Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs (THESSALONIKI 2015): pp.

414-424

The Reception of Byzantine Law

Among the Slav Populations:
A Comparative Perspective

Prof. Dr. Paolo Angelini

KU Leuven / Università degli studi “G. D’Annunzio”
Chieti-Pescara

T
he adoption of Greek-Roman law and the reception of the Byzantine juridical system
played an important role in making the Slavs part of the Byzantine “commonwealth”
and was employed by the Slav rulers to build stronger monarchies.
Three main cases in different chronological, geographical and cultural contexts will be
considered: Bulgaria (9th century), Serbia (13th - 14th centuries), Russia (13th and following
centuries).
In Bulgaria and Serbia, the adoption of the Byzantine institutional and juridical model, also
if adapted to the specific context, was used to legitimate the political project of replacing the
Eastern Roman empire with Slav-Byzantine empires. The Bulgarian Knjaz in the 9th century,
as well as the Serbian king in the 14th century, proclaimed themselves as Emperor. In order
to increase its legitimacy, in both cases the proclamation was supported by the creation of a
national Patriarchate on the base of the concept of the Orthodox ruler, which was one of the
distinguishing elements characterizing the figure of the Basileus.
The final goal of the Slav rulers was to conquer the city of Constantinople and replace the
Byzantine Emperor on the throne. Law was employed to support the political project and
was vulgarized in order to facilitate its use among populations: elements of customary law
were mixed with Byzantine law, and the Greek texts were translated into Slav languages and
adapted to the social, cultural and economic context of Bulgaria and Serbia.
In the Russian territories the Byzantine juridical compilations were translated and included

414
 Dr. Paolo Angelini: the Reception of Byzantine Law Among the Slav Populations: A Comparative Perspective

in the Nomokanones. They were used for the management of ecclesiastical possessions and
in the ecclesiastical judicial courts, which were also involved with some juridical aspects
that were not only connected to ecclesiastical sphere. If in this last case, the introduction of
Greek-Roman law was not so strong as in Bulgaria and Serbia, it can be considered relevant
for the transmission of Byzantine ideas and culture having a relevant impact on the socio-
juridical dynamics.

Case 1 - Bulgaria

Rastislav, the Prince of Great Moravia, was the first ruler who asked for the evangelization of
his population to the Costantinopolitan Patriarchate. Because of their geographical position,
the Bulgarians were the first people of the ones considered in our paper which adopted the
new religion and, as it happened for Great Moravia with the mission of Cyril and Methodius,
the crown was decisive in favouring this process.
After the Bulgarian-Byzantine wars, which took place during the entire first part of the
9th century1, Boris I imposed the conversion on the Bulgarians in order to consolidate his
position: the aim of the Khan was to destroy the last resistance of the pagan nobility which
was trying to stop the process of centralisation of the monarchic power in order to preserve
its privileges and autonomy. Fifty-two noblemen and their families were killed2 to eliminate
the internal opposition and orthodoxy was adopted as religion. Boris was supported by the
Byzantine church in order to contrast the expansion of the Roman Catholic Church in Eastern
Europe, and by the Byzantine throne in an attempt to maintain some influence over the
Bulgarians after the military defeats and the loss of vast territories in the Balkan Peninsula.
In a few years a stronger monarchy was built and just after the population was converted
and the internal opposition eliminated, the Bulgarian ruler decided to promulgate the Zakon
Sudnyj Ljudem (ZSL) as law in force3.
Another relevant aspect has to be considered: in the 9th century there was no possibility of
surviving or making any alliance for a pagan state in Europe, and the Bulgarian Knjaz, who
understood the importance of this aspect related to foreign politics, adopted the Christian
faith in order to avoid the menace of being attacked because his state was pagan and had to

1 G. Ostrogorsky, Storia dell’impero bizantino, Torino 1968, 179 and ff.

2 “Rex autem ex proceribus, qui populum maxime adversus eum incitaverunt, interfecit numero quinquaginta
duos”. In: Annales Bertiniani – Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, I, p. 85.
3 On the ZSL: H. Oroschakoff, «Ein Denkmal des bulgarischen Rechts (Zakon sudni ljudem)», Zeitschrift fur
vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, 33, 1916; V. Ganev, Zakon soudnyj ljud’m, Sofija 1959; H. W. Dewey - A.
M. Kleimola, Zakon Sudnyj Ljudem (Court Law for the People), Ann Arbor 1977.

415
 Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs (THESSALONIKI 2015): pp. 414-424

be converted.
Returning to the juridical aspects strictly concerning the ZSL, the majority of the dispositions
was extracted from the Ekloge, which was promulgated in 741 by the Emperor Leo the
Isaurian4. The oldest version, which is called the “short redaction” and is based on a protograph
of the 9th century, has been preserved in a Russian manuscript of the 13th century5.
We consider the ZSL to be a partial and adapted Slav version of the Ekloge, the text
of which could have been more extended than the one which has been preserved in the
Novgorodskij manuscript6, which was probably reproduced only partially by the copyists,
being old and not acceptable in the Russian social context of the 13th century7.
In the majority of the cases the physical mutilations provided in the Ekloge were replaced
with other penalties, first of all with pecuniary fines, which have to be considered more
acceptable for the population8.
The adoption of this juridical compilation based on Byzantine law, as well as the adoption
of Christianity, must be considered in the perspective of centralizing and strengthening the
political power and the Bulgarian ruler was very pragmatic in using it against the nobility in
particular. In the second disposition the ZSL repressed the adherence to paganism, mentioning
in particular the members of the nobility. In that sense the juridical contents seem to be
perfectly related to the historical events which took place in 864:
ZSL § 2
“8ко vs1ko село, v nemьже требы bьіvють ili pris1гы погаnьскы da {daюt[s1
v] Bi»i hram] s] vs7m] im7n9m[, 9liko imutь ga» ta v tomь selэ i tvoritь
trebы i pris1gы, da proda9tьs1 s] vsэmъ imэn9mь svoimь”9.
For apostasy from the true faith and pagan oaths, collective liability and confiscation
of goods were provided for the village, while reduction and selling into slavery, together
with the confiscation of goods, were provided for the members of the nobility. The penalty
imposed on the latter was harsher, precisely because it was the means to repress any attempt

4 L. Burgmann, Ecloga. Das Gesetzbuch Leons III. und Konstantinos’ V., Frankfurt 1983.
5 Three theories on the origin of the ZSL have been developed: we accept the one which supports the Bul-
garian origin of the juridical compilation and we date the redaction of the ZSL between the conversion to
Christianity and the Responsa papae Nicolae I ad consulta Bulgarorum (864-866), and the redaction of the
Prochiron (879), thus under the reign of Boris.
6 M. N. Tikhomirov (ed.), Zakon sudnyi lyudem kratkoj redakcii, Moskva 1961.
7 R. Hubé, Droit romain et gréco-byzantin chez les peuples slaves, Paris-Touluse 1880, 19.
8 On criminal law in the Ekloge: B. Sinogowitz, Studien zum Strafrecht der Ekloge, Πραγματείαι της
Ακαδημίας Αθηνών, v. 21, Athènes 1956.
9 ZSL § 2: “Let any settlement in which sacrifices or pagan oaths take place be handed over with all [its]
property to God’s temple. If there are lords in that settlements who offer sacrifices and give [pagan] oaths, let
them be sold into slavery with all their properties” in: Dewey – Kleimola, Zakon Sudnyj Ljudem, 5.

