andreleased Vasilii Temnyi. Civil war again broke out. Initially, the tide wasagainst Vasilii, who was taken prisoner and blinded in revenge (hence, hissurname Temnyi). When support for Shemiaka’s claim to the grand princelydignity dwindled, Vasilii was able to reassert himself in 1446.32

Excursion Concerning the Title of Grand PrinceOriginally, it was attached to the principality of Kiev and accordingly itmoved around the various branches of the Rurikid dynasty. The rst prince who apparently appropriated the title for his own branch was MstislavDavidovich (†1230), prince of Smolensk and grandson of Rostislav; thelatter, like his father Mstislav Harald (eldest son and successor of VladimirMonomakh), had been grand prince of Kiev. The descendants of MstislavDavidovich who ruled in Smolensk until the end of the 14th century styled

themselves grand princes of Smolensk.The princes of Riazan’, who held out longer than any other branchof the Rurikids against their Moscow cousins, were the descendants ofSviatoslav II (†1076), grand prince of Kiev and son of Iaroslav the Wise.

31 The episode is recounted in detail by Karamzin, 2, V, col.141-156; see, also, R.O.Crummey, The Formation of Muscovy 1304-1613, London/New York, 1987, 68-71.

32 One treaty survives, that between Dmitrii Shemiaka and two princes of Suzdal’, of1445, in which Shemiaka advertised himself as plain prince in the preamble, but re-ferred later on to his grand princely dignity and also used the grand princely formula“By the grace of God”, DDG , No.40, 119-121. Several other treaties of the period arealso directly linked with the Shemiaka episode, e.g. DDG , No.52, 155-160, between grand prince Vasilii Vasil’evich and prince Ivan Vasil’evich Gorbatyi of Suzdal’, and DDG , No.48, 146-148, between grand prince Vasilii Vasil’evich and his cousin Ivan Andreevich, prince of Mozhaisk. Cf. Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 128-150.




The sons of Ingvar Igorevich (†1235), prince of Riazan’, were the rst touse the title of grand prince of Riazan’. Ivan IV Ivanovich was the last

ruling grand prince of Riazan’; he died in exile in 1533 or 1534.The other grand princely titles were all derived in some way from the grand princely dignity of Vladimir (on the Kliazma). Kiev had already lostmuch of its former glory and power in the 12th century, although the throneof Kiev remained a ercely contested prize among the various branchesof the Rurikid house. After the death of the aforementioned Rostislav, grand prince of Kiev and prince of Smolensk (in 1168), Kiev was sacked anddestroyed by an alliance of Russian princes in the following years. AndreiBogoliubskii, prince of Vladimir and the most powerful among the Russian

princes of his day, gave Kiev to his brother Gleb and styled himself grandprince of Vladimir from this time on, although the (less important) prince who happened to rule in Kiev would still enjoy the title of grand prince.The last prince to bear the Kievan title was Mikhail Vsevolodovich, of thebranch of the princes of Chernigov (descendants of the above-mentionedSviatoslav II), who was killed by the Mongols in 1246.

Andrei Bogoliubskii was succeeded as grand prince of Vladimir by hisbrothers Mikhail and then Vsevolod III the ‘Great Nest’ ( Bol’shoe Gnezdo ).The latter’s son Iaroslav II was succeeded as grand prince of Vladimir by

ve of his sons successively: Aleksandr Nevskii, Andrei, Mikhail, Iaroslavand Vasilii. Aleksandr, Andrei and Iaroslav became the ancestors of thedynasties of respectively Moscow, Suzdal’ (later on Nizhnii Novgorod)and Tver’. The Vladimir title occasionally reverted to the Tver’ branch;but, in the end, the descendants of Aleksandr Nevskii were successful inclaiming the title exclusively for the princes of Moscow, the apanage of Aleksandr Nevskii’s youngest son Daniil. The latter’s grandson Semën was the rst to adopt the style of grand prince of Moscow and Vladimir.There were only a few grand princes of Nizhnii Novgorod, but the grandprinces of Tver’ were major rivals of the Moscow princes until the end ofTver’ independence in 1485.33

A related, but separate issue is the origin of the title of grand princeof all Russia ( vseia Rusi ). It had been used in a descriptive sense by thechroniclers in referring to Kievan princes, such as Vladimir Monomakh(†1125), who were in fact rulers of all Russia. Later on, it became the mostimportant title of the Moscow grand princes, starting from AleksandrNevskii.34

33 See, also, A. Poppe, “Words that serve the authority. On the title of ‘Grand Prince’in Kievan Rus”, Acta Poloniae historica, 60 (1989), 159-184.

34 See Kh. Lovmians’kii, “Russko-litovskie otnosheniia v XIV–XV vv.”, V.T. Pashuto(ed.), Feodal’naia Rossiia vo vsemirno-istoricheskom protsesse [Cherepnin Collection],Moskva, 1972, 269-275, who also refers to older literature on the subject. The early




The ‘house pacts’ within the clan of Ivan Kalita’s descendants,contained a package of standard conditions. The core of it was always

the recognition of the status of elder brother. There were several varia-tions on this theme, each indicating more precisely the character of therelationship. Sometimes one party recognized the other as elder brotherand father,35 or simply as father.36 Occasionally, the treaty outlined a morecomplex hierarchy, where several princes were involved. The treaty of1445, between Dmitrii Iur’evich Shemiaka of Galich, when he was actuallyoccupying the grand princely throne, and the princes of Suzdal’, distinguished between fathers and sons, elder, younger, and equal brothers, anduncles and nephews.37 In this connection, it is worth noting that fathers

(and grandfathers) and sons did not conclude treaties among each other.38 The general logic, according to the old family hierarchy of the Rurikids, was that older generations took precedence over younger ones, so thatuncles could take the place of fathers. This system was superseded thenby the new Moscow approach, where a more prominent position wouldoverrule the family relationship. As a result, an uncle would then addresshis nephew as elder brother in certain cases.39

Once the Moscow grand prince had established his right to appointhis successor (usually his eldest son), he made sure to insert his succes-

sor, or sometimes his heirs in general, as co-signatories, so that the otherparty would also have to recognize the grand prince’s successors as elderbrothers.

The basic elements of the dependent relationship were the following.The junior party bound himself to be loyal to his senior, which included aduty to inform about anything of importance to the latter. He was obliged

grand princes of Kiev also used the title of kagan, borrowed from the Khazars; cf . A.V. Novosel’tsev, “K voprosu ob odnom iz drevneishikh titulov russkogo kniazia”, Istoriia SSSR, 1982, No.4; also in T.M. Kalinina (ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi

Evropy 1998 g. [Novosel’tsev memorial volume], Moskva, 2000, 367-379.35 E.g . DDG , No.27.36 E.g . DDG , No.40.37 Ibidem.38 Cf . Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 152-153. A possible exception to this implicit rule would

be a treaty between a maternal grandfather and his grandson. There are no extantexamples of such treaties, but in a treaty of 1427 between Boris Aleksandrovich ofTver’ and the brother of his paternal grandmother, grand prince Vitovt of Lithuania,the latter is referred to as Boris’ grandfather; DDG , No.23, 62-63.

39 E.g . the treaty between grand prince Vasilii Vasil’evich and his uncle Iurii Dmitrievichof Galich, DDG , No.24, 63-67. Extensively on this entire topic Sergeevich, Drevnosti II, 181-200; Sergeevich, as mentioned, regarded starshinstvo as a matter of familyetiquette and linguistic practice and rejected the notion that it had any meaningbeyond that.




to support his senior in his external aairs, which might also involve militaryduties. Such duties could be more or less onerous; sometimes the junior

prince was only obliged to take part in campaigns if the elder brother alsoparticipated in person, Generally the junior partner was forbidden to engage in foreign aairs ( ne kanchivati , not to conclude agreements), but there were exceptions; in some cases, he was allowed to conclude treaties, butnot without the senior’s knowledge. In a few cases, the senior party alsohad to inform the junior party of foreign policy activities. Relations withthe Golden Horde were nearly always the exclusive domain of the seniorparty. Most treaties paid attention to internal administrative activitiesof both parties, such as the levying of various taxes and the administra-

tion of justice, and the eects of such activities in the principality of theother party. Another highly signicant matter was the freedom allowedto the prince’s boyars: were they granted the possibility of changing theirallegiance? The signicance of this question lay in the importance for theprince of the support of his boyars in maintaining his position.

The Treaties of the Princes of Muscovy: Distant Relatives

A smaller part of the collection of Moscow treaties concerns relations with other Russian princes, i.e. princes belonging to the Rurikid house, butnot to the Moscow branch. The collection contains six treaties with the grand princes of Tver’, ve with the grand princes of Riazan’, and one withthe prince of Suzdal’.40 The circumstances surrounding the conclusion ofthese treaties diered from each other, but in a general way one might saythat they displayed, as could be expected, a more equal status between theparties than the treaties concluded by the Moscow grand prince with hiscloser relatives. In the cases of the Tver’ and Riazan’ treaties, the sequencein time shows an increasing loss of independence of the respective prince.

The earliest treaty in this category, of 1375, between grand princes Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Tver’ and Dmitrii Ivanovich Donskoi of Moscow, wasconcluded after the military defeat of Tver’ at a very precarious momentof Dmitrii Donskoi’s rule. After pillaging Moscow, Tokhtamysh, the khanof the Golden Horde, continued raiding Russia. Mikhail of Tver’ hadpetitioned the khan for granting him the grand principality of Vladimir(the major title of the Moscow grand prince) and had started hostilitiesagainst Dmitrii Donskoi. A grand alliance of Russian princes, led by theMoscow grand prince, was then formed which forced Mikhail of Tver’

into submission.41

In the resulting treaty,42

he recognized Dmitrii Donskoi40 Cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 51-58, 80-86, 191-205.41 Cf. Karamzin, Book 2, Part 5, col.21-24; Crummey, op.cit.,57-58.42 DDG , No.9, 25-28.




as his elder brother and accepted the duty “to mount his horse” ( sesti na kon’ ) together with the Moscow prince, i.e. to support him in arms. Most

other obligations, however, were mutual. He was not forbidden, as wascustomary in treaties which the Moscow prince concluded with otherprinces, to negotiate with other powers or to have relations with theGolden Horde.43 He did promise not to accept the Moscow principalityfrom the hands of the khan, but the Moscow prince promised likewise with regard to the Tver’ principality.

The following Moscow-Tver’ treaty, of 1396, is probably most typical asan example of a treaty between equals. The two grand princes recognizedeach other simply as brothers. The Moscow prince promised to cancel

his agreement with the Lithuanian grand prince Vitovt; the Tver’ prince was allowed full freedom in his relations with the Horde ( k Orde put’ chist );otherwise the conditions of the treaty were symmetrical.44

A century later, in 1485, the situation had changed completely. Mostof the Russian principalities had been brought under Moscow’s controland Tver’ was surrounded by Moscow territory. The grand prince of Tver’,Mikhail Borisovich, was forced to conclude a treaty which did not quitereduce him to the status of a Moscow apanage prince (he was, for instance,still allowed to negotiate with the Golden Horde, but only in consultation

with Moscow), but eectively deprived him of all freedom of action.45

The Treaties between Moscow and Lithuania

Very few foreign treaties of the grand princes of Moscow have survived.46 All three of them are with the rulers of Lithuania.

The treaty of 1371 between Olgerd of Lithuania and Dmitrii Donskoi was closely connected with the struggle for Russian hegemony betweenthe grand princes of Moscow and Tver’, of which the treaties of 1375 and

1396 between these two gentlemen, mentioned in the preceding section, were also an expression. The brief Russian-Lithuanian peace treaty was,

43 Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 53, thinks otherwise, because the treaty required consultation( duma ); it seems to me that the duty to consult in this case was also mutual.

44 DDG , No.15, 40-43; cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 85-86.45 DDG , No.79, 295-301; cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 198-199. Later on, in the same year,

Mikhail of Tver’ was forced into exile and Tver’ became part of the Muscovy state;cf . Crummey, op.cit., 91.46 Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 49, suggests that at least a number of Russian-Lithuanian

treaties from the period concerned were lost (carried o) during the Polish occupa -tion of Moscow in 1611-1612 in the Time of Troubles.




from the Moscow point of view, an attempt to neutralize the powerfulLithuanian state in the conict with Tver’.47

The treaty of 1449 with the Lithuanian grand prince and Polish kingKazimir is to be situated in the struggle between Vasilii Vasil’evich ofMoscow and his cousin Dmitrii Iur’evich Shemiaka of Galich over the grand princely dignity (discussed above).48 It was imperative for the Mos-cow prince to keep the ruler of Poland and Lithuania out of the internalRussian conict; certain concessions were therefore made ( e.g . the grandprinces of Riazan’ were allowed to serve the Polish king, i.e. to enter intosome kind of feudal relationship with the latter).

The background of the 1494 treaty between Aleksandr Kazimirovich

of Lithuania and Ivan III Vasil’evich of Moscow was the completion ofthe process of gathering all the Russian principalities under Moscow’srule. At that moment only Riazan’ and the city of Pskov still maintaineda measure of precarious independence. The 1494 treaty made clear thatRiazan’ had moved to Moscow’s sphere of inuence.49

5. Princely Treaties, not involving Moscow

The survival of medieval Russian treaties has been determined above all by

their inclusion in the archives of the Moscow grand prince. The relativelymodest number of available treaties in which Moscow was not involvedas a party gives an indication of the contents of what must have been amuch more substantial body of texts.

Smolensk Treaties

The four Smolensk treaties constitute a special category.50 As mentioned,Smolensk had stayed outside the mainstream of Russian medieval his-tory, being closely allied with and in fact subject to the grand prince of

Lithuania (and king of Poland, after the Polish-Lithuanian union in 1386).The subordinate position of the Smolensk prince is evidenced by thetreaty of 1386 between Iurii Sviatoslavich, grand prince of Smolensk, andking Wladyslaw Jagiello of Poland and his brother prince Svidrigailo ofLithuania.51 Although the conditions of the treaty were similar to those47 DDG , No.6, 21-22. The grand prince Sviatoslav of Smolensk acted as a co-signatory,

associated with the Lithuanian prince. Cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 45-49. All threeLithuanian treaties make clear that Smolensk and its princes were subject to theLithuanian prince, and not to Moscow.

48 DDG , No.53, 160-161.49 DDG , No.83, 329-332. Cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 205-207.50 Cf . L.V. Alekseev, Smolenskaia zemlia v IX-XII vv., Moskva, 1980, 25-29.51 M.M. Peshchak (ed.), Hramoty XIV st ., Kiev, 1974, 69-71.




found in comparable Russian treaties from the same era, the general styleof the text is dierent; there is no recognition of the dominant party as

elder brother.The other three Smolensk treaties were with Riga. The rst two, withRiga and Visby (“Gothic Coast”), of 1229 and of a later date sometimebetween 1230 and 1270, are not only very early texts, compared with thebulk of Russian princely treaties, but are also unusual on account of theircontents. They provide a kind of short code of law, applicable to Smolensksubjects and to the German citizens of Riga and Visby in their commercialdealings. The texts are of great interest for Russian legal history, becausethey form a link between the earliest Russian code of the Russkaia Pravda

and later general codications, such as the Court Charter of Pskov ( Pskov- skaia Sudnaia Gramota ); see, also, the chapter on the Russkaia Pravda.

A short treaty from between 1330 and 1359 between Ivan Aleksan-drovich of Smolensk and Riga conrmed an earlier treaty, concluded byhis grandfather, and other “old charters”.52

One could associate to the small group of Smolensk treaties a treatybetween the Lithuanian grand prince Vitovt and the city of Riga of 1399,in which the prince informed Riga that the city of Polotsk had agreed with him that the citizens of Riga would receive the usual favourable treat-

ment.53 Polotsk, an important principality in the early period of KievanRussia, was even more marginal in the Russian middle ages than Smolensk,from the Russian point of view. It was permanently under the control ofWestern powers, such as Lithuania or Poland. A trade agreement betweenPolotsk and Riga of 1478 renewed the provisions of an earlier (unknown)agreement, and was generally along the lines of other commercial treatiesbetween Baltic cities and Russian partners.54

Other Princely Treaties

The remaining princely treaties are, inevitably, a mixed bag. A treaty of around 1483 between grand prince Mikhail Borisovich of

Tver’ and the Polish king and Lithuanian grand prince Kazimir is connected with the 1485 treaty between Tver’ and Moscow.55 Prince Mikhail made a

52 SGGD, Vol.2 No.8, 1011.53 Peshchak, Hramoty, 139-140.

54 A.L. Khoroshkevich (ed.), Polotskie gramoty XIII-nachala XVI vv., Moskva, 1978,No.171, 69-76. See, also, A.L. Khoroshkevich, “Russkie gramoty 60-70-ykh godovXV v. iz byvshego Rizhskogo gorodskogo arkhiva”, Arkheogracheskii Ezhegodnik za1965 g ., Moskva, 1966, 325-341.

55 DDG [no number], 483-383.




last desperate attempt in 1483 to break out of Moscow’s encirclement ofhis principality by means of an alliance with the Polish/Lithuanian king.

Most of the other treaties in this group were also between variousRussian princes and the Lithuanian grand prince and were usually an ex-pression of the policy to create a counterweight against Moscow’s grow -ing preponderance.56 The two treaties of Boris of Tver’, whose paternal grandmother was a sister of the Lithuanian grand prince Vitovt, werebased on a more or less formal equality between the parties; in the othertreaties the princes concerned requested (through a chelobitie ) the Polish/ Lithuanian king to be admitted to his service.

A somewhat obscure treaty of 1366 between a Volynian prince

Dmitrii and the Polish king xed the border of Dmitrii’s territory aroundVladimir-Volynsk.57

A treaty of 1445 between Dmitrii Iur’evich Shemiaka of Galich andthe brothers Vasilii and Fedor Iur’evich of Suzdal’ was connected withShemiaka’s struggle with his cousin Vasilii Vasil’evich, grand prince ofMoscow, for the Moscow throne.58

The treaty of 1461 between Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk and IvanVasil’evich of Serpukhov-Borovsk was concluded in Lithuania, where bothprinces were in exile.59 They were distantly related, from dierent cadet

branches of the Moscow ruling house, and had both lost their Russianpossessions. They agreed to close ranks in their conict with their cousinVasilii Vasil’evich, the Moscow grand prince.

In 1496, the last remaining independent prince, the grand princeof Riazan’ Ivan Vasil’evich, concluded a treaty with his younger brotherFedor.60 The treaty was very much along the line of similar treaties withinthe Moscow dynasty. The younger brother promised to support his elderbrother, not to engage independently in foreign relations, and not to claimthe throne of Riazan’ ahead of Ivan’s future sons (in the event a son Ivan was born in the same year, the last prince of Riazan’). If Ivan were to diechildless, Fedor was to succeed.56 DDG , No.23, 62-63 (Boris Aleksandrovich of Tver’, 1427); No.25, 67-68 (Ivan Fe-

dorovich of Riazan’, 1430); No.26, 68-69 (Ivan Vladimirovich of Pronsk, 1442);No.39, 117-118 (Fedor L’vovich of Novosil’ and Odoev, 1442); No.54, 163-164 (Boris Aleksandrovich of Tver’, 1449); No.60, 192-193 (Ivan Iur’evich of Novosil’ and Odoev,1459).

57 Peshchak, Hramoty, 38-39. Dmitrii, who styled himself grand prince, is perhaps theson of Andrei Iur’evich, prince of Volynia, one of the sons of Iurii Danilovich, kingof Galicia.

58 DDG , No.40, 119-121.59 DDG , No.62, 199-201.60 DDG , No.84, 332-341.




6. The Treaties of the Russian Cities

The pre-revolutionary historian D’iakonov already drew attention to theexistence of treaties between Russian princes and cities in Kievan times(see, on this topic, also the chapter on popular assemblies).61 The chroniclescontain numerous references to formal agreements between such parties,although not a single text has survived. The most common type was theagreement in which a particular city accepted a particular member of theRurikid dynasty as its prince. Such agreements were closely connected with the rotation system, based on seniority ( starshinstvo ), according to which princes would move to more important cities once a vacancy would

occur (see the chapter on the “Elder Brother”). The practice of invitingand dismissing princes survived in subsequent centuries only in a few cit-ies, notably Novgorod and Pskov, and it will be more practical to discussthe topic rst within the Novgorod context.

The Treaties of Novgorod the Great

Before looking in more detail at the treaties concluded by the city ofNovgorod, a few general observations concerning Novgorod’s place inmedieval Russia are appropriate, in addition to what has been said in the

chapter on the Skra of Novgorod.During the period of the early Kievan rulers, there was a certainbipolarity involving Kiev and Novgorod, to the extent that the latter cityappeared as the alternative centre of power in Kievan Russia. Accordingto the half-legendary narrative of the Primary Chronicle, it was the in-habitants of Novgorod who had invited Rurik to be their prince and thatis where he established his capital. Two of his boyars, Askold and Dir, wandered south and settled in Kiev. Rurik’s successor, Oleg, unseated andkilled them as usurpers, because they were not of princely stock; Oleg

then set up his headquarters in Kiev. Novgorod remained the secondmost important place and the ranking prince after the prince who ruledin Kiev usually acted as resident prince in Kiev. The two most famous grand princes from the Kievan era, St.Vladimir and his son Iaroslav theWise, sat in Novgorod before moving to Kiev.

With the waning of the importance of Kiev in the second half ofthe 11th century and its eventual annihilation by the Mongols in 1240,Novgorod, the only major medieval Russian city that was never occupiedby the Mongols, managed to retain and even strengthen its former position.Its owering was also connected with changes in the ow of Europeantrade. Novgorod’s wealth and power rested on its location in the north- western corner of medieval Russia and its access to the Baltic Sea. It was61 D’iakonov, 31-33.




the principal point of export of timber, honey, wax and furs, all of them vital goods for the societies of medieval Western Europe.

The change in trade patterns, favourable to Novgorod, was accom-panied by political developments which were unique to Novgorod. EarlyKievan Russia can be regarded as a confederation of principalities, them-selves often based on older tribal divisions among the Eastern Slavs, andeach of them centred around a principal city. The entire complex was heldtogether by the family ties between the princes and the hierarchy withinthe ruling house. A strong and ecient ruler in Kiev, the undisputed capital, would be able to infuse a considerable degree of unity into the whole.

Within the individual city-states of Kievan Russia, the prince did not

rule as an autocrat. He was after all not a permanent xture, the successorof his father and to be succeeded by his eldest son; he had received theprincipality as an apanage. Once the ow of events would oer him a bet-ter deal, he would leave his residence for a wealthier and more powerfulcity. The permanent element in the principality was the popular assem-bly, the veche. Usually, the veche would be dominated by the higher strataof society, the zhit’i liudi , as they were called in Novgorod. The Russianchronicles oer numerous references to such assemblies in Novgorod andother places, where they appeared actively involved in political aairs and

negotiating with their own and other princes. In the course of time, thebalance shifted in favour of the princes; the erosion of the seniority prin-ciple (described in the chapter on the “Elder Brother”) gradually changedthe position of the prince as a kind of temporary governor and militarycommander into that of a permanent ruler, governing by virtue of theordinary rules of succession. Only in Novgorod did developments run inthe opposite direction: as the power of Novgorod grew, the power of itsprince weakened. When there was a vacancy, Novgorod would invite aprince and conclude an agreement with him. If the city did not get on withits prince, it would dismiss him. It would not be unreasonable to ask whyNovgorod needed a prince at all. The practical answer was probably thatmaintenance of the territorially huge empire of Novgorod (its northernpossessions stretched into Siberia) demanded an eective military forceand somebody to command it. A prince would have to satisfy both require-ments, in other words, he would normally bring some troops of his own(along with Novgorod forces) and he would have to be a successful captain. Additionally, there certainly were ideological or religious objections against

having a state without a prince. The exclusive right to rule residing in thehouse of Rurik would be an important part of this outlook.The internal government of Novgorod is discussed in the chapter on

the Skra of Novgorod. Its immediate neighbour in Russia was the principal-




ity of Tver’. In later years, Novgorod was of course ever more involved withthe expanding realm of the Moscow grand prince. Its Western neighbours

were numerous, not only the major powers of Lithuania and Poland, butalso smaller Baltic entities: the Teutonic Order, the archbishopric of Riga,the bishoprics of Derpt (Dorpat, Iur’ev, Tartu), Oesel, and Kurland, andthe Hanseatic cities of Riga, Revel (Reval, Tallin, Kolyvan’) and Derpt.In the treaties reviewed in this chapter, the bishops of Riga, Oesel andKurland rarely appear as parties. Novgorod’s treaty practice reected itsmore cosmopolitan location and involved also more distant Baltic powers:Sweden, Denmark, and the Hanseatic League.62

Novgorod-Tver’ TreatiesOf the Russian treaties concluded by Novgorod, the largest contingent isunderstandably with its immediate Eastern neighbour, the grand princeof Tver’. This contingent may be subdivided into an early group of threetreaties with Iaroslav Iaroslavich of Tver’,63 a larger group of treaties withthe latter’s son, Mikhail Iaroslavich,64 and a more disparate group of latertreaties.65

After the death of Aleksandr Nevskii, grand prince of Vladimir andthe most powerful Russian prince of his time, in 1263, the citizens ofNovgorod had refused to accept his son Dmitrii as their prince and hadinvited a younger brother of Aleksandr, Iaroslav, to be their prince. Iaro-slav was the prince of Tver’ and the ancestor of the sub-dynasty of theprinces of Tver’. He was also, in accordance with the rules of starshinstvo, grand prince of Vladimir, after the death of his older brothers Aleksandrand Andrei. This explains why the three treaties with Novgorod (of 1264,1266 and 1270) show Iaroslav accepting obligations with regard to his ownvolost’ ( i.e. Tver’) and the “land of Suzdal’ ( i.e. Vladimir).

The treaties set the tone for the series of treaties concluded byNovgorod with later Tver’ princes, although the texts of the treaties withIaroslav Iaroslavich make it quite clear that they only continue an oldand traditional pattern. They refer to previous treaties concluded withIaroslav’s father Iaroslav Vsevolodovich, grand prince of Vladimir, andmore distant ancestors. The 1270 treaty refers in passing to the Mongoloverlordship by stipulating that the merchants are free to engage in trade

62 Generally on Novgorod treaties: S.M. Kashtanov, Iz istorii russkogo srednevekovogo

istochnika, Moskva, 1996, 58-66.63 GVNP , Nos. 1-3, pp.9-13.64 GVNP , Nos.4-13, pp.13-26.65 GVNP , Nos.14-15, 17-18, 20, pp.26-30, 32-34, 36-38.




in the land of Suzdal’, according to the tsar’s charter ( po tsesareve gramote ),the tsar being the Mongol khan.66

The rst treaties between Novgorod and Mikhail Iaroslavich ofTver’ date from 1296/1301 and were devoted to an ad hoc co-operationagreement.67 As was often the case, the treaty consisted of an exchangeof letters in which the parties outlined their commitments and claims.The two texts are accordingly quite divergent. The general background isnearly always the same: the incessant struggle of the North Russian princesfor hegemony. After the Mongol conquest of Russia, which started withthe taking of Riazan’ in 1237, the southern half of what used to be KievanRussia remained for a long time in a state of chaos and stopped playing

a signicant role in Russian history. In the northern half of the country,the major prize was the grand princely dignity of Vladimir, which yieldedthe incumbent the leading position among the Russian princes. The ap-pointment was in the hands of the khan of the Golden Horde; duringthe rst century of Mongol suzerainty, a perpetual coming and going ofprincely supplicants could be observed at the mobile Mongol headquar-ters, located somewhere on the East Russian or West Siberian steppe.Novgorod itself was a not insignicant player in this game, because it usedits unique freedom to select its own prince as an instrument to extract

the best deal. For a prince, being adopted by Novgorod was attractive onaccount of the city’s wealth.

A set of treaties from the period 1304-1308 between Novgorod andMikhail Iaroslavich of Tver’ outlined the relationships between the partiesand elaborated on the provisions of the earlier treaties between the twoparties.68 All of them included a reference to the trading freedom of the“German Court”, the Hanseatic colony within Novgorod (see the chapteron the Skra of Novgorod).

Although Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver’ had ocially been installed asprince of Novgorod in 1308, war broke out between him and Novgorodin 1312. It lasted for several years and various attempts at making peace were made, with nal success in 1318.69 Prince Mikhail was killed the next

66 On the three treaties with Iaroslav Iaroslavich of Tver’, Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 254-266; see, also, PRP II, 133-159 (text and comments).

67 GVNP , Nos.4-5, pp.13-15; cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 267-270.68 GVNP , Nos.6-10, pp.15-22; cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 270-282. No.8 constitutes an

addition to No.7.69 GVNP , Nos.11-13, pp.22-26; cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 282-299. No.13 also included

the Moscow grand prince Iurii Danilovich as a party; the text is defective and hasbeen tentatively reconstructed by Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 291-293. The curious po-litical background of the three-cornered treaty is discussed by Cherepnin, 293-296, who suggests that the explanation must be sought in Mongol interference in thenegotiations.




year during his visit to the Horde, a not uncommon fate for a medievalRussian prince.

Later treaties with Tver’ were connected with the ups-and-downsin the struggle of Tver’ with Moscow; the last Novgorod-Tver’ treaty of1446-1447 was between Boris Aleksandrovich and the city.70

Novgorod-Moscow Treaties

The grand prince of Moscow appeared for the rst time in a treaty withNovgorod in 1318/1319, together with the grand prince of Tver’.71

The next Moscow-Novgorod treaty dates from 1371-1372.72 It was atreaty of mutual aid, directed against a possible attack on either party by

Lithuania or Tver’, or, in the case of Novgorod, by the “Germans” (theTeutonic Order). Obviously, Moscow was not in serious danger of Ger-man aggression. Along with the Moscow grand prince Dmitrii IvanovichDonskoi, his cousin Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov was included as aparty. Dmitrii Donskoi only had very young children in 1371 and his cousin would be the probable successor at that time.

The peace treaty between Novgorod and Vasilii Temnyi of 143573 wasconnected with the dynastic diculties which beset Moscow at that mo-ment, when the young Moscow grand prince Vasilii Vasil’evich was involvedin a struggle with his rst cousins Vasilii Kosoi and Dmitrii Shemiaka.

The so-called Iazhelbitsy peace treaty of 1456 already reected the growing preponderance of Moscow; the Novgorod veche was deprivedof its right to make independent decisions ( A vechnym gramatam ne byti .)and Novgorod was forced to make various nancial and territorial con-cessions.74

The Iazhelbitsy treaty was imposed on Novgorod under a severemilitary threat. Fifteen years later, in 1471, it came to actual hostilities.

The army of Novgorod was beaten on the Shelon’ river and a new peacetreaty was concluded (the Korostyn’ treaty).75 In a wording slightly lessfavourable to Novgorod, the provisions of the Iazhelbitsy treaty were

70 GVNP , Nos.14, 15, 17, 18, 20, pp.26-30, 32-34, 36-38.71 GVNP No.13, see above; Cherepnin, 293, believes 1317 is the correct date.72 GVNP , No.16, 31.73

GVNP , No.19, 34-36.74 GVNP , No.22/23, 39-43 (Novgorod and Moscow copies), and also GVNP No.24, 43-44, on the implementation of the Iazhelbitsy treaty.

75 GVNP , No.26/27, 45-51; see, also, PRP II, 251-259 and commentary on 267-272, andCherepnin, Arkhivy I, 369-373.




repeated. The end of Novgorod independence was near, however. In 1478,Ivan III fully incorporated Novgorod in the Muscovy state.76

Novgorod Treaties with Foreign Rulers

The Novgorod Chronicle, under the year 1323, reports the conclusion of an“everlasting peace” with the king of Sweden. The available Russian text,77 names this prince as Manush Orikovich—Magnus V Eriksson, born in 1316, who became king of Sweden in 1319 (succeeding his uncle Birger II) andof Norway in the same year (succeeding his maternal grandfather HaakonV). The treaty is mainly about the regulation of borders. Along with theusual Novgorod signatories (the mayor and the tysiatskii ), grand prince Iurii

is mentioned; this is none other than the Moscow grand prince Iurii III,elder brother of Ivan Kalita, who was also serving as prince of Novgorodat the time. The treaty did not contain a reference, as was often the case,to previous similar treaties; however, the Chronicle states that the treaty was concluded “on the old terms” ( po staroi poshline ).

A second treaty with Magnus V Eriksson, concluded three years later,in 1326, contained a more comprehensive treatment of mutual relations.78 Although Magnus is called the king of Norway, Sweden and the Gothsin the treaty, the remainder of the text refers only to the kingdom ofNorway.

Three treaties with the grand princes of Lithuania are of a later dateand may be regarded as episodes in Novgorod’s ultimately unsuccessfulbalancing act between the territorial appetites of its western neighboursand the grand princes of Moscow.

The rst treaty, of 1431, with Svidrigailo of Lithuania, has survivedonly in very defective form; Cherepnin has attempted a reconstruction.79 It appears to be primarily a trade agreement. The second agreement, to be

dated between 1440 and 1447, with the Lithuanian prince Kazimir, was ofa similar nature.80 The last treaty, of 1470/1471, with Kazimir IV of Polandand Lithuania, must be seen as a last desperate attempt of Novgorod to ward o the imminent annexation by Moscow.81 The treaty was apparentlynever signed and the draft fell into the hands of the Moscow grand prince,76 Cf. Karamzin, Book VI, Ch.3, col.78-83.77 GVNP , No.38, 67-68. A Latin text is extant, but not available to me.78 GVNP , No.39, 69-70; parallel text in Latin. See, also, I.P. Shaskol’skii, “Dogovory

Novgoroda s Norvegiei”, Istoricheskie Zapiski , 1945, Vol.14, 45-61 and “Russko-Nor- vezhskii dogovor”, Skandinavskii Sbornik, Vyp.15, Tallin, 1976, 63-72.

79 GVNP , No.63, 105-106; Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 323-333.80 GVNP , No.70, 115-116; Cherepnin, Arkhivy, I, 332-333.81 GVNP , No.77, 129-132; PRP II, 245-251, commentary on 260-266.




who used it to great eect in accusing the Novgorodians of consorting with his enemies.82

Novgorod Treaties with German and Baltic Cities and Merchants

As mentioned above, a number of minor powers, in a varying conguration, was active in the North-West of medieval Russia and in the Baltic area.On the Russian side, this was rst of all Novgorod, and then Smolenskand, later on, also Pskov (see below). The number of Novgorod treaties with other regional powers exceeds by far the few texts from Smolenskand Pskov and merits, therefore, special discussion. The general context,however, is the same.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Russian foreign trade in themiddle ages is the role of permanent settlements of foreign merchants.83 The 945 treaty between Byzantium and the Russians already dealt ex-tensively with the colony of Russian traders in the St. Mamas quarter ofConstantinople. Novgorod’s relations with Western powers, especiallythose connected with the Hanseatic League, were largely concerned withthe position of the resident Hanseatic merchants in Novgorod. Even inNovgorod’s numerous treaties with the princes of Tver’ and Moscow, thefreedom of the German Court (or Compound: nemetskii dvor ) was oftenspecically included.84 The German Court, or St. Peter’s Court, enjoyeda kind of territorial immunity and had its own law, the Skra, and its ownjurisdiction (see the chapter on the Skra). The treaties between Novgorodand the Hanseatic partners were mainly devoted to the denition of thestatus of the foreign trading colonies in Novgorod and the settlement ofdisputes arising between Russians and foreigners. Along with the Court of

82 Cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 344-345. Cherepnin’s restrained treatment of the epi-

sode (published in 1948) contrasts favourably with the commentary in PRP II, 245(published in 1953): “The draft treaty of Novgorod with Kazimir IV reected thereactionary attempt of the Novgorod boyars to secure the support of the Polish-Lithuanian feudal lords in order to counteract the unication policy of the Russianstate.”

83 In Novgorod, the settlement was semi-permanent because for climatic reasons ithad a semi-annual cycle; Novgorod could not be reached by ship in the winter. Seethe chapter on the Skra of Novgorod.

84 The usual formula was: “And you, prince, shall permit our brothers to trade inthe German Court and you shall not close the Court and shall not appoint yourconstables there” ( A v Nemetskom dvore, kniazhe, torgovati nasheiu brateiu, a dvora ti ne zatvariati, a pristavov ti ne pristavlivati ). This formula already appeared in the treatyof 1270 with Iaroslav Iaroslavich of Tver’ ( GVNP , No.3) and survived right to theend of Novgorod independence; it was still included in the 1471 treaty with Ivan IIIof Moscow ( GVNP , No.26).




St.Peter, there was also a so-called Gothic Court, for the merchants fromthe town of Visby on the island of Gotland, o the Swedish coast.85

In a more general perspective and parenthetically, one notes that thepresence of foreign trading communities often had the eect of a catalyston the development of Russian law. The earliest written sources, the 10thcentury treaties with Byzantium, as pointed out above, were very muchconnected with the appearance of Russian-Viking traders in Constantino-ple. The origins of the oldest parts of the Russkaia Pravda concerned theneed to pacify inter-ethnic troubles in Novgorod in the times of Iaroslavthe Wise (in the beginning of the 11th century), according to the majority viewpoint. The next restatement of the rules of the Russkaia Pravda was

in the 1229 treaty between Smolensk and Riga (discussed above).The earliest known Hanseatic treaty (already referred to in the beginning of this chapter) of Novgorod is dated between 1189 and 1199.86 The treaty was concluded between, for Novgorod, prince IaroslavVladimirovich,87 assisted by the mayor Miroshka (ancestor of the leadingmayoral family of Novgorod, the Miroshkinichi) and the tysiatskii Iakov,and on the other side the envoy Arbud “and all the German sons, and theGoths, and the whole Latin tongue”. In later treaties, the role of the localprince is diminished until he nally disappears altogether as a participant.

The rst line of the treaty stated that it conrmed the old peace treaty( staryi mir ), so one may assume that the treaty generally conformed toa traditional pattern. This assumption is supported by the next knowntreaty, of 1262-1263, which contains similar provisions and refers fourtimes to the staryi mir .88

In the earliest treaties, the Gothic Coast ( i.e. Visby) appeared as theprincipal party on the German side; starting with the 1262/1263 treaty the85 Generally on the foreign trading colonies in Novgorod: E.A. Rybina, Inozemnye dvory

v Novgorode XII-XVII vv., Moskva, 1986. On Russian-Baltic relations: N.A. Kaza-kova, Russko-livonskie i russko-ganzeiskie otnosheniia, Moskva, 1975. On the treaties withthe Hanseatic League: N.A. Kazakova, “Nachal’nyi tekst novgorodsko-nemetskikhdogovorov”, Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny, Vol.VI, Leningrad, 1974, 161-175.

86 GVNP , No.28, 55-56; PRP II, 125-1126. The Novgorod Chronicle mentions, underthe year 1188, a raid against the men of Novgorod by “the Varangians [Vikings] inGothland and by the Germans [ Nemtsy]”; the treaty may therefore perhaps also beregarded as a peace treaty. E.A. Rybina has argued convincingly that the date of thetreaty can be narrowed down to 1190-1191; see E.A. Rybina, “O dvukh drevneishikhtorgovykh dogovorakh Novgoroda”, V.L. Ianin (ed.), Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik,

3 (13), Leningrad, 1989, 43-50.87 Commentators agree that this was the son of Vladimir Mstislavich, prince of Dor-ogobuzh, and grandson of Vladimir Monomakh. Iaroslav Vladimirovich left Novgorodin 1199. Cf . Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 252, and PRP II, 126.

88 GVNP , No.29, 56-57.




rst place is taken by Lübeck, which gradually assumed leadership of theHanseatic League in the course of the 13th century. Together with Lübeck

and Visby, Riga is also mentioned by name at an early date already. Otherregularly named parties are Kolyvan’ (Tallin), and Iur’ev (Tartu). Mosttreaties, however, make clear that the named parties appeared on behalfof “all the merchants from across the sea”. In 15th century treaties, “allthe 73 [or 72] cities” are sometimes mentioned, the accepted number ofHanseatic League members at that time.

The general treaty pattern with the Hanseatic League is perhapsbest reected by the text of a draft treaty of 1269.89 First of all, the textconrmed the old treaty terms, the staryi mir . Then the dierent ways

Novgorod could be reached were regulated in detail: which routes, insummer and winter, the hiring of guides and pilots, etc. Much attention was paid to questions of jurisdiction: how disputes were to be adjudicated,rules of evidence, etc. There were also rules about dealing with criminaloences and with people who participated in inter-ethnic brawls.

An echo of the old provisions of the Russkaia Pravda can be heard inthe rules which set xed compensations for homicide, injuries, etc. Thetreaty mentioned the German and the Gothic Courts, but did not containspecic rules about them.

Many of the later treaties concerned more specic questions, butconrmed certain details of the framework provided by the more gen-eral treaties.90 A number of peace treaties and treaties declaring a trucedemonstrate that the basically commercially oriented relationships werenot always smooth.91

89 GVNP , No.31, 58-61. According to Rybina, the treaty was only ratied in 1265; Rybina,

“O dvukh drevneishikh …”, 43-50.90 A fuller list of treaties between Novgorod and the Hanseatic cities is to be found

in the Appendix to this chapter. Among the more general treaties, the followingcould be mentioned: 1371 ( GVNP , No.42, 74-76), 1372 ( GVNP , No.43, 76-79), 1436( GVNP , No.67, 110-112). Kazakova has argued that two texts should not be regardedas treaties proper, but as unilateral declarations that a treaty had been concluded;it concerns GVNP, Nos.37 and 40 (of 1323, with the Teutonic Order, and of 1342, with German merchants); N.A. Kazakova, “Novgorodsko-Nemetskie dogovory iliLivonskie akty?”, V.L. Ianin (ed.), Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik, 3(13), Leningrad,1989, 63-67. These two documents begin with the formula: “Be it known to all that

[…]”, instead of the usual opening line of Novgorod treaties, identifying the ocialsparticipating in the signing of the treaty. However, there can be no doubt that thetwo documents concerned give a precise account of the conditions of a treaty.

91 Cf . the treaties of 1372 ( GVNP , No.43, 76-79), 1392 ( GVNP , No.46, 80-83), 1434 ( GVNP ,No.64, 106-108), 1450 ( GVNP , No.74, 124-126), 1466 ( GVNP , No.76, 127-129).




A smaller number of treaties concerned only local Baltic relations,i.e. with the German controlled cities of Riga, Kolyvan’ and Iur’ev.92 The

most important of these was the treaty of 1474, between the bishop ofDorpat and Novgorod and Pskov. The treaty contained detailed regulationof the trade between the parties and the rights and duties of merchants.Most of the provisions concerned Pskov only, because Novgorod at thatmoment had already lost its independence, in fact if not in law. This wasalso the last treaty concluded by Novgorod.

The last signicant contingent among the treaties of Novgorod withits neighbours is represented by the treaties with the Teutonic order. TheOrder suers, not always deservedly, from a bad press in Russian histo-

riography, where it has been portrayed, especially after World War II, asa kind of precursor of the SS. The Order was founded during the ThirdCrusade in 1190-1191 and quickly turned its attention to the evangelizationof the Baltic area. It transferred its lands to the Pope in 1234, receivingthem in return as a ef. This made the order, under the international lawregime prevailing in the Middle Ages, a distinct sovereign entity. Its grandmaster ( Hochmeister ) resided, since 1308, in Marienburg (the present PolishMalbork, not far from Gdansk/Danzig)), and the Landmeister for Livlandin Riga. The success of the Order in the Baltic area was to a considerable

extent due to its co-operation with the Hanseatic League. Novgorod alsoallied itself several times with the Order, in the complicated power gamein the region.

The rst “eternal alliance” ( vechnyi soiuz ) was concluded in 132393 and was directed against the then still pagan Lithuanians. The other treatiesall date after 1410, when the Order had been beaten decisively by Polandin the battle of Tannenberg, which marked the beginning of the declineof the Order.

A treaty of 1421 between Novgorod and the order (represented bythe Livonian Landmeister Silvester, the Land Marshal Walram, and others),restored the peace between the two sides and contained the usual condi-tions about the rights of merchants.94 The treaty was preceded by a draft

92 GVNP , No.48, 85-86 (concerning an extension of the peace treaty of 1392, the so-called peace of Niebur, in respect of Dorpat), No.49, 86-88 (settlement of a disputebetween Novgorod and the cities of Riga, Dorpat and Reval), No.59, 96-98 (between

Novgorod, acting also on behalf of Pskov, and the bishop of Dorpat and the Masterof Riga, acting on behalf of the Teutonic Order), No.78, 133-136 (between Novgorodand Pskov and the bishop of Dorpat).

93 GVNP , No.37, 65-67.94 GVNP , No.60, 98-100.




peace treaty of 1420, between Novgorod, also acting on behalf of Pskov,and on the other side the Teutonic Order and the bishop of Dorpat.95

After renewed troubles, the representatives of Novgorod and of theOrder and the bishop of Dorpat met again in February 1448 and concludeda preliminary treaty, agreeing on a truce for ve years and a meeting in thesummer on the banks of the Narva River. The meeting took place in Julyand resulted in a comprehensive treaty, which settled various outstandingborder disputes.96 The former treaty was between Novgorod and the Orderand the bishop of Dorpat. In the latter treaty, Pskov also took part on theside of Novgorod, while “prince Heidenreich Vinke”, the Master of Riga( i.e. the Landmeister of Livonia), also appeared for the archbishop of Riga,

the bishops of Dorpat, Oesel and Kurland, and for the city of Riga. Pskov Treaties

Originally, the city of Pskov, situated some 200 km south-east of Novgorod, was part of Novgorod and enjoyed the status of a Novgorod borough( prigorod ). Of all the towns on Novgorod territory, only Pskov had theright to have its own boroughs. Already in the 12th century, as related inthe Novgorod Chronicle, the men of Pskov, together with the inhabit-ants of Ladoga, often played an independent role in Novgorod’s internalpolitics. In subsequent years, Pskov increasingly followed its own course;it invited and dismissed its own princes, made its own laws,97 and negoti-ated with other powers. In 1347, Novgorod ocially recognized Pskov’sindependence.98 Pskov held out longer against Moscow than Novgorod;it nally had to submit in 1509.

Several Pskov treaties have survived, some of them concluded byPskov alone, others in conjunction with Novgorod. A treaty of 1440 with grand prince Kazimir of Lithuania was very much in the format of the

usual trade agreements of Novgorod with other Baltic powers: provisionsconcerning mutual free trade and procedural agreements concerning thesolution of arising disputes being the main topics.99 Three other treatiesare with the Teutonic Order. All of them are available in bilingual form:Russian and Middle Low German. The rst one, of 1417, was basically a

95 GVNP , No.59, 96-98.96 GVNP , No.72, 117-119; No.73, 119-124.97

The Court Charter of Pskov ( Pskovskaia Sudnaia Gramota ) is the most importantlegislative document in the period after the Russkaia Pravda and the Law Code ofIvan III of 1497.

98 On Pskov-Novgorod relations and the internal organization of Pskov, see A. Nikitskii,Ocherk vnutrennoi istorii Pskova, S.Peterburg, 1873.

99 GVNP , No.335, 321-322.




peace treaty or a truce for ten years.100 It oers a picture of the compli-cated network of relations of Pskov at the time; Pskov is recognized as

the patrimony ( otchina ) of the “grand prince, our lord, the Russian sov-ereign [ russkii gosudar’/dem Ruschen keiser ] Vasilii Dmitrievich” (the grandprince of Moscow), the Lithuanian grand prince Vitovt is identied asthe potential enemy, and the bishops of Riga and Dorpat (Iur’ev) appearas potential allies.

The second treaty, of 1448, was concluded together with Novgorodand has been discussed above. The third treaty, of 1503, was probably oneof the last treaties concluded by Pskov before it completely lost its inde-pendence in 1508.101 The text is in the form of a solemn conrmation by

“tsar” Ivan III of Russia 102 of an agreement reached in Novgorod by rep-resentatives of the “respected prince of Livland, Walter von Plettenburg”on the one hand and of the city of Pskov on the other. The archbishop ofRiga is included as a party, along with the Master of the Teutonic Order.The central theme of the treaty is a six-years’ truce between the parties;some accompanying provisions concern the freedom of trade.

A treaty involving a truce for thirty years, between Novgorod andPskov and, on the other side, the bishop of Iur’ev, was concluded in 1474and has been discussed above.

7. Iarlyks of Tatar Khans

So far, we have dealt with treaties shaping internal Russian relations andtreaties with various western neighbours. Russia’s eastern and south-easternneighbours, since Kievan times, had been steppe nomads: Scythian andother Iranian peoples in proto-historic times, then Khazars and Bulgars,Pechenegs and Polovtsians in Kievan times, and nally, the most redoubt-able of them all, the Mongols-Tatars.103

The Primary Chronicle oers some confused evidence of treatyrelations with the Khazars in the earliest Kievan times: the Khazars had100 GVNP , No.334, 318-321.101 GVNP , No.347, 331-337.102 This was part of Ivan’s policy of having the title of tsar ( caesar ), equivalent to emperor

or basileus, internationally recognized. Initially, only the Byzantine and Holy Romanemperors and the Tatar Great Khan were adorned in Russia with the title of tsar. Cf .Crummey, op.cit., 96; D. Ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-cultural Inuenceson the Steppe Frontier, 1304-1589, Cambridge, 1998, 178-183.

103 The empire of Chingis-Khan and his successors had a Mongol core in that it wasfounded by a coalition of Mongol tribes under a Mongol dynasty. The success of theenterprise meant that the ethnically Mongol rulers of the successor states whichcame into being after two generations were soon assimilated by the dierent ethnicmajorities in those states, such as Chinese, Arab, and Tatar (as a general term to denote various Turkic elements) in the north-western part of the empire. Both Russian andWestern authors use the terms Mongol and Tatar frequently indiscriminately.




imposed a tribute on various Russian tribes, which was then abolished bythe second known Kievan prince, Oleg, in 884 and 885.104 In later years,

the relationship between Kiev and other Russian principalities with thePechenegs and Polovtsians and other Turkic steppe nomads showed acyclical pattern of raids against the sedentary Slavs, punitive counter-raids, imposition of tribute or the buying-o of aggression (dependingon the balance of power), and precarious truces, the whole embedded ina complicated network of cross-ethnic alliances. In all such relationships,oral agreements must have played a signicant role, but whether anything was ever put down to paper or parchment is unknown and in any casenothing has survived.

The Mongol invasions, starting in 1237, were, in a sense, a continu-ation of the state of uneasy co-existence of Russia with eastern steppeneighbours, but, on account of the overwhelming military strength of theMongols, the rules of the game were changed fundamentally. Tatar superi-ority remained uncontested during the 13th and most of the 14th century(Moscow was sacked by khan Tokhtamysh in 1382). Only in the 15th century, when the Golden Horde was denitively broken up into several smallerkhanates and Moscow proved to be unstoppable in the monopolizationof power in Russia, did the wheel of fortune favour Russia.

There is ample documentary evidence of Tatar presence in Russiain the middle ages, including also evidence from legal documents.105 Thechronicles contain numerous reports of Russian princes travelling to theTatar headquarters to obtain favours, such as recognition as prince or grand prince. One of the most eective ways of more powerful princesto limit the dependence of ‘younger brothers’ was to forbid them to haverelations with the Golden Horde ( Ordy ne znati ). There are, however, notreaties between the Golden Horde and Russian princes. This absence mayto some extent be explained by the few documents that are available andthat can functionally be equated to treaties, to the extent that they denea relationship which could be categorized as belonging to the sphere ofpublic international law. The basic reason for this absence of treaties isundoubtedly that the khan saw himself as the absolute ruler who had noreason to negotiate and contract with people who were his subjects.

The most important group among the documents are the charters( iarlyki ) issued by Tatar rulers to the leader of the Russian church, the104 Cf . A.P. Novosel’tsev, “Drevnerussko-khazarskie otnosheniia i formirovanie territorii

drevnerusskogo gosudarstva”, V.L. Ianin (ed.), Feodalizm v Rossii [Cherepnin memorialcollection], Moskva, 1987, 193-200.

105 Cf . A.D. Gorskii, “Otrazhenie tataro-mongol’skogo iga v russkikh aktakh XIV-XV vv.”, V.T. Pashuto (ed.), Feodal’naia Rossiia vo vsemirno-istoricheskom protsesse [CherepninFestschrift], Moskva, 1972, 48-58.




metropolitan of Moscow. The earliest iarlyk, of 1267 is addressed to allTatar ocials, the next ve to various Moscow metropolitans.106 The main

content of all these documents was that the Russian church was exemptfrom all taxes; it was recognized that the church in turn would pray forthe khan and his family. The iarlyki also stipulated that the estates of thechurch should remain unmolested. One of the interesting aspects of theiarlyki is that they enumerate the various taxes imposed by the Tatars.

A small number of other documents adds to the picture sketched bythe collection of iarlyki . A laconic charter, dated 1266-1272, begins: “The words of Mengu-Temir to prince Iaroslav: allow the German merchantsto travel freely in your lands.” In the following and last sentence of the

charter, Iaroslav declares that the men of Riga and all others may travelfreely ( put’ vash chist ).107

The subordinate position of Russian princes is even more explicitin a letter from Edigei Emir of 1409 to the Moscow grand prince VasiliiDmitrievich.108 Edigei, although not a khan, was the factual Tatar ruler;he reproached the Moscow prince in no uncertain terms for the latter’sfailure to pay his dues and for lack of respect.

That the khans were dealing, on the other hand, with more distantEuropean rulers on a basis of equality is shown by two other documents,

106 Iarlyk of Mengu-Temir of 1267, SGGD, Vol.2 No.2, 5-6, also PRP III, 467-468, andV.N. Beneshevich, Sbornik pamiatnikov po istorii tserkovnago prava, II, Petrograd,1914, 14-16 ; of Taidula, wife of Dzhanibek Khan, of 1347, to metropolitan Ioann, PRP III, 466-467, and Beneshevich, op.cit ., 13-14; of Taidula of 1351, to metropolitanFeognost, SGGD, Vol.2 No.9, 11-12, also PRP III, 468-469, and Beneshevich, op.cit .,16-18; of Taidula of 1354, to metropolitan Aleksei, SGGD, Vol.2 No.10, 12, also PRP III, 470, and Beneshevich, op.cit ., 24-25; of Berdibek of 1357, to metropolitan Aleksei,SGGD, Vol.2 No.11, 12, also PRP III 469, also Beneshevich, op.cit ., 18-20; of Tiuliak

of 1379, to metropolitan Aleksei, SGGD, Vol.2 No.12, 13-14, also PRP III, 465-466,and Beneshevich, op.cit ., 9-12. See, also, M.D. Priselkov, Khanskie iarlyki russkim metropolitam, S.Peterburg, 1916. Beneshevich (21-24) also gives the text of a iarlyk fromkhan Uzbek, which document is considered a falsication by PRP III, 464.

In a recently published study of the Mongol iarlyki , A.P. Grigor’ev has presentedcorrected texts of the six documents, based on a new examination of the original Tur-kic texts (A.P. Grigor’ev, Sbornik khanskikh iarlykov russkim metropolitam, S.Peterburg,2004). This has resulted in considerable alterations of the hitherto accepted views.The 1347 document was apparently not addressed to the metropolitan Ioann, butconstituted a laissez-passer ( proezzhaia gramota ) to a bishop Ioann of Sarai, the bishop

of the Christians living in the eastern, Mongol controlled region of Russia.107 GVNP , No.30, 57. The prince is Iaroslav Iaroslavich, grand prince of Vladimir, whobecame prince of Novgorod in 1266.

108 SGGD, Vol.2 No.15, 17-18. Also in A.A. Gorskii, Moskva i Orda, Moskva, 2001, 196-197.On Edigei and the humiliations inicted on Moscow, see Crummey, op.cit ., 62-65.




a peace proposal by khan Tokhtamysh to the Polish king, of 1393,109 anda similar proposal of 1484 by khan Murtazy to grand prince Kazimir of

Lithuania.110

The fraternal terminology (“elder/younger brother”), alreadyemployed in the former document by Tokhtamysh, only became currentin Russian-Tatar relations by the end of the 15th century.111

8. Concluding Thoughts

The eld surveyed in this chapter is vast and no specic hypotheses tobe veried or falsied have been advanced. It is, therefore, appropriateto speak of concluding thoughts instead of conclusions. This impliesthat an element of personal interest and choice is involved in the viewsexpressed below.

I propose to arrange my thoughts in an order of increasing specicity. First of all , one could look at the treaty network of medieval Russia as asource of information about political and constitutional structure. Sec-ondly, looking at the treaties themselves, at their content and form, certaininferences may be made about the legal system they reect. Thirdly, thetreaties may oer information about specic topics, legal or otherwise.

These are three dierent perspectives, but that does not mean

that they completely exclude each other. One thought leads to another; grouping them in three sets mainly serves the avoidance of an otherwisechaotic discussion.

When examining the treaty network of medieval Russia, it is inevitableto use modern concepts such as state, sovereignty, federation, etc. But,as already argued in earlier chapters, it makes good sense to stay aware ofthe anachronistic element involved. The people of Kievan Russia did not worry about whether they constituted a state, a federation or a confed-eration. In early Kievan times, the tribal factor was unquestionably still

alive, although on the way out. Two generations after Iaroslav the Wise(†1054) the chronicles occasionally still referred to tribal communities,notwithstanding the fact that the formal political structure was alreadythat of principalities arranged around capital cities.112 Whether one couldspeak of tribal states in pre-Kievan Russia is a moot question here; quiteclearly the early Kievan state as it had taken shape under St. Vladimir and

109 Peshchak, Hramoty, 112-113.110 V.M. Rusanivs’kyi (ed.), Ukrains’ki hramoty XV st ., Kiev, 1965, 137-138. The same Murtazy

wrote to Ivan III of Moscow in 1487 and the dierent address is very noticeable; cf. Gorskii, op.cit ., 199 (text of the letter) and 179. (commentary).111 See Ostrowski, op.cit , 98.112 The so-called Testament of Vladimir Monomakh (†1115) referred to his expeditions

among the Krivichians.




his sons Iaroslav the Wise was in possession of all the standard attributesof a state: a territory, a regular and eective government, legislation, a

sense of community or national identity, international acceptance, etc.It is more dicult to categorize the politico-constitutional set-up ofthe subsequent period. The attributes of statehood were divided betweenthe apanage principalities ( udel’nye kniazhestva ) on one side and a surviv-ing concept of over-arching Kievan unity on the other. The peculiarity ofthe organization of Kievan Rus’ after the death of Vladimir Monomakh was that this unity resided, not in an ailing central government unable toimpose its control in the regions (there was no such government), but inthe ruling dynasty. This unity expressed itself, among other ways, in the

curious system of switching princely residences according to a perceivedfamily hierarchy. This system, by the same token, also put a brake on thecentrifugal aspirations of the individual principalities. Other unifying fac-tors, such as a common legal system, owed from the dynastic unity.

The main factor which allowed the dynastic principle to operate was a specic concept of family hierarchy or seniority ( starshinstvo ). Withhindsight, it is easy to forecast that such a system could function only forabout three generations. By then (provided there would be a sucientlylarge pool of descendants113 ), the various branches of the family would

probably have grown apart so far that the sense of family unity had beenfatally weakened. At the same time, the restraints on central leadershipimplicit in the system will inhibit the system’s ability to take eectiveprecautions against external threats. Mongol military superiority wouldprobably have prevailed against a united Russia too, but the Mongolsnever had to face that enemy.

Tatar-Mongol overlordship, after 1240, poses new problems in den-ing the Russian polity of the era. On the surface, it would seem that thetraditional Kievan game continued among the princes: to struggle one’s way up in the family hierarchy, with the ultimate aim of becoming theundisputed leader, which would automatically involve possession of theKievan throne (although inversely possession of that throne by no meansimplied undisputed leadership). In 1168, the city of Vladimir replaced Kievas the most prestigious residential city, but that did not alter the generalidea. Once the rules concerning starshinstvo had loosened, it became aquality that was negotiable. Through guile and force, princes were ableto improve their status in the dynastic hierarchy and treaties establishing

contractual seniority relationships between stronger and weaker princes were, as explained, the prime legal instrument to achieve this result.113 One may speculate how Western Europe would have developed if the extinction of

the Carolingian dynasty would not have allowed secondary dynasties to take overin France and Germany.




In order to evaluate the nature of Mongol overlordship, our principalsources are the Russian chronicles and, to a lesser extent, legal documents,

such as treaties. These sources are remarkably reticent, but do yieldpertinent information if properly scrutinized. The chronicles generallyrestrict themselves to simple narrative of two kinds: a sympathetic taleof the suering inicted on the Russians by the Mongols, or a matter-of-fact account of the dealings of Russian princes with the khan. Thereis no explicit acknowledgment of a change in the political order; thepolitical system appears to follow the pattern of ages past, except that itis suering from an unpleasant attack of a strange disease. For medievalRussia, Mongol occupation (this was what it amounted to in the violent

rst years) and then Tatar overlordship lasting on and o for two centuries were phenomena that were hard to explain within the Eastern Christian view of the time.114

The evidence, however modest, is still clear. For a long period, Rus-sian princes ruled by the grace of the khan. As long as the Golden Horderetained its vigour, it did not countenance open resistance of the Russianprinces. In the nomad steppe polities, the exaction and payment of trib-ute were part of a tradition going back to the earliest times. The materialexpression of the Tatar-Russian relationship was therefore the imposition

of various taxes.115

No treaties between the Golden Horde and Russian princes are knownto exist. The provisional explanation of this has to be that the khan wouldnot negotiate with people whom he considered as his subjects. This expla-nation can only be called provisional, because the appearance of a singletreaty would vitiate it. However, a few examples of treaties between the114 See for related but signicantly dierent discussions of this problem: Ch.J. Halperin,

The Tatar Yoke, Columbus, OH, 1986, and Ostrowski, op.cit ., esp. ch.11 “The Myth of

the ‘Tatar Yoke’”. The medieval Russian problem of assigning Tatar-Mongol domina -tion of Russia a proper place in the prevailing conceptual framework nds a curiousecho in post-World War II Soviet historiography. The “Tatar Yoke” is then presentedas a precursor of Nazi occupation; in both instances the sacrices and bravery of theRussian people saved the civilized world. Before World War II, a more sober view isencountered, e.g . B.A. Grekov & A. Iakubovskii, Zolotaia Orda, Leningrad, 1937, or A.N. Nasonov, Mongoly i Rus’ , Leningrad, 1940 (republished, S.Peterburg, 2002, inone volume with “Russkaia Zemlia” i obrazovanie territorii drevnerusskogo gosudarstva,by the same author, originally published in Leningrad, 1951). See, also, Vernadsky’sdiscussion of this complex of questions in Istoriia Rossii; Mongoly i Rus’ , Tver’/Moskva,1997, 352-362.

115 In this connection, it is worth noting that of the considerable linguistic heritagefrom Tatar times the best known are the words for money ( den’gi ) and for customs( tamozhnia, from Tatar tamga, seal or stamp). Words of Tatar origin are especiallynumerous in the language of bureaucracy; the awe-inspiring iarlyk from the middleages has been devalued in modern times to a simple tag or label.




khan and European princes are known and have been referred to above;also, there is evidence of the khan giving straightforward instructions to

the grand prince of Vladimir. All this strengthens the main thesis: theRussian princes were subjects of the khan, although they were allowedconsiderable freedom in regulating their mutual relationships and theirrelationships with Western powers.

The process of emancipation from Tatar domination was long andarduous, with many ups and downs. Once the Golden Horde becamefragmented, the princes of Vladimir-Moscow were able to assert theirauthority over one Russian principality after another, without waiting forTatar approval.116 When the Moscow grand princes began using the title

of gosudar’ or sovereign, they demonstrated that a new era had started.117

Moving to the contents of the medieval Russian treaties now, we mayeasily establish the existence of several main categories. There are, rst of all , treaties dealing with universal standard themes of international law,such as peace, truce, borders and other territorial questions, alliance andmutual support, settlement of inter-state disputes, etc. The second maincategory is formed by the treaties between princes, regulating mutual re-lationships within the framework of the seniority principle. These treatiesare unique for Russia, located as they are in an area where international

law, constitutional (state) law and family law overlap. The parties negoti-ated and contracted with each other as sovereign heads of states, as publicocials in a relationship of subordination, and as brothers dividing up afamily estate.

The third category is represented primarily by treaties in which theRussian party (Novgorod, but also Pskov and Smolensk) is dealing witha counterpart consisting wholly or in part of a group of merchants. Thecontents of these commercial treaties vary: some of them are general,outlining a general legal framework for mutual trade relations; others deal with specic kinds of trade, with disputes, claims, etc. An essential ele-ment of these treaties, often explicitly mentioned and otherwise alwaysimplied, is the existence of permanent foreign (usually German) tradesettlements in Novgorod (and, probably, in other cities as well, althoughmuch less is known about this).

The form of medieval Russian treaties constitutes a specialized andtechnical topic that can only be indicated here. There is the obvious dis-tinction between formal treaties, expressed in solemn and traditional form,

and other types of agreements. The treaties revolving around starshinstvo 116 As late as 1412, the Moscow grand prince Vasilii Dmitrievich visited khan Kerim-Berdyin Sarai, the headquarters of the Golden Horde, to petition the latter’s recognitionof his rights. Cf. Karamzin, Vol.5, Ch.2, col.119.

117 Cf . Ostrowski, op.cit ., 99.




were commonly in the form of an exchange of statements, where the du-ties assumed and rights stipulated appear as mirror images. As Moscow

was able to assert its supremacy, it adapted the formulary of its treaties.Novgorod treaties display a style of their own. Byzantine inuence on theform of medieval Russian treaties is undeniable.

Russian medieval treaties are also of great interest for the generalhistory of Russian law, because they oer important information on nu-merous aspects of medieval Russian law, apart from the specic pointsconcerning international law, as mentioned above. In the discussion of thetreaties of Smolensk, for example, it was noted that the early texts from1229 and 1230/1270 form an essential link between the Russkaia Pravda

and the next major legislative document of medieval Russia, the CourtCharter of Pskov, from the middle of the 15th century.The treaties of the Moscow princes constitute one of the chief sources

in the study of the political history of medieval Russia. The Novgorodtreaties with its Hanseatic partners complement what West Europeansources tell us about East-West relations in the European middle ages.

Finally, medieval Russian treaties inevitably reect the political ideologies of their times. The complexity of this theme has two aspects. First , thecontemporary appreciation of Mongol overlordship by medieval Russians

has to be examined and understood. And, then, the way this overlordshiphas been seen through the ages, by Russians and others, has itself beensubject to change.118 Without treating these questions in depth, a few moreor less random observations must suce.

One point to be mentioned in that connection is the importance ofnomenclature and titles. Recognition of the khan of the Golden Horde ascaesar (tsar) was crucial for the ideological evaluation of Mongol supremacyin the world of ideas of medieval Russia. Along the same lines, the titles ofprince and grand prince were of the utmost political signicance. WithinRussia, only the descendants of Rurik were considered to be princes, andto have the right to rule.119 The background of all this was a medievalChristian, and especially Russian, way of perceiving the world order, in which God had appointed Christian princes to govern his people. In Rus-sia, this happened to be the house of Rurik, or rather the descendants ofSt. Vladimir, the Kievan ruler who had brought Christianity to Russia.

118 I refer in this connection especially to the works of Halperin and Ostrowski, men-tioned above.

119 In the later middle ages. Russia began to recognize and absorb foreign princes; rstthe descendants of the Lithuanian Gedimin dynasty, and then also various Tatarprinces. But only as late as 1707 the rst new prince was created in Russia, Peter theGreat’s favourite Menshikov. Cf . E.P. Karnovich, Rodovye prozvaniia i tituly v Rossii ,S.Peterburg, 1886 (reprint, Moskva, 1991), 184.




The khan of the Golden Horde did not t easily into this scheme, but by“fashioning him into a basileus” (Ostrowski) it could be achieved. Also, the

chronicles demonstrate time and again that Tatar rule was conceptual-ized and in a way justied as God’s punishment for the sins of Russia andespecially for the enmity and bloodshed among the Russian princes.

Every following age put its own gloss on this view and no one moredrastically that the Soviet period. As a result, modern views of the Russianmiddle ages, especially of the Mongol era, are still predominantly con-structed out of stereotypes, many of them false.120 Mongol rule had beendepicted as cruel and despotic, responsible for the worst aspects of Russian government in later ages. In fact, the Mongols, although no gentlemen

by modern standards, were more ecient conquerors, but not notablymore vicious occupiers than their contemporaries. They were remarkablytolerant in the sphere of religion. The Mongol system of government andadministration was quite sophisticated and operated through checks andbalances, not through the individual despotism of the khan. The organiza-tion of the Muscovy state owed a considerable debt to the Tatars; the badhabits had mainly been taken over from Byzantium.

Heroic Russian resistance against Asian barbarity also requires a fewcritical footnotes. Aleksandr Nevskii, sainted by the Russian church, owed

his success in laying the foundations for Moscow’s later supremacy to beingthe most eective collaborator with the Golden Horde. And, on a minorpoint, his celebrated victory over the German knights on Lake Peypus in1242 did not amount to much in military terms, but was elevated only a posteriori , for propaganda reasons, into a decisive event.121

120 Modern Russian authors display a more detached attitude; e.g . A.A. Gorskii, Moskvai Orda, Moskva, 2001.

121 Cf . J. Fennel, The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200-1304, London/New York (5th ed.),1993, 103-107. A more critical evaluation of Aleksandr Nevskii occasionally surfacesin recent Russian works. A.B. Shirokorad, a military historian, devoted a chapter ina popular historical study ( Rus’ i Orda, Moskva, 2004) to the question; the chapteris entitled “Aleksandr Nevskii–Myth and Reality” and its main argument is that thereputation of this most doubtful hero has been manipulated in dierent periods (byIvan the Terrible, Peter the Great, and the Soviets) to further the ephemeral interestsof the rulers of the day.



Appendix

1. Novgorod Treaties

with Moscow and Tver’ Grand Princes

1264 Iaroslav Iaroslavich of Tver’GVNP No.1, 9-10; SGGD Vol.1 No.2, 2-3; PRP II, 135-136; Kaiser, Laws, 67-68 (Russian text and English transla-tion)commentary: PRP II, 134-159

1266 Iaroslav Iaroslavich of Tver’GVNP No.2, 10-11; SGGD Vol.1 No.1, 1; PRP II, 137-138commentary: PRP II, 134-159

1270 Iaroslav Iaroslavich of Tver’GVNP No.3, 11-13; SGGD Vol.1 No.3, 3-4; PRP II, 138-141commentary: PRP II, 134-159

1296/1301 Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver’GVNP No.4/5, 13-15; SGGD Vol.1 No.4/5, 5-6; Tver’ andNovgorod copies

1304/1305 Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver’GVNP No.6, 15-16; SGGD Vol.1 No.9, 11-12; Kaiser,Laws, 69-71 (Russian text and English translation)

1304/1305 Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver’GVNP No.7, 16-18; SGGD Vol.1 No.10, 13

1304/1305 Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver’GVNP No.8, 18-19; SGGD Vol.1 No.11, 14

1307/1308 Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver’GVNP No.9/10, 19-22; SGGD Vol.1 No.6/7, 6-8;Novgorod and Tver’ copies

1316 Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver’ (peace treaty)GVNP No.11, 22-24; SGGD Vol.1 No.12, 15

1317 Mikhail Iaroslavich of Tver’ (peace treaty)GVNP No.12, 24; SGGD Vol.1 No.16, 21

1318/1319 Iurii Danilovich of Moscow and Mikhail Iaroslavich ofTver’ (peace treaty)GVNP No.13, 25-26; SGGD Vol.1 No.14, 17-18




1326/1327 Aleksandr Mikhailovich of Tver’GVNP No.14, 26-28; SGGD Vol.1 No.15, 19-20; Kaiser,

Laws, 72-74 (Russian text and English translation)1371 Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Tver’

GVNP No.15, 28-30; SGGD Vol.1 No.8, 9-10; Kaiser,Laws, 75-78 (Russian text and English translation)

1371/1372 Dmitrii Ivanovich of Moscow (mutual aid)GVNP No.16, 31

1372 Novgorod conditions for peace treaty with Mikhail Ale-

ksandrovich of Tver’GVNP No.17, 32-33; SGGD Vol.1 No.13, 16

1375 Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Tver’GVNP No.18, 33-34; SGGD Vol.1 No.17, 21-22

1435 Vasilii Vasil’evich of Moscow (peace treaty)GVNP No.19, 34-36

1446/1447 Boris Aleksandrovich of Tver’GVNP No.20, 36-38; SGGD Vol.1 No.18, 23-24

1448/1461 Vasilii Vasil’evich of Moscow (temporary transfer of ter-ritory)GVNP No.21, 38-39

1456 Vasilii Vasil’evich of Moscow (Iazhelbitsy peace treaty)GVNP No.22/23, 39-43; Novgorod and Moscow copies

1456 Novgorod to Vasilii Vasil’evich (on implementation ofIazhelbitsy treaty)

GVNP No.24, 43-441471 Novgorod to Ivan Vasil’evich of Moscow (on payment of

debts)GVNP No.25, 44

1471 Ivan Vasil’evich of Moscow (Korostyn’ peace treaty)GVNP No.26/27, 45-51; SGGD Vol.1 No.20, 26-30; PRPII, 251-259; Novgorod and Moscow copies; commentary:PRP II, 267-272




with Foreign Rulers

1323 Magnus Eriksson of Sweden (peace treaty)GVNP No.38, 67-68

1326 Magnus Eriksson of Norway and SwedenGVNP No.39, 69-70; parallel text in Latin

1431 Svidrigailo of Lithuania GVNP No.63, 105-106; SGGD Vol.1, No.19, 24-25;Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 331-332 (full reconstruction)

1440-1447 Kazimir of Lithuania (peace treaty)

GVNP No.70, 115-1161470-1471 Kazimir of Poland/Lithuania

GVNP No.77, 129-132; PRP II, 245-251; commentary:PRP II, 260-266

with German and Baltic Cities and Merchants

1189-1199 Visby [Gothic Coast, Gotskii Bereg] and German cities(peace and commerce treaty)GVNP No.28, 55-56; PRP II, 125-126; commentary: PRPII, 124-132

1262/1263 Lübeck, Visby and German cities (peace and commercetreaty)GVNP No.29, 56-57

1269 Lübeck, Visby and German cities (draft commercialtreaty)GVNP No.31, 58-61 parallel text in Middle Low German

1269 Riga and Lübeck (free transit)GVNP No.32, 62

1301 Lübeck (co-operation against Sweden)GVNP No.33, 62-63; parallel text in Middle Low German

1301 Lübeck, Visby, Riga (free transit)

GVNP No.34, 63-641323 Livonian Order122 (alliance)

GVNP No.37, 65-67; parallel text in Middle Low German122 Actually the Teutonic Order. The Livonian Order had been founded in 1202 by

Adalbert, bishop of Riga. In 1237, the Order joined the Teutonic Order. The oldname is occasionally used in Russian sources, when referring to events after 1237.




1338 Lübeck and Visby (dispute settlement)GVNP No.40, 71-72; parallel text in Middle Low German

1342 Lübeck, Visby, Riga, Dortmund, Münster and other Ger-man cities (wax trade)GVNP No.41, 73-74; parallel text in Middle Low German

1371 Lübeck, Visby and German cities (draft treaty)GVNP No.42, 74-76; parallel text in Middle Low German

1372 Visby and German merchants (two years’ truce)GVNP No.43, 76-79; parallel text in Middle Low German

1373 Lübeck and Visby (dispute settlement)GVNP No.44/45, 79-80

1392 Lübeck, Visby, Riga, Tartu [Iur’ev], Tallinn [Kolyvan’] andGerman cities (peace treaty)GVNP No.46, 80-83

1405 Taru (extending 1392 peace treaty)GVNP No.48, 85-86; parallel text in Middle Low German

1409 Riga, Tartu, Tallinn (dispute settlement)GVNP No.49, 86-88; parallel text in Middle Low German

1420 Riga and Teutonic Order (peace treaty)GVNP No.59, 96-98

1421 Teutonic Order (dispute settlement)GVNP No.60, 98-100

1423 Hanseatic League (dispute settlement)GVNP No.62, 102-104; parallel text in Middle Low Ger-

man1434 Hanseatic League (two years’ truce)

GVNP No.64, 106-108; parallel text in Middle Low Ger-man

1436 Hanseatic League (renewal of previous treaties)GVNP No.67, 110-112; parallel text in Middle Low Ger-man

1439 German colony in Novgorod (dispute settlement)GVNP No.68, 113-114; parallel text in Middle Low Ger-man

1448 Teutonic Order (ve years’ truce)GVNP No.72, 117-119




1448 (together with Pskov) Teutonic OrderGVNP No.73, 119-124; parallel text in Middle Low

German1450 Hanseatic League (seven years’ truce)

GVNP No.74, 124-126 (parallel text in Middle LowGerman

1466 Hanseatic league (two years’ truce)GVNP No.76, 127-129; parallel text in Middle LowGerman

1474 (together with Pskov) Tartu (thirty years’ truce)GVNP No.78, 133-136

2. Pskov Treaties

1417 Teutonic Order (ten years’ truce)GVNP No.334, 318-321 (parallel text in Middle LowGerman

1440 Kazimir of Lithuania

GVNP No.335, 321-3221503 Teutonic Order (six years’ truce)

GVNP No.347, 331-337; parallel text in Middle LowGerman

3. Polotsk Treaties

1478 Riga (trade agreement)

A.L. Khoroshkevich (ed.), Polotskie gramoty XIII-XVI vv., II, Moskva, 1978, No.171, 69-76

4. Moscow Treaties

with Other Russian Princes

1367 Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov-Borovsk

DDG No.5, 19-21; SGGD Vol.1 No.27, 44-451374-1375 Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov-Borovsk

DDG No.7, 23-24; SGGD Vol.1 No.29, 49-50

1375 Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Tver’DDG No.9, 25-28; SGGD Vol.1 No.28, 46-48




1382 Oleg Ivanovich of Riazan’DDG No.10, 29-30; SGGD Vol.1 No.32, 53-55

1389 Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov-BorovskDDG No.11, 30-33; SGGD Vol.1 No.33, 55-57

1390 Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov-BorovskDDG No.13, 37-39; SGGD Vol.1 No.35, 62-64

1390 Iurii Dmitrievich of GalichDDG No.14, 39-40

1396 Mikhail Aleksandrovich of Tver’

DDG No.15, 40-431401-1402 Vladimir Andreevich of Serpukhov-Borovsk

DDG No.16, 43-45; SGGD Vol.1 No.38, 69-71

1401-1402 Andrei Dmitrievich of Mozhaisk and Petr Dmitrievich ofDmitrov DDG No.18, 51-52; SGGD Vol.1 No.37, 68-69

1402 Fedor Ol’govich of Riazan’

DDG No.19, 52-55; SGGD Vol.1 No.36, 65-671428 Iurii Dmitrievich of Galich and Zvenigorod

DDG No.24, 63-67; SGGD Vol.1 No.43/44, 86-89; Mos-cow and Galich copies

1433 Iurii Dmitrievich of GalichDDG No.30, 75-80; SGGD Vol.1 No.49/50, 99-104; Mos-cow and Galich copies

1433 Vasilii Iaroslavich of Serpukhov-Borovsk

DDG No.27, 69-71; SGGD Vol.1 No.45, 90-921434 Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk and Mikhail Andreevich of

Verei-BelozeroDDG No.31, 80-82; SGGD Vol.1 No.46, 92-94; Mozhaisk-Verei-Belozero copy DDG No.32, 82-83; SGGD Vol.1 No.47, 94-96; Moscowcopy

1434 Ivan Fedorovich of Riazan’DDG No.33, 83-87; SGGD Vol.1 No.48, 96-99

1434 Dmitrii Iur’evich Shemiaka and Dmitrii Krasnyi Iur’evichof GalichDDG No.34, 87-89; SGGD Vol.1 No.60, 130-133




1436 Dmitrii Iur’evich of Galich

DDG No.35, 89-100; SGGD Vol.1 No.56-59, 118-124; twodierent sets of Moscow and Galich copies

1439 Vasilii Iur’evich of GalichDDG No.36, 100-105; Moscow and Galich copies

1439 Boris Aleksandrovich of Tver’DDG No.37, 105-107

1441-1442 Dmitrii Iur’evich of GalichDDG No.38 I, 107-112; SGGD Vol.1 No.52-53, 107-112;PRP III, 264-272; Moscow and Galich copiesDDG No.38 II, 112-117; SGGD Vol.1 No.54-55, 113-118;second version

1445 Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk and Mikhail Andreevich ofVerei-BelozeroDDG No.41, 121-123; SGGD Vol.1 No.61, 133-135

1445 Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk

DDG No.42, 123-125; SGGD No.69, 153-1541445 Mikhail Andreevich of Verei-Belozero (draft treaty)DDG No.43, 125-126; SGGD Vol.1 No.70, 155-156

1447 Mikhail Andreevich of Verei-BelozeroDDG No.44, 126-129; SGGD Vol.1 No.64, 140-142

1447 Vasilii Iaroslavich of Serpukhov-BorovskDDG No.45, 129-140; SGGD Vol.1 No.71-74, 156-168; twodierent sets of Moscow and Serpukhov-Borovsk copies

1447 Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk and Mikhail Andreevich ofVerei-Belozero (reconciliation)DDG No.46, 140-141; SGGD Vol.1 No.67, 149-151

1447 Ivan Fedorovich of Riazan’DDG No.47, 142-145; SGGD Vol.1 No.65, 142-144

1447 Ivan Andreevich of MozhaiskDDG No.48, 146-148; SGGD Vol.1 No.66, 146-149




1448 Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk

DDG No.51a & b, 150-153; SGGD Vol.1 No. 63, 138-139(two versions)DDG No.51c, 153-155; SGGD Vol.1 No.68, 151-152 (third version)

