T.K. Aguzarov, A.I. Chuchaev. The Protection of the Persons Serving to the Prince According to Russkaya Pravda, Ustavs, and Ustavs’ Letters

Abstract: In literature there are two different points of view on the Russian statute at large. The first is that in the Russian statute at large (Russkaya Pravda) there were no crimes against public officers. The other one is that the Russian statute at large contained corresponding rules. Authors suppose that the necessity of power protection was already predetermined by the existence of the state itself. Based on the analysis of norms of the Russian statute at large’s Short edition, it is proved that that time physical integrity of the princely public agent was the object of special criminal protection. In the article two parts can be nominally detached. In the first part it is said about taking life of the victims, specified there, on personal grounds. In the second it is about taking life of victims in connection with their official duties. Such conclusion is also based on the comparison of punishment for given crimes. Special attention is paid to analysis of art. 19–23 Russian statute at large (Yaroslavichi’s statute at large) because, firstly, they are dedicated to protection of the persons serving to the prince. Secondly, they form original criminal institution of Old Russian legislation. While analyzing of the rule of art. 21, which has different interpretations (firstly, about definition of ognishanin’s (head of prince's administration) criminal status, authors affirm that during its assessment first of all it is necessary to proceed from two points: a) the article fastens the principle, produced by the custom – right to kill the thief on the scene of a crime, if it was committed at night. Therefore, the aim of the rule is to restrict gibbet law; b) the article’s formulation and correlation of certain phrases suppose appearance of a new person who is by no means designated in the article. Moreover the article is necessary to be estimated in the aggregate with two previous articles. In this case legislator’s logic is understood: in the legal monument rules which provide intensification of punishment according to circumstances of committed infringement on feudal administration’s representative were sequentially given. In Russian statute at large’s Vast edition the number of rules about responsibility for infringement on life increase considerably in comparison with its previous versions, the content of earlier known rules changes essentially, new penal prohibitions appear, foundations of legal materials’ abstract description are laid. Thereby the Russian statute at large singles out two types of infringement on life and de facto means two different objects of criminal protection: life and activity of authority, which also seizes a person as bearer of specific power authorization. Infringing on victim – the representative of a palace-patrimonial government system, – the offender ipso facto breaks the order of governance, peculiar to early-feudal society. Prince and his administration executed justice at the same time with administrative duties. Since earliest times legal procedure had public character. The status of prince’s power representative, who executed justice, strictly reflected his criminal protection. However, it should be noticed that such situation was typical not only for Russian law. In Novgorod and Pskov judgment credentials the indication on the social trend of a crime is met for the first time. In such acts it is emphasized that the crime causes harm not only to a private person, but also to the state.

Keywords: