O Klyuchovsky called this collection of laws. Russian truth. Property relations, Obligation law

1. If the husband kills the husband, then the brother takes revenge for the brother, or the son for the father, or the son of the brother, or the son of the sister; if no one will take revenge, then 40 hryvnia for the murdered.

If the killed is a Rusyn, or a Gridin, or a merchant, or a hacker, or a swordsman, or an outcast, or Slovenia, then 40 hryvnias will be paid for him.

2. If someone is beaten to blood or bruises, then he does not need to look for a witness, but if there are no marks (beats) on him, then let him bring a witness, and if he cannot (bring a witness), then the matter is over. If (the victim) cannot avenge himself, then let him take 3 hryvnias from the guilty person for the offense, and pay the doctor.

3. If someone hits someone with a stick, pole, palm, bowl, horn or rear of a weapon, pay 12 hryvnia. If the victim does not catch up with that (offender), then pay, and this is the end of the matter.

4. If you hit with a sword without removing it from its scabbard, or with a sword hilt, then 12 hryvnias for insult.

5. If he hits the hand, and the hand falls off, or dries up, then 40 hryvnias, and if (he hits the leg), and the leg remains intact, but starts to limp, then the children (the victim) take revenge. 6. If someone cuts off any finger, then he pays 3 hryvnias for an insult.

7. And for a mustache 12 hryvnia, for a beard 12 hryvnia.

8. If someone takes out a sword, but does not strike, then he pays the hryvnia.

9. If the husband shoves the husband away from himself or towards himself - 3 hryvnias - if he brings two witnesses to the court. And if it is a Varangian or a Kolbyag, then he will be sworn in.

10. If the serf runs and hides at the Varangian or at the kolbyag, and they don’t take him out for three days, but find him on the third day, then the master will take away his serf, and 3 hryvnias for the offense.

11. If someone rides someone else's horse without asking, then pay 3 hryvnia.

12. If someone takes someone else's horse, weapon or clothing, and the owner recognizes the missing person in his community, then he will take his own, and 3 hryvnia for insult.

13. If someone recognizes from someone (his missing thing), then he does not take it, do not tell him - this is mine, but tell him this: go to the vault where you took it. If he does not go, then let him (present) the guarantor within 5 days.

14. If someone exacts money from another, and he refuses, then 12 people go to court. And if he, deceiving, did not give back, then the plaintiff can (take) his money, and 3 hryvnias for the offense.

15. If someone, having recognized the serf, wants to take him, then lead the master of the serf to the one from whom the serf was bought, and let him lead to another seller, and when it comes to the third, then tell the third: give me your serf, and you look for your money in front of a witness.

16. If a serf hits a free husband and runs away to his master's mansions and he starts not giving him away, then take the serf and the master pays 12 hryvnias for him, and then, where the hit man finds the serf, let him beat him.

17. And if someone breaks a spear, a shield, or spoils clothes, and the spoiler wants to keep him, then take money from him; and if the one who spoiled begins to insist (on the return of the damaged thing), to pay in money, how much the thing costs.

True, set for the Russian land, when the princes Izyaslav, Vsevolod, Svyatoslav and their husbands Kosnyachko, Pereneg, Nicephorus of Kiev, Chudin, Mikula gathered.

18. If the fireman is killed intentionally, then the killer will pay 80 hryvnias for him, but people do not pay; and for the prince's entrance 80 hryvnia.

19. And if the fireman is killed like a robber, and people do not look for the murderer, then the rope where the murdered was found pays the virva.

20. If they kill the fireman at the cage, at the horse, or at the herd, or at the time of the collapse of the cow, then kill him like a dog; the same law for tiun.

21. And for the princely tiun 80 hryvnias, and for the senior groom with the herd also 80 hryvnias, as Izyaslav decided when the Dorogobuzh people killed his groom.

22. For a princely village headman or a field headman, pay 12 hryvnias, and for a princely ryadovich 5 hryvnias.

23. And for the murdered smerd or serf 5 hryvnia.

24. If a slave-nurse or breadwinner is killed, then 12 hryvnias.

25. And for the prince's horse, if he is with a spot, 3 hryvnias, and for the horse of a smerd 2 hryvnias.

26. For a mare 60 cuts, for an ox hryvnia, for a cow 40 cuts, for a three-year-old cow 15 kunas, for a one-year-old half a hryvnia, for a calf 5 cuts, for a lamb nogat, for a ram nogat.

27. And if he takes away someone else's slave or slave, then he pays 12 hryvnias for the offense.

28. If a husband comes with blood or bruises, then he does not need to look for a witness. 46

29. And whoever steals a horse or an ox, or robs a cage, if he was alone, then he pays a hryvnia and 30 cuts; if there were 10 of them, then each of them pays 3 hryvnias and 30 rezan.

30. And for the princely board 3 hryvnias, if burned or broken.

31. For the torture of a smerd, without a princely command, for insulting 3 hryvnias.

32. And for a fireman, tiun or swordsman 12 hryvnia.

33. And whoever plows the field boundary or spoils the boundary sign, then 12 hryvnias for insult.

34. And whoever steals a rook, then pay 30 rezan (to the owner) for the rook and 60 rezan for sale.

35. And for a pigeon and a chicken 9 kunas.

36. And for a duck, a goose, a crane and a swan, pay 30 cuts, and 60 cuts for sales.

37. And if they steal someone else's dog, or a hawk, or a falcon, then 3 hryvnias for insult.

38. If they kill a thief in his yard, or at a cage, or at a barn, then he is killed, but if the thief is kept until dawn, then bring him to the prince's court, and if he is killed, and people saw the thief bound, then pay him .

39. If hay is stolen, then pay 9 kunas, and 9 kunas for firewood.

40. If a sheep, or a goat, or a pig is stolen, and 10 thieves steal one sheep, let each pay 60 rezan of sale.

41. And the one who grabbed the thief receives 10 rezan, from 3 hryvnias to the swordsman 15 kunas, for the tithe 15 kunas, and to the prince 3 hryvnias. And out of 12 hryvnias, 70 hryvnias to the one who caught the thief, and 2 hryvnias to the tithe, and 10 hryvnias to the prince.

42. And here is the virnik charter: take 7 buckets of malt for a week, also a lamb or half a carcass of meat, or 2 legs, and on Wednesday I cut for three cheeses, on Friday like this. same; and as much bread and millet as they can eat, and two chickens a day. And put 4 horses and give them as much food as they can eat. A virnik take 60 hryvnia and 10 cuts and 12 strings, and first hryvnia. And if fasting happens, give the virnik a fish, and take him 7 cuts for the fish. All that money is 15 kunas per week, and they give as much flour as they can eat while the virniki collect vira. Here is Yaroslav's charter for you.

43. And here is the charter for bridgemen: if they pave the bridge, then take a foot for work, and from each abutment of the bridge, a foot; if the dilapidated bridge is repaired by several daughters, 3rd, 4th or 5th, then also.

"Russian Truth" is a legal document of Ancient Rus', a collection of all laws and legal norms that existed in the 10th-11th centuries.

Russkaya Pravda is the first legal document in Ancient Rus', which combined all the old legal acts, princely decrees, laws and other administrative documents issued by various authorities. "Russkaya Pravda" is not only an important part of the history of law in Russia, but also an important cultural monument, as it reflects the life and life of Ancient Rus', its traditions, principles of housekeeping, and is also an important source of information about the written culture of the state, which that moment was just beginning.

The composition of the document includes the norms of inheritance, commercial, criminal law, as well as the principles of procedural law. Russkaya Pravda was at that time the main written source of information about social, legal and economic relations on the territory of Rus'.

The origin of Russkaya Pravda today raises quite a few questions among scientists. The creation of this document is associated primarily with the name - the prince collected all the legal documents and decrees that existed in Rus' and issued a new document around 1016-1054. Unfortunately, not a single copy of the original Russkaya Pravda has survived, only later censuses, so it is difficult to say exactly about the author and the date of creation of Russkaya Pravda. Russkaya Pravda was rewritten several times by other princes, who made improvements to it according to the realities of the time.

The main sources of "Russian Truth"

The document exists in two editions: short and lengthy (more complete). The short version of Russkaya Pravda includes the following sources:

• Pocon virny - determining the order of feeding princely servants, vira collectors (created in the 1020s or 1030s);
• Truth of Yaroslav (created in 1016 or in the 1030s);
• Truth of the Yaroslavichs (does not have an exact date);
• A lesson for bridge builders is the regulation of the wages of builders, bridge builders, or, according to some versions, bridge builders (created in the 1020s or 1030s).

The short edition contained 43 articles and described the new state traditions that appeared shortly before the creation of the document, as well as a number of older legislative norms and customs (in particular, the rules of blood feud). The second part contained information about fines, violations, etc. The legal foundations in both parts were built on a quite common principle for that time - the class principle. This meant that the severity of the crime, the measure of punishment or the size of the fine depended not so much on the crime itself, but on what class the person who committed it belonged to. In addition, different categories of citizens had different rights.

A later version of Russkaya Pravda was supplemented by the charter of Yaroslav Vladimirovich and Vladimir Monomakh, the number of articles in it was 121. The expanded edition of Russkaya Pravda was used in court, civil and ecclesiastical, to determine punishment and settle commodity-money litigations and relations in general .

In general, the norms of criminal law described in Russkaya Pravda correspond to the norms adopted in many early state societies of that period. The death penalty is still preserved, but the typology of crimes is expanding significantly: murder is now divided into intentional and unintentional, different degrees of damage are indicated, from intentional to unintentional, fines are levied not at a single rate, but depending on the severity of the offense. It is worth noting that Russkaya Pravda describes fines in several currencies at once for the convenience of the judicial process in different territories.

The document also contained a lot of information about the process of legal proceedings. Russkaya Pravda determined the basic principles and norms of procedural legislation: where and how court hearings should be held, how criminals should be kept during and before trial, how they should be tried, and how the sentence should be executed. In this process, the class principle mentioned above is preserved, which implies that more noble citizens could count on more lenient punishment and more comfortable conditions of detention. Russkaya Pravda also provided for the procedure for collecting a monetary debt from a debtor, prototypes of bailiffs appeared who dealt with similar issues.

Another side described in Russkaya Pravda is social. The document defined different categories of citizens and their social status. So, all citizens of the state were divided into several categories: noble people and privileged servants, which included princes, combatants, then came ordinary free citizens, that is, those who were not dependent on the feudal lord (all residents of Novgorod were also included here), and dependent people were considered the lowest category - peasants, serfs, serfs and many others who were in the power of feudal lords or the prince.

The meaning of "Russian Truth"

Russkaya Pravda is one of the most important sources of information about the life of Ancient Rus' at the earliest period of its development. The presented legislative norms allow us to get a fairly complete picture of the traditions and way of life of all segments of the population of the Russian land. In addition, Russkaya Pravda became one of the very first legal documents that was used as the main national judicial code.

The creation of the "Russian Pravda" laid the foundations for the future legal system, and when creating new sudebniks in the future (in particular, the creation of the Sudebnik of 1497), it always remained the main source, which was taken by lawmakers as a basis not only as a document containing all the acts and laws, but also as an example of a single legal document. Russkaya Pravda for the first time officially fixed class relations in Rus'.

a set of ancient Russian law of the era of the Kievan state and the feudal fragmentation of Rus'. Has come down to us in the lists of the XIII - XVIII centuries. in three editions: Short, Long, Abbreviated. The first information about the ancient Russian system of law is contained in the treaties of the Russian princes with the Greeks, where the so-called "Russian law" is reported. Apparently, we are talking about some kind of legislative monument that has not come down to us. The most ancient legal monument is "Russkaya Pravda". It consists of several parts, the oldest part of the monument - "Ancient Truth", or "The Truth of Yaroslav", is a charter issued by Yaroslav the Wise in 1016. It regulated the relations of princely combatants with the inhabitants of Novgorod and among themselves. In addition to this charter, the Russkaya Pravda includes the so-called Pravda of the Yaroslavichs (adopted in 1072) and the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh (adopted in 1113). All these monuments form a fairly extensive code that regulates the life of a person of that time. It was a class society in which the traditions of the tribal system were still preserved. However, they are already beginning to be replaced by other ideas. So, the main social unit, which is spoken of in Russkaya Pravda, is not the genus, but the "world", i.e. community. In "Russian Truth" for the first time such a widespread custom of a tribal society as blood feud was abolished. Instead, the dimensions of the vira are defined, i.e. compensation for the murdered, as well as the punishment that is imposed on the murderer. Vira was paid by the whole community, on whose land the body of the murdered was found. The highest fine was imposed on the murder of a fireman, the head of the community. It was equal to the cost of 80 oxen or 400 rams. The life of a serf or a serf was valued 16 times cheaper. Robbery, arson or horse theft were considered the most serious crimes. They were punished by the loss of all property, expulsion from the community or imprisonment. With the advent of written laws, Rus' rose one more step in its development. Relations between people began to be regulated by laws, which made them more orderly. This was necessary because, along with the growth of economic wealth, the life of each person became more complicated, and it was necessary to protect the interests of each individual.

Russian Pravda, which was formed on the basis of the laws that existed in the 10th century, included the norms of legal regulation that arose from customary law, that is, folk traditions and customs.

The content of Russian Truth testifies to the high level of development of economic relations, rich economic ties regulated by law. “True,” wrote the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, “it strictly distinguishes the return of property for storage - “luggage” from a “loan”, a simple loan, a favor out of friendship, from giving money in growth from a certain agreed percentage, a short-term interest-bearing loan from a long-term and, finally, a loan from a trading commission and a contribution to a trading company from an indefinite profit or dividend.Truth further gives a certain procedure for collecting debts from an insolvent debtor in the liquidation of his affairs, knows how to distinguish between malicious and unfortunate insolvency. credit - is well known to Russkaya Pravda. Guests, non-resident or foreign merchants, "launched goods" for native merchants, i.e. sold them on credit. The merchant gave the guest, a merchant-countryman who traded with other cities or lands, "kunas to buy ", on a commission for the purchase of goods for him on the side; the capitalist entrusted the merchant with" kuns and guests ", for turnover from the profit."

At the same time, as can be seen from reading the economic articles of Russkaya Pravda, profit, the pursuit of profit, is not the goal of ancient Russian society. The main economic idea of ​​Russkaya Pravda is the desire to provide fair compensation, remuneration for the damage caused in the conditions of self-governing collectives. Truth itself is understood as justice, and its implementation is guaranteed by the community and other self-governing collectives.

The main function of Russian Pravda is to ensure a fair, from the point of view of folk tradition, solution of problems that arose in life, to ensure a balance between communities and the state, to regulate the organization and payment of labor for the performance of public functions (collecting vira, building fortifications, roads and bridges).

