Authors

Discussion

In my presentation, I explore the topic of Early Rus' canon law at different levels of formality: at the level of the most official canonical miscellanies and at the level of penitentials - which are most commonly anonymous texts of a very different - in terms of their quality - contents and structure. In historiography, penitentials are often defined as non-canonical texts, leading to their exclusion from canonical collections and their omission in the studies of Rus' canon law.

My argument challenges this perspective, asserting that for the 11-13th centuries Rus’, penitentials should not be labeled as non-canonical. On the contrary, they should be viewed as local substitutes for the official canonical miscellany known as the Kormchaia books, fulfilling similar functions.

By incorporating penitentials into the study of canon law, we gain insights into how canon law operated beyond the officially produced texts, shedding light on the interaction between the two levels of canon law.

In my presentation, I am raising questions about how these two levels intersected, how significant was the influence of the formal canon law on the informal one; how dependent were penitentials from the official canonical miscellanies; and what sources were available for the authors of penitentials.