Stages of formation and development of the Byzantine state. State structure of Byzantium study of church-state relations in Byzantium

The Byzantine state took shape as a result of the separation of the eastern part of the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century. AD It existed for over a thousand years, until the defeat in 1453 of its capital, Constantinople, during the Turkish invasion.

The development of the Byzantine state, distinguished by its originality, went through several stages. The first stage (IV - the middle of the 7th century) was the period of the decomposition of the slave-owning system, the emergence in the depths of Byzantine society of elements of early feudal relations. The state of this period was a centralized monarchy with a developed military-bureaucratic apparatus, but with some restrictions on the power of the emperor. wto

the swarm stage (from the end of the 7th century to the end of the 12th century) was the period of the formation of the feudal order. At this time, the state acquires the finished features of a peculiar form of an unlimited monarchy, different from the despotic monarchies of the East and the monarchies of the feudal West. Imperial power in Byzantium reaches its highest level. Finally, at the third stage (XIII-XV centuries) there is a deepening of the political crisis of Byzantine society, caused by the intensification of the process of its feudalization in the face of growing Turkish military aggression. This period is characterized by a sharp weakening of the Byzantine state and its actual collapse in the XIII-XIV centuries, which led it to the XV century. to death.

Byzantium had a significant influence on the political development of the peoples of the South and of Eastern Europe, as well as Transcaucasia. For a long time she was the custodian and conductor of the state-legal heritage of antiquity. The perception by the feudal states of Bulgaria, Serbia, Kievan Rus and Georgia, the vast cultural heritage of the Byzantine state contributed to their progressive development.

Social system. The specific features of the development of Byzantine medieval society are already evident at the first stage of its development. The process of decomposition of the slave-owning order was slow in Byzantium. The relatively high level of development of commodity-money relations, the long-term preservation of the strong economic and political positions of numerous Byzantine cities (Antioch, Alexandria, Damascus, Constantinople, etc.) contributed to the political stability of Byzantium and restrained the process of the collapse of the slave system.

The ruling class of Byzantium IV-VII centuries. was uneven. The leading economic and social positions in Byzantium were occupied by the old senatorial aristocracy and the provincial nobility, whose dominance was based on large private land ownership of the slave type. Along with them, a high place in the social structure of Byzantine society was occupied by the urban municipal elite of the large cities of the empire, especially the capital, Constantinople.

tion of the peasants - the colony. Byzantine legislation divided the columns into free and "assigned". Forced to rent land from large landowners, the columns were in a position dependent on their masters. The position of the "assigned" columns was especially difficult: they were attached to the ground. Free and "assigned" columns carried duties both in favor of their masters and in favor of the state. The position of "both categories of Byzantine columns deteriorated sharply in the VI century.

The social system of Byzantium is undergoing serious changes during the most acute political and social crisis of the end of the 6th - the first half of the 7th century. The Arab invasion, the invasion of the barbarians, accompanied by their massive settling on the territory of the empire, the destruction and decline of many cities accelerated the breaking of the slaveholding and the formation of feudal orders in Byzantium. In wars and social clashes, a significant part of the representatives of those social groups that dominated Byzantium in the previous period perished. At the same time, the preservation of state forms of ownership, communal land tenure, and the enormous prevalence of unlimited private ownership of land in subsequent centuries seriously slowed down the formation of new feudal property and, moreover, the development of the exploitation of the Byzantine peasantry.

Only by the tenth century the tendency to create a feudal seigneurial system prevailed, based on the labor of the peasantry dependent on the land magnates, while maintaining, however, control by the state. The main forms of feudal landownership - conditional land grants in the form of a debate, arif-mos - were approved even later, in the 11th-12th centuries. Thus, the most famous feudal institution - the debate, which flourished in the 12th-13th centuries, represented various types of land grants to the proniar from the state on the terms of service, usually for the life of the proniar or emperor.

high-ranking secular and church officials, the local military service nobility and the communal elite, separated from the wealthy peasantry. All these forces were not consolidated for a long time and did not develop into closed estates. The hereditary vassal-seigneurial system, characteristic of a developed feudal system, began to take shape in Byzantium only by the 11th-12th centuries. The incompleteness of the development of the feudal seigneurial system led to the relative weakness of the Byzantine landowning nobility. The leading place in the structure of the ruling class of Byzantium belonged to the capital nobility and the highest officials of the empire, which were in sharp competition with the military landowning provincial nobility.

Chapter 19

And in the second period of development of the Byzantine state, numerous differences in the legal status of individual strata of the working population remained. In Byzantium, the formation of a class of feudal-dependent peasantry dragged on for a long time. The empire still retained a significant category of free communal peasants, as well as a special stratum of state peasants who sat on the lands that belonged to the treasury and the emperor. Both of these categories of peasants were exploited mainly in a centralized form through the state tax system. Taxable peasants sitting on state lands actually become serfs at this time: they are assigned to the treasury and lose their freedom of movement. They had to pay the canon - land tax, head tax, state grain rent, cattle tax. Particularly ruinous for the communal peasants was the obligation to pay taxes for the escheated and abandoned lands of their neighbors.

From the XI-XII centuries. there is a steady increase in the number of privately owned peasants at the expense of free and even state peasants, which indicates the formation of feudal-type land ownership in Byzantium. Privately owned Byzantine peasants were called wigs. They did not have the right to own land and were considered as hereditary holders of their allotments, they were obliged to pay rent to the master in labor, natural, monetary forms. Unlike state peasants, they were not attached to the land until the 13th-14th centuries.

The lowest position in Byzantine society, as before, was occupied by slaves. The long-term preservation of slavery was feature social structure of Byzantium. Slave labor was widely used in the household of the Byzantine nobility. Servants - slaves of the Constantinople nobles numbered in the hundreds. In the X-XI centuries. the social position of Byzantine slaves improves somewhat; for example, they receive the right to enter into church marriages. The conversion of the free into slavery is suppressed. Slaves are often transferred to the position of wigs. In the XI-XII centuries. the tendency to blur the lines between slaves and other categories of the exploited classes of Byzantium intensified.

Political system. Byzantine state IV-VII centuries. inherited, with certain features, the main features of the state system of the late Roman Empire. At the head of the state was the emperor, heir to the power of the Roman Caesars. He possessed full legislative, judicial and executive power and was the supreme patron and protector of the Christian Church. The Byzantine Orthodox Church played a huge role in strengthening the authority of the emperor.

It was the church that developed and consecrated the official doctrine of the divine origin of imperial power and preached the unity of the state and the church, spiritual and temporal power (their symphony). Unlike the Catholic (Western) Church, the Byzantine Church to a much greater extent economically and in a way *

Section III. State and law in European countries

politically dependent on the emperor, as it existed in a powerful centralized state.

The early Byzantine church was directly subordinate to the emperor. Emperor Justinian 1 intervened most completely in the management of church affairs, often treating the highest church hierarchs (bishops and patriarchs) as his own officials.

The power of the Byzantine emperor in the IV-VII centuries. was not arbitrary. With all the breadth of the emperor's powers, it was tempered by the need to follow the "general laws" of the empire, and especially by the absence of the principle of heredity to the throne. The new Byzantine emperor was elected by the senate, "the people of Constantinople" and the army, whose role in the election of the emperor of Byzantium was steadily declining.

An important factor in the political life of the Byzantine state of that time was the approval of the emperor's candidacy by "the people of Constantinople." Even in the IV century. By imperial decree, the "people of Constantinople" - various social strata and groups of the population of the capital, who gathered at the Constantinople hippodrome, were given the right to express requests and make demands to the emperor. On this basis, special political organizations arose in Byzantium - the so-called city parties (dima). The social support of the two largest dims - they were called "blue" and "green" - were various groupings of the ruling class. The former were supported by the senatorial and municipal aristocracy, the latter by the commercial and financial elite of the Byzantine cities. Dimas had a certain organization and even armed detachments. In the 5th century similar organizations of the type of metropolitan dims were created in other cities of the Byzantine Empire. They turned over time into a kind of all-imperial organizations, closely bound friend with a friend. In the IV-VI centuries. the role of dims in political life was significant. Byzantine emperors often had to rely in their policy on one of these parties.

Another factor restraining the autocracy of the emperor was the presence of a special state body of the Byzantine aristocracy - the Senate of Constantinople. Any business of the empire could be considered in the senate. His influence was ensured by the very composition of the Senate, which included almost the entire ruling elite of the ruling class of Byzantium. By the 5th century the number of senators was 2 thousand people. The discussion of state affairs by the senate, as well as its right to participate in the election of a new emperor, provided the Byzantine aristocracy with a certain share in the management of the affairs of the empire.

That is why the early Byzantine emperors, including the most powerful Justinian I, recognized in legislative acts the need for "the consent of the great Senate and the people." This testifies to the stability of some political traditions that have been preserved since the days of republican statehood.

Chapter 19. The Medieval State in Byzantium 279

From the 8th century a new strengthening of the central power of Byzantium begins. It determined the development of Byzantine statehood for a long time. The basis of centralization and broad aggressive policy of Byzantium in the IX-X centuries. was the stabilization of the economy on a new feudal basis. The Byzantine state, which reached its highest development during the reign of the Macedonian dynasty (867-1057), sought to control all aspects of the economic, political and cultural life of the country with the help of a huge bureaucratic apparatus. The rigidly centralized nature of the empire sharply distinguished Byzantium from the contemporary feudal states of Europe.

In the 8th century political organizations and institutions that previously restrained the omnipotence of the Byzantine emperor, fall into decay or are completely liquidated. From the 9th century even the nominal proclamation of the emperor by "the people of Constantinople" ceases. The political role of the Senate of Constantinople, which had already fallen at the end of the 7th century, was finally reduced to nothing by the imperial decree of the end of the 9th century, which deprived the senate of the right to participate in the legislation of the empire.

The only major political force in the Byzantine state remains the Orthodox (Greek) Church. Her authority and influence are being strengthened. In particular, the role of the head of the church of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the socio-political life of Byzantium is growing. Patriarchs often become regents for underage emperors and directly intervene in the political struggle for the throne, taking advantage of the fact that from the 7th century the only procedure that legitimizes "installation to the kingdom" becomes. the wedding of the emperor by the patriarch in the church of St. Sophia. However, even at this time the Byzantine church failed to achieve independence from the imperial power. The emperor retained the right to choose a patriarch from among three candidates recommended by church hierarchs, and to depose an objectionable patriarch.

Strengthening the foundations of imperial power in the VIII-IX centuries. accompanied by a change in its attributes. The Greek titles of Vasilev-sa (king) and autocrator (autocrat) are finally approved for the Byzantine emperors. The cult of the emperor-vasilev-sa reaches unprecedented proportions. The divine emperor was considered the ruler of the universe (Ecumene). His prerogatives were unlimited. Vasileve issued laws, appointed and dismissed senior officials, was the supreme judge and commander of the army and navy.

It was not birth that made the emperor, but "divine election." Therefore, the emperors widely practiced the institution of co-rulers, thus choosing, even during the life of the heir,

Section III. State and law in European countries

the principle of legitimate succession to the throne begins to assert itself in Byzantium only from the end of the 11th century.

Traditionalism, the routine of ceremonials worked out to the smallest detail and consecrated by custom, seriously fettered the personal capabilities of the emperors. Their real power, according to a number of researchers, begins to steadily weaken. This was facilitated by new trends generated by the impact of feudal relations. As feudalism developed in Byzantium, between emperors and large feudal landowners (dynats), lord-vassal relations new to Byzantine state practice were formed. Starting from the tenth century. the Byzantine autocrat is often forced to conclude feudal agreements with some of his subjects - dinats, taking on the duties of a feudal lord.

The state system of Byzantium at the main stages of its development is characterized by the presence of a huge bureaucratic apparatus, both central and local. It was based on the principles of a strict hierarchy. All Byzantine officialdom was divided into ranks (titles). Their system was deeply developed. In the tenth century in the Byzantine "table of ranks" there were 60 such ranks. The central administration of the empire was concentrated in the Council of State (consistory, and later synclite). It was the highest body under the emperor, in charge of the current affairs of the state. Its functions were not clearly defined, and in practice it played a significant political role. The State Council consisted of the highest state and palace officials, who were the closest assistants to the emperor. These included two prefects of the praetorium, the prefect of Constantinople, the master and quaestor of the palace, and two committees of finance. These top officials of the empire had extensive powers, including judicial ones. Thus, two praetorian prefects were the highest leaders of the local state apparatus; the prefect of Constantinople was the civil ruler of the capital and the chairman of the senate.

The highest palace ranks also had important functions: the master - the head of the palace and the quaestor - the chief lawyer and chairman of the consistory. They directly managed the affairs of the empire with the help of an extensive bureaucratic apparatus. The total number of Byzantine officials at this time was enormous. At least 10,000 civil officials served in the departments of the two praetorian prefects alone.

Chapter 19. The Medieval State in Byzantium 281

stvo public affairs. Another feature characteristic of the central administration of Byzantium at that time was the dispersal of individual state functions between various, often duplicating each other, state departments. So. financial management has been divided since the 7th century. into several "secrets" that are not subordinate to each other. Judicial functions were divided among various institutions: the court of the patriarch, the court of the city prefect (eparch), a special court for the palace services of the emperor, etc.

Local government. The local state apparatus of the empire in the IV-VII centuries. was entirely based on the late Roman system of government (division into prefectures, dioceses and provinces). Civil power was separated from the military and had priority over the latter during this period. At the head of the local administration of the empire were two praetorian prefects. These senior civil officials wielded broad administrative, judicial, and financial powers. Directly subordinate to the prefects were the civil rulers of the dioceses and provinces. The rulers of the provinces, the main link of local government, along with extensive administrative and financial powers, also had judicial power. They were judges of first instance in all significant court cases within the province.

In the 7th century the old system of local government was replaced by a new, feminist system. Themes originated as military districts and were originally much larger than the old provinces. At the head of the themes were strategis, who united in their hands the fullness of military and civil power. The militarization of the local government of the empire was a consequence of the aggravation of the foreign policy situation and the social and class antagonisms of Byzantine society. Later, with the intensification of the feudalization of Byzantine society, the theme organization of local government began to weaken in the 11th century. finally falls into disrepair.

Army. In the IV-VII centuries. Byzantium's army was built on late-Roman principles, divided into frontier and mobile troops. In order to reduce the threat of a seizure of power by military leaders, the Byzantine emperors practiced the fragmentation of the highest command of the army between five leaders (masters). The composition of the Byzantine army gradually changed. In the VI-VII centuries. barbarian contingents play an ever greater role in the army.

The basis of the army with the beginning of the second period of development of the Byzantine state (the end of the 7th-9th centuries) was the stratiotic (peasant) militia. At this time, a powerful navy was also created in Byzantium.

emperors increasingly began to resort to the help of hired foreign detachments (mainly from Western Europe її Kievan Rus). In organizational terms, the Byzantine army, as before, was divided into two parts: the metropolitan and local (feminine) contingents, and the role and importance of the latter was steadily declining.

At the turn of the XI-XII centuries. the highly centralized Byzantine state becomes an objective brake that hindered the progressive development of the peoples that were part of Byzantium.

Political and socio-economic crisis of Byzantium in the XIII century. and the subsequent death of the Byzantine state therefore became a natural historical outcome.

Formation of early feudal law in Western Europe. "Barbarian Truths". The most complete picture of the early feudal law is given by the so-called "barbarian truths", in which the diverse legal customs and well-established samples of German judicial decisions were recorded. One of the most ancient is the Salic truth, compiled during the reign of Clovis at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century. Ripuarian truth - the judicial code of another Frankish tribe, in its main part, developed in the 6th century, but is also known in the edition of the 8th century.

Visigothic truth in the first, complete edition appeared in the VI-VII centuries. It was based on the code of laws of the Visigoth king Erich (466-489), who expanded his possessions in Gaul and gained independence from the Roman emperors. Following the Visigoths, the Burgundians began to create their own judicial code. Creating it, they, along with practical goals, pursued political and symbolic goals - to consolidate their dominance over the territories liberated from the power of Rome.

The fact that the Goths, like the Burgundians, lived among the Romans for a long time, affected the content of their judicial books, which largely reflected the influence of the orders of the late Roman Empire.

Alaman and Bavarian truths appeared in the 8th century. Saxon and Thuringian truths are known in the edition of the end of the VIII - beginning of the IX century. The "barbarian truths" were created by the kings together with the "noblest" (bishops, dukes, counts) and the "gathered people", as recorded in the Alamanian truth, or "with the princes and all the Christian people", as indicated in the Bavarian truth.

All the Code of Laws, written three or more centuries later than the Salic Pravda, despite the archaism of their norms, testify to a new stage in the development of feudal relations. If the Salic truth refers to that period of development of the Frankish society

Chapter 20 Early Feudal Law in the Countries of Western Europe

When the process of disintegration of tribal ties has not yet been completed, feudal private ownership of land has not yet been established, then in later truths the birth of allod as alienable land property is already recorded, social differentiation is more clearly expressed, relations of dependence among the free, etc. All of them are written also heavily influenced by Roman and ecclesiastical law.

A special place among the lawmakers is occupied by the code of laws (edict) of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric, written in the 5th century, the content of which in a number of articles is clearly ahead of its time, which was associated with the special conditions for the formation of the Ostrogothic kingdom on the Apennine Peninsula.

Its most remarkable feature is that, contrary to the general personal principle of the "barbarian truths", the edict extended its effect to all persons living in the territory of the kingdom, i.e. equally to the Ostrogoths and the Romans. The focus of the edict was the registration and protection of landed property of individuals (Articles 10-12, 27, 75, etc.).

Borrowed from the conquered Romans, the motivation for compiling the collection, dictated, as indicated here, by the "requirements of reason." In Art. 155 refers to the "old law", which "has been taken over", i.e. on the norms of Roman law, the respect for which and the need to preserve them was constantly taken care of by the Ostrogothic king.

Emphasizing his loyalty to Rome, concern for the entire population, the king ordered to be guided by the edict in court in relation to "noble and rich", as well as powerful people "occupying any military or civil position." Most likely, representatives of not only the Ostrogothic, but also the Roman nobility took part in the preparation of the edict. The edict was written down, as it was once the Laws of the XII tables, on bronze plaques and exhibited in the square for public viewing.

Such a wide temporal boundaries for recording the norms of customary law among the Germanic peoples are associated with the slow spread of feudal relations both in the south and in the north of Western Europe. "Barbarian Truths" reflected the practice of different eras, the specific internal and external conditions in which they appeared.

At the same time, the uniformity of the social environment in which they developed, the growing influence of Christian ideology and the church, the vagueness of the boundaries of the settlement of individual tribal groups, the merging of elites mixed in the course of endless wars, determined the significant similarity of their content. So, for example, the Anglo-Saxon king Ethelbert followed in many ways the Salic truth when he created his laws, at least 19 out of 90

284 Section III. State and law in European countries

articles of the Laws of Ethelberht have direct parallels with the Salic and other truths.

"Barbarian truths" - judges, guides for judges. At the same time, they are not collections of systematically outlined legal norms relating to all aspects of the life of early class society. Their incompleteness, fragmentation, unsystematic nature are the result of the customary legal basis on which they were formed. It was impossible to fix all the variety of customs, especially if one considers that they were recorded in the form of specific legal incidents taken directly from life. "If someone deliberately," it is written, for example, in the Bavaria Pravda, "throws off a ladder or any object for climbing and he remains at the top, then he must pay 12 sols." (4, 19). The subject-visual form of the legal norm in the "barbarian truths" corresponded to the concrete-figurative legal consciousness of the Germans, for whom the language of legal abstractions was alien and incomprehensible.

The "barbaric truths" are also characterized by a detailed description of various procedures and ritual actions, which indicates their great importance in early feudal law. Violation of the requirements related to a detailed procedure, with the pronunciation of certain words, with the use of symbolic objects (for example, "a handful of earth" among the Salic Franks in the case of a collective payment of wergeld, broken branches "by the measure of an elbow" when renouncing kinship, etc.) could nullify the effect of the rule of law itself. These procedures were necessarily performed publicly, for example, summoning the defendant to court in front of witnesses, taking an oath in court in the presence of jurors, etc.

The important role of the legal ritual was associated with the very nature of legal proceedings, which did not yet know the established order of public, state protection of the life and interests of an individual. The main function of the court among the Germans was to organize a competition between the parties. In the public nature of ritual and legal actions, in their visibility, there were peculiar guarantees of compliance with the legal norm, the fulfillment of a transaction, etc.

"Barbarian Truths" bear the stamp of old tribal relations, they still express the tribal consciousness of the Germans. In these monuments of law, the individual is not separated from the collective, the legal capacity of a person is determined by belonging to a clan, community, large family. Outside these collectives, man had no rights. Expulsion from the community, clan, family remained one of the most severe punishments provided for by the Salic truth. Even the responsibility for this or that offense was assigned not only to the individual, but also to the social group to which he belonged. The personal nature of the action of the norms fixed in the "barbarian truths" was also associated with the tribal consciousness of the barbarians. The Salic Franks were guided by their "Salic law", the Ripuarians by theirs. Moreover, in the truths, in particular in the Salic truth, "their" population was directly opposed to the "foreigners", the Romans.

Chapter 20. Early feudal law in the countries of Western Europe

Writing down their customs, the Germans sought to preserve their tribal community in the face of a real threat of its collapse. The integrating role inherent in any law in the law of the Germans manifested itself especially prominently. Their right was a means of keeping people together, a means of reconciliation. Hence the peculiarities of judicial procedures with their public ritual actions, which were supposed to demonstrate the loyalty of the barbarians to their primordial traditions and customs.

The Barbarian Truths were not the only source of early feudal law. With the strengthening of royal power, royal commands appeared, orders that first supplemented the truth, and subsequently were drawn up separately. These included, for example, the capitularies of the Frankish kings. The first capitulary was written under Clovis, they were published especially often under the Carolingians. Carolingian legislation, as well as the influence of the Catholic Church, led to the VIII-IX centuries. to the gradual approval of the new territorial principle of the early feudal law of the Germans.

The sources of early feudal law also include immunity letters issued by kings to large feudal lords, formulas-letters that establish sample documents with the help of which various kinds of transactions were drawn up: donation, purchase and sale, etc.

The main source of law remained the customs that are the product of folk (communal) creativity, which were based on such concepts as honor, oath, retribution, reconciliation (and its price), collective responsibility, etc.

Along with the so-called "people's law", very early began to contribute to the development of the law of the Germans and the church, which, starting from the first centuries, accumulated a huge number of church laws (canons), resolutions of church councils and synods, decrees and decisions of individual bishops that acted within their regions of influence.

The church also released big number"codes on punishments" with a list of sins and punishments for them, which were described not so much as actions, but as a way of thinking, motivation. At the same time, it was believed that they were all drawn from the Bible (Old and New Testaments). Christian commandments were also transferred to secular lawsuits. Thus, in the Anglo-Saxon Pravda of Alfred (9th century), a direct reference is made to the Laws of Moses, to such Christian commandments as "an equal judgment of the poor and the rich, friend and foe." There were very frequent references to the Holy Scriptures in justification of punishments for crimes against the church. In the Bavarian truth, for example, for the kidnapping of a nun - the "bride of Christ" exile was supposed to follow the principle: "Remove evil from yourselves" (I, 11).

If at first the regulations on punishments extended their effect only to clerics, then very soon - to all believers of a particular region, for ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction were closely intertwined. No clear distinctions were made in the application itself.

Section III. State and law in European countries

kind of sin and crime, those offenses that had to be expiated by church repentance, or those that were subject to settlement by negotiations with relatives, payment of wergeld, a fine, etc. All crimes were sins, murder, violation of an oath, theft were considered the most serious, in respect of which established a relatively uniform set of norms throughout Western Europe 6th-10th centuries

A different attitude towards crimes at that time was also excluded due to the fact that the clergy played leading role in secular judiciary, and the kings had both secular and spiritual power.

The interaction and mutual influence of "people's law" and church law led to significant changes in both. With the help of the Bible, the church introduced into the customary law of the Germans the "Ten Commandments" of Christians and other moral principles bearing the authority of divine instruction.

In the regulations on punishment, the church introduced, for example, along with the application of one or another number of blows with a whip, stick, etc., public repentance for sins. In the 11th century, only after the church had established its relative independence from secular authorities, did it legitimize the absolution of sins. Desacralizing nature, denying witchcraft, in which the Germans believed, the church made witchcraft, witchcraft, like sacrilege, a sin. The Church, which called into question both the sacred nature of the custom and the highest sanctity of the race, nature, water and fire, did not directly oppose blood feuds, ordeals, but taught that they would not bring salvation, which is acquired by faith and good deeds.

Christianity recognized the oath as one of the most important means of proof in court. She began to be accepted into the church. Until 1215, the church also allowed a duel in resolving disputes. Only this year the clergy were forbidden to participate in them.

Religious norms, however, made their way with difficulty through the thickness of old customs. On convened in the VIII century. Church councils in Soissons again and again raised the question of the prohibition of pagan cults, and the normative texts of the councils (Indiculus superstitionum et paganiarum) testify to persistent efforts to combine barbarian rites, customs with new beliefs and rules. Difficulties in overcoming old customs are evidenced, for example, by the Alaman Truth, which forbade "burning and eating witches."

The Church introduced into the law of the Germans and the norms of Roman law, on which it initially relied entirely when property relations, inheritance and procedural law were affected, as well as in matters relating to the Gallo-Romans themselves. The Germans considered the church to be the bearer of Roman law. It was no accident that Ripuarian Pravda stipulated that "the Church lives according to Roman law" (Ecclesia vivit jury Romano).

The German kings also extended the personal principle of applying "barbarian truths" to Roman law. In 506,

Chapter 20 Early Feudal Law in the Countries of Western Europe 287

for example, the Visigoth king Alaric II issued a lawsuit for his subjects, known as the "Law of the Roman Visigoths" (Lex Romana Visigothorum). The king of the Burgundians, Gundobad, acted in a similar way, putting into effect an abbreviated and simplified Code of Theodosius (about 437), called the "Roman Judiciary of the Burgundians". At the end of his reign, Clovis wanted, but did not have time to extend his action to the whole of Gaul.

With the help of the church and royal legislation, the vulgarized norms of Roman law were also included in the "barbarian truths", which was facilitated to a large extent by the fact that they were written in Latin. It was mainly the norms of Roman civil law that were introduced that did not contradict the new historical conditions. At the same time, not only the ways and methods of forming legal norms disappeared, but also a clear system of institutions of civil and procedural law, technical and legal perfection and other advantages of Roman law.

Regulation of property relations. "Barbarian truths", depending on the time of their appearance, reflect the gradual process of the formation of the institution of feudal private ownership of land, and at the same time, contractual and inheritance law.

In the Salic truth, which reflects the earliest socio-economic and political processes of the formation of a class society, state and law, there is still no unambiguous concept of property. For movable things owned by individuals or families, the term "one's own" (suus) was used, in contrast to the term "stranger" (alienus). The movable property of the Franks was freely alienated, passed on by inheritance to one of the family members of the deceased or to a relative on the mother's or father's side. Most of the prescriptions of the Salic truth are devoted to the protection of the right of ownership to various movable things. It deals with all the details of cases of theft of cattle, as well as sheep, goats, dogs, pigeons, bees, pigs, etc.

Cattle breeding occupied a dominant position in the economy of the Germans, cattle, being a kind of symbol of prosperity, provided the family with the wealth that could be taken with them in case of resettlement, flight. Livestock was also used as a means of exchange, the equivalent of cash payments. Two, three co-leads cost the Franks a cow "healthy, sighted and horned."

In a different way, the Salic truth secures the right to the land owned by the family, distinguishing between a personal plot, arable land and meadows, forests. Here the fenced area is repeatedly mentioned, with a significant fine for arson and destruction of the fence (XV, 5). The dwelling, the territory of the yard, the household plot as a family property in Salichskaya Pravda is given special importance. The creditor comes here to recover the debt from the debtor, to subpoena the defendant in court.

288 Section III. State її law in European countries

Punishable was a high fine (sol. 45 - 63), not only theft within the house or yard, but also a simple entry into the territory of the villa after sunset. Theft with the attack and extermination of guard dogs, the removal on a cart of a significant part of household property entailed a fine of 200 sol., equal to the wergeld for the murder of a free man.

The transition of an arable plot of land (allod) to private ownership is evidenced by the different attitude in the Salic truth to arable land, as well as to meadows, pastures, forests, which still remain in communal ownership. Salic truth punishes the very fact of violating the border of an arable field without the permission of the owner, providing for punishment for driving through someone else's field on Sol 3, for plowing someone else's field on Sol 15, for sowing on someone else's field on Sol 45. If an outsider stepped into a designated area of a communal meadow, this was not considered a crime. Moreover, if he cut the grass, he only lost hay to the owner of the meadow.

The Salic truth says nothing about buying and selling land. The institution of land inheritance was only in its infancy. The land was inherited by the male descendants of the deceased (IX, 5). The title "On Allods" does not even raise the question of to whom the arable plot of land was transferred if the deceased had no sons. Apparently, it became escheated property or passed on to the family. This issue was resolved in a different way in the VI century. On the basis of the edict of King Chilperic (561-584), land could be inherited not only by the sons, but also by the daughters, brothers, sisters of the deceased, etc. At the same time, individual meadow and forest plots also become the allodial property of individuals. According to the Alaman truth, a woman could inherit the land if she had children and if she married a free man, and not a colon.

The existence of communal ownership of land by the Franks is also evidenced by other titles of the Salic truth, in particular "On Settlers". A "stranger" could move to the territory of the community only with the consent of all members of the community. If at least one of them protested, the settler had to leave the community. Characteristically, the count executing the decision of the community court to evict the "stranger" was supposed to appear not at the settler's house, but at the piece of communal land that was cultivated by him,

But Salic truth also knew an exception to this general rule. If for a year and one day not a single member of the community protested against the settlement of a "foreigner", his land ownership began to be protected by law. Salic truth essentially sanctioned the appropriation of communal land by the king's entourage, as it forbade protesting against the settler, if there was a special royal charter for that. A protester against the royal decree was fined 200 sols.

Chapter 20. Early feudal law in the countries of Western Europe 289

A few centuries later, private land ownership was widely developed. The first thing that catches your eye when you get acquainted with the Alaman and Bavarian truth is the textual coincidence of the content of the initial, therefore especially significant titles 1 and 2, dedicated to the church and church land ownership. These titles testify that the church possessed large tracts of arable land, forests, slaves (1, 1), in every possible way encouraging the donation of property "for the salvation of the soul." In the very first article of these truths, it is prescribed: "neither the king, nor the duke, nor anyone else has the power to forbid him (a person) to bring as a gift for the salvation of the soul houses, land, slaves or money" (1, 1). The land received as a gift was forever assigned to the church. The Bavarian Truth strongly emphasizes that no one will henceforth have the right to return their property donated to the church.

Both the Alamannic and the Bavarian truth suppress any attempts to challenge the donation of the church by the heirs of the donor (2, 2). Moreover, attempts to return the property entailed "the judgment of God and excommunication from the holy church", on the one hand, on the other hand, a fine and the return of the church's property (1, 2). The donated land could be returned only on the terms of lifelong possession with compensation for everything that was "solemnly promised" by the donor.

Private land ownership is beginning to cover not only fields, but also meadows and forests. In Bavaria Pravda, for example, the concept of silva alterus appeared, a divided forest, i.e. allocated to a particular family. The transition to feudal private ownership of forests is also evidenced by the prohibition of felling trees in a foreign forest, which was punishable by a fine (12, 11). In contrast to the Salic truth, the meadow plot, like the field, was also freely alienated from now on, while it was only required to confirm the legality of the sale with the help of "document or witnesses" (16, 2).

The categorical prohibition of violating the boundaries of foreign land ownership, inherent in all "barbarian truths", reflected the persistent desire of the Germans to gain a foothold in the conquered lands by force. An indirect confirmation of this is the tradition that has been preserved for centuries to resolve a dispute over land with the help of a duel, if there was not enough other evidence. In Bavarian Pravda, a whole title (12) is devoted to punishments for violating the boundaries of someone else's land ownership. A simple violation of the boundaries, without distinction of field or meadow, entailed the punishment of a free man with a fine of 6 Sol., A slave with 50 lashes. Even "accidental", without intent, establishing new boundaries on the site "without the consent of the other side and the caretaker" was punishable by a fine if the offense was committed by a free man, and 200 lashes if it was committed by a slave (12.6 - 7).

Here, along with a scrupulous list of offenses related to violating the boundaries of someone else's land ownership, there is a clearly formulated legal statement: "the most obvious signs cannot be opposed to the longest time of ownership" (12.1).

Section III. State її law in European countries

German law did not contain any rules on inheritance by will. It was assumed that the property of the deceased belonged to the family, clan, surviving relatives. In Salichskaya Pravda, to a certain extent, this gap was filled by the institution of affatomy - a kind of donation agreement, which was concluded in favor of a third party. The essence of the affatomy was that the owner transferred his property or part of it to any trustee who was not his relative, with the latter's obligation to transfer the property to the appointed heirs in a year. Affatomy was performed publicly in a meeting of hundreds under the chairmanship of the tungin, in compliance with a strict symbolic procedure, which had to be (when transferring property to heirs) sworn certified "in the presence of the king or in a court session" by at least three witnesses. In such a complex nature of giving things, one can see the influence of old prohibitions on the alienation of large family property to a non-family member.

Contrary to the general rule, under the influence of Roman law, the institution of inheritance by will was enshrined in the edict of Theodori-ha. In this case, as in the case of a donation, the edict presented strictly formal requirements for recognizing a will as legal: drawing up an official document registered by an official in front of witnesses, etc. (Article 53). A will could be made "anywhere", but with strict "respect for the will of the deceased" (Article 30).

With the introduction of Christianity, the property of the deceased began to be transferred to the church "for charitable deeds and for the benefit of the soul of the deceased." This gift after death (post obitum), widespread among the Franks and Anglo-Saxons, was not in the strict sense of the word a will, since it could not be revoked, it concerned only a certain part of the property, and did not provide for a representative of the deceased. Over time, this gift of the church became generally recognized. The property of the deceased without a will was in the hands of the bishop, who transferred it to his relatives so that they would do everything "to save the soul of the deceased." This is how the institution of the executor arose.