Russian Truth was of great importance in the further development of Russian law. It formed the basis of many norms of the international treaty of Novgorod and Smolensk (XII-XIII centuries), the Novgorod and Pskov judicial charters, Code of Laws of 1497, etc.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

V. O. Klyuchevsky

Russian Truth

Klyuchevsky V. O. Works. In 9 vols. T. VII. Special courses (continued) M., "Thought", 1989. Russian Pravda in our ancient writing is found in various editions with large variations in the text and even with an unequal number and order of articles. But it is curious that if you do not pay attention to minor differences, then all the lists of Russkaya Pravda can be divided into two editions: in the first there are few articles, and they are all short, in the second there are many more articles, and some of them are set out more extensively, more developed. One more observation can be made, the most important for the study of Russian Pravda: if we take the oldest lists of Pravda, it turns out that they come across in ancient chronicles, and lengthy lists - only in ancient helmsmen. This difference first of all raises the question why the Truth of a short edition appears in literary monuments, and the Truth of a lengthy edition is found in monuments that had practical significance, what were the ancient helmsmen who served as the basis of church legal proceedings, who in general were sources of church law. The first answer that can be offered to this question, of course, is that the Truth of a lengthy edition was of practical importance in court, and the Truth was short, it was not of such importance, they were not judged by it. I am more inclined to the assumption that the short edition is an abbreviation of the lengthy one, made by one or another compiler of the annals. In the annals, Pravda is usually placed after Yaroslav's struggle with his brother Svyatopolk, when he sent home the Novgorodians who helped him, and gave them some kind of charter. The chroniclers, thinking that this charter was Russian Truth, usually place it after this news; not wanting to write it all out, they cut it themselves. That is why the helmsmen, like legal codes that had practical significance, placed the lengthy Truth without reducing it. The oldest list of the lengthy Truth is found in the Novgorod helmsman of the 12th century (the so-called Synodal list). This helmsman was painted at the end of the 13th century under the Novgorod Archbishop Clement and during the reign of Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich (son of Alexander Nevsky) in Novgorod. Clement was consecrated as a bishop in 1276, died in 1299; book. Dmitry died in 1294; this means that the helmsman could have been written in 1276-1294. The list of the edition I named, placed in the Sofia helmsman, is older than all the lists of the short edition. Our helmsmen, as you know, are a translation of the Byzantine Nomocanon, which contained a set of church rules and laws relating to the church. These rules and laws were followed by some additional articles or special codes compiled at a later time. Among them, for example, belongs to Prochiron - a set compiled under the emperor Basil the Macedonian in the 8th century. All these articles were placed as appendices in our translated helmsmen, but in addition to these articles, our helmsmen placed Russian articles or Slavic alterations of Byzantine articles in the appendix. Among the Russian articles that served as additions to the helmsmen is the lengthy edition of Russkaya Pravda. This is the basis of my assumption that Russian Truth was compiled for the needs of an ecclesiastical judge, who in ancient times was obliged to sort out many ordinary, non-ecclesiastical cases. Systematic collections of articles of ecclesiastical-legal content, called Righteous Measures, had a close significance to the helmsmen in the ancient Russian church court. These are not helmsmen, but they contained additional articles of Greek and Russian law to helmsmen: they serve as the most important guide in the study of church law. These Measures of the Righteous also contained the Russian Pravda in a lengthy edition, which also supports the idea of ​​the special significance of this particular edition of the Russian Pravda. In the library of the Trinity Sergius Monastery there is one such Meryl of a very old letter, if I am not mistaken, the oldest of the Russian Meryls. From this measure of the righteous, Russian Truth is taken according to the Trinity list, which we will read. This list is of the same edition as the list of the Sophia helmsman, only differs from the latter in the arrangement of the articles. So, we will begin to read the Russian Pravda according to the oldest edition, which had a business, practical value, judging by the monuments in which we meet it, that is, according to the helmsmen and the Righteous Measures. Turning to reading, I must explain its purpose. For enrichment with information on the history of Russian law, of course, it cannot be of great importance to get acquainted with one of the many monuments of ancient law, moreover, with such a monument that reflects this law with dubious fidelity. The purpose of our study is pedagogical, technical: whatever the monument we take, it is difficult; studying it, we will make an attempt to study one of the most difficult historical monuments.

TRANSLATION AND REMARKS TO ARTICLES OF LONG RUSSIAN Pravda
(according to the Trinity list)

