A clergyman with the rank of arbitrator

Contents I. A clergyman with the rank of arbitrator in the ancient Christian church II. A clergyman with the rank of arbitrator in ancient Rus' III. The possibility and desirability of acting as a clergyman in the rank of arbitrator at the present time Judging by newspaper news and rumors, increased attention is currently being paid in the higher spheres and work is being done to radically improve the situation regarding peasants in all respects. This refers to the improvement of the volost administration and the volost court; This also means improving the very root, so to speak, of peasant everyday life - the civil law of peasants, that is, the regulation of family law, property law, the right of inheritance by law and by will. For in this regard, in our fatherland there is a remarkable fact that ours are called so. civil laws, i.e. Volume X of the code, are valid only for a minority of subjects: the majority of them - the peasant class - are governed by customary law, which in many respects sharply deviates from the legislation of Volume X. Hence, in real life, there are often cases of volost courts making such decisions and sentences, before which the representative of state civil justice becomes completely bewildered: for before his code - Volume X - these decisions and sentences are completely unlawful, but in turn, his re-decisions, based on the exact meaning of the articles of Volume X, in the eyes of the volost court and peasant society are completely unfair, and to the “worldly” mind is decidedly incomprehensible.... In what direction the vitally necessary reorganization of the peasant situation will follow is not for us to judge. It is permissible to think, however, that the factual state of affairs that has been created over centuries is hardly capable of being brought to the desired legal norm by one act of transformation by any kind of human wisdom. The history of law, at least, shows that in such transitional eras, the strict consistency of law (jus strictum) always gave room for compromise. Setting e.g. a strictly defined organization of the court, precisely defined forms and formulas of the process, placing the most material law, for example, the right of property, inheritance, even criminal law, in categorical provisions or articles of the code, state policy allowed, along with this uniform of the judicial system, law and process, completely free forms of this, that, and the third. These are the forms of the ancient Roman arbitrium, compromissum, our arbitration court and world institutions. These forms were allowed as auxiliary forms of strict law. They are known more or less. But we are not sure whether our enlightened society, and especially those who take to heart and are in one way or another interested and concerned with the interests of the peasant situation, know the historical fact that the clergy of the Christian Church in the rank of bishop and in the rank of presbyter or “priest” in the current terminology once served society during the above-mentioned transitional eras of legal formation. We precisely think that our contemporary “father” or rural parish priest with the rank of arbitrator would have rendered no small service in the sphere of volost, peasant justice, standing next to, as an assistant, the body of state justice - the zemstvo chief, judge, etc., as well as the volost court, both in its present form and in the one that it will receive in the event of a transformation. To what extent our indication of this historical fact will be suitable for its practical application to the needs of the present - the judgment on this must, of course, be ahead and, perhaps, is not our business at all. But to present it for consideration, simply as a historical fact, we consider it not unnecessary and timely. I. A clergyman with the rank of arbitrator in the ancient Christian church We encounter the use of the form of arbitration (in a broad sense) among Christian society in the first pages of church history. In the 1st letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul wrote the following: “How dare anyone among you, having a matter (“thing” litigation = πραγμα ) with another (“to another” = προ ϛ τονξτερον = claim against another) sue the wicked, and not the saints? (Art. 1, Chapter VI)... “And you, when you have everyday disputes, appoint (-plant = χαθίζετε) as your judges those who mean nothing in the church. To your shame I say: is there really not a single reasonable person among you (“not a single one is wise” = ούδεις σοφός) who could judge between his brothers? But brother and brother are suing, and that too before the infidels. And it is already very humiliating for you that you have litigation (χρίματα) among yourself." (vv. 4 – 7). It seems there can be no doubt that in this instruction of the Apostle it is the arbitration court that is meant - a one-person court, as a complete replacement for the Roman civil, pagan tribunal. The Apostle finds it quite possible and legal for a litigation between Christians to be resolved by one wise Christian, of course, chosen for this purpose by both litigants. Arbitrium - arbitration - in its various forms among the Romans was a very common way of resolving litigation, fully permitted by law, especially in its simplest form - the form of a simple agreement between the parties 1. The Apostle's instruction on the application of this method to the resolution of litigation between Christians with the aim of evading pagan tribunals, in many respects inconvenient for Christians, was important for subsequent times, namely regarding the determination of the jurisdiction of the episcopal court (episcopalis audientia). Already in the centuries of persecution, litigation between Christians entered the sphere of cases that were considered and decided by the bishop at his church tribunal, and he did this, relying precisely on the commandment of the Apostle under consideration. This is precisely how this phenomenon illuminates for us the monument of life of Christians of the first centuries - the Apostolic Decree: “wonderful praise for a Christian - we read here - is not to have business with anyone 2, but if by some excitement or temptation it happened to someone; then let him try to stop it, even if he had to suffer some damage from it, and let him not go to the pagan judgment seat. And you do not tolerate worldly rulers judging your affairs: for through them the devil causes trouble to the servants of God and arouses reproach, as if we do not have a single wise man who could judge those at war or resolve litigation 3 . The pagans should not know what is happening between the two of them, and you do not take unbelievers as evidence against you and do not go to court with them and do not owe them anything regarding tax or fear 4), but give Caesar's things to Caesar, and God's things to God, as in: a tax or a kinson, or a didrachm, just as our Lord, by giving a statir, got rid of the burden. So, choose rather to suffer loss and strive for what tends towards peace not only with the brethren, but also with unbelievers: for having suffered any damage in everyday things, you, as a godly person and living according to the commandment of Christ, will suffer no harm in the divine. If they have any kind of litigation among themselves, then let it not happen! - brethren: then you, the leaders, must understand from this that such are not doing the work of the brethren in the Lord, but rather than of hostile enemies. And if one of them turns out to be a gentle, quiet child of the world, and the other is cruel, impudent, and acquisitive: then this one, upon discovery that he is such, may be subjected to penance and excommunication and suffer the punishment of brotherly hatred, then, if he changes, may he be accepted, and thus, having been chaste, they will facilitate your judgments. It is also necessary that insults inflicted on each other should be forgiven - and not by judges, but by those who have them among themselves, as the Lord announced when Peter asked me: if my brother sins against me, how many times should I forgive him - up to seven times? - He said: I do not tell you until seven, but until seven times seventy. "Truly the Lord wants His disciples to behave this way and to never have anything against anyone, such as: neither moderate anger, nor excessive passion, nor unfair desire, nor irreconcilable hatred. So, those who are angry, unite them in friendship, those who are at enmity, bring them into like-mindedness, because the Lord says: blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God," “Let your judgments take place on the second day after the Sabbath, so that if there is a contradiction in your opinion, you, having time before the Sabbath, will be able to correct the contradiction and on the Day of the Lord reconcile those who disagree with each other. At the judgment seat, let the deacons and elders be present with you, judging as people of God with justice and partiality. When he comes, as the law says (Deuteronomy xix. 17), let each other person who has a lawsuit stand in the middle of the courtroom, and after hearing them, draw out lots righteously, trying to make them right. both friends, before the bishop’s opinion, so that the judgment against the sinner does not become public, because the bishop approves and is a witness of the judgment of Christ of God at the judgment seat.” 5 That in ecclesiastical judicial practice the ordinary civil arbitration court took the form of a morally conciliatory, intermediary magistrate or conscience court is very natural and perhaps thanks to this transformation it not only did not lose its place in the ecclesiastical tribunal of subsequent eras, but also became stronger in its meaning, although the reason for its emergence in the church, expressed by the Apostle, no longer existed, i.e. when civil courts had already ceased to be pagan. Greco-Roman (Christian) emperors supported and sometimes energetically enforced the decisions of these arbitration courts of clergy in civil matters. So already Constantine the Great, according to the ambassadors of Sozomen, decreed a law according to which litigants, if they wish, can appeal to the court of bishops, and the decision of the latter should be respected on an equal basis with the decision of the emperor (i.e., not allowing appeals); and the heads of provinces and their officials must carry out such decisions 6 . Arcadius and Honorius in 388 decreed the following law: “If any (litigants) wish to conduct litigation (litigare) with the consent of the head of the sacred law: then they are not prevented, but let them ask the court of him residing there (i.e., the local bishop), in a civil case, by the right of a voluntarily elected arbitrator (in civili duntaxat negotio more arbitri sponte). For it is impossible and should not go against those who decided to agree better with the decision of the named researcher than they would have come to voluntarily.” 7 Emperors Honorius and Theodosius (408) decreed that “the episcopal court (episcopalis audientia) will be valid for all who decide to be judged by the priests (qui se audiri a sacerdotibus elegerint), and we command that their judgment (judicationi) be given the same respect that must be shown (deferri) to your authorities (vestris potestatibus), which are not Appeals are allowed. And so that the episcopal court (cognitio) does not remain inactive, the judges will necessarily (perofficia) add execution (definitioni executio tribnatur) to the decision 8. These laws, which so decisively affirmed the power of the decisions of the episcopal court of arbitration, were included in Justinian’s code and thus strengthened their significance for a long time in Byzantium 9 . We will not consider the question of how the right of arbitration was applied by clergy, determined by Greco-Roman legislation: for the present time, the latter has only historical significance. Jurisdiction, conditions and method of production and the force of decisions of the arbitration court are determined by our own legislation, which we will subsequently consider. In this case, we will limit ourselves only to evidence of the following provisions: 1) The arbitration court was very widely used in church proceedings in Byzantium; 2) the right of clergy to produce it was revered by Apostolic Right. The breadth of application of the right to arbitration by clergy can be evidenced, first of all, by some historical data. Yes, Bl. Augustine about Ambrose of Milan in his “Confessions” tells, among other things, that despite his strong desire to talk with Bishop Ambrose, he could not achieve this: “because the crowds of people weighed him down with their worldly disputes, which he zealously tried to settle and I, thus, could not reveal to him my doubts” 10. And about himself, as Bishop Bl. Augustine says the following: “Look at the labors with which we bishops are so burdened that sometimes we suffer physically from them, and pay attention to the current prevailing custom in the church to whose service we are appointed, as a result of which we have no time left for handicrafts. With a calm conscience I call upon the testimony of the Lord Jesus that I would more willingly devote all the hours assigned to needlework, as is customary in well-established monasteries, than to endure so much trouble from the tangled litigations of other people, which I must either resolve legally or settle with a voluntary amicable agreement. But the Apostle imposes these labors on us (reference to 1 Cor. Ch. YI, v. 1 - 7) and not according to his own will, but according to the will of Him who spoke through him” 11 . But not only bishops held the title of arbitrators in litigation, as apparently follows from the data presented, but also clergy of lower ranks. Thus, the historian Socrates tells the following about the Bishop of Troas Silvanus (Y century): “Noticing that the clergy benefited from the disputes of people litigating, he no longer appointed anyone from the clergy to be a judge, but having taken petitions from the litigants, he called on one of the faithful laymen, whom he knew as a truth-loving person, and instructing him to hear the case, he stopped the dispute between the litigants. It was through this that he gained the greatest glory among everyone.” 