416
 Dr. Paolo Angelini: the Reception of Byzantine Law Among the Slav Populations: A Comparative Perspective

of subversion on the part of the boyars. It connected the crime of treason against the prince to
the concept of crime against the religion, and therefore against God and Christianity. It must
be remarked that the supreme penalty was generally imposed for apostasy from Orthodoxy in
the Ekloge, in the Prochiron and in any other Greek-roman juridical compilation.
A judicial system based on the state’s monopoly on the resolution of controversies, criminal
cases and lawsuits in general was introduced. The judges were the representative of the prince
and justice was administrated in his name:
ZSL § 2
“V] vs1ku p[rю i klevetu i ш[pt]і dostoit[ kn1zю i sudii, neposluшat]і
bes] sv7ditel[ mnog], n] gla»ti k] supernikom] i klevet[nikom]”10.
As the administration of justice became an exclusive prerogative of representatives of the
politic power, any kind of self-justice was explicitly forbidden by the ZSL and any abuse was
repressed by the authorities:
ZSL § 19
“Veщь im78m] s] 9ter]mь vld»kam] n] o sebe tvor1 li po vlasti, li po sil7
nudьmi naleжa, aщe v]istinu svo9 im78 se stvoritь da {padetь svo98 veщi i
da v]zvraщa9tь ю. Aщe li x0же v]zmetь xto { vlad]іk]і zemli toi, da tepьtьs1
8ko ne v] vlastь b]іva8 sebe b]іva8 m7stьnik] i tako b]іva8 da ustro9ni9
tvoritь tomu 9же vz1tь”11.
Any act of self-justice was punished with a loss of the claimed right or with physical
punishments, in consequence of the fact that a centralized juridical system was introduced
instead of the customary law, on which Bulgarian society, as well as the other Slav societies
in the 9th century were based.
Self-justice and feud, in other words the familiar revenge system, were considered a duty
and a right of the family if one of its members was killed or injured. Especially in the case
of homicide (vražda), which caused blood feuds between the two families, there could have
been very dangerous consequences for the maintaining of the public order. In addition, once
the family of the injured person took revenge on the offender, the conflict between the two
families could be prolonged by the members of the family of the offender if they took the
decision to take further revenge.

10 ZSL § 2:“In all dispute(s) and [cases of] accusation and denunciation the prince and the judges shall not
hear [the case] without many witnesses”, in: Dewey – Kleimola, Zakon Sudnyj Ljudem, 5.
11 ZSL § 19: “If anyone has a dispute with another and does not notify the authorities but proceeds on his
own, employing compulsion either by authority or by physical strength , if he does this to take what is in truth
his own, let him be deprived of his object and let him give it up; and if he takes something of another’s , let
him be flogged by the authorities of that land, since he is not authorized to act as his own avenger and being
such”, in: Ibidem, 17.

417
 Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs (THESSALONIKI 2015): pp. 414-424

Customary law was never codified and there is no direct written evidence of it: suppositions
can be made on the basis of indirect witnesses preserved in the ZSL. If chapter 19 forbids
self-justice or the extra-judicial resolution of the dispute, we can suppose that self-justice
was permitted before: the modalities should be compared with those of German populations
whose past is better known to us and could be very useful to try to understand the Slav system
better.
The ZSL was redacted in the second half of the 9th century, just after the Christianization, so
the influence of customary law has to be considered still relevant in the society. Furthermore,
Byzantine law and juridical concepts have to be considered an element extraneous to the
Slav culture and in that sense the adaptation and vulgarization of the juridical contents were
necessary in making its transplantation more fluid and more effective.
When the central authority acquired the monopoly on criminal repression and the judicial
courts obtained the exclusive competence to take decisions in the resolution of litigations and
lawsuits and impose penalties, the feud system and revenge became contra legem. The crown
had the duty to protect the social peace of the members of the community, but there was also
a political aspect that must be considered, namely that it made itself the only warrantor of
justice. Justice was administrated in the name of the Knjaz and imposed on everyone on the
basis of his authority.
The Knjaz was a Christian ruler and in consequence of that the text of the ZSL referred to
“the justice and to the law of God”, and to “the justice and to the law of the Church” (§§
1-4, 6-7, 10, 30)12, underlining the fact that the law had to be based on them, in order to
be considered the true justice, to give it a stronger legitimateness and to make the ZSL an
Orthodox legislation.
With the adoption of Christianity as state religion, and the introduction of a juridical system
based on Byzantine law, the monarchical power was incredibly strengthened: the successor
of Boris, Simeon completed the process13, proclaiming himself Basileus of the Romans and
starting a controversy with the Emperor of Constantinople. Eventually, the process which
started with Boris reached its apogee with Simeon and his son Peter, who was recognised as
Basileus ton Boulgaron14 and with the creation of the Bulgarian Patriarchate (927)15.