1. Court of Yaroslavov about the murder. Russian law. If a free man kills a free man, then avenge the murdered [father or son] to his own brother, or cousin, or nephew from his brother; if there is no one to take revenge, then collect 80 hryvnia kunas for the murdered person, when it is a princely boyar or one of the princely palace clerks (butler or stableman). If the murdered person is a simple inhabitant of the Russian land, or a servant of the yard, or a merchant, or a boyar yard clerk, or a bailiff, or a church person, or an inhabitant of the Novgorod land, then recover 40 hryvnia kunas for the murdered. Title "Court Yaroslavl Volodimerich" refers only to the first article, because the second article begins with the words: "According to Yaroslav ..." "Pravda Russian"- it is said in contrast to the previous monuments of Byzantine law, which were placed in the helmsmen or in the Merila of the righteous. "Brother Needs"- should be read as one word - "bratuchado". The nominative case of the singular is "bratuchado", the nominative case of the plural is "bratuchada". In other monuments we meet the form - "two brothers", that is, the children of two brothers relative to each other, or cousins. Apparently, this is not a Russian book term, but a South Slavic one. I came across this word in a Serbian helmsman of the 13th century; it corresponds to the Greek εναδελφός. However, ἀνεψιός also means nephew; ἀνεψιός - originally only "cousin", but then it also received the meaning of "nephew". And we gave the form "bratuchado" the meaning of a nephew, more precisely, a niece in the form of "brother". In the original sense, the form "bratuchado" appears in some translated monuments of the 15th century, where it corresponded to the Greek ἔταῖρος - comrade. In Russian Pravda, this term has its real meaning - cousin. To denote further kinship, i.e., second cousins, fourth cousins, etc., numbers were added, they said: second brother, third brother, etc. We also meet the same in folk terminology: brothers, brothers in the first, t i.e. cousins, second brothers, i.e., second cousins, etc. 2. But after Yaroslav, his sons gathered - Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod with their advisers Kosnyachk, Pereneg and Nikifor and canceled the death penalty for the murder , but they established a ransom in money, in everything else, as Yaroslav judged, so did his sons decide to judge. The congress referred to in this article was probably in the 60s or early 70s, because one of the three princes mentioned here - Svyatoslav - died in 1076, one of the boyars mentioned here - - Kosnyachko - in 1068 he was a Kiev thousand; that is why we meet three boyars with three princes - all three [were] thousands. "Paki" in Russian Pravda, some opposition, restriction, reservation has the meaning. 3. About murder. If they kill the princely boyar by attacking him with robbery, but the murderers do not find it, then the virulence penalty - 80 hryvnias - is paid by the society in whose district the murdered person will be raised; if it is a commoner, then a penalty of 40 hryvnias is paid. 4. What kind of society will begin to pay the wild (general) virus, pay it at what age it can, and pay it when there is no killer. If a murderer from the same society turns out to be present, then the society either helps him, since he also paid extra for others according to the social layout, or pays a general vira, that is, a fee according to the worldly layout, in 40 hryvnias, and golovnichestvo pays all the killer himself, contributing to the virus only his share of the layout. But even for a murderer who invested in society's payments for others, society pays according to the layout only when he committed the murder in a fight or at a feast. 5. About an attack by robbery without a quarrel. Whoever begins to attack by robbery without a quarrel, society does not pay vira for such a robber, but gives him to the prince with everything, with his wife and children and with property, for sale into slavery on a foreign side. 6. Whoever has not invested in paying the general vira for others, society does not help him in paying the vira for himself, but he alone pays it. Articles 3 to 6 present many difficulties in spite of the seeming simplicity of presentation. These difficulties stem from the acceptance of the codifier with which he proceeded to present these articles. Starting to talk about one thing, he remembered another and immediately posted what he remembered. Thus, for example, in Article 4 the codifier wants to determine the procedure for paying the public vira. As soon as there was talk of the virus from society, and not from the murderer, the compiler of Pravda remembered that society does not pay all at once, but over several years. Along with this, the idea of ​​a virus from society with the participation of a killer arose. I had to explain what wild vira means, when it was possible, etc. Thus, in this 4th article, a whole series of subordinate clauses appeared, obscuring the meaning of the entire article. "Virevnuyu pay." Other lists read "virnoe", that is, they understand vira, payment for the murdered. Compare it. were, also compound wergeld. This is the payment charged for the murder from the whole rope. "Verv". The interpreters understand this term in the sense of a rural community, referring to the ancient custom of measuring the land with a rope - a rope. But after all, a city community that was not connected by communal land ownership was also called a vervue, and what is the connection between the tool for measuring the land and the name of the community, what kind of person lived on this land? Moreover, this word in the sense of a zemstvo community would be found in our ancient monuments, except for Russkaya Pravda. Verv in Russian Pravda is not a rope, but the Serbian "varva" - a crowd ("vrvlenie" - heating). So, vrva, verv - the same as the Little Russian "mass", "rural world"; but this value is not original. In Serbian monuments we meet the word "varvnik" - a relative, among the Khorutans - a matchmaker. So, the word "varvnik" meant a member of the community, while the members of the community were related by blood, it was a tribal community. This explains the etymology of the word "rope". The rope, of course, is an instrument of communication, but originally it meant a kindred union (souz - ouzhik - relative). So, the point is not in the rope for measuring the earth, but in the original meaning in which the word "rope" was used. The rope is a union, the warhead is an ally precisely by kinship. In Russian Pravda, this word "rope" was used not in its original, but in a derivative sense, in the sense of the world, the bulk. So, the codifier of Russian Truth, perhaps, knew what the human union was called in the South, but did not want to know what it was called in Rus'. So, the rope is the district, the bulk, the world; but which one - urban or rural? In the 21st article of the Academic List of Russian Pravda we read that Izyaslav took 80 hryvnias from the Dorogobuzh residents for the murder of his old groom. Dorogobuzh is a small town in the Kyiv region. This means that here the whole city or not the whole city is understood by the vervue: it was an urban world or a community. If a murder was committed in a village, then the volost paid the vir. To judge the size of the rope, one can cite the indication of the Novgorod Chronicle of 1209. The Novgorodians were angry with their posadnik for his untruths, including the fact that he charged all sorts of vira from merchants. This means that the merchants in Novgorod were a separate community - a line. We know that in Novgorod there was a "merchant's station", which was the rope. The name of the vervi for an urban or rural society is not taken from the Russian language, but transferred from the Slavic South. Ancient Rus' knew the word "rope" as a rope, but not as a union. The interpreters of Russian Truth and therefore bring the word "verv" closer to the South Slavic scientific term "zadruga". South Slavic lawyers, and in their words we also call another union of several kindred families living together on one household, with common property. Zadruga consisted of several siblings or cousins, in general of several lateral relatives, with their descendants. Thus, a zadruga differed from a family in the narrow sense of the word; scientists called this last natural family - a father and a wife with children - in contrast to a friend - a kindred partnership - "inokoshtina". Both terms come from Serbian literature; but the Serbian people do not know either zadruga or inokoshtina. Zadruga, as a union of relatives who lived in a common household, is found in ancient South Slavic monuments, but with a different name. This union in one monument (in Dubrovnik) of the 13th century. called communitas fratrum simul habitantium. In Dushan's law book, another name is given to another name. This lawyer determines the legal liability of relatives living together. In one article we read it: brother for brother, father for son, relative for relative is responsible for every crime; but who are separated from the criminal, live in their homes and did not participate in the crime, do not pay anything, except for the one who participated in the crime: he pays for him house (kukya). This article forces researchers to raise the question: is our rope a Serbian zadruga? But dorogobuzh residents, which are discussed in the 21st article of the Academic List, are they really the same as the Serbian house - kukya? Why is there no mention of this rope either in modern Pravda monuments or in those that followed it? In the charter of the Smolensk prince Rostislav in 1150, "viral dues" were levied from graveyards and cities, and a graveyard, like a city, is not a kindred union. Among the Serbs, the responsibility for the crime fell on everyone who lived in house, but with us it could fall on a union that was built in a completely different way. Our rope was not a forced union; if a member of the Serbian Houses renounced the common vira, he would have to separate himself from the kindred union - kuki, establish his own special house: he cannot live in kuki without paying for others; and in our country it was possible to live in society without participating in public payments, as can be seen from further (after the third) articles of Russian Pravda. Bogisic proved not so long ago that the Serbian family and the zadruga are essentially one and the same; they differ only statistically, in the number of relatives-workers: a more extensive kindred union was called "kukya zadruzhna", a closer one - "kukya inokostna". The Serbian family was not based on the legal principle of common family property, which was not considered the personal property of the father, and thus did not differ from a friend, which was based on the agreement of relatives to live together, in one household. Until now, not the slightest trace of such a principle has been found in our monuments of ancient law. Starting with Russkaya Pravda, the father is, of course, the owner of the family property, and this is clearly confirmed by the articles of Russkaya Pravda on inheritance. This means that if there was no foundation, there could not be a building built on it; if there was no view of family property as the property of all family members, then there could be no family in the Serbian sense of the word. This explains the meaning of the word "rope". When the foreign codifier began to describe the Russian union, bound by responsibility for the crimes of its members, and did not find a suitable term, he remembered that in the South Slavic lands such a union is kukya. But after all, this is one house, accommodating several families, while in Rus' it is a territorial union, covering several houses and even settlements. Moreover, kukya is a kindred union. Probably, this forced the codifier of Russian Pravda to call the Russian public union the Serbian term "verv", which, embodying the concept of kinship, perhaps at that time already gave a vague idea of ​​the mass: "verv" in the Serbian language means both "rope" and "community". 4-- 5th articles. "Wild Vira" is explained as vira for an abandoned corpse, and the very word "wild" is derived from the Greek unst. verb "ἔδικον, indefinite δικεῑν - to throw. Then this term approaches "divy" - "ἄγριος". But it is difficult to explain the comparison of the term "wild" in this sense with the word "vira". "wild". Wild animal - means an animal untamed, not domestic, belonging to anyone who catches it. Wild - no one, general, not belonging to anyone in particular; wild vira, therefore, is general, not falling on an individual , but for all; the epidemic vira. Wild vira was paid in two cases: 1) it was caused by a murder, the culprit of which was not found; 2) it was caused by a murder, the culprit of which belonged to the society that paid the vir and was known to him. Russkaya Pravda gives an indirect indication that in this last case the murderer was not extradited because he had previously participated in the payment of wild vira (cf. Article 6.) Instead of paying wild vira, society sometimes bought it off with a certain amount. and during the time of Russkaya Pravda, it is confirmed by one remark in the letter of the Smolensk prince Rostislav in 1150. Listing the income from which the tithe went in favor of the bishop, the prince indicates in his list the district with an extremely strange income. These are Dedichs, from whom the prince received tribute and viru 15 hryvnias. Vira's proximity to tribute shows that this is a direct and permanent tax, which, in combination with tribute, was not even equal to a simple vira. Here, probably, there is a vira in the sense of a ransom, for which the prince left the Dedichs themselves to manage and judge criminal cases. "Issue and everything"(5th article). Here by "everything" is meant not only the family, but also the property of the robber. The words indicate "flow and plunder" - exile and confiscation. "Potochiti" - from "teku" - expel, exile; plunder - the plunder of another's property, committed according to the law, according to the verdict of the court. In this sense, the word "robbery" was used in the language of Russian Pravda; it was not used then in the sense of taking someone else's property with the knowledge of the owner and against his will. These terms of Russian Pravda fully correspond to the expression of one Norwegian law: De jure Norwegiс homicidium celans puniebatur et exilio and confiscationebonorum. 7. Here are the customs duties, which were under Yaroslav. Give the vira-collector 7 buckets of malt for a week, in addition, a ram or weed of meat or 2 nogatas (5 kunas) in money; on Wednesday - kun and on cheese week - cheese; the same on Friday, on fast days - 2 chickens a day; moreover, 7 baked loaves for the whole week; 7 measures of millet, the same amount of peas, 7 heads of salt. All this goes to the vira collector with an assistant. They have four horses; give them oats, how much they eat. Moreover, from the vira of 40 hryvnias to the vira collector - 8 hryvnias and 10 kunas of the pass; and to the bailiff - 12 eyelids and a hryvnia of the loan. 8. If the vira is 80 hryvnias, then the collector of the vira - 16 hryvnias and 10 kunas of the relay and 12 eyelids - the bailiff, and at the first inquiry of the deposit - hryvnia, at the very collection - 3 hryvnias. Transfer hryvnia. A fee for transferring horses, for driving an official on a journey to collect vira. Rough hryvnia. As you know, the closer called witnesses to the court, who were referred to by the parties during the trial, receiving double runs for this against what he received for calling witnesses before the trial. But if the parties, referring to the witnesses during the trial, reconciled until they were called, then the closer, who prepared to go for the witnesses, took (according to the charter Solovki charter of 1548) "debris", as if a fee for the fact that he was in vain forced to sit on a horse and then get off it. Perhaps the hryvnia had a similar meaning in Russkaya Pravda. This is the duty of the sweeper-closer in the case when he came on a case of murder, which turned out to be not subject to payment of the virus (Compare article 15th). 9. Golovnichestvo. For the murder of a courtyard princely servant, or a groom, or a cook - 40 hryvnias. 10. For the prince's butler or groom - 80 hryvnia. 11. For the princely clerk of agriculture and agriculture - 12 hryvnias; for a princely hired worker - 5 hryvnias, the same amount for a boyar clerk and a hired worker. 12. For an artisan and an artisan - 12 hryvnia. 13. For a commoner and a serf - 5 hryvnias, for a serf - 6 hryvnias. 14. For the uncle and the nurse - 12 hryvnia, whether they will be serfs or free. 15. About a murder without evidence. Who will be accused of murder, without direct evidence, he must present 7 witnesses who, under oath, will divert the accusation from the defendant; if the defendant is a Varangian or another foreigner, then two witnesses are sufficient. Vira is not paid even when they find only the bones or the corpse of a person about whom no one knows who he is and what his name was. 16. About the payment for the dismissal of the charge of murder. Whoever absolves himself of the charge of murder, he pays the investigator one hryvnia of the discharge, and the accuser pays another hryvnia and 9 kunas of help for the charge of murder. 17. If the defendant, whom the plaintiff accuses of murder, begins to look for witnesses and does not find, then order him to justify himself by means of an iron test; so it is in all such suits for theft, when there is no direct evidence. Force the defendant to be tested with iron against his will, if the claim is not less than 1/2 hryvnia of gold; if it is less, but not less than 2 hryvnia kunas, then test with water; if the claim is less than 2 hryvnia kunas, then (the defendant or the plaintiff) must take an oath for the money. Slander(Articles 15-17th). Now this word means "vain accusation", "slander"; in Old Russian, slander was a charge on suspicion without obvious evidence. In the absence of a "face", or red-handed, the accusation had to be justified by circumstantial evidence. However, any claim should not be considered a slander, although the word "claim" means "search for a person or red-handed" (hence - evidence); slander is a lawsuit on suspicion without direct, obvious evidence. This term comes from the verb "to rivet", which first meant "to accuse", and then - "to accuse falsely". But before the legal meaning of the verb "rivet" was used in the sense of "forge", and the Russian language still knows such a meaning (rivet). In an old translation of the 13th century. The words of Gregory the Theologian (XI century) we find many Old Russian inserts. In one of them we find the following expression: "in vain to rivet silver," that is, in vain forges silver. This ancient meaning of the word gives us its legal explanation. The accuser chained the accused in iron, arrested him or asked the judge to make an arrest. Arrest is the original legal meaning of the word "slander". We find the same change of meanings in the Latin word "clausa": "claudere" means "forge", "arrest"; "clausula" - a request that ended in a petition, "clausa" "means also" legal nit-picking "," slander ". Plaintiffs in Russkaya Pravda both parties are called - the plaintiff and the defendant; hence the expression "both plaintiffs" ("both plaintiffs"). Probably, this term comes from the word "isto" - capital and means litigants for a certain amount. Is it true- here it is understood in the sense of the judgment of God as judicial evidence. The ancient Russian process of testing with red-hot iron is little known to us; more and more it is said about the test by water (the drowning man justified himself). The easiest type of God's judgment was "rota", that is, an oath. Claims of at least 1/2 hryvnia of gold were proved by means of a test by fire or red-hot iron; claims from 1/4 hryvnia of gold to 2 hryvnia kunas were proved by water test; claims below 2 hryvnia kunas - by company. Rumors- here are the witnesses, who represented one of the types of God's judgment. They were called in order to "bring a company" - an oath to cleanse the defendant from the slander raised against him. Shelf. In Russkaya Pravda there is an article (99th article according to the Trinity List), which sets out help rates - "ourotsi judiciary". A lesson is a tax, a fixed amount determined by law. And "whom to help, - we read in this article, - pays 4 kunas". This payment goes to the youth or the sweeper, i.e., to the bailiff (assistant of the faithful). So, there were litigations where someone who received help from the court paid; this is slanderous litigation. Assistance, most likely, consisted in summoning the defendant to court and collecting evidence against him at the request of the plaintiff. This term has survived to the present day. In the acts of South-Western Rus' of the XV-XVI centuries. we find an indication that the plaintiff paid the assistance to the judge when the case was decided in his favor. If the defendant cleared himself, rejected the charge of murder, then he paid the bailiff "estimated" acquittal hryvnia. 18. Whoever strikes with a sword without drawing it, or with a sword hilt, he pays 12 hryvnias of sale for this offense. 19. If he draws a sword, but does not hurt, then he pays hryvnia kun. 20. Whoever hits someone with a stick, or a bowl, or a horn, or the blunt side of a sword, he pays 12 hryvnia fines. If the victim, not having endured, in revenge himself strikes the offender with a sword, this should not be blamed on him. 21. If someone cuts his hand, so that the hand falls off or dries up, or cuts off his leg, or gouges out his eye, or cuts off his nose, then he pays a half-wire - 20 hryvnias, and for a wounded man for injury - 10 hryvnias. 22. Whoever cuts off someone's finger, pays 3 hryvnia fines to the prince, and to the wounded - hryvnia kun. 23. Beating Court. If a person appears in court with blood or bruises, then he does not need to put witnesses; the accused pays 3 hryvnia fines. If there are no signs on the face, then he must present witnesses who are obliged to testify in one word with the plaintiff; then the instigator pays 60 kunas to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff comes with signs of beatings, and witnesses appear who prove that he himself started the fight, then the beatings will be credited to him for recovering from him as the instigator. 24. Whoever hits someone with a sword, but does not kill him to death, pays 3 hryvnia fines, and to the wounded - a hryvnia for the wound, and what else is needed for treatment. If he kills him to death, he pays the virus. 25. If someone pushes another away from himself, or pulls him towards him, or hits him in the face, or strikes with a pole and two witnesses show this, the guilty person pays 3 hryvnia fines; if the accused is a Varangian or a kolbyag, then the full number of witnesses must be brought against them, who must take the oath. Full vidoc(to article 25): vidoks are witnesses; here is a dual number, in a collective, collective sense, as in the 6th article - tiuna prince, i.e. tiunya prince. 26. About holop. If a serf hides and the owner reveals this at the auction and no one brings the serf until the third day, and the owner meets him on the third day, then he can directly take his serf, and whoever sheltered him will pay three hryvnia fines. 27. Who will sit on someone else's horse. Who sits on someone else's horse without asking, pays 3 hryvnia fine. 28. Whoever loses a horse, weapon or clothing and declares it on the market and after identifying the missing thing from someone in the district of his own city, he directly takes his thing and exacts 3 hryvnias from the hider for the non-appearance of the thing. Zaklych And commandment. The commandment is a lawsuit, a publication about the loss of a thing. This appearance was made in the market, where the court was also located; it was expressed by the term: "and they will shout at the auction." 29. Whoever finds without appearing what was lost from him, that is, stolen, a horse, clothes or cattle, do not say: “This is mine,” but tell the defendant: “Go to the confrontation, announce from whom you received , with that, stand eye to eye." Whoever is not justified, the guilt of theft will pass to him; then the plaintiff will take his own, and the defendant pays him for what he suffered with the missing thing. 30. If it is a horse thief, give him to the prince for sale into slavery in a foreign land; if he stole from the barn, pay him 3 hryvnia fines to the prince. 31. About the confrontation. If, by reference to a confrontation, the defendants are inhabitants of the same city as the plaintiff, the plaintiff conducts the case to the last reference. If they refer to the inhabitants of the urban district, then the plaintiff only pursues the case until the third link, and the third defendant, having paid the plaintiff money for his thing, deals with this thing until the last link, and the plaintiff waits for the end of the case, and when it reaches the last the defendant, he pays everything: additional remuneration to the plaintiff, and the losses of the third defendant, and fines to the prince. 32. About tatba. Whoever buys something stolen in the market - a horse, clothes or cattle, he must bring two free witnesses or a customs collector to the court; if at the same time it turns out that he does not know from whom he bought the thing, those witnesses should go to the oath for him, the plaintiff take his thing, and say goodbye to the missing person with the thing, and say goodbye to the defendant with the money paid for it, because he does not knows from whom he bought the thing. If later he finds out from whom he bought, he will recover his money from this seller, who will pay both the owner of the thing for what was missing with her, and a penalty to the prince. 33. About holop. Whoever recognizes his stolen serf and detains him must go with this serf until the third confrontation between the bidder and the seller; take his serf from the third defendant, and give him stolen goods - let him go with him until the last exile: after all, a serf is not cattle, you can’t say about him - “I don’t know who I bought it from”, but according to his testimony, it should go to the last defendant and, when the last defendant is found, to return the stolen serf to its owner, the third defendant to take his serf, and the guilty one pays the damages. 34. Pay a fine of 12 hryvnia to the prince for stealing a serf. 35. About the face-to-face rate. And from one city district to another, there can be no reference to a confrontation, but the defendant must present witnesses or a customs collector under whom he bought the stolen item. Then the plaintiff takes his thing, and with everything else that he lost, he must say goodbye, while the defendant must say goodbye to the money paid for the thing. Code(to articles 29-35). This word is explained as a removal from oneself of suspicion of theft. But in Article 29 we come across an expression addressed to both litigants - "come together", i.e., agree to a confrontation. So, the set is a confrontation. A confrontation was made by referring the accused of theft to the one from whom he acquired the stolen item. This link led to a confrontation between the former and the latter. When the link was justified, the second defendant, in turn, had to show from whom he acquired the stolen thing, and if he indicated the seller, a secondary confrontation took place. So the code continued until the defendant, who could no longer show from whom he acquired the thing. This last defendant admitted tatem. This whole process was called the vault; but every moment of it, every confrontation was also called a vault; hence the expressions - the third code, the final code. 36. About tatba. Whoever is killed at the barn, or in some other place of theft, is not punished for this, as for the murder of a dog; if they keep the thief alive until dawn, take him to the princely court - to court; if the thief is killed, and third-party people saw him live tied up, then the killer pays 12 hryvnia fines for this. 37. If a thief who steals cattle from a barn or anything from a barn is caught, a fine of 3 hryvnia and 30 kunas shall be collected from that thief; if several thieves stole together, to collect 3 hryvnias and 30 kunas from each. 38. About the missing livestock. If cattle, whether sheep, goats, or pigs, are stolen from the field, the caught thief pays 60 kunas in fine; if there were a lot of thieves, take 60 kunas from each. 39. If they steal sheaves from the threshing floor or threshed bread from the pit, no matter how many thieves there are, take 3 grivnas and 30 kuna fines from each. If at the same time the stolen goods turn out to be available, the owner will take his own and exact another 1/2 hryvnia from the thief for each year, if the stolen (cattle) was lost from the owner for a long time. "He's dead"(to Article 39). This second half of the article hardly means what the first half is about. After all, we are talking about remuneration for the owner for the loss he suffered from the theft of things, and about the return of this latter as red-handed. But was it possible to look for sheaves in a few years? Here, of course, cattle was meant, as in Article 38, as it was further discussed about it (Article 40). 40. If the stolen property is not available in cash, instead of it the plaintiff receives a lesson payment: for the prince's horse - 3 hryvnias, for the human - 2 hryvnias. 41. Lesson payment for stealing livestock. For a mare - 60 kunas, for an ox - a hryvnia (50 kunas), for a cow - 40 kunas, for a three-year-old (mare or cow) - 30 kunas, for a two-year-old - 1 / 2 hryvnias (25 kunas), for a calf - 5 kunas, for a pig - 5 kunas, for a piglet - a legged kuna, for a sheep - 5 kunas, for a ram - a legged kuna, for an unbroken stallion - 1 hryvnia kuna, for a foal - 6 feet, for cow's milk - 6 feet. At these fixed prices, plaintiffs are paid for stolen cattle instead of red-handed, when the thieves are simple free people who pay fines to the prince for theft. 42. If the thieves are serfs of princes, boyars or monasteries, who are not punished with fines to the prince, because they are not free people, double the reward for serf theft. According to these articles (41-42) it is possible to determine the market ratio of the hryvnia kuna to our rubles, if we compare the previous and current prices for livestock. I take the average prices of the southern provinces for 1882. The average price of a working horse this year is 55 rubles; the price of an ox [was] the same (55 rubles); a dairy cow cost 43 rubles; for a sheep they paid 3 rubles. 50 kop. At the price of horses, the hryvnia kuna was equal to 46 rubles. [(55x50): 60=45.82], for the price of oxen - 55 rubles, for the price of cows - 54 rubles, for the price of sheep - 43 rubles; the average figure is approximately 50 rubles. So, simple vira = 40x50=2000 of our rubles. 43. About a debt claim. If the lender demands payment of the debt, and the debtor begins to lock himself up, the lender is obliged to present witnesses who will go to the oath, and then he will recover his money; and if the debtor has evaded payment for many years, he will pay another 3 hryvnias of remuneration for the losses caused by this to the lender. 44. If the merchant entrusts money to another for the purchase of goods or for turnover from the profit, then the guarantor does not collect his money through witnesses, the presence of witnesses is not required here, but let the defendant take an oath if he begins to lock himself up, He took the oath when transferring money for turnover to another , obviously, not the guarantor of money, but the one who accepted them. It was a "partnership in faith" - one gave money to another, and the law was on the side of the one who provided the service. Otherwise there would be strange abuses; the law says: do not trust the one who begins to lock himself in the commission he has taken on; and since it was a fellowship of faith, no witnesses were needed. So, in the 101st article of the Pskovskaya Pravda we read: "And whoever has on whom to look for trade, or bail, or something named, otherwise judge that will on whom they soak (seek. - IN. K.), wants to climb into the field, or he will lay a cross. "It means that the one who received the order decided the case, and not the guarantor. The accused could go to a duel with the guarantor or let him kiss the cross, which replaced the duel. Russian Pravda is content with the oath of the person who received the order; we are not talking about a crime against the guarantor, but about the careless gullibility of the latter. On depositing property. Whoever gives someone his property for safekeeping, witnesses are not needed; if the owner starts looking for more than he gave, then the custodian of the property must go to the oath, saying: "You only gave me so much, no more." After all, the defendant did good to the plaintiff by burying his property. 46. About growth. Whoever gives money on interest, or honey on the back, or bread on powder, he is obliged to have witnesses at the same time; and as he agreed, so he should take height. Rez- interest on money given in growth. "A third"- by two or three, i.e. 50%. We find proof of this in the treaty of the Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy with Vladimir Serpukhovsky. According to this charter, the princes had to pay the Horde exit, and the share of the specific prince was equal to one third. “And if we stop paying tribute to the Khan, then to me,” says the Grand Duke, “two lots of tribute, and to you a third,” that is, the third lot. If so, then the "third" in this case can be understood as the third - to give money in growth for two or three; this means, for example, for every 2 hryvnias, one had to pay a third, i.e. 50%. Fee for 4th-5th=25%; by the 5th-6th = 20%, etc. This means that by the expression "a third" one cannot understand a third of the capital, as some people think. Growth in ancient Rus' sometimes reached very large sizes: for example, in the 16th century we meet weekly growths above 100% according to the annual calculation. 47. About monthly growth. Monthly growth for a short-term loan is taken by the lender by agreement: if the debt is not paid for a whole year, then calculate the growth from it by two or three (50%), and cancel the monthly growth. If there are no witnesses, and the debt does not exceed three hryvnia kunas, then the lender must go to the oath in his money; if the debt is more than three hryvnia kunas, then tell the lender: "It's my own fault that I got so good - I gave the money without witnesses." 48. Vladimir's charter on growth. After the death of Svyatopolk, Vladimir Vsevolodovich convened his squad in the village of Berestovo - the thousands of Ratibor of Kyiv, Procopius of Belogorodsky, Stanislav Pereyaslavsky, Nazhir, Miroslav, Ivan Chudinovich (boyar Oleg of Chernigov). At this congress, it was decided: whoever borrowed money on the condition of paying growth for two or three, from that take such growth only for 2 years and after that look only for capital; who took such growth for 3 years, he does not look for the capital itself. 49. Whoever takes ten kunas of growth per hryvnia per year (40%), such growth is allowed even with a long-term loan. 51. If a merchant who is already indebted to many, through ignorance, is credited with a commodity by a merchant from another city or a foreign land, and then he begins to refuse to pay him, and in case of forced collection the "first lenders" begin to interfere with payment, such an insolvent debtor should be sold on the market and, first of all, pay the debt in full to the visiting merchant, the rest to be divided among the native lenders; if (instead) the sold one is indebted to the treasury, then first pay the treasury debt in full, and put the rest into division; but the creditor who took high interest from the debtor should not be allowed to partition. 52. A pledged worker for escaping from the owner becomes his complete slave. If he leaves to look for money, declaring it to the owner, or runs away without asking, in order to bring a complaint to the prince or to the court against the owner for an insult, then do not give him into captivity, but give him justice according to the law. 53. If an arable hireling loses his master's marching horse, he is not obliged to pay for it; if the hirer receiving the loan takes a plow and a harrow from the owner, then for the loss (“A horse with a plow and a harrow in connection with the next article.”) He must pay them (“Recovery from the purchase own tool - means, [purchase], not a yard worker, but [has] his own household. "): But he does not pay for the master's thing, which he took, if it disappears without him, when the owner sends him to his work. 54. If steal cattle from the owner from the barn, the hireling is not responsible for that; if the cattle disappears from the hireling during the farm work, or because he did not drive it into the yard and did not shut it up where the owner ordered him, or during the work of the hired worker 55. If in such a case the owner offends the hireling, subjecting him to an unfair penalty and fixing too high a price for the lost thing, and in payment for it he takes away from the renter the loan given to him or his own property, then according to the court, he is obliged to return all this to the renter, and pay a fine of 60 kunas for the offense. If he sells it completely as his complete slave, then the hirer is free from all debts, and the owner pays 12 hryvnia fines for the offense. If the owner beats the hireling for a cause, he is not responsible for it; if he beats him drunk, without knowing why, without guilt, then he must pay for the insult (hire), as they pay for insulting a free man. 57. If a hireling steals something on the side, then his owner can do with him as he wants: maybe, when they find the thief, pay for a horse or something else that he has stolen, and then take the hireling for himself as a complete servitor, maybe sell him , if he does not want to pay for it, and then he must pay in advance for taking the hire of a stranger, whether it be a horse, an ox or some other thing, and take the rest of the money received for the hire. 97. Children of different fathers, but of one mother (who was after two husbands) inherit what each father left to each. If the second husband squanders the property of the first, the father of his stepsons, then his son, after his death, must reward his half-brothers for the embezzlement made by his father, as much as witnesses show, and what then remains of his father's inheritance, he owns. 105. And a fixed-term worker (given to fixed-term work for debt) is not a serf, and [he] should not be turned into servitude either for food or for a dowry (a loan for work). If the worker does not finish the term, he is obliged to reward the owner for what he lent him; if he reaches the deadline, he pays nothing. 112. If someone buys someone else's serf without knowing it, the real master should take his serf, and the buyer should collect money from the master under oath that he bought the serf out of ignorance. If, however, it is revealed that he has obviously bought someone else's serf, then [he] loses his money.

a code of ancient Russian law, which is based mainly on the legal customs of the 10th-11th centuries. and princely jurisprudence. Includes: separate norms "Russian Laws", Pravda Yaroslav the Wise, Pravda Yaroslavichi, Vladimir Monomakh's Charter, etc. Three editions are known: Short, Long, Abbreviated. Regulated: the right of ownership, debt relations, self-mutilation, the right of inheritance, family relations, legal proceedings, the procedure for criminal investigation - inquiry (code) and hearing of witnesses (vidoks). In general, "R.p." reflected the formation of feudalism in Rus': the strengthening of the dependence of rural residents (smerds, serfs, purchases), the deepening of the social differentiation of society, the development of a commodity economy.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

RUSSIAN PRAVDA

the most important source of the law of Ancient Rus', which included the norms of various branches of law. R.P. - a monument of secular law. She did not intrude into ecclesiastical jurisdiction. About the official character of R.P. the references in it testify to the fact that it was adopted at princely congresses. This can also be seen from the subheadings that pointed to the prince who gave this law: "The Court of Yaroslavl Volodimerich", "The Charter of Volodimer Vsevolodich." The main source of R.P. was the legislation of the princes, based on customary law and judicial practice. Since no earlier legal acts of a secular nature were found, R.P. is considered the first written monument of Russian law. It is known in several editions. Scientists who have studied it distinguish a different number of editions. For educational purposes, three editions are traditionally distinguished: Short, Long and Abbreviated (from Long). The shortest edition is recognized as the oldest edition. It was discovered by V.N. Tatishchev and prepared by him for publication in 1738, published by A.L. Schetzer only in 1767. Only two ancient lists of the Short Edition related to the 15th century are known - Academic and Archaeographic. There are also later lists of V.N. Tatishchev related to the 18th century. The text of the document was written without division into articles (the division into articles was carried out by its publishers), only the beginning of the second part was highlighted. The text of the Brief Edition was found in the Novgorod 1st chronicle of the junior edition, which indirectly indicates that by the time it was entered into the chronicle, it was no longer used as a normative act. Researchers distinguish several components in the Brief Edition of R.P.: 1) The Most Ancient Truth (Truth of Yaroslav) - Art. 1-18; 2) The truth of Yaroslavich - Art. 19-28 with addition m and art. 29-41; 3) Pokon virny - art. 42; 4) Charter of bridgemen - art. 43. The Brief Pravda reflects the structure of the early feudal society: there is a clear division into slaves (servants, serfs) and free ones. Among the free, the law distinguishes between a resident of Kievan Rus (Rusyns), a Novgorodian (Slovenian), foreigners (Varangian, Kolbyag), as well as merchants, prince's combatants, outcasts. Researchers call Novgorod (M.N. Tikhomirov, B.A. Rybakov) and Kyiv (S. V. Yushkov) the place where the Short Pravda was adopted. The date of its compilation varies between 1016 and 30 AD. 11th c. As an integral monument of law, it took shape in 1076-93. The truth of the Yaroslavichi is dated by researchers to 1068-73. The first ten articles of this document define the legal status of the prince's patrimony, protect the servants and property of the prince. The following articles do not constitute a single whole and are separately adopted laws. A special place is occupied by the last articles - Pokonvirny and the Charter of Bridgemen. The lengthy edition of R.P. introduced into scientific circulation V.V. Krestinin, who published the text of Pravda in 1788, which was in Kormchey. The extensive edition has been preserved in a large number of lists (more than 100). Its text has come down to us in numerous legal collections, which indicates that this legal act was widely used in practice. The lists of this edition have significant differences. The most ancient are the lists placed in the legal collections known as Pilots and Meril of the Righteous. Pilot, i.e. guiding, guiding, or Nomocanon (law, rule), included the norms of church and secular law. The oldest list with the text of the Extended Edition dates back to the end of the 13th century. and is on the Synodal List of Pilots. The text placed in another legal collection, Merilo the Righteous, is very close to it, which consists of two parts: teachings on righteous judgments and norms from various legal monuments borrowed from Kormcha. Structurally, in the Long Truth, the scribe himself distinguishes two parts: the Court of Yaroslav Vladimirovich and the Charter of Vladimir Vsevolodovich. The sources of the Court of Yaroslav Vladimirovich are called Brief Truth, judicial practice and additional articles. The time of appearance of this part of the Long Truth is considered the end of the 11th - the beginning of the 12th century. The charter of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh consists of a number of laws aimed at reorganizing and reforming existing socio-economic relations. The time of compilation of this part of the Extended Edition is indicated in the text of the law itself - 1113, the place is the village of Berestovo. Researchers distinguish here: the Charter on cuts (percentage), the Bankrut Charter, the Charter on purchases, the Charter on serfs, etc. As a whole, the Extensive Truth took shape by the middle of the 12th century. Abridged edition of R.P. is currently considered as a monument of law of the 14th-15th centuries. Most of the R.P. devoted to criminal and criminal procedure law. Few articles are devoted to the regulation of property relations. All free people, including foreigners, were recognized as subjects of civil law relations. The object of legal regulation were things and actions related either to the transfer of property or to personal services. R.P. familiar with the institutions of property law: possession, ownership, pledge (in its infancy). Many rules are aimed at protecting property rights; from them it can be judged that among the methods of acquiring property rights, transfer (both on the basis of contracts and by inheritance) and the separation of fruits and offspring were known. There was an individual, common and communal property, pledge right. The basis for the emergence of obligations were contracts and offenses, the ways to ensure the fulfillment of obligations were the placement of a guarantor and self-mortgage during procurement. Contracts were concluded orally, in the presence of witnesses. Some articles point to the preservation of rituals and symbols: tying a key to a belt when concluding a personal contract. It is possible to single out contracts that are reflected in Pravda: purchase and sale, commission, loan, purchasing (as a kind of loan), donation, personal hiring, contract, luggage. The obligation of the person who caused the harm to compensate for it was envisaged. In case of committing a crime, the offender was obliged to pay the victims heading (when murdering) or a lesson (when committing another crime). If the damage was caused by a non-criminal act, then all the same, the harm (damage, protor) was compensated to the victim. A number of articles by R.P. dedicated to guardianship of the person and property of a child who has lost both parents, or if the mother remarried after the death of the father. The closest relatives or stepfather were called to fulfill guardianship duties. The duty of the guardian was to take care of the person and property of the ward. R.P. distinguished between statutory inheritance and testamentary inheritance. The form of the will was oral, inheritance by law, as a general rule, was carried out through the male descending line. A significant part of the articles by R.P. devoted to criminal law. The crime was designated as "insult", which meant harm to a person or property. The subject of the crime could only be free. Deliberately committed crimes were singled out, the punishments for them were more severe. If the crime was committed openly, during a fight, the punishment was mitigated. Yaroslav's Pravda allowed the use of blood feud against murderers, but the circle of persons who had this right was limited to their closest relatives. Yaroslavichi abolished blood feud and replaced it with a fine - vira, which could be collected both from the offender himself and from the community, if the latter did not extradite the murderer or robber, or if the severity of the crime allowed the criminal to help pay the vira (the so-called wild vira). The most severe punishment was the flood and plunder. Most scholars are inclined to think that the stream was understood as turning to slavery, and plunder meant the confiscation of property. Robbers, arsonists and horse thieves were punished with flood and plunder. For other crimes, a fine called "sale" was collected. Murder, infliction of bodily harm (maiming, beatings of moderate severity) and insult by action were considered crimes against a person and property. Property crimes are represented by theft of property: robbery, theft - tatba (qualified theft - horse theft); destruction or deliberate damage to someone else's property: arson, damage to someone else's horse; illegal use of someone else's property: riding someone else's horse, malicious bankruptcy. Process according to R.P. was adversarial: both parties had equal rights and were even named the same - plaintiffs. The pre-trial procedure for investigating a crime was regulated: chasing the trail - chasing the criminal in hot pursuit, was carried out by the victim and strangers, and the set - aimed to detect the thief by the stolen item (beginning with a cry: announcements at the auction about stolen property). If the property was discovered, the vault began, i.e. finding out where and from whom the stolen item was purchased. The trial took place in the court of the prince. The prince or his tiun judged, the virnik, the children's, the swordsman, the gridin, and the chit-keeper helped. R.P. names such evidence used in the process: testimonies of eyewitnesses (vidoks), testimonies of witnesses of good or bad fame (rumors), red-handed, the appearance of the victim, ordeals or “judgment of God” (test with iron and water), oath (company). Lit .: Russian Pravda / Ed. DB. Tseekova. T. I. Commentary. M.; L., 1947; Tikhomirov M.N. Research on Russian Truth. M., 1941; Yuzhkov SV. Russian Truth. M., 1950. T.E. Novitskaya