General characteristics and sources of the Council Code of 1649

The changes that occurred in socio-political relations should have been reflected in law. In 1648, the Zemsky Sobor was convened, which continued its meetings until 1649. A special commission was established to draw up a draft code; the discussion of the project by representatives of the Zemsky Sobor took place class by class. One of the reasons that accelerated the codification work was the intensification of the class struggle - in 1648 a mass uprising broke out in Moscow.

Cathedral Code was adopted in 1649 in Moscow by the Zemsky Sobor and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The Code was the first printed code in Russia; its text was sent to orders and localities.

Sources of the Council Code were Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550, Stoglav of 1551, decree books of orders (Rozboyny, Zemsky, etc.), royal decrees, sentences of the Boyar Duma, decisions of zemstvo councils, Lithuanian and Byzantine legislation. Later the Code was supplemented Newly ordered articles.

The Council Code consists of 25 chapters and 967 articles. It systematized and updated all Russian legislation, and outlined a division of legal norms by industry and institution. In the presentation of the rules of law, causality has been preserved. The Code openly consolidated the privileges of the dominant class and established the unequal position of dependent classes.

The Council Code enshrined head of state status - the king as an autocratic and hereditary monarch.

With the adoption of the Code it ended the process of enslaving peasants, the right of their unlimited search and return to the previous owner was established.

The main attention was paid legal proceedings And criminal law. The forms of the judicial process were subject to more detailed regulation: accusatory-adversarial and investigative. New types of crimes were identified. The goals of punishment were intimidation, retribution and isolation of the criminal from society.

The Council Code of 1649 was the main source of Russian law until the adoption of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire in 1832.

The Council Code of 1649 regulated the forms of feudal land ownership. The Code contained a special chapter in which all the most important changes in the legal status were fixed local land tenure. It was established that the owners of estates could be both boyars and nobles. The order of inheritance of the estate by sons was determined; the wife and daughters received part of the land after the death of the owner. Daughters could also receive an estate as a dowry. The cathedral code allowed the exchange of estates for estates or estates. The right to freely sell land, as well as the right to pledge it, was not granted to landowners.

In accordance with the Council Code, the estate was a privileged form of feudal land ownership. Depending on the subject and method of acquisition, estates were divided into palace, state, church and privately owned. Votchinniki were given broad powers to dispose of their lands: they could sell, mortgage, transfer the estate by inheritance, etc.

The Code limits the economic power of the church - the acquisition of new lands by the church is prohibited, and numerous privileges are reduced. A Monastic Order was established to manage the estates of monasteries and clergy.

The Council Code also regulated lien right.

Law of obligations continued to develop in the direction of replacing personal liability with property liability. Spouses, parents, and children were responsible for each other. Debts on obligations were inherited; at the same time it was established that refusal of inheritance also removes debts from obligations. The legislation defined cases of voluntary replacement of one person's obligations by another. In case of natural disasters, the debtor was granted a deferment of debt payment for up to 3 years.

The Council Code knows contracts of purchase and sale, barter, donation, storage, luggage, rental of property, etc. The Code also reflects the forms of concluding contracts. Cases of concluding contracts in writing were regulated; for some types of transactions (for example, alienation of real estate), a serf form was established, which required the “ordination” of witnesses and registration in the Prikaznaya hut.

The Council Code established the procedure for recognizing the contract as invalid. Contracts were declared invalid if they were concluded in a state of intoxication, with the use of violence or through deception.

Subjects of civil law relations were both private and collective individuals.

Inheritance law inheritance by law and by will is known.

The will was drawn up in writing and confirmed by witnesses and a representative of the church. The will of the testator was limited by class principles: testamentary dispositions could only concern purchased estates; ancestral and honored estates passed to the heirs by law. The legal heirs included children, the surviving spouse, and in some cases other relatives.

