Cathedral code of 1649 code of laws. Establishment of serfdom (enslavement of peasants)

Introduction. The concept of historical source

Analysis of the historical reality of the 17th century

Reasons for the creation of the Council Code

Convocation of the Zemsky Sobor and preparation of the Council Code

Sources of the Cathedral Code

Structure of the Council Code

Brief analysis of the content of the Cathedral Code

Various branches of law in the Cathedral Code

a) Judicial law

b) Criminal law

c) Real, liability and inheritance law. d) Treaty in the 17th century. e) Law of obligations of the 17th century. f) The institution of easements. g) Inheritance law. h) Family law.

The value of the Council Code

Literature

1. Introduction. The concept of historical source

One of the most significant legal acts created in the long history of the Russian state is the Cathedral Code of 1649. a significant part of which are monuments of law.

It should be noted that a historical source is everything that reflects the development of human society and is the basis for its scientific knowledge, more precisely, everything created in the process of human activity and carrying information about the diverse aspects of social life.

A significant array of historical sources are various legislative acts, which are legal documents.

Law is the state will of the economically dominant class or the entire society expressed in the system of obligatory rules of conduct. The development of legal norms corresponds to the level of development of society and the state as a whole.

Legislative acts are legal documents emanating from the supreme state power, and have the highest legal force within a certain territory, state. All other acts are documents that fix in legal form transactions, agreements of an economic and political nature between individuals, individuals and the state, states, the state and the church. All acts are usually divided into 2 main groups:

public law, more precisely government origin;

private law, more precisely concluded between private individuals.

This division is conditional, since some public law and private law acts have common ground.

The main process characterizing the development of legislative acts in the 17th century is the codification of the norms of Russian law in the conditions of the emerging and developing Russian state. On the other hand, knowledge of the historical reality during which these acts were created helps to reveal the reasons for the creation acts, their relationship with specific historical events.

Analysis of the historical reality of the 17th century

Approximately from the 17th century, in the middle of which the Cathedral Code was created, as V.I. Lenin points out, a “new period of Russian history” began, characterized by a truly actual merger of individual regions, lands and principalities of the Russian Centralized State into a single whole. This merger was caused by the growing exchange between the regions, the growth of trade and the concentration of local markets into one all-Russian market. But still, despite the new conditions in the economy, the dominant form of management remains the subsistence corvée economy. As Lenin wrote in his work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”: “For a natural, closed economy, which was corvée land ownership, it is necessary that the direct producer be endowed with the means of production and land, that he be attached to the land, since otherwise the landowner labor is not guaranteed. The peasant was personally dependent on the landowner and worked for him. The corvée system of economy was based on an extremely low routine technique, since the management of the economy was in the hands of small peasants, crushed by need, humbled by personal dependence and mental ignorance.”

In the 1st half of the 17th century, a large

patrimonial landownership of boyars, monasteries and, in particular, local authorities

nobility. This growth was not so much due to awards

king, how much due to the seizure of large volost lands by landowners. In the middle reaches of the Volga, large palace, boyar and monastic estates arose with a developed fishing economy. In the middle of the 17th century, the votchinniks and landlords of the central part of Russia sought to expand the plowing in their possessions by cutting back on plots of allotment peasant land. This entailed even greater exploitation of the peasants. In addition, in the first half of the 17th century, the nobility received the right to allow their sons to own the estate, provided that they were able to carry out public service, or rather, gradually the landowners' lands began to turn into hereditary ones. At the same time, “small-local”, “unplaced” and “empty” service people arose, who also sought to acquire land holdings in the form of an award for serving the tsar, but more by seizing the lands of “black volosts”, serfs and townspeople draft people.

This process of simultaneous growth of small and large landownership was accompanied by a struggle for the right to inherit landownership, on the one hand, and for the enslavement of the peasants, on the other hand, since the serfs were the main productive force of the large-scale local economy. The landlords did not have a sufficient number of serfs, and the votchinniks often lured away and sheltered the runaway peasants, in connection with which the intra-feudal struggle between the landlords and the patrimonials over the serfs intensified. Many landowners, “sovereign service people”, monasteries, taking advantage of the fact that they were exempt from tax, bought up yards and crafts in the cities and, competing with city people, further burdened the life of the township taxable population. The development of commodity-money relations affected the connection of estates and landowners with the city and vice versa. This process can be traced, for example, by analyzing the economic activities of the royal, boyar, monastery estates of the mid-17th century. This analysis indicates that, in addition to agriculture, the estates were also engaged in crafts (for example, the monastery of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra had salt pans in Pomorie, forestry developed in the estates of the boyars Morozov, Cherkassky and others). At the same time, there is a gradual separation of handicrafts from agriculture both in large land holdings and in peasant farms.

In the middle of the 17th century, entire villages were already engaged in a certain type of craft (the Nizhny Novgorod Territory, the village of Pavlovo, the center of the iron industry, the village of Murashkino, Arzamas land, made sheepskin coats, and so on). In such large cities as Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl and others, certain types of crafts grow in the suburbs, especially blacksmithing, cannon, copper, weapons and silver. Industry is moving to the manufacturing stage, with a division of labor, using to some extent mechanization of production under the dominance of manual labor, but labor is still serfdom. Manufactory mainly served the needs of the state; goods were released to the market only when they satisfied the orders of the treasury or the royal court.

The improvement of handicrafts and manufactory led to the further development of the internal market, but trade was not yet completely separated from handicraft. Craftsmen were at the same time sellers of their goods.

There were about 50% of such merchants in Moskovsky Posad. The largest ku-

bakery-guests-had 10-15 shops, and the peasant could only trade

on wagons (so that there is no competition with the townspeople taxable people). Once-

trade also developed between industrial and agricultural areas

tyami (single all-Russian market). From the urban townspeople

a large merchant class stood out - guests, merchants of the living room and cloth hundreds,

having trading yards, shops not only in Moscow, but also in Arkhangelsk,

Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan and other cities (they were exempted from

city ​​tax). The whole burden of paying city taxes fell

on the working townspeople of the “black” settlements, while they were

garden lands were seized by nobles and “various service people” of the king

sky orders. “White” settlements arose, which were free from payments (direct state tax, archery tax, pit money) in favor of the “sovereign”. Freed from this tax, the inhabitants of these settlements built trading yards and shops, served by their own serfs, and thereby undermined the economic situation of the draft people of the settlement. Therefore, the townspeople repeatedly raised the issue of returning to the settlement the departed people and the city property pledged by the "Belolists".

In addition, the tsarist government, not satisfied with the tax, raised indirect taxes on essentials, such as salt. The economic and financial policy of the government was not satisfied with the petty military "people", gunners, collars, etc., who received a small monetary and bread salary for their service. Since the main source of their livelihood is crafts, they were always ready to support the protests of the townspeople against fiscal policy and the administrative arbitrariness of local city authorities. In connection with the lack of land ownership and the "scarcity of the sovereign's salary," the "small service people" expressed their dissatisfaction.

Reasons for the creation of the Council Code

In connection with the above, we can say that the appearance of the Cathedral Code was a direct result of the popular uprisings of the first half of the 17th century, which were based on the movements of serfs, and the need to draw up a single all-Russian law.

At the beginning of the century, the foundations of the serf state were shaken by the peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov. In the future, anti-feudal movements did not stop. The peasants opposed the ever-increasing exploitation, the increase in service, and the deepening of their lack of rights. Their struggle, as already mentioned, was joined by “lesser” townspeople, supported by ordinary archers and other lower ranks of “serving” people, as well as the lower classes of church and monastery organizations. Slaves were also active participants in the popular, especially urban, movements of the 17th century. In the middle of the 17th century, the struggle reached a particular urgency. Already the census of 1646, according to which the christening became “strong and without fixed years” (the law determined the punishment for sheltering fugitive peasants), and the introduction of taxes on salt in February 1646 caused a violent protest. The government, which was looking for ways out of the financial impasse, but did not want to infringe on the interests of the ruling class, tried to cut the salaries of the “small service people”. As a result, “the mob stirred up against the boyars” and a major uprising took place in the summer of 1648 in Moscow (the uprising also occurred because of the hatred of the people for the “temporaries”. The rebels demanded the extradition of Pleshcheev, who was in charge of the Zemsky order and other officials. The uprising had strong action: they began to appease the capital's army and the mob, the archers were given water by order of the tsar, the tsar himself during the procession spoke to the people, which sounded like an apology, did not skimp on promises. supported by the peasants, the uprisings were anti-feudal in nature. Among the most popular slogans was a protest against the arbitrariness and extortion of the administration, since the abuse of Moscow orders and "insults" on the part of the "big people" fell on the shoulders of the peasants, the lower classes of the townspeople and ordinary archers.These slogans reflected the antagonism between the settlement as a whole and the highest bureaucratic bureaucracy, rodrvy boyars and the largest landownership. This later affected some features of the Code. But in general, the Code received a pronounced noble character. It is important to note that criticism of the current legislation was also heard from the ranks of the ruling class itself. This is explained by the struggle that went on between its various layers: between small and large landowners, between the serving nobility and the tribal land nobility, between secular and spiritual feudal lords. It was a struggle for land, for working hands, for political influence, and so on. Thus, the “service people” demanded that they be returned to the treasury and that certain categories of church property be distributed to them. Together with the representatives of the settlement, the nobles in a petition dated 10/30/48 demanded the destruction of private boyar and church settlements and arable land around Moscow. The nobles also complained about the arbitrariness that reigned in the orders, the confusion in the legislation, which indirectly affected their interests. This found its manifestation, for example, in the Petitions of 1637 and 1641, in which the nobles complained about the “insults” and “violence” inflicted on them in orders and insisted that the tsar “ordered them to be judged according to the law in all cases” , and in the petition of the Kadom and Kasimov Murzas of 1642 to the violence of “big people”.

Thus, the creation of the Council Code from a socio-historical point of view was the result of an acute and complex class struggle and the direct result of the 1648 uprising.

Convocation of the Zemsky Sobor and preparation of the Council Code

All this forced the tsar to announce that he had “postponed” the collection of arrears and was convening a Zemsky Sobor to prepare a new Code. In addition, by the beginning of the reign of Mikhailov's successor, a rather extensive stock of new laws had accumulated and a need was felt to sort it out. According to the established order of Moscow legislation, new laws were issued mainly at the request of one or another Moscow order, caused by the judicial and administrative practice of each, and turned to the leadership and execution of the order of the department of which they concerned.

The need for a new code of laws, reinforced by abuses of orders, can be considered the main motivation that caused the new code and even partly determined its character.

From the surviving “memory” of the convening of the Council, it can be seen that as early as June 10, the tops of the Moscow population (“Moscow nobles, archers and children of the boyar townsmen and foreigners, guests and living rooms of cloth merchants from various settlements”), frightened by the uprising, asked that “sovereign he complained to them, ordered them to hold a Council, and at the Council they will learn to beat with their foreheads about all their deeds. This initiative was aimed at appeasing the lower classes of the city and at the same time taking advantage of the government's plight to achieve their own estate goals. The government looked at the Council that was being convened as a means of appeasing the people. Later, Patriarch Nikon said that this Council was convened "for the sake of fear and civil strife from all black people, and not for the sake of true truth."

In the letters sent to the regions in the summer of 1648, it was announced that it was ordered to write the Laid Book by decree of the sovereign and the patriarch, by the verdict of the boyars and by the petition of the stewards and solicitors and all sorts of ranks of people. In July 1648, the tsar, after consulting with the Patriarch and All Rus' Joseph, with the metropolitan, with the archbishops and “with all the illuminated cathedral”, “sovereign boyars”, with “roundabouts” and “thought people”, decided that it was necessary to write out those articles that written in the “rules of the holy apostolic and holy fathers” and the laws of the Greek kings, as well as to collect and “correct” with the old court orders the decrees of the former ruling kings and “boyar sentences on all kinds of state and zemstvo affairs”. The same articles for which in the courts “the decree is not allowed and there were no boyar sentences for those articles, and those articles would have been written and presented according to the same sovereign decree by the general council, so that the Moscow state of all ranks would be people, from the big and lesser rank, the court and reprisals were equal in all matters to everyone. (From the preface to the conciliar code). The draft Code was entrusted to a special codification commission of 5 people, from the boyars, Prince. Odoevsky and Prozorovsky, Prince Volkonsky and two clerks, Leontiev and Griboyedov. The three main members of this commission were Duma people. This means that this “order of Prince Odoevsky and his comrades,” as it is called in the documents, can be considered a commission of the Duma, it was established on July 16. At the same time, they decided to convene a Zemsky Sobor for consideration of the adoption of the project by September 1. The commission selected articles from the sources indicated to it in the verdict and compiled new ones, both of which were written “in a report” and submitted to the sovereign with a thought for consideration. It should be noted that the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649 was the largest of all that were convened during the existence of a class-representative monarchy in Russia. The fact that the most important political issues were resolved at the Zemsky Sobors testifies to their great significance and authority. On the advice of the patriarch and the boyar “sentence”, the tsar instructed, for consideration and approval of the Council Code, to elect to the Zemsky Sobor from stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles and tenants, 2 people each, from all cities from nobles and boyar children, except Novgorod , 2 people each, and from the Novgorodians from the patch, 1 person each, from the guests, 3 people each, from the living room and the cloth hundreds, 2 people each, and from the “black” hundreds and settlements and cities from the suburbs, 1 person each. By September 1, 1648, elected “from all the ranks” of the state, servicemen and commercial and industrial townsmen were convened in Moscow; elected from rural or district inhabitants, as from a special curia, were not called. The Zemsky Sobor, both in its tasks and in composition, was feudal-serfdom. From October 3, the tsar with the clergy and duma people listened to the draft Code drawn up by the commission, which was discussed in 2 chambers: in the “Upper”, where the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the consecrated Cathedral, and in the response, where elected people of various ranks under the chairmanship prince Yu.A. Then the sovereign instructed the higher clergy, duma and elected people to fix the list of the Code with their own hands, after which it, with the signatures of the members of the Sobor, was printed in 1649 and sent to all Moscow orders and cities to the voivodeship offices in order to “all sorts of things de -Lat according to that Code.

The articles of the Council Code reflect the demands put forward in petitions filed before September 1 - on the abolition of school years, for example - and provisions (for example, on townspeople). Many articles are written with these requirements in mind.

Vladimirsky-Budanov, “Review of the history of Russian law”.

The speed with which the code was adopted is amazing. The entire discussion and adoption of the Code of almost 1000 articles took only a little more than six months. But it should be borne in mind that a huge task was entrusted to the commission: firstly, to collect, disassemble and process into a coherent set of laws in force, which are different in time, unagreed, scattered across departments, it was also necessary to normalize cases not provided for by these laws. In addition, it was necessary to know social needs and relations, to study the practice of judicial and administrative institutions. This work took many years. But they decided to draw up the Cathedral Code at an accelerated pace, according to a simplified program. The Code is divided into 25 chapters containing 967 articles. Already by October 1648, more precisely in 2.5 months, 12 first chapters were prepared for the report, almost half of the entire set. The remaining 13 chapters were compiled, heard and approved in the Duma by the end of January 1649, when the activities of the commission and the entire cathedral ended and the Code was completed in manuscript. The speed with which the Code was drawn up can be explained by the disturbing news of the riots that broke out after the June riot, in addition, there were rumors about the upcoming uprising in the capital, not to mention the need to create a new code. Therefore, they hurried with the preparation of the Code, so that the cathedral elected would spread the stories about the new course of the government and the Code, which promised everyone a “smooth”, fair reprisal, to the cities.

Sources of the Cathedral Code

Since the Council Code was drawn up hastily, the commission limited itself to the main sources indicated to it in the verdict on July 16. The original “column” of the Code has also been preserved, in the margins of which there are marks indicating where certain articles were borrowed from. These were the Pilot Book (part 2), which contained the codes and laws of the Greek kings (as for these laws, such a reference is caused only by the desire of the Moscow kings to give “authority to their legislative activity” (Yushkov S.V., “History State and Law of the USSR”, part 1), since the foundations of Byzantine law were known in Rus' since the time of the Old Russian state), Moscow judicial records and additional decrees and sentences to them, i.e. decree books of orders, decrees of “the former, great sovereigns, tsars, and great princes of Russia”, boyar sentences, extracts from the Lithuanian statute of 1588, “rules of the holy apostles and holy fathers”, i.e. Church resolutions of ecumenical and local councils.

Decree books are the most abundant source of the Code. Each order, as a body of state administration, had a special book in which all newly issued laws and regulations that fell within its competence were entered. Ready-made codes were written to the books with a detailed indication of the repealed and amended laws, as well as reports of orders that had not yet been submitted for consideration by the Boyar Duma, but included cases not provided for by law and therefore necessary for writing a new article. A number of chapters of the collection were compiled from these books with verbatim or modified excerpts: for example, 2 chapters on estates and estates were compiled according to the book of the Local Order, the chapter “On the Serf Court” - according to the book of the order of the Serf Court, the sources of chapter 18 are the decree -th records of the Printed Order, etc.

A peculiar use was made by the commission from the Lithuanian Statute of 1588. In the surviving original scroll of the Code, we find repeated references to this source. The compilers of the Code, using this code, followed it, especially when compiling the first chapters, in the arrangement of objects, even in the order of articles, in posing legal questions, but all processed in "their own Moscow way". Thus, the Statute served not only as a legal source of the Code, but as a codification manual for its compilers. It should be noted that Professor S.V. Yushkov pointed out that the Lithuanian Statute itself was based on the beginnings of Russian Pravda, was written in Russian, which proves “the belonging of Lithuanian law to the system of Russian law”.

Structure of the Council Code

The Cathedral Code of 1649 was a new stage in the development of legal technology. it became the first printed monument of law. Before him, the publication of laws was limited to their pronouncement in trading areas and temples, which was usually indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of a printed law to a large extent excluded the possibility of committing abuses by governors and clerks who were in charge of legal proceedings.

The Cathedral Code had no precedent in the history of Russian legislation. In terms of volume, it can only be compared with Stoglav *, but in terms of the richness of legal material it surpasses it many times over. Of the monuments of the law of other peoples of Russia, in terms of legal content, the Council Code can be compared with the Lithuanian Statute, but the Code also favorably differed from it. The Code had no equal in contemporary European practice.

The Cathedral Code is the 1st systematic law in the history of Russia.

In the literature, it is often therefore called a code, but this is not legally true. The Code contains material relating not to one, but to many branches of law of that time. It is rather not a code, but not a large set of laws. At the same time, the level of systematization in individual chapters devoted to individual branches of law is not yet so high that it can be called codification in the full sense of the word. Nevertheless, the systematization of legal norms in the Council Code should be recognized as very perfect for its time.

The original Cathedral Code is a column 309 meters long of 959 separate sections. This unique document allows us to judge the work on its compilation. On the front side of the column, the text of the Cathedral Code was written by several scribes. On the back - 315 signatures of the participants of the Council. According to the gluing of the front side of the bond of the Duma clerk I. Gavrenev. The braces of the Duma clerks F. Elizariev, M. Volosheninov, G. Leontiev and F. Griboyedov are also made on the reverse side by gluing together. Special marks on the column indicate the sources of a particular article. There are corrections in the manuscript, the places omitted during the correspondence have been restored. The “Inventory of amendments” is attached to the Code. At the same time, this column was not used in judicial practice. From the original column, a handwritten book-copy “word for word” was made, from which copies of the Cathedral Code were printed. It is not yet possible to set the number of printed books. One of the documents gives the figure - 1200 books. This is a colossal circulation for that time.

Unlike the previous legislative acts, the Council Code is distinguished not only by its large volume (25 chapters, divided into 967 articles), but also by its greater purposefulness and complex structure. A brief introduction contains a statement of the motives and history of the compilation of the Code. For the first time, the law was divided into thematic chapters devoted, if not to a certain branch of law, then in any case, having a specific object of regulation. The chapters are highlighted with special headings: for example, “On blasphemers and church rebels” (Chapter 1), “On the sovereign’s honor and how to protect the sovereign’s health” (Chapter 2), “On money masters who will learn how to make thieves' money” (Chapter 5), etc. Such a scheme for constructing chapters allowed their compilers to adhere to the usual sequence of presentation for that time from the initiation of a case to the execution of a court decision. This causes serious difficulties in the analysis of the Code both by industry and by object of law.

Even pre-revolutionary researchers noted that the Cathedral Code compares favorably with both the previous and subsequent legislation from a linguistic point of view. It no longer contains archaisms characteristic of Russian Pravda and even Code of Laws, and at the same time the Code is not yet littered with that mass of foreign words and terms that Peter the Great introduced into the laws.

The Cathedral Code summed up the long development of Russian law, relying on all previous legislation, especially on acts of the 18th century.

7. A brief analysis of the content of the Cathedral Code.

The first chapters (1 - 9) and the last 3 (23 - 25) cover relations related to the position of the church (chapter 1), the highest state authority (chapters 2-3) and the established order of government (chapters 4-9, 23- 25). The first chapter of the Code contains legal norms “on blasphemers and church rebels” - the most terrible crime, according to the legislators of the 17th century, since it is considered even earlier than an attempt on “sovereign honor” and “sovereign health” (chapter 2 ). For blasphemy against God and the Mother of God, an honest cross or saints, according to Article 1 of Chapter 1 of the Code, the guilty, regardless of his nationality, were to be burned at the stake. Death also threatened any “outlaw” who interfered with the serving of the liturgy. Severe punishments were also due for any outrages and riots carried out in the temple, from commercial execution to imprisonment. But with Chapter 1 with its 9 articles, legalizations on church issues are not exhausted, they are scattered throughout the entire text of the Code. And in further chapters there are decrees on the oath for people of spiritual and secular rank, on limiting the rights of non-believers, on marriage, on protecting church property, on honoring holidays, etc. All these measures were designed to protect the honor and dignity of the church. But the Code also contained clauses that caused strong dissatisfaction with the church hierarchy. According to chapter 13, a special Monastic order was approved, on which judgment was imposed in relation to the clergy and people dependent on it. The clergy were deprived of judicial privileges, and this was done at the petition of elected people. Church land ownership was also subjected to significant restrictions. The settlements and estates that belonged to the church authorities in the cities, in the settlements and near the settlements were taken “for the sovereign as a tax and for services without flight and irrevocably” (ch.19, article 1). Further, all clergy and institutions were categorically forbidden to acquire patrimonies in any way and to give patrimonies to lay people in monasteries (ch.17, st.42). From the point of view of the state, this contributed to further centralization and strengthening of autocratic power. But the provisions of the new code aroused the resistance of the clergy, since the Code deprived him, with the exception of the patriarch, of judicial privileges. All church and monastery lands were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Monastic order.