12 Without a doubt, the worldly people treated their civil litigations to Bishop Silvanus as an arbiter, and he entrusted this right of arbiter (arbiter) assigned to him by the litigants to one of his clergy or laity. We do not have at hand specific historical examples of the application of arbitration law by clergy upon their direct authorization from the litigants. But this shortcoming is fully compensated by evidence of a general nature, which is provided by canonical legislation on this subject. Thus, among the rules of the Council of Carthage we find revelations from the acts of the Council of Carthage in 401, containing the following assumption of the council. “It is appropriate to ask the most pious kings to be pleased to legitimize this too: if some wish to have a trial in the church in some matter, according to the Apostolic right belonging to the churches, and perhaps one side will be dissatisfied with the decision of the clergy: then let it not be allowed to call to the court to testify the clergyman who previously considered this very case, or was present during its consideration: and even no one from the household of a church official should be brought into court with the obligation to testify 13 . “The real rule is gov. Balsamon is not a prescription, but only an assumption about how this should be presented to the kings; the decree (the royal one was not followed) 14. This assumption of the council indicates that the correction of the title of arbitrators by clergy was a very common occurrence. And this evidence of canonical legislation is not the only one. On the contrary, we encounter here the interesting phenomenon that the choice of judges by the litigants themselves is allowed not even in civil, but also in church cases. The only limitation for the operation of this rule is the requirement that such a choice be given the consent of the competent court, that is, the diocesan bishop, if the case is about a trial of a clergyman with a clergyman, or the council, if there is a case of a trial of a bishop. So, the classic rule in this regard, that is, establishing the general norm of church judicial system, of the 9th Ecumenical Council of the Fourth Ecumenical Council reads: “if a clergyman has a court case with a cleric: let him not leave his bishop and let him not run over to secular courts; but first, let him carry out his case with his bishop, or, by the permission of the same bishop, let those chosen by both parties form a court” 15. In the rules of the Council of Carthage we find the following interesting passage from the acts of the Council of Carthage in 407: “Maurentius Bishop of the Rivers: I ask that the most holy elder (i.e., bishop) Xanthippus, the most holy Augustine, Florentinus, Theosius, Sampsychius, Secundus and Posidius be appointed judges; command that this be determined for me. The Holy Council agreed to the appointment of the requested judges; the other judges needed in addition to the legalized number of 16, Elder Xanthippus will provide the election to the elders of the new Germany themselves” 17. The publishers of the “book of rules” added the following scholium to this rule. “According to the complaint of the elders of New Germany against Bishop Maurentius, he appeared before the council for trial, but the accusers did not appear. The council recognized them as worthy of condemnation: but out of the meekness of the church, without uttering it, it appointed a trial in the region to which the bishop belongs. Therefore, for private matters, the council pronounces a rule showing the image of drawing up a trial over a bishop, Rule 107 (96) of the Karafgen Council establishes the provision that the decision of the arbitration court, when it acts as the second, highest authority, is not allowed to appeal. “If the case happens to be transferred to the highest court and, not satisfied with the first decision, he elects judges, along with the one against whom he demands a new trial: then after this, none of them will be allowed to transfer the case to another court.” To prove the high importance that the verdict of an arbitration court consisting of clergy enjoyed in Byzantium, we present the following reasoning of Aristinus, who enjoyed a remarkable reputation as a judge in the ecclesiastical and civil spheres: “Civil law,” he says in the commentary to this rule, “talks about arbitrators in such a way that the arbitration court is not constituted otherwise than if each of the litigants first submits a pledge that if one of them does not remain with the decision the judge he has chosen, then he must lose this deposit in favor of another who makes the decision; for neither party will be forced to make a decision, on the contrary, it remains in their power. Therefore, the right to transfer the case to a new court does not have any place in relation to the arbitration verdict, since even without transferring the case to a new court, the dissatisfied person can refuse it, losing only the deposit. But the law adds that an ordinary judge for the parties, who can judge them by virtue of his power, is not an arbitrator. But the canons decide something else. elected judges, but they prescribe that if the litigating bishops or clergy elect one of the bishops as arbitrators and wish to sue before them, then the person who has been condemned can no longer be respected if he remains dissatisfied with the decision, but must submit to it against his will; the reason why, in our opinion, it is dissatisfying to seek a revision of the decision of such judges, is indicated by us in the interpretation of the 15th (16) rule of this council." And in this interpretation, Aristinus says the following: "Whoever, having been brought before the court of the bishops and condemned by them, submits a response to the highest church judges, and manages to change their decision, then this should not bring any reproach on those church judges whose sentence is changed, unless they are convicted in that they carried out the trial out of passion, out of enmity, or out of passion, or out of some kind of gratification. Those accused bishops or clergy who choose church judges for themselves and wish to be tried by them, even if their number was less than twelve bishops in the case of accusations against bishops, and less than seven or four in cases of accusations against presbyters and deacons, as we wrote in the 12th rule of this council, those convicted should not file a response against their trial; for the review corrects the lack of skill or justice of the judge, but how can someone who has chosen church judges for himself, whom he recognized as impeccable both in reason and in life, be allowed to say that he was judged by them unskillfully or unjustly and to bring some kind of criticism against the sacred men allegedly condemned by him? As we saw above, the fathers and teachers of the Church looked upon the fulfillment of the duty of an arbitrator by a clergyman as a duty imposed on him by the Apostle (Blessed Augustine) or even as a right, by Apostolic right, belonging to the churches (Kare. sob. rights. 70). This latter view is also expressed by the 12th century canonists-interpreters Zonara and Balsamon. In the interpretation of the now indicated rule, they say: “The fathers want to make a representation to the kings about this,” says the first, “so that if those who are in the church, that is, those instituted in the church clergy, conduct any litigation, the case will be in accordance with the apostolic law belonging to the churches, that is, certain, commanded to them, in other words: if they begin to litigate in the church (about which the divine Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians says: dare if anyone has anything from you to another, be judged by the unrighteous, and not by the saints 1 Cor. VI, 1, which means the expression: “according to the apostolic right belonging to the churches” indicates a direct decree of the apostle) - so if the clergy, says the council, are tried in the church and one side remains dissatisfied with the decision of those who judged, that is, with the verdict that stops the litigation, then there should not be It is permissible for any of the parties to bring to the appellate court for testimony the one who previously judged the case, or who was present at the trial.” “Some clerics are gov. Balsamon - those who judged an ecclesiastical (!) 18 case according to apostolic law, that is, in accordance with the apostolic saying: does anyone of you, having a thing for another, be judged by the unrighteous, and not by the saints, or those present at the ecclesiastical court, were brought by the dissatisfied party from those suing to the appellate judge for testimony. The fathers of the council found it necessary to present this to the kings, so that they would determine that nothing like this would ever happen.” Thus, in both interpretations it is stated as a generally accepted truth that the right of clergy to conduct arbitration is “apostolic right” and is based precisely on the indicated saying of Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. In the XIV century. The famous M. Vlastari presented this apostolic right of clergy in the following structure: “About elected judges. 19 In Canon 96 (107,) of the Council of Carthage it says: if someone who is dissatisfied with the first decision elects judges, along with the one against whom he demands a new trial, then after this neither of them will be allowed to transfer the case to another court; for if those who have a dispute among themselves elect judges by common consent, then they are not allowed to appeal against the decision made by them. The 122nd (136) rule defines the same thing and commands those who disobey to be excommunicated.” “Laws (civil): The elected judge decides at his own discretion and the praetor does not care about his decision.” “Whether the decision of the elected judge is fair or unjust, it remains entirely valid.” “An appeal against the verdict of an elected judge does not benefit (the appellant).” “The elected court is built in the likeness of an ordinary court and is allowed to conclude litigation (Dig. IV, t. VIII, I 1.) against the elected court, no objection is allowed (non nasci exceptionem), but only the collection of penalties” (Ibid. 1. 2).” “If there are two elected judges and they disagree, then they must invite a third person and settle on his opinion.” “The elected judge is not established by oath, but by a penalty assigned by the judges, who must either complete the decision or pay the penalty that both parties agreed upon.” 20 Thus, the right of clergy to conduct arbitration in civil litigation was firmly strengthened in Byzantium by church and state legislation. Now let us turn to the evidence of ancient Russian law on this subject. II. A clergyman with the rank of arbitrator in ancient Rus' Our famous historian of ancient Russian law, K. A. Nevolin, once spoke about the activity of clergy of ancient Rus' in the rank of arbitrators: “History presents us with few cases in which bishops acted as mediators, voluntarily chosen by the parties to resolve their dispute or litigation. Moreover, these cases, belonging to the 14th and 15th centuries, relate to the resolution of disputes between princes. But these cases show that the method of resolving civil disputes by resorting to the mediation court of bishops was not known to us. This is also indicated by the complete similarity of the arbitration rites that previously existed among us with those that were adopted for it in Greece 21 . The conductor of the principles of Greco-Roman legislation into Russian in the present case could easily be arbitration courts, which were taken over by the clergy in matters that were left to the decision of the disputing parties by the will of the disputing parties” 22 This was stated in 1859. Thinking about these words, it is easy to notice some duality in the views of the speaker: on the one hand, he points to the poverty of historical evidence about cases of the use of arbitration by clergy, on the other hand, he categorically declares that the clergy, through their practice of arbitration, was precisely the conductor of the Greco-Roman legislation on it in our domestic one. A similar duality of views about how arbitration courts operated in ancient Rus' was expressed somewhat earlier by A. Vitsyn in his special monograph on this subject 23 . , From the monuments of Russian antiquity - dialect. he - we see that already in the 16th, 15th and 14th centuries our ancestors were sued before third parties. But in the 14th century the evidence of history ceases; they won't come back in the old days. “And what will we look for against your boyars, or what were they looking for for you against my boyars? They sent us each boyar, they will inflict justice on him, and they will hide about what the matter is, they go to a third party, whomever they choose, there they will exchange a word,” - this is the oldest (as far as I know) news about the arbitration court, preserved to us in the contractual document of B.K. Dimitri Ivanovich Donskoy with Prince Vladimir Andreevich the Brave of Serpukhov. (1362) Some researchers of our ancient legal life also see intermediaries in the 12 people mentioned in one article 24 of Russian Pravda and express, with more or less confidence, various assumptions about the procedure for selecting these intermediaries, the type of cases to be tried, etc. But all these assumptions are not at all supported by the article of Russian Pravda itself, just as they are not supported by any other positive indication, but perhaps. Therefore, without rejecting the possibility that the 12 husbands really were mediators, elected each time by the litigants on the day of resolving their dispute (and what if the jury?), we cannot speak positively about them as arbitrators, and in the dark article of the short Pravda see evidence of the existence of an arbitration court at the time of its compilation. However, there is no reason to conclude that arbitration appeared for the first time in our country only in the 14th century; on the contrary, there is reason to attribute its beginning to more distant times. Here they are: in the oldest document, which mentions the arbitration court, it is spoken of as a well-known institution, following it we see many examples of the arbitration court, which could not have happened if it had not been in custom before; new customs do not spread so quickly. In the treaty charters of the princes, the most ancient monuments of our institution, only the obligation to go to a third court is generally defined, rarely the method of forming the court itself, and never the order of proceedings in it, trace. both were assumed to be known, traces. and the institution was known, attached to the case, etc. 25.” Comparing and weighing the opinions of these two researchers of our antiquity, we come to the following conclusions: 1) Since the 14th century, the operation of the arbitration court in our country has been documented; the fact of its use from that time and - as the aforementioned study by Vitsyn shows - and in all subsequent times until the 19th century. inclusive, there is no doubt. 2) The conductor of the beginnings of Greek legislation into ours on the arbitration court was the Russian clergy - precisely through the practice of this court. (Nevolin). 