Ancestral and granted estates were inherited by sons, daughters inherited only in the absence of sons. The widow received part of the estate for subsistence, that is, for lifelong ownership. Ancestral and granted estates could only be inherited by members of the same family to which the testator belonged. The estates were inherited by the sons. The widow and daughters received a certain share of the estate for living expenses. Until 1864, collateral relatives could participate in the inheritance of the estate.

Only had legal force church marriage. One person was allowed to enter into no more than three marriages throughout his life. The marriageable age was set at 15 years for men and 12 years for women. Parental consent was required for marriage.

In accordance with the principles of house-building, the power of a husband over his wife and a father over his children was established. The legal status of the husband determined the status of the wife: those who married a nobleman became a noblewoman, those who married a serf became a servant. The wife was obliged to follow her husband to settlement, exile, or when moving.

The law determined the status of illegitimate children. Persons in this category could not be adopted, nor could they take part in the inheritance of real estate.

Divorce was allowed in the following cases: one of the spouses leaving for a monastery, accusing the spouse of anti-state activities, or the wife’s inability to bear children.

The cathedral code does not give a concept crimes, however, from the content of his articles it can be concluded that a crime is a violation of the royal will or law.

Subjects of the crime there could be individuals or a group of individuals, regardless of their class affiliation. In the event of a crime being committed by a group of persons, the law divided their into main and secondary (accomplices).

The subjective side of the crime determined by the degree of guilt. According to the Code, crimes were divided into intentional, careless and accidental.

When characterizing objective side of the crime the law established mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The first included the following: a state of intoxication, uncontrollability of actions caused by an insult or threat (affect). The second group included: repetition of a crime, a combination of several crimes, the extent of harm, the special status of the object and subject of the crime.

Objects of crime in accordance with the Council Code were: church, state, family, personality, property and morality.

Crime system can be represented as follows: crimes against faith; state crimes; crimes against the order of government; crimes against decency; malfeasance; crimes against the person; property crimes; crimes against morality.

Punishment system included: death penalty, corporal punishment, imprisonment, exile, confiscation of property, removal from office, fines.

Purposes of punishment there was intimidation, retribution and isolation of the criminal from society.

The Council Code established two forms of trial: accusatory-adversarial and investigative.

Accusatory-adversarial process, or court, used in the consideration of property disputes and minor criminal cases.

The trial began with the filing of a petition by the interested party. Then the bailiff summoned the defendant to court. The latter, if there were good reasons, was given the right not to appear in court twice, but after the third failure to appear, he automatically lost the process. The winning party received a corresponding certificate.

IN evidence system no significant changes occurred. Testimony, written evidence, oath, and lots were used.

Used as evidence link from the guilty And general link. The first was the party's reference to the witness's testimony, which had to coincide with the statements of the referee. If there was a discrepancy, the case was lost. In the second case, both disputing parties addressed the same witnesses. Their testimony was the basis for the decision of the case.

The evidence used was a “general search” and a “general search” - an interview of all witnesses regarding the facts of crimes or a specific suspect.

Negotiation in the accusatory-adversarial process it was oral. Each stage of the process (summons to court, guarantee, making a decision, etc.) was formalized with a special letter.

Search process or investigation, used in the most important criminal cases. The case in the search process, as in the Code of Laws of 1497, could begin with a statement from the victim, with the discovery of a crime, or with a slander. The government agencies that conducted the investigation of the case were given broad powers. They interviewed witnesses, carried out torture, used a “search” - interviewing all witnesses and suspects, etc.

Chapter XXI of the Council Code regulated the use of torture. The basis for its use was usually the results of a “search”. Torture could be used no more than three times with a certain break. Testimony given during torture had to be confirmed by other evidence. The testimony of the tortured person was recorded.

Plan

Introduction. The concept of a historical source

Analysis of historical reality of the 17th century

Reasons for the creation of the Council Code

Convening of the Zemsky Sobor and preparation of the Council Code

Sources of the Cathedral Code

Structure of the Cathedral Code

Brief analysis of the contents of the Council Code

Various branches of law in the Council Code

a) Judicial law

b) Criminal law

c) Property, obligation and inheritance rights. d) Treaty in the 17th century. e) Law of obligations of the 17th century. f) Institute of easements. g) Inheritance law. h) Family law.