Patriarch Nikon, unhappy with the Code, called it nothing more than a “lawless book”, but the first head of the Monastic order, Prince N.I. Odoevsky, “the new Luther”. As a result of a tense struggle, the spiritual power overcame the secular one: in 1667 the Monastic Order was abolished.

For the first time in Russian legislation, the Code singles out a special chapter dedicated to the criminal law protection of the monarch's personality (ch. 2). At the same time, it is emphasized that even intent is punishable by death. Besides, structures of the state, political crimes are defined. The chapter rarely separates these crimes from other “dashing deeds”, being “the first codification in the history of Russian legislation, in which if not an exhaustive, then still a relatively complete system of state crimes is given.” The chapter establishes the composition of each crime, the subjective and objective sides of anti-state encroachments, the circumstances that eliminate punishability, and the procedural rules in these cases, fixing the dominant role of the search.

The next group of chapters is connected with the “court”, and these chapters are distinguished both by the subject of regulated relations (ch. 9 - the court for peasants, ch. 10 - the court for townspeople), and by object (ch. ch.16 - about local lands). Some authors believe that the first chapters relate to state law, 10-15 - to the process, 16-20 - to property law, 21-22 - to criminal law, 22-25 - an additional part: about archers, about Cossacks, about taverns, etc. (S.V. Yushkov, M.F. Vladimirs-Ky-Budanov). In its original form, the Code was provided with a list of articles, each with its own name. In subsequent years, the code was supplemented by “new decree articles”, the most important among them: “New decree articles on robbery and murderous cases” of 1669, “On estates” of 1676, “On estates and estates” of 1677, etc.

The articles of the Cathedral Code draw the legal status of various estates and social groups of society: important articles that draw the legal status of peasants (for example, art. 1,5,12,16,32 chapter 11, art. 13 chapter 2, art. Article 7 of Chapter 13, Article 9,15,37 of Chapter 19), etc. It can be seen from them that the Code finally consolidated the complete prohibition of the peasant exit - the “lesson summers” were canceled - the period for the search for fugitive peasants, after which the search stopped and in fact there was at least a small opportunity to exit the serfdom, albeit by flight. According to the Code, the search for fugitives became indefinite, and a fine of 10 rubles was imposed for harboring them. Thus, the peasants were finally attached to the land and the legal registration of serfdom was completed. The adoption of these norms was in the interests of the service people who actively participated in the third Council of 1648. But it is important to note that according to the Code, the peasants still had some class rights. Fugitive peasants were categorically ordered to be returned together with their property, thereby recognizing their property rights. The recognition of personal rights was the provision according to which the peasants who married on the run were subject to return to the owner only by their families. But in general, the peasants were almost completely deprived of rights both in private and in public life (Article 13 of Chapter 2, Article 6 of Chapter 9, Article 261 of Chapter 10), etc. It should be borne in mind that the Code, without interfering in many relations between the feudal lords and the peasants, leaves room for the arbitrariness of the patrimonials and landowners: the Code does not contain norms regulating the amount of peasant duties.

If the position of the patrimonial, and especially the landlord, peasants was much more difficult than the position of the state peasants, then at the very bottom of this ladder were serfs and bonded people (Art. 8,16,27,35,63,85 chapter 27). Kholops did not have personal and property rights, although in fact they more and more often turned into arable people and were included in the tax. If we compare the articles about peasants and about serfs, then it can be noted that the status of a serf has come close to the legal status of a serf. In the Code, much attention was also paid to some social issues. In the Time of Troubles, the class of service people and residents of the settlements was the force that ensured the final victory over external and internal enemies. Chapters 16 and 17 were devoted to streamlining land relations, which were confused during the years of the “Moscow ruin”. Someone then lost the fortresses on their possessions, someone received them from impostors. The new legislative code established that only service people and guests had the right to own estates. Thus, land ownership became a class privilege of the nobility and the top of the merchant class. In the interests of the nobility, the Code smoothed out the difference between conditional ownership - an estate (on condition and for the duration of service) and hereditary possession - a fiefdom. From now on, estates can be changed to fiefdoms and vice versa. The petitions of the townspeople were satisfied by the 19th chapter specially dedicated to them. According to it, the township population was isolated into a closed estate and attached to the township (in addition, fighting attempts to evade the township tax, the Code deprived people of the “black hundreds” - the right to move from city to city (Art. 19,22,37,38 chapter 19). All residents of the settlement had to pay certain taxes and perform duties in favor of the state. It was now impossible to leave the settlement, but it was possible to enter only if you entered a tax community. This provision satisfied the demand of the townspeople to protect them from the competition of different ranks of people who, coming from the service, spiritual, peasants, traded and were engaged in various crafts near the towns, at the same time not incurring tax. Now everyone who was engaged in trading and crafts turned into an eternal township tax. previously tax-free “white settlements” (whitened, i.e. freed from taxes and duties to the state), which belonged to secular feudal lords and the church, free of charge replyalsya to the sovereign's quarters. All those who had previously left from there were subject to return to the settlements. They were instructed to “take them to their old townships, where someone lived before this, without flight and irrevocably.” But this provision, fixed by law, was not fully implemented in practice, and throughout the 18th century, townspeople continued to petition for the elimination of “white places”, the expansion of urban territories, and the prohibition of peasants from trading and crafts.

The Code pays the main attention to the feudal lords. It secured the privileged position of representatives of the ruling class (Art. 1, Chapter 9, Art. 27,30,90, Chapter 10, Art. 1, Chapter 11), etc. From the text of the Code, it is clear which groups of the population should be classified as feudal landowners (Article 1 of Chapter 9, Article 1 of Chapter 11, Articles 41-45,66 of Chapter 16). A number of articles confirm the monopoly right of the feudal lord to own land with peasants (Article 46 of Chapter 16), establish their privileges (Articles 5,12,92,133,135 of Chapter 10, Articles 16,56 of Chapters 18,9 and “state service” (Article 7,19 Chapter 7, Article 69 Chapter 16, Article 2 Chapter 20). The main part of the feudal lords was called "service people", although they included far from all feudal lords, and not only feudal lords, but also archers, Cossacks, gunners, etc., who had neither peasants, nor estates, nor estates, and received for service money and grain salary and some benefits. The Code, as a code of feudal law, protects the right of private property, and above all, ownership of land. The main types of land ownership of feudal lords were estates (Art. 13,33,38,41,42,45 of Chapter 17) and estates (Art. 1-3,5-8,13,34,51 of Chapter 16). The Code takes a serious step towards equating the legal regime of estates with the regime of estates; this concerned wide circles of feudal lords, especially small ones. It is no coincidence that the chapter on estates comes earlier in the law than the chapter on estates.

The equating of estates with estates proceeded mainly along the lines of granting landowners the right to dispose of land. Until now, in essence, only votchinniks had the right to own land (but their rights were somewhat limited, which was preserved in the Code), but in principle, the votchinnik had a necessary element of property right - the right to dispose of property. The situation is different with the estate: in previous years, the landowner was deprived of the right to dispose, and sometimes even the right to own land (this was if the landowner left the service). The Cathedral Code made significant changes to this matter: first of all, it expanded the right of the landowner to own land - now the retired landowner retained the right to land, and although he was not left with his former estate, he was given the so-called -vaemoe subsistence estate - a kind of pension. The landowner's widow and his children up to a certain age received the same pension.

The right to dispose of the estate according to the Cathedral Code was manifested in the permission of the so-called surrender of the subsistence estate, in the possibility of exchanging the estate, including for the patrimony. As for estates, they could be sold to an almost unlimited circle of feudal lords, and articles devoted to the "sovereign's palace and black" lands revealed the position of the king as a major feudal lord.

There are many articles in the Code that protect other numerous objects of economic management of the feudal lords, as well as the trade and craft population. Chapter 10 contains articles on other issues of civil law. All the law of obligations in the Code is closely connected with the criminal law, for the failure to fulfill many contracts, criminal punishment was threatened.

Much attention is paid to criminal law (Ch. 1-5, 10, 21, 22, etc.) and the process. Compared to previous legislation, the Code provides for more cases of public criminal prosecution (Article 31 Chapter 21, Article 14 Chapter 22). In the punitive policy, the features of the right-privilege clearly appear (Art. 90.92 of Chapter 10, Art. 10 of Chapter 22). The general concept of a crime remains the same, but one can note the development of ideas about its composition. The system of crimes becomes more complicated. The totality of the norms about them, provided for by the Code, for the first time acquires the character of a system. The most dangerous crimes for feudal society are put in the first place: against the church, state crimes, against the order of government (the first chapters of the Code). Next come crimes against the person, property crimes, although a clear distinction according to the object of the crime in the systematization is not always maintained. One of the circumstances excluding criminal liability was recognized as actions resembling necessary defense and extreme necessity (Articles 105,200,201,283 of Chapter 10, Articles 88-89 of Chapter 21, Article 21 of Chapter 22). The system of punishments is also becoming more complex. The punishment is increased in the presence of qualifying circumstances (Article 90 of Chapter 21, Articles 1,2,16 of Chapter 25).

In procedural law, there is a growing tendency to expand the scope of the search, although the court is still in the first place in terms of the amount of jurisdiction. The significance of judicial documents is affirmed, rules of conduct in court are established, etc.

The Code marks the development of all branches of law of that time. Entire chapters are devoted to administrative and financial law. Civil rights are widely interpreted - property, contracts, inheritance. The articles of the Council Code do not give a complete picture of issues related to the state structure, form of government, organization of the state apparatus, etc., but there are articles that allow one to judge the mechanism of the state of the 17th century. In addition, the Code consolidates the process of strengthening royal power, which is characteristic of a class-representative monarchy and reflects a tendency to develop into an absolute monarchy. Articles relating to the Boyar Duma give some idea of ​​its role in the state of the 17th century (Art. 2, Chapter 10).

The Code also contains information about administrative positions (voivods, clerks, clerks, kissers, heads, collectors, etc.), about individual local institutions, about administrative-territorial units, about the military (ch. 12), judicial and punitive (ch.11,12,13), financial (ch.9) system, about church and monastic apparatus (ch.1,12,13).

The Cathedral Code satisfied the main class requirements of the nobility and partly of its allies - the top tenants, marked the first systematized code of laws covering almost all branches of law, and was the final stage in the process of establishing a unified Russian state.

8. Various branches of law in the Cathedral Code.

a) Judicial law.

Judicial law in the Code constituted a special set of norms that regulated the organization of the court and the process. Even more definitely than in the Sudebniks, there was a division into two forms of the process: “trial” and “search”. Chapter 10 of the Code describes in detail the various procedures of "court": the process was divided into court and "execution", i.e. sentencing. "Court" began with "introduction", filing a petition. Then the bailiff summoned the defendant to court. The defendant could provide guarantors. He was given the right not to appear in court twice for valid reasons (for example, illness), but after three failures to appear, he automatically lost the process. The winning side was given a corresponding certificate.