12 Few examples: ZSL, § 1: “ Po cr»kvьnomu же zakonu ” (“according to the law of the Church”); ZSL,
§ 2: “Bi»i zakonъ” (“the law of God”); ZSL, § 4: “ Po Bi»ю zakonu ” (“according to the law of God”).
13 Simeon received the crown from his father, after the deposition of his brother Vladimir, who had tried to
reintroduce paganism.
14 The Basileus recognised for the Slav monarch the title of “Emperor of the Bulgars” and not the one of
“Emperor of the Romans”.
15 Ostrogorski, Storia dell’impero bizantino, 227 and ff.

418
 Dr. Paolo Angelini: the Reception of Byzantine Law Among the Slav Populations: A Comparative Perspective

Case 2 – Serbia

A very similar process concerning the introduction of Byzantine law took place in Serbia,
after Dušan expanded his reign and proclaimed himself Emperor in 134616.
In 1349 a tripartite codification composed of the Abridged Syntagma, the Law of the
Emperor Justinian, and the Code of Dušan 1349-1354, was adopted as law in force. In order
to legitimate his political project of replacing the decadent Byzantine Empire, which was
collapsing because of the civil wars, Stefan Du an enacted a tripartite codification based on
Greek-Roman law17.
The code which holds the name of the Tsar was promulgated after the abridgment and the
translation into the Serbian language of the Syntagma of Blastares18, and was connected to
the juridical contents of this Nomokanon. Byzantine civil law’s institutes were introduced
in conformity with the contents and the dispositions of the Abridged Syntagma, as the
total absence of dispositions concerning civil law in the Code of Dušan demonstrates. The
Syntagma of Blastares, in its abridged version, was composed of 90 chapters: each one of
them contained one or more dispositions and in consequence there of hundreds of dispositions
extracted from Byzantine law were adopted as Civil Law19.
In addition, a short reference must be made to the Law of the Emperor Justinian, the shortest
part of the codification (only 33 short chapters), which contained dispositions of the Nomo
Georgikos, translated into the Serbian language. This juridical compilation was adopted to
regulate the basic aspects of the agricultural relationships, but in the meantime it contained
the name of Justinian the Great, which was included in the Serbian legislation20. This has to
be considered also from a political perspective, associating the legislation of Dušan with the
name of the legislator who had enacted the Corpus iuris civilis.

16 Dušan adopted the imperial title of “Basileus and Autocrator” both in the Serbian and in the Greek
formulas, as his empire was composed of Serbian speaking and Greek speaking populations. In the Greek
language he used the territorial formula “ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ πιστὸς βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Σερβίας
καὶ Ῥωμανίας”, whereas in the Serbian language he adopted the ethnic formula “ Stefanь vь Hrista Boga
blagovђrni carь i samodrьжьcь Srьblímь i Grьkњmь”.
17 A. Solovjev, Istorija slovenskih prava / Zakonodavstvo Stefana Dušana cara Srba i Grka, Beograd 1998,
401-415.
18 The Slav editions of the Syntagma of Blastares: N. Il’inskij (ed.), Sintagma Matfeja Vlastarja, Mosca
1891; S. Novaković (ed.), Matije Vlastara Sintagmat, Belgrado 1907.
19 V. Alexandrov, The Syntagma of Matthew Blastares: The Destiny of a Byzantine Legal Code among the
Orthodox Slavs and Romanians, Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, v. 29, Frankfurt am Main
2012.
20 P. Angelini, «Das „Gesetz des Kaisers Justinian“ - Ein Beispiel für die Rezeption griechisch-römischen
Rechts bei den slawischen Völkern», Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 130, 2013, 488-
489.

419
 Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs (THESSALONIKI 2015): pp. 414-424

The Code of Dušan was promulgated after the redaction of the two other parts of the
codification and in consequence that its juridical contents must be considered in close
connection with them.
At the beginning the Code of Dušan enunciated that the goal of the tripartite codification was
to purify Christianity21, to make the legislation an Orthodox one, as the Byzantine legislation
was usually considered22:
Code of Dušan § 1
“ Naiprьvo za hrїstїanstvэ : simьzi Σbrazomь da sе њxisti hrїstїanьstvo”23.
In the first part the (§§ 1-38) code regulated the relationships between state and church and
their spheres of action, on the basis of the idea of symphony between the civil and spiritual
power.
Successively, the Code of Dušan (§ 40) appealed to the acts of the Orthodox Emperors,
confirming the privileges contained in their chrysobulls and prostagmata. The aim of the Slav
Emperor was to provide continuity between his legislation and the legislation of the previous
Byzantine Basileis:
Code of Dušan § 40
“I vůsi hrїsobuli i prostagme щo 9stů komu uчinilo carůstvo mi i щo
k9 komu uчiniti i tezi baщine d su tvrůde kakono i průvnůіh pravov7rnůіh
carůů”24.
Through the adoption of the Abridged Syntagma, a juridical system based on the Byzantine
one was adopted in the new-born empire.
Criminal law was contained in the Code of Dušan, and its introduction can be considered the
moment of transition to the public penalty system, which replaced the feud system, on which
Serbian customary law was still based in the 14th century. Some elements of the unwritten
law were preserved in the Code of Dušan, for example the payment of a pecuniary fine for
involuntary homicide which was based on the pecuniary fine called vraжда (vražda).
The duel, which has to be considered as deriving from the feud, was preserved for soldiers
in the army (§ 131). The ordeals of the iudicium ferris candentis (žel7zo § 150) and the
iudicium aquae ferventis (kotůlů §§ 84, 106) derived from customary law and were imposed

21 The goal of purifying Christianity is closely connected to the concepts of Christian legislation and
Anakatharsis, proclamed in the Basilika.
22 For the English translation of the code see: M. Burr, «The code of Stefan Dušan Tsar and Autocrator of the
Serbs and Greek», The Slavonic and East European Rewiew, 70, 28, 1949, 198-217; 71, 28, 1950, 516-539.
23 “First concerning Christianity. In this manner shall Christianity be purged”. Burr, «The code of Stefan
Dušan», 70, 28, 1949, 198.
24 And those charters and decrees which my majesty hath granted and shall grant and those inheritances, are
confirmed, as also those of the first Orthodox Tsars”. Ibidem, 206.

420
 Dr. Paolo Angelini: the Reception of Byzantine Law Among the Slav Populations: A Comparative Perspective

for the people who didn’t belong to the nobility25.

It must be remarked that, on the basis of Byzantine law, personal liability was generally
introduced - even if in some cases forms of collective liability were preserved - together
with physical mutilations and the death penalty, which were unknown to the Slav customary
law, which was based on collective liability, meaning on territorial and familiar liabilities.
The introduction of the personal liability which was one of the fundaments of Byzantine
law and must be considered a strong element of detachment from customary law, made the
introduction of the supreme penalty and of physical punishments possible. The adoption
of the hand cutting, of the nose cutting and of the beating have to be considered as having
derived from the Greek-Roman influence and their imposition became possible only with the
adoption of the personal liability26.
In criminal law sexual crimes as rape, fornication, adultery were also introduced: they were
also related to the Christian morality and didn’t just have a personal, private and secular
dimension, as they were considered as a crime against religion and a hard repression was
consequently imposed also in the Serbian empire in order to defend the purity of Orthodox
religion27.
If in the ZSL the death penalty provided by the dispositions extracted from the Ekloge was
replaced with softer penalties, it was broadly adopted in the codification of Dušan even when
it was unfamiliar to the majority of the population which belonged to the Serbian ethnicity
and lived in the “Serbian land”, as the northern part of the Serbo-Greek Empire was generally
called28.
The process of reception of Byzantine law was stronger in Serbia, as compared with Bulgaria:
in either case its introduction was certainly facilitated by the Zakonopravilo29 redacted by
Saint Sava in the previous century and used for the administration of ecclesiastical justice
and possessions. It contained the Serbian translation of the Prochiron, the so-called Gradski
zakon (§ 55)30, the use of which for the administration of ecclesiastical possessions made
Serbian clergymen familiar with Greek-Roman law. In consequence thereof, the Serbian
judicial system introduced in 1349 was based on mixed courts, composed of laymen end

25 Solovjev, Zakonik cara Stefana Dušana, 244-246, 296-297.

26 P. Angelini, «L’influenza del diritto criminale bizantino nel Codice di Dušan 1349-1354», Byzantina Sym-
meikta, 21, 2011, 225-227.
27 Ibidem, 233-236.
28 Solovjev, Istorija slovenskih prava, 211-212.
29 The word Zakonopravilo is composed by the words zakon (law) and pravilo (canon) and derives from the
Greek word nomokanon composed by νόμος and κανών.
30 The translation of Gradski zakon is Civil law: the name was given to the Serbian translation of the
Prochiron included in the Zakonopravilo (§ 55) because the Macedonian juridical compilation disciplined
the aspects of civil law.

421
 Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs (THESSALONIKI 2015): pp. 414-424

clergymen, because the members of the church had a large experience in the administration
of justice.
The promulgation of the tripartite codification completed the process of construction of the
Nemanja monarchy which had started in 1220 with the coronation of Stephan. In the 13th
century the crown started a process of centralization that reached its apogee in the following
century during the reign of Stephan Dušan, when the Serbian patriarchate was created
(1346).

Case 3 – Russia

Byzantine culture had a great impact on Russian society and Greek-Roman law was also
received and adopted. Byzantine law didn’t come into force through the promulgation of an
official codification, as happened in Serbia and Bulgaria, but it must be remarked that the
most important compilations like the Nomos Georgikos, the Ekloge and the Prochiron, were
included in the juridical collections utilized in the ecclesiastical courts and that they also
integrated the official legislation of the Tsar.
This process of reception has been thoroughly researched by the Russian scientist Ferdinand
Feldbrugge31.
Around the end of the 10th century, Russia received Christianity from Byzantium and
Greek bishops and clerics came to the Rus’ for evangelization. As “church people” they
were subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction; the rest of the population was subject to it in some
important juridical matters like marriage and family, and inheritance, but also in criminal
matters, like crimes against faith and religion. The Nomokanones were therefore utilized for
secular cases as well, and not only for ecclesiastical ones.
In the Eastern churches, collections of laws had been redacted at a very early time, and these
collections were translated and used in newly baptized countries32.
A copy of the Serbian redaction of the Kormchaia was sent to Kiev from Bulgaria and in
consequence of that a considerable number of copies of it have survived in Russia. Only the
council of Kiev (1273), approved the redaction of a new Russian Kormchaia33. Together
with the numerous Kormchie, the Merilo Pravednoe and the Knigi Zakonnye must be
mentioned34.
The Merilo Pravednoe consisted of 30 texts and most of them were of Byzantine origin,

31 See: F. Feldbrugge, Law in Medieval Russia, Leiden – Boston 2009.

32 Ibidem, 91.
33 Ibidem, 91-92.
34 Ibidem, 92 and ff.

422
 Dr. Paolo Angelini: the Reception of Byzantine Law Among the Slav Populations: A Comparative Perspective

including the texts of the Prochiron and the Ekloge, translated into the Russian language. The
Farmer’s Law (Nomos Georgikos) was included in the Knigi Zakonnye, as well as the texts
about Penal Law extracted from the Ekloge (17th title) and the Prochiron (39th title) and other
excerpts about Civil Law35.
In addition, the short version of the Bulgarian Zakon sudnyj ljudem was received in Russia
through the Nomokanones and the Merilo Pravednoe36. According to the theory of N.
Tikhomirov, the Slavonic translations of the Ekloge and Prochiron could have reached Russia
in the course of the 12th century, because the composition of the earliest version of the Merilo
Pravednoe has been dated back to this century37. In consequence thereof, an antedating of
the reception of the two legal compilations – and of Byzantine law in general - cannot be
excluded. The process of reception of Greek-Roman law started between the 12th and the 13th
centuries and continued until the end of the 17th century.
A couple of very interesting law cases, about the utilization of Byzantine law in the
ecclesiastic courts, have been given by Romuald Hubé, who showed how Byzantine law was
also used for civil matters.
- Law case A
In 1656 the tribunal of Novgorod decided that a widow had to pay the debts of her
predeceased husband, by means of the entire estate that she inherited. The widow lodged an
appeal against this decision and the Patriarch Nicon ruled that, according to the contents of
the Ekloge, the dowry had to be excluded from the payment of the debt, as well as ¼ of the
estate of the predeceased husband38.
- Law case B
In 1694 the Patriarch Adrian ordered the bishop of Kolmogora to consider the Gradski
zakon (the Slav version of the Prochiron and the Ekloge) in order to determine the rights of
the widows, and made references to the Nomokanon which included the dispositions of the
two Byzantine compilations39.
Not only the ecclesiastical legislation but also the secular one was influenced by Byzantine
law: several dispositions of the Sobornoye Ulozheniye, a legal code established under the
Tsar Aleksey Michailovich (1649), were extracted from the Gradski zakon which was quoted
especially for the criminal repression40. In the following years the Prochiron was also quoted

35 Ibidem, 93.
36 The fact that the oldest manuscript of the ZSL is the Novgorodski manuscript (1280 ca.) has been already
mentioned.
37 Feldbrugge, Law in Mediaval Russia, 92.
38 E. 2.4.
39 Hubé, Droit romain et gréco-byzantin, 34.
40 Proch. 39. 10, 39, 48, 53. Ibidem, 32-33

423
 Cyril and Methodius: Byzantium and the World of the Slavs (THESSALONIKI 2015): pp. 414-424

in the edicts issued by the crown in order to remedy the legislative deficiencies of the legal
code redacted in 164941.
In this last case, Greek-Roman law was utilized with an integrative and subsidiary function,
as happened in Western Europe for Roman law during the age of ius commune.
Penal law was reformed under the reign of Peter I the Great (between the end of the 17th
century and the beginning of the 18th century), who introduced a new system based on
German criminal law. It replaced the existing legislation42, but until the end of the 17th century
Byzantine law was utilized in the Russian empire.

Conclusions
Slav populations received Greek-Roman law after Christianization: in Bulgaria (9th century)
and Serbia (14th century) it came into force when it was promulgated in order to replace
customary law and strengthen the political power, which utilized religion and law to give
itself political legitimacy.
In the Russian territories it was adopted to regulate the juridical relationships by means of
the Nomokanones redacted by the Orthodox church, which included the text of the Ekloge
and the Prochiron. They were utilized for the administration of civil justice and consequently,
many cases pertaining to civil law came under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts.
Byzantine Penal Law was also adopted to integrate the legislation of the Tsars until the end
of the 17th century.
The importance of the reception of Byzantine law among the Slavs has probably been
underestimated and its influence in Slav societies has to be considered as a relevant element
and not only from the juridical point of view. The impact of the application of the Greek-
Roman legislation had very important consequences for the social dynamics and contributed
to the development of the tribal monarchies into monarchies based on a strong central political
power, which later turned into Slav-Byzantine empires.

41 Ibidem, 33.
42 Hubé, Droit romain et gréco-byzantin, 31; Feldbrugge, Law in Medieval Russia, 125.

424