Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T20:19:28.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Church and State in Old Rus’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Daniel H. Kaiser
Daniel H. Kaiser*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Essays
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , December 1977 , pp. 658 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1977

References

1. For typical views on the church's role in Muscovy's rise, see Kliuchevskii, V. O., Sochineniia, 8 vols. (Moscow, 1956-59), 2: 23–27 Google Scholar; Solov'ev, S. M., Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, 15 vols. (Moscow, 1962-66), 4: 562–68Google Scholar. On church ideology, see, among others, Obolensky, Dmitri, “Russia's Byzantine Heritage,” Oxford Slavonic Papers, 1 (1950): 37–63 Google Scholar; Stremooukhoff, Dimitri, “Moscow The Third Rome—Sources of the Doctrine,” Speculum, 28, no. 1 (January 1953): 84–101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cherniavsky, Michael, “ Khan or Basileus: An Aspect of Russian Medieval Political Theory,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 20, no. 4 (October-December 1959): 459–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cherniavsky, Michael, Tsar and People: Studies in Russian Myths (New York, 1969), especially pp. 1–43 Google Scholar; Haney, J. A. V., ed. and trans., “Moscow—Second Constantinople, Third Rome or Second Kiev (The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir),” Canadian Slavic Studies, 2, no. 3 (Fall 1968): 354–67.Google Scholar

2. See Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka (hereafter cited as RIB), 39 vols. (St. Petersburg- Leningrad, 1872-1927), 6: 13-14.24, 18.30, 99-100J7-8, 271, 273, 279, 847, 851; Gal'kovskii, N., Bor'ba khristianstva s ostatkami iazychestva, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1913), 2: 188–89Google Scholar. Also see Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (hereafter cited as PSRL), 33 vols, to date (St. Petersburg-Moscow, 1846), 2: 10, 25: 339-40; Povest’ vremennykh let (hereafter cited as PVL), ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretts, 2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), 1: 14-15.

3. PVL, 1: 95.

4. This does not mean, however, that the church, by contrast with paganism, was necessary to support the “new feudal order,” as O. M. Rapov recently argued ( “O nekotorykh prichinakh kreshcheniia Rusi,” Vestnik MGU [Istoriia], 1976, no. 4, pp. 64-65, 70).

5. Zakon sudnyi liudem kratkoi redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov (Moscow, 1961), p. 104; Zakon sudnyi liudem prostrannoi i svodnoi redaktsii, ed. M. N. Tikhomirov (Moscow, 1961), p. 139.

6. PVL, 1: 85-87. This tale proved irresistible to George Vernadsky who likened the Kievan saint to Tolstoy (George Vernadsky, Kievan Russia [New Haven, 1948], p. 73). But despite the fact that no serious questions about the authenticity of this tale have yet been raised, there is good reason to suspect it, as I hope to demonstrate in the future. Compare the version of this story in the Nikon Chronicle (PSRL, 9: 67).

7. On Byzantine influence on the older, Short redaction, see Ganev, Venelin, Zakon “ Soudnyi liud'm” (Pravno-istoricheski i pravno analitichni prouchvaniia) (Sofia, 1959), pp. 58–91, 110Google Scholar; Florinskii, T, “Drevneishii pamiatnik bolgarskogo prava,” in Sbornik statei po istorii prava posviashchennyi M. F. Vladimirskomu-Budanovu, ed. Iasinskii, M. N. (Kiev, 1904), pp. 418–26 Google Scholar; and Oraschkoff, Haralampi, “Ein denkmal des bulgarischen Rechtes,” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, 33 (1916): 251–54Google Scholar. Teodor Saturnik performed a similar study on the Expanded redaction (Přispěvky k šiřeni byzantskeho prava u slavanu [Prague, 1922], pp. 143-54).

8. RIB, 6: 83-86.

9. Moscow, Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei, Synod Collection, no. 132. On the history of this branch of manuscripts, see Shchapov, la. N., “K istorii teksta Novgorodskoi Sinodal'noi kormchei,” in Istorika-arkheologicheskii sbornik (Moscow, 1962), p. 297–99.Google Scholar

10. Moscow, Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei, Synod Collection, no. 227/706. On the history of this redaction, see Shchapov, la. N., “O sostave drevneslavianskoi kormchei Efremovskoi redaktsii,” in Istochniki i istoriografiia slavianskogo srednevekoi/ia (Moscow, 1967), pp. 207–15 Google Scholar. Part of the text of this redaction was printed by Beneshevich, V. N. (Drevneslavianskaia kormchaia XIV titulov bes tolkovanii [St. Petersburg, 1906-7]Google Scholar). Shchapov has advised me that he and Iu. K. Begunov are currently preparing an edition which will complete that work.

11. Pavlov, A. S., “'Knigi zakonnyia’ soderzhashchie v sebe v drevnerusskom perevode vizantiiskie zakony zemledel'cheskie, ugolovnye, brachnye i sudebnye,” Sbornik otdeleniia russkogo iasyka i slovesnosti, 38, no. 3 (1885): 1–92Google Scholar. For reactions to Pavlov's edition, see Uspenskii, F. I., “Drevneishii pamiatnik slavianskogo prava,” luridicheskii vestnik, 18, no. 4 (April 1886): 300–313 Google Scholar; Vasil'evskii, V. G., “'Knigi zakonnyia, '” Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia, no. 243 (February 1886), pp. 317–51Google Scholar; A. Sobolevskii, Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia, no. 243 (February 1886), pp. 352-58.

12. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia, 1: 208-16, 219, 222-24, 228-33.

13. All of these texts are reproduced in Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy XI-XV w., along with indications of other places of publication.

14. The oldest copy of Vladimir's Statute survives in an appendix to the Synod Kormchaia, while the Hypatian copy of Iaroslav's Statute survives in a collection of mixed contents composed around 1420. Both texts were printed in Pamiatniki russkogo prava (hereafter cited as PRP), 8 vols. (Moscow, 1952-63), 1: 244-46, 265-72.

15. This text is printed in PRP, 2: 39-42; and in Smolenskie gramoty XIII-XIV w., eds. T. A. Sumnikova and V. V. Lopatev (Moscow, 1963), pp. 75-79.

16. The oldest copy is located in the Novgorod First Chronicle (Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov [Moscow-Leningrad, 1950], pp. 485-88) and printed in PRP, 2: 162-65.

17. Pavlov, A. S., “K voprosu o podlinnosti tserkovnogo Ustava sv. Vladimira,” Trudy VIII arkheologicheskogo s “ezda v Moskve 1890 g., 4 vols. (Moscow, 1892-97), 4: 72–73 Google Scholar; Pavlov, A. S., “Istoriia istochnikov russkogo tserkovnogo prava,” Bogoslovskii vestnik, 1900, no. 3, pp. 500, 504–7Google Scholar; Pavlov, A. S., Mnimye sledy katolicheskogo vliianiia v drevneishikh pamiatnikakh iugo-slavianskogo i russkogo tserkovnogo prava (Moscow, 1892), pp. 122–59 Google Scholar; Suvorov, N. S., Sledy zapadno-katolicheskogo tserkovnogo prava v pamiatnikakh drevnego russkogo prava (Iaroslavl', 1888), pp. 175–214 Google Scholar; Suvorov, N. S., K voprosu o sapadnom vliianii na drevne-russkoe pravo (Iaroslavl', 1893), pp. 296–324, 365-79Google Scholar. For a summary of the debate, see N. Nikol'skii, K., “K istorii slavianorusskoi pis'mennosti,” Bibliograficheskaia letopis', 3 (1917): 11–24Google Scholar. Among church historians, Makarii supported both statutes, although he admitted that they had undergone some changes (Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 2nd ed., 12 vols. [St. Petersburg, 1877-91], 1: 152-90; 2: 257-65). E. Golubinskii denied the authenticity of both statutes (Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 4 vols. + atlas [Moscow, 1880-1917], 1: 398- 411, 617-20, 628-29).

18. Ustav sviatogo velikogo kniazia Vladimira o tsetkovnykh sudakh i o desiatinakh, ed. V. N. Beneshevich (Petrograd, 1915); reprinted in RIB, 36: 1-72.

19. Sbornik pamiatnikov po istorii tserkovnogo prava preimushchestvenno russkoi tserkvi do epokhiPetra Velikogo, 2 vols. (Petrograd, 1914-15), 1: 78-89.