The meaning of the Cathedral Code

Literature

1. Introduction. The concept of a historical source

One of the most significant legal acts created over the long history of the Russian state is the Council Code of 1649. In order to most fully characterize it as a monument of law, as a historical source, it is necessary to determine its place in the system of the entire set of historical sources, quite 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, or rather, everything created in the process of human activity and carrying information about the diverse aspects of social life.

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

Law is the state will of the economically dominant class or the entire society expressed in a system of generally binding rules of behavior. 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 private individuals, private individuals and the state, states, the state and the church. All acts are usually divided into 2 main groups:

public law, more precisely of governmental origin;

private law, or rather concluded between private individuals.

This division is conditional, since some public legal and private legal acts have points of contact.

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 historical reality of the 17th century

Around the 17th century, in the middle of which the Council Code was created, began, as V.I. Lenin points out, “a new period of Russian history,” characterized by the actual merging of individual regions, lands and principalities of the Russian Centralized State into a single whole. This merger was caused by increasing exchange between regions, growth in commodity circulation and the concentration of local markets into one all-Russian market. But still, despite the new conditions in the economy, the dominant form of farming remains subsistence corvée farming. As Lenin wrote in his work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”: “For a natural, closed economy, which was corvee land tenure, it is necessary that the direct producer be endowed with the means of production and land, so that he is 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 corvee system of farming was based on an extremely low routine technique, since farming was in the hands of small peasants, oppressed by need, humiliated by personal dependence and mental darkness.”

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

patrimonial land ownership of boyars, monasteries and especially local authorities

denominations of the 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 with a developed fishing industry arose. In the middle of the 17th century, patrimonial owners and landowners in the central part of Russia sought to expand arable land on their estates by cutting back on plots of peasant allotment land. This entailed even greater exploitation of the peasants. In addition, the nobility in the first half of the 17th century received the right to allow their sons to own the estate, provided that they were able to perform public service; more precisely, gradually the landowners' lands began to turn into hereditary ones. At the same time, “small-scale”, “placeless” and “empty” service people emerged, who also sought to acquire land holdings in the form of an award for service to the tsar, but more by seizing the lands of “black volosts”, serfs and townsman tax people.

This process of simultaneous growth of small and large landownership was accompanied by a struggle for the right to inherit landholdings, on the one hand, and for the enslavement of peasants, on the other hand, since serf peasants were the main productive force of large-local economies. The landowners did not have a sufficient number of serfs, and patrimonial owners often lured away and sheltered runaway peasants, and therefore the intra-feudal struggle between landowners and patrimonial lords over the serfs intensified. Many landowners, “sovereign servants,” monasteries, taking advantage of the fact that they were exempt from taxes, bought up courtyards and industries in the cities and, competing with city people, further burdened the life of the tax-taxed townspeople. The development of commodity-money relations affected the connection between patrimonial estates and landowners with the city and vice versa. This process can be traced, for example, by analyzing the economic activities of royal, boyar, and monastic estates in the mid-17th century. This analysis indicates that, in addition to farming, the patrimonial people were also engaged in crafts (for example, the monastery of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra had salt pans in Pomorie, and forestry trades developed in the patrimonies of the boyars Morozov, Cherkasy and others). At the same time, there is a gradual separation of crafts 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 (Nizhny Novgorod region, the village of Pavlovo - the center of the iron industry, the village of Murashkino in the Arzamas land made sheepskin coats, and so on). In such large cities as Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl and others, certain types of crafts are growing in the suburbs, especially blacksmithing, cannon-making, coppersmithing, weapons and silversmithing. 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. Manufacture mainly served the needs of the state; goods were released onto the market only when orders from the treasury or the royal court were satisfied.

The improvement of crafts and manufacturing led to the further development of the internal market, but trade was not yet completely separated from crafts. Craftsmen were also sellers of their goods.