Contractual relations did not receive significant development among the Franks. This is a characteristic feature of the law of German society, which is characterized by a small-peasant subsistence economy. weak development of commodity-money relations. The Salic Pravda does not contain any indications of the general conditions for the validity of contracts, but the free expression of the will of the parties is implied when concluding such contracts as purchase and sale, exchange, luggage, and pledge. loan, loan, donation. The will was expressed by throwing a “stem in the floor” to another person or, as is known from other sources, by handing over the door when selling a house, etc. The actual owner of a movable thing was obliged to prove that he bought or bartered it, otherwise he could be declared a thief.

Violation of the contract could entail not only property, but also personal liability of the debtor. debtor in

Chapter 20. Early feudal law in the countries of Western Europe

in case of default, as a rule, became the slave of the creditor. According to some truths, for example, according to the Bavarian truth, along with the debtor, his wife and

The loan agreement is discussed in detail in the Salic Pravda. The creditor could collect the debt directly, bypassing the court session. If the debtor "does not want to pay the obligation" after the creditor claims the debt, having appeared at his house accompanied by witnesses, he was called by the creditor to court (up to three times, in a week). For each failure to appear in court, a fine was collected from the debtor. The debt could also be recovered with the help of the count and the Rahinburgs by confiscation of the corresponding part of the debtor's property. In this case, a third of the debt went to the count.

Treaties in Bavaria Pravda are discussed to a greater extent in additional chapters (which were "added by decree of 722", as Pravda itself reports). Here you can find some approaches to the formulation of general principles of contract law:

on the conditions of the legality of contracts, their indissolubility, on the "vice

will", etc.

“A treaty or agreement,” as the Bavarian Truth says, “we do not allow to change in any way if they are concluded in writing or through three or more named witnesses, since the day and year are clearly indicated in them” (Art. 16.16). And in the same place: "If the sale is made with the help of violence or for fear of death or imprisonment (in prison), then it is invalid" (v. 16.2).

It also refers to a pledge by a court decision, a storage agreement, a loan. If the thing was deposited "without profit and died as a result of an accident," then the keeper was not liable. Losses from the theft of a thing deposited were divided equally (15.5). The contract of sale could not be terminated due to the low price, this was possible only in the event of the discovery of a hidden defect in the thing (16.9). The deposit was given to secure the contract of sale and was lost in case of its violation.

Scattered provisions, "added" to the Bavarian truth, testify to a certain progress in contract law, along with the development of trade, without changing, however, the general picture of Gaul, where cities were almost completely absent at that time as populous trading centers. They previously existed, but fell into decay in the conditions of widespread military devastation and mass migration of people.

Marriage and family. The family of the Germans was patriarchal in nature. The family headed by the father, along with the descendants, included lateral relatives, siblings and half-brothers, their wives, of whom there were many, since they often replaced each other. Families lived under the same roof with servants, and in some cases with an armed retinue.

But the power of the father, according to Salic truth, was not as wide as, for example, in Rome. She looked more like a strict life sentence

Section III. State and law in European countries

legal guardianship of a wife, daughter or son. Guardianship of a son ended when he reached 12 years of age.

Marriage, like the family, is the subject of a small number of articles in the Salic Pravda. It was preceded by an agreement between the families of the bride and groom. Parental consent was expressly required in Capitulary I to the Salic Pravda. The removal of someone else's bride entailed compensation for damage to the groom, equal to 15 sols, the removal of someone else's wife threatened with a fine of 200 sols.

In the Alaman truth, elements of the patriarchal family were more clearly manifested. Marriage under the threat of a fine required the consent of the father. As a tribute to deep antiquity, the actual sale of the wife was allowed. According to title 51.1, the removal of another's wife, "if the first husband so desires," cost 400 sols. The customary law of the Germans forbade marriages between representatives of certain social strata, especially between slaves and freemen. Marriages with slaves entailed the loss of freedom, simple cohabitation with a slave was punished by a fine of 15 sols, with a free one - 45 sols. According to Capitulary I to the Salic Truth, a woman who married a slave was outlawed, her property went to the treasury, her relatives could kill her with impunity. A slave who married a free woman was beaten on the wheel.

The Bavarian truth was more tolerant of such marriages. If a woman "did not know" that she had married a slave, she simply left him (22, 17). Marriages with a number of relatives and in-laws were forbidden. According to the Salic truth, such marriages were declared invalid, and the children born in them were declared illegitimate (13.9).

Salic truth prescribes a heavy fine for the kidnapping of a woman, fighting against the old German custom of "kidnapping" wives. Characteristically, in Theoderic's edict, this crime was punishable by death (Article 17.).

An unmarried woman among the Germans enjoyed some independence. Sources, for example, do not contain any data on guardianship of widows by older male relatives. Nevertheless, the Salic truth points to a certain infringement of the rights of widows. She could not, for example, remarry without the permission of the court and the payment of a certain amount (reipus) to the relatives of the deceased husband. Otherwise, her husband was threatened with a fine of 63 sols.

A feature of the old German customary law was that a woman had her own property, a dowry, which was provided to her not by her father, but by her husband as a "marriage gift". Capitulary I establishes a special legal regime for dowry. A woman could neither give nor sell her dowry. After her death, it went to the children. In the event of remarriage, part of the widow's dowry was transferred to the husband's closest relatives, in their absence - to the treasury. The Bavarian truth also did not encourage marriages of widows. If a widow got married, she was deprived of the right to use the property she received from her first husband (15.8).

Salic truth says nothing about divorce, but the customary law of the Germans allowed freedom of divorce, without requiring any consent.

Chapter 20. Early feudal law in the countries of Western Europe 293

relatives, or other formal grounds. More strict in this regard is Theodoric's edict, which prohibited "unreasonable divorce" (Article 49), strictly condemned concubinage, but permitted prostitution (Article 52).

Under the influence of the Christian Church in the VII-IX centuries. significant changes are made to the marriage and family law of the Germans. The capitulary of 744, confirmed in 789 by Charlemagne, established the indissolubility of marriage, declared sacred according to Christian canons.

At the turn of the 7th-9th centuries. The first legislative acts were issued establishing the obligation of church registration of marriages, prohibiting the remarriage of widows, etc.

Crime and Punishment. Most of the articles in the "barbarian truths" are devoted, if using "^" temporary terminology, to crimes and punishments. Under the tort - the crime in the "barbarian truths" was understood, first of all, the offense, harm caused to the person or property of another, and the violation of the "royal world" Accordingly, punishment was understood as compensation, compensation for this offense or harm.

"Barbarian Truths", therefore, did not accept the norms of late Roman criminal law with their widespread use of the death penalty, which was associated with other goals and objectives of punishment than those of the Romans.

The main goal of the composition, fine, among the Germans is to prevent direct hostilities, blood feuds, further civil strife, enmity between courts, clans, clans, etc., arising as a result of "violation of honor."

Honor as a means of gaining fame, praise (lof) provided the main motivation for the behavior of a barbarian in a world ruled by the goddess of war and the hostile fickle fate (wurd), the dark forces that surround man. Honor was acquired when what was defended by others was seized, and accordingly lost under opposite circumstances.

The composition was, on the one hand, a certain form of restoration, redemption of honor, and thus victory over an evil fate, on the other hand, a form of reconciliation, the establishment of peace. At the same time, redemption concerned the honor not only of a particular person, but also of the house, the clan to which he belonged. Hence the direct connection between compensation and the concept of protecting the house, "peace at home" (frith), which also included the concept of "peace of the royal house", which, as the state and royal power strengthened, was transformed into a broader concept of "royal peace", the violation of which was compensated by a larger fine. or carry a more severe punishment.

The laws of the Anglo-Saxon king Ethelbert (VI century), for example, established a fine of 50 shillings for breaking the peace of the royal house, and 6 shillings for the peace of the house of a simple curl.

If the "offender" paid the composition to the victim, he, as a rule, did not pay any

Section III State and law in the countries of Europe

fine. Only in some cases, part or all of the composition went to the treasury. For example, a count who took part in the collection of a debt, by confiscation of property from the debtor, took a third of this debt as a fine. The vergeld for the murdered was divided into two parts: one went to the sons of the murdered, the other to his closest relatives from the side of his father or mother. And only if there were no relatives, this part of the wergeld went to the treasury (12.1 -2).

At the same time, a number of offenses are distinguished in the Salic Truth, approaching the concept of a crime in the proper sense of the word, punishments in the form of state punishment for deeds are already mentioned, for example, for malfeasance of a count, if he "dared to take something beyond the lawful" when collecting a debt or refused to restore "fairness and justice." The punishment for these crimes is also characteristic - the death penalty, if the count could not "redeem himself for as much as he should." The Salic truth also contains indirect references to military crimes, such as desertion. A simple insult with the word "deserter" (XXX, 6) entailed a fine. The Alaman Pravda explicitly referred to desertion as a crime.

Changes in the understanding of crime and punishment are increasingly influenced by the Christian Church, which introduces such a broadly interpreted legal category as "insulting or disrespecting the church", requiring "education of the fear of God" as the goal of punishment, etc. So, in both Alaman and Bavarian In truth, a whole group of crimes, including murder, is distinguished, the main qualifying feature of which is the place of their commission in the church or in the courtyard of the church. They belonged to the above-mentioned category of "insulting the church" and entailed a large fine not in favor of the victim and his relatives, who were relegated to the background, but in favor of the church itself.

The Bavarian truth, under the influence of the church, invented such a punishment as a "long composition", which was paid first on Sol. 12, then on Sol. 1. "up to the seventh kind of offender every year" for striking a pregnant woman, resulting in a miscarriage of the fetus. The "long composition" was motivated by the fact that the soul of an unborn child "suffers a long punishment, since it was transferred to hell with the help of a miscarriage, without the sacrament of rebirth" (8, 21).

Speaking about punishments in the Salic truth, it should be noted that there is a clear tendency to almost completely replace all the old punishments of the tribal system with fines. The fine was supposed to prevent lynching, protracted strife. Some articles of the Salic truth directly suppressed lynching, for example, an attempt to arbitrarily take away someone else's cattle that caused damage to the field was punished (IX, 5), take away your animal from the owner without trial when "pursuing the trail" of the thief (XXVII,!) and others. Salic truth

Chapter 2U Early feudal law in the countries of Western Europe;

he also knows such a type of punishment as expulsion from the community or declaring a person outside the law (V.2). Such a person could not be given food and shelter, even his wife and parents were fined for helping him.

Lynching was suppressed inconsistently and for a long time was allowed in "barbaric truths". So, the Bavarian truth, written off. Apparently, literally this norm from the Laws of the XII Tables allowed the murder of a thief "captured on the spot during a crime at night" (9.4).

The death penalty by hanging, wheeling was used as a punishment in the Salic truth mainly to slaves. It was expressly prescribed only in rare cases for crimes committed by the free, for example, in case of arson and failure to appear after being summoned to court without good reason (XVI, 1 appendix 1), with the above crimes of the count, etc. The collective responsibility of the family was preserved along with the collective responsibility of the community . Capitulary I speaks of this with reference to an "ancient custom".

For all property crimes, along with a fine, compensation for the cost of stolen goods and other losses was required. It was a question of simple compensation for losses, in particular, in the case of the murder or beating of a slave. This loss was regarded as 1 and 1/3 Sol., if the slave remained incapable of work after beatings for 40 days. When inflicting bodily harm on a freeman, along with a fine, "the offender had to reimburse the costs of treatment.

The fine, which has been preserved for a long time as the main punishment as a payment for an insult, is subsequently transformed into a simple compensation for damage, and is also increasingly replaced or supplemented by such punishments as the death penalty, beating with sticks, confiscation of property, exile, applied to the free.

The casuistic nature of the "barbaric truths" ruled out clear formulations of general provisions that would apply to all criminal acts. But from the analysis of a number of specific elements of crimes, we can conclude that in the "barbaric truths" there was a concept of forms of guilt: intent and negligence, attempted crime, complicity, circumstances aggravating or mitigating the crime. Thus, in case of "careless" infliction of free harm to another person's animal, according to the Salic truth, a simple compensation for damage to its owner followed (9.3). The circumstance mitigating the guilt here was the recognition of the one who caused the harm. Malicious intent, harm caused "out of enmity or treachery" entailed a higher fine.

At the same time, the Salic truth knew responsibility without guilt, when, for example, all those present at the scene of violence against a woman are punished “en masse”, if they were at this place and did not know about the violence (XIII, 10, appr. 5). An accomplice who attempted a crime was punished, as a rule, less severely than the perpetrator of the crime. However, inciting to theft

296 Section III. State and law in European countries

or murder by bribery was punished more severely than the perpetrator of the crime (XXVIII, 1-3).

One of the circumstances aggravating the crime was a violation of the generally recognized concepts of honor - an attack on a sleeping person, a woman, a child, a desecration of a corpse. The robbery of a grave was punished with a fine of 200 sols, while an open attack on a free franc with the aim of robbery was punished with 63 sols.

The severity of punishment in all "barbarian truths" depended on the social status of the offender and the victim: free or slave, noble or humble, rich or poor. Wealth over time, along with nobility, comes to the fore. In this regard, for example, Art. 59 of Theodoric's edict. The seducer of a free girl, recorded here, possessing wealth, belonging to a noble family, is obliged to take her as his wife. If the seducer has neither wealth nor nobility, then he "as a defiler of the honor of a free girl is punishable by death."

In German society, despite the presence of some disparate norms and articles in the "barbarian truths", clear ideas about various state crimes, which were mainly perceived as actions directed against the king, had not yet formed.

The Salic truth does not say anything about such crimes, but as the state power structures strengthen, their protection increases, the circle of criminal acts expands not only against the king and his officials, but also against the state, the people. Significant borrowings from Roman law in Theodoric's edict were expressed, in particular, in the revival of the Roman imperial norm on "lèse majesty" (Art. 49), which provides for the death penalty in the form of burning, on "incitement to rebellion among the people and the army" (Art. 107), also punishable by death. Contrary to the general rule, for these crimes, a slave, colonel or servant was allowed to report on his master.

In the Alaman and Bavarian truths, not only the king, the duke, their envoys, etc., but also the people, the state, begin to act as the subject of criminal encroachment. Punishable, for example, with the death penalty and confiscation of property was the invitation of a foreign people for robbery or assistance in the "seizure of the state by the enemy" (Bavarian Truth 2.1). It also spoke of such crimes as a conspiracy against the duke, a rebellion in the army (2, 3), the call of "enemies into the province", etc. According to the Alaman truth, it was punishable by a fine of 60 sols. in favor of the state treasury, even a simple participation in the "noisy gathering."

A certain part of the crimes in the "barbaric truths" refers to attacks on the person. First of all, this is murder, the size of the wager for which depended not only on the social position of the murdered, but also on his age and gender. For the kill

Chapter 20. Early feudal law in the countries of Western Europe

free franc according to the Salic truth relied on a significant wergeld equal to 200 sols. The lesser was the wergeld for the Gallo-Roman-nin, if he was not close to the king. Wergeld for the murder of a franc in the royal service was tripled. So. for the murder of a count, a royal official, a wergeld equal to 600 sols relied. The wergeld was reduced to 300 sols if the count was from semi-free litas or the king's slaves.

The wergeld was repeatedly increased for the life of the royal warrior during military campaigns, as well as for the murder of a clergyman. For the murder of a priest, a wergeld of 600 sols was paid, for the murder of a bishop - 900 sols.

The incessant struggle to retain power, to recognize its legitimacy in the conquered territories, dictated the persistent efforts of the German kings to appear as the main defenders of the Church, the Pope.

Charlemagne never ceased to declare that his chief concern was to protect the church, and the churches to pray for him. This was also connected with the toughening of punishment for encroachment on a clergyman, church property, etc. In the Bavarian Pravda, for example, the punishment for the murder of a bishop was extremely frightening, symbolic: to take as much gold from the killer, "how much a lead tunic, made according to the figure, would weigh murdered bishop. If it was impossible to fulfill this prescription, the punishment could be replaced by the confiscation in favor of the church "of land, slaves, the house of the criminal, as well as the enslavement of himself, his wife and children" (1.10).

In the Alaman Pravda, the rule was written in an abstract form: "for everything that he does illegally against the church, he must pay three times" (21). The punishment for crimes was toughened not only against the hierarchs of the Christian church, but also against ordinary deacons, monks, their relatives (Alaman Pravda, 11-15) and even church slaves.

In the legal status of a slave or litas, according to the Salic truth, there were often no fundamental differences. If a slave or a litas killed a free person, then the murderer was given to the relatives of the murdered person at the expense of half the wergeld, the other half was paid by his master.

In all the "barbaric truths" it was pointed out that the life, health and honor of a free woman should be specially protected. Triple wergeld for the murder of a woman was associated in the Salic truth with her ability to bear children. If a woman could not give birth to children, the wergeld was 200 sols. The pregnancy of a woman increased the wergeld to 700 sols.

In the Alaman Pravda, the murder of a woman was generally considered an aggravating circumstance. It stated that a woman was paid "twice as much as a man" to kill a woman (49.2). The Bavarian truth also contains a direct explanation for this, "because a woman cannot defend herself with a weapon in her hands" (4.29).