20. Iushkov, S. V., K istorii drevnerusskikh iuridicheskikh sbornikov (XIII v.) (Saratov, 1921)Google Scholar; and Iushkov, S. V., Izslcdovaniia po istorii russkogo prava. Vyp. 1: Ustav kn. Vladimira (Novouzensk, [1926]).Google Scholar

21. Rus'ka Pravda: Teksti na osnovi 7 spiskiv ta 5 redaktsii, ed. S. V. Iushkov (Kiev, 1935); and Iushkov, S. V., Russkaia Pravda: Proiskhoshdenie, istochniki, ee znachenie (Moscow, 1950)Google Scholar.

22. The chief exception to this trend was M. N. Tikhomirov, who devoted considerable attention to the Pravda's manuscript convoy (see his Issledovanie o Russkoi Pravde [Moscow- Leningrad, 1941]).

23. Shchapov reported the preliminary results of his study in two early, major works ( “Tserkov’ kak feodal'naia organizatsiia v drevnei Rusi v X-XII vv.,” Cand. diss., Moscow, 1964; and “Redaktsiia ustava kniazia Iaroslava Vladimirovicha,” Problemy istochnikovedeniia, 11 [1963]: 481-513). A multitude of specialized studies appeared subsequently.

24. Halperin, Charles J., “A Soviet View of Medieval Russian Canon Law,” Russian Review, 34, no. 1 (January 1975): 78–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; review by James Cracraft in Slavic Review, 33, no. 2 (June 1974): 339-41; review by V. S. Shul'gin in Voprosy istorii, 1973, no. 5, pp. 162-65.

25. Shchapov has included texts of the various charters which confirmed the privileges defined in Vladimir's and Iaroslav's statutes, and has published as well provisions on divorce and betrothal, on dishonor, and on theft; he also includes the text of the Pravosudie Mitropolich'e, which repeats many of the provisions of Iaroslav's Statute (Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy, pp. 182-211).

26. PVL, 1: 85.

27. The Synod Kormchaia, for example, included the Expanded Version of the Russkaia Pravda (fols. 615v.-627v.). Vladimir's Statute was copied onto fols. 628-630.

28. The first Rus’ metropoli'tan is identified variously as Mikhail or Leontii. Mention of Photius was typical for copies of the Synod, Oleninsk, Pechersk, and Trinity redactions.

29. In fact, Shchapov admits that there are no data for deciding the question of the metropolitan, and simply includes Photius in his reconstruction of the Statute's archetype (Kniasheskie ustavy, p. 115).

30. See PRP, 2: 212.1, 213.8, 9, 215.26, 27, 287.2, PRP, 3: 371.59.

31. PRP, 2: 39.2, 41.6, 41-42.7, 162.2, 163.5-7, 164.8, 165.14, 15.

32. See Shchapov, la. N., “K kharakteristike nekotorykh letopisnykh trudov XV v., “ in Letopisi i khroniki. Sbornik statei, 1973 g.; Posviashchen pamiati A. N. Nasonova (Moscow, 1974), pp. 173–86 Google Scholar.

33. The exception, predictably, is the Soviet reviewer, V. S. Shul'gin, in Voprosy istorii.

34. Shchapov, la. N., “Tserkov’ v sisteme gosudarstvennoi vlasti drevnei Rusi,” in Drezmerusskoe gosudarstvo i ego meshdunarodnoe snachenie (Moscow, 1965), p. 279–352.Google Scholar

35. R. G. Pikhoia, “Tserkov’ v Drevnei Rusi (Konets X-pervaia polovina XIII v.) (Drevnerusskoe pokaiannoe pravo kak istoricheskii istochnik),” Cand. diss., Sverdlovsk, 1974; Pikhoia, R. G., “Opyt izucheniia rannikh novgbrodskikh pamiatnikov tserkovnogo prava (Pravilo ‘Ashche dvoezhenets’ i ‘Voproshanie Kirikovo’),” Vspomogatel'nye istoricheskie distsipliny: Sbomik 1 (Sverdlovsk, 1973), pp. 9–16 Google Scholar; and Pikhoia, R. G., “Dokumenty pokaiannogo prava o polozhenii trudiashchikhsia v Drevnei Rusi (Xl-pervaia polovina XIII v.),” Vspomogatel'nye istoricheskie distsipliny: Sbomik 2 (Sverdlovsk, 1974), p. 5–18.Google Scholar

36. Likhachev, D. S., Tekstologiia (Moscow-Leningrad, 1962), pp. 163–64Google Scholar. It should be noted that Likhachev was not so fussy in his requirements for printing texts; thus Shchapov's edition follows Likhachev's recommendations in all respects (ibid., pp. 497-529).