The evidence used and taken into account by the court in the adversarial process was diverse: witness testimony (practice required the involvement of at least 20 witnesses in the process), written evidence (the most trustworthy of them were officially certified documents), a cross kiss (allowed with -pax for an amount not exceeding 1 ruble), lot. The procedural measures aimed at obtaining evidence were a “general” and “general” search: in the first case, the population was surveyed about the fact of a crime, and in the second, about a specific person suspected of a crime. A special type of testimonies were: "reference to the guilty" and a general reference. The first consisted in referring the accused or the defendant to a witness, whose testimony must absolutely coincide with the testimony of the exile, in case of a discrepancy, the case was lost. There could be several such references, and in each case full confirmation was required. The common reference consisted in the appeal of both disputing parties to the same or several witnesses. Their testimony was decisive. The so-called “pravezh” became a kind of procedural action in court. The defendant (most often an insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to corporal punishment by the court, the number of which was equal to the amount of debts (for a debt of 100 rubles, they were flogged for a month). "Pravezh" was not just a punishment - it was a measure that prompted the defendant to fulfill the obligation: he could find guarantors or he himself could decide to pay the debt.

Judgment in the adversarial process was oral, but was recorded in the “court list”. Each stage was made out by the special diploma. Search or “search” was used in the most serious criminal cases. A special place and attention was given to crimes about which it was declared: “the word and deed of the sovereign”, i.e. in which the public interest is involved. The case in the search process could begin with the statement of the victim, with the discovery of the fact of the crime (red-handed) or with the usual slander, unconfirmed by the facts of the prosecution 9 "lingual rumor"). After that, government agencies stepped in. The victim filed a “appearance” (statement), and the bailiff with witnesses went to the scene of the crime for an inquiry. The procedural actions were “search”, i.e. interrogation of all suspects and witnesses. Chapter 21 of the Council Code for the first time regulates such a procedural procedure as torture. The basis for its application could be the results of the “search”, when the testimony was divided: part in favor of the accused, part against him. In the event that the results of the “search” were favorable to the suspect, he could be taken on bail. The use of torture was regulated: it could be used no more than three times, with a certain break. The testimonies given at the torture (“slander”) had to be rechecked through other procedural measures (interrogation, oath, “search”). The testimonies of the tortured were recorded.

b) Criminal law.

In the field of criminal law, the Cathedral Code clarifies the concept of “dashing case”, developed back in the Code of Laws. The subjects of the crime could be either individuals or a group of persons. The law divided them into major and minor, understanding the latter as accomplices. In turn, complicity can be both physical (assistance, practical assistance, etc.) and intellectual (for example, incitement to murder - Chapter 22). In connection with this, even a slave who committed a crime at the direction of his master began to be recognized as a subject. From accomplices, the law distinguished persons only involved in the commission of a crime: accomplices (who created the conditions for the commission of a crime), conniving parties, non-informers, concealers. The subjective side of the crime is determined by the degree of guilt: The Code knows the division of crimes into intentional, careless and accidental. For careless actions, the one who committed them is punished in the same way as for intentional criminal acts. The law distinguishes between mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The former include: a state of intoxication, uncontrollability of actions caused by an insult or threat (affect), the latter - the repetition of a crime, a combination of several crimes. Separate stages of a criminal act are distinguished: intent (which in itself can be punishable), attempted crime and commission of a crime. The law knows the concept of recidivism (coinciding in the Code with the concept of “a dashing person”) and extreme necessity, which is not punishable, only if the proportionality of its real danger on the part of the criminal is observed. Violation of proportionality meant exceeding the necessary defense and was punished. The Cathedral Code considered the church, the state, the family, the person, property and morality to be the objects of the crime.

The system of crimes according to the Council Code:

1) crimes against the church, 2) state crimes,

3) crimes against the order of administration (deliberate non-appearance of the defendant in court, resistance to the bailiff, making false letters, acts and seals, counterfeiting, unauthorized travel abroad, moonshine-brewing, taking a false oath in court, false accusation), 4) crimes against deanery (maintenance of dens, harboring fugitives, illegal sale of property, imposition of duties on persons released from them), 5) malfeasance (extortion (bribery, extortion, unlawful requisitions), injustice, forgery in service, war crimes), 6) crimes against a person (murder, divided into simple and qualified, beatings, insults to honor. The murder of a traitor or a thief at the crime scene was not punished), 7) property crimes (simple and qualified tatba (church, in the service , horse stealing committed in the sovereign's court, theft of vegetables from the garden and fish from the garden), robbery committed in the form of industrial sla, ordinary and qualified robbery (committed by servicemen or children against parents), fraud (theft associated with deceit, but without violence), arson, forcible appropriation of other people's property, damage to other people's property), 8) crimes against morality ( disrespect by children to parents, refusal to support elderly parents, pandering, “fornication” of a wife, but not a husband, sexual intercourse between a master and a slave).

Punishments under the Council Code and their goals:

The system of punishments was characterized by the following features: 1) individualization of punishment: the wife and children of the offender were not responsible for the act he committed, but the institution of third-party liability was preserved - the landowner who killed the peasant had to transfer another peasant to the landowner who suffered damage , the “righteousness” procedure was preserved, to a large extent, the guarantee resembled the responsibility of the guarantor for the actions of the offender (for whom he vouched), 2) the sole nature of the punishment, expressed in the difference in the responsibility of different subjects for the same punishments (for example , chapter 10), 3) uncertainty in establishing punishment (this was due to the purpose of punishment - intimidation). The sentence might not have indicated the type of punishment, and if it was, the method of its execution (“punish by death”) or the measure (term) of punishment (throw “to prison until the sovereign’s decree”) was unclear, 4) the plurality of punishment - for the same crime, several punishments could be established at once: whipping, cutting the tongue, exile, confiscation of property.

Purpose of punishment:

Intimidation and retribution, isolation of the offender from society was a secondary goal. It should be noted that the uncertainty in establishing punishment created an additional psychological impact on the offender. To intimidate the criminal, they applied the punishment that he would have wished for the person he had slandered (in the case of "sneaking"). The publicity of punishments and executions had a socio-psychological significance: many punishments (burning, drowning, wheeling) served as if analogues of hellish torments.

In the Council Code, the use of the death penalty was provided for in almost 60 cases (even smoking tobacco was punishable by death). The death penalty was divided into qualified (wheeling, quartering, burning, filling the throat with metal, burying alive in the ground) and simple (hanging, beheading). Self-mutilating punishments included: cutting off an arm, leg, cutting the nose, ear, lips, tearing out the eye, nostrils. These punishments could be applied as additional or as main ones. Mutilating punishments, in addition to intimidation, performed the function of designating a criminal. Painful punishments included cutting with a whip or batogs in a public place (at the auction). Imprisonment, as a special type of punishment, could be established for a period of 3 days to 4 years or for an indefinite period. As an additional type of punishment (or as the main one), exile was assigned (to monasteries, fortresses, prisons, to boyar estates). Representatives of the privileged estates were subjected to such a type of punishment as deprivation of honor and rights (from complete surrender of the head (turning into a slave) to the announcement of “disgrace” (isolation, sharp-kism, state disfavor)). The accused could be deprived of his rank, the right to sit in the Duma or an order, or deprived of the right to file a lawsuit in court. Property sanctions were widely used (Chapter 10 of the Code in 74 cases established a gradation of fines “for dishonor” depending on the social status of the victim). The highest sanction of this kind was the complete confiscation of the criminal's property. In addition, the system of sanctions included church punishments (repentance, penance, excommunication from the church, exile to a monastery, imprisonment in a solitary cell, etc.).

c) Real, liability and inheritance law.

The development of commodity-money relations, the formation of new types and forms of ownership, the quantitative growth of civil law transactions - all this prompted legislators to single out civil law relations regulated by special rules with sufficient certainty. It should be noted that in the Code, the same legal source could give several not only alternative, but also mutually exclusive decisions on the same issue. The vagueness of the definition of one or another category often created a situation in which there was a confusion of heterogeneous norms and obligations. The subjects of civil relations were both private (individual) and collective persons. In the 17th century, there was a process of gradual expansion of the legal rights of a private person due to concessions from the rights of a collective person. Freed from the strict control of tribal and family unions, an individual at the same time falls under the strong influence of other collective subjects, and above all, the state (especially in the field of property and inheritance law). For legal relations that arose on the basis of norms, regulating the sphere of property relations, the instability of the status of the subject of rights and obligations became characteristic. First of all, this was expressed in the division of several powers associated with one subject and one right. Thus, conditional land ownership gave the subject the right to own and use, but not dispose of the object (enrollment of underage sons, marriage of a daughter to a person who assumes the official duties of her father). In addition, such a “split” nature of property did not give a complete picture of who was its full-fledged subject. The transfer of responsibility for obligations from one subject (father, landowner) to another (children, peasants) also complicated the situation and the subject's awareness of his status. Subjects of civil law had to meet certain requirements (gender, age, social and property status). The age limit was determined at 15-20 years old: from the age of 15, the children of service people could be endowed with estates, from the same age, the subjects had the right to independently assume enslaving obligations. Parents retained the right to enroll their children in bondage servitude when the latter reached the age of 15. 20 years of age was required to acquire the right to take the kiss of the cross (oath) in court (ch. 14 of the Council Code). At the same time, such norms as marriageable age, the legislator left to practice and custom. The fact of reaching a certain period (be it age or prescription) was not at all considered by him as decisive for the legal state of the subject: even upon reaching adulthood, children did not completely go out of the power of their father. As for the sexual qualification, in the 17th century there was a significant increase in the legal capacity of a woman compared to the previous period. So, the widow is endowed by law with a whole range of powers, procedural and obligation rights. There were also significant changes in the sphere and procedure for the inheritance of real estate by women.

The interaction of various subjects of civil relations in one area (especially in the field of property rights) inevitably gave rise to mutual restriction of subjective rights. When dividing tribal property, the clan as a collective entity, transferring its rights to collective entities, retained the right to dispose of property, which could be alienated only with the consent of all members of the clan. The genus retained the right to redeem the sold ancestral property within the period established by law. The grant of land on the estate (the act of transferring property by the state to the landowner) did not fundamentally change the subject of ownership - it remained the state. The landowner was assigned only the right of life-long possession. But if the land fell (during the performance of additional actions) into hereditary possession and use, then land ownership in its status was already close to patrimonial, i.e. took the form of full ownership. The separation of the powers of the owner and the owner also differed in the allocation of a land plot to a separate peasant family using it from the lands of the peasant community, which owned the ownership right to this allotment.

The grant of land was a complex set of legal actions, including the issuance of a letter of commendation, the preparation of a certificate, i.e. entry in the order book of certain information about the allotted person, on which his right to land is based, a search conducted at the request of the allotted person and consisting in establishing the fact of the actual unoccupied land to be transferred, putting into possession, which consisted in a public measurement of land, carried out in the presence of local residents and outsiders. The distribution of land in the 17th century, along with the Local Order, was carried out by other bodies - the Discharge Order, the Order of the Grand Palace and other orders. In the act of awarding, subjective will gave rise to objective consequences (the appearance of a new subject and object of property), for the precise adjustment of which additional actions were required (registration, justification of a new right, ritualized actions for the actual allocation of land), with the help of which the new law "fit" into the system of already existing relations. Acquisitive prescription becomes a legal basis for the possession of the right of ownership, in particular, to land, provided that this property was in legal possession during the period established by law. If in the decrees of the beginning of the 17th century the term of the statute of limitations was formulated rather vaguely, then according to the Council Code it is fixed as 40 years. It should be noted that the category of limitation was borrowed by Russian law of the 17th century from legal sources of various nature and time of occurrence.

d) Treaty in the 17th century.