In Moskovsky Posad there were about 50% of such traders. The largest cu-

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

on carts (so that there is no competition with the townspeople's taxation people). Once-

Trade also increased between industrial and agricultural areas.

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

prominent merchants - guests, merchants of the living room and cloth of hundreds,

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

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

city ​​tax). The entire burden of paying city taxes fell on

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

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

sky orders. “White” settlements arose, which were free from payments (direct state tax, Streltsy tax, Yam money) in favor of the “sovereign”. Freed from this tax, the inhabitants of these settlements built trading yards and shops, served by their own serf peasants, and thereby undermined the economic position of the tax people of the settlement. Therefore, the townspeople repeatedly raised the question of returning to the settlement the people who had left and the town property mortgaged by the “White Listers”.

In addition, the tsarist government, not satisfied with the tax, increased indirect taxes on basic necessities, such as salt. The petty military “people”, gunners, collar workers, etc., who received small cash and grain salaries for their service, were also dissatisfied with the government’s economic and financial policies. Since their main source of existence is crafts, they were always ready to support the actions of the townspeople against fiscal policy and the administrative arbitrariness of local city authorities. Due to the lack of land ownership and the “scarcity of the sovereign’s salary,” “small service people” also expressed their dissatisfaction.

Reasons for the creation of the Council Code

In connection with the above, we can say that the emergence of the Council Code was a direct result of popular uprisings in the first half of the 17th century, the basis of which was the movement of serfs, and the need to draw up a unified 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 continuously increasing exploitation, increasing duties, and the deepening of their lack of rights. Their struggle, as already mentioned, was joined by the “lesser” townspeople, supported by ordinary archers and other lower ranks of “service” people, as well as by the lower classes of church and monastic organizations. Serfs were also active participants in popular, especially urban, movements of the 17th century. In the middle of the 17th century, the struggle reached particular intensity. Already the census of 1646, according to which the peasants became “strong and without lesson years” (the law determined the punishment for harborers of runaway peasants), and the introduction of taxes on salt in February 1646 caused a stormy protest. The government, looking for a way out of the financial impasse, but not wanting to infringe on the interests of the ruling class, tried to reduce the salaries of the “petty service people.” As a result, “the mob rose up against the boyars” and a major uprising took place in the summer of 1648 in Moscow (the uprising also occurred because of the people’s hatred of the “temporary workers.” The rebels demanded the extradition of Pleshcheev, who was in charge of the Zemsky Prikaz, and other officials. The uprising took place strong effect: they began to appease the capital's army and mob, the archers were given water on the orders of the tsar, the tsar himself during the religious procession made a speech to the people that sounded like an apology, he did not skimp on promises. This uprising was echoed by movements in Ustyug Veliky, Solikamsk, Kozlov, Kursk and other cities. 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” from the “big people” fell on the shoulders of the peasants, the lower classes of the townspeople and ordinary streltsy. The same slogans reflected the antagonism between the posad as a whole and the highest official bureaucracy, the family boyars and the largest landowners. This subsequently affected some features of the Code. But in general, the Code acquired a clearly expressed noble character. It is important to note that criticism of the existing legislation was also heard from the ranks of the ruling class itself. This is explained by the struggle that went on between its different layers: between small and large landowners, between the serving nobility and the tribal landed nobility, between secular and spiritual feudal lords. It was a struggle for land, for workers, for political influence, etc. Thus, “service people” demanded the return to the treasury and the distribution of certain categories of church property to them. Together with representatives of the settlement, the nobles in the petition dated October 30, 1948 demanded the destruction of private boyar and church settlements and arable lands 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” caused to them in the orders and insisted that the tsar “order them to be judged in all matters according to the code of law.” , and in the petition of the Kadom and Kasimov Murzas of 1642 against the violence of the “big people”.

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

Convening 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 Zemstvo Sobor to prepare a new Code. In addition, by the beginning of the reign of Mikhailov’s successor, a fairly extensive stock of new laws had accumulated and the need to understand it was felt. According to the established order of Moscow legislation, new laws were issued primarily at the request of one or another Moscow order, caused by the judicial and administrative practice of each, and were addressed to the management and execution of the order of the department to which they concerned.