Section III State and Law in the Countries of Europe

Nine-fold wergeld followed in the Salic truth for the "homicide of the crowd" of a person in the royal service in his house (XII, 1).

In the Salic truth, various types of bodily injuries, beatings, insults in word or action are listed in detail. Fines for inflicting bodily harm ranged from 9 to 200 sol.: 200 sol. followed the castration of a man: 100 Sol. was supposed for a number of injuries inflicted simultaneously, and for damage to the tongue, which deprived a person of the ability to speak. The list of bodily injuries also includes a gouged eye, a torn off ear, and one or the other torn off finger. For example, for a finger. "who pull the bow" ", was awarded a fine of 35 sols. And only 9 sols. - for the fourth finger. In the general row with bodily harm, there were also such crimes as "spoiling", punishable by a fine of 62 and 1/2 sols These crimes are further detailed in the Alaman Pravda, and their list includes the insulting "shaving of the head or beard" (Sol. 12) and others.

The corresponding list of crimes according to the Bavarian truth (testifying to the extreme cruelty of the Germans' morals), including broken teeth, broken fingers, wounds on the head, torn lips, noses and ears, was not original either. It also contains an appeal not to bring "harm to a stranger" (who, apparently, were the main victims of these crimes), because "universal peace is necessary for all" (4.30).

The amount of fines for insulting by word or action depended on a number of circumstances: on the social status of the parties, on the severity of the insult in the understanding of the Germans. According to the Salic truth, a simple insult to a free franc with a word - a freak, a hare, a wolf, a liar and other insulting nicknames was punished by a fine of 3 sols., By action - 15 sols. Severe was the "Salic law" to those who insulted a woman, calling her a "harlot" without reason. The fine in this case reached 45 sols. The slander against men and women, who were called "accomplices of the witch", was especially punished.

The titles of "barbaric truths" on crimes against property contain, first of all, a long series of articles concerning the theft of various domestic animals, theft in the field, in the garden. At the same time, according to Salic truth, thefts committed by freemen or slaves, with burglary, forgery of keys or without them, of one or more animals were distinguished. It was also taken into account whether other animals remained with the owner, their age and gender, whether, for example, the pig was pregnant or not. It is no coincidence that the name "pig code" was assigned to the Salic truth.

At the same time, it established punishments in a general form, depending on the value of the stolen property or on whether the theft was simple or qualified. Accordingly, three types of thefts were distinguished: in the amount of 2 to 40 denarii, in the amount of more than 40 denarii and theft with burglary or forgery of keys. For the free in all cases, a fine of 15, 35 and 45 Sol., respectively, was established, while slaves were awarded in the first

Chapter 2U. Early feudal law in Western Europe

case to compensation for damage and 120 lashes, in the second - to castration or a fine, in the third - to the death penalty. The property of the king was also a qualifying sign for theft, for example, the theft of a royal bull doubled the amount of a fine of 45 sols. compared to stealing a bull from a common franc.

In the Bavarian Pravda, for any theft, in a general form, a fine was established equal to nine times the value of the thing (9.1), while taking into account where the thing was stolen. If "inside the yard, at the mill, in the church (probably not church utensils) or in the workshop", then the fine was equal to three times the value of the stolen item. The reduction in the fine was explained by the fact that these "four houses ... are public premises and are always open" (9.2).

Salic truth also knew such crimes as theft of free people (XX, 9), theft of slaves (XX, 10), which was equated with the theft of a horse or draft animal, arson of a house, barn, barn, destruction of someone else's house, breaking a fence, unauthorized use of someone else's thing.

Crimes against morality constituted a special group. These included, according to Salic truth, such crimes as "violence against a free girl", punishable by a fine of 63 Sol., cohabitation with her "of her good will", punishable by a fine of 45 Sol. For comparison, it can be pointed out that insulting a woman with the words "witch's accomplice" was punished by almost three times more fine than violence against her. A slave who "inflicted violence on another's slave", after which her death occurred, was castrated or paid 6 sols. It is characteristic that adultery with a girl was compensated in the Alaman Pravda with a smaller fine (sol. 40) than with a married woman (sol. 80).

Trial. The trial was of an accusatory and adversarial nature. Ot.skanie stolen things, summoning the defendant, witnesses were the responsibility of the victim himself. The important role of the court in German society predetermined a special place in the trial not only for the parties themselves, but also for the witnesses in the case. The Salic truth prescribes a fine for the non-appearance of the defendant and the witness in court without good reason. Good reasons included royal service, illness, death of relatives, fire in the house. Perjury was severely punished, as was the refusal of a witness to speak in court what he knew about the case. Such witnesses were outlawed and fined. A number of requirements were made to the witness. First of all, a slave could not testify against a free man, he could not be a witness who had previously been isolated in false testimony (Alamanna Truth 42.2). According to the Bavarian truth, the witness had to be of equal status with the one against whom he testified. If there was a dispute about land, he had to be from the same community and have at least a small (on Thess. 6) fortune (17.2).

The importance of these cases also influenced the special severity in court against the witness. The judge set a deadline for his appearance in court. If he did not appear, he was subject to a fine of 12 Sol. Disagreement with witness

300 Section III. State and law in European countries

lem defendant could lead to a duel between them. Witness had his ears flogged to "tell the truth." If there were many witnesses, they were chosen by lot (Bavaria Pravda 17.6). A slave could also be a fighter in a duel (18.1 - 2). The oath of the witness on the weapon was a guarantee of the veracity of the testimony (17.6). In the absence of witnesses, if there were no "true evidence" or the crime could not be "properly proven", juries were involved (Salicheskaya Pravda XVII, 5).

The institution of affiliation was rooted in the distant ancestral past of the Franks. Jurors - relatives, neighbors, friends who were supposed to defend, support in court one of the parties by testifying to its correctness, proceeding not from knowledge of the circumstances of the case, but from the honesty and good nature inherent in the supposed defendant, the accused and others.

The institution of swearing was closely connected with the traditional institution of compurgation (assistance in an oath), when the accused cleared himself of the accusation, and the defendants of the accused supported him, swore by the same oath, thereby assuming all the rights and obligations of the latter. The jurors also determined the amount of the stolen money, if the theft was denied. According to the Bavarian truth, the jurors swore on the altar over the opened Gospel, in the presence of the vicar of the church.

Salic truth knows the ordeals ("God's judgment") with the help of a pot of boiling water, into which the hand of the accused fell. A burned and poorly healing hand was evidence of his guilt. It was possible to pay off the bowler test, and the amount of the ransom depended on the amount of the alleged fine in the event of a lost case, but was significantly lower than the fine itself. For example, if the fine was sol. 15, then the ransom is sol. 3; if the fine is sol. 35, then the ransom is sol. 6. (III, 1-3, etc.). The possibility of "ransoming a hand from a bowler hat" was a social privilege of a wealthy criminal.

The capitulars also knew other types of proof, for example, "trial by lot", with ki-yur, punishment would come if the accused "takes a bad lot." Slaves were tortured. The slave was tortured until a confession was forced out of him. The extradition of a slave for "just torture" was the duty of his master. Three times unsuccessful "exhortation" to extradite the slave transferred his guilt and the entire fine to the owner (X, 4-10).

Indirect evidence of the frequent punishment of the innocent with such methods of proof can be found in the Salic truth itself. Here, for example, contains a prescription to punish with a fine of 200 Sol. "sorceress" if she was "convicted" of having "eaten a man" (XIV.2, appr. 1).

The Goths were forbidden to test water, fire, as well as judicial fights. But the oath was preserved in Theodoric's edict (v. 74).

In case of refusal to voluntarily comply with the court decision, the count took over its implementation. The one who hindered him in ch-

Chapter 21

execution of the court decision, severely punished. The payment of the wergeld through the court could be delayed with the help of guarantors. For special persuasiveness, the guarantee was confirmed at the court session four times in a row (VIII, 1).

A vivid manifestation of the strengthening of the position of the Christian Church was its not unsuccessful claims to judicial powers. In comparison with earlier pravdas, the Bavaria Pravda not only increased the amount of the fine for crimes against those who "did not have the fear of God and respect for the saints", but also recognized the right of the church to determine the severity of the punishment "on the advice of the clergy", and even save from persecution, grant criminals the right of refuge in the temple. With reference to the Holy Scriptures in Bavaria Pravda (1.7), it was stated that "there is no such grave guilt that it would be impossible, out of fear of God and out of respect for the saints, to save his life."

However, at this time, the clergy, including bishops, "were subject to the judgment of the king, duke or people," especially for such serious crimes as "murder, debauchery and agreement with the enemy" (1.10). At this time, it seems, the roots of the contradictions that led to the 11th century began to sprout. to the "Gregorian revolution", which led to the release of clergy from the jurisdiction of secular courts.

1) Formation and development of the Byzantine Empire

2) The legal system of Byzantium

The center of economic and cultural life of Byzantium moves to the east. In 324, Constantine chose a new capital on the site of a Greek colony, next to the Bosphorus, and named it Constantinople. The empire was divided into two parts (western and eastern). Byzantium (eastern part) included the Balkan Peninsula, Asia Minor, Syria (Damascus), Palestine (Middle East), Egypt, the Western territory of Mesopotamia, the territory of Armenia, the regions of the Western Caucasus, the islands of the Aegean and the Mediterranean Sea; and in the 6th century, during the time of Justinian 1, the territories of Corsica and Sardinia were included. Subsequently, the territory decreased by 4 times. In 1054, the church split into Catholic and Orthodox. In 1261, they managed to recapture the conquered Constantinople.

There was external and internal political instability, military campaigns by the Ottomans lead to the fall of Constantinople.

Social structure: theodalism. Land ownership received for public service with special privileges.

Social structure: dependent then poor peasants supports, free wealthy george, dima - townspeople, know - dinats, the highest aristocratic circles strategists(governors general) logothetes, synclitics, vaseleus(emperor), Greek Orthodox priests. A special position among the population occupied stratiots. More than 80% of the military were stratiots, who in peacetime were engaged in peasant activities. The stratiotes were required to be ready all the time, were not subject to full taxation (30-50% of total taxes), could receive monetary rewards from the state based on the results of military operations. In the 10-11 centuries, the head of state used the distribution of land for service. There is a rejection of land plots by georges, and all land holdings are in the possession of either the emperor or in private ownership. Gradually, most of the peasants become dependent (wigs) peasants.

Form of government: absolute monarchy. The head of state is the emperor. Constantine brought to the level of absolutism. Theoretically, the emperor had legislative, executive power; had the right to determine taxes; land ownership; the right to command; appointment of governors, strategists. However, there was an institution of co-rulers, which represented the presence of an heir-co-ruler during the life of the emperor. The hereditary principle was established under the Macedonian dynasty. The coronation was carried out by the patriarch or his religious leaders of the highest level. The power of the emperor was recognized as absolute, but at the same time it was limited to duties to the Almighty. The emperor was charged: to support and carry out everything that is stated in the Bible; compliance with the laws of the state. Byzantine emperors had to act in defense of the purity of the Orthodox faith, to obey generally recognized church laws.

There were synklit (senate), consistories (state council), etins. The synod was formed by the emperor, the senators were elected for life.

1) Development of bills, preparation of acts for the signature of the head of state

2) Proposal on the composition of collegiate officers

3) Development and submission of budgetary proposals

4) Control over the activities of financial activities

5) Discussion and submission of proposals to the head of state on issues of internal and foreign policy

The territory of the country consisted of themes, headed by a governor-general. The main function is to ensure law and order in the theme, collect taxes, form armed structures from its administrative-territorial unit.

There is a system of church courts. Their jurisdiction is church crimes, issues related to inheritance, marriage (wedding, baptism, funeral service). All courts were obliged to make decisions on the basis of the legal system of Byzantium.

Law Functions: protection of the state and social system of Byzantium, its political system, form of government. Managers 4-5%, the rest managed. Sources of law - Roman law (a code of norms, including 1) 4 books called the Constitution 2) 50 books "Digests" 3) a code of 12 books 4) stories of Justinian). The norms were improved (726 g), agricultural law, military law (740 g), sea law (750 g), Basil, 885 g - Prokrot (?)

Types of legal relations Keywords: property right, marriage and family, criminal.

The development of the Byzantine state, distinguished by its originality, went through several stages.

First step(IV - mid-VII century) was a period of decomposition of the slave-owning system, the emergence in the bowels of Byzantine society of elements of early feudal relations. The state of this period was a centralized monarchy with a developed military-bureaucratic apparatus, but with some restrictions on the power of the emperor.

Second phase(from the end of VII to the end of the XII century) was the period of the formation of feudal orders. At this time, the state acquires the finished features of a peculiar form of an unlimited monarchy, different from the despotic monarchies of the East and the monarchies of the feudal West. Imperial power In Byzantium reaches the highest level.

Finally, in the third stage(XIII-XV centuries) there is a deepening of the political crisis of Byzantine society, caused by the intensification of the process of its feudalization in the face of growing Turkish military aggression. This period is characterized by a sharp weakening of the Byzantine state and its actual collapse in the XIII-XIV centuries, which led it to the XV century. to death.

Byzantium had a significant influence on the political development of the peoples of Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as Transcaucasia. For a long time she was the custodian and conductor of the state-legal heritage of antiquity. The perception by the feudal states of Bulgaria, Serbia, Kievan Rus and Georgia of the vast cultural heritage of the Byzantine state contributed to their progressive development.

social order

The specific features of the development of Byzantine medieval society are already evident at the first stage of its development. The process of decomposition of the slave-owning order was slow in Byzantium. The relatively high level of development of commodity-money relations, the long-term preservation of the strong economic and political positions of numerous Byzantine cities (Antioch, Alexandria, Damascus, Constantinople, etc.) contributed to the political stability of Byzantium and restrained the process of the collapse of the slave system.

The composition of the exploited part of Byzantine society was also distinguished by considerable heterogeneity. Slaves were at the bottom of the social ladder. Their legal status, determined by the norms of late Roman law, differed sharply from that of the various categories of the free. The latter included primarily free peasant landowners. Preservation in the IV-VI centuries. free peasantry is an important feature of the social system of Byzantium. Free peasants lived in neighboring communities and had the right to private ownership of land. They were exploited directly by the Byzantine state: they paid a land tax and carried all sorts of heavy property and personal duties. It was widely used in Byzantium of this period and the late Roman form of exploitation of the peasants - colony. Byzantine legislation divided the columns into free and "assigned". Forced to rent land from large landowners, the columns were in behind dependent on their masters. The position of the "assigned" columns was especially difficult: they were attached to the ground. Free and "assigned" columns carried duties both in favor of their masters and in favor of the state. The situation of both categories of Byzantine columns deteriorated sharply in the 6th century.

Only by the tenth century the tendency to create a feudal seigneurial system prevailed, based on the labor of the peasantry dependent on the land magnates, while maintaining, however, control by the state. The main forms of feudal landownership are conditional land grants in the form of irony, arithmos - approved even later, in the XI-XII centuries. Thus, the most famous feudal institution, the debate, which flourished in the 12th-13th centuries, represented various types of land grants to the proniar from the state on the terms of service, usually for the life of the proniar or emperor.

The slow nature of the development of feudal relations determined the characteristics of the social composition of the ruling class of Byzantine society at the second stage of its development. The ruling class at that time consisted of heterogeneous social strata: high-ranking secular and ecclesiastical officials, local military service nobility and the communal elite, separated from the prosperous peasantry. All these powers were not consolidated for a long time and did not develop into closed estates. The hereditary vassal-seigneurial system, characteristic of a developed feudal system, began to take shape in Byzantium only by the 11th-12th centuries. The incompleteness of the development of the feudal seigneurial system led to the relative weakness of the Byzantine landowning nobility. The leading place in the structure of the ruling class of Byzantium belonged to the capital nobility and the highest officials of the empire, which were in sharp competition with the military landowning provincial nobility.

From the XI-XII centuries. there is a steady increase in the number of privately owned peasants at the expense of free and even state peasants, which indicates the formation of feudal-type land ownership in Byzantium. Privately owned Byzantine peasants were called wigs. They did not have the right to own land and were considered as hereditary holders of their allotments, they were obliged to pay rent to the master in labor, natural, monetary forms. Unlike state peasants, they were not attached to the land until the 13th-14th centuries.

The lowest position in Byzantine society, as before, was occupied by slaves. The long-term preservation of slavery was a characteristic feature of the social system of Byzantium. Slave labor was widely used in the household of the Byzantine nobility. Servants - slaves of the Constantinople nobles numbered in the hundreds. In the X-XI centuries. the social position of Byzantine slaves improves somewhat; for example, they receive the right to enter into church marriages. The conversion of the free into slavery is suppressed. Slaves are often transferred to the position of wigs. In the XI-XII centuries. the tendency to blur the lines between slaves and other categories of the exploited classes of Byzantium intensified.

Political system

Byzantine state IV-VII centuries. inherited, with certain features, the main features of the state system of the late Roman Empire. At the head of the state was the emperor, heir to the power of the Roman Caesars. He possessed full legislative, judicial and executive power and was the supreme patron and protector of the Christian Church. The Byzantine Orthodox Church played a huge role in strengthening the authority of the emperor.

