The Historical School of Law: Reflection of Ideas in Russian Criminal Law (Part Three)

This article extends the study of the historical and comparative trend in Russian criminal law doctrine2, with two principal objectives: 1) to reintroduce the scholarly contributions of 19th century legal thinkers into scientific discourse, and 2) to elucidate the defining characteristics of the theoretical legacy left by several key figures in Russian diachronic comparative legal studies – including both scholars and judicial practitioners – alongside the historical-comparative methodologies they developed for analyzing legal sources. The study aims to trace the evolution of the historical-comparative approach within Russian criminal law theory, highlighting the significance of the 19th century compilations of legislative acts, legal customs and judicial practice, as fundamental elements of diachronic comparative legal research. The article provides concise biographical sketches and examines the criminal law perspectives of prominent comparative scholars like A.N. Popov, N.D. Ivanishev, N.I. Lange, Ya.I. Barshev, A.M. Bogdanovsky, V.A. Linovsky, E.S. Tobin and N.V. Kalachov. Their work is distinguished by its reliance on original Russian and foreign legal documents and legal sources. Our key findings include: 1) The 19th century saw the historical-comparative study of Russian criminal law develop along two trajectories: a) the systematic examination and classification by lineage and content; b) the compilation, publication and scholarly refinement of legal source material – i.e. statutes, customs, and judicial precedents – as a normative framework for diachronic comparison. 2) Alexander N. Popov pioneered the systematic classification of Russkaya Pravda (lit. Rus’ Truth) provisions based on their subject matter, demonstrating the connection between its penal norms and the pre-existing system of monetary sanctions. 3) Nikolai D. Ivanishev was the first in Russian criminal law scholarship to trace the roots of the Slavic tradition in diachronic comparative studies revealing the essence of Slavic legal thought; 4) Nikolai I. Lange’s works reflect the general conceptual provisions of the Savigny school with the historical-comparative jurisprudence of Russian criminal law. His analyses advance substantive debates on the origins and nature of the Russkaya Pravda, while also introducing the concept of a person subject to law, particularly the victim of offences against honor and dignity. 5) Yakov I. Barshev addressed criminal law issues only once at the ceremonial meeting of Moscow University, yet his speech included a cogent argument for employing the historical-comparative method in criminal legal scholarship. 6) Alexander M. Bogdanovsky conceptualized punishment as both physical suffering and moral deprivation, framing it as a necessary and rational consequence of crime – a form of retributive justice aimed at upholding legal and ethical order; 7) Vladimir A. Linovsky underscored the indigenous origins of the Sobornoye Ulozheniye (lit. Council Code of 1649), which became the cornerstone of the 17th century Russian legislation. 8) Ewald S. Tobin proposed an initiative periodization of criminal legislation, while Nikolai V. Kalachov developed a comprehensive methodology for a juridical sources analysis, establishing principles for textual and grammatical interpretation of criminal statutes.

Keywords: historical school of law; historical school of Russian criminal law; historicalcomparative approach; Alexander N. Popov; Nikolai D. Ivanishev; Nikolai I. Lange; Yakov I. Barshev; Alexander M. Bogdanovsky; Vladimir A. Linovsky; Ewald S. Tobin; Nikolai V. Kalachov; scholarly legacy; contemporary diachronic comparative studies