The need for a new set of laws, reinforced by the abuses of the order, can be considered the main motivation that gave rise to the new code and even partly determined its character.

From the surviving “memory” of the convening of the Council it is clear that as early as June 10, the upper ranks 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 “the sovereign He favored them, ordered a Council to be held, and at the Council they will learn to beat their foreheads about all their deeds.” This initiative was aimed at calming the urban lower classes and at the same time taking advantage of the difficult situation of the government to achieve their own class goals. The government looked at the convened Council as a means of pacifying 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 Coded Book by decree of the sovereign and patriarch, by the verdict of the boyars and by petitions of captains and solicitors and all ranks of people. In July 1648, the tsar, after consulting with the Patriarch of All Rus' Joseph, with the metropolitan with the archbishops and “with the entire illuminated cathedral”, “sovereign boyars”, with “okolnichy” and “duma 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, and also to collect and “confirm” with the old judicial documents the decrees of the former ruling kings and “boyar sentences on all state and zemstvo affairs.” The same articles for which in the court records “there was no decree and there were no boyar sentences for those articles, and those articles on the same should be written and set out according to his sovereign decree by the general council, so that the Moscow state of all ranks of people, from the great and of a lower rank, the court and justice were equal to everyone in all matters.” (from the preface to the cathedral code). A special codification commission of 5 people, from the boyars Prince, was entrusted with drafting the Code. Odoevsky and Prozorovsky, the okolnichy Prince Volkonsky and two clerks, Leontyev 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 Duma commission; it was established on July 16. At the same time, they decided to convene the Zemsky Sobor to consider 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 presented to the sovereign with the Duma for consideration. It should be noted that the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649 was the largest of all that were convened during the period of the existence of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia. The fact that the most important political issues were resolved at Zemsky Councils testifies to their great importance and authority. On the advice of the patriarch and the boyar “sentence”, the tsar gave instructions for the consideration and approval of the Council Code to elect to the Zemsky Sobor from the stewards, solicitors, Moscow nobles and tenants - 2 people each, from all cities from the nobles and children of the boyars, except Novgorod , 2 people each, and from Novgorod residents from Pyatiny - 1 person each, from guests - 3 people each, from the living room and cloth hundreds - 2 people each, and from the “black” hundreds and settlements and cities from posads - 1 person each. By September 1, 1648, elected officials “from all ranks” of the state, servicemen and commercial and industrial townspeople were convened in Moscow; electors from rural or district inhabitants, as from a special curia, were not called up. The Zemsky Sobor, both in its tasks and in its composition, was feudal-serf. 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” chamber, where the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the consecrated Council, and in the reciprocal chamber, where elected people of various ranks presided over Prince Yu.A. Dolgorukov, who were called from Moscow and from the cities, “so that the entire Code would henceforth be strong and motionless” (a number of articles of the Code retell the contents of the petitions, which indicates the participation of elected people in the preparation of the Council Code *). Then the sovereign instructed the highest 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 to the cities in the voivodeship offices in order to “all matters de -follow that Code.”

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

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

The speed of adoption of the code is amazing. The entire discussion and adoption of the Code of almost 1000 articles took just over six months. But it should be taken into account that the commission was entrusted with a huge task: firstly, to collect, disassemble and rework into a coherent set the existing laws, which were different in time, unagreed, scattered among departments; it was also necessary to normalize cases not provided for by these laws. In addition, it was necessary to know public needs and relationships, to study the practice of judicial and administrative institutions. This kind of work required many years. But they decided to draw up the Council 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, the first 12 chapters for the report, almost half of the entire code, were prepared. 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 council ended and the Code was completed in manuscript. The speed with which the Code was drawn up can be explained by the alarming news about the riots that broke out in the wake of the June riot, in addition, there were rumors about a new uprising being prepared in the capital, not to mention the need to create a new code. Therefore, they were in a hurry to draw up the Code, so that the cathedral electors would spread throughout the cities stories about the new course of the government and about the Code, which promised “equal”, fair treatment to everyone.

