14,000 cavalry. The Ottoman forces, led by Grand Vizier Baltadji Mehmed Pasha, numbered about 120,000 infantry and 80,000 cavalry. Peter was counting
The Pskov Judicial Charter consists of 120 articles. The preamble states that the Charter was copied from charters of Grand Prince Alexander and Prince Constantine. Most scholars believe the Charter dates back to Alexander Mikhailovich of Tver’ (prince of Pskov between 1327 and 1337). Later additions were made by Alexander of Rostov (governed sporadically between 1410 and 1434) and Constantine Dmitrievich (served three times as
1243
prince between 1407 and 1414) with further redactions made in 1462 and 1474-1475. The Charter notes that the provisions were blessed by the priests of the five cathedrals in a meeting of the assembly (veche) in 1397, but the fifth cathedral was not founded until 1462. In 1397 Novgorod and Pskov concluded an “eternal peace,” and it is possible that a redaction was made to formalize Pskov’s independence, which existed de facto since 1348. Article 108 stipulates that only the veche may make changes in the Charter.
Princes played important roles in judicial proceedings, particularly for theft, and received judicial fines for such crimes as murder. The prince, mayor (posadnik), and Novgorodian archbishop all had independent courts. The prince and the mayor had to hold joint courts in the prince’s quarters and not in the veche. The Charter consistently admonishes the courts to kiss the cross, judge justly, protect the innocent, and condemn the guilty. Mayors, before leaving office, must conclude all litigation on their docket.
The Charter provides for the death penalty for robbery within the central fortress, stealing horses, treason, or arson. Execution is also mandated for the third offense of theft within the posad, the area outside the fortress. The Council of Lords (gospoda), the highest administrative and judicial body, decided conflicts over land and forests, and could direct litigants to settle their dispute by duel (trial by combat). Duels were utilized for a wide variety of cases and could end in the death of one of the parties. The old and the weak, the clergy, and women could hire substitutes to fight a man, but duels were permitted between women. Duels were also common in later Muscovite law, despite the opposition of the Church to such practice.
Written and physical evidence and eyewitness testimony were important, as was the kissing of the cross and the giving of oaths, which carried great weight in judicial proceedings. In property disputes, four or five witnesses might be called to testify, but absent such corroborating witnesses, the taking of an oath was sufficient to exonerate a defendant.
The Charter offered certain protections to craftsmen, the poor, and women. A master craftsman had the right to sue for unpaid wages. Even indentured laborers (singular, zakupen) and herdsmen could sue for their property or grain before the Council of Lords. A widow whose husband died without leaving a last will had the usufruct of the property, unless she remarried. Women could inherit property and leave behind their own wills. The Charter enjoined children to feed their parents, or forfeit their rights to an inheritance.
The Charter gives particular attention to tenant farmers (izorniki), who could contest the claims of their lords over loans. Lords were required to produce as many as four or five witnesses to support their claims. Tenant farmers, gardeners, and fishermen could not leave their villages except on St. Philip’s Fast (November 14), a provision that anticipated the limitations imposed on peasant movement in the Muscovite Law Code (sudebnik) of 1497. Conflicts over tenant farmers who left their villages legally, or lords who terminated their contracts with a farmer, were resolved by each receiving one-half of the harvest. Lords could recover their loans by seizing the property of tenant farmers who fled illegally. The Charter also provided for inheritance rights of tenant farmers, while it protected a lord’s right to recover his loans.
The Charter outlines the duties of bailiffs and their fee schedules. Court procedure required only the two litigants to appear in court to speak for themselves. Women and children, along with monks, nuns, the elderly, and the deaf could have spokesmen. Mayors in particular were forbidden from supporting claimants in court.
The Charter also carefully delineates procedures concerning suits over loans, collateral guarantees, and interest payments, all of which reflect the commercial character of the city. It allowed master craftsmen to sue their apprentices over the cost of their training. Creditors and debtors retained their rights to sue one another over their agreements. Many of these cases would appear before the Council of Lords. There are also provisions regulating brawls that broke out at feasts. Each fraternity (bratchina), an association perhaps of craftsmen, had jurisdiction over its own members. See also: NOVGOROD JUDICIAL CHARTER; NOVGOROD THE GREAT; POSADNIK
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kaiser, Daniel, tr. and ed. (1992). The Laws of Russia, Series 1, Vol. 1: The Laws of Rus’, Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries. Salt Lake City, UT: Charles Schlacks, Jr. Vernadsky, George. (1969). Medieval Russian Laws. New York: Norton.
1244
Public opinion research had a long and checkered career in Soviet times, alternately encouraged then frowned upon from the 1950s through the 1980s. After the fall of the Communist Party and dissolution of the Soviet Union, attitudinal research began to play a much more important role in public life in Russia (as elsewhere in the former USSR). The Moscow-based All-Union Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM)-renamed the All-Russian Center under the same acronym-continued its existence, now as a quasi-state body. But the monopoly held mostly by VTsIOM and sociologists working at the Academy of Sciences (AN) had already been broken in the late 1980s with the establishment of new, private polling firms.
Among the first of these independent companies was Vox Populi (headed by Boris Grushin, formerly at VTsIOM); ROMIR (directed by Yelena Bashkirova, formerly a researcher at the AN’s Institute of Sociology [ISAN]); and CESSI (directed by Vladimir Andreyenkov, former chief of methodology at ISAN). The Center for Human Values-also staffed by former ISAN researchers-and Moscow State University also conduct public opinion research.
As public opinion studies became more important in the political and social life of the country, these companies had to evolve as well. Their practices changed to meet world standards. Sampling methodology, interviewing techniques, and data workup all rose in quality to satisfy the demands of both domestic and, increasingly, foreign clients. The number of primary and secondary sampling units, and sampling points, often tripled or quadrupled in order to provide greater variance. Interviewing through self-administered questionnaires-standard in Soviet times-gave way to face-to-face interviews in the homes or workplaces of respondents. Data entry and weighting improved substantially also.
Other offshoots of ISAN or VTsIOM, such as INDEM, headed by Georgy Satarov, and the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM), with Alexander Oslon in charge, played a second role. As Russian presidents Boris Yeltsin and especially Vladimir Putin increasingly took public opinion into account in deciding domestic policy, they turned to experts like Satarov, Grushin, and Oslon for counsel.
Public opinion research in Russia today takes many forms. Most common is the nationwide survey of adult Russians chosen by random sampling. A typical sample size is 1,500 to 2,000 adults, but some samples are larger. Other polls are of elites only, with much smaller samples drawn from political leaders (in the government or in parties) at the central and local level; state economic managers and private entrepreneurs; military officers; media figures; and members of the cultural and scientific intelligentsia. A third form of research involves (typically) 8 to 10 focus groups, in 3 to 5 cities; these small groups (usually of 8 to 12 people) of predetermined composition discuss in depth one or two important issues in an agenda set by the research firm and its client.
Many research firms disseminate their poll results widely-in newspapers or their own publications, through news agencies, and on television. Even more important, several have their own Web sites and put up current (and archived) poll results. Unfortunately, much information about sample sizes, dates of interviewing, and margins of sampling error are not usually given in popular citations of the research, severely limiting the usefulness of the findings. See also: DEMOCRATIZATION; ECONOMY, POST-SOVIET; GLASNOST
