Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:09:54.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Russia and the Roman Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

Darrell P. Hammer
Darrell P. Hammer*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Law and Government, Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although Russia is a "civil law" country, her legal history presents a pattern of development quite different from the continental countries of the "Roman law" tradition. Russia did not share in the Reception of Roman law after the eleventh century, which is the common tradition of western European jurisprudence. The institutions and philosophy of the Reception remained foreign—indeed almost unknown— to the Russians. Yet the Russian jurists have been studying the Roman law since the eighteenth century, and even today it is a required subject for Soviet law students.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 1957 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The research on which this paper is based was made while the writer was studying on a Fellowship granted by the Ford Foundation. However, the conclusions, opinions, and other statements in this publication are his own and not necessarily those of the Ford Foundation.

References

1 “Drei Mai hat Rom der Welt Gesetze diktiert, drei Mai die Völker zur Einheit verbunden, das erste Mai, als das römische Volk noch in der Fülle seiner Kraft stand, zur Einheit des Staates, das zweite Mai, nachdem dasselbe bereits untergegangen, zur Einheit der Kirche, das dritte Mai in Folge der Rezeption des römischen Rechts im Mittclalter zur Einheit des Rechts… . “ Rudolph von Ihering, Geist des römischen Rechts (6th ed., Leipzig, 1907), I, 1.

2 Cf. Paul Koschaker, Europe und das römische Recht (2d ed., Munich, 1953), p. 205.

3 But cf. Vernadsky and Berman, contra. In his Medieval Russian Laws (New York, 1947), George Vernadsky concluded that the “Byzantine law … affected the very foundations of Russian juridical thought, creating the atmosphere in which the Russian law developed in the Middle Ages” (p. 6). In Kievan Russia (New Haven, 1948), he identifies “Byzantine” with “Roman” law (pp. 292 f.). Harold Berman takes a similar position in his Justice in Russia (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 122 ff.

4 V. I. Gsovski, “Roman Private Law in Russia,” Bulletino dell’ Istituto di Diritto Romano, XLVI (1939), 363.

5 Opyt kriticheskago izsledovanija Russkoj Pravdv (Kharkov, 1914).

6 Chernousov, E., “K. voprosu o vlijanii Vizantijskago prava na drevnejshee russkoe pravo,” Vizantijskoe obozrěnie, I (1916), 303.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., p. 323; cf. also L. K. Goetz, Das russische Recht (Stuttgart, 1910-1913), IV, 79- 80 et passim, and Josef Kohler, “Die Russkaja Prawda und das altslavische Recht,” Zeitsckrift für vergleichcnde Rechtswissenschaft, XXXIII (1918), 289.

8 Gsovski, , “Medieval Russian Laws,” American Slavic and East European Review, VI (1947), 156 Google Scholar.

9 Tiktin, N. I., Vizantijskoe pravo, kak istochnik Ulozhenija 1648 g. (Odessa, 1898), pp. 464 Google Scholar ff.

10 Ibid., p. 292.

11 Ibid., p. 268.

12 Freshfield, E. H., A Manual of Roman Law (Cambridge, 1926)Google Scholar, and A Revised Manual of Roman Law (Cambridge, 1927).

13 Freshfield, , A Manual of Eastern Roman Law, the Procheiros Nomos (Cambridge, 1928).Google Scholar

14 Ashburner, Walter, “The Farmer's Law,” Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXX (1910), 85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and XXXII (1912), 68,

15 Florinskij, T., “Drevnejshij pamjatnik bolgarskago prava,” Sbornik statej po istorii Prava posvjashchennvj At. F. Vladimir skomu-Budanovu … (Kiev, 1904), pp. 404-29Google Scholar.

16 Mitrovits, T., Nomokanon der slavischen morgenländischen Kirche oder die Kormtschaja Kniga (Vienna, 1898), pp. 8, 21Google Scholar.

17 Tiktin, op. cit., p. 291.

18 Ibid., the Coll. LXXXVII cap. here is subheaded “Ot svitka novvkh zapovedej Iustiniana carja.“

19 A. Pavlov, “ ‘Knigi zakonnyja’ soderzhashchija v sebe, v drevnerusskom perevodě, vizantijskie zakony zemledel'cheskie, ugolovnye, brachnye i sudebnye,” Sbornik russkago jazvka i slovesnosti imperatorskoj akademii nauk, XXXVIII (1885), No. 3.

20 Ibid., pp. 41 f.

21 Ashburner, op. cit. (1912), p. 72.

22 Leopold Wenger, Quellen des römischen Rechts (Vienna, 1954), pp. 679 ff.

23 Tiktin, op. cit., p. 295.

24 It was Kljuchevskij's theory that Russkaja Pravda was compiled as a manual of Russian law for the guidance of the ecclesiastical courts. A History of Russia (London, 1911), pp. 133-36.

25 M. F. Vladimirskij-Budanov, Obzor istorii russkago prava (St. Petersburg, 1909), p. 93.

26 K. E. Zacharia von Lingenthal, Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Rechls (Berlin, 1877), pp. 37, 91.

27 Cf. Lawson, F. H., “The Basilica,” Law Quarterly Review, XL VI (1930), 486–501 Google Scholar.

28 S. Bělokurov, O bibliotekě moskovskikh gosudarej v XVI stolětii (Moscow, 1898), lists the following works: a general collection of the novellae acquired by the Synod library in Moscow sometime before 1700 (Appendix, p. cd); a copy of Justinian's Institutes in the foreign office [polol'skij prikaz] by 1673 (ibid., p. 40); a second copy of the Institutes apparently acquired from the library of Artemon S. Matreev in 1685 (ibid.); in the course of the following century, the archives of the collegium for foreign affairs acquired a French translation of the Institutes and a commentary, in Latin, printed in Frankfort (ibid., Appendix, p. ccclxii). The Synod library also contained two sixteenth-century editions of the Digest—apparently copies which had belonged to Sylvester Medvedev and one German, an official of the Synod press, and went to the Synod library on the death of their individual owners early in the eighteenth century; Biblioieka moskovskoj sinodal'noj tipografii (Moscow, 1912), part 2, I I , 61

29 N. D. Chechulin (ed.), Nakaz Imperatricy Ekaternv II, dannvj kommissii o sochinenii proekta novago ulozhenija (St. Petersburg, 1907), § § 322-423.