3) Both of the researchers complain about the lack of news about the actual use of the arbitration court in general and about the decisive absence of it during the ancient times of the 14th century, at the same time being amazed at the decisiveness of what the documents of this century say about the arbitration court, as an institution already firmly rooted in Russian everyday life. The following opinion on this issue of one of the representatives of the new school, which enjoys great authority, differs sharply from these hesitant statements of representatives of the old school; “Undoubtedly,” says Prof. N. Duvernoy - that throughout the entire era of the dominance of customary law (i.e., from the beginning of Rus' to the 15th century), the most common form of court was the arbitration form and other related forms of contractual resolution of disputes. More or less clear traces of the contractual principle are preserved in the court order, where the judge is a person vested with public power. The forms of the process in Novgorod are so strongly imbued with this principle that in them one especially feels the close contact between the court, no matter the judge, and the transaction, a free series (i.e., an amicable agreement, a contract). Not to the same extent, of course, but the same element is seen in Moscow practice. In one court case of the 15th century, we see that in a dispute over a wasteland, the litigants each sent their own judge to examine the case, and these current judges “charged themselves with a third, the sovereign, Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich” 26 . The beginning of power in the matter of court in the princely volosts undoubtedly goes further than in the free cities, but here traces of the contractual element in the process could not fail to remain. The judge (Ivan IV) is not inclined to oppose the peaceful outcome of litigation. On the contrary, he encourages, sometimes even forces, litigants to make deals. “And whoever - we read in one of the articles (33) - will be caught by a bailiff in a fight, or barking, or borrowing, and they will not want to go to trial, and they, having reported to the judge, will make peace, but the judge will not sell them (i.e., the court fee), otherwise they will not be allowed to ride or walk." (The law therefore establishes a situation in which for those disputing, a settlement deal, no matter what it takes place, is certainly more advantageous than a trial, because it excludes the sale. A settlement deal can replace a court decision at any stage of the process. In the indicated place in the Code of Law, the litigants were only still “caught by the bailiff and did not want to go to court.” In another case, we see that the process before this judge of the Grand Duke was already over, all that remained was report: then the parties “wanted” to make peace without going to the report, and instead of a trial and a report, they settled down side by side.” (Act. Yu. No. 269) 27. According to this view, it turns out that the arbitration court did not suddenly appear in Russia in the 14th century and it was not the clergy who introduced it into everyday practice, guided by Greek legislation itself and teaching the latter to the Russian people, but it was practiced from time immemorial in Rus', as an original phenomenon, protecting its vitality, even in the Moscow state, when the crown court was firmly established in the strict sense. Strictly speaking, we have no interest in resolving the question: since when and in what ways did arbitration enter into the practice of ancient Rus'? But we consider it not superfluous to make a remark regarding Vitsyn’s categorical statement that “history’s evidence of arbitration does not go back further than the 14th century.” Such a statement is based on a too literal and narrow understanding of the term: “arbitration”. The use of the terms: “thirds”, “thirds” is indeed not found in documents earlier than the treaty charter of 1362. But what follows from this? In the extreme case - that is, if we assume that it is not the poverty of our archives that is to blame, but reality itself - only that until the 14th century we in Rus' did not practice the form of arbitration that was first encountered in the princely treaties of the 14th century. What form is this? – Quite complicated with a super-arbiter consisting of selected judges. But can’t there be an arbitration court without a super-arbiter? Of course it can; it is even the most common and most desirable. This is also noticeable in the document of the 14th century under consideration, where the third is assigned only to the extreme: “and about what matter they will quarrel”: if they do not quarrel, but come to an agreement, the matter ends there. The essence of the arbitration court is in the free election by the litigants themselves as judges of any third person or third parties in relation to them and in voluntary submission to their opinion or decision (arbitrium). The super-arbitrator is a third person, a mediator for the arbitrators themselves, is an accident, determined by the unsuccessful choice of the first arbitrators, who had either a lack of intelligence to unravel a complex case, or a lack of moral courage - to treat both sides objectively, impartially, intransigence, quarrelsomeness of their own disposition. The main purpose of the arbitration court is not satisfaction of the strict truth of the law, but the cessation of hostility, strife, even with the sacrifice of one’s rights, peace acquired by mutual concession. Therefore, the arbitration court is called compromissum, which is why it is not so much experts in the law (although, of course, they can be elected) as “good people” in general, that is, good both in civil and moral matters. relationships. This same contractual element, which constitutes the essence of the arbitration court, and then its peacekeeping task, clothe it in its actual application in the most diverse forms, just as the forms of agreement and the conditions of reconciliation in general are varied. In quite diverse and original forms, the arbitration court appears as the creation of the national Russian genius, and in the monuments of ancient Russian law, which Vitsyn looked through without encountering the word arbitration in them. What are these forms of ancient Russian arbitration and which of them were practiced by clergy. These forms were as follows: 1) Arbitration court with a super-arbitrator: the position of the latter among the judges quite often belonged to the metropolitan. 2) An arbitration court without a super-arbitrator, consisting of several persons, headed by the abbot; sometimes only the abbot and the brethren act as arbitrators. 3) Settlement is a very common form of ending litigation by an amicable agreement between the litigants with the participation of “ryads and posukhoy”, between whom the abbot or “priest” is at the head. Before we move on to reviewing these forms separately, we consider it necessary to present the following chronicle description of the “tyazh” or litigation between two kiyazis, the oldest hitherto known. For us, it has a twofold interest: firstly, it provides factual confirmation of the position that “the most common form of court (in ancient Rus') was the arbitration form.... that clear traces of the contractual principle are preserved in the court order where the judge is a person invested with public power”; secondly, the mentioned litigation (XII century) serves, so to speak, as a direct prototype of those forms of arbitration that we encounter in princely agreements of the XIV and subsequent centuries In the Hypatiiv Chronicle under the year 1169 we read the following story: “Mstpslav came to the city (Kyiv) of the month of May on the 15th day and sat on the table of Yaroslavl and his father (Izyaslav) and his grandfather. And Volodmir Mstislavnch (brother) began to think about Mstislav. And at that time, Davydov’s husband Vasil Nastasnch: and having arrived, he told his prince: Davyd appeared to his brother Mstislav, Volodnmir Yaga learned that his thoughts were quickly revealed to Mstislav, and came to recover.” “And Mstpslav arrived at the Pechersk monastery, and after him, Volodnmir came and ordered him (i.e., Vladimir) to sit in the icon’s cell, and he sat in the icon’s cell. And sending Mstpslav to him and saying: brother! Why did you come? but I didn’t send you.” And Volodymyr received the sexton Imormyzha, saying: “brother, I heard seven things that evil people said against me.” Speech Mstislav: “brother Davyd told me.” “And she sent to Davydov Vyshegorod, and Davyd came to Vasil and the bailiffs to him were Radil of the Thousand and Vasnlya Volkovpcha. And again Mstislav waited 3 days and arrived at the Pechersky Monastery; and Volodymyr brought her husbands, Raguil and Michal; and when they began to meet with Vasil, and came out to listen, according to Vasnli Davyd Borynich, Mstislav put it on Boz and spoke to Volodymyr: “brother, you kissed the cross, and your lips have not yet dried up, but otherwise, that is, our father and our grandfather affirmed, and whoever transgresses, and God will be his judge; and now, because you have not thought about me and are not looking for evil, kiss my cross.” Volodymyr said: “I’m glad, brother, I kiss you, otherwise everything about me is a lie,” and kissed the cross. Let Mstislav go to Kotelnchyu" 28 Here is an example of a 12th century trial. We believe that a reader brought up in modern concepts of court will not immediately and easily understand this story regarding the questions: when did the litigation or process actually begin? Who are the litigants and who are the judges? What significance did the “husbands” of princes have in court? In view of this, we consider it not superfluous to present the following commentary on this story. The story can be interpreted in this way: The case is being examined by the Grand Duke, before whom the appanage prince, specified in his plans against him, wants to justify himself. The place of the trial is the Pechersky Monastery. The prince - the judge sits in the abbot's cell, the defendant - in the steward's cell. As a disgraced person before the Grand Duke, the defendant does not appear in front of him for explanations and conducts negotiations through an intermediary - the sexton Imormyzha. When it was discovered where the slander came from, they sent him to Vyshgorod to Prince David, and the Grand Duke was also removed from the monastery for three days. Prince David himself did not appear at the Pechersky Monastery, but sent Vasily Nastasich there “on the spot”, from whom came a slander against Vladimir and “assigned” “two of his husbands” to him. “Sent”, or put on his side two husbands and Prince Vladimir. Three days later, the Grand Duke again arrived at the Pechersk Monastery. In the presence of both “competitors” (i.e., Prince Vladimir and Vasily Nastasich), the Grand Duke, together with the four “husbands” of the princes, examined the case. The expression of the chronicle: “and began to quarrel with Vasil” can be understood as meaning that they were quarreling or competing. Vladimir with Vasily; but there is no obstacle to presenting princely men as taking part in this spree. "And the rumor came out according to Vasiln" - the chronicle: i.e. Vasily referred to the rumor, which in this capacity was admitted by both sides. Prince Vladimir turned out to be guilty, but there was only one rumor against him and he continued to lock himself in his guilt. Then the Grand Duke decided to present the case to the court of God: “put it on Bose” - he invited the defendant to bring a cleansing oath, after which the matter ended. You can interpret the story under consideration a little differently, just like this: It contains two parts: a prologue to the litigation and a description of the latter. The prologue contains only a story or explanation of how the litigation began between Prince Vladimir and Vasily Nastasich. Convicted before the Grand Duke of plans against him, Prince Vladimir wished to “recover” by a formal court. For this purpose, a “common court” was formed in the Pechersky Monastery from “the current 4 judges - the husbands of the princes. They sorted out the litigation and reported their decision to the Grand Duke, who, for his part, offered the accused a cleansing oath. According to this interpretation, the litigation in question will represent a sample of the arbitration court of the 12th century and, as such, can be presented as an illustration or actual application of the form of arbitration that we find very common in the 14th century. But is this interpretation correct and acceptable? Is it possible to call the above-mentioned four princely men judges? Are they not simple attorneys of princes, similar to modern attorneys at law? We answer: no and no! That “attorneys” were allowed in the ancient Russian court instead of the litigants themselves is beyond doubt 29: but in this capacity they were clearly and distinguished from judges. In this case, they were not needed at all: for the litigants were in person at the trial. But why were the “husbands” of both princes present, and even a “thousand” from one of the princes? The fact of the matter is that one of the essential and characteristic features of the ancient Russian judicial system was that in the composition of the court, no matter who its main member was - a prince, a ruler, a posadnik, a thousand or some other princely official, there were certainly “people” elected from both sides, or as in this case, “men”. The Novgorod Judicial Charter of 1471 decrees: “And two people are brought to court (i.e., on each side). And whoever puts someone in court will be responsible for that. But the mayor and Tysetsky and the lord of the governor and their judges should not be thrown off the court 30. “And in tiun odrina (i.e. in tiun’s chamber, or cell) be a good person on the side, and judge the truth by kissing the cross on this baptismal certificate” 31. “And the report (the 2nd highest court) should be in the ruling room, and the report should be from the end according to the boyar, and according to the harvester, and who are the people in the court, the judges, and the bailiff” 32. Tactfully, a trial was organized based on the legislative veche monument of the 15th century. In ancient times, the importance of “people” (i.e., judges elected by the parties) in the composition of the court was by no means less. “Reading Russian Pravda - gov. Mr. Duvernoy - it is impossible to imagine almost a single legal act that would be performed otherwise than in the presence of many persons, “people,” as the monument most often calls them. This is how they negotiate a purchase, this is how they buy an item, this is how they hand over the inheritance to the guardian of minors. Everywhere there are “people” either in a certain or indefinite number. The entire course of the process is conceivable only with the participation of these people: they are needed for guarantee, for obedience, for preserving the court decision in memory; the execution of the decision is also carried out at the auction, therefore in front of the same people. Thus, the publicity of the court’s actions, the presence of people, is included as an organic element in the then judicial system and legal proceedings. Sometimes, as can be seen in the agreement of the Smolensk prince (1229), the parties directly turn to good men and make their decision binding on themselves, just as the decision of a public court would be binding on them. In all likelihood, those 12 husbands had the same significance. which the old Truth points to in Art. 14. (Academic sp.). It is not nearly as easy as it seems, especially with the meager means of our ancient writing, to trace the attitude of the people against whom the parties are sent to the public judicial authorities. We only see that the number of these individuals can be very significant. The crowd doesn't scare the judges at all at this time. They are not afraid of "tip" against "tip"; the law does not indicate any measures, as will be later in the Code of Laws, in the Novgorod, in the Pskov Judgment Charter. On the contrary, the Judiciary seems to consider it necessary to have a mass of people present at the trial: the higher the price of the claim, the more rumors are required. The figure reaches 18“ 33 . Thus, no matter how we interpret the above chronicle story about the princely litigation, we must inevitably recognize in it an element of arbitration. The “husbands” of the princes, two “on both sides”, are elected or arbitration judges, “general” or “current judges.” The Grand Duke is either the highest court, or the highest third - super-arbiter. It may seem strange how the “men” of the princes follow. could their subordinates be judges of the princes, even as arbitrators? This is really strange, but we have many examples from subsequent centuries that in litigation between princes, the arbitrators were usually their boyars, with the only indispensable condition that they elected or - in the language of that time, “a third from among them” - a super-arbiter. Such a super-arbiter, as mentioned above, was even necessarily elected as a metropolitan. In the “pre-final” (contractual) document Vel. Prince Dimitry Ioannovich Donskoy with Prince Vladimir Andreevich from 1388 we read: “And if things happen between us, send us your boyars, otherwise (they) will do wrong; and whatever they argue about, they (and they) go to the metropolitan, but there will be no metropolitan in this land, and for a third time, whomever they choose for themselves: and whoever the boyars implore, then the prince will come up, whom they implore (i.e., blame, condemn), but the boyars are not guilty” 34 . In the contractual document between Prince Ivan Fedorovich of Ryazan and Prince Georgy (Yuri) Dimitrievich Galitsky dated 1433 we read: “And what will she do to us about the borders, what an insult to us from sending their boyars and they will do justice; and about what they will talk about it, otherwise they are our third father, the Metropolitan; and whoever the Metropolitan accuses, otherwise give him back the offense, but he doesn’t give it back to you, otherwise they sent it to the Grand Duke, otherwise it’s not treason against you, but it’s like that on both sides” 35 . In the treaty letter of the Suzdal princes Vasily and Fyodor Yuryevich with Prince Dimitry Yuryevich (Shemyakaya) dated 1446 we read: “And about offensive matters, you, sir, send away the judges of the guards, and for us, sir, send away your judges, and they will do nothing to correct them, but what our judges will not know, otherwise you, our lord, Prince Dmitry Yuryevich, are third to them, before your father, before the metropolitan.” 