It regulated the diplomatic relations of Rus' with Byzantium, their trade relations, and also contained a reference to the “Russian Law”.
The agreement consisted of 15 articles. IN 911 treaty included the norms of two main areas of law - public(regulation of relations between states: military support, the procedure for the ransom of prisoners, the procedure for the return of slaves, the norms of international maritime law are determined - the abolition of coastal law - the right to property and people from a wrecked ship) and international private rights that regulated relations between private individuals of the two states (the procedure for inheriting property, the procedure for trading by Russian merchants in Byzantium, types of punishment for crimes committed by Russians on the territory of Byzantium (court under Russian Law), as well as the responsibility of Greeks for crimes in Rus').
In the 911 treaty, the parties have equal relations, unlike subsequent treaties:
1. Delegations from Rus' - evidence of the system government structure Russian state.
2. Rus'’s desire for long-term friendship with Byzantium.
3. The procedure for proving a crime (oath).
4. For the murder of a wealthy person, death was replaced by confiscation, for the poor - execution (social division).
5. For a blow with a sword, a fine of 5 liters of silver was established (1 liter = 327.5 grams), but if the person who committed this turns out to be poor, he must give as much as he can and swear that no one can help him, then the trial will be over.
6. You can kill the thief at the time of the crime, but if he surrenders, he must return the stolen property in the 3rd amount.
7. The punishment for forcible appropriation of someone else's property is triple the amount.
8. Help from Russians to Greeks during accidents at sea, and vice versa. Coastal law does not apply.
9. The possibility of returning from captivity.
10. The interest of Byzantium in Russian soldiers is shown.
11. Payment for captured Greeks - 20 gold.
12. The obligation of officials to search for runaway servants, their return is guaranteed (benefit for the upper strata).
13. The existence of inheritance not only by custom, but also by will. If there are no heirs in Byzantium, the inheritance of a Russian subject must be returned to his homeland, thereby prohibiting local authorities to appropriate this property for one’s own benefit, which existed in Western European law until the 15th century.
13-a. Just the headline: “about Russians carrying out trading operations.”
14. Extradition of criminals who fled from Rus'.
15. Obligations arising from the contract.
Analyzing the criminal law provisions of the contract in general, it should be noted, first of all, that there is no single term to designate a crime. Thus, in various articles such words are mentioned to denote the criminal as “leprosy”, “sin”, “crime”. Obviously, this is due to a not very successful attempt by the drafters of treaties to adjust the designations of criminality given in two different laws - Greek and Russian. Among the types of punishments, in addition to monetary penalties and the death penalty, there is a mention of blood feud.
Treaty of 941. In 941, an unsuccessful campaign for the Russians against Byzantium took place. IN 944 Another campaign took place, although the Russians did not realize their goals, the Greeks hastened to conclude an agreement, it was in favor of the Greek side (unilaterally providing military support in the event of a shipwreck only to the Greeks, infringing on the rights of Russian merchants in Byzantium).
Consisted of 16 articles:
1. Proclamation of the inviolability of peaceful relations; punishment for breaking the peace; The Russian delegation was announced.
2. The Russians have the right to send ships with merchants and ambassadors, but strict control is introduced over those arriving. According to the agreement, a special letter from the Grand Duke was required (previously, only seals could be presented); in the absence of a letter, the Russians could be detained (if they resisted, they could be killed).
2-a. Confirmation of the right to monthly maintenance; measures restricting the rights of Russians: a ban on carrying weapons in the capital, no more than 50 people, accompanied by an official; period of stay in Byzantium - 6 months; limiting the volume of trading operations.
3. Repetition of Article 12 of the 911 treaty on the responsibility of Byzantium for the loss of a Russian servant, but here there is no longer the responsibility of the official and the compulsory procedure for searching for the servant, which was before.
4. Reward for the return of the runaway servant of the Greeks, and the owner’s goods stolen by him - 2 spools
5. On attempted robbery, the punishment is double the value of the loot.
6. Unlike article 6 of the 911 treaty, this article establishes that in the event of theft, the victim receives not its triple value, but the thing itself and its market value (if found) or double the price (if sold). Mention of "Russian Law"
7. Compared to articles 9 and 11 of the 911 treaty, this article reduces the price of a prisoner by at least 2 times (from 20 to 10 and below spools). For the Greeks a proportional scale is established, and for the Russians there is a single price, and the highest of the redemption prices. Another benefit for the Greeks: the redemption price of a Russian could be higher than in Article 7.
8. Refusal of Russian claims to Chersonesos; Byzantium's help brought about the submission of the Chersonesos.
9. The article is directed against crimes against shipwrecked Greeks.
10. A ban on Russian armed detachments to spend the winter at the mouth of the Dnieper (the pretext is to protect the interests of the Chersonesos).
11. An attempt by Byzantium to use Russian military detachments to protect its Crimean possessions.
12. Ban on executing Greeks without a Byzantine court (cancellation of Article 3 of the 911 treaty, which allowed lynching).
13. The procedure for punishing a criminal: it is prohibited to deal with the killer at the scene of the crime, you can only detain. This is Byzantium’s desire to eliminate possible cases of the use of weapons by the Russians.
14. The article is similar to article 5 of the treaty of 911: for a blow with a sword or spear - a fine of 5 liters of silver (1 liter = 327.5 grams), but if the one who committed this turns out to be poor, he must give as much as he can and swear that no one can help him, then the trial will be over.
15. The duty of the Russians to send regiments to fight the enemies of Byzantium.
16. Oath of non-violation of the terms of the contract.
Treaty of 971.Treaty 971 year included 4 articles, was concluded by Svyatoslav. This agreement was already absolutely in favor of the Greek side (since the Russians were defeated in this campaign).
The introduction talks about the events that preceded the agreement:
1. The inviolability of peace between Russia and Byzantium.
2. There was no such article in previous treaties. The obligation of the Russian prince to refrain from organizing military campaigns against Byzantium and the lands subject to it. The article was dictated by the fear of the Greeks, who were afraid of the Russians.
3. The article is close to Article 15 of the 944 treaty and contained the allied obligations of Prince Svyatoslav.
4. The article contains sanctions in case of violation of the terms of the agreement.
Other written treaties of Rus'. The XΙΙ century dates back to a number of treaties concluded by the principalities (Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Polotsk) with Denmark, Sweden and the Germanic peoples, members Hanseatic League. In these treaties, Russian law seems to be more developed than in the Greek-Russian treaties. The treaty of Novgorod with the Germans (1195) contains norms establishing punishments for the arrest of an ambassador, a merchant “without guilt”, for insult and illegal detention, for violence against a slave (in the Republic of Poland a slave is not an “object of a crime”).
The treaty of Novgorod with the Germans (1270) contains the procedure for resolving disputes between the Novgorodians and the Germans in the civil and criminal spheres. In the agreement of Smolensk with Riga, Gotland and German cities (1220) there are rules on judicial combat (“field”), rules for the transportation of goods, many criminal law rules (on murder, mutilation, adultery) and civil law provisions (loan, debt collection, court decisions).
III. Princely legislation. Charters (cross-kissing and granting) and church statutes (secular legislation). Princely legislation as a source of law appears in the 10th century. Special meaning have Charters of Vladimir, Yaroslav and Vsevolod, which made changes to the current financial, family and criminal law. The largest monument of ancient Russian law is Russian Truth .
The statutes regulated:
Relations between church and state;
Status of church people ( clergy (clergy, monks), persons who feed at the expense of the church, persons living on its land);
Church jurisdiction ( the sphere of marriage and family relations, crimes against the church and faith);
Types of crimes against the church (heresy, paganism, magic, sacrilege, praying by the water, damage to graves); family and morality (incest, insulting a married woman with words, adultery, fornication), types of punishments for committing church crimes.
For serious cases, joint - secular and spiritual - princely-ecclesiastical courts were created (crimes committed by a group of persons, including both secular and ecclesiastical; arson, causing bodily harm). The system of church punishments was borrowed from Byzantium.
And he had two versions - one in Greek (not preserved) and one in Old Church Slavonic. Preserved in later lists of ancient Russian chronicles, in particular, in the Tale of Bygone Years. One of the oldest written sources of Russian law; contains the norms of the Russian Law.
General information about the contract
After unsuccessful campaigns in 941 and 944, Prince Igor was forced to conclude a peace treaty with Byzantium. The treaty was concluded in 944 between the two parties and recorded in two charters, which updated the old treaty of 911:
Ambassadors and merchants were required to carry princely charters with them so that they could be in the Byzantine lands and in Constantinople. Legal relations between people from Rus' and local residents were regulated. Restrictions were introduced for merchants to stay in the capital, to export fabrics, etc. Rus' was charged with protecting the borders with Byzantium in the Crimea, and the Old Russian state was not supposed to lay claim to these lands and, if necessary, provide military assistance to Byzantium.
Write a review about the article "Russian-Byzantine Treaty (944)"
Links
- in Wikisource (original and Russian translation)
see also
Notes
Literature
- Bibikov M.V. Rus' in Byzantine diplomacy: treaties between Rus' and the Greeks of the 10th century. // Ancient Rus'. Questions of medieval studies. - 2005. - No. 1 (19). - P. 5-15.
- Vladimirsky-Budanov M. F. Review of the history of Russian law. - K.-SPb.: Publishing house N. Ya. Ogloblin, 1900. - 681 p.
- Istrin V. M. Treaties between Russians and Greeks of the 10th century // News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1924 - L., 1925. - T. XXIX. - pp. 383-393.
- Levchenko M. V. Essays on the history of Russian-Byzantine relations. - M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1956. - 556 p.
- Litavrin G. G. Conditions of stay of the ancient Rus in Constantinople in the 10th century. and their legal status // Byzantine temporary book. - 1993. - T. 54. - P. 81-92.
- Monuments of Russian law / Ed. S. V. Yushkova. - M.: Gosyuridizdat, 1952. - Issue. 1. Monuments of law Kyiv State X-XII centuries - 304 p.
- The Tale of Bygone Years / Ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz. - M.-L.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1950. - Part 1. Texts and translation. - 405 pp.; Part 2. Applications. - 559 p.
- Falaleeva I. N. Political and legal system of Ancient Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. - Volgograd: Volgogradsky Publishing House state university, 2003. - 164 p.
- Yushkov S. V. Socio-political system and law of the Kyiv state. - M.: Gosyuridizdat, 1949. - 544 p.
Excerpt characterizing the Russian-Byzantine Treaty (944)
“Yes, gentlemen, I was told that there is a rumor spread in Moscow that I am a cheater, so I advise you to be careful with me.”- Well, swords! - said Rostov.
- Oh, Moscow aunties! - said Dolokhov and took up the cards with a smile.
- Aaah! – Rostov almost shouted, raising both hands to his hair. The seven he needed was already at the top, the first card in the deck. He lost more than he could pay.
“However, don’t get too carried away,” said Dolokhov, glancing briefly at Rostov and continuing to throw.
After an hour and a half, most of the players were already jokingly looking at their own game.
The whole game focused on Rostov alone. Instead of one thousand six hundred rubles, a long column of numbers was written down behind him, which he had counted up to the tenth thousand, but which now, as he vaguely assumed, had already risen to fifteen thousand. In fact, the entry already exceeded twenty thousand rubles. Dolokhov no longer listened or told stories; he followed every movement of Rostov’s hands and occasionally glanced briefly at his note behind him. He decided to continue the game until this entry increased to forty-three thousand. He chose this number because forty-three was the sum of his years added up with Sonya's years. Rostov, leaning his head on both hands, sat in front of a table covered with writings, covered in wine, and littered with cards. One painful impression did not leave him: these broad-boned, reddish hands with hair visible from under his shirt, these hands that he loved and hated, held him in their power.
“Six hundred rubles, ace, corner, nine... it’s impossible to win back!... And how fun it would be at home... Jack on n... it can’t be!... And why is he doing this to me?...” Rostov thought and recalled. Sometimes he put large map; but Dolokhov refused to beat her, and he himself nominated the jackpot. Nicholas submitted to him, and then prayed to God, as he prayed on the battlefield on the Amsteten Bridge; then he wished that the card that would be the first to fall into his hand from a pile of curved cards under the table would save him; either he calculated how many laces there were on his jacket and with the same number of points he tried to bet a card on the entire loss, then he looked around at the other players for help, then he peered into Dolokhov’s now cold face and tried to understand what was going on inside him.
“After all, he knows what this loss means to me. He can't want my death, can he? After all, he was my friend. After all, I loved him... But it’s not his fault either; What should he do when he is lucky? And it’s not my fault, he told himself. I didn't do anything wrong. Have I killed anyone, insulted anyone, or wished harm? Why such a terrible misfortune? And when did it start? Just recently I approached this table with the thought of winning a hundred rubles, buying this box for my mother’s name day and going home. I was so happy, so free, cheerful! And I didn’t understand then how happy I was! When did this end, and when did this new, terrible state begin? What marked this change? I still sat in this place, at this table, and still chose and pushed out cards, and looked at these big-boned, dexterous hands. When did this happen, and what happened? I am healthy, strong and still the same, and still in the same place. No, it can't be! It’s true that all this will not end in anything.”
He was red and covered in sweat, despite the fact that the room was not hot. And his face was scary and pitiful, especially due to his powerless desire to appear calm.
The record reached the fateful number of forty-three thousand. Rostov prepared a card that was supposed to be an angle from the three thousand rubles that had just been given to him, when Dolokhov, tapping the deck, put it aside and, taking the chalk, quickly began, in his clear, strong handwriting, breaking the chalk, to summarize Rostov’s notes.
- Dinner, time for dinner! Here come the gypsies! - Indeed, with their gypsy accent, some black men and women were already coming in from the cold and saying something. Nikolai understood that it was all over; but he said in an indifferent voice:
- Well, you won’t do it yet? And I have a nice card prepared. “It was as if he was most interested in the fun of the game itself.”