30 Ibid., § 133.

31 Kratkoe nachertanie rimskikh i rossijskikh prav, s pokazaniem kupno oboikh, ravnomerno kak i chinopolozhenija onykh istorij (Moscow, 1777), which has not been available to the present writer. See Alexandre Eck, “Introduction bibliographique a l'histoire du droit russe,” Archives d'histoire du droit oriental, II (1938), 403.

32 [M. M. Speranskij] Obozrenie istoricheskikh svedenij o svodh zakonov (St. Petersburg, 1833), p. 81. (For authorship, see M. N. Korkunov, “Teoreticheskija vzgljady Speranskago na pravo,” Sbornik statej [St. Petersburg, 1898], p. 97.)

33 Ibid., p. 85.

34 F. Moroshkin, “Grazhdanskoe pravo po nachalam rossijskago zakonodatel'stva,” Juridicheskij vestnik, 1860/1861, No. 15, p. 13.

35 Ibid., p. 23. This article discussed the need for open acceptance of borrowing from foreign jurisdictions; Russian law did not allow judges (except in the commercial courts) to apply the rules of interpretation of foreign statutes. These foreign commercial institutions, according to Moroshkin, were the first instance of Roman-law influence in Russia: “The Roman law, not being vouchsafed a reception in our country from the Greeks, began to break in on us by other means. Since the time of Peter the Great, Russian legislators, under the guise of German and French institutions, have been borrowing principles of Roman law and giving them statutory force” (Ibid., p. 12).

36 Rudolf Leonhard, Stimmen des Auslandes über die Zukunft der Rechtswissenschajt (Breslau, 1906), pp. 73 ff.; P. M. Majkov, “Speranskij i studenty zakonovedenija,” Russkij vestnik, 1899, No. 262, pp. 609-26.

37 Ibid., and Koschaker, op. cit., pp. 132-3.

38 I. A. Pokrovskij, “Rol’ rimskago prava v pravovoj istorii chelovechestva i v sovremennoj jurisprudencii,” Uchenvja zapiski imperatorskago jur'evskago universiteta, 1894, No. 3, p. 28.

39 Grimm, D. D., Lekcii po dogmc rimskago prava (5th ed., St. Petersburg, 1916), p. 10 [Italics supplied]Google Scholar

40 Khvostov, V. M., Istorija rimskago prava (5th ed., Moscow, 1910), p. 3 [Italics supplied]Google Scholar

41 Ibid., p. 437.

42 Pokrovskij, I. A., Istorija rimskago prava (Riga, 1924), pp. 5 f.Google Scholar

43 The most convenient edition of the draft civil code is I. M. Tjutrjumov (ed.), Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie—Proekt vvsochajshe uchrezhdennoj redakcionnoj komissii po sostavleniju grazhdanskago ulozhenija (Unofficial ed., 2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1910). One part of the draft code, the section on obligations, was introduced into the Duma in 1913 but was never adopted.

44 Tjutrjumov, op.cit., Introduction.

45 On the development of the five-part system, see A. B. Schwarz, “Zur Entstehung des i modernen Pandektensystems,” Ztitschrijt der Savignv-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte—Romanist- ische Abteilung, XLII (1921), 603.

46 Editorial Commission for Drafting a Civil Code, Zamechanija o nedostatkakh dejstvujush-chikh grazhdanskikh zakonov (St. Petersburg, 1891), § 1.

47 Ibid., § 341.

48 Schöndorf, F., Die Gerichtspraxis in Russland als Rechtsschöpferin (Leipzig, 1922), pp. 10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff., and the cases cited there.

49 Tiktin, op.cit., pp. 394-5.

50 Tjutrjumov, op. cit., arts. 101-2.

51 Ius publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest, Dig. 2, 14, 38 (Papinian Lib. 2. quaest.); Privatorum conventio iuri publici non derogat, Dig. 50, 17, 45 (Ulpian Lib. 30 ad Ed.); cf. Editorial Commission for Drafting a New Civil Code, Grazhdanskoe ulozhenie —proekt: Kniga pervaja (Official edition, St. Petersburg, 1903), p. 293.

52 Statute of April 21, 1785, Polnoe sobranie zakonov, 1st ser., No. 16187, art. 11; Svod zakonov, vol. X, pt. 1, art. 420.

53 Zamechanija o nedostalkakh … , § 330.

54 Ibid., § 360; the word “detencija “ here is Russianized Latin.

55 Svod zakonov, vol. X, pt. 1, arts. 531, 690.

56 Pravilel'stvujushchij Senat: grazhdanskij kassacionvj departament, 1878, Case No. 8; 1880, No. 46.

57 Tjutrjumov, op.cit., arts. 878, 882. V. I. Sinajskij, Russkoe grazhdanskoe pravo (Kiev, 1914), I, 207, pointed to protection of the factual possessor as a principle of “advanced” civil law.

58 All-Union Institute of Juridical Sciences, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Grazhdanskoe pravo (Moscow, 1938), II, 486.