36 In the contractual document of Prince Tverskoy Boris Alexandrovich with Vel. Book Vasily Vasilyevich from 1451 we read: “And what Metropolitan Cyprian judged on the courts of our obchias Polukarp and Mikhail, and Ivan, and Klementya, or what the courts judged: our obchias and charters were submitted, and what will be taken, then taken, and what will not be taken, then they rejected (resigned) and the charters of those courts tore up, and whoever lays out the charters of those courts, otherwise tear them down" 37 . In the contractual document of Prince Ivan Vasilyevich of Suzdal with Vel. Prince Vasily Vasilyevich from 1451 we read: “And what, sir, are the things that will be done by your people of the Grand Duke and your children of all your great reign with my people, and the judges, sir, our people who have gathered will inflict justice on both sides, and about what her judges will argue, otherwise, sir, our father, holy Jonah, Metropolitan of All Rus'” 38. As can be seen from these examples, the Metropolitan of All Russia with the rank of super arbitrator of the arbitration court in civil litigation of the princes of ancient Russia was a very common occurrence. We do not know of cases when he, as well as the Archbishop or Bishop, were heard in the rank of “first third”, or simply arbitration judges: but such cases could hardly have happened: the class of hierarchs at that time and in civil life stood too high for this. But there is no shortage of examples that the abbots of monasteries will listen to the title of “first third”. From the half of the 16th century, a very interesting document has reached us - a formal “record” and petition of 4 Kem (Belozersky district) princes addressed to Athanasius, abbot of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery with his brethren, for him to assume the title of arbitrator in the case of dividing the estate between them after their relative, Prince Mikhail Kemsky, died childless. This record of the 15th century so legally impeccably sets out the subject of the “case” that is to be resolved, the conditions and obligations of the litigants, as well as the special powers of the arbitrator, that it would have full force even today as fully satisfying the requirements of Art. 667, 668, 669, 674 Cons. ХVI, Section. VIl. Ch. 3. Irrefutable evidence is that in this century the practice of arbitration was so common that even without a written law the rituals and formalities of this type of legal proceedings were very well known in detail. The contents of this entry are as follows: We, the princes of Kem Alexander and Semyon Ivanov, are the brothers of the childless deceased Prince of Kem Mikhail Ivanov, and we are his nephews, the Kem princes Ivan Fedorov and David Andreev, beat the Abbot of the Kirillov Monastery Athanasius with their foreheads about the following: Our brother (the first two) Prince Mikhail and uncle (the second two) died childless, leaving behind otchina (listing of 9-tn possessions constituting the otchina); and our father, Prince Ivan, wrote in his spiritual will that if one of us brothers dies childless, the rest of us will evaluate his patrimony through “good people”: distribute the price among monasteries and churches to commemorate the soul of the deceased and the entire clan, and divide the lands of the estate among ourselves “before the third.” We amicably valued the estate at 300 rubles. and distributed among the monasteries (150 rubles to the Kirillov Monastery). Now we four votchiches beat our sovereign Abbot Athanasius with his forehead, so that he would grant - he sent the cathedral elder to divide the said patrimony into four lots, and if during this division there is a dispute between us, then we rely on Abbot Athanasius with the elders and on the elder who will be sent, and as they decide, we undertake to stand by that. And then, after dividing the estate into plots, “dig holes, cut edges and paint boundaries” to these plots and distribute them by lot, and finally write “n business” (letters) and assign your own hands to the business ones.” Everything that can be done in front of the cathedral elder, whom Hegumen Afanasy will send, and with the “good people” whom each of the votchiches will send. If one of them violates the stated conditions in any way and does not obey the court of Hegumen Afanasy, then exact 300 rubles from the rest. (the price of the estate) and “in the meantime, give the right to the guilty a record without the boyar’s report.” The section should produce "summer 7059" 39. As can be seen from this “record”, the Abbot and the elders are authorized with full rights, as arbitrators - and the obligation of the defendants not to seek a re-decision (or appeal) is stipulated; execution of the decision is guaranteed with a penalty of 800 rubles. From the beginning of the 16th century, the verdict of the arbitration court has been preserved to us - headed by Hegumen Nifont, which established a “border” between two disputed land holdings. The arbitration court spoke here after the disputants had already begun litigation before the judges of the Grand Duke. The verdict is secured by a penalty of 20 rubles. Here is the original (with the uninteresting part omitted): “Behold the Elder Alexei and the Elder Antony of the Kirillov Monastery, and the Yaz Yakov and the Yaz Yakim Ivanov, the children of Timofeev’s son Trusov (patrimonials), who raised the seed of the judges of the Grand Duke: Ivan Zlobin and Mityusha Lykov, according to the Kirill Elders, according to Antony and Alexey, - in the boundary, in the ground, in the forest, between Nagory and the Gladkovsky repair: and we, without setting up judges for ourselves, made peace, achieved an amicable relationship among ourselves, and fell in love with both the lawsuits of third parties: Abbot Nifont, and Ondrei Grigoriev's son Uncle, and Yakim Sukhovo Dmntreev's son, I relied on both lawsuits against those third parties, as we They will indicate the boundary, and the boundary is right for us. And the third stood on the ground and said: from the White Swamp, from the middle (description of the boundary). And Yakov will climb for the medka or Yakim will take it, or else twenty rubles for them, and the elders will climb for the boundary, or for the elders twenty rubles. And then there were the men: Sidor and others.” 40. A distinctive feature of this arbitration process compared to the previous one is the greater activity of the litigants themselves. Leaving the court in which they were arguing, they reconciled and, even before the arbitration verdict, agreed among themselves on an “amicable boundary,” so that the chosen third had only to establish and consolidate this pre-agreed boundary, or an amicable solution to the dispute. We encounter here a form of arbitration that is so close to the “free series,” or “peace settlement,” that between them there is a dov. it is difficult to draw a line dividing them. How close does this process come to the following e.g. “world record”, revealed before the archimandrite: “Behold, Gavrila Stakheev’s son Drovnev, a resident of the Tikhfinsky Posad, gave this note to Tikhvints, the townsman Ivan Anikiev’s son, that on the 9th day of June 192, I, Gavrila, and him, Ivan, had a fight with him, and I quarreled with him, Ivan, with a knife in the right quilted; and now I Gavrila and Ivan came to an agreement in that knife fight and made peace, and for injury and dishonor and personal injury in that knife fight, he Ivan, according to the agreement, took everything in full from me, and in that agreement from me Gavrila with him Ivan gave father Archimandrite Macarius and his brethren a peace settlement petition, and henceforth I should not find Gavrila against his Ivan, his wife and children in vain and do not scold him, and do not vilify and dishonor him with a knife, and do not reproach him with a monetary payment. And if I Gavrila from now on against his Ivan, against his wife and against his children, I will teach in vain to find and scold, and with that monetary payment I will teach to vilify, and if I do not stand against this record in my word, and Ivan will take Gavrila from me, for my penalty for this record of money ten rubles. And this entry will henceforth be entered in the entry for the year 7122" 41 A lot of similar kind of amicable “world records”, “receipts”, “indemnities”, “data”, “traveling” have reached us 42 . Often such acts were sealed by the white clergy. For example: this kind of act (XIV or XV century): “Behold, Prince Fyodor and Prince Osif, Prince Konstantinov, children of Ugolskovo, divided the village of Pokrovskoe, out of love, according to their father’s blessing: the yard in halves and stripes; for me, Prince Fedor, the northern strip, and for me, Prince Osif, the southern strip, and the land in the village and in the village in Bragin and in the Melekhovo village of arable land in halves: and I, Prince Fedor, got it: a large hut, and a tumbledown, and a hay barn, and I, Prince Osif, got: an upper room with a canopy and a under the sun; and whoever begins to redistribute the village of Pokrovskoye with courtyards and arable land, the village of Bragino and the village of Melekhovo, for that fifty rubles. That's what rumors are for............... But in fact, the priest Autonom was involved and had a hand in it. And Deacon Vasily was in the act and had a hand in it. Leta 7049 (1541) 43. But what deserves our special attention is a series of “row charters” of Novgorod from the 15th century, placed in legal acts under No. 257. They are monuments of an act that has the nature of an arbitration court - a world series. The “World Series” - as can be seen from the above-mentioned letters - is a peaceful solution to the litigation that had been dragging on until then. Its connection with the trial that preceded it is revealed first by the fact that the penalty, which usually guarantees the fulfillment of the concluded series by both parties, is assigned not in favor of the contracting party, but in favor of the judicial institution that had jurisdiction over the litigation, which was peacefully ended. “And whoever steps on this row - we read in the indicated letters - will give the prince and mayor twenty hryvnias of gold.” Or: “Whoever destroys this will give the judges a thousand squirrels.” The connection of this act with the court is then seen from the bond with which the ordinary charter is approved. It - mostly glassine - has a lead official seal (not the seal of a private person) and the signature of a clerk or official scribe. The connection between the act and the litigation that preceded it is often directly indicated in the charter itself. So eg. in the gram under the first number of the said series we read: “He was beaten with his forehead by the elder Azik (and so on. entrusted from society) to Prince Ofonasya to Vasily to Matveev, and instructed the troops and, without going to court, settled down side by side” “44. The series consisted of the fact that the society ceded the disputed land to Vasily Matveev “forever”, taking from him “twenty thousand squirrels of this land.” Or: “Behold, Hegumen Ondreyan... and Procopius Yuri’s son fought over the land that was in dispute between them” 45. The act is performed in the presence of good people on both sides, who are called here “ryadtsamp and posumami” and are usually (among 5 or 6-tp) referred to in a row letter. This act apparently differs from the arbitration court only in that here the main characters are not third parties, although they are present here, but the contracting parties themselves. But - one can assume - that the rows and rumors are not only spectators, but persons who more or less actively contribute to the “organization of the row”, which is why they are called “ryadtsamp”. The process of “ordering up” sometimes seems to be the result of long requests and negotiations (“proverbs”), as can be seen for example. from the next row gram. “Behold, Ivan’s wife and her son and brother-in-law beat Obekan, Kurov’s son, who was taken, Kur was seventy years old on Ivantsi.” (That is, Ivan’s wife begged Obekan to peacefully resolve the debt obligation (70 bel) of her husband Ivan Obekan). “And standing in front of the people,” the grama continues, “Ivantsov’s wife and her son and her brother-in-law, according to the proverb 46 with her daughter-in-law and with her brother and Ostash, gave Obekan water for nine whites in Syarty 47, I set the boundary higher than a stone along a deep stream, and gave Obekan a sheep; and then there's no need... The obekan doesn’t care about Ivantsov’s wife, her son, or her brother-in-law at Ostashp.” The famous Pskov “Teshat row” - a document of the 13th century - belongs to the category of written legal monuments that testify to the commission of such world series with the participation of clergy. Here is its full text: “Behold, Teshata and Yaknm talk about their storage, about the first and about the back. And Yakim took the silver from the girl. And you are free to take the monista teshatina from Yakimov’s wife. And she made groves among herself; don't need it anymore Yakimu Teshata, nor Teshate Yakshi. And on that post: Davyd pop, Dorozhka Domoslav, Vekoshkin Boyan, Kuzma Loikovich, Zhidilo Zhikhnovich, Ivan Smolnyanin. And whoever crosses this row, whether by whom or by Teshata, will give one hundred hryvnias of silver. And the psalm is Dovmont’s scribe.” The document is written on glassine in clear rules with a hanging lead seal, on one side of which is the image of St. Timothy (the Orthodox name of Prince Dovmont), on the other - a cross 48. At one time (i.e. immediately after its discovery in 1850), this document was subjected to careful study and interpretation, Dov. various. Of the latter, two deserve attention: I. I. Sreznevsky and K. A. Nevolin. According to the first, this is a series of conspiracy records, 49 but in the opinion of the second, it is a world series. Despite Sreznevsky’s extensive philological argumentation, his opinion cannot be considered correct and already suggests the following Nevolin’s argumentation: “1, The essential belonging of the rows of this kind (i.e., the conspirators), he says, was the meaning of the names of the bride and groom, and the meaning of the date by which the wedding should take place. Nothing of the kind is indicated in the charter under consideration 50. 2, “It seems to me that there is a clear indication of the essence of the “peace deal” concluded between Yakpm and Teshata in the letter itself, in the words: “he has made a grove between himself 44 The subject of the peace deal between Yakpm and Teshata is a settlement between them. Psyakyi settlement presupposes!, either demands and debts on both sides, or demands on one and debts on the other; it ends if the party remaining than If the other pays his debt to her on mutual accounts, indeed, this is the essence of the transaction in question 44. 3, “Opa belongs to the number of settlement records (!) 51, by which the disputing parties agree, under certain conditions, to end a dispute between themselves, arising from any legal reason; nair, even from an arranged (marriage) record. This significance of the grama under consideration (!) is obvious from comparing it with other similar ones, namely Novgorod ones” 52. On this basis, Nevolin gives the following meaning to the whole document: “Teipata and Yakim entered into a settlement deal on the first and second count. Yashin received silver from the girl, Teshata can then freely take her monista from Yakimova’s wife. This ends the settlement between Yakpm and Teshata; Moreover, shi Yaknm should not demand anything from Teshata, shi Teshata from Yakim. Witnesses of this were: priest David (n etc.). Dovmontov’s scribe wrote (of course in the sense of a princely clerk) “ 53 In general, the legal analysis and determination of the legal nature of the document are correct; but one cannot help but notice some inconsistency between the official nature of the document, the solemnity of the situation, so to speak, in which it was made and the insignificance of the subject, this “world transaction” - monetary settlement. The prince's seal, the prince's clerk, six rumors headed by a priest and a penalty of 100 grivep - all this is too much for making a monetary settlement between two persons, just as it is too much for an agreed-upon row. Nevolin himself discusses the issue of printing the document, relying on some articles by Pskov. The charter of the court is as follows: “In relation to the charter of Pskov - this is what he calls the document under consideration in this place - I believe that the attachment of a seal to it (and subsequently the signature of the charter by the princely scribe) had official significance, since it was the princely seal that was attached to the charter. Wed. Pskov. Judge. Charters Art. 9: and the prince's scribe will take the claim by force from the pozovintsa, or from a non-judicial charter or from an addendum. But he wants to write something other than somewhere else, but to seal it for the prince. But the prince will not seal it, otherwise he will seal it with the Holy Trinity: there is no treason in that 54. And also Art. 13: and the prince's scribe should write to the court about the land, otherwise he should take 5 money from the judge, and money from the caller, and money from the seal, and from the courtless and from the court, they should receive money each. But the prince’s scribe will want to write something beyond his strength, or else write it in a wave, but seal it for the prince. But the prince will not seal it, otherwise the Holy Trinity will seal it, but there is no treason in that 55 So, Nevolin concludes on the basis of this certificate, for me, at least, there is no doubt that the Pskop grata belongs to the category of world gramata, to the category that is printed in Ak. Yu, at No. 257" 56. The conclusion is absolutely correct. But what are these world grams, which are actually called “rows” or “series”? They - as it was found out - are the essence of the acts by which litigation and court cases were terminated. The princely seal attached to them, as can be seen from the certificate presented by Nevolin, also indicates that the case is about a judicial act, in the genus, “pozovnitsy” (to court), “without trial,” “attached.” The same is indicated by a large fine, which guarantees a “row” and which is assigned in favor of the judges: the Prince, the Lord, or the mayor, thousand, etc. The same character of the Pskov row line, as of the row in general, is evidenced by the many rumors headed by the priest. If it were only a matter of money accounts and settlements, then why six rumors and pop between them? This is only required in court cases 57 . And from the very structure of the document’s speech, it is clear that calculation is only an additional subject to the main subject of the series - the order about storage “be sure to take care of your storage ... and make calculation among yourself.” In view of this, we will change the interpretation of the document under consideration, proposed by Nevolin, in detail in this way. Between Teshata, probably a young man, as indicated by his diminutive name (from Tikhon) and Yakimol, there was a long-standing dispute over a family matter - over “a girl,” perhaps a relative, for example, Yakim’s stepdaughter or his wife, which escalated significantly. “Warehouse first and rear” can mean, according to the interpretation of Sreznevsky and Nevolin, “matchmaking” and “litigation” and “agreement”. Maybe Teshata wooed the girl Yakim and gave his wife his monisto, and then the matter went wrong: Yakim began to demand silver (or money) from Teshata “for rubbish” 58, and Teshata - his monisto. With the participation of rumors, the displeasure was settled. Yakim received satisfaction for the girl with money, as a result of which Teshata also received the right to demand his monisto from Yakimova’s wife (but he can give it to her: Teshata is free to take it) and this was the end of the calculation. So from this moment on, neither Yakim is guilty of anything (“no need”) to Teshata, nor Teshata to Yakim. And whoever breaks this row pays (the prince, and maybe the ruler) 100 hryvnia of silver, and that’s what rows and rumors are for. David priest and so on. For us, this “row” of the 13th century is important - as the reader probably guesses - especially because it was concluded with the participation of the “priest” as a leader and servant. Yes, this is the only document where the "priest" appears in a rank very close to the rank of arbitrator. What does this mean? Is it really true that, according to the view of ancient Rus', only the metropolitan, archimandrite and abbot were considered competent to receive the title of arbitrator, and the "priest", who stood in any case no further from family and public life, even in somewhat lower spheres, was considered not competent for this, and not sufficient? We don't think so; the social, or public, class position of the “priest” in the ancient, Kievan period of Rus' was high enough for the title of arbitrator 59. In fact, in what circles of ancient Russian society do we meet the “priest”? - In various and primarily in the circle of “princely men”, warriors and closest advisors of the prince, as well as his proxies” through whom he conducts his negotiations and agreements with other princes or lands. Thus, the Smolensk prince Mstislav Davidovich in 1229 concluded an agreement with Riga, Gotland and German cities through the mediation of his two husbands: “priest Jeremiah and smart husband Pantelei.” “And he was restrained - we read at the beginning of this agreement - the prince of Smolensk Mstislav David's son, sent his best priest Ermey to Riga and with him his husband Pantelei from his city of Smolnesk: she was an ambassador to Rize, from Riga she went to the Gochky coast, there the world was firmly established" 60. That priest Ermey did not constitute any exception in this case is evident both from the contractual document in the drafting of which he took part, and from the early Novgorod charter of the same kind: in both the concepts of “priest” and “ambassador” as persons privileged in civil terms are identified. For the murder of a priest or ambassador, a fine is twice as large as for the murder of a “merchant” 61. We invariably meet “priests” with “rumours” during the grand-ducal spiritual wills; We meet Pkha among those feasting with the prince on his “hay”. About the comparatively high position of priests in ancient Russian life, E. E. Golubinsky says the following: “The priests were introduced into the highest court society by the baptist of Rus', St. Vladimir, who, according to the testimony of the monk Jacob, when he hosted dinners and feasts, supplied three meals and from them to the first metropolitan with bishops, monks and priests. Remembering the virtues of subsequent princes, chroniclers They almost always mention that virtue of theirs that they “I honor the rank of monks and priests.” The princes expressed their respect for the monastic rank by often coming to monasteries and, on the one hand, receiving spiritual instructions, on the other hand, offering the monks rich institutions. It is necessary to think that such At the same time, they expressed their respect for the priestly or priestly rank by calling the priests to their princely meals. Of course, we do not find any deliberate speeches among the chroniclers about such a subject as the meals or feasts of priests with princes. But we find news about this from them in speeches that are not deliberate, random, news that makes it clear that the company of priests constituted an ordinary company of princes. The author of the Ipat Chronicle, speaking in 1150 about a sudden attack on Belgorod by enemies who almost took it, says that at that time the Prince of Belgorod was feasting in his palace with the boyars and Belgorod priests” 62. Within urban and rural society, priests undoubtedly occupied a position somewhat higher than, for example. merchants and other "living people" and - what is especially important for us - taking advantage of the nature of exclusive jurisdiction (to their bishop), they were not excluded from participation in matters of public administration, but spoke in it with a voice not only equal, but perhaps even greater than ordinary "free men". d.) “with the blessing of the father of his priests of all 5 cathedrals.” According to the same charter, the bailiff or plaintiff must read the “pozovnitsa” (summon to court) only “in the graveyard before the priest” 63. But especially important evidence of the outstanding importance of priests in “court matters” is given to us by the ancient legislation on the obedience of priests. “The priest is like that.”... in obedience for 12 men,” this is what article of the Judgment Law 64 says. But hearsay, according to ancient Russian law, is not only a witness to the fact, but also to the right: it is almost like a judge. The prince himself judges otherwise than “free rumors”, to which both sides are sent: they know the truth. Prof. explains perfectly the meaning of the above-mentioned law on obedience. N. Duvernoy and we allow ourselves to fully imagine his commentary here: “Let us remember,” he says, “the 12 men of “Russian Truth” who must find out the truth and who are then replaced by rumors 65 . The written article of the Law of Judgment apparently wants to express the indisputable authority of the obedience of the clergy and for this purpose takes the living image of the obedience of the community, or its representatives (12 men). The concept of the article of the judicial law is so absolute that it can be misleading that the testimony of a clergyman in all cases had force equal to the testimony of the entire community or its representatives. We will not think of anything like this if the Russian Pravda, and not the Judicial Law, serves as our source for studying ancient life, if we draw our conclusions not from the Judicial Law to the Russian Pravda, but from the Russian Pravda to the Judicial Law. Then we will understand that neither in lending nor in purchasing the testimony of a clergyman enjoyed any advantages at all, that ancient law did not at all know the theory of preference and weighing the merits of witness testimony, which was developed in the medieval canonical process 66. The whole meaning of the obedience of a clergyman will be clear to us if we remember that with the introduction of Christianity, a range of affairs emerged that neither our princes nor our free men knew. Only a spiritual person, initiated into the secrets of the law of God and Byzantine canonical dogma, connected with the world of the church, could find out the truth in family matters and closely related hereditary matters. It is clear that such a person could be a judge in a family case, just as 12 free husbands could be judges of two parties when they argued about a free obligation arising from a contract, or about a tort, or about the ownership of property. Such a clergyman could be both a judge - for he knew the truth - and a witness. It was possible to send to him, for he also had the indisputable authority of the church, just as in other matters the authority of the community or the prince was indisputable. What kind of deeds does antiquity show us in which the priest should act as a listener? They can be seen partly in the article of the Law of Judgment on dying 67), but since our main goal is Russian Truth, we will distinguish this type of case by it. Art. 92 (troipk. sp.) speaks of timid children and children from a free mother; Art. 87th about the arrangement of the soul of the deceased, if he did not arrange his estate; other articles Rus. Truths concern the rows that the dying leaves behind; Finally, there are also provisions on guardianship that are imbued with a more moral than legal character. Who knew better which children were legitimate, how the soul should be arranged, and so on, if not the spiritual authority? And so, in these matters you need the authority of the church, you need either one listener - a priest, who is the same as in other matters there are 12 free men, or a priest and with him free men 68. If we were asked to indicate the boundary between ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction, we would again say that it cannot be found in the law. The Judgment Law speaks about dying, therefore it does not take the issue from a legal point of view; Russian truth speaks about the aadnitsa, therefore it takes the issue from the property side and more to the field of law. But in fact, both are closely fused. The prince judges the purchaser with the master, the debtor with the creditor, but how does he judge them? He judges them, in the words of Russian Pravda, “free hearings,” that is, he decides the case through “free people” to whom the parties were sent. Hearsay gives legal force to the act, they are witnesses, they know the law, and the prince decides according to the law. Who is this witness, to whom can a dying person who wants to settle his soul be sent, who is the leader in these matters? If a child 69 according to Russian truth goes to divide 70 (inheritance), then how will he divide? Where does he learn the measure? We think that rumors are also needed here (“sevenths from the city where they live, or from the springs” Zak. judge. p. 196 and between them there should be a priest “71. The privilege of the priest regarding obedience, as explained here, in comparison with other “free men” and “good people” of ancient Russian civil society, determines with sufficient clarity his legal capacity, so to speak, from the point of view of ancient Russian law, to the title of arbitrator in all cases, except perhaps for cases of inheritance by will, in which he must be a judge and hearer according to the law. This conclusion follows from the fact that someone who is capable of obedience eo ipso right is also capable of being an arbitrator. “There are no specific prohibitions on accepting mediation - gov. Mr. Duvernoy - we do not find it. The only constant quality of the third can be seen in calling them “good people.” Thus, in the agreement of the princes of Kem, the order of the testator is mentioned so that the price of the estate should be determined in front of good people. Depending on the type of work, others are added to this general quality. Thus, in disputes about boundaries, third parties most often had to be people who knew the area well. These are the old-timers, local people, on whose conscience and knowledge those arguing rely. In disputes between relatives, we sometimes see spiritual authorities acting as mediators” 72 . Here we will stop in our review of the forms of arbitration court of ancient Russia in which it was used by clergy: metropolitans, abbots and priests. If the paucity of historical data, especially for the Kievan period of Rus', when conditions for the actions of clergy in this regard seemed more favorable than in subsequent times, prevented us from presenting this activity in more vivid and vivid pictures: then these rights and some historical documents that