Justice of the Rus

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

The original documents (known to scholars as the Academy copy of the Short Version and the Trinity copy of the Expanded Version) are largely unorganized. The division of both versions into numbered articles—as they appear here—was done by B. D. Grekov (1940), with translation and further editing by George Vernadsky (1947).

Short Version

Articles 1–10 The first ten articles of the Short Version deal with acts of violence, starting with murder and moving toward lesser crimes. In Article 1, Yaroslav (spelled “Iaroslav” in the text) imposed order on the common-law tradition of blood revenge by designating authorized avengers for specified murder cases, and he set a man's wergild (spelled “wergeld” in the document)—the compensation for his death—at forty grivna. The grivna was the main unit of currency in Kievan Rus. It could be denominated in gold, silver, or fur. (The law does not specify which form was intended here or elsewhere. Other monetary units, most being fractions of a grivna, are noted in the document.) The term izgoi, also mentioned in Article 1, has been variously used and translated, depending on context. Generically it refers to an “outsider.” Various interpretations have been offered for its use here, including an orphan, an exiled person, or someone of Ossetian or Circassian origin. The Justice of the Rus includes other references to outsiders. Article 10, for example, granted to Varangians and Kolbiags an exemption to the requirement for an eyewitness. This exemption was a concession to favored minority groups that might not easily be able to persuade a Slav to testify on their behalf. Varangians, of course, formed something of an elite class and provided most of the princes. The term Kolbiag has been interpreted to mean a Scandinavian (like the Varangians) or someone of Baltic or even Turkic background.

The first ten articles outline specific values for a range of common corporal offenses. Comparison of the ascribed payments reveals much about Rus social values and notions of justice. The loss of an arm required the same payment as the loss of life, for example (Article 5), perhaps because both losses meant the end of a warrior. Facial hair, which was a symbol of a man's honor, manliness, and holiness, carried four times the value of a finger (Articles 7 and 8).

Many of the articles are peculiarly specific. Article 3 treats the case of a person who “hits another with a club, or a rod, or a fist, or a bowl, or a horn”; Article 21 deals with persons who “murder the bailiff near a barn,” a “horse [stable],” or a “cow [shed]” while simultaneously “stealing cows.” Apparently, many of these articles were written after the fact, to deal with specific one-off cases or to justify a punishment already meted out. Some of the articles may appear naive to modern readers as well. The requirements for proof of offense in Article 2, for example, took no account of self-inflicted wounds, accidents, or other possible reasons that a man might appear before a court “smeared with blood” or “blue from bruises.”

Articles 11–18 These articles discuss property and commercial relations, including specific cases of a runaway slave, damage to or theft of property, and the division of business profit. The focus on business profit in particular (Article 15) speaks to the relatively advanced stage of commercial activity in Kievan Rus, compared with much of the rest of eleventh-century Europe. Business was particularly advanced in Novgorod, Yaroslav's base of power before his accession to the throne of Kiev in 1019.

Articles 19–43 These articles were added in 1072 by Yaroslav's eldest sons: Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, and Vsevolod. (The first two names are rendered “Iziaslav” and “Sviatoslav” in the document text.) Among them, they ruled Kiev from 1054 to 1093. Their relations were not always harmonious. In 1073 Svyatoslav usurped his older brother's throne, holding it until his own death in 1076, at which point Izyaslav returned. He died in 1078, and the Kievan throne passed to Vsevolod.

The sons' additions are usually interpreted as evidence of the increasing power and ambition of the state (or of the princes). Indirectly the additions also reflected growing popular resentment of this power, especially in and around Kiev. More specifically, the new articles were likely a belated response to rioting in Kiev during 1068; these riots temporarily forced Izyaslav from the throne. The sons doubled to eighty grivna the “bloodwite” (fine, payable to the prince) for the murder of any of several classes of the prince's officials or servants (Articles 19–23). Article 21 suggests that a bailiff of the prince was indeed murdered, in the circumstances described. Articles 24–25 imposed lower fines for the murder of other lower-ranking persons in the prince's service. Article 33 is construed more broadly and seems to argue that only the state had the right to punish or to use force. Similarly it granted a level of state protection to the classes or offices listed.

Through Article 28, specific monetary values are spelled out for the murder or destruction of various classes of persons, in descending order of their importance to the prince, and on through a range of domestic animals, all of which would have constituted both income for their owners and a potential source of tax revenue for the prince. These and other articles highlight the fundamental purpose of the Justice of the Rus: establishment of a clear hierarchy of power, with the prince at the top, and a stable foundation for public order. These concerns are also apparent in Articles 34–40, which schedule fines for common, specific offenses and claims, including petty theft and boundary disputes.

Scholars believe that Articles 41 and 42 were written separately and then added in. Article 41 specifies how the fines collected from offenders were to be distributed among the prince, his officials, and the Orthodox Church. The amounts do not add up exactly, perhaps because of errors in transcription of the original documents or because of approximation. Article 42 details the types and amounts of food and other supplies that the “bloodwite collector and his assistants” could legally take from the surrounding population. These guidelines were established to satisfy or limit popular complaints against excessive seizures and levies imposed on local populations by the collector and in the prince's name. As with some of the other articles, this provision tended to promote a notion of the prince as the protector of his people. Articles 41 and 42 are also the only parts of the Short Version that refer directly to the church.