The contract remained the main way of acquiring property rights to property, and in particular, to land; it appeared in this capacity earlier than the institution of awards. The development of this form took place against the backdrop of a gradual replacement of formalized actions (participation of witnesses when concluding an agreement) with written acts (“assaults” of witnesses without their personal participation in the transaction procedure). “Bassing” gradually lost its symbolic character and turned into a simple testimony of the parties to the contract. A contractual instrument drawn up by interested parties acquired legal force only after it was certified by an official authority, which was expressed in a resolution on a press certificate. But even an approved contractual instrument created a new legal relationship only under the condition of its actual legality. Sometimes, to ensure it, additional legal actions were required that were not directly related to the content of the main obligation. So, the Cathedral Code provided for the issuance, in addition to the contractual letters, securing the right to land, letters of refusal, which were sent to the area where the lands transferred under the contract are located.

Estates by law of the 16th-17th centuries were divided into several types in accordance with the nature of the subject and the method of their acquisition: palace, state, church and privately owned, and according to the methods of acquisition, patrimonial lands were divided into tribal, served and bought.

With regard to landownership, then, as already mentioned, the Cathedral Code allowed the exchange of estates for estates and vice versa, and Article 9 of Chapter 17 allowed the sale of estates. By the end of the 17th century, the practice of exchanging estates for cash salaries (“fodder books”) was established, which in a hidden form already meant the actual purchase and sale of estates. The official sale of estates (for debts) was allowed in the 17th century, while the leasing of estates for money was already permitted by Article 12 of Chapter 16 of the Cathedral Code.

e) Law of obligations of the 17th century.

The law of obligations continued to develop along the line of gradual replacement of personal liability under contracts with property liability of the debtor. The transfer of obligations to property turned out to be connected with the issue of their transfer by inheritance. The Cathedral Code allowed for such a transition in the event of inheritance by law, stipulating that the refusal to inherit also removes debt obligations (ch. 10, art. 245). One of the most important conditions for concluding a contract was the freedom of expression of the will of the contracting parties, but this condition was often not observed either in law or in practice. The Council Code (Article 190, Chapter 10) hints at the fact that the owners of the apartments where the military is stationed in the performance of their duties become the custodians of the belongings of these military men when the latter enter the campaign. In general, the conditions of free will were often violated in practice by acts of violence by one of the parties, although the law provided the other side with the opportunity to challenge such a deal within a week (Article 251, Chapter 10). As guarantees against violence and deceit, the legislator provided for the introduction of special procedural aspects, such as the presence of witnesses at the conclusion of a transaction, its written or “serf” (notarial) form. For the entry into force of the contract, the contractual act, drawn up by the square clerk, was sealed by the assault of witnesses (up to 6 people), and then registered in the writ's hut (Article 39 of Chapter 17 of the Cathedral Code).

f) The institution of easements.

For the first time in the Cathedral Code, the institution of easements was regulated (i.e., the legal restriction of the property right of one subject in the interests of the right to use another or others). The legislator knew personal servitudes (restrictions in favor of certain persons, specially stipulated in the law), for example, the destruction of meadows by warriors in the service, the right to their entry into forest lands owned by a private person (Chapter 7). Real servitudes (restriction of property rights in the interests of an indefinite number of subjects) included: the right of the owner of a mill to flood the underlying meadow belonging to another person for production purposes, the ability to build a stove against the wall of a neighbor's house or build a house on the boundary of someone else's plot (Chapter 10). The development of easement law testified to the formation of clear ideas about the right to private property, the emergence of a large number of individual owners and the clash of their interests. Along with this, the right to property was limited either by the direct prescriptions of the law (for example, widows were forbidden to mortgage well-deserved estates, employees were forbidden to accept a pledge from foreigners), or by the establishment of a legal regime that did not guarantee “eternal” property (maintaining a period of 40 years for redemption of the tribal community). Thus, the right to private property continued to be subject to restrictions.

g) Inheritance law.

Restrictions and regulation also passed into the sphere of inheritance law. The degree of freedom in the disposal of property was different in the case of inheritance by law or by will. The will of the testator was limited by class principles: testamentary dispositions concerned only purchased estates, ancestral and served ones passed to the heirs according to the law. Family estates were inherited by sons, in their absence - by daughters. The widow could inherit only a part of the patrimony she had earned - “for a living”, (ie for life use). Family and granted estates could be inherited only by members of the clan to which the testator belonged. Purchased estates could be inherited by the widow of the testator, who received a quarter of the movable property and her own dowry.

h) Family law.

The principles of house building continued to operate here - the primacy of the husband over his wife and children, the actual community of property, etc. They were also disclosed in legislative provisions. Only a church marriage was recognized as legally significant. The law allowed the conclusion of no more than 3 marriage unions by one person during a lifetime. The marriageable age for men is 15 years, for women - 12 years. The consent of the parents was required for marriage, and for serfs - the consent of the master. The legal status of the husband determined the legal status of the wife. The law obligated the wife to follow her husband - to the settlement, in exile, when moving. In relation to children, the father retained the rights of the head: he could, when the child reached 15 years old, give him “to the people”, “in service” or to work. The father could punish the children, but not excessively. For the murder of a child, imprisonment was threatened (but not the death penalty, as for the murder of an outsider). The law knows the concept of illegitimate, persons of this category could not be adopted, and therefore, take part in the inheritance of real estate.

Divorce was allowed in a limited number of cases: when one of the spouses left for a monastery, when the spouse was accused of “dashing business”, when the wife was unable to bear children.

Thus, the Council Code includes norms relating to all branches of law, demonstrating the existence of most modern branches of law.

The value of the Council Code

The adoption of the Council Code was one of the main achievements of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. This grandiose code of laws for the 17th century played the role of the All-Russian legal code for a long time. Attempts to adopt a new Code were made under Peter the Great and Catherine the Second, but both times were unsuccessful. The words spoken by Prince Yakov Dolgoruky to Peter the Great are very indicative: “Sir, in another your father, in another you are more worthy of praise and thanksgiving. The main affairs of sovereigns - 3: the first is internal reprisal and your main business is justice, in this your toy is more than you did. The Code, having fixed the main features of the political system and law of Russia, turned out to be quite stable for 200 years, despite all the reforms of the 18th century. It is no coincidence that in 1830 it opened the complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire and was used to a greater extent in compiling volume 15 of the Code of Laws and the Criminal Code of 1845. The use of the norms of the Council Code in the second half of the 18th century and the first half of the 19th century, during the development of capitalism and the decomposition of feudal relations, meant that the conservative regimes of that time were looking for support in the Code to strengthen the autocratic system. As V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote, “the desire to depict the political system in a vertical section, from the church and the sovereign with his court to the Cossacks and the tavern, as the last 2 chapters speak about, breaks through in the arrangement of the subjects of legislation.” And although in technical terms, as a monument of codification, it (the Cathedral Code) did not overtake the old Code of Laws, then as a monument to legislation, the Code took a significant step forward in comparison with them: the composition of society, determine the position and mutual relations of its classes, speaks of service people and service land tenure, peasants, townspeople, serfs, archers and Cossacks, but the main attention is paid to the nobility, as the dominant military service and landowning class: almost half of all articles of the Code directly or indirectly relate to its interests and relations.

Literature

Source study of the history of the USSR, M., 1981, edited by S.V. Voronkova

Manual on the history of the Fatherland, edited by A.S. Orlov,

Cathedral Code of 1649, M., 1958, edited by I.A. Grekov

Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries, volume 3,

I.A.Isaev, “History of the state and law of Russia”,

V.O.Klyuchevsky,”Course of Russian History”, 3rd volume,

Workshop on the history of the USSR (the period of feudalism), A.P. Pronshtein and

A.G. Zadera, 1969

Monuments of Russian law, edited by K.A. Sofronenko, 1957,

"Legal Bulletin", 1994 number 8.

In the 17th century Russia continued, as noted earlier, to develop within the framework of medieval civilization and gradually entered into modern civilization. The imposition of civilizational processes determined the essential features of the state and legal development of the country. This period is characterized by a very intensive development of law. The tsar adopted legislative acts together with the Zemsky Sobor (estate-representative monarchy), but the number of so-called "nominal" tsar decrees adopted by the tsar alone (absolute monarchy) also gradually increased.

Especially after the end of the Time of Troubles, the government of the new dynasty began active legislative activity. Traditionally, new laws were issued at the request of one or another order, their appearance was due to very specific circumstances, and after their adoption and approval, the law went to the corresponding order for execution.

The new law was included (attributed) to the normative body of the Sudebnik, in the order it was recorded in the index book.

Thus, the rule-making activity of orders on issues under their jurisdiction grew. For example, in 1616, the development of a new Statutory Book of the Rogue Order began. It included many provisions of the Statutory Book of 1555-1556. and new decrees containing the norms of criminal and procedural law. Changes in the nature of patrimonial and local landownership were evidenced in the Decree Book of the Local Order. It reflected the legislation from 1626 to 1648. In addition to individual decrees, it contained a special Code of Estates and Estates of 1636. Of particular interest is the Decree Book of the Zemsky Prikaz (1622-1648) - the judicial and police institution of Moscow, which was also in charge of collecting taxes from the townspeople of the capital.

At the end of the XVI-beginning of the XVII centuries. an attempt was made to carry out a general systematization of legislation by compiling the so-called codes of law. But this work did not receive due completion, the Codes of Code of Laws were not officially approved.

The most important monument of the law of the XVII century. became the Cathedral Code of 1649 . (Code), which largely determined the legal system of the Russian state for many subsequent decades.

The appearance of the Council Code had a number of reasons.. Firstly, it is the need to bring the legislation in line with the tasks of the new time. Problems that arose at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. and related to the entry of Russia into modern civilization, necessitated a qualitative improvement in legislation. Thus, the causal nature of legal acts, characteristic of all previous legislation, became ineffective under the new conditions. Undoubtedly, the preparation and adoption of the Council Code were caused by the need to streamline and strengthen the centralized state power. The state sought to interest the nobility in the service. Therefore, it expands the rights of the nobles to the estates and enslaves the peasants. To strengthen the tax base for the modernization of state power, it was necessary to eliminate the tax privileges of the "white" settlements.

Secondly, the need for systematization was also caused by the desire to streamline the legislation, to assemble it into a single document, to eliminate the contradictions that existed in the laws.

direct occasion that accelerated legislative work was the uprising that broke out in 1648 in Moscow. In this difficult situation, the Zemsky Sobor was convened, which decided to draw up new legislation. A special commission drew up a draft of the Code, which the members of the Zemsky Sobor discussed by estate in whole and in parts. For the first time, an attempt was made to create a set of all existing legal norms, including the Code of Laws and new decree articles.

In 1649, at a regular meeting of the Zemsky Sobor, the famous Council Code was adopted, the largest legislative act, the equal of which Russia had not known until that time. The code was approved by the Council and the king. The Council Code was the first law to be reproduced in a typographical way. The printed text was sent to orders and places. More than a thousand copies of the Code were put on sale, the circulation quickly sold out. The Cathedral Code was a set of all existing legal norms, a kind of set of laws of the Russian state of that time.