we examined, we hope, firmly established in the minds of the reader the very fact of this activity. And to the extent that it was in our interests only to point out this fact, to present, so to speak, a historical-legal reference on this subject, we believe that our task has been completed. But what sense, what practical significance for the present can one simple indication of a fact, one historical reference establishing it? Doesn’t this simple indication point to the very fact of a natural question: how was it reflected in life? did he have a good or bad influence on her? This natural question prompts us to make the following comments. Historians of ancient Russian civil (customary) law have long stated the fact of its strong and deep penetration by Christian moral principles. This penetration of Christianity into the crude family morals of our ancestors, who in paganism lived, as the chronicler puts it, “brutally,” was carried out with such success that in some respects our ordinary family law surpassed even the family law of the Greek nomocanon (as representing a mixture of the principles of Roman family law with moral Christian principles). Clarifying this fact, Prof. Duvernoy says: “We said that in young society (i.e. in ancient Russian) religious principles could produce such fruits that could not be expected from the mixing of two different spheres of the moral world in the old empire (i.e. in Byzantium). In fact, in the 15th century, in the laws of inheritance, we encounter such phenomena that could not be directly inspired by the nomocanon, but which were the result of the principles of Christian family morality rooted in the public consciousness. According to the helmsman, the wife has the right to a share after her husband; a second marriage changes the relationship of both parents to the remaining property; but due to the absence of children, it is still the relatives who inherit first, not the spouses. In Pskov, spouses, both equally, both husband and wife, in the event of childless death, have the right to use all the property of the deceased, preferably before all relatives - a right of use that continues until death or until entry into a second marriage. This is the greatest result that the Christian view of the sanctity of the marriage union could lead to in the field of civil law. In order for the threads of this sacred unity to break completely, it seems that one death is not enough. After the death of one spouse, the signs of the former unity in the legal sphere remain as they were. The spouses continue to use all the property of the deceased after each other. Either death is required, or a new step is needed, entry into a second marriage is necessary, so that the rupture of the previous union becomes final both in the religious and legal sense. This is the real, ideal consortium omnis vitae, as the famous classic 73, standing on the border of the ancient and Christian worlds, calls the secret of marriage” 74. Of course, there can be no doubt that this deep penetration of Christian principles into our ancient Russian legal consciousness came through clergy. Which way? Is it really only through preaching, through spiritual instructions, through the diligent reading by our ancestors of the New Testament Word of God? Hardly so. One sermon is hardly enough for a radical change in morals, and would it not be too bold to assert that the ancient Russian confessors, monastics and archpastors themselves were distinguished by the kind of teaching that is required for such a strong influence on morals? But since we have before us the fact that clergy in ancient Rus' were not only teachers and preachers of the Law of God, but directly and directly guardians of it in life, leaders in the application, as actual judges, hearers in the preparation of spiritual wills, in the division of property after the deceased, in controversial cases about marriage, about legitimate and illegitimate children, in general - as official pacifiers of litigants - then we cannot It will seem necessary to over-idealize the intellectual and moral virtues of the clergy of ancient Russia in order to explain its profound influence on life and law: this fact alone explains it quite satisfactorily. So, the action of clergy in ancient Rus' in the rank of arbitrators and magistrates and mediators had a very good influence on civil life. This was in the most ancient period of Russian History - Kiev and at the beginning of Moscow, in that era when common law was in full force, subject to the influence of the church, in the era of the appanage system and the veche system of the free cities of Novgorod and Pskov. With the establishment of the Moscow State, very unfavorable conditions arise for the arbitration court in general and in particular for its practice by clergy: it is increasingly giving way to two ordinary courts: the State and the Church. Both judicial officers (Ivan III and Ivan IV) are exclusively concerned with the organization and paperwork of the State Court, which is repaired by “boyars, okolinichi and clerks and all sorts of clerks, and in cities and volosts governors and their tiunas.” There is not even a mention of arbitration; Only the 31st article of the Code of Law of the Terrible - as noted above - allows litigants to end the litigation begun before the judge - with peace. The court of state judges is, according to the meaning of these legal codes, a service paid for by remuneration from those suing: “and fees are charged from the right grams: to the boyar from the press from the ruble for 9 money, and to the diak imatn from the signature from the ruble for an altyn, and to the clerk - three dengi” 75 “And the report list is printed for the boyar or the butler or the treasurer, and filed for the deacon. And the imat from the seal to the boyar... from a ruble is an altyn, and to a diak from a ruble is 4 money, and to a clerk is 2 money from a ruble” 76 It goes without saying that it was not in the interests of these judges to patronize the prosperity of the arbitration court. It was natural for them to complain that “people are being brought to justice by them” 77 . Nevertheless, the Tertean court, as the original establishment of life itself, continues to be used in the 16th and even 17th centuries. We indicated above examples of its use at this particular time by archimandrites and abbots. And this is understandable: as patrimonial owners, these persons were the authorities; they had the right to judge their taxable people (albeit in a limited sphere of cases) not only as arbitrators, but also as legal judges. It was a different matter for the white clergy and the lower monastic brethren, especially in monasteries that were subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop. From free persons, the white clergy, due to patrimonial relations, turned into a class of tax-paying persons, “taxable persons” in relation to the bishop and the monastery, on whose lands they lived. The patrimonial administration and court of these spiritual authorities were built in the likeness of the state ones. And here, with the rights of “feeding from service, the boyars, governors, tiuns, tithes, clerks and various clerks dominated” and inflicted “unbearable insults” on the spiritual ranks. According to the testimony of the Council of the Hundred Heads, “in the metropolis, in the archbishoprics and in the diocesan dioceses, tithes have always been appointed under the great wonderworkers Peter, Alexy and Jonah and before them, and according to them, and to this day according to hail and tithes. They judge the entire priestly and monastic rank and all the religious principles of the church and other decent people, according to bondage, and in battles, and robberies, and other than spiritual matters.” How did they judge? “They did not judge the truth - the cathedral complains - and they made promises and dragged things along and repaired the sale. And that before this, in the metropolises, and in the archbishoprics, and in the bishoprics, tithes and zaeschiks (or zakashniks) went around the city and tithes and collected tribute for the saints according to books and their duties according to grams and books, according to the old days, and there was a great need for the priests and deacons from tithes and zakaschniks and the sale was great" 78 . Along with the lowering of class status, there was also a lowering of the official position of the white clergy. The priest and sexton dressed up with the arrival, dressed up for a certain time, for a certain fee, with a written contract, thus turning into hirelings or old-fashioned “purchases”. The white clergy endured, or rather suffered through, such a social and official position for centuries, almost until the beginning of the 19th century. It is clear that during this time it was very difficult for him to apply the apostolic duty and the right of a peacemaker in the litigation of his flock. According to its social position, it was rightly capable only of obedience, and then out of necessity, at least from the point of view of the ancient Russian Truth, one of the articles of which reads: “But obedience is not reserved for a slave; but even if there will not be free (then) due to the need of difficult things for the boyarska tivun, and for others it will not be added. And in small cases, you need to invest in purchases” 79). During the 17th and 18th centuries, the fate of the arbitration court was generally of little interest. It did not cease to be used during this time, but it cannot be said that the legislation of that time patronized it. It would be more correct to say that during this time the arbitration court was only tolerant. In the Council Code of 1649, only one article was devoted to it, which until 1831 remained the only general legalization about it 80. During the 18th century, several private laws were issued by which arbitration as a privilege was allowed only to foreigners and only to certain classes. Thus, in 1734, the arbitration court was granted to the Bashkirs and other Ufa non-religious peoples “for their great vastness of housing, so that in their small affairs among themselves it would be unprofitable for them to go to Ufa to petition” 81 . The same right to use the arbitration court “as usual” was granted to the Little Russians in the same year 82. November 19 1800 the right to arbitrate was granted to Asians living in Astrakhan 83 . In 1827, this right was granted to the Nogais and other Mohammedans in the Caucasus region 84, as well as to the inhabitants of the land of the Black Sea army 85, in 1833 to the inhabitants of the Armenian region 86. Arbitration was also provided to some classes as an exclusive right, for example, merchants. Thus, in the customs charter of 1727 we read: “His Imperial Majesty (Peter II), being merciful to his subjects, the merchant people, so that, except for the necessary needs, they do not enter into written courts and answers, so that they do not waste their time among the merchants and do not incur unnecessary losses from this, he commands, in town halls and customs, trial and reprisals between send merchants mainly verbally, in some cases it also determines that the petitioners should be dealt with through intermediaries, and if due to any disagreement they themselves are not elected, so that they are appointed by the court and decide the matter” 87 . In 1744, the right to arbitrate all disputes was given to the peasants of the palace department: “to stop peasant red tape and the resulting ruin” 88 . In 1831, April 15. The provision on the arbitration court was approved by the highest authorities as a general law, with the abolition of all previous laws regarding it, and was included in the Code of Laws. The legislation currently in force, mainly based on the Regulations of 1831, opens the opportunity for everyone to enjoy the benefits of the arbitration court; with this, the opportunity opened up for the clergy, especially the village priest, to again act in the rank of arbitrator - a rank that had long since been forgotten by him only thanks to unfortunate historical circumstances - and yet was secured to him by both the sacred canons and Old Russian prescription. But is this necessary and useful? Let us try to present some thoughts on this issue. III. The possibility and desirability of acting as a clergyman in the rank of arbitrator at the present time “The settlement must be based on the following rules: 1) to provide both litigants with a legal, honest and litigation-free life: 2) to stop feuds and quarrels; 3) deliver to everyone what belongs to him; 4) facilitate judicial places” (Code Zak T. XVI. Section VII, Art. 660) These are the good hopes placed by the current legislation on the arbitration court, regardless of the rank of the persons holding it. The action of a clergyman in the rank of arbitrator, as historical experience has shown, could bring into the life of modern society an elevation of the moral value of law and law, and into the so-called “common” (peasant) law the spirit and principles of Christian morality. That this kind of influence is desirable seems to require no proof. And we have already proven that there are no canonical obstacles for a clergyman of each hierarchical degree to assume the title of arbitrator. It remains for us to consider whether there is a legal possibility for this from the point of view of current law. The arbitration court, according to current law, represents one of the types of “mural analysis” or “conciliation proceedings” of litigation, allowing in turn the following divisions: a) voluntary arbitration and b) legal arbitration. The latter is established exclusively for the consideration of the affairs of “companies, communities and partnerships” and cannot be the subject of our consideration. We can only mean voluntary arbitration. His entire institute is embraced by 47 articles: 667 – 713 T. XVI and art. 99 and 100 of the provisions on the rural estate (special appendix to Volume IX of the Code of Laws). In essential terms, voluntary arbitration based on these articles is as follows; It is compiled by a formal record submitted to the judicial institution that has jurisdiction over the civil case to be examined. The record indicates: 1) the subject of the litigation or claim; 2) Names and titles of mediators elected by each side in an equal number; 3) a common mediator appointed by both parties or, instead, allowing private mediators to elect one at their discretion in the event of a split in their votes 89 . Moreover, it is at the discretion of the parties, in agreement with the intermediaries, to indicate in the recording: 1) the period when the court decision should take place; 2) whether the court should decide the case according to the law, or according to conscience; and 3) if according to the law, then with a transfer on appeal, or without a transfer 90. If the deadline for the decision is not indicated in the entry, then it is generally considered to be four months from the date of appearance of the entry 91. If the case is left to be decided according to conscience, then the court's decision must always be final and a transfer is not allowed, even if nothing was decided in the record 92. The entry is signed by the litigants either in their own hand or by their authorized representatives, and is written in compliance with the rules on stamp duty 93. When the record appears, a review of the intermediaries must be presented regarding their consent to the composition of the arbitration tribunal 94. The entry upon its appearance (by the parties) is entered into the book by order of the court, and the original is left in the custody of the court; and from there a copy is issued to both parties and to intermediaries 95. Upon the appearance of the record, the parties cannot refuse the arbitration court, except by ending the case between themselves without a trial through a settlement agreement established for this purpose in court 96. No one is forced to be a mediator in a voluntary arbitration court, but having accepted the mediation and made a statement about it in court when the record appears, the mediator cannot renounce the court, unless: 1) due to a serious illness; 2) for a change of location for work: 3) for a proven need to be away from the city for a long time 97. When a general mediator (super-arbitrator) is elected and named in the record, then when the record appears, his response indicating his consent must also be attached; but when his election is left to private intermediaries in case of division of votes, then they can elect him even after recording, and even then only begin to elect him when a division has already opened between them 98. But if a general intermediary is not appointed when compiling the record, and the private intermediaries do not agree in choosing him, then, if there is a division of votes in the arbitration court, this court is considered invalid and is closed 99. As can be seen from these general provisions on the composition of an arbitration court, the most “voluntary” arbitration court is divided into two types: a) by law and o) by conscience. It goes without saying that a clergyman can, without any danger, take on the duty of being a mediator or super-arbiter only in a court of conscience. We will only have this type of voluntary arbitration court in mind. We do not recommend that a clergyman be an arbitrator by law due to the extraordinary complexity of the sources our civil law, which requires a judge to have legal education, experience in business and legal technique, is hardly possible for a clergyman. The establishment of an arbitration court through a record, as prescribed by the above-mentioned articles of the law, is a formality, the execution of which is not at all required if those who are drawn to the arbitration court belong to the peasant class. Here the arbitration court is established without any prior appointment, without stamp duty, without a super-arbitrator. Litigating peasants elect, at their request, an equal number of judges from any class, verbally declare this to the Volost Government, and these elected judges perform the act of judgment wherever they wish, i.e., either in the Volost Government, or in a private house. What gives the full legal significance to such an arbitration court is the recording of the decision in a special book, which is necessarily available in each Volost Board and the sealing of this record with the signature of the Volost Foreman and the Volost Clerk. Once the verdict or decision of the arbitration court is recorded in this book, they receive full legal force 100 1). Here are the articles of the General Regulations on the Rural Conditions (Appendix to IX Vol. Code of Laws), defining this simplified arbitration court: Art. 99: “In all cases, without limiting their cost, if they do not involve a crime or misdemeanor, and do not involve the benefit of minors and the insane, peasants of both one and different volosts can, instead of proceedings in the Volost Court, apply by mutual consent to a conscience-based arbitration court, without being embarrassed by any forms.” 103 Art. 100: The decision of the arbitration court must be immediately announced to the litigants and entered into the book available at the Volost Board. It is considered to have entered into final legal force upon its inclusion in this book. No complaints about this will be accepted anywhere.” However, violation of the requirements imposed by these two articles for the composition of the arbitration tribunal may serve as a reason to appeal its verdict 101. Regarding the procedure for legal proceedings in an arbitration court, we consider it necessary, in good faith, to point out the following provisions. Throughout the proceedings, the court must not forget its peacekeeping task. Art. 690 reads: “When the Arbitration Court is granted by record to decide the case according to conscience, then it, taking upon itself the responsibility of amicable mediation, offers the parties methods of reconciliation and if they are accepted by them intact or with changes, on which they have expressed mutual consent: then it draws up a determination in accordance with this; if it is not possible to agree to such a peaceful ending; then he begins to draw up his decision at his own discretion and according to the inspiration of his conscience.” The decision in the arbitration court is drawn up by private mediators either unanimously or by majority vote 102. It is considered a majority vote when, with four intermediaries, three are of one opinion, and one is of another; with six intermediaries, four or five of one opinion, and two or one of another 103. Do not consider it a majority of votes, but their division, when with two intermediaries the votes will be different, or when with four, two will be of the same opinion, and the other two will be of two different opinions, or when with six, three will be of the same opinion, and the other three will be divided into two or three different opinions 104 The decision of private intermediaries is unanimous, since their decision is a majority vote, and is recognized as a decision of the Arbitration Court. In both of these cases, its legal force does not require the opinion of a common mediator (super-arbiter), whether he will be appointed by the parties, or elected by private mediators 105 The general mediator does not enter into the analysis of the case until a disagreement occurs in the arbitration court. In only seven cases is his opinion necessary. And therefore, when the votes are divided, it is left to him: 1) to approve one of the opinions of private intermediaries, which he recognizes as closest to justice; and this opinion, even if it has the smallest number of votes, receives a preponderance and turns into a decision of the Arbitration Court; 2) to hold out your own opinion, which, if accepted by at least one private mediator, is uniformly converted into a decision of the Arbitration Court. But if no one agrees with the opinion of the general mediator, nor does he choose any of the different opinions of private intermediaries, in this case the Arbitration Court is considered closed and not held 106. The decision of the arbitration court is drawn up applying to the general form of decisions of judicial places and (if the case was decided by law, then the decision indicates the laws on which it is based) if according to conscience, then without citing the laws, it is instead indicated, or: that by mutual agreement expressed by the parties; or (when there was no agreement), then in good conscience the Court, by majority vote, or unanimously determined this and that (here follows a statement of the very articles of the decision). If the decision was made by a majority vote, or by an opinion approved by the general mediator, then at the end the sieve is indicated briefly: the special opinions of the mediators are set out in the journal of the Court. This decision is signed by the general mediator, if he participated in it, and by all private mediators, and is announced to the litigants or their attorneys on a general legal basis" 107 . The decision of the arbitration court comes into force from the date of announcement 108 These are the grounds and conditions for holding arbitration, voluntary, in accordance with conscience. It is impossible to see in them any legal obstacle to the application by our modern priest of his duty and character to be a creator of peace and a wise but Christian conscience, his mediator-judge of his flock, who, by a combination of circumstances, have become involved in the relationship of litigants and warring parties. The current legislation on the arbitration court, on the contrary, seems to be in every possible way patronizing the priest (just without naming him) to act with all the power of his spiritual weapons to act on the heart and conscience of those at war as a peacemaker and judge. This especially needs to be said about the insistence with which the law exposes the peacemaking task of the arbitration court, the absence of any formalities in the proceedings and the importance of “clear conscience” as the only basis for the decision. But who, out of the entire population of modern rural society, is most natural to be the organ of a Christian clear conscience, if not a priest? It goes without saying that in this case we may not be talking about the subjective moral superiority of a priest over each of his spiritual children: one rank is not a guarantee and guarantee for personal high morality, but for purity of motives and moral consciousness, for steadfastness and firmness of moral character, for external, and finally, moral impeccability and reputation. The point is not in personal moral dignity, which may be distinguished by “nothing in the church” and which its primate (whom no one will elect as a judge) may not adequately demonstrate; but the fact is that, by his very sacred title and social position, the priest has a moral authority that none of its members have in the consciousness of his entire flock. When the priest speaks with the tree of edification, with reproof, with an indication of the commandment of the law of God, in this case, for example. violated or wavered, then every peasant, every peasant woman realizes that he has an indisputable right to do this and will feel at least shame if he dares to contradict or compete with the priest. And on the contrary, once the latter betrays his conscience and, God forbid, is noticed in this, he himself will be forced to burn with shame in front of his defendants. Not an ordinary, worldly person; even if he has high integrity and a generally recognized reputation, he is unarmed as a moralist preacher in front of every rogue and impudent person who will directly say to him: “Who are you? Pop, why are you lecturing me? I didn’t take up my craft! - and he will be right. A very favorable condition for the priest is the requirement of the law regarding the complexity of the composition of the arbitration tribunal, as well as the importance that it gives to the super-arbitrator. Our law apparently does not allow a single arbitrator; and this in this case is good: to dare to be a peremptory judge alone, and especially for a priest, is too difficult and responsible. It is another matter to be one of the judges, at least the main one, a super-arbiter - which is even desirable in relation to a priest, as a judge, who by his very rank is called upon to introduce a predominantly moral element into the consideration and decision of a case. Let other intermediaries - the priest's comrades - be the bodies of customary law, people knowledgeable about the living conditions of the peasants; the latter must listen carefully and patiently to their judgments: this is not his area, on the contrary, he must adapt to it in his moral and religious assessment of the details of the case being examined and with all his might support in everyday life, in common law, that which has moral value. That it is the introduction of a moral element into the spirit and form of modern peasant or volost self-government that our people crave, of course, in its best representatives - we personally had to be convinced of this more than once in conversations with the common people themselves and intellectuals who observed modern peasant life. According to the consciousness of both, one and no less important reason for the economic impoverishment of the village is a very noticeable decline in Christian morality among the younger generation and peasant women. Secular writers - populists point out the reason for this evil in non-normality, the burden of economic conditions, scarcity of land, etc. We will not go into assessing this opinion due to our incompetence in this regard, but we cannot remain silent about the very convincing assurances from the peasants themselves that these conditions are not so bad that God-fearing and hardworking people should not get along with these conditions, that complete moral depravity is the worst evil and the strongest reason for economic impoverishment. As proof, they cite numerous examples of the ruin of wealthy peasant houses that were in happy economic conditions. conditions and disorganized solely due to the moral unbridledness of their inhabitants, who have lost all sense of shame and conscientiousness towards all kinds of moral demands and bring this corrupting influence into houses that are truly unhappy economically and yet struggle with it and not unsuccessfully only through the power of greater moral stability. What do the guardians of Christian morality and its guardians, rural shepherds, do? Why don’t they instill in the church and school the principles of Christian morality in the young peasant generation? It would be clearly untrue to reproach them for this at the present time. Both in school and in church there is currently an intense preaching of the Word of God, and it is not unsuccessful or fruitless. The young peasant generation has the right to be proud of its knowledge of the law of God over the old generation and can prove its superiority in this regard over the old people with documentary school certification. But when entering life, a student of a Christian school does not encounter in life not only the application of God’s law, but also its representative – the priest. In matters of peasant social life, in matters of peasant family life, as soon as the conversation turns to law and law, the priest always carefully distances himself: it is not his business. The law of God is openly proclaimed both in the church and in the school, but as something detached from life. The commandment of God's law has no practical meaning - in the sense of a life guide; violation of it is completely unpunished: the guardian of God's law does not have the opportunity to summon the violator even to the church moral court in order to publicly expose and shame the violator: for we do not have such an institution. Only gross public mockery and blasphemy against the law of God receives criminal prosecution and retribution, but only criminal retribution. A different result would have turned out if the voice of the Christian shepherd had sounded not only in school and church, but also in a public, secular meeting of peasants, as it sounded in ancient Rus'. Then, one can hope, modern common peasant law would be imbued with elements of Christian morality, and complaints from among the peasants would cease to be heard that there is no “shame” in our youth and “there is no one to shame” them. The appearance of a priest in the rank of arbitrator in peasant cases at the present time, legally quite possible, would open - in our opinion - some way for the influence of the Law of God on our public peasant life, would give it the significance of the law of life, instead of remaining a subject of church preaching and school teaching, detached from it. The Romans had an almost universally observed custom of concluding a compromise by means of an informal agreement between the parties (a simple pactum), in case of violation of which both parties were obliged to pay a penalty through stipulatio (poena compro missa, hence the name of the contract - compromissum). Baron: System of the Roman Citizen. rights. § 100, page 158. Εχειν πραγματα =cim nemine litigare Μεταξύ βρβεύσαι τό δίχαιον, τας άντιλογίας διαλυσαι =inter vos dicere jus et controversias dirimere. ) Πρός δυνεέλειαν η φόβον . In some editions, instead of φόβον there is φόρον =forum, public fee, judicial fee. ) Apost. Decree book II, ch. 45 – 47. Sozomen. Ts. I, ch. 9. 