Expanded Version

Articles 1–52 The Expanded Version begins with a revised statement of Yaroslav's organized system of blood revenge. Reflecting changes earlier made by the sons, there were now two classes of officials: higher-ranking officials with a wergild of eighty grivna and lower-ranking officials worth forty. More precise information on the wergild of specific ranks, positions, or employments is given in Articles 11–17. Article 2 notes the cancellation of blood revenge altogether and its replacement with a system of fines (“bloodwite”). On its face, this article clearly contradicts Article 1. Certainly from the time of Izyaslav forward, the trend was toward abolishing blood revenge (which put justice partly in the hands of the aggrieved) and replacing it with fines (which put justice more squarely in the hands of the state). The inclusion here of both systems cannot easily be resolved, however, unless it is interpreted simply as a side-by-side record of the old and new pronouncements.

Articles 3–8, dealing with murder, gave the prince additional tools for collecting payments and enforcing his law, taking into account a wider variety of specific situations. The collective responsibility of any guild within whose area a murder was committed is spelled out in more detail, including instances in which the actual murderer was not found or was unknown (“dark bloodwite”) or was found at some point after partial bloodwite payment had already been made on his behalf.

The Expanded Version—as far as Article 52—includes a lively admixture of clauses and rulings identical or very similar to those in the Short Version and others that were obviously altered for one reason or another. For example, the fine for cutting off a man's arm (or inflicting similar injuries) in Article 5 of the Short Version was lower than the fine imposed in Article 27 of the Expanded Version for the same offense. In addition, many new articles (especially Articles 32–46) were added to account for specific circumstances not treated in the Short Version. These articles provide a sense of the common experiences of persons of various social strata across a wide segment of Rus society.

The Expanded Version also pays increased attention to matters of trade and commerce, establishing some basic rules and procedures for legal suit (Articles 47 and 48) and for the recovery of goods stored with a third party (Article 49). Articles 50–52 concern usury, or the charging of interest. Unlike contemporary Western law and attitudes, which frowned on usury, the Justice of the Rus allowed it and attempted to regulate it. Scholars have attributed this difference to the relatively advanced stage of commerce and the backward state of agriculture in Kievan Rus, meaning that the role of money was relatively important and the influence of the merchant class quite significant. The Rus princes themselves frequently invested and transacted in money. By contrast, in Western Europe at the time, because farming was more advanced and commerce less so, the economy was based more heavily on the exchange of agricultural products and the assignment of fiefs. The role of money and the influence of merchants were smaller. Of course, this situation changed rapidly thereafter, as trade and commerce greatly accelerated in western Europe during the twelfth century.

Articles 53–121: The Statute of Vladimir, Son of Vsevolod The most important and lengthy section of the Expanded Version is the Statute of Vladimir II Monomakh, organized here as Articles 53–121. Monomakh was the son of Vsevolod and a grandson of Yaroslav. Like those of Yaroslav's sons, the additions made by Vladimir II Monomakh were a response to social unrest. High interest rates charged on loans, growing indebtedness, and rising incidence of enslavement for nonpayment led to serious riots in Kiev in 1113. Moneylenders and merchants, Jews, and prosperous boyars (hereditary nobles) were targeted by an assortment of laborers and farmers, artisans, and impoverished burghers. It was in this environment that Monomakh came to the throne of Kiev. His legislative innovations focused on regulation of interest rates and protection from debt enslavement and were designed to quell discontent and head off a possible social revolution. After Monomakh, later princes added other revisions to check or regulate the spread of slavery and the process of enslavement, along with changes and clarifications to laws concerning inheritance and family. By the middle of the twelfth century, the Extended Version had more or less achieved its final form.

Articles 53 and 53a addressed the main problems behind the riots. Various interpretations have been given for the meaning of “third-of-the-year rates” in the practice of lending money. Some scholars have attributed specific rates to the term—such as 50 percent, so that the loan principal would have been paid in full by the second payment, with the third payment adding 50 percent total interest. Other scholars have claimed that the intention behind the clause was not to set any specific interest rates in the first year but simply to limit initially agreed-upon interest payments to that one year, after which time Article 53a set a lower limit for interest paid on loans of greater duration. Taken together, these measures would have provided a certain amount of security and protection for borrowers, thus quelling unrest.

A related goal of Monomakh's rulings was to make it harder for a person to fall into slavery, particularly as a result personal debt or the conversion of an unfulfilled labor contract into slavery. Alternatively, in cases in which a person voluntarily arranged to be sold into slavery—perhaps to secure food, shelter, and a monetary payment—the law set a minimum price for the transaction (Articles 110 and 111). The last ten articles further attempt to regulate slavery, though certainly not to abolish it. Numerous clauses deal with the collection or payment of debts and other obligations in specified circumstances.

Under the heading “Other Enactments” (at Article 67), the Justice of the Rus returns to common themes of compensation for loss or injury. The emphasis on beehives (Articles 71–72 and 75–77) illustrates the importance of honey within Rus commerce, especially in heavily forested northern areas, where open-field agriculture was less prominent. Much information on the common affairs of life and commerce at the time can be inferred from the expanded number of specific offenses listed under “On Peasants,” “On Hunting Nets,” “On Stealing Hay,” and so on, and also from Articles 96 and 97 on the payment of construction workers.

Articles 88 and 89 shed some light on attitudes toward women. The punishment for killing a woman was only half that for killing a man. Further inferences on gender relations can be made through a close reading of some of Monomakh's rulings on inheritance and division of property (especially Articles 98–106). Overall, Monomakh's code seeks to impose order and a degree of fairness on a wide range of social and commercial situations and arrangements.