It was the church that developed and consecrated the official doctrine of the divine origin of imperial power and preached the unity of the state and the church, spiritual and temporal power (their symphony). Unlike the Catholic (Western) Church, the Byzantine Church was much more economically and politically dependent on the emperor, as it existed in a powerful centralized state.

An important factor in the political life of the Byzantine state of that time was the approval of the emperor's candidacy by "the people of Constantinople." Even in the IV century. By imperial decree, the "people of Constantinople" - various social strata and groups of the population of the capital, who gathered at the Constantinople hippodrome, were given the right to express requests and make demands to the emperor. On this basis, special political organizations arose in Byzantium - the so-called city parties. (dima). The social support of the two largest dims - they were called "blue" and "green" - were various groupings of the ruling class. The former were supported by the senatorial and municipal aristocracy, the latter by the commercial and financial elite of the Byzantine cities. Dimas had a certain organization and even armed detachments. In the 5th century similar organizations of the type of metropolitan dims were created in other cities of the Byzantine Empire. Over time, they turned into a kind of all-imperial organizations, closely connected with each other. In the IV-VI centuries. the role of dims in political life was significant. Byzantine emperors often had to rely in their policy on one of these parties.

Another factor restraining the autocracy of the emperor was the presence of a special state body of the Byzantine aristocracy - Senate of Constantinople. Any business of the empire could be considered in the senate. His influence was ensured by the very composition of the Senate, which included almost the entire ruling elite of the ruling class of Byzantium. By the 5th century the number of senators was 2 thousand people. The discussion of state affairs by the senate, as well as its right to participate in the election of a new emperor, provided the Byzantine aristocracy with a certain share in the management of the affairs of the empire.

That is why the early Byzantine emperors, including the most powerful Justinian 1, recognized in legislative acts the need for "the consent of the great Senate and the people." This testifies to the stability of some political traditions that have been preserved since the days of republican statehood.

Strengthening the foundations of imperial power in the VIII-IX centuries. accompanied by a change in its attributes. The Greek titles of basileus (king) and autocrator (autocrat) are finally approved for the Byzantine emperors. The cult of the emperor-basileus reaches unprecedented proportions. The divine emperor was considered the ruler of the universe (Ecumene). His prerogatives were unlimited. Vasileve issued laws, appointed and dismissed senior officials, was the supreme judge and commander of the army and navy.

Characteristically, with such omnipotence, his position was not very strong. Approximately half of all Byzantine emperors were forcibly removed from power. The Byzantines did not have a system of succession to the throne for a long time: the son of Vasileus was not considered by custom as an obligatory legitimate heir. It was not birth that made the emperor, but "divine election." Therefore, the emperors widely practiced the institution of co-rulers, thus choosing, even during the life of the heir, the principle of legal succession to the throne began to be established in Byzantium only from the end of the 11th century.

The state system of Byzantium at the main stages of its development is characterized by the presence of a huge bureaucratic apparatus, both central and local. It was based on the principles of a strict hierarchy. All Byzantine officialdom was divided into ranks (titles). Their system was deeply developed. In the tenth century in the Byzantine "table of ranks" there were 60 such ranks. The central administration of the empire was concentrated in Council of State (Consistory, and later synclite). It was the highest body under the emperor, in charge of the current affairs of the state. Its functions were not clearly defined, and in practice it played a significant political role. The State Council consisted of the highest state and palace officials, who were the closest assistants to the emperor. These included two praetorian prefects, prefect of Constantinople, master and quaestor of the palace, two committees of finance. These top officials of the empire had extensive powers, including judicial ones. Thus, two praetorian prefects were the highest leaders of the local state apparatus; the prefect of Constantinople was the civil ruler of the capital and the chairman of the senate.

The highest palace ranks also had important functions: master - chief of the palace and questor - chief lawyer and chairman of the consistory. They directly managed the affairs of the empire with the help of an extensive bureaucratic apparatus. The total number of Byzantine officials at this time was enormous. At least 10,000 civil officials served in the departments of the two praetorian prefects alone.

The role of the central state apparatus increased in the IX-XI centuries. The state bureaucracy at that time controlled all spheres of the political, economic and even cultural life of Byzantium. Its structure has become even more complex and cumbersome. The number of departments ("secrets") increased to 60. From the 9th century. due to the growth of the imperial economy and the court, the palace administration becomes more complicated. The distinctions between government departments and palace services are becoming less and less clear. The palace administration is increasingly intervening in the management of national affairs. Another feature characteristic of the central administration of Byzantium at that time was the dispersal of individual state functions between various, often duplicating each other, state departments. Thus, financial management was divided from the 7th century. into several "secrets" that are not subordinate to each other. Judicial functions were divided among various institutions: the court of the patriarch, the court of the city prefect (eparch), a special court for the palace services of the emperor, etc.

local government

The local state apparatus of the empire in the IV-VII centuries. was entirely based on the late Roman system of government (division into prefectures, dioceses and provinces). Civil power was separated from the military and had priority over the latter during this period. At the head of the local administration of the empire were two praetorian prefects. These senior civil officials wielded broad administrative, judicial, and financial powers. Directly subordinate to the prefects were the civil rulers of the dioceses and provinces. The rulers of the provinces, the main link of local government, along with extensive administrative and financial powers, also had judicial power. They were judges of first instance in all significant court cases within the province.

At the turn of the XI-XII centuries. the highly centralized Byzantine state becomes an objective brake that hindered the progressive development of the peoples that were part of Byzantium.

Political and socio-economic crisis of Byzantium in the XIII century. and the subsequent death of the Byzantine state therefore became a natural historical outcome.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

- Introduction

1.1 Formation of the Byzantine state

Conclusion
List of sources used

Introduction

Byzantine Empire, Byzantium, Eastern Roman Empire (395-1453) - a state that took shape in 395 as a result of the final division of the Roman Empire after the death of Emperor Theodosius I into the western and eastern parts. Less than eighty years after the partition, the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist, leaving Byzantium as the historical, cultural and civilizational successor. ancient rome for almost ten centuries of the history of late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

The name "Byzantine" Eastern Roman Empire received in the writings of Western European historians after its fall, it comes from the original name of Constantinople - Byzantium, where the Roman Emperor Constantine I moved the capital of the Roman Empire in 330, officially renaming the city "New Rome". The Byzantines themselves called themselves the Romans - in Greek "Romeans", and their power - "Roman ("Romean") Empire" or briefly "Romania". Western sources throughout most of Byzantine history referred to it as the "Empire of the Greeks" due to its predominance of the Greek language, Hellenized population and culture. In ancient Russia, Byzantium was usually called the "Greek kingdom", and its capital - Constantinople.

Even during the reign of Emperor Justinian, the main principle of the relationship between the head of secular power and the head of the church was proclaimed: the emperor and the patriarch in commonwealth rule one - the body, and the other - the soul of a person. The theory of agreement between the royal and ecclesiastical authorities found expression in the preface to the 6th short story of Justinian. Here it was conveyed in the following words: “The greatest gifts of God, given to people by the highest philanthropy, are the priesthood and the kingdom; the first serves the affairs of God, the second takes care of human affairs, both come from the same source and adorn human life, therefore kings are most of all baked about piety of the clergy, who, for their part, constantly pray for them to God. When the priesthood is blameless, and the kingdom uses only legitimate authority, there will be good harmony between them, bringing enormous benefit to mankind. Subsequently, this theory of "consent and unanimity" received the name "symphony of secular and spiritual power", which was widely used in commentary literature.

In fact, this explanatory concept served as a justification for the established political practice and, in difficult periods for the church, served as a means of legitimizing its claims to independence and isolation from the royal power, to the opportunity to criticize objectionable basileus from moral positions.

The object of research is Byzantium.

The subject of the study is the relationship between church and state in Byzantium.

Target term paper- research of the state and church in Byzantium.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

- study and analysis of literature on the topic of term paper;

- consideration of the history of the development of Byzantine statehood;

- study of church-state relations in Byzantium.

The work consists of introduction, 2 chapters, conclusion, list of references.

1. History of the development of Byzantine statehood

1.1 Formation of the Byzantine state

The Byzantine state took shape as a result of the separation of the eastern part of the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century. AD It existed for over a thousand years, until the defeat in 1453 of its capital, Constantinople, during the Turkish invasion.

The development of the Byzantine state, distinguished by its originality, went through several stages. The first stage (IV - the middle of the 7th century) was a period of decomposition of the slave-owning system, the emergence of elements of early feudal relations in the depths of Byzantine society. The state of this period was a centralized monarchy with a developed military-bureaucratic apparatus, but with some restrictions on the power of the emperor. The second stage (from the end of the 7th to the end of the 12th century) was the period of the formation of the feudal order. At this time, the state acquires the finished features of a peculiar form of an unlimited monarchy, different from the despotic monarchies of the East and the monarchies of the feudal West. Imperial power In Byzantium reaches the highest level. Finally, at the third stage (XIII-XV centuries) there is a deepening of the political crisis of Byzantine society, caused by the intensification of the process of its feudalization in the face of growing Turkish military aggression. This period is characterized by a sharp weakening of the Byzantine state and its actual collapse in the XIII-XIV centuries, which led it to the XV century. to death.

The composition of the exploited part of Byzantine society was also distinguished by considerable heterogeneity. Slaves were at the bottom of the social ladder. Their legal status, determined by the norms of late Roman law, differed sharply from that of the various categories of the free. The latter included primarily free peasant landowners. Preservation in the IV-VI centuries. free peasantry is an important feature of the social system of Byzantium. Free peasants lived in neighboring communities and had the right to private ownership of land. They were exploited directly by the Byzantine state: they paid a land tax and carried all sorts of heavy property and personal duties. Widely used in Byzantium of this period was the late Roman form of exploitation of the peasants - the colony. Byzantine legislation divided the columns into free and "assigned". Forced to rent land from large landowners, the columns were in a position dependent on their masters. The position of the "assigned" columns was especially difficult: they were attached to the ground. Free and "assigned" columns carried duties both in favor of their masters and in favor of the state. The situation of both categories of Byzantine columns deteriorated sharply in the 6th century.

Only by the tenth century the tendency to create a feudal seigneurial system prevailed, based on the labor of the peasantry dependent on the land magnates, while maintaining, however, control by the state. The main forms of feudal landownership - conditional land grants in the form of irony, arithmos - were approved even later, in the 11th-12th centuries. Thus, the most famous feudal institution, the debate, which flourished in the 12th-13th centuries, represented various types of land grants to the proniar from the state on the terms of service, usually for the life of the proniar or emperor.

The slow nature of the development of feudal relations determined the characteristics of the social composition of the ruling class of Byzantine society at the second stage of its development. The ruling class at that time consisted of heterogeneous social strata: high-ranking secular and ecclesiastical officials, local military service nobility and the communal elite, separated from the prosperous peasantry. All these forces were not consolidated for a long time and did not develop into closed estates. The hereditary vassal-seigneurial system, characteristic of a developed feudal system, began to take shape in Byzantium only by the 11th-12th centuries. The incompleteness of the development of the feudal seigneurial system led to the relative weakness of the Byzantine landowning nobility. The leading place in the structure of the ruling class of Byzantium belonged to the capital nobility and the highest officials of the empire, which were in sharp competition with the military landowning provincial nobility.

1.2 Church and political system in Byzantium

It was the church that developed and consecrated the official doctrine of the divine origin of imperial power and preached the unity of the state and the church, spiritual and temporal power (their symphony). Unlike the Catholic (Western) Church, the Byzantine Church was much more economically and politically dependent on the emperor, as it existed in a powerful centralized state.

The early Byzantine church was directly subordinate to the emperor. Emperor Justinian 1 intervened most completely in the management of church affairs, often treating the highest church hierarchs (bishops and patriarchs) as his own officials.

An important factor in the political life of the Byzantine state of that time was the approval of the emperor's candidacy by "the people of Constantinople." Even in the IV century. By imperial decree, the "people of Constantinople" - various social strata and groups of the population of the capital, who gathered at the Constantinople hippodrome, were given the right to express requests and make demands to the emperor. On this basis, special political organizations arose in Byzantium - the so-called city parties (dima). The social support of the two largest dims - they were called "blue" and "green" - were various groupings of the ruling class. The former were supported by the senatorial and municipal aristocracy, the latter by the commercial and financial elite of the Byzantine cities. Dimas had a certain organization and even armed detachments. In the 5th century similar organizations of the type of metropolitan dims were created in other cities of the Byzantine Empire. Over time, they turned into a kind of all-imperial organizations, closely connected with each other. In the IV-VI centuries. the role of dims in political life was significant. Byzantine emperors often had to rely in their policy on one of these parties.

That is why the early Byzantine emperors, including the most powerful Justinian 1, recognized in legislative acts the need for "the consent of the great Senate and the people." This testifies to the stability of some political traditions that have been preserved since the days of republican statehood.

Traditionalism, the routine of ceremonials worked out to the smallest detail and consecrated by custom, seriously fettered the personal capabilities of the emperors. Their real power, according to a number of researchers, begins to steadily weaken. This was facilitated by new trends generated by the impact of feudal relations. As feudalism developed in Byzantium, lord-vassal relations, new to Byzantine state practice, developed between emperors and large feudal landowners (dinates). Starting from the tenth century. the Byzantine autocrat is often forced to conclude feudal agreements with some of his subjects - dinats, taking on the duties of a feudal lord.

The state system of Byzantium at the main stages of its development is characterized by the presence of a huge bureaucratic apparatus, both central and local. It was based on the principles of a strict hierarchy. All Byzantine officialdom was divided into ranks (titles). Their system was deeply developed. In the tenth century in the Byzantine "table of ranks" there were 60 such ranks. The central administration of the empire was concentrated in the Council of State (consistory, and later synclite). It was the highest body under the emperor, in charge of the current affairs of the state. Its functions were not clearly defined, and in practice it played a significant political role. The State Council consisted of the highest state and palace officials, who were the closest assistants to the emperor. These included two prefects of the praetorium, the prefect of Constantinople, the master and quaestor of the palace, and two committees of finance. These top officials of the empire had extensive powers, including judicial ones. Thus, two praetorian prefects were the highest leaders of the local state apparatus; the prefect of Constantinople was the civil governor of the capital and the president of the senate.

The role of the central state apparatus increased in the 9th-11th centuries. The state bureaucracy at that time controlled all spheres of the political, economic and even cultural life of Byzantium. Its structure has become even more complex and cumbersome. The number of departments ("secrets") increased to 60. From the 9th century. due to the growth of the imperial economy and the court, the palace administration becomes more complicated. The distinctions between government departments and palace services are becoming less and less clear. The palace administration is increasingly intervening in the management of national affairs. Another feature characteristic of the central administration of Byzantium at that time was the dispersal of individual state functions between various, often duplicating each other, state departments. Thus, financial management was divided from the 7th century. into several "secrets" that are not subordinate to each other. Judicial functions were divided among various institutions: the court of the patriarch, the court of the city prefect (eparch), a special court for the palace services of the emperor, etc.

In the IV-VII centuries. Byzantium's army was built on late Roman principles, divided into frontier and mobile troops. In order to reduce the threat of a seizure of power by military leaders, the Byzantine emperors practiced the fragmentation of the highest command of the army between five leaders (masters). The composition of the Byzantine army gradually changed. In the VI-VII centuries. barbarian contingents play an ever greater role in the army.

The basis of the army with the beginning of the second period of development of the Byzantine state (the end of the 7th-9th centuries) was the stratiotic (peasant) militia. At this time, a powerful navy was also created in Byzantium.

The Byzantine army experienced further transformation in the subsequent 10th-11th centuries. With the intensification of the process of feudalization, the stratiot militia disintegrated. The core of the army becomes the cavalry, consisting of the economically and socially isolated stratiotic elite. It was already a professional army, which, however, did not have a high combat capability. Therefore, the Byzantine emperors increasingly began to resort to the help of hired foreign detachments (mainly from Western Europe and Kievan Rus). In organizational terms, the Byzantine army, as before, was divided into two parts: the capital and local (theme) contingents, and the role and importance of the latter was steadily declining.

At the turn of the XI-XII centuries. the highly centralized Byzantine state becomes an objective brake that hindered the progressive development of the peoples that were part of Byzantium.

Political and socio-economic crisis of Byzantium in the XIII century. and the subsequent death of the Byzantine state became, therefore, a natural historical outcome.

2. Church-state relations in Byzantium

2.1 The problem of relations between the Church and the Byzantine state

The problem of relations between the Church and the state is one of the most urgent in the post-Soviet space. This is not accidental, since over the past decades there has been a reassessment of values, priorities have changed, attitudes towards religion in general and towards the Church in particular have changed. The crisis of ideology caused a desire to return to the original traditions, to restore the more or less harmonious relations between secular and church authorities that had existed for centuries. In turn, this led to the desire to study the roots of these relations, which are in Byzantium. The problem of relations between the Church and the state was considered by various researchers: historians, political scientists, philosophers, theologians, lawyers, etc., but the imperial legislation was taken only as an illustrative, and not as the main material for its disclosure. In our opinion, it is the analysis of the constitutions of the emperors that explains why a symphonic model of church-state relations developed in Byzantium, and not Caesaropapism or papocaesarism. Also, in the process of this analysis, the relationship of "church" legislation with the internal and foreign policy of the empire is revealed, and the actual legal design of the relationship between the state and the Church is indicated.