2) Cod. I. 4 1. The last law we presented hardly retained its significance for long. At least in the 19th century. Balsamon makes a general provision that “civil law allows the elected judge (as long as he has the right to conduct a trial) to seek a review of his decision.” (Balsamon in the interpretation, to 108 96) is right. Karf. Cathedral Confessionis Lib. VI, paragraph 3 De ore monachorum, paragraph 37. Socrates, Ts. I. Book. V40;P, ch. 37, art. 568. Karf Sob rights 70 (according to the book of Rules) 59 (according to the helmsmen); the edition of the latter is as follows: “The clerk has judged a thing, and if it is not pleasing, he will not be called to obey at the judgment, and he will not bring any church person to obedience. Balsamon in the interpretation of the present rules In his interpretation of this rule, Balsamon does not want to recognize the nature of the arbitration court here and says the following about this: “and about what was said here or by the will of the same bishop, those elected by the common parties will form the court - do not think that this refers to an elected judge (who does not have the legal right to judge, because this is what makes a judge the desire of the parties and the agreed penalty, which is not seen in this rule), - but to a judge who has the right to pronounce an ecclesiastical court in general, but only does not have the right of trial in relation to these litigants. In the same way, a clergyman who, without the will of the local bishop, is tried in an improper court, even if it were a church one, must be subjected to penance according to this rule.” To this, one can object to Balsamon that the agreed penalty is not a necessary property in the concept of an arbitration court: one can exist without a penalty. Canon law legitimizes such an arbitration court without an agreed penalty, as Balsamon himself admits in his interpretation of the 107th rule of the Council of Carthage According to the canonical norm, the trial of a bishop must consist of at least 12 bishops See Carf Sob rights 12. Rule of the Council of Constantinople 393. It is not clear from anywhere that a church matter was meant. arbiter - chosen by the parties, or arbitrator. See X 1 t. VI, r. 220, 221 St. Elias. Syntagma M. Vlastar. Translation from Greek. Simferopol. 1892 pp. 161, 162 Compare the Code of Ch. 15 art. 5 about arbitration with Basilic VII, 2 Note.. Nevolina Complete collection of works. K A Nevoinna. t VI, 334 A Vitsyn: Arbitration court under Russian law M 1856. 2) Article 14 Acad list see below The Grand Duke acted as a super-arbiter and decided the case (See A to Yur b otn I, No. 103) The persons competing were not important in themselves: “Metropolitan embassy Vakilka with the Voislav embassy, ate, Lesha.” But the “sea judges” were from the side of Metropolitan Theodosius Semyon Dvoretskaya, and from the side of Prince Andrei Vasilyevich (the Grand Duke’s brother) Judge Ivan Khvoshchinsky” The litigation, which was not significant in size and but for the litigants, touched on a very important issue: the Metropolitan, or Prince Andrey, owned the land, which was used either by the metropolitan villages or by the ambassadorial princes. This explains the choice of such an important person as the Great Sovereign as a superarbn. Prince Ivan Vasilievich III Duvernoy. Sources of law and court in ancient Russia, pp. 332 – 334 M 1869 Complete collection Russian. letop. T II. EGR, 90 In one court case of 1532 we read: “Behold, Fedko Grigoriev, son, servant of the Kirillov Monastery, that I am suing those in the abbot’s place in Cornilevo and in all the brethren in the place of the Kirillov Monastery, on the abbot in Gelasia and on the entire brethren of the Nikolsky Monastery of Vyazhitsky before the bottom judge, before Ivan Ofonaoev and in the abbot’s place Gelasievo and in all the brethren, set on that land, answered before the judge Sergeiko Semenov's son, groom of the Vezhitsky monastery And we, both plaintiffs, Yaz Fedko in the hegumen's place and in all the brethren. and Yaz Sertyako in the hegumen’s place among all the brethren? reconciled in the lawsuit" A Yu No. 155 Art. 5 (Vladimirsky Budanov Christomathy. p. 178) Duvernoy Sources Law and court pp. 167, 168 Collection State Gram. and agreement. T 1, No. 33 A. Yu. No. 149: “Rozezzhaya” (1526) Eg. A. Yu. No. 109, 147, 110, 122 “but listen to that. my spiritual father, archpriest of Mironositskaya Semyon" That is, “I, the headman Azina and other trusted companies appealed. with a petition to Prince Afanasy against Vasily Matveev, they also posted bailiffs, but without going to court they settled down nearby.” Proverb - agreement, agreement. The Great Syart is mentioned in the deed of sale, No. 71, V. A. Yu. Published in Full. Collected works of K. Nevolin, volume V40; I page 553 et seq. According to Sreznevsky’s interpretation, the meaning of the document is as follows: “Some Yakim gave his bride, probably his daughter (girl), to some Teshata. While resolving the agreement (skladsgvo), after the end of the settlement, the father of the bride and the groom made a note to testify that they no longer owe each other anything; they indicated in it that the vein for the bride (silver on the girl) had already been received; and the monisto, assigned to the groom (! in the document: “Teshatina’s monista”) and still remaining with his future mother-in-law, the groom can take whenever he wants; they also indicated that in case of violation of the order, the violator is obliged to pay 100 hryvnias of silver and approved the record with the testimony of the spiritual father and five other witnesses and its writing by the hand of the secretary of Prince Dovmont.” Here is the text of one “support line”, presented by Sreznevsky himself: “Behold, Silence Kostyantivov son of Sulmenev; I should marry Zamyatin and Vasily, the Mikhailov children of Rzhevsky, and their sister Olena Mikhailova, Rzhevsky’s daughter, a week before Filipov’s conspiracy in the summer of 7050, became my understanding; But I won’t marry Yaz Silence for that period from Zamyatya and Vasily, otherwise Zamyazn and Vasily took a hundred rubles of money from me at Silence. And for that, listen to (four) \ entry was written by Vasyuk Fedorov, son of Zasetsky (brother of one of the listeners) in the summer of 7056. (Complete collection of Sochnn Nevolin. T. VI, p. 507). ... Nevsky had to use a lot of effort and tension to establish the legal relationship of this entry with “nearby”. represented by the Pskov document under consideration. The document clearly states that this is not a “record”, but a “row”... order who will step into “this row” Nevolin, g. VI, pp. 574 – 578. The following is a detailed comparison with those in-line ones we talked about above. Novo lnna, T. VI, p. 582 According to the publication of Vladimirsky-Budanov Art. 59 Holy Trinity - the cathedral church of Pskov, where there was a “chest” or archive for storing documents and a seal According to ed. Vlad. Budanova st. 82. According to the Law of Judgment 18, 7 or 6; and by no means less than three See Russian. Landmarks, II, cg. 152, 196, 197. Helmsman, book. Ch. 46. Maybe the following, for example, article of Yaroslav’s Charter will shed some light here: “Whoever steals away a girl, or rapes her, even a boyar’s daughter, gives her 5 hryvnia in gold for trash, and 5 hryvnia for the bishop. gold... and the prince will execute.” (Vlad. Budanov, Christomathia, p. 201 part I “Pop” = παππας, spiritual father, father = is a very honorable title for an Old Russian (Kievan Rus) priest. When and who was the first to pronounce this term to designate the class of “free men” that arose among the ancient Russian society, we cannot say due to the paucity of historical data. But we believe that the ordinary use of this term alone could not have consolidated its permanent use in official legal and even legislative documents, if such use had not been sanctified by some kind of indisputable authority for the ancient Russian society. But what else could have served? such as the Greek nomocanon? And indeed, in the oldest hitherto known Slavic translation of the Greek nomocanon, we encounter the use of this term “pop”, as everywhere replacing the original Greek term: πρεσβίτερος .. For example, “If any priest is a deacon, or any clergyman of a saint (Apostle 15) “If any priest, or deacon, do not cry (do not give a damn) about his bishop (Antiochus 5) “For a deacon is not worthy to sit before a priest, according to command.” priest sedatn" (Lond 30 See Sreznevsky: review of ancient Russian lists of helmsmen books. St. Petersburg. 1897, p. 28. appendices). In ancient times, the Greek Nomocanon enjoyed the authority of the holy “God-inspired book.” It contained all the truth (or law) of the Church. Not only the metropolitan, but also the prince, in any questions of law, turned first of all to the nomocanon, as an indisputable source and luminary of law, and there they tried to find a solution to the questions of law that occupied them. And in this Divinely inspired book, the metropolitan and the prince, the original organizers of social and church life, read that after the bishop and the “lords” in the class of servants of God’s law directly stands “priest,” and behind that comes other clergy or “saint.” Vladpmirsky-Budanov. Christomathy. 1, pp. 94 – 95 Treaty of Small books. Mstislav Dovidovich art. 6: “The ambassador and the priest what to do, for two of them, two payments, Peace charter of Novgorodians with the Germans 1195, Article 15: “Ozhe will kill zhay (hostage) or pop Novgorod or German Novgorod, for 20 hryvnias per head” Article 3: “And if you kill the merchant of Novgorod, or the German merchant of Novgorod, then for that head 10 grivs of gray” (In the bastard - Budanov) 1, 90 – 96 Ipat. Years: “at the same time Boris (Prince of Belgorod) got drunk (but simply got drunk) in the village with his retinue and with the priests of Belgorod” (2nd edition, p. 288) The Galician prince Vladimir Yaroslavich took the priest’s wife and made her his wife (the same chronicle from 11888, p. 444). The priest managed to please the prince, of course, at one of his feasts.” Note. Golubinsky, see His History of the Russian Church, Vol. 1, 1 half p. 462 Russian Sights, part II, page 182 Wed. Complete R. L. T. VI (Novgorod. Let.) p. 432 This refers to Article 14 of Rus Pravda (Acadian List). which reads like this: “Even then he will demand other things from his friend. and he locks her up for the night, then he is to be punished in front of 12 people. (Kalachov: Russkaya Pravda M 1847. p. 2 Do you mean the Roman Catholic canonical process? ) If someone is dying and commands someone to arrange an estate, either with his children or with his wife, entrust him with the arrangement of the estate before hearings" (Russian Dospomyatnosti. II. 193 - 194) Here are the usual signatures of ancient spiritual testaments: ,.And for this, God listened and my spiritual father Amos St. Michael (A Yu No. 409). “And here Yurie Dviilovich sat and wrote the manuscripts, and the deacon of Mikhailovskaya Demid and Samyla listened, and Saint Michael, and my spiritual father, Abbot Avanasy” (A Yu. No. 409. XI) “And then the rumors: Levon the housekeeper, and Levontey Fedorov, and Efim Ivanov. yes Larivon Kiev. And I have sealed this whole spiritual thing with one seal, that of my spiritual father, priest Ivanova Teshilowski. And this spiritual one was written by Opanka Yuriev, Semenov’s son. And I am sealed by the priest’s vest Ivanov” (A Yu No. 413 Here are other spiritual ones) Art. 100 (Troitsk sn): Even the brothers will stretch themselves on their butts in front of the prince. whichever child goes to make them, then take that hryvnia to..b.” Duvernoy: Sources of Law and Court, pp. 105 – 107 Erennius Modestine, whose definition of the concept of marriage is in the following translation of the Helmsman’s book: “marriage is a combination and fulfillment between husband and wife in all life, the communication of divine and human truths” (Kormcha. Ch. 48, gr. 4). The Latin original reads: “Nuptiae sunt conjunctio maris etfeminae, consortium omnis vitae divini et humani juris communicatio” (Dig XXIII, tit II, 1) Duvernoy, tsnt. book page 329. Code of Law of Tsar John IV. from 33 Dimitriev. History of the Courts, page 15 Stoglav. .. 68, Ed. Kaz. Spirit. Acad., pp. 304–309 Russian Pravda, art., 59 (Troitsk, sp). Kalachev, p. 14. Here is this article: “About arbitration. And if the plaintiff and the defendant, having talked amicably among themselves, go to the Court in front of the third and give their third a record that they should listen to their arbitrator's verdict, but if they do not listen to the arbitrator's verdict and take the sovereign's penalty on them, which the Sovereign will indicate, but dishonor to the third, and according to their record, the third will decide their case and give the plaintiff and the defendant different sentences: one third of the plaintiff will acquit, and will accuse the defendant, and the other third will acquit the defendant, and will accuse the plaintiff, and according to the petition of the plaintiff or the defendant, that arbitration case and verdicts, and take the arbitration record from the third as an order, so that that record will be written with the sovereign's penalty and that arbitration case will be decided by the court and according to the arbitration verdict, with which the arbitration verdict will be written against the court case; and to whom the sentence was written without the deed, leave that sentence, and inflict punishment on the third for that week’s sentence, or, according to the record, take a fine on him, whatever the Sovereign will indicate. And on him, whom he accuses inappropriately, the red tape will be corrected from the date on which the case begins, and from the date on which that case is completed, one man per day.” “And in the arbitration record the sovereign’s penalties will not be written and that third party’s arbitration case will not be included in the order.” “And if the third case is decided, both will give the same sentence to the guilty party, and the one against whom they give the sentence will beat the Emperor with their foreheads, saying that they have accused him wrongly, and therefore, by petitioning the third party, the case should not be ordered, because he loved those third ones for himself, and it will be in that case, but how the third ones are sentenced” (Code, Chapter XV; Art. 5) Full Collection Zak No. 6581, item 4. 2 Full Collection No. 878. §§ 60, 61 Ibid., No. 1058, §§ 54, 55 Ibid., No. 14133. and 3 For more details, see Vitsyn, op. cit. pp. 9–14 N V Muravyov: Guidelines for volost courts in areas where zemstvo district chiefs have been established. 1891 Moscow, page 51 Prnmech. to Art. 14 time. rules on the volost court Resolution 1 of the Department of Rule of the Senate dated November 13, 1879, No. 8703 states: “Decisions of voluntary arbitration courts are recognized in conscience as having final legal force only when these courts take place by mutual agreement of the parties and on the subject provided to the jurisdiction of the arbitration courts. The World Assembly or the District Presence must enter into the discussion of a complaint against the decision of the arbitration court, if it indicates a violation of essential conditions of the arbitration court." “The decision of the arbitration court enters into legal force only if, when drawing it up, the procedure established by Article 100 of the General Regulations was observed, namely: if it was promptly announced to the parties and recorded in the book available at the Volost Board (May 4, 1877, No. 3644) “Decisions of arbitration courts can be appealed to the same peasant institution, which is subject to consideration of complaints against decisions of volost courts, i.e., according to the appendix to Article 109 of the General Regulations, World Congresses and District Presences” (Dec. 5, 1878. No. 9110) See I. Danilov: Provisions on the rural state, supplemented by later legislation and clarifying them. decisions of the Senate Rules, Issue 2, St. Petersburg, 1889. pp. 132, 133 You might be interested in: