EVIDENCES AND EVIDENTIARY ACTIONS IN “RUSKAIA PRAVDA”

The source of old Russian law named as “Ruskaia Pravda”, being the essence of the article, shows a kind of look of Russian society at the edge of early and developed Middle Ages. The author tends to present hierarchy in relations of social categories established in first Russian entities, just as their structure caused by geopolitical influence of leading states of Scandinavia and Byzantine. The article begins with analyzing the external factors of creating initial steps of Russian statehood. It is followed by the author’s pointing out of importance of Russian medieval legislative corner-stones to make importance of “Ruskaia Pravda” stressed out considering preserving of Russian society core values of that period. Substantially, the author pays attention to evidences quoted in “Ruskaia Pravda”, as being special reflection of medieval man’s understanding of social values just as being key factors of these values defending. Legal and institutional particularity of medieval Russia is illustrated by the author in this article by detailed overview of normative solutions placed in “Ruskaia Pravda”, as one of the main governmental pillar having to do with forming early sociopolitical milieu of medieval Russia.


INTRODUCTION
Being settled on the traffickers' route, spearheaded by Scandinavian merchants' swords up to the regions governed by Byzantine in the early 9 th century AD, divided tribes of Eastern Slavs began to form first bigger communities in the areas of nowadays Kiev, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Smolensk, Polotsk and Rostov. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 52) Influenced by trafficking flows and having active role in exchange of goods between Scandinavian West and Byzantines East, the early medieval tribal organization of Eastern Slavs was overpowered and primitive strongholds grew up in first little towns named as gorodischa being centers of merchant activities. (Jelačić 1929: 7) As stockpiles, these fortified towns were targeted very often by armed Scandinavian merchants' groups to be ransacked and used as sources for merchants' plunder to be sold to Byzantine. As times went by, even the very Eastern Slavs joined the ransacking and afterward attacks on Byzantine lands together with Viking raiders. Trafficking connections developed more and more, so little towns from stockpile level reached the form of important and big merchant centers having a rich offer of consumer goods derived from exchange of grain for fur with Finnish tribes to exchange of rare spices, gold, vine, silk and fruits purchased from Byzantines and Arabian traders for timber, wax and honey gotten from upper river flows of Volga and Dnieper. (Jelačić 1929: 13) Paganism of Viking ransacking traders and Eastern Slavs got along in prevailed degree considering polytheistic pantheons, so there were no cultural differences mattered. This fact enabled ethnical synergy making Viking mercenaries to organize and protect trading having Slavs joined their armed groups, just like making Slavs to engage Vikings in their towns' defense. It was not rare for towns' mayors to be Scandinavians named as konung who did not ask for salary but to be paid in goods. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 52) According to their Slavic name Varyazi, they put their Viking wandering spirit into framework of life in towns placed by the rivers ran through the regions of nowadays Russian Federation and settled down among Slavs. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 52-54) In the middle of the 9 th century in the lands of Eastern Slavs principalities of Varyazi have been established in the towns of Novgorod, Beloosero, Izborsk, Polotsk, Turov and Kiev. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 53) On the crossroads of the 9 th and the 10 th centuries Varyag-Russian prince known as Rurik (Jelačić 1929: 10) forced his rule in Novgorod (The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text 1953: 60) and his successors governed Kiev and Smolensk establishing domination of Ruriks' dynasty along rivers Dnieper, Don, Volga, Dvina, Volkova and Ilmeny lake, as vital areas transited by trading routes connected West and East just like Asia with Middle Europe, too. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 53) Political and economic expansion of Ruriks' dynasty played a role of roots for Russian state and first signs of Russian society institutionalization in the early Middle Ages. (Jelačić 1929: 18)

INSTITUTIONAL PREDISPOSITIONS OF RUSSIAN MEDIEVAL SOCIETY
Eastern Slavic tribes were looking for fertile land because vast forested areas were hard to be exploited for agricultural matter and so they reorganized themselves into families grouped as communities. As consisted of relatives and nonrelatives, communities were joined like volost. Communities were led by families' masters gathered in council, also known as veche, where they discussed about most crucial issues considering community and where their leader was to be chosen. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 51, 56) First cities appeared due to increasing of population triggered by wealth derived from progressive trading and it caused a new social class of traders. Henceforth, these cities became centers governing the surrounding areas and it was beginning of city municipalities. Subsequently, previous social structure based on tribes had to be changed and council was to played steering role at the level of municipality inhabited by citizens and villagers from close villages represented in the council, as well. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 55-56) At dawn of the 11 th century the old Chronicles of Nestor the Monk of Pechersky Monastery in Kiev and Silvester the Abbot of Vidubitsky Monastery in Kiev were source for the expression all-Russian-land which meant the lands ruled by princely dynasty of Ruriks. Totality of the territory were split into provinces named as volosti governed by princes in the way of delegating power on so-called druzhina manned by prince's guarding warriors, older citizens and the most confident people of Kiev. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 51) In the province of Kiev this kind of governing social class was the most powerful and this province was the first one named as Russian-land with the other Eastern Slavs' provinces, tended to Kiev, following it. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 55) In conquered areas, prince of Kiev was not up to replace the local squire if he admitted Kiev supreme governing, yet prince did nominate one of his relative to be a governor named as posadnik (The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text 1953: 254) more often. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 54) Tribute paid by ruled province to Kiev was collected by the governor, prince and princely guard. Also, the tribute was a salary to princely guard dealt with protecting conquered and governed cities and trading routes connected them to markets.
