LEGAL REGULATIONS OF WINEMAKING IN ACNIENT ARMENIA

The foundations of Armenian legal thought date back to the formative period of the Armenian people. Law is a system of knowledge that emerged through the historical development of humanity and, through continuous interaction among societies, transcended political and state boundaries, serving the interests of various social groups, particularly the ruling elites.

In medieval Armenia, the ideological foundation of the Church was the Bible, and the moral principles enshrined in it formed the basis of the law. Medieval Armenian legal thought was reflected in the canons and decrees of ecumenical and pan-Armenian church councils incorporated into the Armenian canonical tradition from the fifth century onward, including the councils of Caesarea, Antioch, Ephesus, Shahapivan, Dvin, Partav, Shirakavan, Sis, and others. In the early seventh century, Hovhannes Odznetsi compiled the previously established canonical rulings into the first collection of Armenian legal documents, the Book of Canons (Girkʿ Kanonatsʿ). The first attempt to create a comprehensive ecclesiastical-civil legislative code based on Odznetsi’s painstaking work was made in Davit Gandzaketsi’s Canon Law, which has survived in several manuscript versions, only one of which has been published[1].

At the turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, in Northern Armenia, with the support of the Zakarian princely dynasty, the first secular Armenian civil law code, Mkhitar Gosh’s Lawcode (Datastanagirkʿ), was compiled. Equally significant is the Lawcode of Smbat Sparapet (the Constable), an eminent statesman, jurist, thinker, and military commander of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia.

It is noteworthy that wine and various phenomena associated with it were reflected in a number of medieval canonical and legal contexts, the main provisions of which naturally concerned regulations against the abuse of wine. One of the canons established by prominent patriarchs of the Church stated that if a bishop, priest, or deacon indulged in drunkenness, he was to be excommunicated from the Church. A clergyman who offered anything other than wine on the Holy Table during the liturgy was likewise subject to excommunication. Another canon declared that God’s curse would befall drunken women, anyone who entered the House of God—the church—while intoxicated, or anyone who placed wine mixed with water on the Holy Table.

In Mkhitar Gosh’s Lawcode, unlike the ecclesiastical canons, the characteristics of secular life are reflected more comprehensively, including provisions regulating the consumption of wine, disputes related to it, and their legal consequences. In the article devoted to the regulation of trade, particular attention is given to the fact that bread and wine most often serve as examples and benchmarks for the process of changing prices for various food products. Thus, it becomes even more evident that even concepts shaped by the canons of the New Testament became deeply embedded in secular legal provisions. According to this legal norm, the regulation of prices for bread and wine was to be carried out taking into account the level of the harvest in a given year, while the final decision regarding price changes remained with the king or prince. In particular, the Lawcode establishes a principle of exceptional severity toward crimes committed while under the influence of alcohol. In such cases, forgiveness or mitigation of liability was not provided, as intoxication was regarded not only as a factor contributing to the commission of a crime but also as reprehensible conduct in itself. This approach indicates that the legislator’s attitude toward the consumption of wine was dual in nature: on the one hand, wine was an important component of economic and everyday life; on the other hand, its abuse was regarded as a cause of violations of public order and moral norms. At the same time, the Lawcode devotes considerable attention to regulating legal relations associated with the production, storage, and trade of wine. Of particular interest is the provision concerning the purchase and sale of wine jars (karases), which reveals the practical aspects of the economic life of medieval Armenia. The Lawcode stipulates that the sale of a large clay vessel (karas) is considered legally complete and undisputed only if the vessel, once filled with wine, does not leak and shows no defects for a period of one year. Thus, the final validation of the transaction depended not only on the agreement of the parties but also on the verification of the quality and practical suitability of the goods being sold. If the vessel was damaged and the wine leaked due to poor-quality firing of the clay, the potter was obliged to take the vessel back and compensate at least half of the resulting damage. This provision demonstrates that wine in medieval Armenian society was not merely a consumer product but also a commodity of economic value, the storage and safe transportation of which required clear legal regulation. Such attention to the durability and reliability of wine vessels was due to the fact that the loss of wine could result in significant material damage. Thus, the legislator sought to protect the interests of both the buyer and the seller by establishing clear and measurable criteria for the legal validity of a transaction. From this perspective, the provisions concerning wine serve as important evidence not only of the legal culture but also of the economic life of the period, the development of winemaking, and the high level of organization of commercial relations. Interestingly, this provision is also found in the Lawcode of another prominent thirteenth-century jurist, Smbat Sparapet. Also worthy of attention is Mkhitar Gosh’s warning concerning a person entering a neighbor’s vineyard. According to this provision, an individual was permitted to eat as many grapes on the spot as necessary to satisfy hunger, but it was strictly forbidden to collect grapes in any container and remove them from the vineyard, regardless of whether the person was hungry or already satiated. This legal provision was aimed at achieving a balance between satisfying an individual’s natural needs and protecting property rights. On the one hand, it reflected a humane approach by allowing a passerby to use the produce of a garden to the extent necessary to meet immediate needs; on the other hand, it prevented potential abuses by safeguarding the economic interests of the gardener and vintner. Thus, this provision not only regulated relations between neighbors but also served as an important legal safeguard for the protection of agricultural production and private property.

[1] Abrahamyan, A. The Canons of Davit Alavkaordi. Etchmiadzin, 1952.