Under 944, “The Tale of Bygone Years” tells about Igor’s second campaign against Constantinople. Extensive military preparations are reported: “Igor gathered together many: Varangians, Rus and Polyans, and Slovenes, and Krivichi, Vyatichi and Tivertsy”; it also talks about hiring Pechenegs and taking hostages from them - to ensure their loyalty. It is characteristic that the list of Igor’s “wars” does not include Chud, Merya, Northerners, Radimichi, Croats and Dulebs, whom the chronicler had previously sent to Constantinople along with the prophetic Oleg. These data are objectively correct in the sense that Igor really did not have military resources. However, the motley ethnic composition of Igor’s army, in the form in which it is presented in the chronicle, does not correspond to the truth. East Slavic tribes are included by the chronicler in Igor’s “voi” arbitrarily. Thus, the Vyatichi could not be participants in the campaign for the simple reason that they were not tributaries of Kyiv - they had to be “tortured,” according to the chronicle itself, only by Svyatoslav; ethnic “ghosts” also turn out to be Slovenes (Ilmen), Krivichi and Tivertsy, since neither Novgorod, nor Polotsk, nor any other East Slavic tribal center was included in the text of the treaty of 944.
And on the contrary, the presence of a single ethnic group in it - "Rus", coupled with three cities of the Middle Dnieper - Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl - to which trade benefits were extended, convincingly indicates that in 944 "the attack on the Greeks in Lodia" alone "Russian" militia of the Kyiv land. Wed. Olga’s preparations for the campaign against the “Drevlyans”: “Olga and her son Svyatoslav have gathered many and are brave.” The forces of the Rus here are not limited to one princely squad, and yet in the “Russian” army of Igor’s wife there are no “Slovenians” or other East Slavic tribes, which undoubtedly reflects the real state of affairs. It is characteristic that, according to the treaty of 944, a Rusyn who was captured and put up for sale on any slave market of the empire was subject to immediate ransom and release, while a similar condition was not stipulated for the Slavs.
The Archangel-City Chronicle preserved information that in 941 the Rus from under the walls of Constantinople returned “to their homeland without success” and only “in the third summer they came to Kyiv” - therefore, they spent two years somewhere else. According to Leo the Deacon, the Russian army defeated near Constantinople wintered in the cities and settlements of Black Sea-Azov Rus' - on the “Cimmerian Bosporus”. Apparently, it remained there for the next two years, preparing for a new campaign.
What caused the two-year stay of Russian squads on the shores of the “Cimmerian Bosporus”? According to the Cambridge document, H-l-go (that is, in this case, Igor), having fled from near Constantinople, “was ashamed to return to his land.” From a psychological point of view it sounds quite plausible. However, not only in upset feelings young prince it was the case. Igor delayed returning to Kyiv because of a well-founded fear of a bad reception there. In the pagan understanding holiness(including the holiness of the leader-priest, which presupposes, among other things, his “luck”, as a whole set of outstanding psychophysical properties: strength, intelligence, dexterity, etc.) one of the main components was the concept of integrity, integrity, integrity, not only suffering any kind of derogation, but, on the contrary, constantly increasing its fruitful and powerful potential ( Petrukhin V.Ya. Towards the pre-Christian origins of the ancient Russian princely cult // POLYTROPON. To the 70th anniversary of V. N. Toporov. M., 1998. P. 888). Therefore, a military defeat caused serious damage to the sacred and political authority of the leader; it meant that the gods turned away from him, and with him from the entire society (tribe, clan, etc.). For a warrior, there was, in fact, only one way out of the state of being abandoned by God - death with weapons in hand. Ideally, in the event of an unsuccessful outcome of the battle, the leader should not have survived his shame, and the squad should not have survived their leader. Thus, Tacitus wrote about the Germans that their “leaders fight for victory, the warriors fight for their leader.” Svyatoslav reminded his soldiers of this same pagan code of honor when he called on them: “Let us not disgrace the Russian land, but let us lie down with that bone, for we are dead because we have no rubbish.” In 941, the “heavenly lightning” of the Greeks turned out to be stronger than the military happiness and magical abilities of the Russian prince. He fled the battlefield and did not receive even a symbolic tribute. The gods no longer patronized him. Igor needed to restore his reputation as a successful leader, which was established for him after the conquest of the Uglich and “Drevlyans” and the expulsion of Oleg II from Kyiv.
The Black Sea Russes did not support Igor this time. In Arabic sources, 943/944 is marked by another attack of the Rus on the city of Berdaa in Transcaucasia, which excludes the participation of this detachment in the campaign against the Greeks. The Treaty of 944, in turn, does not defend the interests of anyone except the princely family and “guests” from the three cities of the Middle Dnieper region.
It was the small number of his own army that forced Igor to resort to hiring the Pechenegs, who, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, “being free and seemingly independent... never perform any service without payment.” Russian embassies to the Pechenegs probably had many similarities with the execution of similar orders by imperial officials, whose mode of action is well known from the description of the same Constantine. Main role The success of the embassy was played by gifts, which the Pechenegs coveted by hook or by crook. Arriving in Kherson, the emperor’s ambassador (“vasilik”) was supposed to “immediately send [a messenger] to Pachinakia and demand hostages and guards from them. When they arrive, leave the hostages in custody in the Kherson fortress, and go with the guards to Pachinakia and carry out the assignment. These same pachinakites, being insatiable and extremely greedy for their rare things, shamelessly demand large gifts: the hostages seek one for themselves and another for their wives, the guards - one for their labors, and another for the fatigue of their horses. Then, when the basileus enters their country, they demand first of all the gifts of the basileus, and again, when they have pleased their people, they ask for gifts for their wives and their parents. Moreover, those who, for the sake of protecting the basilica returning to Kherson, come with him, ask him to reward the work of themselves and their horses.”
Another way to contact the Pechenegs was that the basil, accompanied by a small flotilla, entered the mouth of the Dnieper or Dniester and, having discovered the Pechenegs, sent a messenger to them. The Russians most likely did just that. Then the story repeated itself: “The Pachinakites come to him [the ambassador], and when they come together, the basilik gives them his people as hostages, but he himself receives their hostages from the Pachinakites and keeps them in Hellandia. And then he negotiates with the Pachinakites. And when the pachinakites bring oaths to the basilica for their “zakanam” [laws]*, he gives them royal gifts and receives as many “friends” [allies] from among them as he wants, and then returns.”
* Konstantin’s curious use of a Slavic word in relation to Pecheneg customs is evidence that “this very concept, and perhaps the rules of law, were borrowed by the Pechenegs from the Slavs” (Konstantin Bagryanorodny. On the management of the empire(text, translation, commentary) / Ed. G.G. Litavrin and A.P. Novoseltseva. M., 1989. P. 290, note. 5).
The existence of an alliance agreement between Igor and the Pecheneg khans follows, among other things, from the very fact that the Rus in 941 managed to pass the Dnieper rapids without hindrance. After all, as the same writer testifies, “in this royal city of the Romans [Constantinople], if the dews are not at peace with the Pachinakites, they cannot appear, neither for the sake of war, nor for the sake of trade, for when the dews with boats come to the river rapids and they cannot pass them otherwise than by pulling their boats out of the river and crossing them, carrying them on their shoulders, then the people of this Pachinakit people attack them and easily - the dew cannot resist two labors - they win and carry out a massacre.” Apparently, in 944, Igor managed to convince the Pecheneg khans that military booty would be incomparably richer than imperial gifts.
Interrupted hike
The details of the 944 campaign are known only from chronicles. Probably, Igor and his squad went from the eastern Crimea to the Danube mouth, meeting here with the militia of the Kyiv land, who were placed in boats, and the Pechenegs who arrived in time. “The Tale of Bygone Years” says that this time the Kherson strategist did not make a mistake and was the first to let Constantinople know about the approach of the enemy: “sending to the Tsar Roman, saying: “Behold, Rus' is coming without a number of ships, the ships have covered the sea.” Likewise, the Bulgarians sent the message, saying: “Rus' is coming, and the Pechenegs have taken over.”
Igor's army was supposed to reach the Danube mouth somewhere in late July or early August. On the Danube he was met by imperial ambassadors. Roman I Lekapin proposed to end the matter peacefully and expressed his readiness to pay the Kyiv prince a large tribute, “as Oleg paid,” and to conclude an alliance treaty. Individual gifts—“lots of pavolok and gold”—were intended for the Pechenegs. Igor called the squad for a council. The squad, mindful, spoke out in favor of accepting peace proposals: “If the king says so, then what more do we need? Without fighting, let's take the gold, and the pavoloks, and the silver! How else do we know who will win - us or them? And does anyone have any advice about the sea? We do not walk on earth, but in the depths of the sea, and in it there is only death for everyone.”* Igor must have thought in a similar way, especially since the retreat this time did not lower his honor, for the Greeks gave him “tribute” (compare with the reflections of Svyatoslav and his squad on the proposal of Emperor John Tzimiskes to make peace. Having received imperial gifts, the prince reasoned: “the Greeks gave us tribute, and then be content with us” - we can return home with honor). Having accepted the gifts, he sailed to Kyiv. The Pechenegs, not satisfied with the gifts, went to rob the Bulgarians.
By the way, Igor’s Rus’ fear of the sea, along with the habit of feeling under their feet solid ground, is quite remarkable - as evidence that they were not natural sailors. Meanwhile, the Normans persistently assure us that these cautious speeches belong to the Vikings, for whom the ship was their home and the sea their native element. For the Kievan Rus - more likely to be "rivermen" than sailors - such a "fear of hydrophobia" is quite natural.
The reliability of the chronicle news about the campaign of 944.
Since the campaign of 944 is mentioned only in ancient Russian monuments, its historical reality has sometimes been questioned. Of course, the chronicle story about the campaign of 944, based on squad legends, does not fully correspond to the true events: it contains outright fabrications, such as, for example, Igor’s “copulation” of “many warriors” from the Slavic lands, and literary adaptation historical facts- self-deprecating behavior of the Greeks, etc. However, there are also details there that do not contradict historical accuracy, - the vigilance of the Chersonesos, in contrast to their oversight in 941, the hiring of the Pechenegs and their raid on Bulgaria, - which will be repeated during the Bulgarian wars of Svyatoslav, the message in the Archangel-City Chronicle about the three-year absence of Igor in Kyiv, and so on. Moreover, the role of the Pechenegs as allies of Igor and enemies of Bulgaria and Byzantium, which is assigned to them in the chronicle, is indirectly confirmed by other evidence. In the city of Kalfa (in the southern part of the Prut-Dniester interfluve, which was part of the First Bulgarian Kingdom), archaeologists discovered traces of destruction that date back to approximately the middle of the 10th century. ( Nikolaev V.D. On the history of Bulgarian-Russian relations in the early 40s of the 10th century // Soviet Slavic Studies. 1982. No. 6. P. 51). And Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, in his diplomatic instructions, advises his son, in order to protect Constantinople from attacks by the Rus, to always be on good terms with the Pechenegs. This political instruction is especially significant because, according to all sources, Russian and foreign, the Pechenegs did not take part in Igor’s first sea campaign in 941. This means that Konstantin was concerned about some other case of Russian-Pecheneg military cooperation that created a threat to the capital of the empire. This place in his work is fully consistent with the chronicle news of the Russian-Byzantine conflict of 944.
Some not immediately discernible traces of this event can be found in the text of the treaty of 944. One of its articles contains a reference to the preliminary agreement of its terms: if the slave who fled from Rus' to Greece is not found, it is said there, then the Russians must swear that he really fled to Greece. Greece, and then they will receive the price of a slave - two pavoloks, “as it was decreed to eat before,” that is, as decreed before. When before? this article does not exist - there the Russians receive for an escaped slave his “per day” price, that is, his current market value. Nothing is known about any negotiations between the Rus and the Greeks after the defeat of 941. This means that the preliminary terms of the treaty were discussed during Igor’s second campaign “against the Greeks,” in the summer of 944, when, according to the chronicler, ambassadors from Romanus arrived in the Russian camp on the Danube with peace proposals.
In general, the treaty of 944 does not give the impression of a document that crowned the crushing defeat of Rus' in 941. The respectful tone towards Igor is nowhere violated; full equality of rights between the Rus and the Greeks is declared; all the interests of the Kyiv prince were recognized as legitimate - both trade, in the Constantinople market, and geopolitical, in the Northern Black Sea region; The Russians were proclaimed political and military allies of the emperor. Unlike the treaty of 911, which contains an indication of the military conflict immediately preceding its conclusion (“at the first word, let us make peace with you, Greeks”), peaceful agreement 944 vaguely mentions only certain machinations of the “enemy of the devil,” which formulation removes the personal responsibility of the parties for their actions, placing it on the enemy of the human race; Thus, the Russian-Byzantine “dislikers” appear as an annoying misunderstanding that took place somewhere in the past, which is quite consistent with the situation of the conclusion of the treaty in 944, three years after the raid of 941, since in 944 before the open conflict and there was no new triumph for the devil.
The strongest argument against the reliability of the entire chronicle article for 944, perhaps, can be considered Igor’s secondary intention to go against the Greeks “in Lodia” - the horror of the Rus attested by the chronicler before the “fire of fire”, it would seem, should completely exclude this very idea. But it seems that Igor had no intention of undertaking a new naval siege of Constantinople. The concentration of Russian troops in 944 at the mouth of the Danube, where they united with the Pechenegs, is surprisingly reminiscent of the actions of Prince Svyatoslav during his Bulgarian wars. It is possible that, having traveled from Crimea to the Danube on boats, Igor intended to further advance to Constantinople by land route through Thrace. Subsequently, Svyatoslav brought this failed strategic plan of his father to life.
Conclusion of peace
One can only guess what caused the compliance of Roman I. His position on the throne was already fragile: his co-ruler sons Stefan and Constantine were intriguing against him (on December 16 of the same 944, they removed Roman from power and sent him into exile).
The empire as a whole also experienced better times, crowded on all sides by neighbors. African Arabs took almost all of Calabria from her, the German king Otto I was eager to go to Southern Italy, the Khazars strengthened themselves in the Crimea and on the Taman Peninsula, skirmishes with emirs took place on the Syrian border every year, and Arab pirates ruled the Aegean Sea.
It was, of course, unwise to increase the number of enemies. In the Northern Black Sea region, Roman I pursued a consistent anti-Khazar policy, building complex system military-political pressure on the Kaganate. The main role in this system was played by the allies of Byzantium - the Pechenegs and Alans, who were joined by Roman in 939. Since then I have left the game. But the Russian land of Prince Igor continued to remain an influential force in the region. It was in the interests of the empire to attract her to her side - by the way, as a counterbalance to the Black Bulgars and the same Pechenegs, who sometimes, as Constantine Porphyrogenitus writes, “not being friendly towards us, can oppose Kherson, raid and ruin it and Kherson itself, and the so-called Climates.”
So, a verbal agreement regarding the terms of the peace treaty was reached already on the Danube. At the same time, official negotiations opened. Ambassadors came to Constantinople “from Igor the Grand Duke of Russia” and “from the entire reign, and from all the people of the Russian land” in order to “renew the old world, and destroy the good-hating and hostile devil for many years, and establish love between the Greeks and Russia” . Accepted by “the kings themselves*, and with all the boyars,” they concluded an eternal peace, “until the sun shines and the whole world stands.” The agreement was sealed with a solemn oath. Emperors kissed the cross. The baptized Rus swore that if any of them thought of “destroying such love... let him receive vengeance from God Almighty and condemnation to destruction in this age and in the future”; the pagans threatened the guilty with more tangible troubles: “let them not have help from God, nor from Perun, let them not be protected by their shields, and let them be cut with their swords, and from arrows and from the naked weapons of theirs, and let there be slaves in this age and in future".
* On the Byzantine side, the treaty was signed by Emperor Roman I Lecapinus and his two co-rulers - Constantine and Stephen. Constantine here is Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, and not the son of Romanus, who bore the same name. Konstantin Lekapin was younger than Stephen and, according to etiquette, could not be mentioned in an official document before his older brother. Consequently, the main co-ruler of Romanos I at that time was Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who took the place of Constantine Lekapin, who at that time was removed from power, probably for disobedience to his father (Constantine Porphyrogenitus. On the management of the empire. P. 15). The date of the conclusion of the treaty in the Tale of Bygone Years - 945 - is incorrect, since already in December 944 Roman was overthrown from the throne.
Terms of the 944 treaty
The articles of the treaty covered three large sections of Russian-Byzantine relations:
I. Trade relations were preserved in full: “ Grand Duke Let the Russian and the Bolyars send him to the Greeks as ambassadors and with guests to the great Greek kings.” But the Greeks were concerned that they would not come from the Russian land with merchants random people who committed robberies “in the villages and in our country.” Therefore, the access regime for Russian merchants was changed. If before the identities of Russian ambassadors and guests were certified by seals - gold and silver, now the Greeks demanded that they present a credential issued by the Grand Duke, indicating the exact number of ships and people sent from the Russian land: only then, the document says, the authorities of Constantinople will We are sure that the Russians came in peace. Those who came without a letter were subject to detention until the Kiev prince confirmed their authority. Anyone who resisted arrest could be killed, and the prince had no right to recover from the Greeks for his death; if he still managed to escape and return to Rus', then the Greeks had to write about this to the prince, and he was free to do as he wanted.
Merchants from the Kyiv land continued to enjoy all the benefits provided for the trading “Rus” under the treaty of 911: they were allocated a guest yard near the Church of St. Mamant, where they could live until the onset of cold weather. full content from the imperial treasury. Freedom of trade for them (“and let them buy whatever they need”) was constrained only by the restriction on the export of expensive fabrics: Russian merchants did not have the right to buy pavoloks worth more than 50 spools (Liutprand, bishop, also writes about the prohibition for foreigners to export expensive fabrics from Constantinople Cremonsky, from whom customs officers took away five purple cloaks upon leaving Constantinople). This ban was caused by the fact that the Byzantine authorities strictly ensured that the pomp and luxury befitting the godlike basileus of the Romans and imperial court, did not become the property of not only the surrounding barbarians, but also their own population, who were forbidden to buy silk for more than a certain amount (30 spools). “Royal” fabrics and robes were objects of passionate desire for the leaders of the “savage” peoples surrounding Byzantium. The throne of the ruler of Volga Bulgaria, with whom Ibn Fadlan saw in 921, was covered with Byzantine brocade. The Pechenegs, as Konstantin Porphyrogenitus writes, were ready to sell themselves wholeheartedly for silk fabrics, ribbons, scarves, belts, and “scarlet Parthian skins.” Peace treaties that ended the unsuccessful wars with the barbarians for the empire usually contained the obligation of the Byzantine authorities to give part of the tribute in silk, brocade, dyed leather, etc. This was achieved in 812 by the Bulgarian Khan Krum and in 911 by the “Russian Holy Prince” Oleg . In 944, Igor’s squad expressed the intention to “take pavoloki” - and, in all likelihood, they took it. Control over the export of fabrics from Constantinople was carried out by imperial officials, who stamped the fabric, which served as a pass at customs for Russian merchants.
II. Issues of criminal and property law- the murder of a “Christian Rusyn or a Christian Rusyn”, mutual beatings and thefts, the return of fugitive slaves - were decided “according to Russian and Greek law.” The dissimilarity of Byzantine and Russian legislation, due to ethno-confessional differences, forced the parties to a certain compromise. Thus, for a blow with a “sword, or spear, or other weapon,” a Rusyn paid a fine—“5 liters of silver, according to Russian law”; the thieves were punished “according to Greek law and according to the charter and according to Russian law,” apparently depending on who the criminal was: Greek or Rusyn. A Greek who offended someone in the Russian land should not have been tried in the court of the prince, but was subject to extradition to the Byzantine government for punishment*. Russian owners of escaped slaves were placed in better conditions than Greek ones. Even if the slave who hid from them in Byzantium was not there, they received his full price - two pavoloks; at the same time, for the return of a slave who had committed theft from a Greek master and was caught with stolen goods in Rus', the Russians were entitled to two spools as a reward.
* Comparison of this article of the treaty of 944 with similar articles of other international treaties of Byzantium (XI - XII centuries), close to it in time, in particular with Italian cities, shows that the prohibition of judging a guilty Greek by a pagan court concerned, apparently, only officials empires. For other “Greeks” no concessions were made in this regard (Litavrin G.G. Byzantium, Bulgaria, Ancient Rus'. (IX - early XIII century). St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 86).
III. In the field of international politics The parties declared the closest alliance. In the event of a war between Byzantium and a third state, the Grand Duke obliged to provide the emperor with military assistance “as much as he wants: and from then on other countries will see what kind of love the Greeks have with Russia.” Igor also promised not to fight the “country of Korsun” himself and to protect it from the raids (“dirty tricks”) of the Black Bulgars - the empire sought to prevent a repetition. At the same time, this article of the agreement legitimized the presence of Kyiv vigilantes in Crimea. Igor’s military services were paid for by the Byzantine government: “Yes, he will have plenty of ladies.” As is clear from the book of Constantine Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire,” the Rus also asked for their service to be supplied with “liquid fire thrown through siphons.” However, they were refused on the pretext that these weapons were sent to the Romans by God himself through an angel, along with the strictest order that they “be made only by Christians and only in the city in which they reign, and in no way in any other place.” , and also that no other people should receive it or be taught how to prepare it.”
The Byzantine authorities showed intransigence on several other issues. In particular, the Rus did not have the right to winter at the mouth of the Dnieper and on the island of Saint Epherius (most often identified with the island of Berezan opposite, the Dnieper delta), and with the onset of autumn they had to go “to their homes, to Rus'” (Archaeological excavations on the island. Berezan revealed the temporary - probably seasonal - nature of the local settlements, which confirms the Rus' fulfillment of the terms of the treaty, see: Gorbunova K.S. On the nature of the settlement on Berezan Island // Problems of Archeology. L., 1979. Issue. II. pp. 170-174). Meanwhile, Kherson fishermen could freely fish in the Dnieper estuary (according to Konstantin Bagryanorodny, somewhere nearby there were also “swamps and bays in which the Khersonites extract salt”). On the other hand, the Rus were no longer obliged, as before, to help the shipwrecked Greek sailors: the Rus were only required not to offend them. Captured Greek Christians who ended up in Rus' were subject to ransom: for a young man or widow they gave 10 spools; for a middle-aged person - 8; for an old man or a baby - 5. A captive Rus at the Constantinople slave market was ransomed for 10 spools, but if his owner swore on the cross that he paid more for him, then they paid as much as he said.
The treaty of 944 was often compared with the treaty of 911, trying to figure out which of them was more consistent with the interests of the Russian land. As a rule, nothing good came of this: in similar articles of both treaties, some details look “better”, others “worse” for the Russians; a number of articles in Igor’s treaty contain innovations that were previously unknown. We won't engage comparative analysis these documents, because we know that they are generally incomparable. The Russian land of Prince Igor was not the legal successor to the Rus of the prophetic Oleg, treaties of 911 and 944. concluded by representatives whose interests did not coincide. But if we talk about Igor, then his benefits were fully respected: he achieved everything he wanted.
In the early autumn of 944, Russian ambassadors and guests returned to Kyiv along with Byzantine diplomats sent by Roman I to monitor the ratification of the treaty. When Igor asked what the emperor ordered them to convey, they, according to the chronicle, answered: “The Tsar sent us, he rejoices in the world and wants to have peace and love with you, the Grand Duke of Russia. Your ambassadors led our kings to the cross, and we were sent to swear you and your husbands.” The ceremony was scheduled for tomorrow. In the morning, Igor, accompanied by Roman’s ambassadors, went to the hill where Perun’s idol stood. Placing shields, naked swords and “gold” around the idol (apparently, these were golden neck hoops - “hryvnia”, mentioned in ancient Russian and foreign sources, in particular by Ibn Ruste: “their [Rus] men wear gold bracelets”) , the unbaptized Rus swore to sacredly abide by the terms of the treaty. Christian Russians kissed the cross on the same one in the Kyiv Cathedral Church of St. Elijah. Then Igor released the ambassadors, giving them furs, slaves and wax.
At this point, the Rus' of the “bright princes” officially ceased to exist. Its place in the East Slavic world and in the system of international relations was taken by a new power - the Russian Land, the Rus' of Prince Igor and his descendants - the Igorevichs.
The second source of law was the Russian-Byzantine treaties of 911, 944 and 971. These are international legal acts that reflect the norms of Byzantine and Old Russian law. They regulated trade relations and determined the rights enjoyed by Russian merchants in Byzantium. The norms of criminal and civil law, certain rights and privileges of feudal lords are recorded here. Treaties also contain rules of oral customary law.
As a result of the campaigns of the Russian princes against Constantinople, Russian-Byzantine treaties were concluded that regulated trade and political relations between the states.
Three treaties with Byzantium 911, 945, 971. were intended to ensure the regulation of trade relations between the two countries. The texts contain rules of Byzantine and Russian law related to international, commercial, procedural and criminal law. They contain references to the “Russian Law,” which was a set of oral norms of customary law. Being international, these treaties in some cases fix interstate norms, but ancient Russian law is clearly reflected in them.
·The agreement of September 2, 911 was concluded after the successful campaign of Prince Oleg’s squad against Byzantium in 907. He restored friendly relations between states, determined the procedure for ransoming prisoners, punishments for criminal offenses committed by Greek and Russian merchants in Byzantium, rules of conduct trial and inheritance, created favorable trading conditions for Russians and Greeks, changed coastal law (instead of seizing a beached ship and its property, the owners of the shore were obliged to assist in their rescue).
·The 945 treaty was concluded after unsuccessful trip Prince Igor's troops against Byzantium in 941 and a second campaign in 944. Confirming the norms of 911 in a slightly modified form, the treaty of 945 obliged Russian ambassadors and merchants to have princely charters in order to enjoy the established benefits, and introduced a number of restrictions for Russian merchants. Rus' pledged not to lay claim to the Crimean possessions of Byzantium, not to leave outposts at the mouth of the Dnieper, and to help each other with military forces.
·The July 971 agreement was concluded by Prince Svyatoslav Igorevich with Emperor John Tzimiskes after the defeat of Russian troops in the Bulgarian Dorostol. Compiled in unfavorable conditions for Rus', it contained obligations of Rus' to refrain from attacks on Byzantium. From treaties with Byzantium in the 10th century. it is clear that merchants played a prominent role in international relations Rus, when they not only made purchases abroad, but also acted as diplomats who had extensive connections with foreign courts and social elites.
The agreements also mentioned the death penalty, penalties, regulated the right to hire for service, measures to capture fugitive slaves, and registration of certain goods. At the same time, the agreements provided for the implementation of the right of blood feud and other norms of customary law
Treaties between Rus' and Byzantium are an extremely valuable source on the history of the state and law of Ancient Rus', Old Russian and international law, Russian-Byzantine relations.
Rich Byzantine culture, which in the X-XI centuries. experienced a renaissance (rebirth) and had a noticeable impact on our state. But it cannot be said that the influence of Byzantine law on Old Russian law was significant. This follows from “Russian Truth”, as a collection of norms of ancient Russian, in particular customary, law. Slavic conservative customs did not accept foreign norms.
Legal system Kievan Rus at the time of the intensification of his relations with Byzantium, it was almost formed on the basis of the traditions of its own customary law. A striking feature of the legal system Old Russian state There were, in particular, sanctions in criminal law (absence of the death penalty, widespread use of monetary penalties, etc.). But Byzantine law was characterized by strict sanctions, including death penalty, and corporal punishment.
The agreement - one of the earliest surviving ancient Russian diplomatic documents - was concluded after the successful campaign of the Kyiv prince Oleg and his squad against the Byzantine Empire in 907. It was originally compiled in Greek, but only the Russian translation has survived as part of The Tale of Bygone Years. The articles of the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911 are devoted mainly to the consideration of various offenses and penalties for them. We are talking about liability for murder, for intentional beatings, for theft and robbery; on the procedure for assisting merchants of both countries during their voyages with goods; the rules for the ransom of prisoners are regulated; there are clauses about allied assistance to the Greeks from Rus' and about the order of service of the Russians in imperial army; about the procedure for returning escaped or kidnapped servants; the procedure for inheriting the property of Russians who died in Byzantium is described; regulated Russian trade in Byzantium.
Relationship with Byzantine Empire already from the 9th century. constituted the most important element foreign policy Old Russian state. Probably already in the 30s or very early 40s. 9th century The Russian fleet raided the Byzantine city of Amastris on the southern Black Sea coast ( modern city Amasra in Turkey). Greek sources talk in sufficient detail about the attack of the “Rus people” on the Byzantine capital - Constantinople. In the Tale of Bygone Years this campaign is erroneously dated to 866 and is associated with the names of semi-mythical Kyiv princes Askold and Dir.
News of the first diplomatic contacts between Rus' and its southern neighbor also date back to this time. As part of the embassy of the Byzantine emperor Theophilus (829-842), who arrived in 839 at the court of the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious, there were certain “suppliers for peace” from the “people of Ros”. They had been sent by their Khakan ruler to the Byzantine court, and were now returning to their homeland. Peaceful and even allied relations between Byzantium and Russia are attested by sources of the 2nd half of the 860s, primarily by the messages of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius (858-867 and 877-886). During this period, through the efforts of Greek missionaries (their names have not reached us), the process of Christianization of Rus' began. However, this so-called “first baptism” of Rus' did not have significant consequences: its results were destroyed after the capture of Kyiv by the squads of Prince Oleg who came from Northern Rus'.
This event marked the consolidation under the rule of the northern, Scandinavian in origin, Rurik dynasty of lands along the transit Volkhov-Dnieper trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” Oleg, the new ruler of Rus' (his name is a variant of the Old Norse Helga - sacred) primarily sought to establish his status in the confrontation with powerful neighbors - the Khazar Khaganate and the Byzantine Empire. It can be assumed that initially Oleg tried to maintain partnerships with Byzantium on the basis of a treaty in the 860s. However, his anti-Christian policies led to confrontation.
The story of Oleg's campaign against Constantinople in 907 is preserved in the Tale of Bygone Years. It contains a number of elements clearly of folkloric origin, and therefore many researchers have expressed doubts about its reliability. In addition, Greek sources report practically nothing about this military campaign. There are only isolated mentions of the “Ros” in documents from the time of Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-912), as well as an unclear passage in the chronicle of pseudo-Simeon (late 10th century) about the participation of the “Ros” in the Byzantine war against the Arab fleet. The main argument in favor of the reality of the campaign of 907 should be considered the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911. The authenticity of this document does not raise any doubts, and the conditions contained therein, extremely beneficial for Rus', could hardly have been achieved without military pressure on Byzantium.
In addition, the description in the Tale of Bygone Years of the negotiations between Oleg and the Byzantine emperors, co-rulers Leo and Alexander, is fully consistent with the well-known principles of Byzantine diplomatic practice. After Prince Oleg and his army appeared under the walls of Constantinople and ravaged the outskirts of the city, Emperor Leo VI and his co-ruler Alexander were forced to enter into negotiations with him. Oleg sent five ambassadors to the Byzantine emperors with his demands. The Greeks expressed their readiness to pay a one-time tribute to the Rus and allowed them duty-free trade in Constantinople. The agreement reached was secured by both parties through an oath: the emperors kissed the cross, and the Rus swore on their weapons and their deities Perun and Volos. The taking of the oath was apparently preceded by an agreement, since the oath was supposed to relate precisely to the practical articles of the contract that it was intended to confirm. We do not know what exactly the parties agreed on. It is clear, however, that the Rus demanded some kind of payments and benefits from the Greeks and that they received this in order to then leave the area of Constantinople.
The formal agreement between Rus' and Byzantium was apparently concluded in two stages: negotiations took place in 907, then the agreements reached were sealed with an oath. But the attestation of the text of the treaty was delayed in time and occurred only in 911. It is worth noting that the most beneficial articles of the treaty for the Rus - on the payment of indemnities (“ukladov”) by the Greeks and on the exemption of Russian merchants in Constantinople from paying duties - are only among the preliminary articles 907, but not in the main text of the treaty of 911. According to one version, the mention of duties was deliberately removed from the article “On Russian traders”, which was preserved only as a title. Perhaps the desire of the Byzantine rulers to conclude an agreement with Russia was also caused by the desire to gain an ally in the ongoing war against the Arabs. It is known that in the summer of the same year 911, 700 Russian soldiers took part in the Byzantine campaign against the Arab-occupied island of Crete. Perhaps they remained in the empire, enrolling there military service, after Oleg’s campaigns, and did not return to their homeland.
Detailed textual, diplomatic and legal analysis showed that the texts of the diplomatic protocol, acts and legal formulas preserved in the Old Russian text of the treaty of 911 are either translations of well-known Byzantine clerical formulas, attested in many surviving Greek authentic acts, or paraphrases of Byzantine monuments rights. Nestor included in the “Tale of Bygone Years” a Russian translation made from an authentic (that is, possessing the force of the original) copy of the act from a special copy book. Unfortunately, it has not yet been established when and by whom the translation was carried out, and under no circumstances did extracts from the copy books reach Rus'.
During the X–XI centuries. wars between Russia and Byzantium alternated with peaceful ones, and rather long pauses. These periods were marked by increased diplomatic actions between the two states - exchange of embassies, active trade. Clergymen, architects, and artists came to Rus' from Byzantium. After the Christianization of Rus' in reverse direction Pilgrims began to travel to holy places. The Tale of Bygone Years includes two more Russian-Byzantine treaties: between Prince Igor and Emperor Roman I Lekapin (944) and between Prince Svyatoslav and Emperor John I Tzimiskes (971). As with the 911 agreement, they are translations from the Greek originals. Most likely, all three texts fell into the hands of the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years in the form of a single collection. At the same time, the text of the agreement of 1046 between Yaroslav the Wise and Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh is not in the Tale of Bygone Years.
Treaties with Byzantium are among the oldest written sources of Russian statehood. As international treaty acts, they fixed the norms of international law, as well as the legal norms of the contracting parties, which, thus, was drawn into the orbit of another cultural and legal tradition.
The norms of international law include those articles of the treaty of 911 and other Russian-Byzantine agreements, analogues of which are present in the texts of a number of other treaties of Byzantium. This applies to the limitation of the period of stay of foreigners in Constantinople, as well as to the norms of coastal law reflected in the treaty of 911. An analogue of the provisions of the same text on fugitive slaves may be clauses of some Byzantine-Bulgarian agreements. Byzantine diplomatic agreements included clauses on baths, similar to the corresponding terms of the treaty of 907. The documentation of Russian-Byzantine treaties, as researchers have repeatedly noted, owes much to the Byzantine clerical protocol. Therefore, they reflected Greek protocol and legal norms, clerical and diplomatic stereotypes, norms, and institutions. This, in particular, is the usual mention for Byzantine acts of co-rulers along with the ruling monarch: Leo, Alexander and Constantine in the treaty of 911, Romanus, Constantine and Stephen in the treaty of 944, John Tzimiskes, Basil and Constantine in the treaty of 971. Such there were usually no mentions either in Russian chronicles or in brief Byzantine chronicles; on the contrary, in the Byzantine form official documents it was a common element. The determining influence of Byzantine norms was reflected in the use of Greek weights, monetary measures, as well as the Byzantine system of chronology and dating: indicating the year from the Creation of the world and indict ( serial number year in a 15-year tax reporting cycle). The price of a slave in the contract of 911, as studies have shown, is close to the average price of a slave in Byzantium at that time.
It is important that the treaty of 911, as well as subsequent agreements, testified to the complete legal equality of both parties. The subjects of law were the subjects of the Russian prince and the Byzantine emperor, regardless of their place of residence, social status and religion. At the same time, the norms regulating crimes against the person were based mainly on the “Russian law”. This probably means a set of legal norms of customary law that were in force in Rus' by the beginning of the 10th century, that is, long before the adoption of Christianity.
From "The Tale of Bygone Years"
In the year 6420 [from the Creation of the world]. Oleg sent his men to make peace and establish an agreement between the Greeks and Russians, saying this: “A list from the agreement concluded under the same kings Leo and Alexander. We are from the Russian family - Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid - sent from Oleg, the Grand Duke of Russia, and from everyone who is at hand him, - the bright and great princes, and his great boyars, to you, Leo, Alexander and Constantine, the great autocrats in God, the Greek kings, to strengthen and certify the long-term friendship that existed between Christians and Russians, at the request of our great princes and by command, from all the Russians under his hand. Our Lordship, desiring above all in God to strengthen and certify the friendship that constantly existed between Christians and Russians, decided fairly, not only in words, but also in writing, and with a firm oath, swearing with our weapons, to confirm such friendship and certify it by faith and according to our law.
These are the essence of the chapters of the agreement regarding which we have committed ourselves by God's faith and friendship. With the first words of our agreement, we will make peace with you, Greeks, and we will begin to love each other with all our souls and with all our good will, and we will not allow any deception or crime to occur from those under the hands of our bright princes, since this is in our power; but we will try, as much as we can, to maintain with you, Greeks, in future years and forever an unchangeable and unchanging friendship, expressed and committed to a letter with confirmation, certified by an oath. Likewise, you, Greeks, maintain the same unshakable and unchanging friendship for our bright Russian princes and for everyone who is under the hand of our bright prince always and in all years.
And about the chapters concerning possible atrocities, we will agree as follows: let those atrocities that are clearly certified be considered indisputably committed; and whichever they do not believe, let the party that seeks to swear that this crime will not be believed; and when that party swears, let the punishment be whatever the crime turns out to be.
About this: if anyone kills a Russian Christian or a Russian Christian, let him die at the scene of the murder. If the murderer runs away and turns out to be a rich man, then let the relative of the murdered man take that part of his property that is due by law, but let the murderer’s wife also keep what is due to her by law. If the escaped murderer turns out to be indigent, then let him remain on trial until he is found, and then let him die.
If someone strikes with a sword or beats with any other weapon, then for that blow or beating let him give 5 liters of silver according to Russian law; If the one who committed this offense is poor, then let him give as much as he can, so that let him take off the very clothes in which he walks, and about the remaining unpaid amount, let him swear by his faith that no one can help him, and let him not this balance is collected from him.
About this: if a Russian steals something from a Christian or, on the contrary, a Christian from a Russian, and the thief is caught by the victim at the very time when he commits the theft, or if the thief prepares to steal and is killed, then his death will not be exacted from either Christians or from Russians; but let the victim take back what he lost. If the thief gives himself up voluntarily, then let him be taken by the one from whom he stole, and let him be bound, and give back what he stole in triple the amount.
About this: if one of the Christians or one of the Russians attempts [robbery] through beatings and clearly takes by force something belonging to another, then let him return it in triple amount.
If a boat is thrown onto a foreign land by a strong wind and one of us Russians is there and helps save the boat with its cargo and send it back to the Greek land, then we carry it through every dangerous place until it comes to a safe place; If this boat is delayed by a storm or has run aground and cannot return to its place, then we, Russians, will help the rowers of that boat and see them off with their goods in good health. If the same misfortune happens to a Russian boat near the Greek land, then we will take it to the Russian land and let them sell the goods of that boat, so if it is possible to sell anything from that boat, then let us, the Russians, take it [to the Greek shore]. And when [we, Russians] come to the Greek land for trade or as an embassy to your king, then [we, Greeks] will honor the sold goods of their boat. If any of us Russians who arrived with the boat happen to be killed or something is taken from the boat, then let the culprits be sentenced to the above punishment.
About these: if a captive of one side or another is forcibly held by Russians or Greeks, having been sold into their country, and if, in fact, he turns out to be Russian or Greek, then let them ransom and return the ransomed person to his country and take the price of those who bought him, or let it be The price offered for it was that of servants. Also, if he is captured by those Greeks in the war, still let him return to his country and his usual price will be given for him, as already said above.
If there is a recruitment into the army and these [Russians] want to honor your king, and no matter how many of them come at what time, and want to stay with your king of their own free will, then so be it.
More about the Russians, about the prisoners. Those [captive Christians] who came from any country to Rus' and were sold [by the Russians] back to Greece, or captive Christians brought to Rus' from any country - all of these must be sold for 20 zlatnikov and returned to the Greek land.
About this: if a Russian servant is stolen, either runs away, or is forcibly sold and the Russians begin to complain, let them prove this about their servants and take him to Rus', but the merchants, if they lose the servant and appeal, let them demand it in court and, when they find , - they will take it. If someone does not allow an inquiry to be carried out, he will not be recognized as right.
And about the Russians serving in the Greek land with the Greek king. If someone dies without disposing of his property, and he does not have his own [in Greece], then let his property return to Rus' to his closest younger relatives. If he makes a will, then the one to whom he wrote to inherit his property will take what was bequeathed to him, and let him inherit it.
About Russian traders.
About various people going to the Greek land and remaining in debt. If the villain does not return to Rus', then let the Russians complain to the Greek kingdom, and he will be captured and returned by force to Rus'. Let the Russians do the same to the Greeks if the same thing happens.
As a sign of the strength and immutability that should be between you, Christians, and Russians, we created this peace treaty with Ivan’s writing on two charters - your Tsar and with our own hand - we sealed it with an oath of the honorable cross and the holy consubstantial Trinity of your one true God and given to our ambassadors. We swore to your king, appointed by God, as a divine creation, according to our faith and custom, not to violate for us and anyone from our country any of the established chapters of the peace treaty and friendship. And this writing was given to your kings for approval, so that this agreement would become the basis for the approval and certification of the peace existing between us. The month of September 2, index 15, in the year from the creation of the world 6420.”
Tsar Leon honored the Russian ambassadors with gifts - gold, and silks, and precious fabrics - and sent his husbands to show them the church beauty, the golden chambers and the wealth stored in them: a lot of gold, pavolok, gems and the passion of the Lord - the crown, nails, scarlet robe and relics of the saints, teaching them their faith and showing them the true faith. And so he released them to his land with great honor. The ambassadors sent by Oleg returned to him and told him all the speeches of both kings, how they concluded peace and established an agreement between the Greek and Russian lands and established not to break the oath - neither to the Greeks nor to Rus'.
(translation by D.S. Likhachev).
© Library Russian Academy sciences
Bibikov M.V. Rus' in Byzantine diplomacy: treaties between Rus' and the Greeks of the 10th century. // Ancient Rus'. Questions of medieval studies. 2005. No. 1 (19).
Litavrin G.G. Byzantium, Bulgaria, etc. Rus' (IX - early XII centuries). St. Petersburg, 2000.
Nazarenko A.V. Ancient Rus' on international routes. M., 2001.
Novoseltsev A.P. The formation of the Old Russian state and its first ruler // The most ancient states Of Eastern Europe. 1998 M., 2000.
The Tale of Bygone Years / Ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz. M.; L, 1950.
What articles of the agreement relate to economic sphere, and which ones are political?
What was the ethnic composition of the Russian ambassadors mentioned in the treaty?
What specifically Greek realities appear in the text of the treaty?
Why are Russians and Christians opposed in the treaty?
Is it possible to talk about a military alliance between Rus' and Byzantium on the basis of the treaty?