Over time, princely governing was changed its primary function considering defending and protecting cities becoming more like supreme and judicial. It is ought to be mentioned that this transformation of governing focus was triggered by Byzantines perception of supreme leader's divine origin implemented into first Russian state organization by the influence of Christian church. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 55-56) At the certain point, Church established to Eastern Slavs the unity of belief and clerical hierarchy up to the level mattered Byzantines normative system as one of having influence to princely and laic courts through active role of clerical courts. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 56) In the 11 th century, princely guard became institutional ground for governors and judges elected by prince. Besides the importance of tax collection and judging, princely guard brought up a new class of boyars gathered in duma to make decisions (The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text 1953: 116) together with prince related to the most important issues for political life in the governed provinces. (Jelačić 1929: 26) A kind of counterbalance was made by cities' councils of families' masters authorized to decide to expel prince from the very city, if argued in concreto. (Miljukov -Senjobos -Ezenman 1939: 62) One can conclude that institutional predisposition of Russian medieval society were created in sociopolitical relations, connections and antagonism of combined influences considering unity and conflicts in singular governing role of prince, aristocratic demonstration of boyars' duma power (The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text 1953: 116) and cities' mayors, just like in democratic exposing of citizens gathered in cities' councils. (Jelačić 1929: 26) It is necessary to conceive the inception of particular legislative awareness, under above mentioned social, economic, confessional and political conditions, which gave birth to an idea about normative unification aimed to regulate different segments of social life in the first steps of Russian state development, at transition from the Early to the High Middle Ages.

LEGISLATIVE POWER OF "RUSKAIA PRAVDA"
In the political surrounding of an aggressive fighting-trading expansion of Viking armed groups, Byzantines military and political dominant presence followed by strong and constant confessional influence and Arabian economic involvement through exporting rare products hard to be purchased to the cities' markets of Russian medieval state, it became necessary to regulate relations among various social classes that formed structure of early staged Russian society.
Old Russian Code "Ruskaia Pravda", as fundamental source of medieval Russian law, 1 has regulations which determine criminal offence generally as obida. 2 "Ruskaia Pravda" has three groups of regulations that one can treat in the form of versions. First one is, most probably, created in the time of Yaroslav the Wise 3 having eighteen provisions. Second one gathers provisions dated from the time of Yaroslav's sons reign, 4 while third one has just articles annotated as 42 nd and 43 rd . If certain way of behaving is to be punished it means in essential that it is illegal. The very presence of sanction caused awareness of fact whether some action was allowed or it was treated as criminal offence.
In the first phase of establishing Russian state punishment was following violation of princely law, usually, because the law was made of regulations which reflected legislative expression of customs, religious and ethical rules sanctioned if not followed. Nevertheless, at the end of Middle Ages customs led a way for punishment proceedings to be created in the first Russian principalities and rural communities. Medieval Russian lawmaker was oriented to protect individuals who were more endanger due to class domination in social structure affected heavily way of life in tribal society organized traditionally.
Medieval Code "Ruskaia Pravda" prescribes two kind of delicts, ones against person and others considering property. First group relates to insult, injury, affray and murder, while the second one forbids trespassing, illegal use of someone else's property, theft and robbery. (Nikolić 2000: 92) Prevailing number of regulations of "Ruskaia Pravda" sticks to the problem of theft with specifying possible protected values in details. Lawmaker defined offender to restitute total loss to damaged party in the case of theft committed with paying fine. Oldest sources of Russian history indicate that murder of clan member is followed by revenge of his relatives. The revenge was to be done at the very crime scene according to contracts made between Russian principalities and Byzantine. In the 10 th century there were bans on blood revenge implemented. It was replaced by ransom, gradually. In the oldest version of "Ruskaia Pravda" the closest relatives are recognized to execute blood revenge, solely. Adopting of orthodox Christianity influenced on definite revoking of blood vengeance category from the ways of executing sentences in medieval Russian sociopolitical entities. From the institutional aspects of governing stakeholders, the murder was enormous The quoted can be a reason why prince Vladimir, after adopting Christianity at the end of the 10 th century, banned death sentence for murder even though he had implemented it by device of Byzantines high ranking priests, previously. One can conclude that regulations of "Ruskaia Pravda" focus, above all, fine to be paid and death sentence as a way of punishment is not recognized in the normative system of the Code. Yet, Arabian travel writers in the 9 th and the 10 th century indicated their impressions of having robbers and thieves hanged in medieval Russia and that death sentence were replaced with expelling of murders in the far parts of principality of that time, too.
At the sunset of the 10 th century, death sentence was replaced by fine in Russian medieval society, completely. Named as vira, fine was to be paid for murder of free man and it was defined in amount of 40 silver grivnas in cases like this. If slave was killed, punishment was not paying off vira but compensation limited by price paid for slave when bought. In the most of cases, the amount of vira was not possible to be paid by citizens' own means and it caused solution in the way of implementing institute of dirkaja vira. (Nikolić 2011: 248) This penological phenomenon enabled all community 5 members to gather their means and pay off ransom for murder committed. The amount of dirkaja vira was defined for obligation of community punished member in concreto or when offender was not found. Prodazha was the most presented modus of fine. As a type of sanction, it was a unique confirmation that offender belonged de iure to the social category of free men.
We deem needed to be pointed out that "Ruskaia Pravda" by not defining death sentence, in the period of transition from the Early to the High Middle Ages and founding of first Russian municipalities as sociopolitical embryos of Russian state, just as with having fine as punishment prevailed making blood vengeance overcome as retrograde matter of civilization, represents an advanced legal base for regulating and exercising rights and obligations of every subject in well branched classed social structure of first forms of Russian medieval state organization. 5 With a meaning of municipality in the socio-organizational sense.

EVIDENCES AND EVIDENTIARY ACTIONS DETERMINED NORMATIVELY
Before getting into normative structure of "Ruskaia Pravda" which has to do with determining of evidentiary actions, it is necessary to make a quick overview relates to sociohistorical conditions of creating the Code. Up to the end of the 10 th century, in early Slavic states dominated customary law in accordance to the Chronicles, with possible legendary character. A few decades later, attempts to codify customs resulted in bringing first Acts 6 considering different legal matters with penal law and penal proceedings included, primarily.
Depends on geographic location of appearance, old Slavic states were exposed to pressures and influences of Byzantines ruling as much as of German and Scandinavian entities. Under such conditions of international scene of that time, the Code "Ruskaia Pravda" 7 came up as first one codifying Russian customary law.
By being first to determine special kind of evidentiary actions "Ruskaia Pravda" confirmed autochthonous development of legislation in early Slavic states. In its further analyzing, we are about to use the text of "The Laws of Rus' -Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries", edited by author Daniel H. Kaiser, with direct indicating of provisions belong to this medieval Russian basic legal reference. (Kaiser 1992: 20-34) The case of catching the offender on the spot is regulated by the Article 7 th of "Ruskaia Pravda". It states: -"If [the homicide]* occurs without cause during an assault. If [a homicide] occurred during an assault without any provocation, then the people [in the community] do not pay for the murderer, but give him up with his wife and children for punishment and confiscation of his property." The institute of witness is defined by fourteen provisions of "Ruskaia Pravda". For the sake of our analyzing we have selected the following ones: - Oath named as rota is an ordinary part of normative system established in "Ruskaia Pravda" and besides mentioned articles it is being provided with following, too: -Article 37 th requires: "If someone purchases at market some stolen property, either a horse, or clothes or livestock, then [the purchaser] is to produce two free men or the customs officer [to confirm that he purchased the property at market]; if he maintains that he does not know from whom he purchased [the stolen property] then the eyewitnesses are to take the oath [on his behalf], and the complainant is to take his own property; and concerning property lost [and not recovered] Statement is anticipated by "Ruskaia Pravda" as important kind of proof inter alia by the Article 38 th , too, which instructs: -"If someone recognizes and takes back his own stolen slave, then he is to conduct the slave [by the confrontment process] through the money transactions until the third confrontment; then [the slave's owner] is to take another slave in place of his own slave, and give his property to the other party, who then continues until the last confrontment [when the original thief is discovered]; and this property is not cattle, so it is not possible to say '[I do not know] from whom I purchased [the slave]'; but [pursue the confrontment] on the [slave's] word until the end; and when the final thief is [discovered, the party identified at the third confrontment] is to return the slave [to his original owner] and take back his own [slave], and [the thief] is to pay all losses, and a twelve-grivna fine to the prince." Importance of document as an evidence in the Code is called for in the Article 110 th in the next way: -"Full slavery has three forms: if someone buys [a man] for up to half a grivna, and provides witnesses [to the sale], and then gives [even] a nogata [to the seller] in the presence of the slave himself; the second form of slavery: if [someone] takes a female slave [to wife] without having an agreement [stipulating that he will remain free], for if he takes [a slave to wife] with stipulations, then whatever he stipulated stands; the third form of slavery: [if a man becomes an] overseer without an agreement [stipulating that he will remain free] or if he accepts the key [to a man's household (i.e., becomes a steward)] without an agreement [stipulating that he will remain free]; for if he [accepted the duties] with stipulations, then whatever was stipulated stands." The role of eyewitness, as a category of witness, is to be highlighted as we deem necessary to be and in "Ruskaia Pravda" it is scheduled in the next regulations: - If one compares last two provisions of "Ruskaia Pravda" by the amount of money showed through value of killed thief's life and stolen beaver, then it is to conclude that in this time in medieval Russia the beaver had overestimated value while the life of thief was almost worthless.
Recognition of persons and goods is defined in the following provisions of the old Russian Code: - Confrontment named as svod is inter alia provided by the following articles of "Ruskaia Pravda", as well: -Article 36 th defines: "If [the confrontment] takes place within one town, then the complainant is to proceed until the end of the confrontment; if the confrontment leads through several districts, then [the complainant] is to proceed until the third confrontment; the person [discovered at the third confrontment] is to pay [the victim] in money for the property [i.e., for the physical evidence], and with this property [himself] proceed until the end of the confrontment, and the original complainant is to wait, and when the final confrontment is reached [and the original thief discovered], then [the offender] is to pay all costs and a fine." -Article 39 th orders: "And the confrontment is not to proceed from one's own town into another district, but [the accused] is to present witnesses or the customs officer before whom he purchased [the property in question], and the complainant is to take his property, and mourn the loss of [the other property which] disappeared, and [the accused] can mourn the loss of his money [which he paid for the stolen property]." The regulations of this source of the old Russian law focus the matter of culprit's trace which is inter alia determined in the next way: -Article 70 th indicates: "If the earth be dug up or [if there be some other sign] of a trap or net, then [the community] is to seek the thief among the [residents] of their own community or pay a fine." The uniqueness of "Ruskaia Pravda" regulated, even, the costs of the ordeal as accuser's expenses if guiltiness not proved, just like uroke rotne (expenses of giving oath) depend on degree of social dangerousness of offence committed, and subsequently anticipated amateur jurors 8 as relict of customary law, in the next provisions: -

CONCLUSIONS
Bringing this article to the end, we conclude that "Ruskaia Pravda" expressed broad implementation of irrational evidences highly respected in evidentiary actions performing in medieval Russia, obviously.
Svod and traces following, by all means, were among the most frequently used methods of providing the proofs. That was the exact way to find out an unconscienced possessor by performing svod, well known as legal custom of old Slavs from the earliest periods of their history. Traces following was, surely, connected to custom of paying vira, as a matter of institutionalized collective responsibility of community organized on municipal level.
In the lack of rational evidences, guiltiness was established by using of hot iron and pouring of boiled water, as well. The most dangerous criminal offences, as murder, required guiltiness to be proved by performing ordeal of the hot iron.
Evidentiary action was executed in the way the charged one had to carry hot iron or to walk over it. Then followed interpreting of burns without any details known. 9 Ordeal of the water was realized by exposing parts of charged one's body to the hot water, but it was not the only mode of it. When it was up to the case of theft of stolen good valued 2 to 40 grivnas, charged one was to be tied and put on the surface of deep water. If he started to go down, it would prove his innocence. But, if some of court officials thought that water did not accept him, because he managed to stay on surface for a while, it would be sure sign of his guiltiness.
Trial by duel or judicial duel was performed, very often in praxis, as a typical irrational evidentiary action. According to rules, this ordeal was realized in the presence of princely and city delegates to show the balance between positon of princely governing and importance of city as an integrated social community. Conflicted parties fought with clubs. The winning party got recognition that he was right in particular matter. If women acted in judicial duel, they were not allowed to be represented by chosen replacement, but to fight each other directly. However, solely right to replace women in judicial duel used to have monks, priest, ill ones, handicapped persons and juveniles. (Nikolić 2011: 250) Besides some signs of advanced relation to basic social values, as human life and replacing of death sentence by paying fine, the old Russian Code "Ruskaia Pravda" did not avoid the medieval mainstream of using irrational evidentiary actions in determining ways of obtaining and providing proofs. We are convinced, deeply, that this legal source was undoubtedly reflection of medieval man's perception, which is its predominant characteristic overpowering, even slightly, progressive tendencies of Russian lawmakers in the Middle Ages. Sergej V. ULJANOV Ana G. MATOVIĆ DOKAZI I RADNJE DOKAZIVANJA U "RUSKOJ PRAVDI"