1448 Ivan Vasil’evich of Suzdal’DDG No.52, 155-160; SGGD Vol.1 No.80-81, 185-189; Mos-cow and Suzdal’ copies

1450 Mikhail Andreevich of Verei-Belozero

DDG No.55, 164-168; SGGD Vol.1 No.75, 168-170; Mos-cow and Verei-Belozero copies

1450-1454 Vasilii Iaroslavich of Serpukhov-BorovskDDG No.56, 168-175; SGGD Vol.1 No.84-85, 195-201;Moscow and Serpukhov-Borovsk copies

1451-1456 Vasilii Iaroslavich of Serpukhov-BorovskDDG No.58, 179-186; SGGD Vol.1 No.78-79, 177-184;Moscow and Serpukhov-Borovsk copies

1456 Boris Aleksandrovich of Tver’DDG No.59, 186-192; SGGD Vol.1 No.76-77, 171-176; Mos-cow and Tver’ copies

1462 Mikhail Borisovich of Tver’DDG No.63, 201-207; SGGD Vol.1 No.88-89; 209-215;Moscow and Tver’ copies

1462-1464 Mikhail Andreevich of Verei-Belozero

DDG No.64, 207-211; SGGD Vol.1 No.90-91, 215-220;Moscow and Verei-Belozero copies

1464 Mikhail Andreevich of Verei-BelozeroDDG No.65, 212-214; SGGD Vol.1 No. 92, 220-222

1472 Andrei Vasil’evich of UglichDDG No.66, 214-216; SGGD Vol.1 No.95, 228-230

1472 Mikhail Andreevich of BelozeroDDG No.67, 217-221; SGGD Vol.1 No.93-94, 223-227; Mos-cow and Belozero copies

1473 Boris Vasil’evich of VolotskDDG No.69 I, 225-229; SGGD Vol.1 No.97-98, 234-238;Moscow and Volotsk copiesDDG No.69 II, 229-232; corrected text




1473 Andrei Vasil’evich of VolotskDDG No.70 I, 232-2327; SGGD Vol.1 No.99-100, 239-243;

Moscow and Volotsk copiesDDG No.70 II, 237-241; SGGD Vol.1 No.101-102; 244-249; Moscow and Volotsk copies; second versionDDG No.70 III, 241-246; third version; Moscow andVolotsk copiesDDG No.70 IV, 247-249; fourth version

1481 Andrei Vasil’evich of UglichDDG No.72 I, 252-257; Moscow and Uglich copies

DDG No.72 II, 257-263; SGGD Vol.1 No.106-107. 253-259;Moscow and Uglich copiesDDG No.72 III, 263-268; SGGD Vol.1 No.108-109, 259-265; Moscow and Uglich copies

1481 Boris Vasil’evich of VolotskDDG No.73 I, 268-271DDG No.73 II, 271-275; SGGD Vol.1 No.110-111, 265-270;Moscow and Volotsk copies

1482 Mikhail Andreevich of Verei-BelozeroDDG No.75, 277-283; SGGD Vol.1 No.113-114, 273-279;Moscow and Verei-Belozero copies

1483 Ivan Vasil’evich of Riazan’DDG No.76, 283-290; SGGD Vol.1 No.115-116, 279-286;Moscow and Riazan’ copies

1483 Mikhail Andreevich of Verei-BelozeroDDG No.78, 293-295; SGGD Vol.1 No.118, 290-292

1484-1485 Mikhail Borisovich of Tver’DDG No.79, 295-301; SGGD Vol.1 No.119-120, 293-299;Moscow and Tver’ copies

1486 Mikhail Borisovich of Tver’DDG No.79, 295-301; SGGD Vol.1 No.119-120, 293-299;Moscow and Tver’ copies

1486 Andrei Vasil’evich of Uglich

DDG No.82, 322-328; SGGD Vol1 No.125-126, 313-320;Moscow and Uglich copies




with Foreign Princes

1371 Olgerd Gediminovich of Lithuania and SviatoslavIvanovich of Smolensk (reconciliation)DDG No.6, 21-22; SGGD Vol.1 No.31, 52-53; M.M.Peshchak, Hramoty XIV st., Kiev, 1974, 46-49

1449 Kazimir of Poland-Lithuania DDG No.53, 160-161, PRP III, 272-277

1494 Aleksandr Kazimirovich of Lithuania DDG No.83, 329-332; SGGD Vol.5 No.29, 16-18

5. Other Princely Treaties

among themselves and with Foreign Princes

1229 Mstislav Davydovich of Smolensk and Riga PRP II, 57-71; commentary: PRP II, 75-85; R.I. Avanesov(ed.), Smolenskie gramoty XIII-XIV vv., Moskva, 1963,

18-621230-1270 (Vsevolod Mstislavich of ?) Smolensk and Riga PRP II, 72-75; commentary: PRP II, 85-87

1330-1359 Ivan Aleksandrovich of Smolensk and Riga SGGD Vol.2 No.8, 10-11

1366 Dmitrii of Volynia (?) and king of Poland (border settle-ment)Peshchak, Hramoty, 38-39

1386 Iurii Sviatoslavich of Smolensk and Vladislav Jagiello ofPoland-Lithuania and Svidrigailo of Lithuania Avanesov, Smolenskie gramoty, 72-74; Peshchak, Hramo-ty, 69-71

1399 Vitovt of Lithuania and Riga (concerning Polotsk)Peshchak, Hramoty, 139-140

1427 Boris Aleksandrovich of Tver’ and Vitovt of Lithuania

DDG No.23, 62-63; Peshchak, Hramoty, 121-123 (with wrong date: 1393)

1430 Ivan Fedorovich of Riazan’ and Vitovt of Lithuania DDG No.25, 67-68




1442 Ivan Vladimirovich of Pronsk and Vitovt of Lithuania DDG No.26, 68-69

1442 Fedor L’vovich of Novosil-Odoev and Kazimir of Lithua -nia DDG No.39, 117-118

1445 Dmitrii Iur’evich of Galich and Vasili and FedorIur’evichi of Suzdal’DDG No.40, 119-121; SGGD Vol.1 No.62, 135-137

1449 Boris Aleksandrovich of Tver’ and Kazimir of Poland-

Lithuania DDG No.54, 163-164

1459 Ivan Iur’evich of Novosil-Odoev and Kazimir of Poland-Lithuania DDG No.60, 192-193

1461 Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk and Ivan Vasil’evich ofSerpukhov-BorovskDDG No.62, 199-201

1483 Mikhail Borisovich of Tver’ and Kazimir IV of Lithuania DDG [no number], 483-484

1496 Ivan Vasil’evich of Riazan’ and Fedor Vasil’evich of Ria -zan’DDG No.84, 332-341; SGGD Vol.1 No.127-128, 320-329

6. Iarlyks of Tatar Khans

1266-1272 Mengu-Temir to Iaroslav Iaroslavich of NovgorodGVNP No.30, 57

1267 Mengu-Temir to metropolitan KirillSGGD Vol.2 No.2, 5-6; PRP III, 467-468; A.P. Grigor’ev,Sbornik khanskikh iarlykov russkim metropolitam,S.Peterburg, 2004, 44123

1347 Taidula (wife of Dzhanibek Khan) to bishop Ioann of

Sarai (Grigor’ev) or to metropolitan Ioann (traditionalidentication of addressee)PRP III, 466-467; Grigor’ev, 52-53

123 Grigor’ev’s texts are Russian translations of Turkish texts and dier very signicantlyfrom the texts in Old-Russian which scholars had been using hitherto.




1351 Taidula to metropolitan FeognostSGGD Vol.2 No.9, 11-12; PRP III, 468-469; Grigor’ev,

65-661354 Taidula to metropolitan Aleksei

SGGD Vol.2 No.10, 12; PRP III, 470; Grigor’ev, 70-71

1357 Berdibek to metropolitan AlekseiSGGD Vol.2 No.11, 12; PRP III, 469; Grigor’ev, 114-115

1379 Biulek (Grigor’ev) or Tiuliak to metropolitan MikhailSGGD Vol.2 No.12, 13-14; PRP III, 465-466; Grigor’ev,

201-2021393 Tokhtamysh to king of Poland (peace proposal)

Peshchak, Hramoty, 112-113

1409 Edigei Emir to Vasilii Dmitrievich of Moscow SGGD Vol.2 No.15, 17-18

1484 Murtazy to Kazimir of Lithuania V.M. Rusanivs’kyi (ed.), Ukrains’ki hramoty XV st., Kiev,1965, 137-138



Chapter 8

Human Rights in Russian Legal History

1. Introduction

On 5 September 1991, the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR ad-opted the Declaration of the Rights and Freedoms of Man. The Preambleto this document explicitly referred to the Universal Declaration of Hu-man Rights of 1948. Also, the following provisions, particularly Articles1 and 2, made clear that the 1991 Declaration presented a complete break

with the ‘socialist’ concept of human rights, as embodied in the variousSoviet constitutions. In the wake of the still existing USSR, Russia adoptedits own Declaration on the Rights and Freedoms of the Person and theCitizen on 22 November 1991. The latter Declaration found its way intothe Constitution of the Russian Federation. Thus, Russia unequivocallyjoined the mainstream of human rights legislation, taking its lead fromthe Universal Declaration of 1948. The Russian Constitution has become amember of a global family of constitutions, united by a certain consensuson human rights, nding its most authoritative expression in the Universal

Declaration of 1948.The ancestry of the Universal Declaration has been extensivelyresearched and analyzed. It will be sucient to highlight only the mainhistorical outline, which to a great extent coincides with the history ofWestern civilization.

This chapter will address the question: Is there also in Russian legal history something that could be regarded as building material for a modernconcept of human rights?

But before addressing this question we ought to identify the roots

of the modern human rights concept, albeit in a general and concisemanner.

2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948

The Universal Declaration was proclaimed by the General Assemblyas a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. Theinternal logic of other declarations, such as the American Bill of Rights, would also lead to the conclusion that the rights enumerated ought to

be considered as universally applicable, but the legal character of suchdocuments as expressions of the sovereign will of individual states woulddeny them such universality.




The paramount position of the Universal Declaration is explicitlyrecognized by its European counterpart, the Treaty of Rome of 1950, and

also, as mentioned above, by the USSR and Russian Declarations.It is especially the Preamble to the Universal Declaration whichprovides more insight into the philosophical underpinnings of the fol-lowing text. Its starting-point is that recognition of the inherent dignityof every human being is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace.It refrains understandably from explaining why this dignity is inherent.The US Declaration of Independence of 1776 had stated that “all men […]are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”, but such aposition would obviously not be generally acceptable in an international

assembly in 1948 of which explicitly atheist states such as the USSR,Ukraine and Belorussia were members. Instead, a more pragmatic tone was adopted: without recognition of human rights, one reverts to barba-rism (this was just three years after the Second World War); human rightspromote friendly relations between nations, social progress and betterstandards of life; so human rights are obviously a good thing and anywayeverybody seemed to agree on the following catalogue.

The Preamble also referred to the Four Freedoms (of speech andreligious worship, from fear and want), and the catalogue of rights and

freedoms of the Universal Declaration may be viewed as an elaborationof the famous statement of the Four Freedoms by US President FranklinD. Roosevelt in 1941. When the human rights package of the UniversalDeclaration is compared with the classic enumerations of the Americanand French revolutions (contained in the Declaration of Independence,the US Bill of Rights, and the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen ),the main dierence is in the addition of the socio-economic rights,summarized as the freedom from want. The latter rights were stronglyemphasized in the various Soviet and other communist constitutions,

in accordance with the Soviet Marxist theory of human rights. But,modern Western constitutions, such as the Constitution of the FederalRepublic of Germany, also explicitly recognized the state’s duty to assumeresponsibility for the welfare of the individual, by stipulating the latter’sright to education, work, social protection, rest, health care, and otherfacilities, in order to lead a life in accordance with human dignity. Older19th century constitutions had already acknowledged that the state wasobliged to produce certain basic provisions in this respect, such as primaryeducation and care for the indigent. These developments were obviouslyprompted by a growing awareness that if the individual’s right “to pursuehappiness” (in the words of the US Declaration of Independence) wasto be more than empty words, the state would have to take certain stepstowards enabling the individual to realize his potential.



Human Rights in Russian Legal History 235

To go one step further, one could argue that the requirement of thestate’s active behaviour, in order to allow the individual citizen to lead a life

commensurate with his inherent dignity, had been implicitly recognizedfrom the time the state started to emerge. It had always been accepted thatthe primary duty of the state was the preservation of peace—externally,by defending its citizens against dangers from outside, and internally, bymaintaining peace among its citizens.

Once the state had been equipped with the necessary means to carryout this task, it became the most powerful agent in society. This againposed the threat of abuse, and groups of citizens and individual citizensfelt the need to protect themselves. The classic catalogues of human rights

attempted to circumscribe the state’s rights in interfering with the livesof the citizens. They systematized and consolidated all kinds of practices,institutions and agreements which had emerged in earlier times.

3. Equality

The concept of the equality of human beings occupies a special place within the system of human rights. It was already prominent in the American and French declarations of the 18th century (“We hold these

truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal […]”). Equality generally precedes enumerations of human rights as a general precondi-tion of these rights. It does not seem to be a right itself, although certainrights ow from it ( e.g . the right of women and men towards equal treat-ment, the right of parties to be treated as equals in the administration ofjustice). Although its prominence in the 18th century debate can easilybe explained historically (as a reaction against the state of aairs underthe ancien régime ), its philosophical underpinnings are not as obvious asthose of the classic human rights (where one may point, according to one’s

views, to the divine will, the law of nature, reason, practical necessity). Itis undeniably self-evident that all human beings (provided they have notbeen cloned) are unequal, and this is implicitly recognized in the variousprovisions dening equality of rights: because women and men are notequal, the law has to command that they must still be treated as equals, atleast in most cases. Plain common sense sometimes demands that peopleare not treated equally.

The modern practice of implementing anti-discrimination legislationshows that a complicated weighing process is often required to determine

whether unequal treatment, i.e. discrimination, is justied or not.Undeniably, equality possesses a strong emotional appeal; inequali-

ties have to be justied. There is an obvious parallel and, in fact a strong




connection, with democracy. The philosophical foundation may be shaky,but all other alternatives are less attractive.

4. Taming the State: The Dispersal of Power

The dilemma is simple. The state, in order to carry out the tasks useful tosociety and the individual (and these tasks include the active promotionand protection of human rights), needs the proper tools—power. But,this power may also be used to harm the interests of particular social groups and individuals. Therefore, it has to be regulated, restricted byrules, tamed. This inevitably implies that power is taken away from thestate and given to other agencies or persons. The justication for doingso may be found in various theories and ideologies. If the state loses toomuch power, it stops being eective and this would also be harmful tosociety and the individual. An acceptable balance has to be found. Afterthe terrorist attacks known as “9-11”, the dilemma has acquired renewedurgency in searching for the right balance between protecting the citizenagainst terrorism and, on the other side, handing over the citizen’s privatelife to the scrutiny of the state.

The problem may also be viewed from a more concrete and histori-

cal perspective. States emerge at a particular point in history. The powerof the early state is usually limited to maintaining external and internalpeace. As society becomes more complex, the state assumes more re-sponsibilities. In this process, countervailing powers emerge and becomeinstitutionalized. This process is also dynamic, or perhaps better: dialectic,in the sense that new developments call forth reactions which again feednew movement.

The Separation of Powers

The theory of the separation of powers as expounded by Montesquieuis perhaps the most comprehensive and widely accepted instrument forregulating and dissipating the powers of the state. The core element of thetheory is that the powers of the state should be distinguished as legislative,executive and judicial, and that these three powers should be entrustedto separate and mutually independent agencies, which are generally (andconfusingly) also called legislative, executive and judicial powers. Theseparation of powers does not actually limit the powers of the state, butit breaks up the state into three distinct agencies. The vehement rejection

of the separation of powers by the totalitarian ideologies of national-socialism (and fascism, related but dierent) and Soviet communism hasin fact strengthened its prestige, after it had come under criticism duringthe rst half of the 20th century.




Although many modications have been suggested and sometimesimplemented since the theory was rst put forward in 1748, its main ten-

ets still stand rm and cannot be disregarded by any constitution whichregards itself as civilized.

Due Process

The judicial power of the state, especially, but not exclusively, in criminalmatters, will often appear to be the most invasive one, from the perspec-tive of the individual. Long before there was any talk of human rights,people sought guarantees against arbitrary or excessive intervention intheir lives by the authorities entrusted with the investigation, prosecution

and punishment of crimes and with other duties in the judicial sphere.Once catalogues of rights began to be written down, a considerable por-tion of them was always devoted to dening and limiting the powers ofthe state in this respect.

Separation of Church and State

The oldest known states, of the Ancient Near East, were theocratic innature. The religious and secular spheres were fused; worship of the gods,the economic organization of society, enhancing the power and militaryexpansion of the state—together, they constituted a single block of tasks,backed up by the sacred powers of the king, the personication of thedivinely instituted order. In this sense, the ancient kingdoms of Mesopo-tamia can be regarded as the rst totalitarian states.

A clear separation between the religious and secular spheres emergedin Classical Greece, producing the rst manifestation of a uniquelyEuropean civilization, because one can argue that the maintenance of aclear distinction between the world and the human social relations which

are part of this world, on the one hand, and our relations with a reality(real or imagined) outside this world, on the other, constitutes the basiccharacteristic feature of Western civilization. The arrival of Christianityprovided a strong boost to this distinction. It would, however, take manycenturies before the separation of church and state as we know it wouldbe realized. When the emperor Constantine converted in 312, he changedhis religious allegiance, rather than his proprietorial attitude towards theempire’s religion. This attitude remained dominant among his Byzantinesuccessors during the next eleven centuries.

In the West, in the course of the Middle Ages, the pope and the em-peror struggled for supremacy in the aairs of the world, each anchoringhis position in a religious world view. Similar struggles took place in otherEuropean kingdoms and principalities. With hindsight, it is not dicult




to understand that the battle had to end undecided, because neither sidecould ultimately be beaten. The result was a pragmatic settlement by

which certain matters were left to the state and others to the church. Asthis arrangement depended in good part on the relative strengths of theparties, rather than on fundamental consensus, the status quo was to proveunstable in the following centuries. Nevertheless, the investiture struggleof the 11th century planted the seeds for the separation of powers.1

The Reformation added a new aspect to this relationship. If the initialoutcome of the religious wars was the rule of cuius regio, illius et religio (thestate or the ruler determines the religion of the people), in the end theconclusion was reached (in some cases very late) that any other solution

than letting the individual choose his own religion would lead to moretension and strife that enforced ideological unity would be worth. Thestate withdrew almost completely from the realm of religion.

Christian Anthropology and the Freedom of Conscience

Criticism of past and present religious intolerance, or the persecution ofheretics and non-conformists and other excesses, should not obscure thefact that the overall eect of Christianity in Europe on the developmentof human rights has been overwhelmingly positive. The reason for thisis obviously that the Christian view of man implies that every individualis of innite value and is gifted with a free will and conscience. While allforms of human community, large ones such as the state and small onessuch as marriage and the family, are tied to this earth and will disappearin time, the individual is destined for eternal life.2

Christian teaching acknowledges (even if the actual behaviour ofchurch leaders did not always conform to the principle professed) that aperson is morally bound to follow his conscience, even where the whole

world would condemn the action dictated by conscience. Dictates ofconscience are intrinsically unsuitable for legal evaluation. It would obvi-ously be impossible for the law to permit everybody to act according tohis conscience, without risking legal sanctions. On the other hand, respectfor the individual and his conscience demands that the law is cautiousand reticent where there are serious grounds for assuming that a personis following his conscience. A sensible and reasonable balance will have tobe found. The interests of other individuals will always be a major factorin making such decisions.

1 See H.J. Berman, Law and Revolution. The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition,Cambridge, MA/London, 1983, Ch.8: “The Concept of Secular Law”, 273-294.

2 In the views of mainstream Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholicand Orthodox churches, the Church, as the community of all the faithful, living anddead, is also regarded as eternal.




The term “freedom of conscience” is actually unsuitable in referenceto a human right, because conscience must be considered as free ab initio

and does not need legal approval; neither is legal approval meaningful per se, because conscience operates outside the sphere where law is eective.Freedom of conscience, however, may be seen as convenient shorthandfor several related freedoms which are legally relevant and at the sametime connected with the freedom of conscience. Conscience may dictatea person to express openly his opinions and feelings (freedom of speech,freedom of the press), especially to practice his religion (freedom of re-ligion); to engage in social and political activities (freedoms of assemblyand association, various political freedoms).

The relationship between church and state is of particular impor-tance in connection with the freedom of conscience and related rights. Although religion is often blamed for fostering intolerance, the ensuingrepression, at least in Europe, would, as a rule, be eected by the state. Thedierent Christian churches usually restricted themselves to dening the views and actions of particular individuals as contrary to church doctrine.This of course does not free the churches of all blame for intolerance,but it is a matter of fairness to establish that it was normally the secularsociety and its authorities who were unwilling to tolerate certain forms

of heterodoxy and who would then take the necessary steps to end themanifestation of them.

Finally, one might also add here that the ideological roots of humanrights go even further back, into Greek antiquity. The famous words whichSophocles put in the mouth of Antigone still ring crystal-clear through theages.3 Recalling what happened to Antigone, or to Socrates for that matter,one easily sees that the tension between high ideals and grim reality issomething of all times. The underlying ideas of the Greeks were transmit-ted through Roman authors, such as Cicero, to medieval philosophers,such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and hence to post-Reformation thinkers.

Sharing Power: Original Democracy

No serious historian or social anthropologist would subscribe any longerto the simple schedule proposed by Marx and Engels, according to whichmankind traversed a straight trajectory from primitive communism to themost advanced and complicated forms of capitalism. Nevertheless, the ideathat societal forms have generally displayed a development from simple

3 “That order did not come from God. Justice, that dwells with the gods below,knows no such law. I did not think your edicts were strong enough to overrule theunwritten unalterable laws of God and heaven, you being only a man. They are notof yesterday or to-day, but everlasting, though where they came from, none of uscan tell.” Sophocles, The Theban Plays, (transl. E.F. Watling), The Penguin Classics.




and small-scale to complex and large-scale seems eminently plausible. Thesmall scale of early and primitive social formations inevitably involved the

absence of great social dierentiation; there were just not enough peopleto make up an extensive hierarchy. This means that in the beginning theremust have been a considerable measure of equality and democracy.

Subsequent developments were not as straightforward as suggested byMarx and Engels. But, no matter what persons or groups or classes tookcontrol over communal aairs, the idea of the “people” as an interestedactor, if only backstage, never quite disappeared. Time and again, andespecially in a power vacuum, it would make a new appearance, in manydierent shapes: as an orderly assembly, a spontaneously formed militia,

a riotous crowd, etc. It was known in the aristocratic society of Homer,although he was not in favour of it. 4 The oldest historical records of theGermanic and Slavic peoples also contain numerous reports of popularassemblies (for Russia, see the chapter on “Popular Assemblies in EarlyMedieval Russia”).5

The survival, in some form, of the democratic idea through the ageshas meant that power had in some way to be shared with the people. Attimes, the idea has become submerged, but it always resurfaced.

In the modern era, the people is usually regarded as the ultimate

source of legitimate power, and in this sense the democratic idea has beencompletely victorious. This, however, has led to a curious paradox. Theonly practical way to determine the will of the people is to accept majorityrule. Democracy then may also become a threat to human rights, if themajority behaves in an autocratic manner.

Sharing Power: The Feudal System

Most people would not immediately think of the emergence of the feudal

system in Europe as an important step in the development of human rights.It was, nevertheless. The feudal contract established mutual rights andduties between lord and liegeman. When the feudal lord would appearsimultaneously as the territorial ‘sovereign’, the feudal relationship would

4 See, especially, verses Β 50-54 of the Iliad which describe the convocation of a generalassembly of the army, after king Agamemnon had rst consulted his own counciland verses 203-205: “In no way shall all the Greeks lord it around here! Democracy[lit. ‘rule by many’] is not a good thing, one only should rule, one should be king, to whom it was given by Zeus according to his unfathomable judgment” (words spoken

by Odysseus).5 One of the oldest is Tacitus’ Germania, which relates (in ch.11), in a remarkable paral-

lel to Homeric usage, that the chiefs would meet rst, before the general populaceassembled ( De minoribus rebus principes consultant, de maioribus omnes, ita tamen, ut ea quoque, quorum penes plebem arbitrium est, apud principes praetractantur ).




be of great importance in articulating the constitutional structure of the‘state’. Tribal chiefs and kings would operate in a much less structured and

hazier constitutional environment of tribal custom. The words “sovereign”and “state” have been put between quotation marks, because it is preciselythe feudal system which makes these terms ambiguous. State power andsovereignty appeared to be dispersed according to a pyramidical model. At the summit one would nd the emperor or king (and some popes evenclaimed to be above them), then there would be a layer of higher lords(bishops, dukes, counts) and then one or more layers of lower lords, all ofthem connected through feudal relationships and sharing to some extentthe possession of public power.

Apart from the political eect of diluting the absolute power of theruler, the feudal system had an important ethical component which canalso be considered to have contributed to human rights thinking. The goodknight, as the embodiment of the medieval chivalrous ideal, was requiredto be just and fair, faithful to his lord, and to protect and support thosesubordinate to him. Before a regular civil service as the basic interfacebetween the citizen and public power had come into being, the knightalready oered an ideal model of how a civil servant ought to behave.

In its dilution of sovereign power, feudalism can also be seen as a

forerunner of federal systems, where the power of the state is broken upbetween several levels. Germany is the most obvious case in point, whereHitler’s Third Reich was the only centralized interruption in a long historyof feudal and federal division.

Sharing Power: Urban Freedom

Towns have existed since prehistory. The city-state of Ancient Greece inparticular must be regarded as an important milestone in the development

of civic liberty. But, it was especially the Middle Ages which brought thelegal articulation of the special position of towns and their populations. Although they did retain their place within the feudal pyramid, theirrelationship with the territorial rulers was not the same as that of an or-dinary liegeman. The freedom granted to the town and its people was themost direct forerunner of later bills of rights. In stark economic terms,the relationship between the town and the territorial ruler meant thatthe town bought a measure of independence from the prince, adding yetanother element to the complex system of power sharing which was so

typical of medieval times.




Rationalism and Enlightenment

Among the factors which have favoured the emergence of the modern

system of human rights, as briey explained above, are certain concreteinstitutions, while others appear as broad systems or general attitudes.The combined dynamics of these factors produced a process, a combina-tion of currents, which eventually united in a comprehensive vision ofhuman rights.

This took place in the course of the 18th century, the Age of Enlight-enment, when the rational observation and analysis of reality were takenas the starting-point for constructing mutually coherent views of variousaspects of this reality. The proponents of these views were not necessarilyatheists, but they agreed in putting aside religious revelation as a sourceof knowledge and a guide to the understanding of this world. Nature, asa convenient name for the reality of this world, had to be examined todiscover its inherent characteristics, the Laws of Nature. It would be en-tirely feasible, as, for instance, the Founding Fathers did, to look for thelegitimation of this natural order in the existence of a Creator, but anotherpossibility would be to consider nature and its laws as axiomatic.

If previous centuries had regarded God as the source of all law and

justice, which would lead to the recognition of some kind of God-givennatural law, the Age of Enlightenment saw a new version of this concept:certain basic concepts and institutions in the eld of law were consideredas evolving from reason and therefore, in this sense, constituting a systemof natural law.

It should also be pointed out that, with regard to the ancestry ofhuman rights, rationalism, like the preceding societies which were domi-nated by a religiously determined world view, has a mixed record. It wouldbe sucient to mention Marxism, which in its embracing of dialectical

and historical materialism was an obvious oshoot of rationalism, whileits Soviet version developed a doctrine of human rights which actuallycame down to its denial or reversal.6 Another case in point would be theseparation of powers, which can be defended on rational grounds as an

6 It would exceed the framework of this chapter to develop this argument here. Irefer to the vast literature on the subject of “Soviet human rights”, including my owncontributions to it, e.g . “Law and Political Dissent in the Soviet Union”, D.D. Barry[a.o.] (eds.), Contemporary Soviet Law [Hazard Festschrift], The Hague, 1974, 55-68;“Grundrechte in zweierlei Sicht: Grundrechtsdiskussion zwischen Staatsrechtlernund Dissidenten in der Sowjetunion”, F.C. Schoeder & B. Meissner (eds.), Verfas- sungs- und Verwaltungsreformen in den sozialistischen Staaten, Berlin, 1978, 101-109; “TheSoviet Human Rights Doctrine in the Crossre between Dissidents at Home andCritics Abroad”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol.13 (1980), 451-466.




eective instrument to prevent tyranny and rejected on the same groundsas promoting ineectual government.7

5. The Position of Russia

As has been argued above, individual human beings need and are entitledto a certain basic package of rights, in order to allow them to live in ac-cordance with their innate dignity. There does not seem to be generalagreement on the source or origin of these basic rights, but for the pur-pose of setting up a workable system of basic rights a general consensuson what should be included is sucient. The primary instrument forcreating such a system is the limitation of the powers of the state, becausethe state, as the creator of the legal system, is the most powerful actorin society. In this context, “state” should be understood to embrace allagencies which exercise public power, not only the national (sovereign)state, but also international and supranational organizations, and lowerlevel public authorities.

The present ideology of human rights rests therefore on two pillars:a concept of the unique value of the human individual, which endowshim with certain inalienable rights, and the need to limit public power

(and in this respect the theory of the separation of powers occupies acentral place).In what form have these ideas been present and active in Russian

legal history?

6. Church and State in Russia 8

The First Centuries

Christianity reached Russia through Byzantium, a fact of fundamentalimportance for Russian history in general and particularly for the church-state relationship. The church-state tensions which gave rise to theinvestiture conict did not seriously aect Byzantium at the time of its greatest ecclesiastical inuence on the edgling Russian church. A close

7 The latter view is shared, albeit on dierent ideological grounds, by the SovietMarxists-Leninists and most of the excessively presidential regimes of the ex-Sovietrepublics.

8 The principal modern Russian works which deal directly with this theme are Ia.N.Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov’ Drevnei Rusi X-XIII vv., Moskva, 1989 (hereafter:Shchapov, Tserkov’ ), and R.G. Skrynnikov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov’ na Rusi XIV-XVIvv., Novosibirsk, 1991, and at a more popular level: R.G. Skrynnikov, Krest i korona;Tserkov’ i gosudarstvo na Rusi IX-XVII vv., S.Peterburg, 2000 (herafter: Skrynnikov, Krest ).




the church in a very advantageous material position and granted it animportant role in the judicial system, but all this at the expense of the

church’s independence. The church was turned into something close to a government department for religious aairs, a position the Russian churchhas never fully been able to escape from.

The second major church statute from Kievan times is the one as-cribed to Vladimir’s son Iaroslav, also known as the Wise. It can be datedfairly exactly as having been enacted between 1051 and 1054. It representsa kind of code of family and criminal law which is more detailed than itspredecessor and therefore of greater interest to Russian legal history, butit did not alter the overall tenor of the Statute of Vladimir.

Other Russian princes issued similar statutes concerning the positionof the church in later years; these laws were based mainly on the ChurchStatutes of Vladimir and Iaroslav.12

In other respects, the early Russian church maintained strong ties with Byzantium. The metropolitan of Kiev was appointed by, or at leastneeded the approbation of the patriarch in Constantinople, and of thetwenty-three metropolitans of the Russian church before the Mongolsoverran Kiev in 1240 only about three were of Russian extraction.13 Byhaving his own man in Kiev, the patriarch of Constantinople, and through

him the emperor of Byzantium, could exercise powerful inuence in Rus-sia. The largely successful attempts of Kievan rulers to turn the Russianchurch into a handmaiden of the state should also be viewed in that light.Control over the Russian church was a eld of battle between the emperorand the grand prince.

Church and State under the Mongols

Although Russia had lived in a hostile and often warlike symbiosis with

various steppe nomads (Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovtsians) for centuries, thesudden appearance of the Mongols in 1237 and the complete subjugationof Russia within a few years constituted a watershed. A completely newsystem of power relationships emerged and this inevitably also aectedthe relations between church and state. Byzantine involvement did notend, but unquestionably became a factor of secondary importance.

12 The Church Statute of prince Vsevolod (probably of Novgorod), dating from the

12th or 13th century; the Church Statute of Sviatoslav Ol’govich of Novgorod of 1137,the Charter of Rostislav Mstislavich of Smolensk (probably before 1137); the ChurchStatute of Lev Danilovich of Galicia of 1131, a.o. Further references in note 10.

13 Shchapov, Tserkov’, 191-206, has given a detailed list of the early Kievan metropoli-tans.




In constitutional terms, the Mongol-Tatar14 khan was the overlord,or the sovereign in modern terminology. Contemporary Russian sources

would refer to him as the tsar , the caesar , a title which until then had onlybeen enjoyed by the Byzantine and Holy Roman emperors. The Russianprinces who in their numerous sub-dynasties continued to rule the manyprincipalities into which the Kievan empire had dissolved, depended onthe khan’s conrmation and owed him military and scal allegiance (see,also, the chapter on “The Treaties of Medieval Russia”).

Western and Russian writers through the ages have put great stresson the ferocity and cruelty of the Tatars, but it should be obvious thatprimitive barbarians could never have managed successfully to maintain

for several centuries the largest empire (at least in terms of territory) his-tory has known.15 To retain his eminent position, the khan did not relyonly on military superiority, he also engaged in subtle manoeuvring toplay his Russian subject princes against each other. One of his favouriteploys was the extension of generous privileges to the Russian church. Asmall number of charters, called iarlyki , have survived, addressed to themetropolitan of Moscow (the principal see of the Russian church had bythat time been moved from Kiev to Moscow), in which the khan grantedthe church complete freedom of taxes and other benets (see the chapter

on “The Treaties of Medieval Russia”). Religious tolerance among the Tatarrulers even went so far as to allow the establishment of a new bishopric inSarai, the centre of Tatar power, to administer to the needs of all orthodoxChristians in that region.

The Russian church understandably used its privileged positionto further its own agenda. This included support for the eorts of theleading princes (increasingly the grand prince of Moscow) to free Russiafrom Tatar overlordship, but also avoidance of hostilities with the Tatars.In this respect, the church was probably inspired by its links with theemperor in Constantinople who, already in much trouble because of the

14 The empire of Chingis-Khan and his descendants was Mongol in its origins but soonabsorbed a multitude of other ethnic, mainly Turkic groups. In language and culture,the latter became dominant in later years, hence the relative interchangeability of“Mongol” and “Tatar”.

15 A comparison with the similar empire of Attila the Hun, eight centuries earlier, isinstructive. The immediate eect of an army of steppe nomads, mobile, numerousand well-equipped, on the more peaceful and urbanized European world was similar;but after Attila’s death in 453 his empire evaporated within a few years for lack ofinternal consistency. For modern Western views of the Mongol-Tatar empire, seeC.J. Halperin, The Tatar Yoke, Columbus, Ohio, 1986, and D. Ostrowski, Muscovy andthe Mongols: Cross-cultural Inuences on the Steppe Frontier, 1304-1589, Cambridge, MA,1998.




activities of the Crusaders, was anxious to maintain peaceful relations with the khan.16

The Church in Muscovy

As the grand prince of Moscow succeeded in suppressing and eliminat-ing the ruling princes of other Russian territories, the ties between theRussian church, particularly its ocial leader, the metropolitan, and theruler of Muscovy grew closer. Occasionally, erce conicts between theprince and the metropolitan would are up; but, on the whole, the Russianchurch leadership gave strong support to Moscow’s hegemonic build-up.17 In the not infrequent dynastic conicts within the ruling family, the

metropolitan and other church leaders often played a decisive role. But,as the Moscow grand prince was able to consolidate his position, becom-ing ever more the absolute ruler of Russia, the church slipped back intoa more modest place.

Byzantine inuence on the Russian church was ultimately reducedto zero by the fall of Constantinople in 1453. But, it was long after theMoscow grand prince had started to use the title of tsar’ ( caesar ) that themetropolitan assumed the title of patriarch (1589).

If the Russian church was able to provide the Moscow grand prince with the required religious and ideological legitimation of his dignity,it was also a strong pillar of his power on account of its wealth in land.The metropolitan and the bishops were the most important land ownersafter the prince and this enabled them to support the prince nanciallyand through the provision of military manpower. The great monasteries with their vast holdings should be mentioned in the same breath, rst ofall the famous Trinity monastery, north of Moscow. It owed its prestigeto the remarkable Sergei of Radonezh (1321-1391), who not only initiated

major monastic reforms, but was also the principal advisor and supporterof prince Dmitrii Donskoi in the latter’s wars with the Tatars. By themiddle of the 15th century, the Trinity monastery had become the biggestlandowner in Russia.

The tradition of compliance and submissiveness characterizing thehistory of church-state relations in Russia was only occasionally enlivenedby the appearance of strong personalities such as Sergei of Radonezh orthe metropolitan Filipp. The latter unwillingly accepted the highest post in16 A thesis put forward by Skrynnikov, Krest , 41.

17 According to Borisov, who devoted a monograph to church-state relations in Moscowduring the period in question, the Moscow metropolitan, after initial lukewarm sup-port, began to bring the church behind the grand prince from about the middle ofthe 14th century; N.S. Borisov, Russkaia tserkov’ v politicheskoi bor’be XIV-XV vekov,Moskva, 1986, 50-78.




the Russian church at the beginning of the reign of terror, the Oprichnina,of Ivan the Terrible. After three years of courageous opposition, he was

robbed of his dignity and murdered in 1569.18

The extinction of the ruling line of the Rurikid dynasty with thedeaths of Ivan IV (the Terrible) in 1584 and of his incompetent son Fedorin 1598 started the Time of Troubles ( Smutnoe vremia ), which was to lastuntil the election of a new tsar, Mikhail Romanov, in 1613, by the ZemskiiSobor (Land Council).

One of the constituent parts of the Zemskii Sobor was the Sacred Coun-cil ( Osviashchennyi Sobor ), consisting of the patriarch, the metropolitans,the (arch)bishops, and the abbots of the principal monasteries. Although a

Land Council had already been convoked by Ivan the Terrible, it acquiredparamount importance during the Time of Troubles, when it emerged asthe residual source of sovereignty (more on the Zemskii Sobor below).

The general confusion during the Time of Troubles also extendedto church-state relations and this is well illustrated by the origins of theRomanov dynasty. The father of the rst Romanov tsar, Fedor Nikitich,had been one of the leading boyar opponents of tsar Boris Godunov. Thelatter forced Fedor in 1600 to accept the tonsure and become a monk,under the name of Filaret. After the death of Boris in 1605, Filaret bounced

back and was promoted to metropolitan of Rostov by ‘tsar’ Pseudo-DmitriiI ( lzhe-Dmitrii I). Three years later, another impostor, Pseudo-Dmitrii II(known in Russian history as the “thief of Tushino”) made him patriarch,although there was a legitimate patriarch, Hermogen. When the Polisharmy, which had occupied Moscow, retreated in 1612, they took Filaretalong as a prisoner. In 1619, Filaret was nally released and, as Hermogenhad died in the meantime, could assume the patriarchate. With his sontsar Mikhail, he shared the title of “Great Sovereign” ( Velikii Gosudar’ ) and,in fact, ruled Russia in his son’s stead until his death in 1633, the only timein Russia when supreme power in the state and the church were unitedin the hands of one man.

During the reign of the rst two Romanov tsars, the Zemskii Sobor convened regularly. Its major legislative achievement was the adoptionof the Law Code of 1649 ( Sobornoe Ulozhenie ), one of the most importantmilestones in Russian legal history.19 The comprehensive compilationof the complete legislation of Russia in the 19th century, the Complete

18

Cf. Skrynnikov, Krest , 263-288.19 Text and commentary (by K.A. Sofronenko) in PRP VI; also in RZ III. Further: A.G. Man’kov (ed.), Sobornoe Ulozhenie 1649 goda; tekst, kommentarii , Leningrad, 1987;M.N. Tikhomirov & P.P. Epifanov, Sobornoe Ulozhenie 1649 goda, Moskva, 1961. Ger-man translation by C. Meiske, Das Sobornoe Uloženie von 1649, Halle-Wittenberg (2 vols.), 1985. Russian text and English translation by R. Hellie: The Muscovite LawCode (Ulozhenie) of 1649, Part 1: Text and Translation, Irvine, CA, 1988.




Collection of Laws ( Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov ) took the Code of 1649 asthe starting-point.