Before the advent of Christianity, there was no problem of interaction between the state and religious associations; paganism dominated in most countries, the head of state was the high priest, and in the matter of worship, citizens had to obey the state. The Christian religion is distinguished by the presence of a special institution - the Church, which, as a spiritual organization, was supposed to deal with issues of dogma, moral teaching, worship of God, and internal church discipline. At the same time, the state rejected these issues. Those. a situation arose when a sphere appeared in public life that was not controlled by the state. However, the authorities still considered it their duty to deal with these issues, and the clash of interests in the field of control over the spiritual life of society should have led to a search for a way out of the brewing conflict. The church was also interested both in establishing relations with the state and in solving the problem that had arisen.

The relations that have developed between the state and the Church, as a rule, are divided into three types. The first is Caesaropapism, when the Church is placed under the control of state power, the head of state is at the same time the head of the Church, state power intervenes in matters of dogma. The second type - papocaesarism - is the subordination of the state to religious organizations and assumes that the religious institution has all the supreme power with the provision of the head of state only with management functions. Finally, the third type of church-state relations is known as a symphony of authorities or such a union of Church and state, which is based not on the idea of their opposition, but on the idea of harmony and concord, coexistence, and not the desire to subjugate each other. In Byzantium, it was precisely the symphonic model of relations between the state and the Church that arose, but this did not happen immediately. For a long time, the parties have been looking for and building a system of relations that would suit everyone. The actual legislation of the emperors makes it possible to trace the evolution that relations between the state and the Church underwent throughout Byzantine history from the 4th to the 10th centuries.

So in the legislation of Constantine I (306-337) two points are clearly traced: religious tolerance in relation to all confessions, indicated by the Milan Edict of 313, and the emphasis in a special way on Christianity and the Christian Church. The church received the rights of a legal entity, Christians began to enjoy certain privileges, even some internal church issues began to be resolved with the participation of the ruler. But the emperor did not participate in the appointment of clergy, the church organization did not perform the functions of registering marriages, births and deaths, there was no state funding for the Christian Church, so de jure Christianity did not become the state religion. In general, the religious policy of Constantine the Great was of a practical nature - for the benefit of the empire, to honor all the gods, including Jesus Christ, it was not by chance that the emperor was baptized just before his death. The faith of Constantine I was to some extent syncretic, he did not divide the gods into his own and others, and sought to propitiate them all. This circumstance also explains his policy of religious tolerance, and the fact that Christianity under him and de facto did not become the state and dominant religion.

The successors of Constantine the Great (Constantius (337-361), Jovian (363-364), Valentinian I (364-375), Valens (364-378), Gratian (375-383) and Valentinian II (375-392)) in their Legislative activity continued to glorify Christianity, more actively waging a fight against paganism. An exception in this chain was Julian the Apostate (361-363), who, for the sake of the benefits of the empire and his greatness, decided to resort to the help of pagan gods. But his reforms were doomed to failure, because, firstly, most of the population had already converted to Christianity, and secondly, the empire consolidating around a single emperor needed appropriate ideological support, that is, a religion that rallied adherents around one, not several gods. Under Theodosius the Great (379-395), Christianity became the state religion through a law in 380 that determined who was a true Christian and provided for state sanctions against heretics and pagans. Christianity was declared the only official religion of the Roman Empire. But the attempts made by Theodosius I to put the Church at the service of the state and to establish Caesaropapism were thwarted by Bishop Ambrose of Milan (340-397), and this demonstrated the strength and independence of the church organization.

The proclamation of Christianity as the state religion had both positive and negative sides. On the one hand, the emperor could no longer take care of the empire without caring about the unity of the Church, since a divided Church would also mean a divided empire, on the other hand, such a dependence of the state on religious unity was dangerous for the state, since disagreements within the Church raised the question of maintaining its integrity. Emperors of the 5th century (Arkady (395-408), Honorius (395-423), Theodosius II the Younger (408-450), Valentinian III (425-455)) adopted anti-heretical and anti-pagan laws, introduced new privileges for the Church and the clergy, but they acted in mainly proceeding from the interests of the state, without separating their church policy from the state. To preserve the integrity of the state, the emperors had to organize the convening of church councils, the primary task of which was to prevent a schism in the Church.

Concerns about the unity of the empire were complicated by the fact that many emperors considered their position on the throne unreliable. In the absence of a law on succession to the throne and formal approval by the Senate and the army, additional legitimation was required. Leo I (457-474) reinforced his coming to power with the church ceremony of crowning the kingdom, while receiving not only the support of the majority of the inhabitants of the empire (Christians), but also the right to intervene in the solution of religious issues not as a pontifex maximus, but as a person, who received from God the right to take care of the well-being of his subjects.

His successors Zeno (474-491), Anastasius I (491-518) and Justin I (518-527), having come face to face with religious differences that caused an unstable situation in the empire, tried to resolve them in various ways: from compromise agreements to armed suppression and repression. There was also interference in matters of dogma (Enoticon, 482). Of course, this can be regarded as a manifestation of Caesaropapism, but, I think, to a greater extent, the emperors had not a desire to subordinate the Church to their power and put it under their control, but a desire to achieve political stability by eliminating religious instability. In our opinion, the slogan "religious peace for the sake of political stability" was the motto of all emperors for two centuries from Constantine the Great to Justin I. Without separating the spiritual and material spheres of life, considering themselves responsible for both, they did not distribute powers between ecclesiastical and secular authorities at the legislative level.

This distinction belongs to Justinian the Great (527-565), the guiding principle of whose policy was the restoration of a unified Roman Empire within the boundaries of the 1st-2nd centuries and its preservation headed by a single emperor. He also understood that strife within the Christian Church undermines its unity, and hence the unity of the empire, the personification of which is the emperor. Of course, he could not stay away from strife, but he did not want to split the empire either. This explains the desire of Justinian to eliminate the figure of the emperor from ecclesiastical disputes and lay the blame for them only on the Church. In order to prevent the religious struggle from hurting the figure of the emperor, Justinian removes this figure from participating in it. A manifestation of this was the division of the powers of the kingdom - imperial power and the priesthood - church power. At the same time, the kingdom should take care of human affairs, i.e. the emperor is entrusted with purely political functions, first of all, the preservation of peace in a single empire, while the priesthood should serve the affairs of the Divine, i.e. the preservation of peace in the Church is shifted to the shoulders of the clergy. If the priesthood is “blameless… and sincerely in communion with God”, and the kingdom “is properly entrusted to the state puts in order”, an agreement is established between them for the benefit of mankind. Justinian emphasized not only separation, but also union, cooperation between the priesthood and the kingdom, since Christianity had already become an ideological component of imperial life, the ideological pillar of the state, and the emperor could not leave religious affairs unattended. So, by separating the ideological sphere from the political one, Justinian, firstly, removed the blame for church strife from the figure of the emperor, and secondly, he actually removed the performance of the functions of pontifex maximus from the duties of the emperor, entrusting these functions to the Church. However, thanks to the union of the two authorities, the emperor did not move away from religious affairs, he still took part in them, but it already had clear boundaries, and cases of violation led to conflicts between the emperor and church hierarchs.

2.2 Legislative registration of church-state relations in Byzantium

During the VI-VII centuries. Byzantine emperors had to face many problems, mainly foreign policy, which turned out to be closely related to religious ones. A particularly serious problem was the Monophysite population of the eastern regions of the empire, which were subjected to enemy invasions. In order to win over the population of these territories, the emperors had to pay special attention to religious issues, to find a way to reconcile the Monophysites living in the eastern provinces and the Orthodox (Chalcedonites), which included the majority of the population. It was possible to restore religious peace in the empire for a short time, but already in the 7th century. the Monophysite provinces were conquered by the Arabs, and the policy of conciliation lost its relevance. The Byzantine Empire also had difficult relations with the western provinces, namely with Rome. This was also due to religious disagreements with the papal throne on certain issues. The short-sighted, often excessively cruel policy of the emperors towards the pope, who remained almost the only institution that united the Romanitas proper into a single whole, led to the gradual separation of Rome from the Byzantine Empire (Constantinople). At the same time, the popes, not wanting to fall under the influence of the basileus, often went into conflict themselves. On the whole, the ecclesiastical policy of the successors of Justinian I, like himself, served primarily the interests of the empire and was built mainly on the principle of a symphony. A confirmation is the fact that for the most part dogmatic disputes were resolved at church councils, the authors of doctrinal concepts were, as a rule, the first hierarchs of the Church. Attempts to impose their will by any of the emperors (for example, Heraclius (610-641)) led to disastrous consequences for themselves and for the empire and were suppressed either by the Patriarch of Constantinople, who actually became the second person in the country, or by the pope, or by the population itself.

The most serious violation of the concept of the symphony of the authorities was committed in the VIII - early IX centuries. iconoclast emperors, interfering in internal church activities, declaring that "God ordered us to shepherd the most obedient flock, like the coryphaeus of the apostles Peter", and trying to put the church under the control of the state. However, the emperors failed to do this in full. Caesaropapism, even during the period of iconoclasm, expressed itself only in separate manifestations, but did not become the dominant concept of state-church relations in Byzantium, and the Church remained an independent organism, not subject to the will of the emperors. This is due to the fact that most of the iconoclastic events were caused by political reasons, and dogmatic discussions stood in the background. For 150 years (717-867), the policy of the state in relation to the Church depended on the personal convictions of the emperors, on their political claims, and to a very small extent on state interests. At the same time, the religious reforms of the iconoclast emperors were often disastrous for the execution of their political decisions. In general, de jure Caesaropapism in Byzantium became impossible thanks to Justinian. As for real life, then strong emperors always sought to put everything (including the Church) under their control, weak ones could themselves fall under the influence (control) of the patriarchs, and the wise ones tried to follow the ideal of the symphony in practice.

Legislative registration of church-state relations took place at the end of the IX - early. 10th century Collections of existing and newly adopted laws - "Isagoga" and "Vasiliki" - finally approved the concept of a symphony of authorities. According to the Isagoge, the Church and the state form one organism. “Just as a person consists of a soul and a body, so two authorities are necessary for the state organism: spiritual and secular, i.e. emperor and patriarch; and just as human life can be correct only when the soul and body are in harmony with each other, the body follows the rational dictates of the soul, and in the state organism the well-being of subjects and the correct course of their lives can only be when the priesthood and the emperorship are in agreement with each other. "Vasiliki" secured the status of state laws for the canons of the seven Ecumenical Councils. And the Novels of Leo VI (886-912), although they did not provide for any special settlement of church-state relations, in our opinion, emphasized the symphonic type that Justinian wrote about. Despite the conflict that took place between Leo the Wise and the church hierarchs over the fourth marriage of Basileus, despite the obvious desire to put the Church under his control, expressed in the recommendation and election of the Emperor’s younger brother, Stephen, to the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople, the new imperial laws provided for the distribution of state competencies and the Church, as well as the union that has developed between them. byzantine state church legislative

The legislation of the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty was the last large-scale government initiative in the field of law. The concept of the state and the Church as a single organism, clearly formulated in the Isagoge, became dominant in the definition of church-state relations and remained so until the end of the empire. Along with the ideal of the symphony, it was received by the countries of the Orthodox ecumene along with Christianization. And now, states dominated by Orthodoxy should think about such an experience of state-church relations, about a clear separation of the spheres of influence of the state and the Church, about their interaction and non-interference in each other's affairs.

2.3 Interaction between church and authorities in Byzantium

The symphony of the state and the Church assumed interaction in all spheres of power - executive, judicial, legislative. In Byzantium, it could not be otherwise: all state officials and the emperor himself were members of the Church, and vice versa, all believers, including the patriarch, were citizens of the state. Thus, in the sphere of executive power, the development of church institutions and church administration took place in parallel and in accordance with the development political institutions And government controlled. The administrative structure of the state had an impact on church administration: the city was the main unit of both state and church administration; the division of the empire into provinces responded with the establishment of metropolitanates; With the introduction of dioceses in state administration, patriarchates appeared in church administration. The Byzantine emperor had constant relations with the organs of church administration. Under the Patriarch of Constantinople, there was the position of a referendary, who handed over to the emperor what the patriarch instructed him to do. Other patriarchs had permanent confidants in the capital - apocrysiari, to present to the emperor various requests for the needs of their Churches. State power took part in church matters, affecting the sphere of church economy and often arrogating to itself the right to appoint to church posts and remove them from these posts; in turn, the clergy took part in civil affairs, not only indirectly, through moral influence on the masses, but also directly, as leaders of external and domestic policy, as well as direct participants in the most important political enterprises and social movements.

The church was an organ of charity. Hospitals, shelters for helpless old people and orphans were maintained at her expense, and this was under the jurisdiction of the bishop. The head of the Eastern Church was the Patriarch of Constantinople. His influence increased gradually, but on the whole he was the same central point in the church sphere as the emperor was in the state sphere. The choice of a patriarch was a rather complicated process and consisted of several stages. The emperor also took part in the election procedure, but only as a "bishop of external affairs", responsible for the external well-being of the Church. He pointed to one of the three candidates proposed by a council of bishops specially assembled for the election of the high priest, who had previously discussed persons with qualities corresponding to the patriarch. Even if none of the candidates suited the emperor, and he proposed whom - something else, then the person proposed by him also went through the procedure of discussion by the council of bishops.

Of course, there were cases when the basileus tried to put the election process completely under their control, which gave reason to talk about Caesaropapism in Byzantium, but this is more an exception than a rule, and such facts were recognized as abnormal and condemned by contemporaries. It should be noted that the emperor did not take part in the appointment of other church hierarchs. On the other hand, the patriarch performed the ceremony of crowning the kingdom, which, having appeared under Leo I (457-474) as an addition to the main act of coronation performed by representatives of the army, subsequently became not only the most important, but also the only coronation act, and the rite of coronation itself and related ceremonial activities acquired a cult character. In addition, persons of different levels of the church hierarchy, both white and monastic clergy, enjoyed influence in the state, occupied the positions of first ministers, various secular positions in central and local government.

Just as under the emperor the synod was the highest government institution, so under the patriarch there was a synod, consisting of both full members - bishops, and members of those present - patriarchal dignitaries and representatives of the government; the latter were present only when solving issues related to the state sphere. The synod was the highest administrative and judicial authority, oversaw the purity of the faith and the maintenance of church order, the appointment and transfer of bishops, and considered complaints against clergy. His decrees were approved by the patriarch and announced on his behalf, while the more important ones went to the approval of the emperor. The latter, as a rule, happened when the church authorities wanted to give the synodal resolutions a wider distribution and ensure their implementation not only in the church sphere, but also in the civil one, or when they concerned not only church but also social relations and therefore could not do without without sanction from the state authorities, and finally, if the decision concerned the patriarch.

Just as under the emperor there were orders (secrets) for managing various branches of state administration, so under the patriarch there were secrets that were in charge of various branches of church administration. In other words, the very structure of church administration, similar to the structure of state administration, testifies to the union of the state and the Church in the administrative sphere. This is also evidenced by the fact that government officials were obliged to help the bishops in maintaining church discipline by taking appropriate measures both to comply with church rules and to punish their violators. Bishops, on the other hand, exercised a kind of prosecutorial oversight of government officials. They could accept a complaint against the prefect of the province and ask the prefect to consider the case again. In case of refusal, the bishop, on his own behalf, could give the petitioner a letter to the emperor with his certificate of justice not rendered. In addition, upon dismissal from office, the prefect of the province had to remain in place for 50 days and, through the intermediary of the bishop, receive complaints from the population and consider them. The bishop insisted on the legal satisfaction of these complaints.

In the judiciary, the interaction between the state and the Church was even closer. Byzantine sources call courts spiritual and secular, secular ones were divided into civil and military, and civil - into metropolitan and regional. The highest was the imperial court. There were also special courts in which various categories of persons (clergy, senators, guild members, warriors) could file a claim, regardless of place of residence or crime scene. Courts of special jurisdiction often clashed with ordinary courts and sought to expand their influence, because. these categories of the population preferred that the case be heard in a court that sympathized with them. Since the clergy had the right to be judged only by ecclesiastical courts, and not by civil authorities, secular archons had no jurisdiction over bishops. Whether it was a criminal or civil case, if both parties were churchmen, they should have been brought before the bishop. If any party wishes to sue in a secular court and leaves the ecclesiastical one, even if it wins the case, it will lose its ecclesiastical rank and be removed. According to the canons: "A bishop who is accused of something ... must himself be called by the bishops, and if he appears and confesses or is convicted by them: let his penance be determined." However, in civil disputes between a clergyman and a layman, the rule was that the case should be dealt with in the court of the party to which the defendant belongs. Only when the layman-respondent gave his consent to the consideration of the case by the bishop, did the latter make a decision. The bishop could also act as an arbitrator, even if both parties were laymen. According to the law of 333, the decisions of the bishops were to be recognized as final in cases of persons of all classes and of all ages, any civil case could be transferred to the episcopal court at any stage of the process, and even if the opposite side did not wish, the sentences of the episcopal courts were to be approved by secular judges, and evidence recognized by the bishop, any judge must accept without hesitation, all cases decided by the episcopal court became a judicial precedent, obligatory for use in secular courts.

In connection with this expansion of the competence of church courts, all religious and moral relations, closely related primarily to marriage and family law, began to be attributed to the field of cases not subject to secular courts. So, in 1086, Emperor Alexei Komnenos decreed that all matters relating to marriage and spiritual salvation should be judged by spiritual judges. Matters were decided in the dicastery of the bishop, in the metropolitan and patriarchal synod with the personal participation of the bishop, metropolitan and patriarch, or through representatives. An appeal went to the metropolitan against the bishop, and against the patriarch against the metropolitan, but no appeal was allowed against the decision of the patriarch, as well as on the decision of the emperor.

...

Similar Documents

Comprehensive study"Agricultural law" of Byzantium. Organizational characteristics of economic relations in the Byzantine community in the analysis of existing forms of ownership and lease in the Byzantine economic system. Features of agriculture.

term paper, added 02/05/2011

Prerequisites and conditions for the formation and development of the Russian Orthodox Church. Analysis of its influence on the formation of statehood in Ancient Russia. The influence and significance of the adoption of Christianity in Russia. The role and place of state and church institutions in society.

test, added 01/09/2015

Division into Eastern and Western Roman Empires. Formation of independent Byzantium. The reign of Justinian I the Great. The place of the church legislation of the emperors in the Byzantine legal system. The catastrophe of 1204, the revival and death of Byzantium.

abstract, added 02/12/2015

The supreme authorities and the system of local government of the Byzantine Empire. Justice in the Byzantine state, the role of the church in the judicial organization. "Sexateuch" as a collection of Byzantine law, containing the norms of civil, family and criminal law.

term paper, added 10/02/2012

Analysis of the legal regulation of the relationship between church and state. The influence of the church on the formation of legal systems. The acute problem of the relationship between church and state at the present stage Russian history, the basic principles of improvement.

term paper, added 06/18/2013

The legal status of the population of Byzantium. Central authorities and administration and royal power. Civil, marriage, family, inheritance and criminal law. Mass enslavement of peasants. The establishment of feudal relations and the right to property.

abstract, added 11/23/2010

The formation of the constitutional and legal regulation of the relationship between church and state in Russia, especially the separation of church and state. Ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, the history of their development and implementation in the Russian Federation; application of legal norms.

term paper, added 06/09/2013

Definition of the concepts of church and state, the history of the development of their relationship. Interaction between the state and the church at the present stage in various countries of the world. Russian Orthodox Church in a secular state, its informational and educational functions.

term paper, added 03/28/2014

The adoption of Christianity in Russia, the rapprochement of the Orthodox Church and state institutions. Guarantees of freedom of conscience and religion in a modern democratic state. The political system of Russia, the role of political parties in the formation of government bodies.

thesis, added 12/18/2011

General characteristics and sources of Byzantine law in the 4th - 7th centuries. Scholia as monuments of Byzantine law of the VIII-XIV centuries. The scholia had no official significance, but were taken into account in the Byzantine courts.

Higher professional education

"Institute of Law and Economics"

Department of State and Legal Disciplines

abstract

on the subject of History of State and Law foreign countries

on the topic: "The state and law of Byzantium."

Completed by: 1st year student

Faculty of Law

(Group: YuZS-9-1)

Samsonov A.A.

Introduction

1. Social order

2. State system

3. Law of Byzantium. General provisions

4. The main monuments of Byzantine law of the VIII-XIV centuries.

List of used literature

Introduction

The Byzantine state took shape as a result of the separation of the eastern part of the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century. n. e. It existed for over a thousand years until the defeat in 1453 of its capital, Constantinople, during the Turkish invasion.

The development of the Byzantine state, distinguished by its originality, went through several stages. The first stage (IV - the middle of the 7th century) was a period of decomposition of the slave-owning system, the emergence of elements of early feudal relations in the depths of Byzantine society. The state of this period was a centralized monarchy with a developed military-bureaucratic apparatus, but with some restrictions on the power of the emperor. The second stage (from the end of the 7th to the end of the 12th century) was the period of the formation of the feudal order. At this time, the state acquires the finished features of a peculiar form of an unlimited monarchy, different from the despotic monarchies of the East and the monarchies of the feudal West: Imperial power in Byzantium reaches its highest level. Finally, at the third stage (in the 13th-15th centuries), the political crisis of Byzantine society deepened, caused by the intensification of the process of its feudalization in the face of growing Turkish military aggression. This period is characterized by a sharp weakening of the Byzantine state and its collapse in the XIII-XIV centuries, which ultimately led him to the XV century. to death.

Byzantium had a significant impact on the political development of the peoples of Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as the Transcaucasus. For a long time she was the custodian and conductor of the state-legal heritage of antiquity. The perception by the feudal states of Bulgaria, Serbia, Kievan Rus and Georgia of the vast cultural heritage of the Byzantine state contributed to their progressive development.

1. Social order .

The ruling class of Byzantium IV-VII centuries. was uneven. The leading economic and social positions in Byzantium were occupied by

the old senatorial aristocracy and the provincial nobility, whose base of dominance was large-scale private ownership of land of the slave type. Along with them, a high place in the social structure of Byzantine society was occupied by the urban municipal top of the large cities of the empire, especially the capital of Constantinople.

The composition of the exploited part of Byzantine society was also distinguished by considerable heterogeneity. Slaves were at the bottom of the social ladder. Their legal status, determined by the norms of late Roman law, differed sharply from that of the various categories of the free. The latter included primarily free peasant landowners. Preservation in the IV-VI centuries. free peasantry is an important feature of the social system of Byzantium. Free peasants lived in neighboring communities and had the right. private ownership of land. They were exploited directly by the Byzantine state: they paid a land tax and carried all sorts of heavy property and personal duties. Widely used in Byzantium of this period was the late Roman form of exploitation of the peasants - colony. Byzantine legislation divided the columns into free and "assigned". Forced to rent land from large landowners, the columns were in a position dependent on their masters. The position of the "assigned" columns was especially difficult: they were attached to the ground. Free and "assigned" columns carried duties both in favor of their masters and in favor of the state. The situation of both categories of Byzantine columns deteriorated sharply in the 6th century.

The social system of Byzantium is undergoing serious changes in the course of the most acute political and social crisis at the end of the 6th - the first half of the 7th century. The Arab invasion, the invasion of the barbarians, accompanied by their massive settling on the territory of the empire, the destruction and decline of many cities accelerated the breaking of slaveholding and the formation of feudal orders in Byzantium. In wars and social clashes, a significant part of the representatives of those social groups that dominated Byzantium in the previous period perished. At the same time, the preservation of state forms of ownership, communal land ownership and the enormous prevalence of unlimited private ownership of land in subsequent centuries seriously slowed down the formation of new feudal property and, moreover, the development of feudal exploitation of the Byzantine peasantry.

Only by the tenth century the tendency to create a feudal-seigneurial system, based on the labor of the peasantry dependent on the land magnates, while maintaining, however, control by the state, prevailed. The main forms of feudal landownership - conditional land grants in the form of pronia, arithmos - were approved even later, in the 11th-12th centuries. So, the most famous feudal institution - pronia, which flourished in the 12th-13th centuries, represented various types of land grants to the proniar from. states on terms of service, usually for the lifetime of a pro-niar or emperor.

The slow nature of the development of feudal relations determined the characteristics of the social composition of the ruling class of Byzantine society at the second stage of its development. The ruling class at that time consisted of heterogeneous social strata: high-ranking secular and ecclesiastical officials, local military service nobility and the communal elite, separated from the prosperous peasantry. All these forces were not consolidated for a long time and did not develop into closed estates. The hereditary vassal-seigneurial system, characteristic of a developed feudal system, began to take shape in Byzantium only by the 11th-12th centuries. The incompleteness of the development of the feudal seigneurial system led to the relative weakness of the Byzantine landowning nobility. The leading place in the structure of the ruling class of Byzantium belonged to the capital nobility and the highest officials of the empire, which were in sharp competition with the military landowning provincial nobility.

From the XI-XII centuries. there is a steady increase in the number of privately owned peasants at the expense of free and even state peasants, which indicates the formation of feudal-type land ownership in Byzantium. Privately owned Byzantine peasants were called wigs. They did not have the right to own land and were considered as hereditary holders of their allotments, they were obliged: to pay rent to the master in labor, natural, monetary forms. Unlike state peasants, they were not attached to the land until the 13th-14th centuries.

The lowest position in Byzantine society, as before, was occupied by slaves. The long-term preservation of slavery was a characteristic feature of the social system of Byzantium. Slave labor was widely used in the household of the Byzantine nobility: the servants - slaves of the Constantinople nobles numbered in the hundreds. In the X-XI centuries. the social position of Byzantine slaves improves somewhat; for example, they receive the right to enter into church marriages. Stop the slavery of the free. Slaves are often transferred to the position of wigs. In the XI-XII centuries. the tendency to blur the lines between slaves and other categories of the exploited classes of Byzantium intensified. |

2. State system

It was the church that developed and consecrated the official doctrine of the divine origin of imperial power and preached the unity of the state and the church, spiritual and temporal power (their symphony). Unlike the Catholic (Western) Church, the Byzantine Church was much more economically and politically dependent on the emperor, as it existed in a powerful centralized state.

The early Byzantine church was directly subordinate to the emperor. Emperor Justinian I intervened most completely in the management of church affairs, often treating the highest church hierarchs (bishops and patriarchs) as his own officials.

The power of the Byzantine emperor in the IV-VII centuries. was not, however, arbitrary. With all the breadth of the emperor's powers, it was tempered by the need to follow the "general laws" of the empire, and especially by the absence of the principle of heredity to the throne. The new Byzantine emperor was elected by the senate, "the people of Constantinople" and the army, whose role in the election of the emperor of Byzantium was steadily declining.

An important factor in the political life of the Byzantine state of that time was the approval of the emperor's candidacy by "the people of Constantinople." Even in the IV century. By imperial decree, the right to express requests and make demands to the emperor was granted to the "people of Constantinople" - various social strata and groups of the population of the capital, who gathered at the Constantinople hippodrome. On this basis, special political organizations arose in Byzantium - the so-called city parties (dima). The social support of the two largest dims - they were called "blue" and "green" - were various groupings of the ruling class. The former were supported by the senatorial and municipal aristocracy, the latter by the commercial and financial elite of the Byzantine cities. Dimas had a certain organization and even armed detachments. In the 5th century similar organizations, like metropolitan dims, were created in other cities of the Byzantine Empire. Over time, they turned into a kind of all-imperial organizations, closely connected with each other. In the IV-VI centuries. the role of dims in political life was very significant. Byzantine emperors often had to rely in their policy on one of these parties.

Another factor restraining the autocracy of the emperors was the presence of a special state body of the Byzantine aristocracy - Senate of Constantinople. Any business of the empire could be considered in the senate. His influence was ensured by the very composition of the Senate, which included almost the entire ruling elite of the ruling class of Byzantium. By the 5th century the number of senators was 2 thousand people. The discussion of state affairs by the senate, as well as its right to participate in the election of a new emperor, provided the Byzantine aristocracy with a certain share in the management of the affairs of the empire.

That is why the early Byzantine emperors, including the most powerful Justinian I, recognized in legislative acts the need for "the consent of the great senate and the people." This testifies to the stability of some political traditions that have been preserved since the days of republican statehood.

Byzantium in the IX-X centuries. was the stabilization of the economy on a new feudal basis. The Byzantine state, which reached its highest development during the reign of the Macedonian dynasty (867-1057), sought to control all aspects of the economic, political and cultural life of the country with the help of a huge bureaucratic apparatus. The rigidly centralized nature of the empire sharply distinguished Byzantium from the contemporary feudal states of Europe.

In the 8th century political organizations and institutions that previously restrained the omnipotence of the Byzantine emperor, fall into decay or are completely liquidated. From the 9th century even the nominal proclamation of the emperor by "the people of Constantinople" ceases. The political role of the Senate of Constantinople, which fell at the end of the 7th century, is finally reduced to nothing by the imperial decree of the end of the 9th century, which deprived the senate of the right to participate in the legislation of the empire.

The only major political force in the Byzantine state remains Orthodox (Greek) Church. Her authority and influence are being strengthened. In particular, the role of the head of the church, the Constantinople patriarch in the social and political life of Byzantium. Patriarchs often become regents for underage emperors and directly intervene in the political struggle for the throne, taking advantage of the fact that from the 7th century the only procedure that legitimizes “installation to the kingdom” becomes. the wedding of the emperor by the patriarch in the church of St. Sophia. However, even at this time the Byzantine church failed to achieve independence from the imperial power. The emperor retained the right to choose a patriarch from among three candidates recommended by church hierarchs, and to depose an objectionable patriarch.

Strengthening the foundations of imperial power in the VIII-IX centuries. accompanied by a change in its attributes. The Greek titles of basileus (king) and autocrat (autocrat) are finally approved for the Byzantine emperors. The cult of the emperor-basileus reaches unprecedented proportions. The divine emperor was considered the ruler of the universe (ecumene). His prerogatives were unlimited. Vasileve issued laws, appointed and dismissed senior officials, was the supreme judge and commander of the army and navy.

Characteristically, with such omnipotence, his position was not very strong. Approximately half of all Byzantine emperors were forcibly removed from power. The system of succession to the throne for a long time was absent among the Byzantines: the son of Basileus was not considered by custom as an obligatory legitimate heir. It was not birth that made the emperor, but "divine election." Therefore, the emperors widely practiced the institution of co-rulers, thus choosing an heir during their lifetime. The principle of legitimate succession to the throne began to take hold in Byzantium only at the end of the 11th century.

Traditionalism, the routine of ceremonials worked out to the smallest detail and consecrated by custom, seriously fettered the personal capabilities of the emperors. Their real power, according to a number of researchers, begins to steadily weaken. This was facilitated by new trends generated by the impact of feudal relations. As feudalism developed in Byzantium, lord-vassal relations, new to Byzantine state practice, developed between emperors and large feudal landowners (dinates). Starting from the tenth century. the Byzantine autocrat is often forced to conclude feudal agreements with some of his subjects - dinats, taking on the duties of a feudal lord.

The state system of Byzantium at the main stages of its development is characterized by the presence of a huge bureaucratic apparatus, both central and local. It was based on the principles of a strict hierarchy. All Byzantine officialdom was divided into ranks (titles). Their system was deeply developed. In the tenth century in the Byzantine "table of ranks" there were 60 such ranks. The central administration of the empire was concentrated in Council of State (Consistory, and later synclite). It was the highest body under the emperor, in charge of the current affairs of the state. Its functions were not clearly defined and in practice it played a significant political role. The State Council consisted of the highest state and palace officials, who were the closest assistants to the emperor. These included two praetorian prefects, prefect of Constantinople, master and quaestor of the palace, two committees of finance. These top officials of the empire had extensive powers, including judicial ones. Thus, two praetorian prefects were the highest leaders of the local state apparatus; the prefect of Constantinople was the civil ruler of the capital and the chairman of the senate.

The highest palace ranks also had important functions: the master - the head of the palace and the quaestor - the chief lawyer and chairman of the consistory. They exercised direct control over the affairs of the empire with the help of an extensive bureaucratic apparatus. The total number of Byzantine officials at this time was enormous. At least 10,000 civil officials served in the departments of the two praetorian prefects alone.

The role of the central state apparatus increased in the IX-XI centuries. The state bureaucracy at that time controlled all spheres of the political, economic and even cultural life of Byzantium. Its structure has become even more complex and cumbersome. The number of departments ("secrets") increased to 60. From the 9th century. the palace administration becomes more complicated, thanks to the growth of the imperial economy and the court. The distinctions between government departments and palace services are becoming less and less clear. The palace administration is increasingly intervening in the management of national affairs. Another feature characteristic of the central administration of Byzantium at that time was the dispersal of individual state functions between various, often duplicating each other, state departments. Thus, financial management was divided from the 7th century. into several “secrets” that are not subordinate to each other. Judicial functions were divided among various institutions:

the court of the patriarch, the court of the city prefect (eparch), a special court for the palace services of the emperor, etc.

Local control. The local state apparatus of the empire in the IV-VII centuries. was entirely based on the late Roman system of government (division into prefectures, dioceses and provinces). Civil power was separated from the military and had priority over the latter during this period. At the head of the local administration of the empire were two praetorian prefects. These senior civil officials wielded broad administrative, judicial, and financial powers. Directly subordinate to the prefects were the civil rulers of the dioceses and provinces. The rulers of the provinces, the main link of local government, along with extensive administrative and

They also had financial powers and judicial power. They were judges of first instance in all significant court cases within the province.

In the 7th century the old system of local government was replaced by a new one, feminine The Theme system originated as military districts and were originally much larger than the old provinces. Fems were at the head strategists, which united in their hands the entirety of military and civil power. The militarization of the local administration of the empire was the result of an aggravation of the foreign policy situation and the social and class antagonisms of Byzantine society. In the future, with the intensification of the feudalization of Byzantine society, the thematic organization of local government begins to weaken and in the 11th century it finally falls into decay.

Army. IV - In the 7th century, the Byzantine army was built on late Roman principles, with a division into border and mobile troops. In order to reduce the threat of seizure of power by military leaders, the Byzantine emperors practiced the fragmentation of the highest command of the army between five leaders (masters). The composition of the Byzantine army gradually changed.

3. Law of Byzantium. General provisions

Byzantine law, which has a history of more than a thousand years, is a unique phenomenon in medieval Europe. It is characterized by a relatively high degree of stability, internal integrity, and the ability to adapt to changing socio-economic and political conditions. These qualities of law in Byzantium were determined by historical factors, among which the traditionally strong central imperial power, the Roman legal heritage, and the Byzantine Christian church were of particular importance. These factors had an integrating effect on the law, gave it the properties of a system.

Already in the early stages of the development of the state in Byzantium, a peculiar legal system developed, which grew directly from Roman law, but was influenced by specific transitional relations to feudalism in a society that was distinguished by great social and ethnic diversity. Under the influence of time and purely local conditions, in particular a variety of legal customs, Roman legal institutions gradually evolved. But the fundamental foundations of Roman law and legal culture were not undermined and did not undergo fundamental changes, which was largely facilitated by the long-term preservation of the slave-owning system in Byzantium.

The direct succession of Roman and Byzantine law was reflected in the use of imperial law as the main source of law. The relative stability of the political system of Byzantium contributed to the fact that it was here that the first attempts were made to codify the imperial constitutions, and then the Roman law as a whole. So, the first official set of Roman laws was the Code of the Byzantine emperor Theodosius (CodexTheodosianus) compiled in 438, which included all the imperial constitutions since the reign of Constantine (from 312). Thus, in Byzantium, earlier Roman legislation, which was not included in this collection, lost its force.

In the IV-VI centuries. In Byzantium, a high level of development of legal thought is observed, independent legal schools are emerging (the most famous are in Beirut and Constantinople). Among the lawyers of the Beirut school, who combined their teaching work with participation in imperial codification works, Domninus, Skiliatius, Cyril, Patricius, and others became especially famous.

Byzantine jurists were not just keepers of ancient legal and cultural traditions. They adapted Roman law in relation to the new needs of society, while making changes and insertions (interpolations) into the classical texts of Roman jurists. Thus, the ground was prepared for large-scale codification work. It is no coincidence that it was in Byzantium, as already indicated, in the middle of the VI century. under the guidance of the outstanding jurist Tribonian, a comprehensive systematization of Roman law was carried out, the result of which was the Justinian Code of Laws (Corpus juriscivilis). This codification up to the XI century. remained not only the most important source of the current law of Byzantium, but also was the foundation on which its legal system was finally formed.

4. The main monuments of Byzantine law of the VIII-XIV centuries.

At the turn of the VII-VIII centuries. the legal system of Byzantium is undergoing serious trials associated with a deep crisis in the economic system, the decline of cities, the settlement of barbarians on state lands, the invasion of Arabs, etc. It was at this time that the process of transformation of Byzantine law from late antique to medieval was gradually completed. In the 8th century with a general economic and cultural upsurge, the legislative activity of the Byzantine emperors and law schools is revived again

At the second stage of the history of Byzantine law, legislation, supported not only by the Roman legal tradition and customary law, but also by the own experience of Byzantine jurists, becomes more flexible and resilient. It was the vital needs of Byzantine society that made necessary new work on the systematization of legislation and on the processing of Justinian's codification, which was carried out in Latin and which was owned by only a small circle of people. Judicial practice could not be satisfied with the fact that in the Digests of Justinian many terms and entire fragments from the writings of Modestinus, Papinian and other classical lawyers were given in Greek, the actual transformation of Byzantium into a Greek-Slavic state insistently demanded a change in the language of legislative acts.

The needs of judicial practice made it necessary to rework the Justinian Code of Laws and present it in a concise and understandable form. In 726 (according to some sources - in 741), at the direction of the iconoclast emperor Leo of Isauria, Eclogue ("selected laws") was published, which was the most important stage in the development of Byzantine law.

The compilers of the Eclogue retained only a small part of the legal material from Justinian's codification, so it consisted of 18 small titles, some of them included only one article each. In the very subtitle to the Eclogue, it was indicated that it was a reduction and correction "in the spirit of greater philanthropy" of the legislation of the "great Justinian". The iconoclastic phraseology of Eclogs was reflected only in its introductory part, which spoke of the need to be guided by "true justice", and not express "in words admiration" for it, and even prescribed "in deeds" to give preference to the poor and the poor. The Eclogue had a special title (VIII) dedicated to slaves. Some cases of turning free people into slaves (for example, deserters) were envisaged, but the main emphasis was placed on new ways and forms of freeing slaves (for example, their release to freedom in churches, etc.), which reflected the development of feudal relations.

In the Eclogue, the influence of the Christian religion and morality was fully manifested, and references to the Gospel were used to substantiate a number of legal provisions. Christian ideas penetrated especially deeply into marriage and family law (titles I-VII). Eclogue introduced betrothal, previously unknown to Byzantine law (from the age of 7), which required the formal consent of the betrothed themselves, and in fact, due to their infancy, their parents. The marriageable age was set at 15 for men and 13 for women. Under the influence of the Christian church, the number of legal grounds for divorce was reduced. A woman, according to Christian morality, occupied a subordinate place in the family, but unlike classical Roman law, Eclogue reflected a tendency to equalize the property regime of husband and wife. The dowry and marriage gift received by the wife were considered not as the property of the husband, but as property given to him for management. When inheriting by will, a mandatory share of children was established (at least 1/3 of the inheritance), seven categories of heirs were determined, to whom the property of the deceased successively passed in the absence of a will.

The titles of the Eclogues devoted to contract law (IX-XIII), of the numerous transactions considered in the Justinian Code of Laws, mention only the purchase and sale, loan, contribution (storage), partnership. In the contract of sale, concluded both orally and in writing, under the influence of Greek law, a deposit was introduced. In the loan agreement, probably as a concession to church dogmas, the mention of interest known to Roman law was omitted. They briefly spoke about such an important institution as hiring, which included the lease of land, which could be provided for a period not exceeding 29 years. Obviously, the leasing of private lands in Byzantium was not widespread. On the other hand, the mention in the Eclogue of the leasing of state, imperial and church lands with an annual contribution by the tenant of the rent is characteristic.

Another institution typical of developing feudalism, emphyteiis, was also widely developed in Eclogue. The latter was established as an eternal or as a limited lease "for up to three generations, inheriting one after another by will or without a will." The person (emphyteut) who received the emphyteus, as a rule, land, was obliged to pay the owner "without evasions" an annual fee, and also to take care of the "preservation and improvement of real estate." If the emphyteut did not pay the stipulated fee for three years, he could be deprived of the real estate provided to him.

The most extensive and detailed in the Eclogue was title XVII, dedicated to crimes and punishments. Under the influence of deepening social contradictions, other new provisions were introduced into the criminal law, reflecting the strengthening of state repression. It is no coincidence that this particular title of Eclogues was most famous and was invariably used in subsequent legislative codes of Byzantium.

The Eclogue provided for the prosecution of state criminals: defectors to the enemy, counterfeiters, and that particular article was singled out, which spoke of persons raising a rebellion against the emperor or participating in "a conspiracy against him or against the state of Christians." Such persons were regarded as intending to "destroy everything", and therefore they "must be put to death at the same hour." The legislator also paid much attention to crimes against the Christian religion. Persons who gave a false oath on the "divine gospels", raised their hand to the priest during prayer, renounced the "immaculate Christian faith" in captivity, sorcerers, healers, amulet makers, adherents of religions hostile to Christianity, participants in pagan or heretical movements ( in particular, the Manichaeans and Montanists).

The Eclogue provided punishments for murder and bodily harm inflicted in a fight, and the punishment was differentiated depending on whether these crimes were premeditated or unintentional. So, "if someone beat his slave with whips or sticks and the slave died, then his master is not condemned as a murderer." The responsibility of the owner arose toly "in the case of the premeditated murder of a slave ("he tortured him immoderately, or poisoned him with poison, or burned him").

The Eclogue also lists a number of property crimes: theft, robbery, destruction of other people's property, arson, looting of other people's graves. But most of her articles were devoted to crimes that infringe on the system of family and moral relations established by the state and consecrated by the church. Among them stand out: incest, rape, adultery, intercourse with a nun, goddaughter, girl, bestiality, fetal poisoning, etc.

Developed and more cruel (even in comparison with the legislation of Justinian) was the system of punishments. Quite often, the Eclogue provided for the death penalty. But the system of self-mutilating and corporal punishments was especially refined, which in classical Roman law was applied mainly to slaves, and now were extended to free people: cutting off the nose, tearing out the tongue, cutting off the hand, blinding, castration, etc. Shameful punishments were known (for example, the cutting of the beard and hair), as well as the confiscation of property.

For some crimes, the nature of the punishment in the Ecmp was determined depending on the social status of the perpetrator. So, according to Art. 22 For dignitaries, a large fine was due for communication with someone else's slave. For the same crime, a “simple person” was subject not only to a fine, but also to flogging. Punishments for having a relationship with a girl "without the knowledge of her parents" were also differentiated for persons "wealthy", persons of "average well-being", as well as for "poor and indigent". If the former had to pay compensation to the seduced, the amount of which depended on their position, then the latter were subjected to flogging, shaving and deportation (title XVII, art. 29). However, in the vast majority of other articles, criminal liability was not made dependent on the social status of the guilty person. According to a number of researchers, this manifested the desire of the creators of Eclogue to somewhat soften social contrasts.

Social inequality is enshrined in the Eclogue and in those of its provisions that are devoted to evidence (title XIV). It expressly states that "witnesses of rank, or office, or occupation (or wealth) are presumed to be acceptable." As for the "witnesses unknown", ie. persons of a lower social status, they, if the testimony given by them was disputed in court, were interrogated under whips. The excessive conciseness of the Eclogue, the absence in it of such important issues as the methods of acquiring and losing property rights, prescription, etc., led to the fact that, despite its great practical significance, the courts in a number of cases subsequently had to refer directly to Justinian's codification.

In a number of its lists, the Eclogue was supplemented by the Agricultural. Maritime and Military Laws. The most important of them was the Agricultural Law, which in its content resembled Western European "barbarian truths". He filled a significant gap in the Eclogue: he regulated the relations that developed in rural communities, which by the 8th century. began to play an important role in the life of Byzantine society. There are two main versions (editions) of the Agricultural Law: the early one (the most valuable as a source of customary law and the later one, which already reflected a higher level of social differentiation. The time and place of the compilation of the early edition are disputed. Some researchers attribute it to the end of the 7th century (to Justinian II), others insist on its South Italian origin.However, the dominant point of view is that the Agricultural Law was drawn up in Constantinople under the emperors of the Isaurian dynasty in the 20s of the VIII century, i.e. approximately at the same time as Eclogue, as application to which he usually corresponded.

The agricultural law was a private compilation, but then received official recognition, possibly simultaneously with the Eclogue. The early edition of the Agricultural Law consisted of 85 articles and, as is typical for monuments of customary law, did not have a clearly defined internal structure. The agricultural law was in force in the Byzantine Empire throughout its history, but later editions, relating, in particular, to the 14th century, already had 103 articles grouped into 10 titles.

The legal norms included in the Agricultural Law were aimed at resolving the most typical conflicts that arose within rural communities. Much attention was paid to the observance of the boundaries of adjacent plots, the consequences of unauthorized plowing of land, and the exchange of land plots. The communal order is most convincingly evidenced by Art. 8, providing for the distribution of land plots by lot. Great importance is attached to the lease of land and vineyards. The Agricultural Law specifically stipulates the interests of the state treasury, which collects taxes from the owners of land plots, as well as extraordinary taxes (Articles 18, 19).

Numerous articles of the Agricultural Law are formulated in a casuistic manner, establishing liability for the theft of other people's livestock, agricultural implements, for cutting down someone else's forest, etc. In most cases, theft or damage to someone else's property entailed only property sanctions, which were aimed primarily at compensating for the harm caused. But in those cases when the damage was especially significant and thus threatened the developing private property order, self-mutilation and corporal punishment were applied (cutting off the hand of a thief, setting fire to someone else's barn, etc.) and even the death penalty (for burning out of revenge someone else's threshing floor, for most thefts committed by slaves).

From other appendices to Eclogue highest value had a Maritime Law, which in Western Europe became known as the Roaos Maritime Law. The compilation of this collection dates back to the 7th-8th centuries. It collected legal customs that had developed in the practice of ancient and medieval maritime trade and were partially processed by Roman lawyers. The maritime law contained rules relating to navigation, the carriage of goods and passengers, the chartering of ships, the ejection of cargo in case of danger at sea (the so-called accident), the division of profits and losses between the shipowner and the owner of the cargo, etc. Separate norms of this collection were used in international trade until the 15th century.

The further development of Byzantine law is connected with the law-creative activity of the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty (icon worshipers) Basil I and Leo VI. Having canceled the Eclogue, compiled by his political opponents (iconoclasts), Basil I ordered to revise the Justinian Code of Laws again, to exclude obsolete provisions from it, to clarify difficult legal terms and translate them into Greek language. The result of legislative work was the publication in 879 of Prochiron, which in subsequent centuries was one of the most authoritative sources of Byzantine law and left a noticeable mark on the history of the law of neighboring Slavic states.

Prochiron, compared to Eclogue, was a more complete collection of laws (in addition, 17 titles were included).

lov), but in terms of legal technique (according to the clarity of the arrangement of legal material, its wording), it was inferior to the latter. Although in the preface to Prochiron the Eclogue is referred to not as "chosen", but as "perverted" laws, Basil I borrowed from it a number of provisions, especially those relating to criminal law.

The changes made by Prochiron to the legal system of Byzantium were not significant, and on some issues of private law a tilt was made towards Justinian (or even pre-Justinian) legislation, such as gifts between husband and wife, dowry regime, freedmen's wills and etc. But Prochiron to some extent also reflected the new conditions of Byzantine society in the 9th century. It sets out contract law in more detail (a partnership agreement is being developed, a direct ban on interest on a loan is established, etc.), some changes are made to family law (a prenuptial gift is introduced, etc.).

Shortly after the compilation of Prochiron (between 884 and 886), a new manual of law was issued on behalf of Emperor Basil I and his co-ruler sons, which also had the goal of "purifying the old laws" and facilitating the use of the right set forth in the codification of Justinian. This manual was called the Epanagoge (i.e. revised repetition). In its structure, it followed the Digests of Justinian, reproduced many of the provisions of Prochiron, as well as Eclogues. For all its compilability, it presented in more detail, and in some details and in a new way, a number of issues of private law. But the most significant changes were made by the Epanagoge in the sphere of public law. A number of new provisions were formulated, such as, for example, on the patriarchal power, supplementing the imperial one, on the rights of the clergy. These provisions determined the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the state and were subsequently widely used in church law.

The short codes of Byzantine law could not fully satisfy the needs of judicial practice, which from time to time was forced to refer to the increasingly outdated Justinian Code of Laws. Under Emperor Leo VI (the Wise), whose reign (886-912) was marked by the rise of legal science, major codification work, begun under Basil I, was completed on a new revision of Justinian's legislation. Compiled by Tayami in the manner around 890 under the guidance of a prominent jurist Simbacius "Vasiliki" ("Basilica"), i.e. "royal laws" were intended to replace the collections of Justinian's law, which were becoming more and more difficult to understand (including due to the language barrier).

The huge legal material used in Vasiliki is arranged more compactly and consistently than in Justinian's Code of Laws, which consisted of several independent parts (books). "Vasiliki" is a single legislative monument, including 60 books divided into titles and fragments. Each title of "Basil" began with a fragment of the text of one of the Roman lawyers quoted in the Digests (other opinions, as less authoritative, were omitted), then the corresponding additions from the Code, Institutions and Novels followed. Justinian's law in "Basiliki" was used not directly, but through Greek translations and comments (epitomes, paraphrases) of Byzantine jurists of the 6th century. - Anonymous, Theophilus, Dorotheus and others.

Basiliki did not include those provisions from Justinian's codification, which, in the opinion of the compilers, had no practical significance (most of the Institutions, the Digest titles (1 and 2) on justice and the origin of law, etc.). A number of constitutions were also excluded from the Code and Novels of Justinian, which were revised by subsequent legislation. But the processing and reduction of the previous law in "Vasiliki" was carried out insufficiently carefully and hastily. They preserved a significant number of obsolete or obsolete norms, mentioning, for example, long-vanished positions (Roman consuls, imperial legates, etc.) or areas that were not part of Byzantium (Egypt, Scythia, etc.).

List of used literature

1. Livantsev K. E. // Collection of documents on the general history of state and law. Leningrad. institute. 1977

2. Krasheninnikova N. A.// History of state and law of foreign countries. Part 2, book 1. M., 1994. 3. Krasheninnikova N. A.// History of the state and law of foreign countries. Part 2, book 2. M., 1994.

Tutorials:

4. Zhidkova O. A. History of the state and law of foreign countries.// Part 1. Moscow State University, 1991.

5. Zhidkova O. A. History of the state and law of foreign countries.// Part 2. Moscow State University, 1991.

6. Krasheninnikova N. A. History of the state and law of foreign countries.// Part 1. M., 1993.

7. Chernilovsky Z. M. General history state and law. M. 1995