The code included 25 chapters and 967 articles. The articles of the law were summarized according to a certain, although not always consistent, system. The Council Code, unlike the previous legislation, had an extensive preamble, which proclaimed the conformity of law with the decree of the "Holy Apostles" and affirmed equality before the court for all ranks (of course, in accordance with the understanding of that time, taking into account the class status). This was the last collection of law in which the religious, Orthodox understanding of legal norms still constituted the theoretical basis. The language of the Code was accessible and understandable to most sections of Russian society. In the Code, there has been a division of norms by institutions and branches of law, although the causality in the presentation of the norms of law has not been overcome.

Sources of the Cathedral Code there were previous judicial documents, decree books of orders, tsarist legislation, Duma sentences, decisions of Zemsky Sobors. The petitions of nobles and townspeople had a great influence on the content of the Code. Articles of Stoglav, the Lithuanian Statute were used, and there was some borrowing from Byzantine laws.

The legislator, after the adoption of the Council Code, included in it the so-called new decree articles. For example, about “robbery and murder” (1669), about estates and patrimonies (1677), about trade (1653 - the Trade Charter and 1667 - the New Trade Charter). Note that the Novotragovy Charter (adopted on the initiative of "guests" and Moscow trading people) protected domestic trade from foreign competition. Its compilers proposed to organize a special order that was in charge of trade affairs only.

When compiling the Code, it was supposed to collect and summarize the entire stock of legal acts already available, coordinating them with the current legislation. However, the Council Code included amendments and additions, which were submitted to the Duma in the form of zemstvo petitions. The Duma, or together the sovereign and the Duma, gave them a legislative character and included them in the Code. So, on the basis of petitions from servicemen and townspeople, the chapter of the Code "On townspeople" was drawn up. Or, for example, the provision on the prohibition to alienate estates in favor of the church, the provisions on the abolition of school years, on the establishment of a tax on the ransom of prisoners, etc.

The Cathedral Code contained significant elements of state law. The law determined the status of the head of state - the king, autocratic and hereditary monarch. Moreover, the election of the autocrat at the Zemsky Sobor did not destroy the established principles, on the contrary, it substantiated and legitimized them. The Code contained a system of norms that regulated the most important branches of public administration, which, with a certain degree of conventionality, can be attributed to administrative law. For example, the chapter "Court on Peasants" contained norms that attached peasants to the land; in a special chapter, the content of the township reform was regulated, changes in the status of the “white settlements” were stated; two chapters contained articles on the change in the position of the patrimony and estate; one of the chapters regulated the work of local governments, etc. The concept of state crime appeared for the first time in the law.

The Code paid great attention to procedural law. This is confirmed by the fact that the largest chapter of the Council Code is "On Judgment". Judicial law in the Code constituted a set of norms that regulated the organization of the court and the process. The division into two forms of the process is reflected: "court" and "search". Moreover, the search form is clearly aimed at protecting the public interest.

In this way, The Council Code of 1649 summarized the main trends in the development of domestic legislation. It consolidated new legal institutions characteristic of the peculiarities of the civilizational development of Russia in the new era. In the Code, for the first time, an attempt was made to systematize domestic legislation, opening the way for the creation of a new, rational modern legal system.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 is a set of laws of Muscovite Rus' that regulates the most diverse spheres of life.

Reasons for the creation of the Cathedral Code

The last code of law, adopted before the creation of the Cathedral Code, belonged to 1550 (Sudebnik of Ivan the Terrible). Almost a century has passed since then, the feudal system of the state has changed somewhat, numerous new decrees and regulations have been created, which often not only make previous decrees obsolete, but also contradict them.

The situation was also complicated by the fact that numerous regulatory documents were widely scattered across departments, which is why there was complete chaos in the legislative system of the state. Situations were common when only those who adopted it knew about the new act, and the rest of the country lived according to outdated norms.

In order to finally streamline lawmaking and the judicial system, it was necessary to create a completely new document that would meet the requirements of the time. In 1648, the Salt Riot broke out, the rebels, among other things, demanded the creation of a new regulatory document. The situation became critical and it was no longer possible to postpone.

In 1648, the Zemsky Sobor was convened, which until 1649 was engaged in the creation of the Cathedral Code.

Creation of the Cathedral Code

The creation of a new document was carried out by a special commission headed by N.I. Odoevsky. The creation of a new lawsuit took place in several stages:

• Work with numerous sources of laws and acts;
• Meeting on the content of legislative acts;
• Editing by the tsar and the Duma of the submitted drafts of new bills;
• Joint discussion of certain provisions of the code;
• Signing by all members of the commission of a new version of the bills.

Such a careful approach to the creation of the document was due to the fact that the members of the commission wanted to create a carefully systematized and as complete and accessible code book as possible, correcting all the shortcomings in the previous documents.

Sources of the Cathedral Code

The main sources were:

• Sudebnik of 1550;
• Decree books, where all issued bills and acts were recorded;
• Petitions to the king;
• Byzantine law;
• The Lithuanian statute of 1588 was used as a sample of the code of law.

It was in the Council Code of 1649 that there was a tendency to separate the norms of law by industry, corresponding to modern legislation.

Branches of law in the Cathedral Code

The new code determined the status of the state and the king himself, contained a set of norms regulating the activities of all government bodies, established the procedure for entering and leaving the country.

In criminal law, a new system of classification of crimes has appeared. There are types such as:

• crime against the church;
• crime against the state;
• a crime against the order of government (unauthorized departure from the country);
• crimes against decency (maintenance of brothels);
• malfeasance:
• crimes against the person;
• property crimes;
• crimes against morality.

There are also new types of punishments. Now the offender could count on the death penalty, exile, imprisonment, confiscation of property, a fine or dishonorable punishment.

Civil law also expanded significantly due to the growth of commodity-money relations. The concept of an individual and a team appeared, the legal capacity of women in matters of transactions increased, the oral form of the contract was now replaced by a written one, laying the foundation for modern purchase and sale transactions.

Family law has not changed much - the principles of "Domostroy" were still in effect - the primacy of the husband over his wife and children.

The Council Code also outlined the procedure for legal proceedings, criminal and civil - new types of evidence appeared (documents, kissing the cross, etc.), new procedural and investigative measures aimed at proving guilt or innocence were identified.

An important difference from previous judicial codes was that, if necessary, the Cathedral Code of 1649 was supplemented and rewritten when new acts appeared.

Enslavement of peasants

However, the most prominent place in the Cathedral Code is occupied by questions regarding serfdom. The code not only did not give the peasants freedom, it finally enserfed them. Now the peasants (including their families and property) actually became the property of the feudal lord. They were inherited like furniture and did not have their own rights. The rules regarding getting out of oppression have also changed - now the peasants practically did not have the opportunity to become free (now the runaway peasant could not become free after a few years, now the search was ongoing indefinitely).

The meaning of the Cathedral Code

The Cathedral Code of 1649 is a monument of Russian law. It outlined new trends in the development of Russian law, consolidated new social features and institutions. In addition, the code has made significant progress in terms of systematization and drafting of legal documents, since a distinction was made by industry.

The Code was in effect until 1832.

1598-1613 - a period in the history of Russia, called the Time of Troubles.

At the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, Russia was going through a political and socio-economic crisis. The Livonian War and the Tatar invasion, as well as the oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible, contributed to the intensification of the crisis and the growth of discontent. This was the reason for the beginning of the Time of Troubles in Russia.

The first period of unrest is characterized by the struggle for the throne of various applicants. After the death of Ivan the Terrible, his son Fedor came to power, but he was unable to rule and was actually ruled by the brother of the tsar's wife, Boris Godunov. Ultimately, his policies aroused the discontent of the masses.

The turmoil began with the appearance in Poland of False Dmitry (in reality, Grigory Otrepyev), who allegedly miraculously survived the son of Ivan the Terrible. He lured a significant part of the Russian population to his side. In 1605, False Dmitry was supported by the governors, and then by Moscow. And already in June he became the legitimate king. But he acted too independently, which caused discontent of the boyars, he also supported serfdom, which caused a protest of the peasants. On May 17, 1606, False Dmitry I was killed and V.I. Shuisky, with the condition of limiting power. Thus, the first stage of the Troubles was marked by the reign of False Dmitry I (1605-1606).

The second period of turmoil. In 1606, an uprising broke out, led by I.I. Bolotnikov. The ranks of the rebels included people from different strata of society: peasants, serfs, small and medium-sized feudal lords, servicemen, Cossacks and townspeople. In the battle of Moscow they were defeated. As a result, Bolotnikov was executed.

But dissatisfaction with the authorities continued. And soon False Dmitry II appears. In January 1608, his army headed for Moscow. By June, False Dmitry II entered the village of Tushino near Moscow, where he settled. In Russia, 2 capitals were formed: boyars, merchants, officials worked on 2 fronts, sometimes even received salaries from both kings. Shuisky concluded an agreement with Sweden and the Commonwealth began aggressive hostilities. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga.

Shuisky was tonsured a monk and taken to the Chudov Monastery. In Russia, an interregnum began - the Seven Boyars (a council of 7 boyars). The Boyar Duma made a deal with the Polish interventionists and on August 17, 1610, Moscow swore allegiance to the Polish king Vladislav. At the end of 1610, False Dmitry II was killed, but the struggle for the throne did not end there.

So, the second stage was marked by the uprising of I.I. Bolotnikov (1606 - 1607), the reign of Vasily Shuisky (1606 - 1610), the appearance of False Dmitry II, as well as the Seven Boyars (1610).

The third period of unrest is characterized by the struggle against foreign invaders. After the death of False Dmitry II, the Russians united against the Poles. The war took on a national character. In August 1612, the militia of K. Minin and D. Pozharsky reached Moscow. And on October 26, the Polish garrison surrendered. Moscow was liberated. The troubled times are over.

On February 21, 1613, the Zemsky Sobor appointed Mikhail Romanov as Tsar.

The results of the turmoil were depressing: the country was in a terrible situation, the treasury was ruined, trade and crafts were in decline. The consequences of the Troubles for Russia were expressed in its backwardness in comparison with European countries. It took dozens of years to restore the economy

General characteristics of the Cathedral Code of 1649

As the historian Arkady Georgievich Mankov accurately and correctly put it, the Cathedral Code of 1649 is an encyclopedia of Russian life in the 17th century. And not by chance. Being the main achievement of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, this grandiose and impressive in its scale and full of legal elaboration of a legal act for more than two hundred years played the role of an All-Russian legal act, remaining the most developed set of Russian laws.

No less surprising and admirable is the speed with which it was adopted: all discussions and the final adoption of this monument of legislation in the volume of almost 1000 articles took only about 6 months - an unprecedented achievement even for a modern parliament! The reasons for such zeal and zeal were the disturbing atmosphere that prevailed in Rus', and the fear of civil strife, requiring a deep reform of legislation. Not the last role in this process was played by the existence of many private decrees that require systematization, that is, the replacement of a mass of individual laws with one single code.

One way or another, on January 29, 1649, the Code was adopted at the Zemsky Sobor, which consisted of 25 chapters and 967 articles. Having become a new stage in the development of national legal technique, it has outlined a tendency for the division of norms into branches of law, inherent in every modern legislation. The legal act contained a set of norms regulating the most important social relations in the field of criminal, civil, family law, legal proceedings, and included the most important issues of state regulation. Interestingly, many modern researchers argue that the order of the items in the Code reflected the desire to present the political system in a vertical section from the state and the church to the tavern and the Cossacks.

Criminal law according to the Council Code

One of the leading directions and central places of the entire legal act was the protection of the honor and dignity of the church. Having supplanted crimes against "state honor and health" in the hierarchy of the most terrible and serious crimes, blasphemy and church rebellion, punishable by burning at the stake, came to the fore. These provisions won support and were accepted with great enthusiasm among churchmen.

At the same time, the Code also provided for such clauses that caused strong indignation of the church hierarchy and because of which one of the disgruntled patriarchs called it a “lawless book” (for example, the clergy were deprived of a number of their privileges, in particular judicial ones). It was also important that for the first time in Russian legislation a whole chapter was assigned to the criminal legal protection of the personality of the monarch, and the composition of state and political crimes was also determined. And although it did not establish an exhaustive list of such "dashing cases", it nevertheless provided for a relatively complete system of state crimes, establishing for each composition an objective and subjective side, circumstances that eliminate punishability.

Court and process under the Council Code

Another set of norms regulated the conduct of the court and the process. Characteristic here was a clearer division of the process into “trial” and “search”, the list of admissible evidence was expanded, which became possible to obtain by polling the population in the form of “general” and “general” searches. There is also a clear strengthening of the trend towards expanding the scope of the search and formalizing the conduct of the process. But the main innovation was the introduction of a kind of procedural action “pravezh”, which consisted in regular corporal punishment in an amount equal to the amount of the debt (as a rule, it was applied to the debtor).

Civil law according to the Council Code

In addition, the Code testifies to the development of the most significant branches of law of that time. Thus, due to commodity-money relations, the emergence of new forms of ownership and the growth of civil law transactions, the sphere of civil law relations was quite clearly defined. It is characteristic that many of the provisions developed at the Zemsky Assembly have been preserved, naturally with certain modifications, to the present day and have served as some basis for modern Russian legislation.

In particular, the possibility of establishing exclusive ownership rights to the same object by two titles (for example, the owner and the tenant); ensuring obligations arising from contracts, not with a person, as before, but with property; division of inheritance by law and by will. But what is most remarkable, the institution of easements was introduced for the first time, and the legal capacity of a woman also increased. At the same time, in medieval Rus', the concept of “property” in its modern sense did not yet exist, there was no clear distinction between possession, use and disposal, and the limits of the disposal of property were determined based on the class and group affiliation of a person.

Family law according to the Council Code

As for family law, the church continued to play the dominant role in regulating the institution of marriage and the family, so only church marriage was considered legally significant. The principle of housing construction continued to operate: the head of the family was the husband, the legal status of the wife followed the status of the husband, there was an actual community of property of the spouses, the power of the father over the children. Divorce still had no practical application, however, in exceptional cases (accusing the spouse of a “dashing affair”, the barrenness of the wife) was allowed.

Serfdom according to the Council Code

Particular attention in the Code was paid to the feudal lords and the legal consolidation of their interests, thereby reflecting the further development of feudal society. Thus, the legal act finally formalized serfdom in Rus', drawing a line under the long-term process of securing peasants to the land and limiting their legal status. The practice of lesson years was abolished, and now runaway peasants, regardless of the statute of limitations, had to be returned to their owner. Depriving the peasants of the right to defend themselves in court, the Code, nevertheless, endowed them with the opportunity to protect their lives and property from the arbitrariness of the feudal lord. Thus, the Cathedral Code is the first printed monument of law that excluded the possibility of officials abusing their powers. Of course, the level of its codification was not yet so high and perfect as to fully call it a code, and yet it has no equal even in modern European practice.

One of the most significant events of the 17th century. there was a schism in the church. He seriously influenced the formation of cultural values ​​and worldview of the Russian people. Among the prerequisites and causes of the church schism, one can single out both political factors, formed as a result of the turbulent events of the beginning of the century, and church factors, which, however, are of secondary importance.

At the beginning of the century, the first representative of the Romanov dynasty ascended the throne, Michael. He and, later, his son, Alexei, nicknamed "The Quietest", gradually restored the internal economy, devastated during the Time of Troubles. Foreign trade was restored, the first manufactories appeared, and state power was strengthened. But, at the same time, serfdom took shape legislatively, which could not but cause mass discontent among the people. Initially, the foreign policy of the first Romanovs was cautious. But already in the plans of Alexei Mikhailovich there is a desire to unite the Orthodox peoples who lived outside the territory of Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

This put the tsar and the patriarch, already in the period of the annexation of the Left-Bank Ukraine, before a rather difficult problem of an ideological nature. Most of the Orthodox peoples, having accepted the Greek innovations, were baptized with three fingers. According to the tradition of Moscow, two fingers were used for baptism. One could either impose one's own traditions, or submit to the canon accepted by the entire Orthodox world. Alexei Mikhailovich and Patriarch Nikon chose the second option. The centralization of power taking place at that time and the emerging idea of ​​Moscow's future dominance in the Orthodox world, the "Third Rome", demanded a unified ideology capable of uniting the people. The subsequent reform split Russian society for a long time. Discrepancies in the sacred books and the interpretation of the performance of rituals required changes and the restoration of uniformity. The need to correct church books was noted not only by spiritual authorities, but also by secular ones.

The name of Patriarch Nikon and the church schism are closely connected. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' was distinguished not only by his intelligence, but also by his tough character, determination, lust for power, love of luxury. He gave his consent to stand at the head of the church only after the request of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The beginning of the church schism of the 17th century was laid by the reform prepared by Nikon and carried out in 1652, which included such innovations as tripartite, serving the liturgy on 5 prosphora, and so on. All these changes were subsequently approved at the Council of 1654.

But, the transition to new customs was too abrupt. The situation in the church schism in Russia was aggravated by the cruel persecution of opponents of innovations. Many refused to accept the change in rites. The old sacred books, according to which the ancestors lived, refused to give, many families fled to the forests. An opposition movement formed at court. But in 1658 Nikon's position changed dramatically. The royal disgrace turned into a demonstrative departure of the patriarch. However, he overestimated his influence on Alexei. Nikon was completely deprived of power, but retained wealth and honors. At the council of 1666, in which the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch took part, the hood was removed from Nikon. And the former patriarch was sent into exile, to the Ferapontov Monastery on the White Lake. However, Nikon, who loved luxury, lived there far from being a simple monk.

The church council, which deposed the masterful patriarch and eased the fate of opponents of innovations, fully approved the reforms carried out, declaring them not a whim of Nikon, but a matter of the church. Those who did not obey the innovations were declared heretics.

The final stage of the split was the Solovetsky uprising of 1667 - 1676, which ended for the dissatisfied with death or exile. Heretics were persecuted even after the death of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. After the fall of Nikon, the church retained its influence and strength, but not a single patriarch laid claim to supreme power.

The emergence of the Council Code was a direct result of popular uprisings in the first half of the 17th century, which were based on the movements of serfs, and the need to draw up a single all-Russian law, since the causal nature inherent in previous legislation became ineffective. Clarity and accuracy of the wording of the law was required

At the beginning of the century, the foundations of the serf state were shaken by the peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov. In the future, anti-feudal movements did not stop. The peasants opposed the ever-increasing exploitation, the increase in service, and the deepening of their lack of rights. Slaves were also active participants in the popular, especially urban, movements of the 17th century. In the middle of the 17th century, the struggle reached a particular urgency. In Moscow in the summer of 1648 there was a major uprising. Supported by the peasants, the uprisings were anti-feudal in nature. Among the most popular slogans was a protest against the arbitrariness and extortion of the administration. But in general, the Code received a pronounced noble character. It is important to note that criticism of the current legislation was also heard from the ranks of the ruling class itself.

Thus, the creation of the Cathedral Code from a socio-historical point of view was the result of an acute and complex class struggle and the direct result of the uprising of 1648. In such difficult conditions, the Zemsky Sobor was convened, which decided to develop a new code of laws - the Cathedral Code.

The need for a new code of laws, reinforced by abuses of orders, can be considered the main motivation that caused the new code and even partly determined its character.

Sources The following served as the Cathedral Code: Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550. Decree books of orders, royal decrees, sentences of the Boyar Duma, decisions of Zemsky sobors, Lithuanian and Byzantine legislation.

A special codification commission of 5 people was entrusted with drafting the Code, from the boyars, Prince. Odoevsky and Prozorovsky, Prince Volkonsky and two clerks, Leontiev and Griboyedov. The three main members of this commission were Duma people, which means that this “order of Prince Odoevsky and his comrades,” as it is called in the documents, can be considered a Duma commission, it was established on July 16. At the same time, they decided to assemble the Zemsky Sobor for consideration of the adoption of the project by September 1. It should be noted that the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649 was the largest of all that were convened during the existence of a class-representative monarchy in Russia. By September 1, 1648, elected “from all the ranks” of the state, servicemen and commercial and industrial townsmen were convened in Moscow; elected from rural or district inhabitants, as from a special curia, were not called. From October 3, the tsar with the clergy and Duma people listened to the draft Code drawn up by the commission. Then the sovereign instructed the higher clergy, duma and elected people to fix the list of the Code with their own hands, after which it, with the signatures of the members of the Council in 1649, was printed and sent to all Moscow orders and cities to the voivodeship offices in order to “do all sorts of things according to that Code."

The speed with which the code was adopted is amazing. The whole discussion and adoption of the Code in 967 articles took only a little more than six months. But it should be borne in mind that a huge task was entrusted to the commission: firstly, to collect, disassemble and rework into an integral set of laws in force, different in time, not agreed, scattered across departments, it was also necessary to normalize cases not provided for by these laws. In addition, it was necessary to know social needs and relations, to study the practice of judicial and administrative institutions. This work took many years. But they decided to draw up the Cathedral Code at an accelerated pace, according to a simplified program. Already by October 1648, more precisely in 2.5 months, 12 first chapters were prepared for the report, almost half of the entire set. The remaining 13 chapters were compiled, listened to and approved in the Duma by the end of January 1649, when the commission and the entire council ended their activities and the Code was completed in manuscript. The speed with which the Code was drawn up can be explained by the disturbing news of the riots that broke out after the June riot, in addition, there were rumors of a new uprising in the capital being prepared, not to mention the need for a new code. Therefore, they were in a hurry to draw up the Code.

Structure of the Code

The Cathedral Code of 1649 was a new stage in the development of legal technique. The appearance of the printed law to a large extent excluded the possibility of committing abuses by governors and clerks,

The Cathedral Code had no precedent in the history of Russian legislation. The Cathedral Code is the first systematized law in the history of Russia.

In the literature, it is often, therefore, called the code, but this is not legally true, since the Code contains material relating not to one, but to many branches of law of that time. This is not a code, but rather a set of laws

Unlike previous legislative acts, the Cathedral Code differs not only in its large volume ( 25 chapters divided by 967 articles), but also more purposeful and complex structure. A brief introduction contains a statement of the motives and history of the compilation of the Code. For the first time, the law was divided into thematic chapters. The chapters are highlighted with special headings: for example, “On blasphemers and church rebels” (Chapter 1), “On the sovereign’s honor and how to protect the sovereign’s health” (Chapter 2), “On money masters who will learn how to make thieves' money” (Chapter 5) etc. Such a scheme for constructing chapters allowed their compilers to adhere to the usual sequence of presentation for that time from the initiation of a case to the execution of a court decision.

Local and patrimonial land tenure

The Code, as a code of feudal law, protects the right of private property, and above all, ownership of land. The main types of land ownership of feudal lords were estates ( st.13,33,38,41,42,45 chapter 17) and estates ( Articles 1-3,5-8,13,34,51 chapter 16). The Code takes a serious step towards equating the legal regime of estates with the regime of estates; this applied to wide circles of feudal lords, especially small ones. It is no coincidence that the chapter on estates comes earlier in the law than the chapter on estates.

The equating of estates with estates proceeded mainly along the lines of granting landowners the right to dispose of land. Until now, in essence, only votchinniks had the right to own land (but their rights were somewhat limited, which was preserved in the Code), but in principle, the votchinnik had a necessary element of property right - the right to dispose of property. The situation is different with the estate: in previous years, the landowner was deprived of the right to dispose, and sometimes the right to own land (this was the case if the landowner left the service). The Cathedral Code made significant changes to this matter: first of all, it expanded the right of the landowner to own land - now the retired landowner retained the right to land, and although he was not left with his former estate, the so-called subsistence estate was given according to a certain norm - a kind pension. The landowner's widow and his children up to a certain age received the same pension.

During this period, the previously established three main types of feudal landownership were legally consolidated. The first kind - state property or directly the king (palace lands, lands of black volosts). The second kind - patrimony. Being a conditional property on the land, the estates nevertheless had a different legal status than the estates. They were inherited. There were three types: generic, retired (complained) and bought. The legislator took care that the number of patrimonial estates did not decrease. In this regard, the right to buy out the sold patrimonial estates was provided. The third type of feudal tenure is estates, which were given for service, mainly military. The size of the estate was determined by the official position of the person. The estate could not be inherited. The feudal lord used it as long as he served.

The difference in legal status between estates and estates was gradually erased. Although the estate was not inherited, it could be received by the son if he served. It was established that if the landowner died or left the service due to old age or illness, then he himself or his widow and young children could receive part of the estate for “living”. The Cathedral Code of 1649 permitted the exchange of estates for estates. Such transactions were considered valid under the following conditions: the parties, concluding an exchange record among themselves, were obliged to submit this record to the Local Order with a petition addressed to the king.

Criminal law according to the Code

In the field of criminal law, the Council Code clarifies the concept of “dashing deed” - an act dangerous for feudal societies; developed in the Code of Laws. The perpetrators of the crime could be individuals, and group of people. The law divided them into major and minor, understanding the latter as accomplices. On the other hand, participation can be as physical(assistance, practical assistance, etc.) and intellectual(for example, incitement to murder- chapter 22). In connection with this, even a serf who committed a crime at the direction of his master began to be recognized as a subject. The law distinguished persons from accomplices, only involved in the crime: accomplices (who created the conditions for the commission of a crime), conniving, non-informers, harborers. The subjective side of the crime is determined by the degree of guilt: The Code knows the division of crimes into deliberate, careless and random. For careless actions, those who committed them are punished in the same way as for intentional criminal acts. The law allocates softening and aggravating circumstances. The former include: a state of intoxication, uncontrollability of actions caused by an insult or threat (affect), the latter - the repetition of a crime, a combination of several crimes. stand out separate stages of a criminal act: intent (which itself may be punishable), attempted crime and commission of a crime. The law knows concept of relapse(coinciding in the Code with the concept of “a dashing person”) and extreme necessity, which is not punishable only if the proportionality of its real danger on the part of the criminal is observed. Violation of proportionality meant exceeding the necessary defense and was punished. The Cathedral Code considered the church, the state, the family, the person, property and morality to be the objects of the crime.

Crime system

1) Crimes against the church, 2) state crimes, 3) crimes against the order of government (intentional failure of the defendant to appear in court, resistance to the bailiff, making false letters, acts and seals, counterfeiting, unauthorized travel abroad, home brewing, taking a false oath in court, false accusation), 4) crimes against decency (maintenance of brothels, harboring fugitives, illegal sale of property, imposition of duties on persons released from them), 5) malfeasance (extortion (bribery, extortion, unlawful extortion), injustice, forgery in service, military crimes), 6) crimes against a person (murder, divided into simple and qualified, beatings, insults of honor. The murder of a traitor or a thief at the crime scene was not punished), 7) property crimes (simple and qualified crimes (church, in the service, horse theft, committed in the sovereign's court, stealing vegetables from the garden and fish from the garden), p robbery committed in the form of fishing, ordinary and qualified robbery (committed by service people or children against parents), fraud (theft associated with deceit, but without violence), arson, forcible appropriation of other people's property, damage to other people's property), 8) crimes against morality (disrespect by children of parents, refusal to support elderly parents, pandering, “fornication” of a wife, but not a husband, sexual intercourse between a master and a slave).

Punishments under the Council Code

The system of punishments was characterized by the following features: 1) individualization of punishment: the wife and children of the offender were not responsible for the act committed by him, but the institute of responsibility of third parties remained - the landowner who killed the peasant had to transfer another peasant to the landowner who suffered damage, the “righteousness” procedure was preserved, to a large extent the guarantee was like the responsibility of the guarantor for the actions of the offender (for whom he vouched), 2) nightingal nature of punishment, expressed in the difference in the responsibility of different subjects for the same punishment (for example , chapter 10), 3)uncertainty about punishment(this was due to the purpose of punishment - intimidation). The verdict could not indicate the type of punishment, and if it was, it was not clear how it was executed (“punish by death”) or the measure (term) of punishment (throw “into prison until the sovereign’s decree”), 4) plurality of punishment- for the same crime, several punishments could be established at once: whipping, cutting the tongue, exile, confiscation of property.

Purposes of punishment:

Intimidation and retribution, isolation of the criminal from society was a secondary goal. It should be noted that the uncertainty in establishing punishment created an additional psychological impact on the offender. To intimidate the criminal, they applied the punishment that he would have wished for the person he had slandered. The publicity of punishments and executions had a socio-psychological significance: many punishments (burning, drowning, wheeling) served as if analogues of hellish torments.

The Council Code provided for the use of the death penalty in almost 60 cases (even smoking tobacco was punishable by death). The death penalty was divided into qualified(wheeling, quartering, burning, filling the throat with metal, burying alive in the ground) and simple(hanging, beheading). Self-mutilating punishments included: cutting off an arm, leg, cutting the nose, ear, lips, tearing out an eye, nostrils. These punishments could be applied as additional or as main ones. Mutilating punishments, in addition to intimidation, performed the function of designating a criminal. Painful punishments included cutting with a whip or batogs in a public place (at the auction). Imprisonment, as a special type of punishment, could be established for a period of 3 days to 4 years or for an indefinite period. As an additional type of punishment (or as the main one), exile was assigned (to monasteries, fortresses, prisons, to boyar estates). Representatives of the privileged estates were subjected to such a type of punishment as deprivation of honor and rights (from complete extradition of the head (turning into a slave) to the announcement of “disgrace” (isolation, sharpness, state disgrace). The accused could be deprived of their rank, the right to sit in the Duma or order, to deprive the right to file a claim in court. Property sanctions were widely used ( chapter 10 of the Code in 74 cases, it established a gradation of fines “for dishonor” depending on the social status of the victim). The highest sanction of this kind was the complete confiscation of the criminal's property. In addition, the system of sanctions included church punishments(repentance, penance, excommunication from the church, exile to a monastery, imprisonment in a solitary cell, etc.).

Bodies administering justice

Central judicial bodies: the court of the tsar, the boyar duma, orders. Justice could be carried out both individually and collectively.

"Court" and "search" according to the Code

Judicial law in the Code constituted a special set of norms that regulated the organization of the court and the process. Even more definitely than in the Sudebniks, there was a division into two forms of process: "court" and "search ”. The legislation of that time still lacked a clear distinction between civil procedure and criminal procedure law. However, two forms of the process were distinguished - adversarial (trial) and investigative (search), and the latter was becoming increasingly important. Chapter 10 of the Code describes in detail the various procedures of the “court”: the process was divided into court and "accomplishment" those. sentencing. "Court" begins (Chapter X. Art. 100-104) With “introducing”, filing a petition. Then the bailiff summoned the defendant to court. The defendant could provide guarantors. He was given the right not to appear in court twice for good reasons (for example, illness), but after three failures to appear, he automatically lost the process ( Chapter X. Art. 108-123). The winning party was given a certificate.

Proof of, used and taken into account by the courts in the adversarial process, were diverse: witness's testimonies(practice required involvement in the process of at least 20 witnesses), written evidence (the most trustworthy of them were officially certified documents), kissing the cross (allowed for disputes in the amount of not more than 1 ruble), drawing lots. Procedural measures aimed at obtaining evidence were “general” and “general” search: in the first case, the population was surveyed about the fact of a crime, and in the second - about a specific person suspected of a crime. special types of testimony were: “reference to the guilty” and a general reference. The first consisted in the reference of the accused or the defendant to a witness, whose testimony must absolutely coincide with the testimony of the exile, in case of a discrepancy, the case was lost. There could be several such references, and in each case full confirmation was required. General link consisted in the appeal of both disputing parties to the same or several witnesses. Their testimony was decisive. The so-called “pravezh” became a kind of procedural action in court. The defendant (most often an insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to corporal punishment by the court, the number of which was equal to the amount of debts (for a debt of 100 rubles, they were flogged for a month). "Pravezh" was not just a punishment - it was a measure that prompted the defendant to fulfill the obligation: he could find guarantors or he himself could decide to pay the debt. Judgment in the adversarial process was oral, but recorded in the “court list”. Each stage was decorated with a special diploma.

Search or “search” was used in the most serious criminal cases. Special attention was given to crimes in which the public interest was affected. The case in the search process could begin with the statement of the victim, with the discovery of the fact of the crime (red-handed) or with the usual slander, unconfirmed by the facts of the prosecution - “linguistic rumor”). After that, in business state bodies entered. The victim filed a “appearance” (statement), and the bailiff with witnesses went to the scene of the crime for an inquiry. The procedural actions were “search”, i.e. interrogation of all suspects and witnesses. AT Chapter 21 of the Council Code for the first time such a procedural procedure as torture is regulated. The basis for its application could be the results of the “search”, when the testimony was divided: part in favor of the accused, part against him. In the event that the results of the “search” were favorable to the suspect, he could be taken on bail. The use of torture was regulated: it could be apply no more than three times, with a certain break. Testimony given on torture (“slander”), should have been rechecked through other procedural measures (interrogation, oath, “search”). The testimonies of the tortured were recorded.

Civil law according to the Council Code of 1649

Ownership is defined as the dominance of a person over property. Researchers agree that the right to property under the Code must be respected by all and the protection of this right is allowed only by the court, and not by one's own strength. In extreme cases, the Code allows the use of force to protect property. For the same purpose, unauthorized management of other people's property, unauthorized taking of other people's property and recognition of rights through the courts were prohibited.

The Cathedral Code protected the right of private ownership of land.