The Code of 1649 also aected the Russian church, in that it eectivelyprevented further growth of land-owning by the church (Ch.17 art.42).The third church leader, after Filipp and Filaret, to tower over the

monarch himself, was Nikon. Of humble origin, he was elevated to thepatriarchate by Aleksei Mikhailovich in 1652. He quickly succeeded indominating the moderately gifted tsar. His boundless ambition and energyfound not only expression in embarking on incisive church reforms, butalso in involving himself deeply in the internal and external policy of thecountry. All of this was backed up by a comprehensive theocratic view of

the church-state relationship and the role of Russia in the world. In theend, his lack of tact and blinkered fanaticism proved to be his undoing.He was deposed in 1666 by a church council in which also the patriarchsof Antioch and Alexandria took part. His church reforms however stoodand caused the great schism in the Russian church, known as Raskol .The tsar supported the majority trend in the Russian church which hadaccepted Nikon’s reforms; for the Old Believers, the Russian state hadbecome the state of the Antichrist.20

The Special Status of Novgorod Novgorod the Great, in the north-western corner of the Kievan empire,already started to develop a special position in the times of the Kievan grand princes. Although there was a nominal prince in Novgorod, hisfunctions were soon reduced to those of commander of the armed forces.Subsequently, through the gradually settling Novgorod custom of invit-ing and dismissing princes at will, the position of the Novgorod princebecame marginalized. For centuries, until it was nally subdued by Mos-

cow in 1478, Novgorod constituted a de facto republic, ruled by its popularassembly, the veche, dominated by boyar clans, and presided over by itsbishop (archbishop since 1165). The position of the bishop was to someextent comparable to that of the doge of Venice. His temporal powersand prestige were considerable. Uniquely among Russian bishops, he waspopularly elected by the veche (the election also included the throwingof lots). (See, also, the chapter on “Popular Assemblies in Early MedievalRussia”.)

The church-state relationship in medieval Novgorod could, therefore,

be summarized as a complicated balance between the popular assembly,aristocratic clans (who provided the chief ocials, the posadnik or mayor20 Cf . Skrynnikov, Krest , 386-402; N.V. Kozlova, “Zakonodatel’stvo o raskole i praktika

ego realizatsii v gorodskoi srede vo vtoroi chetverti XVIII v.”, V.A. Kuchkin (ed.), Rossiia v srednie veka i novoe vremia [Milov Festschrift], Moskva, 1999, 240-255.




and the tysiatskii or military commander), the Council of Lords ( Sovet Gos- pod , consisting mainly of the posadnik and tysiatskii and their predecessors),

the (arch)bishop, and occasionally the ruling prince or his representative(the namestnik ).

The Church in the Russian Empire

The drastic reforms introduced by Peter the Great extended also to thechurch. It was more eectively subordinated to the state (the emperor) bya series of measures. When patriarch Adrian died in 1700, Peter preventedthe appointment of a successor. In the following year, a considerable partof the church income from land holdings was shifted to the state. In 1721, a

Church Statute ( Dukhovnyi Reglament ) was issued by the emperor, regulatingthe internal organization of the orthodox church in detail. The patriarchaldignity was abolished and the church government was entrusted to a HolySynod, appointed by the emperor.21 The secularization of church lands was completed under empress Catherine II in 1764.22

7. Popular Rule and Democracy in Russia

Popular assemblies are well documented in the history of early Kievan

Russia. They were among the chief political actors, along with the princesand their retinues (see the chapter on “Popular Assemblies”). They hadtheir roots in Slavic prehistory and they oered a close parallel to thepopular assemblies known in Germanic history and protohistory.

With the strengthening of the Kievan state and its subsequent break-up into semi-independent principalities, the power of the Old-Russianveche diminished in favour of the power of the prince and his increasinglystructured governmental administration. Novgorod (and Pskov) was againthe exception, because here the local parties (boyar clans, the bishop, the

veche ) succeeded in relegating the prince and his servants to the margin.Tatar-Mongol domination rang the death-knell of the veche. The khandealt with the Russian princes who were nominally, and usually also inactual fact, his subjects. In this power equation, the veche would only bean encumbrance.

When, with the waning of Tatar rule, the Moscow grand princeemerged victorious among the competing sub-dynasties, the veche had virtually disappeared. The last veche meeting was held in 1510 in Pskov,the last medieval Russian state to preserve its independence, in order to

decide on Pskov’s submission to the grand prince.21 Text in V.N. Beneshevich (ed.), Sbornik pamiatnikov po istorii tserkovnogo prava, Part

2, Petrograd, 1914, 89-250.22 See Vladimirskii-Budanov, Obzor , 553-554.




An element of representative government returned, albeit in anentirely dierent form, with the convocation of the Land Council ( Zem-

skii Sobor ).23

The Land Council grew out of a combination of the churchcouncil and the Boyar Council ( Boiarskaia Duma ),24 both of them institu-tions with a longer tradition, by the addition of representatives of themerchants and townspeople (of Moscow) and of provincial landowners.25 After the rst Zemskii Sobor of 1566, Ivan IV organized several others untilhis death in 1584, when his son Fedor was oered the throne by a hastilyconvened Land Council.26 In the following Time of Troubles, the ZemskiiSobor emerged as the normal electoral agency for appointing a new tsar,beginning with Boris Godunov in 1598. As related above, the Land Coun-

cil met regularly under the rst two Romanov tsars, Mikhail Fedorovichand Aleksei Mikhailovich. After the death of the latter, his young sonsFedor and Peter were still elected by the Zemskii Sobor in 1682, with thesimultaneous appointment of their sister Sophia as regent, but only onemore Land Council was held after this, in 1683/1684.27

In Peter the Great’s views on the absolute monarchy, there was noroom for a representative body deciding on important matters of state.In his Statute on Accession to the Throne of 1721, Peter reserved the rightto appoint a successor to the emperor himself.28

From Peter the Great onwards, the Russian empire was governed bythe emperor, assisted by various government agencies appointed by him(the Senate since 1711,29 the State Council since 1810,30 the Council ofMinisters since 181131 ). Only the reforms of 1905 brought a return of a formof representative government to Russia. The decisive moment was theissuing of the Manifesto of 17 October 1905 which promised, along with a23 The literature on the Zemskii Sobor is extensive; the basic modern study is L.V.

Cherepnin, Zemskie Sobory russkogo gosudarstva v XVI-XVII vv., Moskva, 1978.24

On the Boyar Duma: V.O. Kliuchevskii, Boiarskaia Duma Drevnei Rusi , Moskva, 1892(several later editions).25 This is quite obvious from Karamzin’s description of the rst reported Zemskii Sobor

in 1566; he relates how Ivan IV did something unheard of: he invited not only theusual members of the Boyar Council, but also the above-mentioned representatives.See Karamzin, IX, col.67.

26 Cherepnin, Zemskie Sobory, 63., regards the combined meeting of the Boyar Dumaand the church council already as a Land Council and puts its rst meeting thereforein 1549.

27 Cherepnin, Zemskie Sobory, 362-370.

28 PRP VIII, 204-205.29 PRP VIII, 42-44.30 RZ VI, 54-90.31 Ibidem, 90-156.




basic human rights package, elections for a State Duma with full-edgedrights to participate in the legislative process and in the supervision of the

executive.32

This Manifesto was followed by the promulgation, on 23 April1906, of the new Fundamental State Laws, in fact a Russian constitution which elaborated the short announcements made in the Manifesto; itregulated the supreme state agencies (emperor, State Council, State Duma,and Council of Ministers), the legislative process, and enumerated thebasic civil rights.33 The representative character of the Duma was quicklyeroded by extensive tinkering with the electoral system, but this shouldnot obscure the magnitude of the reforms of 1905-1906.

8. Feudalism In Western Europe, feudalism was undoubtedly one of the ancestors ofmodern human rights. Can the same be said about Russia? This questionhas been discussed in more detail in the chapter on “Land Tenure, the Druzhina, and the Nature of Kievan Rus’”. At this place, a few more sum-mary points will be sucient.

There is rst of all the terminological aspect which still hampers un-derstanding, where feudalism is concerned, because the Marxist concept

is very deeply embedded, also among post-Soviet historians in Russia andother ex-Soviet countries.The distinguishing feature of classic European feudalism was the

particular nature of the feudal contract, especially as it came to be imbued with a moral aspect. Lord and liegeman each contributed materially: landand service, but beyond that they owed each other loyalty, support andprotection. Moreover, the contract, in present-day terminology, was of amixed public-private character. In later years, all kinds of variations onthis basic theme developed. Classic feudalism owered mainly in parts

of Western Europe, especially in the heartland of the old Carolingianempire. Many parts of Western Europe were only marginally aected byfeudalism, or not at all.

Feudalism in this sense never got beyond the initial stage in Russia.The princes of Kievan Russia did indeed begin to make land grants to theirservitors, but a balanced system as had emerged in Western Europe didnot arise. A number of factors contributed to this. Trade played a greaterrole in the economy of Kievan Russia than it did in Western Europe, which was closer to a natural economy ( Naturalwirtschaft ) during the early

Middle Ages. The fact that the dynasty of Rurik, unlike the Carolingians,survived and expanded created a dierent political situation in Russia.32 RZ IX, 42-52.33 See the Election Statute for the State Duma of 3 June 1907, RZ IX, 53-117.




The ruling princes in Russia were more powerful from the start thantheir West European counterparts. This was reinforced by the constant

threat of invasions by steppe nomads. When the latter, in the shape ofthe Mongol hordes of Chingis-Khan nally overran Russia, there was noroom anymore for any kind of independent role for a landowning class.The Russian church, on account of the dierent church-state relationshipin Russia (as discussed above), could not full the pioneering function inthe feudalization process that the Western church had taken on.

There were without question a number of legal institutions in me-dieval Russia which resembled West European developments. Land was granted, even up till the 18th century, in return for the duty to perform

military service. Jurisdictional and scal immunities granted to churchand secular landowners were commonplace in medieval Russia. But, thebalance of power and resulting mutual interdependence so typical of Eu-ropean feudalism never came about; there was always the looming shadowof the supreme and absolute power of the prince.

9. Urban Freedom

At rst sight, it would seem that the starting position of towns was more

favourable than in Western Europe. The principalities of Kievan andpost-Kievan Russia were based on and centred around towns. They wereall named after the principal or capital towns: Kiev, Novgorod, Smolensk,Riazan’, Vladimir, Polotsk, etc. When a principality was broken up, the younger sons were given smaller towns with the surrounding countryside;that was how the bewildering profusion of sometimes minute territoriesarose.

The origin of medieval Russian towns is a much debated questionamong Russian historians.34 On one point there seems to be agreement:

there is no single explanation. Some towns grew up on the basis of oldertribal centres; other towns were expressly founded by princes; tradingposts could develop into towns. Economically the town could be a regionalcentre, serving the exchange of regional produce; in other towns the accent

34 I.Ia. Froianov is one of the central gures in the debate. In Soviet times, he wasconsidered something of a heretic, on account of his views on the nature of KievanRussia. His three-volume study on Kievan Russia has been republished in 2001 underthe title Nachala russkoi istorii (Moskva). The views of Froianov and his sympathizerson the rise of towns in the Russian middle ages have been expressed most clearly inthe volume edited by him in 1988: Genezis i razvitie feodalizma v Rossii. Problema istorii goroda, Leningrad, 1988, and in the collection published in his honour in 1996: V.M.Vorob’ev & A.Iu. Dvornichenko (eds.), Srednevekovaia i novaia Rossiia, S.Peterburg,1996. Among Froianov’s opponents, see, for instance, P.P. Tolochko, Drevnerusskii feodal’nyi gorod , Kiev, 1989.




was on interregional and international trade; there were also towns whichserved mainly as administrative centres or as military outposts.35

The town population displayed a parallel variety in social status.Novgorod was dominated by its own local boyar clans, opposed to theordinary people, the chern’ . Most towns would count a considerable numberof persons engaged in crafts and trades; some of these were free, others were half-free and dependent on masters.36

In any case, the general picture diers signicantly from its WestEuropean counterpart, where (at least in the area where Roman inuenceand the survival of Roman settlements were weak or absent) towns ap-peared as territorial enclaves, as islands in the sea of feudal lands, enjoying

a separate legal status. In medieval Russia, the legal status of individualmembers of the urban population might in some ways be dierent fromthat of members of the rural population, the town itself was inseparablefrom the surrounding countryside and was in fact the central constituentpart of the political territory. Only Novgorod and Pskov should be treatedseparately in this respect; although they were also the centres of theirrespective territories, they themselves enjoyed a special legal status.

The political environment of Western Europe favoured the formationof a special legal status for the medieval town in a triangular relationship

between the nominal feudal lord of the town (emperor, king, bishop,etc.), the town itself and the surrounding feudalized countryside. Thisexpressed itself externally in the formal granting of urban rights and in-ternally in the elaboration of a specic legal regime for the townspeople.This development was not realized in Russia on account of the dierentpolitical situation. There were, indeed, the beginnings of a dierenti-ated legal status, but the power of the ruling prince, and particularly theincreasing preponderance of the Moscow grand prince and his eventualcomplete victory, in combination with the specic role of Tatar-Mongoloverlordship, resulted in the failure of the towns to achieve anythingresembling the position of towns in Western Europe. In Novgorod andPskov, special circumstances allowed long-lasting retention of independ-

35 See, for instance, I.B. Mikhailova, “K voprosu o sotsial’nom statuse iuzhnorusskikhporubezhnykh gorodov v domongol’skii period”, Froianov (ed.), Genezis, 94-101; I.V.Dubov, “Problema obrazovaniia gorodov v Drevnei Rusi”. Vorob’ev & Dvornichenko(eds.), Srednevekovaia i novaia Rossiia, 168-188; E.N. Nosov, “Proiskhozhdenie pervykh gorodov Severnoi Rusi”, M.B. Sverdlov (ed.), Feodal’naia Rossiia, S.Peterburg, 1993,

5-10.36 Cf . Iu.V. Krivosheev, “Kniaz’, boiare i gorodskaia obshchina Severo-Vostochnoi Rusi v XII-nachale XIII v.”, Froianov (ed.), Genezis, 111-123; A.V. Maiorov, “Boiare i ob-shchina Iugo-Zapadnoi Rusi v sobytiiakh 1187-1190 gg.”, Vorob’ev & Dvornichenko(eds.), Sredenevekovaia i novaia Rossiia, 226-243.




ence, accompanied by the elaboration of an indigenous legal system; but,in one important aspect, this situation was dierent from the average

feudal town in Western Europe. In the case of the latter, a permanent watchfulness and even struggle was required to maintain the freedom ofthe town against the claims of its feudal master; Novgorod and Pskov, aslong as they were strong and independent, were their own masters.37

In Muscovy Russia, the town fell into line within the overall framework of the state. The dierence between urban and rural conditionsdictated dierent legal regimes for town and country, but the towns andtheir citizens did not enjoy any more freedom than was needed to servethe interests of the militarized Russian state. This is quite obvious from

the occasional references to townspeople in the Code of 149738 of Ivan IIIand in ch.XIX of the Code of 1649 of tsar Aleksei, devoted to the posadskie liudi (one of the principal categories of the urban population).39

The late emergence of a self-condent urban citizenry can also bediscerned in the major enactment concerning the legal status of towns andtheir citizens in the 18th century, the Charter on the Rights and Benetsof the Towns of the Russian Empire of 1785.40 It was only in 1801 that animperial edict allowed members of the merchant class and lower-classtownspeople ( meshchane ) to buy and own land outside the town.41

37 The legal system of Novgorod is well documented by a large number of treaties,private charters ( gramoty ), and some legislative documents, of which the 15th centuryNovgorod Court Charter ( Novgorodskaia Sudnaia Gramota ) is the most important;see GVNP and for the Novgorod Court Charter: PRP II, 210-244; RZ I, 300-320;D. Kaiser (ed. & transl.), The Laws of Rus’–Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries, Salt Lake City,

1992, 79-86 (Russian text and English translation); G. Vernadsky, Medieval Russian Laws, New York, 1947, 83-92 (English translation). Of much greater importance is the 15th century Pskov Court Charter ( Pskovsksia

Sudnaia Gramota ), which represents the only comprehensive codication betweenthe Russkaia Pravda and the 1497 Code of Ivan III; see PRP II, 282-383; RZ I, 321-389; I.D. Martysevich, Pskovskaia Sudnaia Gramota, Moskva, 1951; Iu.G. Alekseev, Pskovskaia Sudnaia Gramota, Pskov, 1997 (not available to me); Kaiser, op.cit ., 87-105(Russian text and English translation); Vernadsky, op.cit ., 61-82 (English translation);M. Szeftel & A. Eck, Documents de droit public relatifs à la Russie médiévale, Bruxelles,1963, 117-214 (French translation).

38 PRP III, 341-418; RZ II, 34-97. Specically on Ivan III’s urban policies: Iu.G. Alekseev,“Nekotorye cherty gorodskoi politiki Ivana III”, Froianov, Genezis, 165-175.

39 See footnote 19.40 Text in RZ V, 67-136.41 Text in RZ VI, 28-30.




10. Due Process

“Due process” can be used to refer to a package of rights which form thecore of the classic human rights. They primarily concern the relationshipbetween the individual and the state, the latter as the sole source of judicialinterference in the life of the individual, and by the same token, as a seriouspotential threat to the individual. From this point of view, the questionof due process can also be regarded, as has been done above, as an aspectof the limitation of the powers of the state. At the same time, one has toadmit that in a more general sense due process refers to the orderly settle-ment of disputes and the punishment of crimes, both of them intimately

connected with the emergence of the state and the prevention of chaos,and as such antedating the rst fears about a too powerful state.In Russia, as almost everywhere, the emergence of the rst state-like

structures went hand in hand with the setting up of a rudimentary judicialframework. The oldest version of the Russkaia Pravda, the so-called ShortPravda, straddles in its several chronological layers the transition frominformal adjudication and dispute settlement within the family, clan ortribe, to a new kind of justice meted out through the intervention of theprince and his court (see the chapter on “The Russkaia Pravda”).

In all major enactments of the following ages, the aspect of due process(in the broad sense indicated above: the well-regulated settling of disputesand punishment of crimes) remained dominant: the better parts of theNovgorod and Pskov Court Charters, of the Law Codes of 1497 and 1647,and the intervening Code of 155042 were devoted to procedural rules.

It was only in the course of the great reforms of the judicial systemof the 1860’s that the rst classic rights of the individual concerning hisposition in respect of the legal system emerged.43 The rst article of theCriminal Procedure Statute of 1864 provided that: “Nobody shall be subject

to judicial prosecution for a crime or misdemeanour, except in accordance with the procedure laid down by this Statute.”This having been said, a more general observation concerning the

‘genealogy’ of legal institutions comes to mind. Legal institutions mayarise or be invented on the basis of existing institutions which serveda dierent purpose. With regard to the due process aspect, consideredhere in its human rights dimension, one could point to the institution ofjudicial immunity, well known in the Russian middle ages and afterwards.

42 Text in PRP IV, 229-332; RZ II, 97-177; also in B.D. Grekov (ed.), Sudebniki XV-XVIvekov, Moskva/Leningrad, 1952, 111-340.

43 Text of the Criminal Procedure Statute in RZ VIII, 118-384. On the reforms: F.B.Kaiser, Die Russische Justizreform von 1864, Leiden, 1972; R.S. Wortman, The Develop- ment of a Russian Legal Consciousness, Chicago/London, 1976.




This institution, which was also an important element of classic feudalismin Western Europe, exempted certain categories of individuals from the

jurisdiction of certain courts. Of course, it did not pretend to safeguardhuman rights avant la lettre; but, by forbidding the courts entry into certainareas, it did foreshadow in some way the classic human rights.

11. Equality

A similar development is observable in connection with equality. Equalitybefore the courts rst appeared, not as a requirement of morality, basedon a modern view of the person and society, but as a reaction against thehypertrophy of the immunity system. The Lithuanian Statute of 152944 provided (in art.9) that “all our subjects, poor and rich alike, whatevertheir condition or position, be tried equally and identically by these writ-ten laws”. Similarly, the Code of 1649, in its Chapter 10 (On the court),instructed all those entrusted with judicial duties “to judge honestly allthe people of the Moscow state, from the highest to the lowest rank”(art.1).

For a more modern approach to the question of equality before thelaw and the courts, one had to wait for the judicial reforms of the 1860’s.

The basic law concerning court organization, the Institution of JudicialInstances ( Uchrezhdenie Sudebnykh Ustanovlenii ) of 1864 enumerated theseveral judicial instances from the lowest to the highest court in its Ar-ticle 1 and then stated in Article 2: “The judicial power of the instancesindicated in the foregoing Article 1 extends to persons of all classes andto all cases, civil as well as criminal.” Although there was an increasingnumber of exceptions, the principle itself was clear enough. In the listof civil rights of the 1905 Constitution, one looks in vain for a generalstatement on the equality of citizens; this might indeed have proven to

be problematic, because Russian citizens continued to belong to a legallydened class (nobility, clergy, merchants, peasants, workers, etc.) rightdown to 1917.

44 The Lithuanian Statute was the chief codication of the Grand Principality ofLithuania. It was to a considerable extent based on medieval Russian law and exerted,in turn, strong inuence on subsequent Russian legislation (such as on the Code of1649); it was, moreover, written in Russian and can, for these reasons, be consideredpart of Russian legal history. Recent text edition by S. Lazutka, I. Valikonite & E.Gudavichius, Pervyi Litovskii Statut (1529 g.), Vilnius, 2004. English translation andcommentary in K. von Loewe, The Lithuanian Statute of 1529, Leiden, 1976, wherealso older editions of the Statute of 1529 are mentioned. The Statute of 1529 wasfollowed by the Statutes of 1566 and 1588, which continued to build on the former.The Statute of 1566 was recently published in Belarus by T.I. Dounar, U.M. Satolin& Ia.A. Iukho (eds.), Statut Vialikaga kniastva Litauskaga 1566 goda, Minsk, 2003.




12. Concluding Observations

One of the main arguments in this chapter has been that the present world-wide success of the human rights doctrine has many ancestors (assuccess is supposed to have) in the history of Western civilization. Classi-cal antiquity, the medieval Church, the Reformation, the Enlightenment,all have contributed at the level of ideas; pragmatically, they would agreeon the desirability of circumscribing the domain of the state and its law,and of guaranteeing the individual citizen a certain protected sphere ofindividual liberty. The actual evolution of political and socio-economicconditions in the Western world gradually created a situation which was

more or less in harmony with these ideas. An investigation into the presence and strength of all such factorsin Russian legal history has produced a picture which shows that thehistorical background of human rights is signicantly dierent in Russia.The separation of powers, which, before the theory existed, was maturingslowly in Western Europe over many centuries, never got o the ground inRussia. The main factors which militated against it were the subordinateposition of the orthodox church, the survival of strong princely powerand the concomitant weakness of the higher nobility (the boyars) and

the towns, the peculiar shape of Russian ‘feudalism’, the triumph andultimate monopolization of power of the Moscow prince. All this againstthe ideological background of the Byzantine heritage and a centuries-longisolation from ideas and inuences from Western Europe, which was apolitically fragmented and ideologically pluriform congeries, and not amonolith like Russia.

Nevertheless, the other side of the balance-sheet is not empty. TheEastern orthodox view of the church-state relationship, which was domi-nant in Russia for most of the time, favoured autocracy, but by no means

legitimized despotism. There were certain implicitly recognized principlesof government and the ruler could be held accountable in this respect.Time and again church leaders, prominent citizens or just courageousindividuals spoke out. They might lack the advantage of a legally denedposition, but their moral authority was obvious to all. This pattern evenreasserted itself in the later period of Soviet power when the regime hadlost the aggressively terrorist character of the Stalin era. Sakharov andothers dissidents from the Brezhnev period represented a typically Rus-sian tradition of civil courage.

One could even argue that, notwithstanding the unsatisfactory stateof aairs during the last decades of the Empire and the total collapse ofhuman rights under the Soviet regime, the idea itself of human rights wasmore alive in Russia during those times than it was in the Western world.




It was at the centre of dissident thought in the 1970’s. Once the Sovietsystem fell apart, the enunciation of a decent catalogue of human rights

was one of the rst concerns of the legislator. One might even discern thestrength of a universal human rights concept reected in Soviet legisla -tion. From the very beginning, already before the October Revolution, theSoviets considered it imperative to grant a package of human rights; theyonly made sure, both through the fabrication of a spurious theory as wellas through its legislative implementation, that Soviet new-style civil rights would in no way hamper the regime’s complete freedom of action.

It would be unrealistic to assume that, where human rights are con-cerned, all is well now in a Russia that has proclaimed itself to be a demo-

cratic and law-governed ( pravovoe ) state (art.1 of the 1993 Constitution ofthe Russian Federation) and that has explicitly embraced the universalprinciples in the eld of human rights and freedoms (art.17 of the same).The heritage of many centuries of autocracy, dictatorship and enforcedorthodoxy and unity is a heavy burden which has a strong psychologicalimpact on the Russian polity. Most of the defects of the present state ofRussian democracy and of the system of government are connected withthe inability or unwillingness to let go of the “winner-takes-all” mentality.The purpose of an appropriate and eective human rights system is not

a state of paradise, but a tolerable mess.



Chapter 9

The Skra of Novgorod:

Legal Contacts Between Russia and WesternEurope in the Middle Ages

1. Introduction

For many centuries, the medieval Russian city of Novgorod housed withinits walls an independent community of Hanseatic merchants. They hadtheir own code of law, called the Skra,1 which regulated the most important

aspects of their daily life, their commercial activities, their organizationand self-government. The Skra has been studied by historians, both Ger-man and Russian, as a source for the history of the Hanseatic League, ofGerman-Russian relations, of life in medieval Novgorod, etc. As a legaldocument, the Skra has usually been viewed by German legal historiansas an oshoot and a geographically remote representative of the familyof North German city laws.2

This chapter will consider the Skra in particular against the background of contemporary Russian law.

In order to acquire a general perspective of the historical contextand geographical surroundings in which the Skra functioned, some at-tention must rst be paid to Novgorod, its place in Russian history, itssystem of government and its laws, and then to Novgorod’s relations withthe cities of the Hanseatic League. These introductory sections will befollowed by a discussion of the Skra itself, its sources, and its relations with Russian law.

1 The term Skra ( scra, schra, schrage ) itself is of German origin and occurs in medievalGerman law to denote a more or less statutory enactment of a city. On its etymology,see F. Frensdor, “Das statutarische Recht der deutschen Kaueute in Nowgorod”, Abhandlungen der kön. Ges. der Wiss. zu Göttingen, Vol.33 (1886), 1-35 (at 2-5) and Vol.34(1887), 1-55. The most complete edition of the text of the Skra is by W. Schlüter, Die Nowgoroder Schra in sieben Fassungen vom XIII. bis XVII. Jahrhundert , Dorpat, 1911.

(The same author published a small booklet in the same year Die Nowgoroder Schrain ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung vom 13. bis zum 17. Jh., the text of a lecture held in1910.)

2 Frensdor, Vol.1, 25-26.




2. Novgorod the Great3

Novgorod is situated in the North-West of European Russia on a trade

route from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, which goes back to prehistorictimes and is already described in detail in the Primary Chronicle. Theroute runs from the Black Sea up the Dniepr, then through a portageto the river Lovat’, which ows into Lake Ilmen. Novgorod lies at thenorthern end of this lake. From Novgorod, the river Volkhov ows northinto Lake Ladoga, which then is connected through the river Neva withthe Baltic Sea.

During the earliest period of Russian history, Novgorod appears asthe most important city in the North of the country. In those days, theSlavic tribes inhabiting the region of Kiev were called Russians, whilethe population of the Novgorod region was known as Slovenes. Thesenames were still used in the oldest part of the Russkaia Pravda, datingfrom the beginning of the 11th century. The principal chronicles coveringthe earliest period of Russian history, the Primary Chronicle and the FirstNovgorod Chronicle (see the chapter on “Sources”), clearly demonstratethe tensions which existed between the two cities.4 More than once, theprince of Novgorod succeeded in taking the throne of the grand prince

in Kiev. According to dynastic custom in the Kievan realm, the brothersand other important male relatives of the grand prince of Kiev wouldusually each receive a principality. Upon the death of the grand prince ora local ruling prince, the eldest son would not normally succeed; instead,the principalities were redistributed among the leading members of theruling house, the descendants of Rurik (see the chapters on “The ElderBrother in Russia” and “The Treaties of Medieval Russia”). In this way,several of the most famous grand princes of Kiev—notably St.Vladimir, who converted to Christianity in 988, and his son Iaroslav the Wise, the

legislator of the oldest part of the Russkaia Pravda —came to the Kievanthrone through Novgorod.Novgorod’s geographical position in the North-West of the country

proved to be a great advantage in the 13th century when the Mongolsconquered and devastated most of the former Kievan empire. At thattime, the union achieved under earlier grand princes of Kiev had alreadybroken down and the country was fragmented into a number of almost3 Convenient surveys of the medieval history of Novgorod in Kliuchevskii, Vol.2, 54-104;

M.N. Tikhomirov, “Velikii Novgorod v istorii mirovoi kul’tury”, M.N. Tikhomirov

(ed.), Novgorod k 1100-letiiu goroda, Moskva, 1964, 23-37; K. Onasch, Gross-Nowgorod. Aufstieg und Niedergang einer russischen Stadtrepublik, Wien, 1969.

4 See, also, P.P. Tolochko, “Kiev i Novgorod XII–nachala XIII vv. v novgorodskomletopisanii”, A.A. Gippius, E.N. Nosov & A.S. Khoroshev (eds.), Velikii Novgorod vistorii srednevekovoi Evropy [Ianin Festschrift], Moskva, 1999, 171-179.



The Skra of Novgorod 263

independent principalities. During the campaign of 1237-1238, most ofthe Central Russian cities were destroyed, but the Mongol army turned

south when it was only 100 km from Novgorod. The fact that Novgorodand the surrounding countryside escaped Mongol occupation helps toexplain not only its enhanced position in 13th century Russia, but also thecomparative richness of its contemporary historical sources.

In terms of territory, Novgorod was by far the largest of the medi-eval Russian principalities. It embraced not only the entire North-Westof European Russia, but also the vast expanses of Northern Russia up tothe Ural Mountains and beyond. North-South trade between the Balticand the Black Sea had much diminished in the 13th century, on account

of the occupation of Constantinople by the Crusaders, the penetration ofthe Venetians as traders in the Black Sea, and the occupation of SouthernRussia by the Mongols. The commercial centre of gravity in Russia hadshifted to Novgorod, now primarily engaged in East-West trade. Theenormous hinterland of Northern Russia provided furs and wax for exportto Western Europe. Novgorod maintained its position as a commercialcentre and a powerful state up till the end of the Russian Middle Ages, when it nally had to bow to the supremacy of the Moscow grand princes.In 1471, the Novgorod army was defeated by Ivan III in the battle at the

Shelon’ River and in 1478 Novgorod had to give up its own institutionsand became a province of the Muscovite state.

In its heyday during the 13th and 14th centuries, the city was oftenreferred to as “the Lord Novgorod the Great”; the proud position of thecity was equally reected by the contemporary saying “Who can standagainst God and Novgorod the Great?”.

The conguration of states among which Novgorod played such animportant role in the Middle Ages was far from simple. After the break-down of the Kievan Russian state, no eective leader was left in Russia.Russian national consciousness however remained intact, and Novgorod’sneighbours should, therefore, rst be divided into Russians and non-Russians. The chief Russian neighbours were the principality of Tver’ andlater on (after Tver’ had been absorbed by Moscow) the principality ofMoscow, and the city of Pskov. The latter city originally had the rank ofa prigorod , a suburb, of Novgorod. During the 12th and the 13th century,the Pskovians usually followed a course independent from Novgorod, forinstance by inviting a ruling prince themselves and concluding their own

treaties. The mother city nally recognized the independence of Pskovformally in 1347.Novgorod, as mentioned above, was never occupied by the Mongols,

but it was forced to pay tribute to them for some time. Novgorod’s rela -




tions with the Mongols were not as intense as those of other Russianprincipalities.

On the western side, Novgorod was most closely involved with Lithu-ania and Livonia. The latter territory had a complicated structure, in whichthe Teutonic Order, the archbishopric of Riga, the bishoprics of Derpt(Dorpat, Iur’ev, Tartu), Oesel and Kurland, and the Hanseatic towns ofRiga, Revel (Reval, Tallinn) and Derpt were the main elements. As a cityengaged in international trade, Novgorod was also in frequent contact withother Baltic Sea states: Sweden, Denmark, and the Hanseatic League.

3. Novgorod’s System of Government

Originally, like other provincial Russian cities, Novgorod was ruled by amember of the family of the Kievan grand prince, usually a son or a brother.The prince was employed primarily as the commander of the army and was not allowed to exercise too much inuence in the city’s internal aairs.Even the earliest sources already show that Novgorod’s enterprising andself-conscious citizenry was always inclined to take a strong and inde-pendent line with its princes. In the 13th century, the custom of invitinga prince and dismissing him when he was not any longer to the liking of

the city became rmly embedded.5

A contract was concluded with a newprince, who had to swear to uphold the ancient rights and freedoms of thecity. Only in Pskov did a similar system take shape, and in fact medievalRussia, after the decline of Kiev, can be regarded as a loose conglomerateof principalities, ruled by princes of the same house, and two republics:Novgorod and Pskov.

When the prince was absent in Novgorod—a frequent occurrence— his duties were carried out by his lieutenant, the namestnik.

In the actual government of the city, the most important person was

the bishop (after 1165: the archbishop). His power rested chiey on his generally acknowledged authority, which allowed him to mediate in thefrequent controversies which raged in the city’s internal aairs. Initially,the bishop of Novgorod was appointed by the metropolitan of Kiev; but,from the middle of the 12th century, it became customary for the Novgorodassembly (the veche ) to elect its own bishop from the local clergy.6

The principal secular ocial was the posadnik, the mayor, who wasassisted by the tysiatskii . While the tysiatskii (‘thousandman’, chiliarch) was originally a military ocer, commanding thousand men, his oce

5 Kliuchevskii, Vol.2, 58-63; V.L. Ianin, “Problemy sotsial’noi organizatsii Novgorod-skoi respubliki”, Istoriia SSSR, 1970, No.1, 44-54; V.L. Ianin & M.Kh. Aleshkovskii,“Proiskhozhdenie Novgoroda”, Istoriia SSSR, 1971, No.2, 32-61.

6 Kliuchevskii, Vol.2, 61.




embraced a number of civil, commercial, administrative and judicial func-tions, and the precise distribution of the tasks between the posadnik and

the tysiatskii is a matter of speculation.7

Both oces were initially lledby appointees of the prince, but already in 1126 the rst locally appointed posadnik is mentioned. Three years later, the First Novgorod Chroniclerelates that “Daniil came from Kiev to be posadnik in Novgorod”; from 1130onwards, the custom of electing the posadnik remained rmly entrenched. At a somewhat later date, Novgorod also successfully enforced its rightto elect its own tysiatskii .

The city of Novgorod was divided into two sides by the river Volkhov,the Sophia and the Merchant Side ( Torgovaia storona ). The former con-

sisted of the Potters’ (or People’s) Quarter, the Quarter behind the Citadel( Zagorodskii konets ), and the Nerev Quarter, the latter of the Slavno andthe Carpenters’ Quarter. The quarters were each divided into “hundreds”( sotni ), and these into streets ( ulitsy ). These units had a certain amount ofself-government through their elected elders and councils.8

In theory, supreme power in Novgorod belonged to the veche or popu-lar assembly (see, also, the chapter on “Popular Assemblies”). In practice,during the later period of Novgorod’s independence, the Council of Lords( Sovet Gospod ), which prepared the business to be dealt with by the veche,

was of greater importance. This Council consisted of the acting posadnik and tysiatskii , (some of) their predecessors, and other prominent citizens.The democratic character of Novgorod’s government was also temperedby its rigid class division; the sources distinguish between boyars, promi-nent citizens ( zhitye liudi ), merchants, common citizens ( chernye liudi , lit.black people), and several classes of unfree persons. The principal cityoces remained rmly in the hands of the boyars for the entire durationof Novgorod’s independence.9

All this resulted in Novgorod’s history being characterized by exces-sive conict and strife: between various social classes, between familyfactions among the leading boyars, between the dierent parts of thecity. It was in this situation that the bishop emerged as the most eectiveconciliatory agent.

Novgorod was not only a city-state, but also the centre of a large em-pire, covering the entire northern half of European Russia and extendingeven beyond the Ural Mountains. It consisted of a metropolitan area, theve-fths ( piatni ) adjoining (or almost) the city territory, and the more

distant volosti , of which Dvina Land, a vast area in northern Russia, was7 Cf . V.L. Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki , Moskva (2nd ed.), 2003.8 Kliuchevskii, Vol.2, 67.9 Kliuchevskii, Vol.2, 88.




the most important. The entire empire, including a number of cities situ-ated therein, was ruled from Novgorod. Only the city of Pskov, as related

above, succeeded in securing its independence from Novgorod after alengthy struggle in 1347.The rise of the principality of Moscow, as the nucleus of a national

Russian state during the 15th century signalled, the downfall of Novgorod. A combination of economic, political and military factors led to the lossof its independence. After its defeat in 1471 at the Shelon’ River in a battleagainst the Muscovite army, Novgorod’s role as an independent agent inNorth-Eastern Europe was over.

4. Novgorod’s Legal System The most comprehensive legislative document from medieval Novgorodis the Charter of Novgorod.10 Its nal version, which has come downin a single copy, refers to the consensus between grand prince Ivan IIIof Moscow, the archbishop-elect and the estates of Novgorod, and cantherefore be dated in 1471, after the battle of the Shelon’ river and thesubsequent peace treaty of Korostyn’. The Charter is based on a previous version which did not survive; but, to some extent, it can be reconstructed

by eliminating the dominant position of the Moscow prince, which forobvious reasons was written into the 1471 text. Altogether, the Charterconcerns mainly procedural law and provides only a very fragmentarypicture of the law of Novgorod as an independent state.

The basic source of the written law of 13th and 14th century Novgorodmust have been the Russkaia Pravda in its more recent and extensiveform, the so-called Expanded Pravda.11 Its nal compilation probablytook place during the second half of the 12th century or the early yearsof the 13th century. This makes the nal version of the Expanded Pravda

almost a contemporary of the earliest legal documents from Novgorodand the earliest treaties concluded by the city. It would explain to a greatextent the absence of more ambitious legislation in the large collectionof Novgorod legal sources known to us.

10 PRP II, 210-242, with notes, comments and modern Russian translation by A.A.Zimin; RZ I, 300-320; M.F. Vladimirskii-Budanov, Khristomatiia po istorii russkago prava, Vol.1, S.Peterburg (5th ed.), 1899, 200-217. Russian text and English transla-tion in D.H. Kaiser (ed.), The Laws of Rus’-Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries, Salt Lake City,1992, 79-86; English translation by G. Vernadsky (transl.), Medieval Russian Laws,

New York, 1947, 83-92. See, also, L.V. Cherepnin, Russkie feodal’nye arkhivy XIV-XVvekov, Vol.1, Moskva/Leningrad, 1948, 373-396.

11 As suggested by A.A. Zimin in PRP II, 210, who follows the views put forward inthis respect by B.D. Grekov in Krest’iane na Rusi s drevneishikh vremen do XVII veka,Moskva/Leningrad, 1946, 404.




We might assume, therefore, that Novgorod’s legal system during theperiod of its independence was based on customary law and the Expanded

Pravda, amended and supplemented by ad hoc enactments (of which littlehas survived) and also aected in some parts by the treaties concludedby the city. This legal system is illustrated by a large number of privatecharters ( gramoty ). Most of these are deeds of sale, gifts, and testaments.Their contents are brief and they concern chiey certain aspects of civillaw ( GVNP being the chief publication).

The political system and what could somewhat unhistorically becalled the constitutional law of Novgorod can best be studied throughthe treaties which Novgorod concluded with dierent Russian princes.

More than twenty are available, from 1264 to 1471, and they allow us totrace the development of Novgorod’s position vis-à-vis the ruling princesand the internal power shifts within the city government.12

The ‘international’ treaties concluded between Novgorod and foreignpowers did in some ways aect the domestic law of Novgorod; we shallreturn to this topic in the discussion of Novgorod’s relations with theHanseatic League.

5. Novgorod’s Trade with the Hanseatic League13

Trading relations between Russian and other Baltic Coast nations go backto prehistoric times. Although the exact role of the Varangians (or Vikings)in the emergence of the rst historic Russian state in Kiev is still a much-debated and politically sensitive issue, nobody would deny that they did playa role, in which the merchant and the mercenary commingled eortlessly.Indeed, the earliest sources of Russian law—such as the treaties betweenthe Kievan princes and the Byzantine emperors and the Short Version ofthe Russkaia Pravda —are indicative of the necessity to come to terms with

local communities of foreign traders. It is, therefore, not surprising thatthe rst commercial treaty of Novgorod that has survived spoke of theconrmation of the “old peace [treaty]” ( starogo mira ).14 It thereby indicateda pattern which was adhered to with great regularity in the course of thefollowing centuries: trade interrupted by conict, solved by a treaty whichpromised a return to the peaceful relations of the past.

The rst treaty, dated between 1189 and 1199, was concluded betweenNovgorod on one side and “the sons of the Germans, the Goths, and the

12 GVNP , 10-51.13 This subject is treated at length in E.A. Rybina’s important monograph Inozemnye

dvory v Novgorode XII-XVII vv., Moskva, 1986, esp. 24.14 GVNP , 55. Also in PRP II, 124-131, with notes and comments by A.A. Zimin.




whole Latin people” on the other.15 From subsequent treaties, it is clear thatthis formula referred to the Hanseatic League, led by the city of Lübeck.

In other treaties, the representative of Lübeck is often named explicitly, while the designation “Goths” or “Gothic Coast” in treaties invariablyrefers to the city of Visby. The preamble of the treaty mentioned princeIaroslav Vladimirovich, at that moment the ruling prince of Novgorod,“consulting with the posadnik Miroshka, the tysiatskii Iakov, and all theNovgorodians”. Miroshka was the ancestor of the most prominent boyar family of Novgorod, the Miroshkinichi, who supplied the city withnumerous posadniki and tysiatskie.

The rst article of the treaty spelled out the freedom of trade to

be enjoyed by the German merchants on Novgorod territory and by theNovgorodians on German territory. The rest of the treaty concernedmostly criminal law. It laid down xed monetary penalties for variousoences and was close to similar provisions of the Russkaia Pravda.16 Thenecessity to regulate conicts arising between the native population anda resident foreign community of traders seemed to have been the primemoving force in most ancient Russian legislation. This phenomenon canalready be observed in the 10th century treaties between the Kievanprinces and the Byzantine emperor and in most of the older parts of the Russkaia Pravda. The inference is that purely internal Russian conictscould still be settled adequately by reference to customary law.17

The character of the following surviving treaty, of 1259-1260, is lessfundamental and appears to be directed primarily at solving certain dis-putes and rearming the existing relationship.18

In the next treaty, of 1262-1263, the emphasis is on purely commercialmatters.19 This treaty again mentioned the right of Novgorod merchantsto trade on the Gothic Coast, but most of the provisions concerned the

15 Cf . K.Goetz, Deutsch-Russische Handelsverträge des Mittelalters, Hamburg, 1916, 16-18;V.S. Pokrovskii, “Dogovor Velikogo Novgoroda s Gotlandom i nemetskimi gorodami1189-1195 gg. kak pamiatnik mezhdunarodnogo prava”, Pravovedenie, 1959, No.1, 90-100; N.A. Kazakova, “Nachal’nyi tekst novgorodsko-nemetskikh dogovorov XII-XV vv.”, Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny, Tom VI, Leningrad, 1974, 161-175. Accordingto E.A. Rybina, “O dvukh drevneishikh torgovykh dogovorakh Novgoroda”, V.L.Ianin (ed.), Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik, 3(13), Leningrad, 1989, 43-50, this treatycan be dated more precisely in the years 1191-1192.

16 Cf . B.D. Grekov, Krest’iane na Rusi , 406; Pokrovskii, op.cit ., 96-97.17

Cf . L.V. Cherepnin, Russkie feodal ’nye arkhivy XIV-XV vekov, Vol.1, Moskva, 1948,246-247.18 The date of 1259-1260 is proposed by Rybina in her article on the two oldest surviv-

ing commercial treaties (see note 15); GVNP , 56-57, dates the treaty in 1262-1263.19 GVNP , 56-57.




presence of German merchants in Novgorod. This was, indeed, more inaccordance with the actual state of aairs, because Russian-German trade

was mostly a matter of German merchants exporting their wares in theirown ships to Novgorod and returning with the produce of Novgorod’s vastterritories to Western Europe. The Russian trading policy of the HanseaticLeague was primarily directed at maintaining its monopolistic positionon the Novgorod market. It was only after the demise of Novgorod as anindependent state that the grand princes of Moscow succeeded in break-ing the monopoly.20

As the Hanseatic League was eectively able to prevent for a longperiod the appearance of commercial competitors on the Novgorod

market, a curious bilateral relationship between the two trading partnersarose. It was this relationship which explained the regularity of the pat-tern of conict and reconciliation between the League and Novgorod.21 Being both interested in continuing trade and not having any alternativetrading partners available, the main instrument of leverage on the otherpartner was the seizure of goods, ships, and crews. This invariably promptedreprisals by the other side, resulting in the interruption of commercialtrac. But, as long as both sides remained interested in maintaining theirtrading relations, dierences would eventually be patched up through the

conclusion of a new treaty, which usually stipulated that everything wasto be as it always had been. Nonetheless, many subtle shifts, reectingchanging interests and power positions, can be observed in the treaties.

Among the most important treaties should be mentioned those from1191-1192, 1259-1260, 1262-1263, 1269 (available in draft form), 1301, 1338,1342, 1371, 1372, 1373 (two items), 1392 (the so-called peace of Niebur), 1409,1423, 1434, 1436, 1439, 1450, 1466, and 1514.22 The last-mentioned treaty

20 Political and commercial relations between the Hanseatic League and Novgorod

are discussed at length in chapters 2 (78-128), 4 (180-200) and 6 (262-337) of N.A.Kazakova’s Russko-livonskie i russko-ganzeiskie otnosheniia, Moskva, 1975 (hereafter:Kazakova).

21 Kazakova, passim, e.g . 89.22 Texts of the treaties from 1269 to 1466 in GVNP . Treaty of 1497 in Hanserecesse, Vol.3,

part 3, No.136. Treaty of 1514 in SGNP , Vol.5 (1894), 55-60. A general discussion of thetreaties and their contents in M. Berezhkov, O torgovle Rusi s Ganzoi , S.Peterburg, 1879,179-224 and (for the treaties after 1392) in Kazakova. Elsewhere, Kazakova presentsstrong arguments for considering the 1338 treaty ( GVNP , No.40) as not belongingto the category of treaties between Novgorod and the Hanseatic League; cf . N.A.Kazakova, “Novgorodsko-nemetskie dogovory ili livonskie akty?”, V.L. Ianin (ed.), Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik, 3(13), Leningrad, 1989, 63-67. On the German ter-minology of the treaties: S.M. Kashtanov, “Instituty gosudarstvennoi vlasti VelikogoNovgoroda i Pskova v svete nemetskoi srednevekovoi terminologii”, E.A. Mel’nikova(ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy 2001g., Moskva, 2003, 297-319.




was concluded, on the Russian side, after the incorporation of Novgorodinto the Muscovite state, by the grand prince Vasilii III. During the earlier

period, the Hanseatic side was usually represented by the envoys fromLübeck and Visby; but, from the beginning of the 15th century onwards,the envoys from the chief Hanseatic cities in the Eastern Baltic area, Riga,Dorpat and Reval replaced them, a reection of the decreased interest ofthe North German cities in the trade with Russia.

The succession of Novgorod foreign treaties shows clearly how theprince was gradually marginalized. In the earliest treaties, the prince ismentioned as the rst representative of the city; then, in the treaties from1342-1373, his place is taken by his namestnik. After 1373, the namestnik also

disappears.The treaty or agreement of 1439 is unique in that it was concludedon the German side by the German Court itself, represented by thealderman Hans Munstede and the “hoves knecht” Coerd van Tunen.

6. The German Court of St.Peter in Novgorod

The hub of German-Russian trade in the Middle Ages was the GermanCourt in Novgorod, the “hof synte peteres to Nogarden”, the nemetskii

dvor . Its exact location has been established as a result of the excavationscarried out by the Novgorod Archeological Expedition of Moscow Uni- versity: in the old centre of the Merchant Side of the river, by the MarketSquare ( Torg ), between the old Il’ina and Slavnaia streets, and just to the west of the church of the Dormition.23 It is mentioned in the treaty of1269 and a number of subsequent German-Russian treaties, and also insome of the treaties between Novgorod and the princes. The fact that thelatter treaties, which regulate the relations between the city and its electedprinces, expressly mention the German Court, testies to the consider-

able importance which Novgorod attached to a clear understanding of theposition of its German business community. The formula, which appearedfor the rst time in the treaty with prince Iaroslav Iaroslavovich of Tver’, was repeated almost unchanged in numerous subsequent treaties: “and you shall permit our brothers to trade in the German court, and you shallnot close the court, nor appoint constables there.”24

23 Rybina, 15-23. The question had been much debated in the past; cf. N.G. Riesen-kampf, Der deutsche Hof zu Nowgorod bis zu seiner Schliessung durch Iwan Wassiljewitsch III im Jahre 1494, Dorpat, 1854, 21-22; Berezhkov, op.cit ., 133-135; A.I. Nikitskii, Istoriia

ekonomicheskago byta Velikago Novgoroda, S.Peterburg, 1873 (hereafter: Nikitskii), 111-112; S.N. Orlov, “K topograi Novgoroda”, in M.N. Tikhomirov (ed.), Novgorod–k1100-letiiu goroda, Moskva, 1964, 264-285.

24 Treaty of 1270, GVNP , 13; the clause reappears in the treaties of 1304-1305 ( ibidem, 16-17), 1307-1308 ( ibidem, 20 and 22), 1326-1327 ( ibidem, 28), 1371 ( ibidem, 30), 1435 ( ibidem,36), 1456 ( ibidem, 41), 1471 ( ibidem, 47), and also in the treaty between Novgorod andthe Lithuanian grand prince Kazimir IV of 1470-1471 ( ibidem, 129-132).




The extraterritorial character of the German settlement in Novgorodsuggested by these charters is made more explicit in the treaties between

Novgorod and the German cities, such as the treaty of 1269 and particularlythe treaty of 1371, which provides a.o.:“juwe coplude de solen nicht stan op unser brugge to beidentsiden vor unseme hove,unde de solen nene stocke in planken slaen unde en solen nenen husinge setten opunse vort unde ok nene husinge darop [lege]ren unde neyn hor dar voren, unde welke husinge daroppe staen oppe unser wort, de solle gi afsetten weder. Unde juwebrodere en solen nicht copslagen in unseme hove mit eren schiinsecken unde des gelikes op unser bruggen, dar wi dat sulver vore gheven.”25

(“your merchants shall not stand on our streets on either side of our court, and theyshall not put stakes in our fences, and they shall not put buildings on our plot or leave[?] buildings there, or dump garbage there, and whatever buildings are on our plot, you shall pull them down again. And your brothers shall not trade in our court withtheir bags of furs, and similarly on our streets, for which we pay our silver”)

The exceptional position of the St.Peter’s Court can be reconstructedfrom a variety of sources; its independence from Novgorod interference was considerable, although it would go too far to regard it as a concessionin the style of 19th century European settlements in China. One of themost appropriate methods of dening the status of the German Courtin Novgorod is through an examination of the administration of justicein mixed German-Russian disputes.

7. Adjudication of German-Russian Disputes

Novgorod possessed a court system of considerable complexity, whichhas not as yet been claried in all its details.26 We shall only mention themost important courts here which were of specic interest to the Germanmerchants. First of all, there was the court of the prince, usually presidedover by his lieutenant ( namestnik ). This was a mixed court where the prince’s

judge sat together with the mayor or his representative, according to thetraditional stipulation in a number of treaties between Novgorod and itsprince: “and without the posadnik, prince, you shall not try cases […].”

Then there were the courts of the posadnik and of the tysiatskii , theexact relationship between their jurisdictions being unclear. A specialcommercial court was presided over by the tysiatskii ; its other members were the aldermen of the Novgorod merchants. One may assume that thebishop’s court, presided over by his own namestnik, was of less importanceto the German merchants, because it would normally deal with the usual

25 GVNP , 75.26 Cf . A.A. Zimin in PRP II, 229-243; Cherepnin, Arkhivy I, 373-396; Kliuchevskii, Vol.2,

70-72.




matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction (to which the Roman-Catholic Ger-man merchants were not subject) and with ecclesiastical dependents.

Most of the information pertaining to the accommodation of mixedGerman-Russian disputes in this system of adjudication is to be found inthe treaties of 1190-1191 and of 1269 between Novgorod and the Germancities; some additional light on this question is shed by the various edi-tions of the Skra, the internal law of the German commercial communityin Novgorod.

The main part of the treaty of 1190-1191 is a list of serious oences with the accompanying xed nes. The list itself is an obvious adaptationof one of the oldest sections of the Russkaia Pravda.27 Although the court

which is to impose these nes is not mentioned, one may assume that it would be the same as in the Russkaia Pravda, i.e. the court of the prince.With regard to civil cases, the treaty provides that twelve men are

to be produced as witnesses in disputes about debts. This rule, both inits sense and its wording, is close to article 15 of the Short Pravda; themain dierence is that, in the Russkaia Pravda, the twelve men still ap-pear as a vestigial popular court. The archaic character of the provisionis further substantiated by the fact that it subsumes both Germans andGoths (inhabitants of Visby) under the term variaze, Varangians, a term

not encountered in any of the later treaties, but well-known in the ShortPravda (arts.10 and 11). Again, it is implicit in this provision that it is theprince’s court which tries such disputes about debts.

One can conclude therefore that certain oences of a serious nature,committed by Germans, as well as at least certain civil disputes betweenGermans and Russians, were subject to the jurisdiction of the prince’scourt.

The second conclusion which the treaty of 1190-1191 allows is that theGerman merchants were granted certain procedural privileges. The treatyprovided that Germans involved in lawsuits in Novgorod were not to beprevented from going home ( rubezha ne tvoriti ), and that the lawsuit then was to be resumed the next year. Also, Germans were not to be incarcer-ated for debts in Novgorod (nor Novgorodians in Germany).

As a general rule for the adjudication of disputes between Germansand Russians the treaty of 1269 provided:

“Schut en tvist tuschen dhen Dudeschen unde dhen Nogarderen, dhe twist salendegen up sente Johannis hove vor deme borchgreven, dheme hertoghen undedhen copluden.”

(If a dispute arises between the Germans and the Novgorodians, it shall be tried inSt.John’s court before the posadnik, the tysiatskii and before the merchants.”)

27 Zimin, ibidem, 124; M.F. Vladimirskii-Budanov, Khristomatiia po istorii russkago prava,Vol.1, S.Peterburg, 1899, 108-112.




This is obviously the commercial court of the tysiatskii and the merchantsof the guild of St.John, rst mentioned in the charter which prince Vsevo-

lod Mstislavich granted to the guild.28

The same court is mentioned ascompetent in cases of disputes between German merchants and Russianpilots (in this case the participation of the posadnik is not mentioned),and again (without the participation of the posadnik ) in a clause whichprovides:

“So wat saken to wervende hebben van gerichtes wegene wintervart unde somervart, dhat scholen se endegen vor dheme hertogen, dhen oldermannen unde dhenNogarderen unde scholen varen eren wech sunder hindernisse.”

(“And whatever claims winter or summer visitors have to pursue in court, those they

shall pursue before the tysiatskii , the aldermen and the Novgorodians, and they shall go their way without any hindrance.”)

If a German party felt that he had not received his due from the Rus-sian court, his ultimate remedy was to apply to the ocials of his owncommunity; the latter could disqualify a particular Russian, forbiddinghis participation in the commercial activities of the German Court forone year. This measure is mentioned in several editions of the Skra (IIIart.65, IIa art.9[13], V art.121, VI art.61), and its eectiveness is conrmedin the treaty of 1436 between Novgorod and the Hanseatic cities, which

contains a clause providing:Welker Russen, de an de treppen screven zint van den Dutzschen, de zolen se vander treppe uthdoen unde zullet myt oen koepslagen na older wonheit.”29

(“Whatever Russians, [whose names have been] written down on the stairs by theGermans, they shall take them o the stairs and they shall trade with them accord-ing to the old customs.”)

Disputes between Germans and crimes committed by Germans in theGerman Court in which no Russians were involved remained outside the

scope of Russian jurisdiction; this is made quite clear by the Skra ( e.g .Skra III art.66, dealing with the various penalties, up to death, for theft).Russians who committed crimes in the German Court were handed overto the Russian authorities (treaty of 1269).

The legal position of the German community in medieval Novgorodcan therefore be summarized as far-reaching self-government and au-tonomy, with limited extra-territorial eects.30 Still, there remained a28 Text in PRP II, 175-177; also in Ia.N. Shchapov, Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy i

tserkov’ , Moskva, 1976, 158-165. The charter is known as the “Testament” ( Rukopisanie )

of Vsevolod Mstislavich. Its nucleus may be of 12th century origin, but the rulesconcerning the guild of the merchants of St.John probably date from the secondhalf of the 14th century.

29 GVNP , 112.30 Nikitskii, op.cit ., 132-133, comes to a similar conclusion.




possibility to make dierent arrangements on an ad hoc basis. There areseveral examples ( e.g . in a treaty of 1411 and in a charter of 1417) of disputes

of great importance being entrusted, not to the ordinary court, but to aspecially constituted arbitration commission.31

8. The Internal Organization of the Court of St.Peter

The internal organization of the German community in medieval Novgorodis richly illustrated by its own constitution and code of laws, the Skra, inits successive versions. Some additional information is supplied by thetexts of the various treaties between Novgorod and the Hanseatic League.Of course, the regular sources for the history of the Hanseatic League,the Hanserecesse,32 the Hansisches Urkundenbuch,33 and the Urkundenbuch derStadt Lübeck,34 have also much to contribute. Another important sourceis the Liv-, Esth-, und Kurländisches Urkundenbuch.35

The peculiar character of the Hanseatic settlement in Novgorod, andits dierences with comparable settlements of foreign merchants, such asthose in London or Bruges, can be explained by the unusual geographicaland political conditions in which it operated. Whereas other settlements were more or less permanently inhabited, life in the St.Peter’s Court was

subject to a rigid semi-annual cycle.36

During the summer, Novgorod couldbe reached by water by sailing up the Neva, Lake Ladoga, and then theVolkhov river. This was called watervart . Obviously, in winter only lantvart was possible. According to the Skra (IIIb art.4, V art.91) three land routes were allowed: from Riga, Reval (Tallinn), and Pernau (present-day Piarnu).This rule was based on an agreement with Novgorod ( cf . the treaty of1301).37 It was also possible to reach Novgorod over sea in winter by usingsleds (this was called wakevart ), but this was forbidden by the Skra (IIIbart.4, V art.91). The treaty of 1269 already provided that if one came by

sea, one had to leave the same way, and the same principle held true for lantvart . This rule was taken over in the Skra (IIIb arts.2 and 3).In summer, both lantvart and watervart were possible, although wa-

tervart would clearly be preferable for merchants coming from Northern31 GVNP , 89-90, 91-92.32 Hanserecesse, (numerous volumes, various places of publication), 1870-1970. For full

bibliographical references, see Rybina, 9.33 Hansisches Urkundenbuch, Vols.1-11, Halle, 1876-1916.34 Urkundenbuch der Stadt Lübeck, Lübeck, 1843.35 F.G. v. Bunge (ed.), Liv-, Esth- und Kurländisches Urkundenbuch, (numerous volumes,

various places of publication), 1853-1914. See, also, Rybina, 8.36 Riesenkampf, op.cit ., 27-29; Nikitskii, op.cit ., 117.37 GVNP , 63-64.




Germany.38 The three named Baltic ports would be closed to shippingin winter, so merchants would have to take account of that in choosing

lantvart or watervart .It was, however, not so much the distinction between lantvart andwatervart which was decisive for the internal organization of the St.Peter’sCourt, but the one between somervart and wintervart . Considering thatroads in Northern Russia would become totally impassable in spring,it was in the nature of things that all voyages to Novgorod occurred insemi-annual waves. Merchants who arrived in early summer, usually by water, had to leave during autumn, if they did not want to waste an entire year. The same went for winter merchants, who had to leave before spring

set in. Only exceptionally, when sudden frost or thaw occurred, wouldthis schedule be disturbed, and the Skra had special rules covering sucheventualities (IIIb art.2).

As a result of all this, the German settlement had a population whichchanged completely twice a year, and this obviously called for a type oforganization which was in many ways dierent from that of a permanentlyinhabited settlement.

The German Court of St.Peter was the principal settlement of theGerman merchants. There was also a “Gothenhof”, which originally be-longed to the community of Scandinavian merchants, mostly from Visby(which had a mixed Scandinavian-German population).39 In later years, when the Scandinavian element in Novgorod’s international trade hadshrunk to the point of virtual disappearance, the Gothic Court passedinto German possession.40

The central location of the German Court, at the main market squareon the Merchant Side of the city, has been mentioned above. A detailedpicture of its physical characteristics can be gleaned from various sources,

from the Skra itself and also from the archeological excavations.

41

It wassurrounded by a wooden fence or stockade and had streets paved with wooden beams, like the rest of Novgorod. The main building was s stonechurch, the German (Roman-Catholic) church of St.Peter, used not only forreligious services, but also as a storehouse for goods. There were a numberof wooden dwelling houses, called stove in the Skra, and storehouses. The38 Riesenkampf, op.cit ., 103.39 On the “Gothenhof”, see Rybina, 89-100. In later times. there was also a Swedish

court in Novgorod, see I.P. Shaskol’skii, “O deiatel’nosti shvedskogo gostinogo

dvora v Novgorode v XVII v.”, V.L. Ianin (ed.), Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik, 2(12),Leningrad, 1984, 188-202.40 Riesenkampf, op.cit ., 17-18; Berezhkov, op.cit ., 61 and 136. The treaty of 1439 speaks

of “beyden Dutschen hoven” (both German courts), GVNP , 113.41 See, especially, Rybina, 101-110.




latter were used, when needed, for housing visiting merchants and theirpersonnel; they are designated as klete or potklete in the Skra, from Russian

klet’ and podklet . Certain other specialized buildings are also referred to bytheir Russian names in the Skra, such as the gridenisse or guardroom andthe pogribbe ( pogreb ), the prison.

An important factor determining many details of the legal regulationof the German community in Novgorod was the character of German-Russian trade. This was based predominantly on barter.42 The principalRussian exports were skins and furs of various kinds and beeswax (formaking candles), the Germans brought many dierent kinds of textiles.The Skra forbade individual German merchants to bring in more than

1000 marks in cash (IIIa art.11, IIIb art.6, V art.89). On the German side,by virtue of the numerous regulations in the Skra, trading with the Rus-sians was subject to many restrictions. Not a few of these were aimed atprotecting the monopolistic position of the Hanseatic merchants on theNovgorod market. German merchants, for instance, were forbidden toengage in commission trade for English, Flemish or Walloon merchants,to be in partnership with them, or to act as brokers between them andRussian merchants (III art.10, IIIa art.10[12], V art.83).

The German community in Novgorod represented one corner of a

triangular relationship, of which the Russians and the Hanseatic League were the other two corners. The Hanseatic League itself was hierarchi-cally superior to the St.Peter’s Court; as mentioned, it was the Leaguethat negotiated with the Russians concerning the rights and the positionof the Court of St.Peter. The League, however, traditionally consideredto consist of an association of 73 cities, was by no means a monolithicbody. In its relations with the Russians, there were very noticeable shiftsin power, inuence, and interest through the ages. Initially, the leadingposition was taken by the city of Visby, but very soon this place was takenover by Lübeck. During the 15th century, the overseas cities graduallyrelaxed their grip and were increasingly replaced by the Baltic cities ofRiga, Reval (also called Tallinn or Kolyvan’), and Dorpat (also called Iur’ev,the present-day Tartu).43

The exclusive legislative competence of the League was maintainedthroughout the entire period. Several editions of the Skra prescribedobligatory reference of legal questions not covered by the Skra itself tothe city council of Lübeck (II arts.60 and 64, III art.68, VI art.81), or

forbade additions or emendations in the Skra without the permission ofthe principal Hanseatic cities (IV art.117, V art.138, VI art.81). Neverthe-less, there are quite a number of provisions in the Skra, especially in the

42 Riesenkampf, op.cit ., 118-124; Nikitskii, op.cit ., 151-155.43 This development is extensively discussed by Rybina ( op.cit ) and Kazakova ( op.cit .).




other functionaries. Occasionally, the stevene tried serious criminal casesitself (esp. theft). Attendance at the stevene was compulsory and absentees

were ned. Only independent merchants, who were not in the serviceof other merchants, were fully-edged members of the stevene. Juniormerchants, usually called knape or knechte in the Skra, were apprenticedto senior, independent merchants. Their relationships were regulated inthe Skra and the junior merchants were not without inuence or statusin the community; they were eligible to certain oces.

Several provisions of the Skra give an impression of the numeri-cal strength of the German commercial community in Novgorod. Aminimum occupation of six merchants and nine knechte was required

to keep the church open (V art.29). When the church had to be closed,the keys were handed over for safe-keeping to the bishop of Novgorodor the abbot of St.George (V art.38; the monastery of St.George, betterknown as the Iur’ev monastery, was one of the oldest Russian monaster-ies and was located south of the city). The dwelling houses in the Courtof St.Peter were supposed to house no more than thirty merchants andtheir following (V art.36). With the permission of the aldermen, a higheroccupancy was allowed. Otherwise, the surplus would have to be housedin the Gothic Court or in private houses of Russians. When there were

thirty merchants present in Novgorod, one was obliged to proceed to theelection of aldermen (VI art.3).

Obviously, the German population did not consist only of merchantsand their limited number of knechte. Various kinds of craftsmen are men-tioned in the Skra, and then there must have been ships’ crews and thepersonal servants of the merchants.

9. The Skra of Novgorod and its Dierent Versions

The earliest publication of the Skra was in 1828 in Copenhagen by H.Behrmann.47 This edition was used in many 19th century German andRussian historical studies, together with a somewhat later edition by G.F.Sartorius in his history of the Hanseatic League.48 The most important19th century study on the Skra was by F. Frensdor, who devoted twolong articles to it in 1887.49 Of the older Russian works which pay muchattention to the Skra, N.G. Riesenkampf’s Dorpat dissertation on the

47 H. Behrmann, De Scra van Nougarden, Copenhagen, 1828.48 G.G. Sartorius, Urkundliche Geschichte des Ursprunges der deutschen Hanse, Vols.1-2,

Hamburg, 1830.49 See note 1.




German Court in Novgorod50 and M. Berezhkov’s monograph on RussianHanseatic trade51 should be mentioned.

The most complete edition of all available versions of the Skra is byW. Schlüter.52 This still indispensable work, published in Dorpat in 1911,contains an introduction which deals with diplomatic and philologicalaspects of the various manuscripts, the texts of the seven main versions with variants, and several extensive indices, together with a vocabulary.

Among modern Russian (Soviet) authors, it was especially N.A. Kaza-kova who wrote several studies on relations between medieval Novgorodand Western and Northern Europe, and her works oer much that isof interest for a general understanding of the historical and economic

background of the Skra.53 More recently, E.A. Rybina, who had written several papers on the

same theme, published a monograph on foreign settlements in Novgorodfrom the 12th to the 17th century; most of this study is devoted to the Skra.54 A Russian translation by I.E. Kleinenberg of Skra IV has been added.

The Skra—as an internal code of law for the German merchantcommunity in Novgorod—was enacted by the Hanseatic League, andas circumstances changed and new issues emerged, old provisions wererendered obsolete and dropped and new ones incorporated. In this way,the seven principal versions, as distinguished by Schlüter, came into be-ing. Of these, the rst three are closely related. The rst and briefest version of the Skra consists of a preamble and eleven articles (accordingto Schlüter’s edition). Its enactment occurred in the 13th century, in alllikelihood sometime after 1250. With the exception of its last provision,it was completely incorporated in the second version, enacted in 1295 inLübeck (the rst Skra was probably drawn up in Visby). In the secondSkra, after the provisions taken over from the rst Skra, another thirty-

ve articles follow. The third Skra, with minor changes, copied the secondSkra, but had ve additional articles. It was probably enacted around the year 1325 in either Riga or Visby. Sometime between the second and thethird Skra, a short law applicable to the German community in Novgorodcame into force. It was based on the rst and second Skra, but containedalso a few new provisions; Schlüter designates it as Skra IIIa. A similar

50 See note 22.51 See note 21.52

See note 1.53 See notes 15 and 20. Also of interest is, by the same author, “Eshche raz o zakrytii ganzeiskogo dvora v Novgorode v 1494 g.”, V.L. Ianin (ed.), Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik, 2 (12), Leningrad, 1984, 177-187.

54 See note 13.




shorter law, designated as Skra IIIb, was drawn up by the assembly of theHanseatic cities. Skra IIIb is dated 1346. Two of its nine articles are inspired

by provisions from Skra IIIa; the remainder are new provisions.The fourth, fth and sixth Skra are also closely related to each other,especially the fourth and the fth. All three were drafted in Novgorod,under the guidance of the envoys from the leading Hanseatic cities, andthen submitted for approval to the League. The fourth Skra contained anumber of borrowings from Skra I, II and III, and especially from IIIaand IIIb, but the vast majority of the provisions were new.

The fourth and fth Skra, unlike their predecessors, bear to a consider-able extent the character of compilations and consolidations of previously

enacted incidental decrees.Schlüter concluded from internal evidence that editorial work onSkra IV must have been begun after 1355 and completed before 1361.Three nal provisions (arts.117-119), dated 1370 and 1371, must have beenappended subsequently.

Skra V incorporated almost the entire text of Skra IV, but had anadditional number of about thirty articles. Its initial version was prob-ably drawn up in 1373, but several new provisions were inserted duringthe following twenty years.

Skra VI was mainly a reworking of Skra V, with a few additions. Itsrst article clearly explained the political and international circumstancesof its enactment. After Novgorod had lost its independence and was in-corporated into the empire of the Muscovy grand prince, a long periodof controversy between the Hanseatic cities and Moscow ensued. TheCourt of St.Peter was closed in 1494, several German merchants wereincarcerated by the prince and their goods were seized.55 The conict wasnally resolved by the treaty of 1514. As the text of the Skra ( i.e. Skra V)had disappeared from the church of St.Peter where it was traditionallykept, a new text was drafted and approved by the council of Lübeck andthe other German cities.

The seventh Skra need only be mentioned as an epilogue to the his-tory of the Court of St.Peter in Novgorod. The latter, after its restorationin 1514, never regained its former economic vigour.56 Several times duringthe 16th century the Court was occupied by the Russians. In 1541, it wascompletely destroyed and sacked. An important factor in the failure to55 See, on this period, Kazakova, 262-337 and also the article by the same author quoted

in note 53; further Riesenkampf, op.cit ., 93-98; Berezhkov, op.cit ., 256-264.56 Even A.P. Pronshtein, who in his Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke, Khar’kov, 1957, tried

very hard to argue that annexation by Moscow was a good thing for Novgorod, doesnot succeed in demonstrating that it had a positive eect on Novgorod’s trade withEurope; see 128-138.




revitalize trade between Novgorod and the North German cities, wasthe new role of the principal commercial centres in the Baltic lands, es-

pecially Reval, Dorpat, and Narva. They had become the focal point forRussian-West-European trade, and they were understandably unwillingto favour the rehabilitation of Novgorod in this respect. In 1603, Lübecknally succeeded in receiving a concession from tsar Boris Godunov forits merchants to trade in Novgorod and several other Russian cities, andthis concession included the permission to regulate the internal orderamong the German merchants communities in those cities. On the basisof this concession Lübeck, in 1604, issued the text known as Skra VII. Itapplied not only to Novgorod, but also to other German settlements in

Russian cities. It is obvious, however, from the text of Skra VII, that thedrafters had Novgorod in mind. Moreover, Skra VII is based to a greatextent on Skra VI. Unlike its predecessors, Skra VII is written in HighGerman; the other Skras were written in Low German, which is closerto Dutch than to High German.

Lübeck’s attempt to revive its commercial presence in Novgorod didnot lead to much. It appears that the Court of St.Peter gradually lost allimportance and nally disappeared without anybody really noticing. Forthese reasons, Skra VII will be disregarded in the rest of this chapter.

10. Sources and Contents of theDierent Versions of the Skra

Looking at the textual development of the dierent versions of the Skra,the general pattern, as has already been mentioned, is that each new Skrais based to some extent on its predecessor. The connection is particularlystrong within the sequence of Skra I, II and III and within the sequenceSkra IV, V and VI. The link is much weaker between Skra III and IV. As

a result of this, notwithstanding the often strong connections betweenimmediately subsequent versions of the Skra, the total content has beenchanging cumulatively. The longest continuity that can be traced is betweena part of article 5 of Skra I and article 130 of Skra V. The rule concernsthe master merchant’s responsibility for his apprentice ( knape ). In SkraI the rule says:

“Dhar en mesterman enen knapen entfet upe watervarth to Nogarden, he ne machin nich vorwisen, he ne brenge ene wedher, dhar he ene entfene, it ne si alsodansake, dhar he ene rechte umbe vorwissen moge. Comet oc enem knape ungelucke

to an suke, umbe dat ne mach ene sin here nicht vorwisen.”(“When a master accepts an apprentice for watervart to Novgorod, he may not dismisshim [prematurely], but must take him back from where he took him, unless he had




a valid reason to dismiss him. If an apprentice suers an accident or an illness, hismaster may not dismiss him for that reason.”)

A similar rule is found in Skra II and II, is missing in Skra IV, but returnsin Skra V in the following shape:“Vortmer dar een mesterman enen knapen entfeyt uppe de vart to Nougarden wart,he ene mach ene nych vorwysen, he ene brenge ene weder, dar he ene nam; id ene syalso merclike zaeke, dar ene de here myt rechte mochte vorwysen. Isset ok zaeke,dat deme knaepe zukedage to komen, umme dat mach ene syn here nycht vorwysen;ok ene sal een knaepe des gheliken van syneme heren nycht scheeden, id ene sy myt willen synes heren.”

(“When, moreover, a master receives an apprentice for the voyage to Novgorod, hemay not dismiss him, but must take him back from where he took him; unless it isclear that he had a valid reason to dismiss him. If it would happen that the apprenticefalls ill, then his master may not dismiss him for that reason; an apprentice shallequally not part from his master, unless with the consent of his master.”)

As can be seen, the new rule covers any voyage to Novgorod, not onlywatervart ; otherwise, the main substantive alteration is the addition of thelast sentence in Skra V: an apprentice may terminate his contract with hismaster only with the latter’s approval. The intervening texts of Skra II andIII show clearly how this rule originated. They add to the last sentenceof the quoted passage of Skra I the words: “it ne si mit erer beider willen”(“unless it be with the will of both of them”). In other words, accordingto Skra II and III, the contract between master and apprentice could beterminated in case of illness of the latter, provided both sides agreed tothis. This innovation was generalized then, beyond the specic case ofillness, in Skra V.

This example has been given to demonstrate the mechanism of changeand growth, which has contributed to the shaping of the subsequent ver-sions of the Skra. In many cases this mechanism may explain the origins of

particular provisions in the later Skras. It does not answer, of course, themore fundamental question of the origin of the rst Skra and of any provi-sions in later Skras that do not have an ancestor in a previous Skra.

The solution to this problem is best approached in a roundabout way,by looking rst at the second Skra. Here we nd after the almost unalteredcopying of the text of the rst Skra, another fty-ve provisions (arts.10-64). Of these, about forty and possibly a few more, have undoubtedlybeen taken over from the written law of Lübeck, or, occasionally, otherGerman cities. This connection has been rmly established by Frensdor

and Schlüter.57

Among the remaining part of the provisions of this secondpart of the second Skra there are several which have been specically written for the Novgorod settlement, and it would appear pointless to57 See the works quoted in note 1.




look for any more distant origins. As an example, one could mention theregulation of relations between lantvart and watervart (I art.2), or between

somervart and wintervart (I art.3), and similar provisions.58

To return to the rst Skra: none of its few provisions (arts.1-9b)can be traced clearly to the law of Lübeck or other Hanseatic cities.Schlüter regards Skra I as the oldest version, based on customary law.59 In this connection he refers to the words from its preamble: “[…] recht,dhat van aneginne gehalten ist unde gewesen hevet in dheme hove dhereDhutschen to Nogarden […]” (“the law that from the beginning has beenapplied and observed in the court of the Germans in Novgorod”). These words, by themselves, do not prove that no older Skra preceded Skra I,

because the same words are repeated in the preambles of Skra II and SkraIII, which in fact were preceded by earlier texts. They do, however, suggest that Skra I is based on a written rendering of local custom. Indeed,most of the provisions of Skra I are concerned with the most elementaryarrangements for the ordering of aairs of the German settlement: theelection of the aldermen, the relations between somervart and wintervart when their sojourns in Novgorod overlap, the convocation of the assembly( stevene ), housing, the relations between masters and apprentices ( knape ), guard duty, and contributions to the general funds. In the absence of evi-

dence pointing in another direction, the most acceptable assumption isthat Skra I represents essentially the xation in writing of the most basicorganizational arrangements of the German community in Novgorod, asthey had emerged more or less spontaneously in the past.

When we look at the entire complex of the rst three Skras, i.e. SkraI (incorporated into Skra II and III), Skra II, Skra III (consisting mainlyof Skra II, with the addition of a few articles at the end of the text), andthe shorter laws known as Skra IIIa and IIIb (enacted resp. shortly beforeand after Skra III), the following components can be identied:

Skra I (basic organizational arrangements of the Court of St.Peter,of customary law origin);

provisions taken over from the domestic law of the Hanseatic cities(esp. Lübeck), mainly regulating the internal civil and criminal law of the

58 In similar vein, Frensdor, Vol.1, 25.59 Schlüter, 8. Whether there are any parallels between the Skra and the contempo-Whether there are any parallels between the Skra and the contempo-

rary law of the Baltic territories is an approach nobody has yet attempted, to myknowledge. These laws were strongly inuenced by medieval German law but re-tained a number of indigenous features. Cf. E.L. Nazarova, “«Livonskie Pravdy» kakistoricheskii istochnik”, V.T. Pashuto (ed.), Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR1979 god , Moskva, 1980, 5-218 (also contains Low Middle German and Russian textsof the various laws).




Novgorod settlement, and forming the bulk of the provisions of Skra IIand III;

legislation specially adapted to the requirements of the Novgorodsettlement, some of it probably based on customary arrangements havingemerged gradually during the development of the settlement.

The last mentioned category includes the new provisions of Skra III(as compared with Skra II), and Skra IIIa and IIIb in their entirety.

With regard to those provisions of the rst three Skras which donot have a North German origin, the intriguing question poses itself ofpossible borrowings from Russian law.60

Russian inuence is undeniable in the terminology of the Skra, which

uses a considerable number of Russian words. Names of localities ( pogribbe,cleit , potcleit , gridenisse ) have already been mentioned, Then, there is aseries of terms denoting various types of furs and skins ( troynisse, doynisse, schevenisse, popplen ). Of special importance is the occurrence of the Rus-sian monetary unit of kune, because it helps to link up the Russian andGerman monetary systems.61 Fifty kune made up one mark kune, which wasequal to the Russian grivna kun. Initially, four mark kune was equal to onesilver mark ( grivna serebra );62 in later times, the silver mark had increasedto eight mark kune (this seems to have been the case already at the time

of Skra III).63

On a more substantive level, the inuence, not of Russian law, butof the Russian-German treaties may be observed in a few instances. Theconcession of three land routes to the German merchants, made in thetreaty of 1301, lies at the basis of article 4 of Skra IIIb. In a negative sense,the inuence of the treaties on the Skra is felt in the absence of certainprovisions in the Skra, viz. concerning those subjects which had alreadybeen covered by the treaties. This is especially noticeable in regard of therelations between Germans and Russians. The Skra has a few scattered

60 In line with a certain tradition of pre-revolutionary Russian scholarship, such a pos-sibility is rejected emphatically by Nikitskii, op.cit ., 131.

61 The currency system of the Skra is discussed at length by Schlüter, 122-126 (Index).See, also: I.E. Kleinenberg, “O denezhnykh edinitsakh v «Pamiati, kak torgovali doselenovgorodtsy»”, Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny, Tom XIII, Leningrad, 1982,148-154; S.N. Kisterev, “Den’gi v Novgorode na rubezhe XIV-XV vv.”, L.A. Timoshina(ed.), Torgovlia i predprinimatel’stvo v feodal’noi Rossii [Golikova Festschrift], Moskva,1994, 59-84; V.L. Ianin, “K istorii formirovaniia novgorodskoi denezhnoi sistemy

XV v.”, Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny, Tom XI, Leningrad, 1979, 251-258.62 The equation of one mark silver to four mark kune ( grivna kune, Mark Pfennige ) ismade explicit in the treaty of 1229 between the prince of Smolensk and the cities ofRiga and Visby; cf . PRP II, 58.

63 Schlüter, 125.




provisions on this subject, but none of them repeat what had already beenregulated by the treaties.

Skra II and III article 30 dealt with the case of hitting somebody’s ear:“So war ein man den andren to den oren sleit, de sal beteren anderhalven verding silveres […]” (“If a man hits another on the ears, he shall pay oneand a half verding […]”). Schlüter points to a parallel in Lübeck law whereorslage is mentioned together with two other minor instances of violenceagainst the person.64 There is a closer parallel, however, with the treaty of1269, which provides: “Slet en man dhen andern an sin ore ofte an sinenhals, he schal eme beteren 3 verdhinge” (“If a man hits another on his earor his neck, he shall pay 3 verdings”). This formula is also reminiscent of

the Russkaia Pravda, which does not envisage this particular oence, butcontains similar formulas for related oences, such as hitting with a stor blunt object, pulling or pushing somebody, etc. (Short Pravda, arts.3and 10).

One of the obscurest questions concerning the relations betweenGerman and Russian law as reected in the Skra is the tari system ofxed nes. The older Russian laws such as the Russkaia Pravda, the basicRussian-German treaty of 1191, the various versions of the Skra, and theGerman laws on which the earlier Skras are based in good part, all know

a system of xed nes for particular oences. As mentioned before, thesystem of the 1191 treaty is unmistakably based on the Russkaia Pravda.Equally, there are numerous parallels between the law of Lübeck and theSkra on this point. Would the occasional deviations of the Skra from itsGerman model have been inspired by the Russian tari system prevalentin Novgorod at the time? 65 The most promising topic in this respect isthe complex of assault, battery, and inicting injuries, because it occursin all four sources mentioned. An exhaustive exposition of the problem would require an explanation of the currency systems operative in theregions concerned and a full discussion would therefore take too muchspace here. In my opinion, some inuence of the Russian tari system onthe system of the Skra is probable, but dicult to prove.

Two factors which complicate matters in this respect are the incer-titude surrounding the exact denition of the value of medieval currencyand the general similarity between the structures of medieval German andOld-Russian tari systems. This fact has been noted before in connection with the Russkaia Pravda and has understandably given rise to much debate

regarding the alleged Germanic inuences on early Russian law.66

64 Schlüter, 87.65 Cf . Frensdor, Vol.1, 16-17.66 S.V. Iushkov, Russkaia Pravda, Moskva, 1950, devoted an entire chapter to this subject,

in which the extensive older literature is cited. See, also, the chapter on the Russkaia Pravda in this work.




Another example of a legal institution which is found in Lübeck law,the Russkaia Pravda (Short Pravda, art.10), as well as in the Skra is the

requirement of two witnesses in certain law-suits. Again it is dicult tosay with certainty what the origin of the respective provisions in the Skra(III arts.20 and 61) is.

One of the provisions of Skra III which is not based on Lübeck law,article 66, prescribes capital punishment for the thief who had already beenbanished (for previous thefts) from the Court of St.Peter. This provisionremotely resembles a provision from the Charter of Dvina Land from 1397, which for the rst time introduced capital punishment in Russian law fortheft, at least for repeated theft.67 A similar rule occurs in the Charter of

Pskov (art.8), the nal version of which was probably enacted between1462 and 1467.68 Several parts of this law, however, are of an earlier, 14thcentury origin, and article 8 is usually considered as among these earlierelements.69

The well-known medieval institution of reference to the authoritiesof the mother-city is mentioned in article 60 of Skra II and in a moreelaborate form in article 68 of Skra III. Article 60 provided that if theGerman merchants in Novgorod were unsure about the existence of acertain rule, they should write to the council of Lübeck; the decision of

the latter would be incorporated in the Skra. Article 68 addressed itselfto uncertainty of the law in a specic lawsuit; in such a case the proceed-ings would be suspended until the councils of Lübeck and Visby wouldhave ruled on the question in dispute. Then, the case would be decidedin Novgorod and the new rule inserted in the Skra. Along with the manyparallels in German law, article 108 of the Pskov Charter comes to mind,of which the rst sentence provides: “And if any provision of customarylaw is missing in this charter, the mayor may refer the matter to LordPskov [the traditional title of the city, as “the Lord Novgorod”] at the cityassembly, advising the insertion of a new clause accordingly.” (Vernadsky’stranslation.) This rule covers the same situation as the one envisaged in

67 Text of the Charter of Dvina Land in PRP III, 162-164; also in GVNP , 144-146, andin RZ II, 180-186. English translation in G.V. Vernadsky (transl.), Medieval Russian Laws, New York, 1947, 57-60; and also in D.H. Kaiser (ed.), The Laws of Rus’-Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries, Salt Lake City, 1992, 111-113 (also includes Russian text). On theCharter of Dvina Land see, also, L.V. Cherepnin, Russkie feodal’nye arkhivy XIV-XVvv., Vol.1, Moskva/Leningrad, 1948, 397-407.

68 Text of the Charter of Pskov, followed by a translation into modern Russian, in PRP II, 286-324 and in RZ I, 321-386; also in I.D. Martysevich, Pskovskaia Sudnaia Gramota,Moskva, 1951; English translation in Vernadsky, op.cit ., 61-82, and (with Russian text)in Kaiser, op.cit ., 87-105. See, also, Cherepnin, op.cit ., 408-447.

69 Cherepnin, op.cit ., 443.




article 60 of Skra II: an hiatus in the law, while article 68 of Skra III em-braces not only this legislative aspect, but also the procedural one: there

is something like an intermediate cassational appeal to the mother-cities,and this results in a decision which not only settles the dispute, but alsoadds something to the Skra. Article 108 of the Charter of Pskov is regardedas belonging to its oldest chronological layer,70 but whether there is anyconnection with article 60 of Skra II is hard to say.

The next question concerns the relationship between the rst andsecond series of the Skra, i.e. the sequences I-II-IIa-III-IIIb and IV-V-VI. A comparison of the contents of the Skras shows that:

(a) about half the number of provisions from Skra I reappear in modiedform in Skra IV-V; this makes sense, if, as we have argued, Skra I isprimarily concerned with certain basic rules regarding the organi-zation of St.Peter’s Court, such as rules regulating the election ofaldermen;

(b) a comparatively small number (about ten) of provisions from SkraII-III reappear in Skra IV-V;

(c) the shorter additional laws known as Skra IIIa and IIIb are com-paratively important sources for Skra IV-V; four provisions from

Skra IIIa and six from Skra IIIb return in Skra IV-V.

Altogether, borrowings from the earlier Skras account for about 22% of theprovisions of Skra IV and for about 18% of the provisions of the somewhatlonger Skra V. So, where does the bulk of the provisions from Skra IV-Vcome from? It has been mentioned that Skra IV-V bears very clear tracesof being a compilation of shorter previous enactments. Many of the latterare still completely recognizable in that the substantive rule is precededor followed by words indicating that such-and-such a decree was issuedat a specic date. Some of these decrees contain a single provision only,but there are also clusters of provisions which are internally related andconnected with a single date. They are often recognizable by the use ofthe words “Be it known to all who shall see these letters or who shall hearthem read out” (“Witlik sy alle den genen de dysse schryt seyn eder horenlesen”) at the beginning of the rst provision of the fragment, and “Thisdecree was made in the year N after the birth of God, on such-and-sucha day” (“Dusse wilkor wart ghemaket na Godes bord […]”) at the end of

the last provision. The intermediate provisions normally start with the word “Further” (“Vortmer”).

70 Iu.G. Alekseev, Pskovskaia Sudnaia gramota i ee vremia. Razvitie feodal’nykh otnoshenii na Rusi XIV-XV vv., Leningrad, 1980, 21.




One of the longest and best identiable fragments begins at Skra Varticle 10 and ends at article 31. The latter provision oers a good insight

into the legislative technique of the later Skras. It provides:“Dat dusse olden dink vor up eyn nyghe dink vorgaddert synt, dat schach in enermeynen stevene myt vullbort des meynen dutschen copmans na der bord unsesHeren MCCCLIIII in sunte Gregorius dage.”

(“That these old rules were collected into a new set of rules happened in a generalassembly of all the German merchants [in the year] after the birth of our Lord 1354on the feast of St.Gregory.”)

The rules in this fragment concerned two subjects: the internal order ofthe German Court and the regulation of trade. They oer much more

detailed regulation of matters covered in a more general manner in theearlier Skras. For instance, Skra II-III contains a single rule (art.31) con-cerning breaches of the peace in certain public places (the guardhouse,the churchyard, the church, the great stove ); instead, Skra IV-V has severalprovisions dealing with behaviour in the church alone (arts.10, 18, 22, 23,25). What appears to have happened is that, on the basis of earlier lawsand, perhaps, custom as well, new and more detailed customs developed, which solidied into specic enactments. When Skra IV and V weredrafted, these specic enactments were collected and strung together

into a more comprehensive piece of legislation.The fragment referred to in the preceding paragraph is typical in

another aspect as well. Almost all provisions of Skra IV-V that have notbeen borrowed from earlier Skra versions fall into the categories of eitherregulation of daily life and duties, or of trade. With regard to trade regula-tion, the approach of the later Skras is strongly at variance with Russianpractice, characterized by an almost complete absence of such regulationin the Middle Ages. There is plenty of evidence in medieval Russian lawfor the importance of commerce, particularly in the Expanded Pravda andin the Charter of Pskov, but clearly no urgent need was felt to regulatethe commercial activities themselves. Skra IV-V on the contrary goes toextremes in prescribing the German merchants of Novgorod how and hownot to buy and sell.71 Merchants’ apprentices, for instance, in an apparenteort to prevent small-scale trade which could undercut the trade of themerchants themselves, were forbidden to sell goods in quantities belowa certain minimum: blue yarn by pounds, other textiles by half lengths,needles by the hundred, etc. (Skra V art.41). The rules for conducting trade

in Skra IV-V are also indicative of the great distrust in which the Russiantrading partners were held.72

71 Nikitskii, op.cit ., 138-140, makes the same observation.72 This is also pointed out by Berezhkov, op.cit ., 144.




Connections with Russian law are not easily discernible in Skra IV-V. As in earlier Skras, there are still many traces of Russian terminology. In

at least one case Skra V seems to have taken account of the system ofadjudication of Russian-German disputes as outlined in the treaty of 1269.Skra III contained a provision (art.65) which dealt with injuries sustainedby a German and inicted by a Russian, or other serious oences againstthe Court of St.Peter committed by a Russian (“edder breket he groveliken wedder den hof ”, “or if he commits a major oence against the Court”).Skra III article 65 referred such cases to the Novgorod court of the tysiatskii ( hertoghe ) and aldermen, with the possibility of excluding the Russianoender from the German Court if no acceptable solution was reached by

the Russian judges. The treaty of 1269 referred Russian-German disputesin general terms to the Novgorod court, without the possibility of exclu-sion: “Schut en tvist tuschen dhen Dudeschen unde den Nogarderen, dhetwist sal endegen up sente Johannis hove vor deme borchgreven, dhemehertoghen unde vor dhen copluden” (translation provided above). Skra Varticle 121 repeats this rule in similar terms:

“Vortmer schude jenych twyst tusschen eme Dutschen und Russen, so sal de Dut-sche dat vorfolgen na der krusekussynge und na den breven vor deme hertoghenmyt den olderluden […]”73

(“Moreover, if a dispute arises between a German and a Russian, then the Germanshall prosecute it after [taking] the oath and after [presenting] the paper before thetysiatskii together with the aldermen […]”)

and then adds the possibility, not of excluding the Russian defendant fromtrading in the German Court, but of a less drastic measure: an ocial de-scription of the dispute to be deposited with the authorities in the Courtof St.Peter, in the case the Russian judges fail to do justice to the Germanclaim (“[…] kan eme dar dan neyn recht beschen […]”). Another, rather more remote parallel with Russian law may be seen inthe oath taken by the aldermen (Skra V art.132), which is reminiscent ofthe oaths to be sworn by Russian ocials, such as those prescribed by theCharter of Pskov, article 2 and 5 or the Charter of Novgorod, article 4.

In view of what has been said before about the relationship betweenSkra V and Skra VI, there is no need to add much in respect of the sourcesof Skra VI. One of the very few provisions of Skra VI which do not goback to earlier Skras is article 73: insulting or injuring a Russian. One ofthe forms of insulting mentioned in article 73 is pulling a Russian’s beard.

This clause was probably inspired by the special protection which Rus-73 The kissing of the cross ( krusekussinge, krestnoe tselovanie ) was the traditional form ofthe oath in medieval Russia. It is often prescribed by the Charter of Novgorod, andaccording to Cherepnin, op.cit ., 387, its specic meaning in Novgorod was recognitionof Novgorod law.




sian law had aorded the beard from the earliest days of the Short Pravda(art.8).

11. Concluding Remarks

In German legal history, the Skra is usually viewed as an oshoot of themedieval law of Northern Germany and this view ts into the perspec-tive of the Novgorod settlement as a distant outpost of the HanseaticLeague. As we have seen, this view is largely correct with respect to theearlier versions of the Skra (I-II-III). The more recent layers (IV-V-VI) are still strongly connected with the main Hanseatic cities in theirorigins, although they are to a much greater extent the product of locallaw-creating activities.

In Russian legal history, the Skra has not commanded much attention,primarily because it was regarded as German law and, therefore, not of great interest to the history of Russian law, and possibly also on accountof its linguistic inaccessibility. In the principal handbooks of Russian legalhistory, the Skra is not even mentioned.

Both views tend to look at the Skra as a legal document operating ina kind of vacuum, while in fact the raison d’être of the German settlement

in Novgorod was intense contact with its Russian surroundings, at least inconducting commercial transactions. The legal skeleton of these contacts were the Skra (regulating the internal aairs of the German communityand some of its relations with the Russians), the German-Russian treaties(regulating the position of the German settlement and most of its relations with the Russians), and the domestic law of Novgorod.

Of course, modern ideas of private international law cannot be in-discriminately applied to the relations between Germans and Russians inmedieval Novgorod. On the other hand, the question of applicable law

would certainly have arisen in those days too. If we consider that transac-tions took place in Novgorod and that disputes were tried in Novgorodby the Russian court, it is obvious that in principle Russian law was ap-plied (although, as we have seen, the treaties would sometimes provideotherwise).

The diculty in establishing Novgorod law on the basis of its verydefective contemporary sources has been referred to above. To some ex-tent, this diculty is alleviated by taking recourse to the Charter of Pskov.This law is from the right period, it devotes a great deal of attention to

substantive private law, and the law of Pskov (for a long time subordinateto Novgorod and similarly engaged in trade with Western partners) can-not have been very dierent from the law of Novgorod during the same




era. We have pointed to a few parallels between the Skra and the Charterof Pskov.

The treaties between Novgorod, Russian princes and the Germans andother Western powers are rightly considered among the most importantmonuments of Russian legal history by Russian historians. But, just as thetreaties are essential in achieving a proper understanding of the Skra, sothe Skra can do much to paint in the framework outlined by the treaties.For several centuries, the German settlement in Novgorod was the mostimportant point of contact between Russia and Western Europe; it is,therefore, not realistic to regard the Skra merely as a trivial by-law of ahandful of merchants, tucked away in an obscure corner of the world, in

a forgotten period.Returning to our previous observation that the Skra should not beseen as something operating in a legal vacuum, the general impressionreceived when one places it in the context of contemporary Russian lawis one of similarity. Notwithstanding a number of dierent institutions,the cultural shock does not seem to have been very strong on either side.The two legal spheres could coexist and penetrate each other without toomuch trouble because they were suciently germane. On this basis, they were able to agree on workable institutions and practices which allowed

them several centuries of reasonably peaceful relations.



Chapter 10

Medieval Law in Transcaucasia—

on the Periphery of European Legal History

1. Introduction

The re-emergence of Armenia and Georgia as legally independent andsovereign states has re-awakened an interest in their legal systems andtheir history. For centuries, these countries were hidden from the viewof Western Europe, located as they were behind the vast Russian and

Ottoman empires, themselves states which played mostly a marginal roleas European powers.Through the ages, the fate of Armenia and Georgia has largely been

determined by the histories of their more powerful neighbours, the suc-cessive empires of Assyrians, Persians, Alexander the Great, Romans,Parthians, Arabs, Seldjuks, Mongols, Ottomans and Russians. Whencircumstances were favourable, Armenia and Georgia were occasionallyable to consolidate their political position in the form of an independentor semi-independent state. These states have left a considerable heritage

of legislation and other legal sources. The purpose of this chapter is tooer a general overview of the most important material available and toindicate, however briey and provisionally, the place of medieval Armenianand Georgian law in the context of European legal history. Inevitably, this will have to be largely an exercise in external legal history; a more substan-tive treatment of the contents of the available material would exceed thelimits of this chapter.

The legal history of Azerbaidzhan, at present the third independentstate in Transcaucasia, will not be discussed. Azerbaidzhan was conquered

by the Arabs in 642, when it became part of the world of Islam. Duringthe 9th century, the original Iranian population was turkicized. Soonafterwards, the country fell under Persian domination which continued, with only minor interruptions until most of the local khanates were suc-cessively incorporated into the Russian empire in the course of the latter’ssouthward expansion during the rst decades of the 19th century. Otherparts of Azerbaidzhan stayed within Iran. There were therefore never anyreasonably permanent and independent state-like formations on the ter-ritory of present-day Azerbaidzhan, and whatever there was found itself

solidly within the world of Islam. Another neighbouring area which remains outside the purview of

this chapter is the Caucasus Mountains themselves and the immediately




adjoining regions to the North. These are home to a bewildering varietyof small nations and ethnic groups, many of whom were able to maintain,

albeit precariously, a measure of political independence until they were gradually absorbed into the Russian empire in the course of the 19thcentury, the Chechens and other “mountain peoples” ( gortsy ) being thebest-known example. Their various systems of customary law oer a richsource to the legal anthropologist and a considerable amount of workon this topic has been carried out by indigenous and Russian scholarsduring the last hundred-and-fty years.1 However, these studies concerncustomary law as it has been observed and described in recent times; theaspect of legal history is minimal. Also, a description of the customary

law of a small mountain tribe is a far cry from the ocial legislation ofthe Armenian and Georgian monarchs.

2. The Literature

Among West-European scholars, Joseph Karst has made the most impor-tant contribution to the literature on the subject of Transcaucasian legalhistory. Karst, a professor at the university of Strassburg (as it then was),published several studies (including translations) on some of the majormonuments of the medieval law of Armenia and Georgia.2

The main legislative documents of Armenia and Georgia have beentranslated into English, French or German and have been cited below atthe appropriate places.

1 A.V. Komarov, “Adaty i sudoproizvodstvo po nim (Materialy dlia statistiki dagestan-skoi oblasti)”, Sbornik svedenii o kavkazskikh gortsakh, Vyp.1, II, 1-88, Tiis, 1868 (repr.Moskva, 1992); Dzh. Shunaev, “Prisiaga po obychnomu pravu osetin”, Sbornik svedeniio kavkazskikh gortsakh, Vyp.7, Tiis, 1873; F.I. Leontovich, Adaty kavkazskikh gortsev:

Materialy po obychnomu pravu Severnogo i Vostochnogo Kavkaza, Odessa, 1882 (Vol.1),1883, (Vol.2); M.M. Kovalevskii, Sovremennyi obychai i drevnii zakon; obychnoe pravoosetin v istoriko-sravnitel’nom izuchenii , Moskva, 1886; M. Alibekov, Adaty kumykov,Makhachkala, 1927; Kh.M. Khashaev, Kodeks zakonov Ummu-Khana avarskogo, Moskva,1948; V.K. Gardanov, Materialy po obychnomu pravu kabardintsev pervoi poloviny XIXv., Nal’chik, 1956; Kh.M. Khashaev & M.S. Saidov, Gidatlinskie adaty, Makhachkala,1959; V.K. Gardanov, “Obychnoe pravo kak istochnik dlia izucheniia sotsial’nykhotnoshenii u narodov Severnogo Kavkaza v XVIII–nachala XIX v.”, Sovetskaia Etnograia, 1960, No.5; Kh.M. Khashaev, Pamiatniki obychnogo prava Dagestana XVII- XIX vv., Moskva, 1965.

2 J. Karst, Sempadscher Kodex, 2 vols., Strassburg, 1905, Band 1: Mittelarmenisches Rech-tsbuch, Text und Übersetzung, Bd.2, Kommentar, in Verbindung mit dem grossarmenischen Rechtsbuch des Mechitar Gosch; J. Karst, Corpus Iuris Ibero-Caucasici; Première section: Droit national géorgien codié , Strasbourg: Code du Vakhtang VI, Vol.I-1, 1934; Vol.I-2/1,1935; Vol.I-2/2, 1937; Code d’Aghbougha, Vol.II-1/1, 1938; Codes médiévaux de la Géorgie,Vol.II-2/1; Code d’Aghbougha, Commentaire, Vol.II-2/2; Code du roi Georges V , 1939.



Medieval Law in Transcaucasia 295

The long and comparatively unbroken history of Georgian law is welldocumented in the eight-volume edition of the sources of Georgian law,

published by the Georgian Academy of Sciences.3

3. General Historical Background: Armenia

The Armenians, speaking a language which is counted among the Indo-European languages (although it contains many non-Indo-European ele-ments in its vocabulary, sounds and grammar), arrived in early historicaltimes (around the 7th century B.C.) in the area which has been consideredtheir homeland ever since. A powerful Armenian kingdom ourished dur-ing the rst century B.C., until Pompeius forced the Armenian king torecognize the supremacy of Rome. In the following centuries, Armenia was dominated alternately by the Romans and the Parthians. Armenia wasthe rst country to adopt Christianity as the state religion, shortly afterthe year 300, under its king Tridat (Tiridates) III. Until the present day,the Armenian church has been the most important factor in the survivalof the Armenian national identity, much more so than the various politicalexpressions of this identity.

Among the Christian churches of the Middle Ages, the Armenian

monophysite church occupied a special position an account of its rejectionof the council of Chalcedon (451); this has remained a complicating fac-tor in Armenia’s relations with Byzantium and with the West. The lastingdominance of the Armenian church in domestic aairs is very noticeablein the history of Armenian law; a considerable part of the body of secularlaw is based on decisions of Armenian church councils or nds its originin ecclesiastical sources.

The relative independence of Armenia soon came to an end after thecountry was broken up in 387 into a western part, dominated and mostly

absorbed by Byzantium, and an eastern part dominated by Persia.In 653, Armenia came under Arab overlordship, but retained a con-siderable amount of autonomy. In 885, the Armenian ruler Ashot I wasrecognized as king of Armenia by the caliph of Baghdad and the Byzantine

3 I.S. Dolidze (ed.), Kartuli samartlis dzeglebi–Pamiatniki gruzinskogo prava [Monumentsof Georgian law, in Georgian], Tbilisi, 1963 (I), 1965 (II), 1970 (III), 1972 (IV), 1974(V), 1977 (VI), 1981 (VII), 1985 (VIII). The principal medieval sources are all in Vol.I(hereafter: Dolidze I). Vol.II contains secondary secular legislation and Vol.III second-ary ecclesiastical legislation. The other ve volumes are all devoted to sources fromthe 16th century and later and contain court judgments, requests, and similar shortdocuments. A convenient summary of Georgian legal history, with special regard tothe place of Georgian law in European legal history is oered by B. Soidse [Zoidze]& R. Kandelhard, “Geschichtliche Grundlagen der Zivilrechtsreform in Georgien”, Recht in Ost und West , 1997, No.2, 41-46.




emperor. Although this kingdom soon fell apart, Armenia continued asa collection of virtually independent principalities for the next hundred

years (apart from the northern Bagratuni kingdom founded by Ashot, with Ani as its capital, there was a southern Artsruni kingdom of Vaspurakanand several other smaller principalities). By the middle of the 11th century,invasions by the Turkish Seldjuks put an end to this golden era of Armenianhistory. The fall of the Armenian capital Ani in 1064 signied the end of Armenian independence in Armenia proper (or Greater Armenia) untilits re-emergence in the 20th century.

As a result of the ensuing Armenian diaspora, numerous Armenianshad settled in the province of Cilicia, hundreds of miles to the south-west

of the Armenian heartland. The rst Armenian principalities arose alreadyaround 1080 in this area, and they gradually coalesced into an Armenianstate (also known as Little Armenia) under the Rubenid and Khetumiddynasties. The Khetumid ruler Leo (Levon) II the Great was crowned kingof Armenia in 1199 and was recognized by the pope and the Byzantineand Holy Roman emperors.

The Cilician Armenian kingdom was closely allied with the Crusaderstates which had arisen as a result of the First Crusade (in particular thekingdom of Jerusalem and the principality of Antioch). When the Mongol

invasions started in the rst half of the 13th century, the Cilician kings weremore successful that their Russian colleagues in achieving a modus vivendi with the invaders; they allied themselves with the Mongols against theircommon enemy, the Egyptian Mamelukes. Ultimately, however, with the waning of Mongol power, the Mamelukes were victorious and the fall ofthe Cilician capital Sis in 1375 marked the end of the Cilician Armeniankingdom. In 1393, the last Armenian king died in exile in Paris.

In the following centuries, the lands populated by the Armenians were ruled either by Ottoman Turkey or by Persia, as the balance of powerbetween these kept shifting. Some measure of Armenian independencecould occasionally be realized in the remote and mountainous Karabakharea. When the Russian empire began to penetrate southwards intoTranscaucasia in the beginning of the 19th century, Persia, which at thattime controlled the Armenian heartland, was forced to give up most ofits territory; Nakhichevan and the area of Erevan were ceded to Russia in1828. At the end of the First World War, Armenia, together with Georgiaand Azerbaidzhan, achieved a short period of sovereign independence,

but it was soon forcibly incorporated into the emerging Soviet Union,regaining genuine independence only after the dissolution of the SovietUnion in December 1991.




4. General Historical Background: Georgia

The general parameters of Georgian history are similar to those of Armeniain that the country’s fate through the ages was determined predominantlyby developments in the states of its more powerful neighbours. However,the fact that Georgia was in a somewhat more advantageous geographicalposition in relation to these neighbours, i.e. further away from them, mayexplain to a large extent how Georgia was more successful than Armeniain holding on to a measure of independence. At one stage, during the 13thcentury, until the arrival of the Mongols in 1220, Georgia even emerged asthe dominant regional power. Geographical factors divide Georgia into

an eastern part (Kartlia and Kakhetia, with the eastward-owing Araxesas the main river) and a western part (Imeretia, Mingrelia, Abkhazia and Adzharia, with the westward-owing Rioni as the main river). The highmountain areas, of which Svanetia is the most important, occupy a sepa-rate position. Historically, Georgian territory extended much further tothe south and the west into present-day Turkey.

The western part of Georgia was exposed, although not to such anextent as Armenia, to inuences and interference from Rome, Byzantium,and the Ottoman empire. For the eastern part of Georgia, Persia loomed

large.Christianity came to Georgia somewhat later than to Armenia, butstill in the rst half of the 4th century. No permanently unied state arosein the following centuries and various Georgian kings ruled a successionof small states, dominated in turn by Persian and Arab invaders.

Members of the Armenian ruling house of the Bagratuni (Bagra-tioni in Georgian) gradually gained the ascendancy in Georgia and kingBagrat III (975-1014) was the rst to be recognized as the king of mostof Georgia. Under his descendant, king David Aghmashenebeli (“the Re-

storer”, 1089-1125), Georgia had expanded considerably, until it reachedits apogee under the famous queen Tamara (1184-1207). This Georgian golden age and the political unity of the country were brought to an endby the Mongolian invasions. King Giorgi Brtsqinvali (“the Brilliant”,1314-1346) restored some of the former glory, but soon the arrival of thearmies of Timur signied a new period of downfall. In the 15th century, anew revival was presided over by king Aleksandre the Great (1414-1443),but he was the last king of a unied Georgia. The country was broken upinto the Bagrationi kingdoms of Kartlia, Kakhetia and Imeretia, and the

principalities of Samtskhe, Guria, Mingrelia and Abkhazia. The westernparts were dominated by Turkey, the eastern by Persia.

In the 18th century, Kartlia and Kakhetia were re-united, but remainedunder Persian suzerainty. King Irakli II of Kartlia-Kakhetia, forced to look




for protection against the threat posed by Persian ambitions, concludedthe treaty of Georgievsk with Russia (1783), in which he renounced all

links with Persia and recognized the Russian empress as his suzerain andprotector.4 Irakli was succeeded by his son Giorgi XII in 1798. Upon thedeath of the latter two years later, the Russian government did not allowhis eldest son David to ascend the throne, but annexed Kartlia-Kakhetiato the Russian empire. The kingdom of Imeretia was annexed in 1810and other parts of Georgia in the course of the 19th century, the remotemountain region of Svanetia the last, in 1859.

At the end of the First World War, Georgia became independent andretained this status precariously for another three years, until the Red

Army put an end to it in February 1921. Georgia regained its independ-ence in December 1991 when the USSR was dissolved; it had already de facto withdrawn from the USSR some months earlier.

5. The Law of the Armenian Kingdoms*

As indicated above, there were two periods in which the political inde-pendence of Armenia was suciently consolidated to allow the emergenceof a truly domestic legal order: the Bagratuni kingdom and other smaller

Armenian principalities during the era of 861-1064, and the Cilician Ar-menian kingdom (1080-1375). It was especially the latter which has leftan impressive legal heritage.

The early Christian period and the Bagratuni period produced mainlya body of ecclesiastical prescriptions which constituted an importantsource of later secular legislation. Worthy of mention are the canons ofSaak Partev, all-Armenian catholicos (the supreme head of the Armenianchurch) from 387-439, and the resolutions of various Armenian churchsynods, such as those of Dvin (551, 607, 719), Manzakert (726), Širakawan

(862), and Hromkla (1179).Ecclesiastical rules were collected in books of canons (Arm. kanonagirk’ ), of which several versions are known.5 An Armenian translation of

4 G.G. Paichadze, Georgievskii traktat [commentary], Tbilisi, 1983; G.G. Paichadze(ed.), Georgievskii Traktat [text], Tbilisi, 1983.

* With grateful acknowledgment of Professor J.J.S. Weitenberg’s (Leiden University)bibliographical help for this section.

5 The rst formal collection appeared under catholicos Yovhannes III (between 717and 728); the most important collections were published by V. Hakobian, Kanonagirk’ Hayots, Erevan, 1971 (quoted from A. Bozoyan, “Le droit médiéval arménien, entredroit canon et droit coutumier”, in R. Kevorkian (ed.), Ani capitale de l’Arménie en l’an mil , Paris, 2001, 145-149).




the Byzantine collection of canon law, the Nomocanon (also existing innumerous versions), was probably already available in the 9th century.6

A signicant and interesting document from a later period is thePenitential of David of Sanjak (12th century).7 This work was, strictlyspeaking a mere guidebook to priests, to be used in hearing confessions,discussing all kinds of sins (which often also constituted violations of thelaw), and the suitable penances to be imposed on penitents. This Peniten-tial was one of the sources for the Code of Mkhitar Gosh, which again was the main source for the Law Code of Smbat Sparapet and, in this way, a connection can be made between a purely pastoral document andan explicitly legal enactment. The Code of Mkhitar Gosh and the Law

Code of Smbat Sparapet can be regarded as the principal monuments ofthe Cilician Armenian kingdom.There has been some debate whether major secular legislation from

the Bagratuni era did exist but was lost, or whether legal relationships insecular society were largely regulated by customary (unwritten) law dur-ing this period.8 According to Karst, a law code from the Bagratuni eraserved as one of the sources for the Code of Mkhitar Gosh. Moreover,he contended that already during the Bagratuni era signicant parts ofmajor legislation from surrounding countries were available in Armenian

translation, in particular parts from the Byzantine Ecloga (726) and theSyro-Roman Law Code (see below).9

6. The Code of Mkhitar Gosh

The learned priest ( vardapet ) Mkhitar Gosh (d. 1213) was active in Greater Armenia during the second half of the 12th century. This area, Armeniaproper, was under Turkish rule at the time, so the Code of Gosh wascontemporary with the Cilician kingdom, although not, strictly speaking,

a law of that kingdom. Nevertheless, its very close connection with theCode of Smbat Sparapet justies it being treated as such. As observed before, the Armenian church continued to function

as the political organization of the Armenian population under foreign

6 Bozoyan, 147. On the Nomocanon generally, see the section on Byzantine canon lawin the chapter on “Roman Law in Medieval Russia”.

7 C.J.F. Dowsett, The Penitential of David of Sanjak. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, Vol.216-217. Scriptores armeniaci, II, 3-4, Louvain, 1961.

8 Cf . Bozoyan, 147-148.9 J. Karst, “Grundriss der Geschichte des Armenischen Rechts”, Zeitschrift f. vergl.

Rechtswissensschaft , Vol.XIX (1906), 1. Sonderabdruck, 17-18. I have not been able toconsult H. Kaufhold, Die armenischen Übersetzungen byzantinischer Rechtsbücher , Franfurta.M., 1997.




domination. This resulted in the concurrent jurisdiction of the Muslimcourts of the rulers and the jurisdiction of the Armenian bishops. The lat-

ter enjoyed considerable popularity with the Armenian population,10

andthe Code of Gosh was written with the strengthening of the Armeniancourts as one of the avowed purposes.11 Mkhitar Gosh began his work onthe Code in 1184.12 The oldest copy extant dates from 1237.13

The principal sources of the Code of Gosh are the Pentateuch, alsoknown as the Mosaic laws in the terminology of the period (the OldTestament books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri and Deuterono-mium), the Armenian collection of church canons (the Kanonagirk’ ), andthe Penitential of David of Sanjak.14

The system of the Code (the sequence of the sections) is based on the various sources used.15 As a result, the organization of the Code appearschaotic to a modern reader.

The Code of Mkhitar Gosh was used for centuries by the Armeniandiaspora. In Georgia, a Georgian translation was used, and a Latin version was in use among the Armenian diaspora in Poland.

7. The Code of Smbat Sparapet

The author of this Code, according to its preamble, was Smbat, elderbrother of the Cilician king Khetum I (1226-1269).16 He served as command-er-in-chief of the Armenian army for fty years and died in battle in 1276.He spent three years heading an Armenian delegation to the Mongolian great khan in Karakorum (1248-1250), resulting in a Mongolian-Armenian

10 J. Karst, Sempadscher Kodex, Band 2, 350.11 Cf . R.W. Thomson, The Lawcode [Dastanagirk’] of Mxit’ar Goš , Amsterdam/Atlanta,

GA, 2000, 14. The reasons given by Gosh for drafting his Code are discussed byThomson, 21-22.

12 Thomson, 20.13 Thomson, 36.14 Thomson, 23.15 Thomson, 27-29.16 The Rubenid dynasty which had ruled the Cilician kingdom since Ruben I (1080-

1095), died out in the male line with Leo II (1187-1219). Leo’s daughter Isabella wasonly 4 years old and the kingdom was ruled by a regent, Konstantin Pail, the mostpowerful nobleman in the country. Isabella was rst married o in 1221 to Philip,a son of Bohemond, prince of Antioch. Philip fell out with the Armenian noblesand was killed in 1225. A younger son of Konstantin Pail, Khetum (b.1213), was thenmarried to Isabella and accepted as king in 1226. Konstantin appointed his elder sonSmbat (b.1208) commander-in-chief of the army ( sparapet , also known as gundstabl’ , acorrupted form of the French connétable or ‘constable’). See, generally, A.G. Sukasian, Istoriia Kilikiiskogo armianskogo gosudarstva i prava (XI-XIV vv.), Erevan, 1969.




treaty of friendship. He also translated the law code of the neighbouringCrusader principality of Antioch into Armenian,17 and is known as the

author of a short memoir Išatarakan, written in 1269. The Law Code shouldbe considered as his principal work.The Law Code, according to its preamble, was written in 1265.18

The Code consists of the following parts (according to the numera-tion of articles as proposed by Karst):

(1) A very long provision (a chapter rather) concerning the king,the order of succession, royal privileges, the royal court,etc.

(2) High treason and other felonies committed by princes andother vassals.(3-4) Rights concerning gold and silver mining.(5-7) Various oences against persons.(8-69) All sorts of provisions concerning the church, church dig-

nitaries, church property, religious duties, oences aectingsuch duties, etc. (40: dissolution of marriage if one spousehas been carried o into slavery. 60: listing of ecclesiasticalranks, as well as ranks at the royal court.)

(70) Jurisdiction over kings, princes and nobles.(71) Jurisdiction over ecclesiastical personnel.(72-93) Matrimonial law and sexual oences.(94-96) Intestate succession.(97-98/105) Family law.(99-104) Pledge and security.(106-112) Commercial law.(113-118) Testaments.(119-171) Damages, delicts and various oences; criminal law.(172-175) Boundaries, mills, vineyards, shepherds.

17 Similar codes existed in the Crusader kingdoms of Jerusalem and Cyprus: Assises de Jérusalem ou receuil des ouvrages de jurisprudence composés pendant le XIII-ème siècle dans les royaumes de Jérusalem et de Chypre, I-II, Paris, 1841. The Assises d’Antiochie, however, were lost until the Armenian translation of (or ascribed to) Smbat were found. They were translated back into French and published by G. Alishan in 1876. A Russiantranslation by A.A. Papovian appeared in Vestnik Matenadarana, 1958, No.4.

18 The most complete edition is the two-volume work by J. Karst, mentioned above.This work gives the Armenian text, with dierent variants, and a German transla -tion. There are several other Armenian editions and two Russian editions, by A.A.Galstian and A.G. Sukasian. I have used the latter: A.G. Sukasian (transl, forewordand comments), Sudebnik Smbata Sparapeta (Gundstablia) 1265 g ., Erevan, 1971 (here-after: Sukasian, Sudebnik ).




By far the most important source of the Code of Smbat was the Codeof Mkhitar Gosh. Other sources are of purely ecclesiastical origin (such

as the canons of Gregory the Illuminator and of Saak Partev or decisionsof church synods) and a number of provisions has also been taken overdirectly from Mosaic law, especially from Deuteronomium. (Of course,the Code of Mkhitar Gosh, as mentioned before, is itself based in largepart on ecclesiastical prescriptions.) Some direct inuence of Byzantinelaw and the law of the Crusader states (esp. the law of Antioch, whichSmbat himself had translated) is noticeable.19 Certain rules of a secularnature are probably derived from customary law.

In his preamble, Smbat does not mention Mkhitar Gosh by name

and merely states that he intends to translate the “Code of Law” fromthe unintelligible Old-Armenian language into the vernacular of his age.He adds that he has tried to catch the essence of the text and to sum-marize this, indicating thereby that he was in fact doing more than justtranslating.

Karst has argued that the reason for Smbat’s reworking of the Codeof Mkhitar Gosh was not only linguistic, but also of a practical legal na-ture; the Code of Mkhitar Gosh, according to Karst, was too much basedon imported and theoretical concepts, while Smbat attempted to oer a

law which was closer to the every-day reality of the Cilician kingdom.20 Sukasian elaborates this observation by pointing out that Smbat’s Codetakes the feudal character of the Armenian Cilician society into account,an aspect which was largely absent in the Code of Mkhitar Gosh.21 Therecan be no doubt in any case that the great merit of Smbat’s Code was inthe energetic editing and systematizing of the material. The brief surveyof the contents, given above, already indicates that a serious eort hadbeen made to organize the raw legislative material into a structured whole. Additionally, the author of the Code frequently explains what hehas done, how he has changed old rules and for what reasons, how he hasshortened provisions taken over from other sources, how he has combinedrules derived from dierent sources, etc. As is often observed in medievallegislation, the approach to systematization is usually associative: the rule written down appears to remind the legislator of a related but dierentsituation, and he proceeds to enunciate how this second case should bedealt with. It is, of course, easy to become lost in casuistry, by moving fromone case to another related one. This is quite obvious in the lengthy rst

provision, dealing with the king. In outlining the king’s duties as supremejudge, the Code goes into considerable detail about the law of homicide,a matter which is also regulated elsewhere in the Code.19 Cf . J. Karst, Vol.1, p.XXXII of the “Einleitung”.20 J. Karst, Vol.1, p.1 of the “Vorwort” and pp.XXI-XXIV of the “Einleitung”.21 Sukasian, Sudebnik, 12-22.




The large number of provisions devoted to ecclesiastical matters (overone-third of the text of the Code) illustrates the well-known importance

of the Armenian church in public life. A closer look at some of the provi-sions indicates that the rulers of the Cilician kingdom were also keen toexercise control over the secular activities of the church.

A certain hybrid character of the Code becomes apparent in its sys-tem of sanctions. Its shares with Byzantine law the frequency of maim-ing penalties (blinding, cutting o hands, feet, noses, genitals), whilethe persistence of monetary compensation, even in case of homicide, isreminiscent of older layers of customary law. Even the ancient institutionof collective responsibility of a village for murder committed on its ter-

ritory is preserved.22

The Code of Smbat Sparapet was the law of the Armenian kingdomof Cilicia; after the fall of this kingdom, the Code was soon forgotten and was rediscovered only in 1869.

8. The Legal History of Georgia 23

From 1703-1714, the kingdom of Kartlia was ruled by the viceroy (or regent) Vakhtang, nephew of king Giorgi XI, who was serving as Persian

commander-in-chief in Afghanistan as a virtual hostage of the Persianshah. During his regency, Vakhtang collected all laws which were appliedin Georgia at that time. He also had a new code of law drafted, based ona revision of the old laws. The new code, together with the old laws, waspublished in the period 1703-1709. As Vakhtang succeeded his uncle asking in 1716 and ruled until 1724 (when political conditions forced him toemigrate to Russia, where he died in Astrakhan in 1737), the entire col-lection is known as the Laws of Vakhtang VI. By their inclusion in theLaws of Vakhtang, the validity of the older laws was recognized. They

were used as subsidiary sources of law when the Code of Vakhtang wassilent on a particular point.24

The Laws of Vakhtang consist of four main parts:

— the Mosaic laws, mostly excerpts from Deuteronomium;

22 Cf . the section on “collective liability” in the chapter on “Law’s Beginnings and EarlyLaw”.

23 Generally on Georgian legal history: I.I. Surguladze, Istoriia gosudarstva i prava Gruzii ,

Tbilisi, 1968 (in Russian); I.A. Javaxišvili, Kartuli samartlis isţoria, Tbilisi, 1928 (I),1928-1929 (II, 1-2) (in Georgian).

24 Cf . D.L. Purtseladze, Zakony Vakhtanga VI , Tbilisi, 1980 (Russian translation andcomments), 24; B. Soidse [Zoidze] & R. Kandelhard, “Geschichtliche Grundlagender Zivilrechtsreform in Georgien”, Recht in Ost und West , 1997, No.2, 43.




— the Greek, i.e. Byzantine laws: the Syntagma of Matthaeus Blastaris(14th century) and the Hexabiblos of Harmenopoulos (1345);

— the Armenian laws: the Syro-Roman Code (475/476); the Code ofMkhitar Gosh; — the Georgian laws: the Law of Bagrat Kuropalates; the Canonical Laws (11th century); the Laws of Beka and Aghbuga with additional provisions; the Law Code of king Giorgi V the Brilliant; the Law of the Catholicos; the Law Code of prince Vakhtang.

The Georgian laws included among the Laws of Vakhtang VI cover a moreor less continuous period of many centuries of Georgian legal developmentand may themselves be considered as the most important monumentsof this development. It is, therefore, convenient to take the collectionof Vakhtang VI as the starting-point for a brief survey of Georgian legalhistory.

Along with the Georgian laws included among the Laws of VakhtangVI, many smaller pieces of secular and ecclesiastical legislation have sur-

vived. For reasons of space they will not be discussed here.

9. The Non-Georgian Oarts of the Collection

In the preamble to his own Law Code, Vakhtang explains how he collected“all law books which in the course of time were disseminated separatelyin other kingdoms, as well as in Georgia”.25 In the rst place, the lawsderived from the Old Testament are mentioned, from the books Genesisand Exodus, and the “Mosaic laws”, the detailed provisions mostly from

Deuteronomium.26

Then, Vakhtang continues: “I searched in Greece,through requests to the four patriarchs, for the judicial books according to which they decided cases in the times of the caesars; they were translated with great trouble by wise men, whom I myself helped very much in thetranslation.” The book in question was the Syntagma of the Byzantine priestMatthaeus Blastaris, corrected and amended according to the Hexabiblos

25 Along with the Russian translation of the Law Code of Vakhtang by Purtseladze(mentioned in the previous footnote), there are also older Russian translations. TheFrench translation by Karst is mentioned in the beginning of this chapter.

26 Georgian text in Dolidze I, 103-125.




of Harmenopoulos.27 The Hexabiblos (of 1345) was the last major work ofByzantine law and it continued to be in use during Ottoman times.28

The Armenian laws used by Vakhtang included the Code of MkhitarGosh, discussed above, and the Syro-Roman code which existed in an Armenian version.29 This code, containing elements of Roman law andof native law of the area, was rst drafted around 370-380, but muchamended afterwards, until a more or less denitive version emerged in468.30 It survived for a long time in the Near East, as a competitor tothe legislation of Justinian, in areas which at one time had been part ofthe Byzantine empire.31 These “Armenian” laws applied to the numerous Armenians living in the Georgian kingdoms.32

10. The Law of Bagrat Kuropalates

The oldest part of the Georgian laws included in the collection of kingVakhtang VI is the so-called Law of Bagrat Kuropalates. This law is pre-served as a sequel to the Laws of Beka and Aghbuga (to be discussed be-low), but is in fact of a much older date.33 There were four early Georgianrulers by the name of Bagrat, who sported the title of kuropalates,34 and27 Epitome Syntagmatis Matthaei Blastaris ad Hexabiblum Harmenopouli mutati . The actual

copy of the Syntagma used for the translations is still extant; cf. Purtseladze, ZakonyVakhtanga VI , 16. Georgian text in Dolidze I, 127-221. On the Syntagma of Blastarisand the Hexabiblos of Harmenopoulos, see N. van der Wall & J. Lokin, Historiae iuris graeco-romani delineatio. Les sources du droit byzantin de 300 à 1453, Groningen, 1985,116-118.

28 It was initially adopted as a civil code when Greece became an independent kingdomin 1853. Cf. Sohm-Mitteis-Wenger, Institutionen. Geschichte und System des Römischen Privatrechts, München/Leipzig, 1931, 136-137. See, also, van der Wall & Lokin, 118.

29 Along with a Syrian (Aramaic) and Arabic version. The Armenian version was thebasis of the Georgian translation used in Vakhtang’s collection. Georgian text of the

Code of Mkhitar Gosh and of the Syro-Roman code in Dolidze I, 223-389.30 Others defend a date around 476-477; cf. W.Selb, Zur Bedeutung des syrisch-römischen

Rechtsbuches, München, 1964, for further references.31 Cf . Sohm-Mitteis-Wenger, 120.32 Purtseladze, Zakony Vakhtanga VI , 16.33 Russian translation and a short commentary in: D. Purtseladze, “Iz natsional’nogo

zakonodatel’stva korpusa Vakhtanga VI”, Macne–Ekonomikisa da samartlis seria/ Izvestiia–Seriia ekonomika i pravo, 1985, No.4, 84-98. On p.85, Purtseladze indicatesthe major text editions and studies in Georgian. Georgian text of the Law of Bagrat

also in Dolidze I, 464-470. The place of Bagrat’s Law in comparative legal historyis briey discussed in the chapter on “Law’s Beginnings”.

34 Kuropalates was the fourth highest rank in the ocial Byzantine hierarchy of the era.It was usually reserved for members of the imperial family. It had rst been givento the founder of the Georgian dynasty, Ashot Bagrationi (786-826), and once the




this puts the date of the origin of this law in the period between 826 and1072 (Bagrat I ruled from 826-876 and Bagrat IV from 1027-1072). The

majority of scholarly opinion attributes the law to Bagrat I.The law consists of 62 provisions (according to the accepted nu-meration), of which the overwhelming majority is devoted to the variouspayments due for all kinds of transgressions ranging from simple threatsto homicide. The term used for such payments ( sisxli , blood) was still inuse 900 years later, in the Law Code of king Vakhtang. There are also afew provisions concerning inheritance law. About the rst third part ofthe law contains special rules for the protection of bishops, priests andchurch property. The reason presumably is that lay people could fall back

on their family or clan for protection.Social stratication is already quite outspoken; the amount of sisxli depended on the victim’s social status: the king and the bishops at thetop, then the magnates ( didebuli ), the ordinary nobles ( aznauri ), with thepeasants ( glexi ) at the base of the pyramid.

The general character of the law is reminiscent of the more or lesscontemporary Germanic laws (the leges barbarorum ), or of the earliest layersof the Russkaia Pravda (see, also, the chapter on “Law’s Beginnings”).

Although the Law of Bagrat may have been preceded by legislation

of earlier Georgian rulers which has been lost, the ultimate source of theLaw of Bagrat is undoubtedly Georgian customary law. The rst part ofthe law (the provisions protecting the church, its personnel and property)attempts to integrate the church into the traditional system of monetarycompensation. This is in stark contrast with the situation in Armenia where, following the example of Byzantium, the church is protectedthrough a system of draconic punishments, imposed by the state.

11. The Canonical Laws35

A short law, of uncertain date, but probably from before the year 1100.36 Itis obviously a church law and provides additional ecclesiastical punishment(usually excommunication) for a few serious felonies. It also prescribesordinary sanctions (the payment of sisxli or other indemnication and, inone case, blinding or amputation of hand or foot).

rulers had assumed the title of king ( mepe ) of Kartlia, it was used as a secondary title.Cf . M.D. Lordkipanidze & D.L. Mushkelishvili (eds.), Ocherki istorii Gruzii. Tom II:

Gruziia v IV-X vekakh, Tbilisi, 1988, 314-315.35 Russian translation in D.L. Purtseladze, “Iz natsional’nogo zakonodatel’stva korpusaVakhtangaVI”, Macne–Ekonomikisa de samartlis seria/Izvestiia–Seriia ekonomika i pravo,1986, No.1, 59-72, at 64-66. Georgian text in Dolidze I, 471-473.

36 Purtseladze, Zakony Vakhtanga VI , 87.




12. The Laws of Beka and Aghbuga 37

Beka and Aghbuga, grandfather and grandson, were rulers ( atabagi ) ofthe principality of Samtskhe (roughly present-day Meskhetia, the south- western part of Georgia), the former from 1285-1306, the latter from1381-1386.38 Although outwardly high ocials of the Georgian (Kartlian)kingdom,39 they ruled as virtually independent princes, as indicated bytheir legislative activities.

The laws of these rulers have survived in a single document in which Aghbuga recounts that he has copied the laws of his grandfather, to whichhe has added his own legislation. In the available text, the transition is

clearly marked by a new preamble.The law of Beka—the larger part of the entire document—is still quiteclose in general character to the law of Bagrat, concerned mainly withthe payments for various personal injuries. Other matters are mentioned,such as the ownership of land, inheritance law, theft, sales, and the statusof unfree peasants. In the smaller second part, the law of Aghbuga, thereis more attention to commercial matters and transactions.

Among the sources of the laws of Beka and Aghbuga, the law ofBagrat should be included, as well as customary law. The inuence of ec-

clesiastical law is also noticeable.40

13. The Law of Giorgi V the Brilliant41

After the chaos resulting from the devastations of the Mongol invasions,Giorgi V succeeded in re-uniting Georgia for a number of years (he ruledfrom 1314-1346).42 The law which bears his name is not a general law for37 Russian translation by V.D. Dondua & I.S. Dolidze, in N.A. Berdzenishvili (ed.),

Sudebnik Beka i Agbuga, Tbilisi, 1960, introduction by I.S. Dolidze (hereafter: Dolidze/

Dondua). French translation by J. Karst in his Corpus Iuris Ibero-Caucasici , see note2 . Georgian text in Dolidze I, 423-463.38 Aghbuga was alive in 1380; cf . Dolidze/Dondua, 28. The dates of 1381-1386 are given

by Purtseladze, Zakony Vakhtanga VI , 332.39 Beka possessed the title of mandaturtuxucesi or minister of internal aairs, and Agh-

buga was amirspasalari or commander-in-chief. The atabagi title itself was equivalentto the Byzantine title of basileopater , or father of the king (emperor).

40 Dolidze/Dondua, 15-16.41 D.L. Purtseladze (ed.), Ulozhenie Georgiia V-go Blistatel’nogo, Tbilisi, 1998, oers a bi-

lingual Georgian-Russian text, an earlier English translation, the French translationby Karst (see note 2), another English translation (from O. Wardrop, “Laws of KingGeorge V of Georgia, surnamed «The Brilliant»”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, July 1914, 607-626) and an extensive commentary. Basic edition of the Georgian textin Dolidze I, 399-421.

42 His mother was the daughter of Beka I, the ruler of Samtskhe, and one of theachievements of Giorgi V was to re-establish control over the Georgian provinces(like Samtskhe) which had broken free in the aftermath of the Mongol invasions.




the whole kingdom, but was meant specically, according to its lengthypreamble, for the mountainous regions (Mtiuleti) in the Central Caucasus,

the upper reaches of the Ksani and Aragvi rivers.43

Its general character isclose to the Laws of Beka and Aghbuga, although it is considerably shorterand limits itself mostly to the regulation of all kinds of personal oencesand injuries and the amounts of sisxli to be paid for them. This may beexplained by the cultural and socio-economic dierences between themore developed and prosperous area of Samtskhe and the more primitiveconditions prevailing in Mtiuleti.

The limited geographical applicability of the Law of Giorgi, com-bined with its closeness to the somewhat earlier Law of Beka, raises the

intriguing question whether a now lost general code of law existed at thetime. The Law of Giorgi refers occasionally to what “has been ordained ofold” ( dzvelitgan gačenili ). There are reasons to believe that at least Giorgihimself did not promulgate such a code, but otherwise the question re-mains open.44

The extensive data provided by the preamble allow the precise dat-ing of the Law of Giorgi in the year 1335. The preamble also indicatesexplicitly that the Law is only concerned with secular matters and thatit does not aect the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the catholicos and the

bishops appointed by him.

14. The Order of the King’s Court45

The Order of the King’s Court ( xelmc’ipis k’aris garigeba ) is a curious docu-ment which was not included in the corpus of Vakhtang’s Laws; it wasfound by accident in 1908, but as it is roughly contemporary with the Lawof Giorgi V, it is best discussed at this point.

As it name indicates, the Order of the King’s Court is a kind of hand-

book, written by somebody close to the king, for the organization and43 The exact extent of the territory to which Giorgi’s law applied is much disputed;

cf . Purtseladze, Ulozhenie, 11-15. There is no doubt, however, about the strategicimportance of the area surrounding the only major road through the Main Rangeof the Caucasus, from the Daryal Gorge (the present border with Russia), along thefoothills of Mount Kazbek, across the Krestovy Pass, into the Kartlian heartland.

44 Cf . Purtseladze, Ulozhenie, 10-11, who follows earlier Georgian historians, such as Javaxišvili and Dolidze in this respect. If an important general enactment had existedat the time of Giorgi the Brilliant, or at some earlier moment, one would expect

that the memory of it would not have been completely lost at the time VakhtangVI compiled his collection, in which legislation from the same period, such as theLaws of Beka and Aghbuga or the Law of Giorgi V, and earlier laws, such as thoseof Bagrat the Kuropalates, were included.

45 Russian translation by V.D. Dondua in D.L. Purtseladze (ed.), Rasporiadok tsarskogo dvora, Tbilisi, 1991. Bilingual (Georgian and Russian) edition in the series “Monumentsof Georgian Law”, I.I. Surguladze (ed.), Kartuli samartlis dzeglebi , Tbilisi, 1970.




etiquette of the court of the king of Georgia. Although it is not a law, itprovides detailed information on the organization of the Georgian state, its

chief ocials and their dierent responsibilities. Such questions are rarelydiscussed in medieval legal sources and this makes the Order of the King’sCourt a particularly valuable document. The division of responsibilitiesbetween the chief functionaries of the king’s government may have beeninspired by Byzantine and Persian models; neither was it very dierentfrom what was current in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.46

15. The Law of the Catholicos

The golden age under queen Tamara was followed by centuries of disorderand foreign domination, with only a short revival under Giorgi the Bril-liant. The country fell apart into a number of kingdoms and principalitiesand no important legislation survived until the Law Code of VakhtangVI in the beginning of the 18th century. The Georgian church, however,like its sister church in Armenia, remained united and to some extentthe catholicos stepped into the void created by the disappearance of thecentral state.

The body of laws collected by Vakhtang VI also contained a general

law, enacted by the All-Georgian catholicos, together with the catholicosof Abkhazia, somewhere around the middle of the 16th century.47

The law purports to be an excerpt of the Byzantine Nomocanon, thecollection of Greek ecclesiastical law. According to the preamble, nothingthat was not in the Nomocanon had been added. The impact of Georgianlaw is therefore minimal; sisxli is mentioned only once in passing. It isreplaced by the severe penalties, common to Byzantine law.

46 The king’s council consisted of three major officials, the “chief secretary”( mc’ignobartuxucesi ) or prime-minister, a position reserved for the archbishop ofChkondidi (therefore also called the Čqondideli ), the commander-in-chief ( amirspasalari ), and the “father-of-the-king” ( atabagi ), who competed in status with theprime-minister, and three lesser ones: the chief constable ( mandaturtuxucesi ) or min-ister of internal aairs, the chief treasurer ( mečurčletuxucesi ) or minister of nance,and the chief marshal ( msaxurtuxucesi ) or minister of the royal household.

47 Comments and Russian translation by D.L. Purtseladze in Macne–Ekonomikisa da samartlis seria/Izvestiia–Seriia ekonomika i pravo, 1985, No.4, 84-98, at 85, and 1986, No.1,59-72, at 59-63. Georgian text in Dolidze I, 391-397. The law resulted from a synodof West-Georgian bishops and presumably applied only to that part of the country.The presence and blessing of the All-Georgian catholicos lent it extra authority.




16. The Law Code of Vakhtang VI48

The reason for the collection of old Georgian laws, as eected by VakhtangVI, was the elaboration of a new and comprehensive legislation for thekingdom of Kartlia-Kakhetia ( i.e. the eastern part of Georgia) in thebeginning of the 18th century. The general character of the Code wasconservative; its innovations reected primarily the further developmentof traditional institutions. The tone of the preamble, in accordance withtradition, is didactic and moralising. It is addressed to the judges whohave to use the Code. The last sentences are worth quoting: “Whoeverthinks of something [new] and remembers it, let him include it and write

it down, he will do a good and tting deed.” The rst ve provisions ofthe Code are then devoted to various admonitions to judges. Articles 6-14deal with various kinds of evidence which may be employed to substantiatea claim: ordeals, oaths, duels, testimony of witnesses, admission of guilt. Articles 15-16 explain the complicated monetary system and then the rstmain part of the Code identies a great variety of acts which lead to thepayment of sisxli (arts.17-97).

The next main part (arts.98-115) regulates partition. In the older codesof Beka and Aghbuga and of Giorgi V, partition was a much less prominent

topic. By the time Vakhtang wrote his Code, the old system of family orclan ownership had lost its vitality and a system of individual ownershipor ownership by smaller family units had replaced it. This explains theimportance of the rules on partition.

A chapter on debts constitutes the third main part (arts.116-149). Asdebts may be based on a great variety of factors, this chapter, to a modernlawyer, presents an amalgam of quite diverse topics.

The chapter on theft (arts.150-159) still used the payment of sisxli asthe standard sanction. To the sisxli (which, as before, depended on the

social status of the victim), seven times the value of the stolen propertyis added, and this is paid to the victim, not to the state. Only in case oftheft from the treasury or from the church, the king or the catholicos will determine what the thief will have to pay.

Artsicles 160-168 regulate sales and the remainder of the rst half ofthe Code (arts.189-204) is taken up by sundry provisions. Then a solemnconclusion follows, which recounts how the Code has been written with great care and which again admonishes judges and everybody else involvedin its application.

A longish second half follows (arts.205-270), without any clear attemptat systematization. It probably restates separate laws which were for some48 Georgian text in Dolidze I, 475-532. Russian translation by D.L. Purtseladze, Zakony

Vakhtanga VI , Tbilisi, 1980. French translation by Karst (see note 2).




reason omitted in the rst draft, or new legislation. It would seem thatby the time the rst draft of the Code had been completed, a number of

new questions had arisen and appropriate solutions were formulated asnew rules, appended to the rst half of the Code.Notwithstanding the time of its enactment, the Code still portrays

a thoroughly feudal society, based on a complicated social stratication(various ranks of princes, nobles, merchants, peasants and bondsmen). Asin most traditional legislation, the casuistic approach is prominent. Thedrafters recall certain outstanding cases from the past and include themost desirable solutions in their new law.

After Vakhtang, the kingship of Kartlia eventually came into the

hands of another branch of the Bagrationi family, the kings of Kakhetia,of whom Irakli II was the most important (king of Kakhetia 1744-1762,king of Kartlia-Kakhetia 1762-1798).49 His sons were active as provinciallegislators, and his grandsons Davit and Ivane (the sons of the last kingof Kartlia-Kakhetia, Giorgi XII) continued the family tradition, eachdrafting a law code.50 However, the annexation of Kartlia-Kakhetia byRussia in 1800 deprived these projects of any practical signicance. TheCode of Vakhtang VI continued to be applied in Georgia for some timeand was translated into Russian.

17. Dasturlamali

The Law Code of Vakhtang hardly dealt with matters concerning theorganization of the state. This defect was to some extent corrected bythe promulgation, at about the same time, of a new handbook of courtregulations, more or less along the lines of the 14th century Order of theKing’s Court. Unlike the latter, the new handbook, bearing the title of Dasturlamali , was an ocial document.51 It is of special importance on

account of the information it oers on the organization of the courts;not only the king himself, but also the queen and the royal princes tookan active part in the administration of justice.52

49 Cf. M. Surguladze, Bagrationta samepo saxli [The Royal House of Bagration], Tbilisi,1995.

50 Cf. M. Kekelia, Drevnegruzinskie zakonodatel’stva, sud i sudebnyi protsess (Vtoraia polovina

XVIII–pervaia polovina XIX v.), Tbilisi, 1986, 8.51 Only a Georgian text is available in the series of “Monuments of Georgian Law”,I.I. Surguladze (ed.), Kartuli samartlis dzeglebi , Tbilisi, 1970.

52 The provisions of the Dasturlamali are discussed extensively by Kekelia, Drevnegruz-inskie zakonodatel’stva.




18. Conclusions

As the approach in this chapter has been largely descriptive, it will besucient to highlight a few points which emerge when the medieval legalsystems of Georgia and Armenia are compared.

It is, of course, a perfectly legitimate exercise in comparative legalhistory to look at a specic rule or a specic legal institution, in order toestablish how it came into being, whether it was invented of borrowedfrom elsewhere, and how it developed over time. When complexes ofrules, such as individual laws or entire legal systems, are compared, a morecomprehensive or holistic approach is indicated, i.e. the complex should

preferably be viewed as a whole, as a system of interrelated elements,rather than as the sum of its components.The legal system of the former Soviet Union, or some of its major

“branches” ( e.g . civil law, criminal law) would be a good case in point. Themajority of the constituent elements, for instance the individual provi-sions of the civil or criminal code, would often appear to be very similarto counterparts in various continental European systems. One might thenconclude that Soviet civil or criminal law could be placed in a single cat-egory together with French, German, Italian, etc. law, all being genetically

connected and sharing a common origin. This is indeed true, but a veryimportant point would be missed in this way. The Soviet legal system, andits major sub-divisions, taken as a whole, reected a social, political andeconomic reality which was fundamentally dierent from its Europeancounterparts. The toolboxes of civil or criminal law were largely identical,but they were used for entirely dierent jobs.

Applying this approach to the medieval legal systems of Armeniaand Georgia, we intend to look rst and foremost at the kind of socialand political system reected. With regard to Armenia, the timeframe

is more modest; our sources consist mainly of the law codes of the Cili-cian kingdom, embracing a period of three centuries. For Georgia, theperiod concerned is much longer (some 800-1000 years, depending onthe exact dating of the Law of Bagrat Kuropalates). In view of the lengthof the period, the conservatism of Georgian law is striking. The paymentof sisxli , blood-money, survived into the 18th century in Georgia, not asan obscure relic, but as the most central sanction applicable in law, civildamages or criminal punishment being of secondary importance in mostinstances. Notwithstanding its long history, Georgian law may therefore

still be regarded as a diachronic entity, maintaining considerable continu-ity through the ages.

The Armenian and Georgian legal systems examined in this chapteroperated both in a setting which could loosely be identied as “feudal”,




i.e. not in the precise sense of European history, but rather in a somewhatMarxist sense. By this, we mean a society where the majority of the popula-

tion is employed in agriculture, social stratication is based primarily onthe personal and property relationships concerning the use of land, andthe higher strata of society (kings, magnates, higher and lower nobility)are bound together by a network of mutual obligations. The fact thatthis type of feudalism (like West European feudalism) functioned withina Christian civilization meant that the church in its various emanations(bishops, monasteries, clerical personnel) was fully integrated into the socialand legal system. In this sense, the Armenian and Georgian states did notdier essentially from the contemporary states of the Crusaders.

A more detailed examination brings out signicant dierences be-tween Armenia and Georgia. Cilician Armenia was much more open toexternal inuences, which is not surprising in view of its geopolitical loca -tion. The Cilician Armenian codes borrowed extensively from Byzantinelaw, from the older Syro-Roman law, and from the (medieval French) lawof the Crusader states. In this way, medieval Armenian law was indirectlyconnected to Roman law.

How, and to what extent, Georgian law has borrowed from abroadis dicult to establish. Older Georgian authors generally insist on the

predominantly autochtonous character of Georgian law.53 Foreign authors,such as Karst or Kovalevskii, posit a strong inuence of Graeco-Romanlaw. They have recently been joined by the prominent Georgian legalhistorian, B. Zoidze.54

It would, indeed, be astonishing if Byzantine law had left no tracesin medieval Georgian law. Evidence for strong inuence, however, is hardto nd. The provisional conclusion will have to be that Georgian law,especially when compared with Armenian law, has preserved its originalcharacter quite well over a long period.

One of the most signicant dierences between Armenian and Geor- gian medieval law is in the system of penalties; Armenia took over many ofthe severe maiming penalties of Byzantine law, while Georgia by and largeretained the older system of composition between oender and victim; in

53 E.g . Dolidze, in his edition of the Code of Beka and Aghbuga, 15-16, or Purtseladze,in his edition of the Code of Giorgi the Brilliant, 19.

54 The main thrust of Zoidze’s article (quoted in note 2) is to demonstrate that theenactment of the modern Georgian Civil Code, which occupies a unique place amongthe civil codes of the successor states of the Soviet Union and has clear connections with German civil law conceptualization, merely reactivates Georgia’s traditionallinks with European legal institutions.

The few examples of Western inuence on the Code of Vakhtang VI, mentionedby Zoidze, are not particularly convincing.




very serious cases exile could be imposed (itself often an ancient penalty)and in later times capital punishment was available in rare cases.

Another signicant dierence between Armenian and Georgian law was in their treatment of church functionaries and church property. Notonly did the church gure much more prominently in Armenian law, italso generally enjoyed a higher degree of legal protection by the statethan in Georgia.



Index of Personal Names

A

Abel........................................................... 28 Agamemnon ........................................ 240n Aghbuga ..................................304., 307. Akun(Haakon, nephew of Igor of Kiev) ....... 143 Albrecht (Adalbert, Albert) ....................41 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich(of Vladimir)...........................................202 Aleksandr Iaroslavich Nevskii(of Vladimir and Moscow) .....193, 202, 219 Aleksandr Kazimirovich

(of Lithuania) ..................................197, 229 Aleksandr Mikhailovich (of Tver’)....... 221 Aleksandre the Great (of Georgia) ......297 Alekseev, Iu.G. .................123n, 136n, 160n,..................................................... 255n, 287n Alekseev, L.V. ....................................... 197n Aleksei(metropolitan of Moscow) ........... 213n, 231 Aleksei Fedorovich (Russian tsar) ........xxv

Aleksei Mikhailovich(Russian tsar) ....................124, 249, 251, 255 Aleshkovskii, M.Kh. ................. 147n, 265n Alexander (Byz. emp.) ............................40 Alexander II (Russ. emp.) .....................xxv Algra, N. ................................... 7n, 18n, 28n Alishan, G............................................. 301n Alkinoos ................................................. 18n Amira, K. von ................................13n, 46n Andrei Aleksandrovich (of Vladimir) ..202

Andrei Dmitrievich (of Mozhaisk) ...... 225 Andrei Iaroslavich (of Suzdal’) ............. 193 Andrei Iur’evich (of Volynia) ..............199n Andrei Iur’evich Bogoliubskii(of Vladimir)........................................... 193 Andrei Ivanovich (of Serpukhov) ......189. Andrei Vasil’evich(of Uglich)..................................190n, 227. Andrei Vasil’evich (of Volotsk) .............228

Ankhimiuk, Iu.V. .............. 175n, 176n, 177n Antigone................................................. 239 Antonov, A.V. ....................................... 175n Arbud......................................................207 Aristenes ..................................................91

Arogast ...................................................14n Ashot Bagrationi ..................21n, 295, 305n Askold.................................................... 200 Attila .................................................... 246n Austin, J. ..................................................... 2 Avanesov, R.I. ........................................229 Avenarius, M. .........................................59n Avtokratov, V.N. .................................. 123n

B

Bagrat Kuropalates .... 19, 21, 22, 304., 312Bagrat III (of Georgia) .........................297

Bagrat IV (of Georgia) ......................... 306Bakhrushin, S. .......................................171nBaranov, K.V. ....................................... 175nBaranowski, G. ....xxiii, 34n, 37n, 44n, 45n,.............................. 62n, 69, 81n, 101n, 114.Barry, D.D. ............................................242nBasil I (Byz. emp.) ............................73, 184Baty ..........................................................157Baumgarten, N. de .........................xxv, 55nBehrmann, H. ........................................278Beka .........................................304., 307.Beneshevich, V.N. .......84n, 89n, 213n, 250Bentham, J. ................................................. 2Benveniste, É. ............................................7Berdibek ........................................ 213n, 231Berezhkov, M. .......................... 269n, 270n,.......................................... 275n, 279., 288nBerman, H.J. ..................................68n, 238Bibikov, M.V......................................... 183n

Binchy, D.A. .....................................9n, 15nBirger II (of Sweden) ............................205Biulek.......................................................231Blastaris, Matthaeus .......................... 304.Bloch, M. ....................................... 137n, 139Blud.......................................................144nBlum, J. ............................................. 132, 135Bodogast .................................................14nBoguslavskii, M.M...............................xiiin

Boris Aleksandrovich(of Tver’) ...........................194n, 199n, 204,...............................................221, 226., 230Boris Vasil’evich (of Volotsk) .............227.Boris Vladimirovich ................................37




Boris (Bulg. tsar) ...........................80n, 88nBoris Godunov (Russian tsar) ....... 248, 251Borisov, N.S. .........................................247nBozoyan, A. ............................... 298n, 299nBrezhnev, L.I. ......................................... 258Brunner, G. ........................................... xiiinBrunner, H. ............................................ 13nBuckland, W.W. .................................. 100nBunge, F. von ...............................54n, 274nBurgmann, L. .........................................72nBury, J.B. ...............................................178nBushuev, S.V. ........................................164n

Butler, W.B. ........................................... xiin

C

Cain ..........................................................28Catherine II ...........................................250Chadwick, N. ......................................... 11nChaev, N.S. ........................................... xixnCharlemagne .....................................36, 163Cherepnin, L.V. ..........xviiin, xix, xx, 123n,

........................171n, 188n, 191n, 196n, 197n,........................ 203n, 204n, 205, 222, 251n,

.......................266n, 268n, 271n, 286n, 289nChernousov, E. ...................................... 64nChingis-Khan................22, 147n, 157, 169n,..............................................211n, 246n, 253Chistiakov, O.I. ............................ xxin, 66nChudin .................................................35, 82Cicero .....................................................239Claessen, H.J.M. .......... 22n, 24n, 25, 26, 28

Clark, R. ...............................................xiiinCliteur, P. .................................................... 3Clovis ..............................................12, 162.Cohen, R. .................................................26Conrad, H. ............................13n, 54n, 163nConstantine the Great (Byz. emp.)...... 237Constantine V Copronymus(Byz. emp.) ...............................................72Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus

(Byz. emp.) .......................40, 131, 131n, 184Constantius (Byz. emp.) .......................96nCross, S.H. ........................xviin, 80n, 149nCrummey, R.O. ........192n, 196n, 211n, 213nCyril II (Russ. metropolitan) .................. 91Cyrillus ................................................. 88.

D

Daniil Aleksandrovich (of Moscow) .... 193Danislav Lazutinich ..............................144David Ol’govich (of Vladimir) ............151.David the Restorer (of Georgia) ..........297David of Sanjak......................................299Davit Bagrationi (of Georgia) .......298, 311Dekkers, R. ..........................................xiiinDewey, H. ................................ 79n, 97, 99nD’iakonov, I.M. ......................................15nD’iakonov, M.A. .............xxiii, xiv, 64, 112n,....................116, 118, 149n, 159n, 170n, 175n

Dietze, J. .............................................. xviinDir ..........................................................200Dmitrii Aleksandrovich(of Novgorod) ........................................202Dmitrii Andreevich (?)(of Volynia) ..................................... 199, 229Dmitrii Iur’evich Shemiaka(of Galich) ...................... 192, 194, 197, 199,..............................................204, 225., 230

Dmitrii (Krasnyi) Iur’evich(of Galich) ........................................... 225.Dmitrii Ivanovich Donskoi(of Moscow) ...............158, 172n, 177, 190.,.......................................195., 204, 221, 247Dobrynia ................................................144Dolidze, I.S. ........295n, 304n, 305n, 306n,.......................307n, 308n, 309n, 310n, 313nDondua, V.D. ............................ 307n, 308nDounar, T.I. ..........................................256n

Dowsett, C.J.F..................................... 299nDubov, I.V. ...........................................254nDvornichenko, A.Iu. .......................... 253.Dylykov, S.D. .......................................... 23nDzhanibek Khan ..........................213n, 230

E

Eck, A. .......xxii, 34n, 60n, 85n, 244n, 255nEdel, D. ....................... 7n, 11n, 12n, 13n, 15n

Edigei ................................................213, 231Engels, F. .............................................239.Epifanov, P.P. ....................................... 248nEskin, Iu.M. ......................................... 175nEutychius..................................................76Ewers, I.Ph.G. ........................................34n




Eymund .................................................... 55Ezhov, V.A. ............................................151n

F

Fedor Alekseevich(Russian tsar) ................................ 177., 251Fedor Iur’evich (of Suzdal’) ...........199, 230Fedor Ivanovich(Russian tsar) ............................167, 148, 251Fedor L’vovich(of Novosil’-Odoev) .....................199n, 230Fedor Nikitich Romanov, see Filaret

Fedor Ol’govich (of Riazan’) ................. 225Fedor Vasil’evich (of Riazan’) .......199, 230Feldbrugge, F. .............xiin, xiiin, 1, 3n, 7n,.....................9n, 19n, 29n, 179n, 182n, 242nFennel, J. ............................................... 219nFeognost(metropolitan of Moscow) ........... 213n, 231Fikentscher, W. .................................... 2n, 3Filaret (patriarch of Russia) ..................248Filipp (metropolitan of Moscow) ......247.Fisher, R.T. ..................................177n, 183nForbes, N............................................. xviinFotii (metropolitan of Moscow) ........... 191Franke, H. ................................................2nFrensdor, F. .............261n, 278, 283n, 285nFriedrich, J ................................... 15n, 101nFroianov, I.Ia. ................ 37n, 50n, 67, 124n,..........................132, 135., 149n, 150n, 151n,........................... 156n, 162, 164, 168n, 253.

G

Gaius ..............................................98., 119Galstian, A.A., ....................................301nGanev, V. ....................................... 79n, 116nGanshof, F.L. ............................... 137n, 139nGardanov, V.K. .................................... 294nGimon, T.V. ................................ 147n, 170nGinis, D. .................................................72n

Ginsburgs, G. ..............................xiiin, 181nGiorgi V the Brilliant(of Georgia) .........................297, 304, 307.Giorgi XI (of Georgia) .......................... 303Giorgi XII (of Georgia) ................. 298, 311

Gippius, A.A. .......................................262nGleb Iur’evich (of Kiev) ........................ 193Gleb Vladimirovich ................................. 37Goetz, L.K. ..................................xiii, 268nGoetze, A. .............................................. 15nGoodman, G.R. ....................................... 3nGorskii, A.A. ....................... 42n, 55n, 134n,..............................................141n, 142, 219nGorskii, A.D. ............ xxin, 212n, 213n, 214nGranberg, J. ................................ 147n, 150nGrant, P.R. ...............................................3nGregory of Tours ..............................12, 162

Grekov, B.D. ...........xxn, xxi, 17n, 34n, 45n,...................53n, 64n, 65., 81n, 133., 162n,.......................167n, 216n, 256n, 266n, 268nGrigor’ev, A.P. ........................... 213n, 230.Gudavichius, E. ....................................256nGurevich, A.Ia. .......................................131Gurney, O.R. .......................................... 17n

H

Haakon V (of Norway) ..........................205Hakobian, V. ........................................298nHalperin, Ch. ..........157n, 216n, 218n, 246nHammer, D.P. ........................ 60, 62n, 69.Hammurabi .................................19, 30, 101Hanak, W. ........................................... xviinHarmenopoulos ................................. 304.Hellie, R. ............................xxii, 124n, 248nHermogen (Germogen)(Russian patriarch) ................................248

Hitler, A..................................................241Hobbes, T. .................................................. 2Hoebel, A. ................................................29Hoekema, A. ...................................... 3, 28nHofmann, M. .......................................xiiinHolwerda, D. .......................................... 73nHomer ................................16, 18n, 29n, 30Howes, R.C. ........................................ 190n

IIagich, V.V. ............................................. 53nIakov (tysiatskii of Novgorod) .....207, 268Iakovlev, A.I. ........................................ xixnIakubovskii, A. ..................................... 216n




Ian Vyshatich .......................................144nIanin, V.I. ..................67n, 147n, 175n, 186n,............................... 207n, 208n, 212n, 244n,............................... 262n, 264n, 265n, 268n,...........................................275n, 279n, 284nIaropolk Sviatoslavich ............................171Iaroslav Aleksandrovich(of Vladimir, Tver’ and Novgorod) ......202Iaroslav Iaroslavich(of Tver’) ...................202., 206n, 220, 270Iaroslav Iaroslavich(of Vladimir and Novgorod) .. 193, 213, 230

Iaroslav Vladimirovich(of Novgorod) ........................................207Iaroslav Vladimirovich the Wise(Mudryi) .................... xvii, 36., 49., 54.,...............................57., 82., 91, 141., 171,............................... 187, 192, 200, 215, 244.Iaroslav Vsevolodovich(of Vladimir)................................... 193, 202Igor (prince of Kiev) .................40, 41, 52,

............................................. 55, 143, 168, 185Igor (nephew of foregoing) ................... 143Igor Iaroslavich .......................................171Ilarion .......................................................85Indova, E.I. .......................................... xxinIngigerd .................................................... 55Ingvar Igor’evich (of Riazan’) ............... 193Ioann(metropolitan of Moscow) ...........213n, 230Ioann (bishop of Sarai) .................213n, 230

Irakli II (of Georgia) ...................... 297, 311Isabella (of Armenia) .......................... 300nIsaev, I.A. ......................xxiv, 67, 134n, 244nIskusevi ................................................... 143Iukho, Ia.A. .......................................... 256nIurii Danilovich (of Galicia) ...............199nIurii Dmitrievich(of Galich) .................173n, 191., 194n, 225Iurii Danilovich

(of Moscow) .........................203n, 205, 220Iurii Sviatoslavich(of Smolensk) ..................................197, 229Iurii Vladimirovich Dolgorukii ............ 186Iushkov, S.V. ........... xx, xiii, 43n, 62n, 65.,.............................81n, 93, 134n, 144n, 162n,..................................167n, 170n, 188n, 285n

Ivan Aleksandrovich(of Smolensk) ................................. 198, 229Ivan Andreevich(of Mozhaisk) ................ 192n, 199, 225, 230Ivan I Danilovich Kalita(of Moscow) .........................189, 191, 205.Ivan Fedorovich(of Riazan’) ................................ 199n, 225.Ivan Iur’evich(of Novosil’-Odoev) .....................199n, 230Ivan II Ivanovich (of Moscow) ..........189.Ivan IV Ivanovich (of Riazan’) ......193, 199

Ivan III Vasil’evich, the Great(of Moscow) ......... 123, 147, 174n, 187, 188n,.................................... 190n, 197, 205., 211,.................................214n, 221, 255, 263, 266Ivan IV Vasil’evich, the Terrible(of Moscow) .........................124, 152, 175.,.........................................188, 219n, 248, 251Ivan III Vasil’evich(of Riazan’) ............................. 199, 228, 230

Ivan Vasil’evich(of Serpukhov-Borovsk) ................199, 230Ivan Vasil’evich Gorbatyi(of Suzdal’) .................................... 192n, 227Ivan Vladimirovich(of Pronsk)....................................199n, 230Ivane Bagrationi .....................................311Ivar ................................................... 143, 185Iziaslav Iaroslavich ............. 35, 44, 58n, 82,...................................................104, 151, 171

Iziaslav Mstislavich (of Kiev) ...............186Iziaslav Vladimirovich (of Polotsk) ...... 151

J

Javaxišvili, I.A. .......................... 303n, 308n John the Scholastic ........................ 76, 89. Joseph of Volokolamsk ........................ xixn Justinian I (Byz. emp.).........70, 76, 95, 305 Justinian II Rhinotmetes (Byz. emp.) ... 71

K

Kaiser, D.H. .........xxii, 34n, 37n, 40n, 42n,...................... 44, 46, 47, 60n, 69, 71n, 79n,...................... 80n, 81n, 89n, 93n, 94n, 95n,..................... 97n, 101, 102n, 104, 114, 123n,.......................184n, 244n, 255n, 266n, 286n




Kaiser, F.B. ........................................... 256nKalachov, N.V. ............35n, 63, 108., 116.Kalinina, T.M. ......................................194nKandelhard, R............................295n, 303nKaramzin, N.M. ........... xv, 148, 151n, 156n,..................157n, 158, 192n, 205n, 217n, 251nKarnovich, E.P. .................................... 218nKarpovich, M. ........................................ 23nKarst, J. ............ 294, 299., 307n, 310n, 313Kashtanov, S.M. .....184n, 185n, 202n, 269nKaufhold, H. ....................................... 299nKazakova, N.A. ..............207n, 208n, 268n,

......................................... 269n, 276n, 279.Kazimir IV(of Poland and Lithuania) ......197., 205.,.....................210, 214, 222, 224, 229., 270nKekelia, M., ..........................................311nKelly, F. ................................................... 15nKerim-Berdy ........................................ 217nKevorkian, R. .......................................298nKhashaev, Kh.M. ................................ 294n

Khazanov, A.M. .....................................22nKhetum I (of Armenia) ........................300Khlebnikov, N. ....................................134nKhoroshev, A.S.....................................262nKhoroshkevich, A.L. ................... 198n, 224Khrushchev, N.S. .................................... 133Kirill (metropolitan of Moscow) ..........230Kisterev, S.N. ...................... 36n, 48n, 284nKleimola, A. ............................ 79n, 97, 99nKleinenberg, I.E. .........................279, 284n

Kliuchevskii, V.O. .........xxv, 63, 68, 86, 112,......................116n, 135, 147n, 168n, 175, 177,........................251n, 262n, 264n, 265n, 271nKöhler, O. .................................................2nKol, D. ............................................ 7n, 11nKomarov, A.V. ..................................... 294nKonovalova, I.G.................................... 48nKonstantin Pail ................................... 300nKorolev, A.S. ......................................... 185n

Koschaker, P. .........................................59.Kosniachko .................................. 35, 44, 82Kotliar, N.F. ....................................55n, 142Kovalevskii, M.M. ....................... 294n, 313Kozlova, N.V. .........................................249Kresten, O .............................................72n

Krivosheev, Iu.V. ..................................254nKucherov, S. .......................................... 68nKuchkin, V.A..............................188n, 249nKüpper, H. ............................ xiiin, xiv, 68nKuznetsov, P.V. .....................................184n

L

Lange, N. ................................................. 99Lazuta, S. ..............................................257nLenin, V.I................................................179Leo III the Isaurian (Byz. emp.) ............72Leo VI the Wise (Byz. emp.) ....... 40, 73.

Leo (Levon) II the Great(of Armenia) ................................296, 300nLeontovich, F.I. .................................. 294nLev Danilovich (of Galicia) ................245nLevitsky, S.L. ......................................... 46nLimonov, Iu.A. 150n, 186nLipshits, E.E. ........71n, 72n, 93n, 96, 109.Llewellyn, K. ............................................29Locke, J. ...................................................... 2

Loewe, K. von ......................................256nLokin, J.H.A......................... 70n, 72n, 73n,...............................................75n, 76n, 305nLordkipanidze, M.D. ...................21n, 306nLotharius ..................................................56Louis the Pious ........................................ 56Lovmians’kii, Kh. .................................. 193Lukin, P.B. ............................................149n

M

MacNeill, E. ........................................... 15nMagnus V Eriksson(of Sweden)..................................... 205, 222Maine, H. ....................................1, 2, 10, 32Maiorov, A.V. .......................................254nMakrizi ..................................................... 23Maksimeiko, N.A. ...............64., 68., 86,.......................................94., 106, 117n, 118Mallory, J.P. ........................................8n, 9n

Man’kov, A.D. .......... xxin, 124n, 125n, 248nMarkevich, A.I. .................................... 175nMartens, F.F. ........................................ 181nMartysevich, I.D. ....................... 255n, 286nMarx, K. ..............................................239.Mavrodin, V.V. .............................. 48n, 132




Maxim (Kievan metropolitan) .............91nMcLeod, N. ............................................ 15nMedvedev, I.P. ................71n, 72n, 73n, 74n,......................................75n, 93n, 94n, 109nMeiske, C. ........................................... 248nMeissner, B. ..........................................242nMel’nikov, Iu.N. ................................... 175nMel’nikova, E.A. ............... 55n, 147n, 170n,...........................................183n, 184n, 269nMengu-Timur .......................... 23n, 213, 230Menshikov, A.D. ..................................218nMerkulov, V.I. ........................................56n

Methodius ............................................ 88.Michael III (Byz. emp.) ........................88nMikhail (metropolitan of Moscow) ......231Mikhail Aleksandrovich(of Tver’) .....................172, 195., 221, 224.Mikhail Andreevich(of Verei-Belozero) ............................. 225.Mikhail Borisovich(of Tver’) ................... 196, 198., 227., 230

Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov(Russian tsar) ...................................248, 251Mikhail Iaroslavich (of Tver’) ... 202., 220Mikhail Iaroslavich (of Vladimir) ....... 193Mikhail Iur’evich (of Vladimir) ............ 193Mikhail Vsevolodovich (of Kiev) ......... 193Mikhailova, I.B. ..................................... 254Mikula .................................................35, 82Mikyfor (Nikifor) the Kievan .... 35, 44, 82Mironov, G.E. ......................................164n

Miroshka(posadnik of Novgorod) ................ 207, 268Mitchell, R. ......................................... xviinMitteis, L. .....................................127, 305nMkhitar Gosh .........................299., 304.Morgan, J.H. ..............................................2Morse, B.W. ............................................. 3nMstislav Davidovich(of Smolensk) ............................41, 192, 229

Mstislav Sviatopolkich ...........................152Mstislav Vladimirovich ...... 170., 186, 192Munstede, Hans ....................................270Murtazy ..................................................214Mushkhelishvili, D.I....................21n, 306n

N

Nasilov, A.D. .......................................... 23nNasonov, A.N. ............................xviin, 216nNazarenko, A.V. ...........................36n, 170nNazarova, E.I. .............................. 54n, 283nNedzila Pekhtinich................................144Nestor ......................................................xviNevolin ........................................ 114n, 115nNikifor (Kievan metropolitan) ...............92Nikitskii, A. ..........160n, 210n, 270n, 273n,.................................274n, 276n, 284n, 288nNikol’skii, S.L. ........... 42n, 43n, 134n, 141.

Nikon (Russian patriarch) .....................249Noah .......................................................xviiNosov, E.N. ................................254n, 262nNovitskaia, T.E. ...................................124nNovosel’tsev, A.P. ..............36n, 170n, 186n,..................................................... 194n,212n

O

Obolensky, D. .......................................... 69

Odysseus .............................................240nOlaf ........................................................ 143Olaf Tryggvason ....................................... 55Oleg (prince of Kiev) ..... 40, 142, 168, 184,............................................... 185n, 200, 212Oleg Ivanovich (of Riazan’) .................. 225Oleg Sviatoslavich (of Dereva) .............171Oleg Sviatoslavich (of Chernigov) .......186Olga ........41, 43n, 52, 55, 131, 143, 168, 184nOlgerd Gediminovich

(prince of Lithuania) .....................196, 229Omel’chenko, O.A. ............................. 244nOnasch, K. .................................147n, 262nOosten, J.P. ............................................. 25nOroschako, H. .................................... 79nOstrowski, D. .......... 157n, 211n, 216n, 217n,............................................. 218n, 219, 246n

P

Paichadze, G.G. ...................................298nPapovian, A.A. ..................................... 301nPashuto, V.T. ..................... 54n, 185n, 186n,............................................193n, 212n, 283nPatrikii Narimontovich......................... 177




Pavlov, A.S. ........................................... 123nPavlov, A.S. .................................... 89n, 93n

Pavlov-Sil’vanskii, N.P. ........175n, 176n, 177Pchelov, E.V. ................... xxv, 55n, 56, 168nPereneg ......................................... 35, 44, 82Perun (Slavic deity)..........................41, 56nPeshchak, M.M.........................197n, 198n,................................................214n, 229, 231Peter the Great ......... xxi, xxv, 125, 167, 178,......................................... 188, 218n, 219, 251Petr Dmitrievich (of Dmitrov) ............ 225Photius (Byz. patriarch) ..................74, 88nPiotrovskaia, E.K. ............................... 123nPivovarov, Iu.S. .................................... 244nPlettenburg, Walter von(Livonian Landmeister) ......................... 210Poliak, A.G. ..........................................124nPomorski, S. .........................................xiiinPoppe, A.W. ................................xivn, 193nPredslava ................................................ 143Presniakov, A.E. ................121n, 168n, 170n

Priselkov, M.D...................................... 213nPritchard, J.B.......................................... 15nPronshtein, A.P. .................................. 280nPseudo-Dmitrii I ..................................248Pseudo-Dmitrii II .................................248Purtseladze, D.I. ............ 303n, 304n, 305n,.................................307n, 308n, 309n, 313nPushkarev, S.G. ........... 131n, 132n, 177, 183n

R Ranke, L. ....................................................5Rapov, O.M. ............................................ 131Riasanovsky, V.A. ........................... 22n, 23nRiesenkampf, N.G. ...................270n, 274n,.......................................... 275n, 276n, 278.Rogneda..................................................55nRogvolod (Rognvald) ............................. 55nRomanus I Lecapenus (Byz. emp.) ..40, 75Rostislav Mstislavich

(of Smolensk) ............... 85, 163, 192., 245nRuben I (of Armenia) ......................... 300nRurik ................... xvii, 54, 56, 88n, 138, 141,.............................. 144, 167., 189, 200, 262Rusanivs’kyi, V.M. ........................214n, 231

Rybina, E.A. ......... 186n, 207n, 208n, 267n,............... 268n, 270n, 274n, 275n, 276n, 279

Rydzevskaia, E.A. ..................................55n

S

Saak Partev (Armenian catholicos) ......298Sacco, R. ................................................ 68nSaidov, M.S. ......................................... 294nSakharov, A.D. ........................................ 258Sakharov, A.N. .................... xivn, 40n, 81n,............................................120n, 152n, 184nSalegast ................................................... 14nSalogubova, E.V. .........................61, 68, 86,................................................ 94, 105., 122Satolin, U.M. ........................................256nSavva (Serbian bishop) ............................91Scheil, V. ................................................. 19nScheltema, H.J. ...................................... 73nSchlacks, C. jr. ....................................... xxiiSchlüter, W. .......261n, 279, 283n, 284n, 285Schminck, A. .......................................... 73n

Schröder, R. ................................... 13n, 54nSchroeder, F.C. ....................................242nSchultz, L. ...............................................xiv Selb, W. .................................................305nSemën Ivanovich (of Moscow) .. 189., 193Sergeevich, V.I. ............ xiii, 35n, 64, 106.,........................... 112, 114., 122, 148., 153n,........................156n, 157n, 158n, 162n, 168n,....................... 170n, 172., 175n, 188n, 194n

Sergei of Radonezh ...............................247Shakhmatov, A.A. ...........................xvi, xviiShapiro, A.L. .......................................130.Shaskol’skii, I.P. .........................205n, 275nShchapov, Ia.N. ..................... 34n, 66., 79,...................... 84., 89., 120., 243., 273nShchavelev, A.S.....................................170nShchepkin, E. ....................................... 168nSherbowitz-Wetzor, O.P. ...........xviin, 80n,......................................................131n, 149n

Shirokorad, A.B. ..................................219nShtamm, S.I. ........................................124nShunaev, Dzh. ..................................... 294nSigibert ...................................................162Silvester (Livonian Landmeister) ........ 209




Simons, W.B. ................................... xi, xiiinSirks, B. ..............................................7n, 10Skalník, P. ................................... 22n, 25, 26

Skrynnikov, R.G. .......................243n, 247.Sludi ........................................................ 143Slusser, R.M. ........................................ 181nSmbat Sparapet ................................. 299.Socrates ..................................................239Soia Alekseevna (regent of Russia) .....251Sofronenko, K.A. .......................... xx, 125nSohm, R. ........................................ 127, 305nSoidse, see Zoidze

Solov’ev, S.M. .................63, 86, 169n, 170nSoloviev, A.V. ......................68., 93n, 124nSophocles .............................................239nSorlin, I. ................................ 40n, 81n, 152nSperanskii, M. ........................................124Stalin, I.V. ......... 65, 133, 136., 167, 179, 258Stephen (Byz. emp.) ...............................40Stephenson, C., 137nStoliarova, L.V. .....................................184nStroev, P. ................................................. xxv Strube de Piermont ................................ 99Sukasian, A.G. ................. 300n, 301n, 302nSurguladze, I.I. .................303n, 308n, 311nSurguladze, M. ......................................311nSvanhild .................................................. 143Sveinald .......................................143., 185Sverdlov, M.B. .......................36n, 48n, 51n,................................. 132., 136n, 162n, 254nSverki .............................................143, 185n

Sviatopolk Iziaslavich ............................152Sviatopolk Vladimirovich ............ 37, 50, 57Sviatoslav Iaroslavich ................. 35, 44, 82,................................................ 151, 171, 192.Sviatoslav Igor’evich .........143, 168, 171, 185Sviatoslav Ivanovich(of Smolensk) ...............................197n, 229Sviatoslav Ol’govich(of Novgorod) ................................ 85, 245nSvidrigailo(of Lithuania) .................. 197, 205, 222, 229Szeftel, M. ....................xxii, 34n, 60n, 85n,.................................... 135, 147n, 244n, 255n

T

Tacitus .......................... 11n, 13, 162, 2240nTaidula ....................................... 213n, 230.

Tamayo y Salmorán, R. ......................... 25nTassilo ..................................................... 163Tatishchev, V.N. ..........xiv, 33, 81, 108n, 186Theodor Bestes........................................79Thomas Aquinas .................................... 239Thomson, R.W. .................................. 300nThor (Germanic deity) ..........................56nThorpe, L. ..............................................12nTikhomirov, M.N. ............ xviin, xixn, 34n,

................. 35n, 38, 39n, 43n, 46n, 65., 75n,..................... 79n, 80n, 81n, 82., 92., 107,

...................... 110n, 116., 248n, 262n, 270nTiktin, N.I. .......................................... 125nTimoshina, I.A. .................................. 284nTiuliak ........................................... 213n, 231Tobien, E.S. ............................................34nTokhtamysh ........... 158, 195., 212, 214, 231Tolochko, P.P. ............................. 253n, 262nTridat (Tiridates) III (of Armenia) ...... 295Triska, J. ................................................ 181nTrunk, A. .............................................. xiiinTunen, Coerd van ..................................270

U

Ulpian .......................................... 95., 98.Ulug Mekhmet ................................... 191.Uzbek Khan ......................................... 213n

V Vakhtang VI .......................21, 303., 309.Valikonite, I. ........................................ 256nValk, S.N.................................xix, 87n, 153nVariazhko .............................................144nVasil’evskii, V.G......................................72nVasilii I Dmitrievich (of Moscow) ... 190.Vasilii Iaroslavich(of Serpukhov and Borovsk) .....173n, 174n,.....................................................191n, 225.Vasilii Iur’evich Kosoi(of Galich) .....................172n, 192, 204, 226Vasilii Iur’evich (of Suzdal’) ..........199, 230Vasilii II Vasil’evich the Blind




(of Moscow) ..................... 172n, 173n, 174n,.....................190., 194n, 197, 199, 204, 221Vasil’ko Rostislavich (of Terebovl’) .......151Veen, Th. ................................................59nVeenhof, K.R. ........................................19nVenediktov, A.V. ....................................130Vernadsky, G. ................ xxii, 22n, 23n, 34n,....................42n, 46n, 81n, 95n, 135., 177n,........................183n, 216n, 255n, 266n, 286nVeselovskii, S.B. ................................... xixnViacheslav Iaroslavich ............................171Vidogast .................................................14n

Vilenskii, B.V. ...................................... xxinVilkul, T.I. ............................................150nVinke, Heidenreich(Livonian Landmeister) ......................... 210Visogast ..................................................14nVitovt(prince of Lithuania) ...........191, 194n, 196,........................................... 198., 210, 229.Vladimir Andreevich

(of Serpukhov) ........................... 204, 224.Vladimir Mstislavich(of Dorogobuzh) ................................. 207nVladimir Sviatoslavich(St. Vladimir)............xiv, xvii, 12, 36, 37, 42,......................55, 61n, 81n, 83, 142, 144, 149,................. 151., 167, 171, 187, 200, 214, 244Vladimir VsevolodovichMonomakh ...................xvii, 39, 83, 93, 170,........................ 186., 192., 207n, 214n, 215

Vladimirskii-Budanov, M.F...........xxiii, 63,............................. 86, 156n, 250, 266n, 272nVladislav ................................................. 143Vliet, E. van der .......................7n, 18n, 29nVolos (Slavic deity) ..................................41Vorob’ev, V.M. ..................................... 253.Vseslav Briacheslavich ............................ 151Vsevolod Iaroslavich35, 44, 82, 144, 151, 171

Vsevolod Iur’evich Bol’shoe Gnezdo(of Vladimir)........................................... 193Vsevolod Mstislavich(of Novgorod) .........................82, 159, 273nVsevolod Mstislavich (?)(of Smolensk) .........................................229Vuefast .................................................... 143Vyshata .................................................144n

W

Wagenvoort, H. .................................... 10nWal, N. van der, .......................... 70n, 72n,

....................................... 73n, 75n, 76n, 305nWalram (Land Marshal) ....................... 208Wardrop, O. .........................................307nWatling, E.F. ........................................239nWeitenberg, J.J.S. .................................298nWenger, L. ..................................... 127, 305nWinckler, H. .........................15n, 19n, 101nWladyslaw Jagiello (of Poland) ......197, 229Wortman, R.S. .....................................256n

Y

Yovhannes III(Armenian catholicos) .........................298n

Z

Zachariae von Lingenthal, C.E. ...........72nZernack, K. ..........................................149nZeus .....................................................240nZimin, A.A. .......... xixn, xxn, xxv, 34n, 37n,

.............. 38n, 39n, 40n, 41n, 43n, 46n, 47n,

............... 48n, 51n, 52n, 66, 81n, 101n, 123n,

.............. 152n, 177n, 244n, 266n, 271n, 272nZimmer, S. .............................7, 8n, 9, 18, 32Zoidze, B. ............................295n, 303n, 313Zonares .....................................................91Žužek, I. ................................................ 89n



Subject Index

A

Abridged Pravda ...................................... 34 Aethelberht, Law of ...............................54ancient law ........................1., 9., 18, 26. Archeographical Commission ........xvi, xix archeology .............................................. 8.archives ................................ xviii ., 87, 188 Armenia ...............................................295. Armenian church ..................... 295., 312. Armenian law ........................... 298., 312. asega .............................................13, 29., 52 aznauri ..............................................21, 306

B

Babylonian law .............................. 19., 101Bagrat Kuropalates, Law of ...............305.Balkan, legal connections with ....66, 68.,.....................................................89., 122.Baltic cities ........................ 206., 264, 267basileus .............................................. 211, 219 Basilika ...................................................73.

Beka and Aghbuga, Laws of .......305, 307. Beowulf epic ...........................................140bezchestie ........................................... 116, 122Bill of Rights (U.S.A.) ......................... 233.birchbark documents ..............................xx blood feuds ................................... 43., 106Boyar Duma ............................................251boyars ......................... xxv, 135, 137.,144.,.................................... 155., 159, 161, 174.,....................................248., 252., 258, 265

brithemain ........................................12., 30Byzantine law .................... xviii, 62., 66.,..................70-79, 87., 108., 121, 306, 309Byzantium, relations with Russia .... xvi .,.......................................... 39., 80., 183.

C

capital punishment ...................... 20, 61, 72Capitulare de Villis ....................................36

Catholicos, Law of the ......................... 309cheliadin .....................................................48chernye liudi , chern’ ....................155, 256, 267chronicles, see Primary Chronicle;Novgorod Chroniclechurch statutes ............ 66., 83., 88, 108,

...........................................120., 163, 244.Collectio XXV capitolorum .................76, 90Collectio LXXXVII capitolorum .....76, 90.Collectio XIV titulorum ............................ 90Collectio L titulorum ............................76, 89Collectio LX titulorum ...............................76Collectio tripartita .....................................76collective liability .......................... 16., 20Communist Party of theSoviet Union .......................................179.composition ..........................................41.Corpus Iuris Civilis .................. 60, 64, 70.,

......................................................76, 97, 124Court Charter of Pskov .........xiv, xxii, 123,.......................160, 164, 198, 286, 288., 291Court Law for the People .......53, 64., 68,............79., 92, 96., 105., 108, 116., 121Court of St.Peter (in Novgorod) ...... 270.Crusader states, law of ..........................302customary law ........29, 57., 61, 302., 306

D

dan’ ...........................................................131 Dasturlamali ..........................................311.debt slavery ............................................. 20 Déclaration des droits de l’hommeet du citoyen .............................................. 234Declaration of Independence(U.S.A.)....................................................234 derbne ...............................................11, 169 didebuli ..............................................21, 306

Digesta ...................................................... 70 Drevneishaia Pravda, see Oldest Pravda druzhina ................................38, 41., 55-56,............................................140-145, 161, 185due process ...................................235, 256. Dukhovnyi Reglament ..............................250 dvor

E

early law, see ancient law Ecloga .....................63., 67., 72., 80, 90,............................ 92, 94, 96, 99, 105., 108,.............................. 111., 121, 123, 125., 299 Eisagoge .....................................................74Enlightenment, Age of .......................242.




Epanagoge .........................................63, 74. Epitome ......................................................75equality ......................................235., 257. Ewa ad Amorem ................................... 14, 54Expanded Pravda .................xxi, 39, 41, 64,................................................... 82., 92, 99

F

Farmers’ Law, see Nomos Georgikosfeudalism ...............................133., 136-139,........................................... 145, 240., 252. scus......................................................... 114

Four Freedoms ....................................... 234freedom of conscience .......................238.Frisian law ................................................ 13 furtum ........................................................98

G

Gefolgschaft , see druzhina genealogy ............................................ xxv . gens .............................................................11

Georgia ................................................297.Georgian law .....................21., 303, 312.Georgievsk treaty ..................................298 gerontes .................................................. 29.Giorgi V the Brilliant, Law of .......... 307. glexi ...................................................21, 306 gosudar’ ............................................. 211, 248Gothic Coast ............................. 207., 268 golovnichestvo ............................................45 gradskie zakony, see Zakon gradskii

gramoty ............................... xvi, xviii ., 267 grand prince (title) ..............................192. gridin, grid ’ ................................................42

H

Hanseatic League ..................... 206., 261,...................................................267., 274. Hexabiblos of Harmenopoulos ..........304.Hittite law .......................... 9, 15, 17, 95, 101

human rights .................................. 233-260

I

iabetnik ................................................14, 42iarlyk ............................................ 211., 246 Iasa of Chingis-Khan ............................22.

Iazhel’bitsy treaty ................................. 204iconoclasm ...............................................72 Ikh Tsaaz, see Mongol law Indo-Europeans ......................................5.inheritance law ................................... 114.Ireland, Old-Irish law .....................9, 12, 15izgoi ...........................................................42izvod procedure....................................46.

J

judge-made law ......................................... 6juries .........................................................18

K

Kanonagirk’ ............................................300 kholopy ...................... 43., 48, 95, 112., 138kingship, Frankish ...................10, 12, 162. Knigi Zakonnye ................. xviii, 71, 88, 93.,........................................... 109, 121, 123, 126 koniukh staryi .........................................43. Kormchaia, kormchie ................. xviii, 33, 63,

................................ 68, 81, 83., 87-92, 108,.............................................119., 122, 125.Korostyn’ treaty .................................... 204 Kratkaia Pravda, see Short Pravda krestnoe tselovanie .............................153, 172 krovavyi muzh (bloodied man) ........... 119. kuropalates ...................................... 21, 305.

L

land tenure ...................................... 129-145

Landmeister .........................................209.law, denition of .....................................2.law, origins of .............................. 28., 48. leges barbarorum ......................14., 32, 53.,.................................... 67, 81, 99., 163, 306 Lex Alamannorum ................................... 163 Lex Angliorum et Werinorum .....................54 Lex Aquilia ..........................................100. Lex Baiuvariorum ................................... 163

Lex Cornelia de iniuriis ..............................95 Lex Francorum Chamavorum ....................54 Lex Frisionum ............................................54 Lex militaris .............................................. 71 Lex Rhodia ................................................ 71 Lex rustica, see Nomos Georgikos



Subject Index 327

Lex Saxonum .............................................54 Lex Thuringorum ....................................... 54Lithuania .....................................196., 205Liubech conference ................................ 151 lóg n-enech, díre ......................................... 15Lübeck law ....................... 276., 281., 286 luchshie liudi .............................................155

M

Marxist historiography ..............11, 49, 60,............................................ 132., 162, 187. mechnik ................................................ 14, 42

medicatura .................................................. 9medieval legal history .......................... xi, 1, Merilo Pravednoe .................xviii, 79, 81, 88,..........................................92., 110, 123, 126 mestnichestvo .....................................174-178Mkhitar Gosh, Code of .....299., 302, 305monetary system .....................................36Mongol law............................................22.Mongols ..............22., 148, 157., 172, 200,

.......211., 215., 245., 262., 296., 300.Monomakh, Law of ..........................83, 114Mosaic law, see Old Testament law

N

Nachal’naia Letopis ’ ,see Primary Chronicle namestnik ............................................. 270. narochitye liudi .........................................155Nestor Chronicle, see Primary Chronicle

Nibelungenlied .........................................140 Nomocanon .....................xviii, 33, 63, 67, 79,.............................................85., 105., 309 Nomocanon XIV titulorum ..................76, 79 Nomos Georgikos .....................68, 71, 73, 88,................................ 93, 98, 108., 123, 125. Novellae ..............................................60, 90Novgorod, government ............. 159., 201,..............................................249., 264-266

Novgorod Chronicle (First) .... xvi ., 36.,...................................... 48., 88, 143, 147.

O

oath ................................................... 106.,see also krestnoe tselovanie

ognishchanin .........................................14, 43Old Testament law ............. 71, 75, 108, 118,................................................300, 302, 304Oldest Pravda ....... 35., 57., 82, 97, 100.Ordá (Horde) ..................... 172, 195., 212.otchina ................................... 168, 189., 211ownership ............................................130.

P

Pandectae ...................................................59patriarchy .................................... 9., 168. pod”ezdnoi .................................................. 43

poinè ..........................................................16 pokon virnyi ............................................... 82 Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei ............xvi Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov..................124, 249 poliud’e ......................................................131 posadnik .................................159, 163, 264. posadskie liudi .......................................... 255 Povest’ Vremennykh Let ,see Primary Chronicle

Pravda of Iaroslav, see Oldest Pravda Pravda Iaroslavichei(Pravda of Iaroslav’s Sons) ..... 35., 82, 102 Pravosudie Metropolich’e ...........................123 prigorod ..................................155, 159., 263Primary Chronicle .......... xvi ., 36., 80.,..................... 139, 143, 148., 168, 183., 186 principum placita ................................... 104procedure .................................. 46., 156. Procheiron ...............63, 67., 73., 80, 90.,

.....................96, 108, 112., 118., 121, 125. Prostrannaia Pravda,see Expanded Pravda Pskov, government ................................210

R

rachineburgi ............................................ 13. Raskol ......................................................249 ratainyi ......................................................43

razriadnye knigi ....................................176. Redactio systematica sive Tarasiana ............77 riad ................................................ 153., 156Roman law.........................6., 10., 59-128Rurikids (house of Rurik) ....... xiv, 10, 15.,.......................................................161, 167.




Russkaia Pravda ......................... xv ., xviii,.......... xxi ., 14., 20, 31, 33-58, 62., 81-83,............... 105, 161, 207., 262, 266, 272, 286 russkie stat’i ............................................... 117

S

Salic Law ........................... 14, 16., 32, 100Scandinavians in Russia ...... 49., 54., 63,.....................................................65., 167. sel’skii starosta ............................................43separation of church and state ......... 237.,..............................................................247.

separation of powers ..........................236.Short Pravda ....... xxi, 22, 35-39, 41., 82.,.................................... 88, 94., 102., 117.sick-maintenance ................................. 9, 15 sisxli ................................ 21, 306, 308., 310Skra .................................................. 261-291Slovo o polku Igoreve ................................140Smbat Sparapet, Code of ..................300. smerdy ............................................. 43., 138Smolensk ........................ 41, 163, 192, 197.Sobornoe Ulozhenie,see Ulozhenie of 1649Sokrashchennaia Pravda,see Abridged Pravda sources ....................................... xv ., 148.Sovet Gospod ............................................ 159 starshinstvo ...........................161, 168., 189,..............................................200, 202, 215.state, origins of .................................... 24.

Stoglav .....................................................124succession(princely, in Kievan Russia) ..........10., 151,............................................ 153, 167., 194.Sudebnik, Svodnyi , of 1606/1607 ............124 svod procedure ..................................... 46.Syntagma Canonum .......... 67, 76., 86, 89.Syntagma of Matthaeus Blastaris ...... 304.Syro-Roman Code ..................... 299, 304.

T

Table of Ranks .............................167, 178.Tatars ......................148, 157., 191., 195.,.........................................211., 215., 246.

Teutonic Order ..........................204, 209.theft .................................98., 103., 110.tithes ........................................................121tiun, tivun, tivunets .............................14, 43translations............................................ xxiitreaties,internal Russian .............. 153, 171., 181-231treaties, with Byzantium ..............39., 80., 105.,....................................................... 122, 183.Treaty of Rome ......................................234tsar’ (title) .........................................158, 211

tysiatskii .................................159, 163, 264.

U

udel ...................... 155, 170., 187, 190., 215Ulozhenie of 1497 .....................................123Ulozhenie of 1649 ............................124, 248Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights .................................... 233.urban freedom .............................241, 253.

uroki ..........................................................41

V

Vakhtang VI, Law Code of ................310.Vakhtang VI, Laws of ........................303.veche ...................147-165, 201, 249., 264.verv’ ..................................................... 17, 20Vinodol, Statute of .................................. 53vira .........................................................45.virnik .........................................................14

vis genitalis ............................................. 11.

W

wergeld ................................17, 36, 39., 127

Z

Zakon gradskii .................................... 75, 125 Zakon russkii ........................40, 51f., 58, 122 Zakon Sudnyi liudem,

see Court Law for the People Zemskii Sobor ............................... 248., 251 zhit’i liudi ......................................... 201, 265



Glossary of Russian and Foreign Terms

(terms occurring in the text and accompanied by a translation have not beenincluded as a rule)

ab initio from the beginning (Latin)

actiones see in rem

amirspasalari commander-in-chief (Georgian, of Persian origin)

asega law-sayer (Frisian)

atabagi “father-of-the-king” (Georgian, of Turkic origin), high ocial

avant la lettre “before the letter” (French); said when applying a term tosomething occurring or existing before the term itself was

coined aznauri noblemen (Georgian)

basileopater father-of-the-emperor (Byzantine honoric title)

bezchestie insult, injury

blizhnye close relatives

bratochado nephew (son of one’s brother)

brithemain jurisconsults, legal experts (Old Irish)

Busskatalog catalogue of xed nes for homicide, physical injuries, etc.

catholicos title of patriarch of the Armenian and Georgian churchescheliadin (dependent) member of household, such as child or serf

(compare Latin lius )

chern’ the common people (esp. in Novgorod); also chernye liudi (“black people”)

chiliarch “thousandman” (Greek), see tysiatskii

colluvies gentium conuence of peoples (Latin)

commodatum loan for use (Latin)

constitutiones imperial laws (Latin)

corpus alienum foreign body (Latin)Corpus Iuris Civilis the nal xation of Roman law, in the middle of the 6th

century, consisting of the Institutions of Justinian, the Co-dex, the Pandectae or Digesta, and the Novellae

dan’ tribute (lit. “gift”)

derbne extended patrilinear family of four generations (Old Irish)

didebuli magnates, great nobles (Georgian)

Digesta one of the four parts of the Corpus Iuris Civilis, consisting ofexcerpts from the writings of the classical Roman jurists; also Pandectae

díre (Old Irish) honour-price

doynisse kind of fur (Novgorod Skra)




Drevneishaia Pravda “Oldest Pravda”, also “Pravda of Iaroslav”, oldest segment of Russkaia Pravda

druzhina following, entourage (of prince or lord; see also Gefolgschaft ) druzhinnik member of druzhina

dvor court, also house

editio princeps main or basic edition of text

ex nihilo from, or out of, nothing

lid (Old Irish) learned class of poets and bards

scus (Latin) state treasury

furtum (Latin) theft

Gefolgschaft following, entourage (of prince or lord; German); same as druzhina

genius (Latin) spirit uniting and permeating gens

gens (Latin) group of persons united by a common (patrilinear)ancestry

gerontes “old men” (Greek), esp. elders entrusted with public powers

glexi (dependent) peasants (Georgian)

golovnichestvo “head money”, to be paid by killer and his relatives

gosudar’ Lord, sovereign, majesty

gradskie zakony “city laws”, Russian term referring esp. to Ecloga and Prochei- ron

gramota charter, document

grid ’ also gridin, junior member of the druzhina, guard

gridenisse guardhouse (Novgorod Skra; from gridnitsa, itself of Scandi-navian origin)

grivna basic monetary unit in Kievan Russia; pound

gundstabl’ commander-in-chief (Armenian; from French connétable, from

Latin constabularius ) hovesknecht ocial in German Court in Novgorod (Skra)

iabetnik court ocial, baili

iarlyk (Turkic) in medieval Russia: charter issued by Mongol-Tatarruler

Iasa Law Code of Chingis-Khan

Ikh Tsaaz Law Code of the Oirat Mongols of 1640

in rem “in a thing” (Latin); esp. “ actiones in rem”, lawsuitsconcerning a material object, as opposed to lawsuits against

persons, “ actiones in personam”in statu nascendi in the process of being born (Latin)

iniuria unlawful action, injury (Latin)

inter vivos “among the living” (Latin); esp. in respect of dispositions, asopposed to testaments




iuridicus law-sayer (Latin)

izgoi persons who found themselves outside the ordinary socialunits of family, clan, druzhina, etc.

izvod version of manuscript, recension; also (in Russkaia Pravda ):type of procedure

kholopy slaves

klete cellar, storehouse (Novgorod Skra)

knape junior merchant (Novgorod Skra)

knecht junior merchant (Novgorod Skra); also: dependent (usually young) person

kniaz’ prince (etymologically related to “king”); also translated as“duke”

Knigi Zakonnye “Law Books”, Russian collection, of Byzantine origin, of which the Nomos Georgikos is the main component

koniukh staryi senior stablemaster

kormchaia Russian version of the Nomocanon

kormilets, kormilitsa slaves or unfree persons (male/female), entrusted with care ofchildren

kramola sedition, rebellion, treason

krazha theft krestnoe tselovanie “kissing the Cross”; standard form of oath in medieval Russia

kuna Old Russian monetary unit

kuropalates Byzantine title, traditionally borne by Georgian kings

Landmeister (German) regional head of Teutonic Order

lantvart (Middle Low German) travelling to and from Novgorod byland (Novgorod Skra); also watervart (by water), somervart (during summer), wintervart , wakevart (by sleigh)

leges barbarorum ancient laws of Germanic peoples, such as the Salic Law leges speciales special laws, in particular three Byzantine laws from the 8thcentury

lóg n-enech (Old Irish) honour-price

mana (from Oceanic languages) magical power, strength

mandaturtuxucesi (Georgian) chief constable, minister of internal aairs

mc’ignobartuxucesi (Georgian) chief secretary, prime minister

mechnik “sword-bearer”, court ocial, guard

mečurčletuxucesi (Georgian) chief treasurer, minister of nance

medicatura (Latin) medical expenses (in Frankish law)

mepe (Georgian) king

Merilo Pravednoe “Just Measure”, medieval Russian legal collection




mestnichestvo appointment system in Muscovy Russia

mesto place or rank within family and among families

(see mestnichestvo ) mir village community; peace (treaty)

modus vivendi intermediate arrangement between opponents

msaxurtuxucesi (Georgian) chief marshal, minister of the royal household

namestnik representative, lieutenant, of prince

Naturalwirtschaft (German) economy in which money plays a secondary role

nomocanon (Greek) Byzantine collection of ecclesiastical and secularrules

novellae new laws, in particular as fourth part of the Corpus IurisCivilis

ognishchanin “hearth-man”, steward or other high ocial of the prince inKievan times

Ordá Horde (Turkic), division of Mongol empire

orslage (Middle Low German) hitting somebody on the ear

otchina paternal heritage, patrimony (also votchina )

pace “peace”, with all due respect to (Latin)

Pandectae collection of excerpts of the classical authors of Roman

jurisprudence, as the major segment of the Corpus IurisCivilis; also known as Digesta

paterfamilias (Latin) head of the patrilinear family in Roman law

patria potestas (Latin) power of the paterfamilias over the members of his familia

petitio principii (Latin) about the same as “begging the question”

pod”ezdnoi messenger, courier (of prince), collector of nes

pogribbe prison (Novgorod Skra, from Russ. pogreb )

poinè wergeld, blood money (Homeric Greek)

pokon law, statute pokon virnyi law concerning the vira

poliud ’e winter circuit of the prince, in which tribute was collected

popplen kind of fur (Novgorod Skra)

posadnik lieutenant (of prince); mayor (in Novgorod)

posadskie liudi half-free townspeople in Muscovy Russia

potklete storehouse (Novgorod Skra)

Pravda Iaroslavichei the Pravda of Iaroslav’s sons

pravovoe gosudarstvo law-governed state (translation of German Rechtsstaat ) Pravosudie metropolich’e Metropolitan’s Justice (medieval Russian legal collection)

prigorod “suburb”, subordinate town




principum placita “what has pleased the ruler”, decisions of the emperor, one ofthe recognized sources of Roman law (Latin)

proezzhaia gramota a laissez-passer, a document entitling the bearer to proezd (travelling through)

proximi (Latin) close relatives

rachineburgi lay participants in Frankish court procedure

Raskol the great schism in the Russian church, following the reformsof Nikon in the second half of the 17th century

ratainyi agricultural ocial of prince; plowland overseer

Razriadnyi Prikaz government department in charge of keeping razriady

razriad(y) mestnichestvo register recte (Latin) correctly, as it should be

rezana monetary unit in Kievan Russia

riad(y) contract, pact

rota oath (in court procedure)

Russkaia Pravda “Russian Law”, basic legislative monument of Kievan Russia

russkie stati “Russian articles”, a series of provisions from the ZakonSudnyi Liudem, found in some copies of the Russkaia Pravda

schevenisse kind of fur (Novgorod Skra) sel’skii starosta agricultural ocial of the prince, eld overseer

sisxli (Georgian) blood (money), wergeld

Skra law, statute (Low German); local German law in Novgorod

slovenin inhabitant of Novgorod (in Russkaia Pravda )

smerdy dependent peasants

solidus, -i Frankish coinage

somervart see lantvart

Sovet Gospod Council of Lords (in Novgorod) sparapet (Armenian) commander-in-chief

starshinstvo seniority (esp. among Russian princes)

stevene (Middle Low German) assembly (Novgorod Skra)

stog haystack

stove (Middle Low German) dwellings (in Novgorod)

sud court; rarely: law

sudebnik law code

sverstnik(i) person of same age, coeval svod court procedure (in Russkaia Pravda ); collection

tartaros (Greek) underworld

tat’ba theft




terminus ante quem (Latin) “time before which” (something has to be dated)

tiun also tivun, tivunets; princely ocial, overseer, agent, steward,baili

troynisse kind of fur (Novgorod Skra)

tsar’ tsar (from Latin caesar ), emperor (the spelling “czar” doesnot make sense in any language); the tsar’s wife is the tsaritsa (translated into German as Zarin, which was then corruptedin several European languages as “tsarina” or “czarina”)

tysiatskii “thousandman”, military commander (in Novgorod)

udel portion or part (assigned to younger sons of princes)

udel’nye kniazhestva apanage principalities (from udel )uroki laws, decrees

ustav statute

vardapet (Armenian) learned priest

veche popular (urban) assembly

verding medieval German coinage

verkhovnaia sobstvennost’

“supreme ownership”, roughly equivalent to “eminent do-main”

verv’ rural territorial unit

vira bloodwite, ne for homicide or bodily harm

virnik collector of the vira

vis genitalis (Latin) “genital force”, the life-perpetuating force permeatingthe gens

voevoda military commander, general

Vogt (German) ocial representing supreme ruler

volost’ governmental power; also “province” (esp. in Novgorod)

Vorstender (Low Middle German) ocial in Novgorod Skra

votchina see otchina

wakevart see lantvart

wergeld compensation to be paid by the killer to the killed person’srelatives

wintervart see lantvart

zakon russkii “Russian Law”, the customary law of pre-Christian Russia

Zemskii Sobor Land Council

zhit’i liudi prominent burghers (esp. in Novgorod), also zhitye liudi , as

opposed to lower class burghers ( chernye liudi )



About the Author

Ferdinand Feldbrugge is Professor Emeritus of East European Law at LeidenUniversity. From 1973 to 1998, he was director of the Institute of EastEuropean Law and Russian Studies and the editor of the Law in Eastern Europe series and of the Review of Central and East European Law. He servedas Special Advisor Soviet and East European Aairs (“Sovietologist-inResidence”) to the Secretary-General of NATO from 1987 to 1989 andas President of the International Council for Central and East EuropeanStudies from 1995 to 2000.