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 Kormchaya Book (its 2nd part), which contained the codes and laws of the Greek kings (as for these laws, such a reference was caused only by the desire of the Moscow kings to give “authority to their legislative activities” (Yushkov S.V., “History” states and laws of the USSR”, part 1), since the foundations of Byzantine law were known in Rus' since the times of the Old Russian state), Moscow codes of law and additional decrees and sentences, i.e. decree books of orders, decrees of “former, great sovereigns, kings, 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 decrees of ecumenical and local councils.

Decree books are the most abundant source of the Code. Each order, as a government body, had a special book in which all newly issued laws and regulations that fell within its competence were entered. The books included ready-made codes with detailed indications of 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 code were compiled from these books with verbatim or modified excerpts: for example, 2 chapters on estates and fiefs were compiled from the book of the Local Order, the chapter “On the Serf Court” - from the book of the order of the Serf Court, the sources of Chapter 18 are the decree - records of the Printed Order, etc.

The commission made a peculiar use of 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 the formulation of legal issues, but all processed in “our own Moscow way.” Thus, the Statute served not only as a legal source of the Code, but as a codification manual for its drafters. It should be taken into account that Professor S.V. Yushkov pointed out that the Lithuanian Statute itself was based on the principles of Russian Pravda and was written in Russian, which proves “the belonging of Lithuanian law to the system of Russian law.”

Structure of the Cathedral Code

The Council 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 announcement in shopping areas and in churches, which was usually indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of a printed law largely eliminated the possibility of abuses by governors and officials in charge of legal proceedings.

The Council Code had no precedents in the history of Russian legislation. In terms of volume it can only be compared with Stoglav*, but in terms of the wealth of legal material it surpasses it many times over. Among the monuments of 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 differed favorably from it. The Code had no equal in contemporary European practice.

The Council Code is the first systematized law in the history of Russia.

In literature, this is why it is often called a code, but this is not legally correct. The Code contains material relating not to one, but to many branches of law of that time. This is more likely not a code, but rather a small 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 309-meter-long column of 959 separate sections. This unique document allows us to judge the work on its preparation. On the front side of the column, the text of the Council Code was written by several scribes. On the back are 315 signatures of the Council participants. Based on the gluing of the front side of the staple of the Duma clerk I. Gavrenev. The staples of the Duma clerks F. Elizariev, M. Volosheninov, G. Leontyev and F. Griboedov were made on the reverse side also using glues. Special marks on the column indicate the sources of a particular article. There are corrections in the manuscript; passages missed during rewriting have been restored. “Inventory of amendments” is attached to the Code. At the same time, this column was not used in judicial practice. A handwritten book-copy “word for word” was made from the original column, from which copies of the Council Code were printed. It is not yet possible to determine the number of books printed. One of the documents gives a figure - 1200 books. This was a colossal circulation for that time.

Unlike previous legislative acts, the Council Code is distinguished not only by its larger volume (25 chapters divided into 967 articles), but also by its greater focus and complex structure. A brief introduction contains a statement of the motives and history of the drafting of the Code. For the first time, the law was divided into thematic chapters, devoted, if not to a specific branch of law, then at least 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 his sovereign’s health” (Chapter 2), “On money masters who will learn to make thieves’ money” (chapter 5), etc. This 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 when analyzing the Code both by industry and by object of law.

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

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

7. Brief analysis of the contents of the Council 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 legislators of the 17th century, since it is considered even earlier than an attempt on the “sovereign honor” and “sovereign health” (Chapter 2 ). For blasphemy against God and the Mother of God, the honorable cross or saints, according to Article 1, Chapter 1 of the Code, the culprit, regardless of his nationality, was to be burned at the stake. Death also threatened any “disorderly person” who interfered with the service of the liturgy. Severe punishments were also imposed for any outrages and disturbances committed in the temple, from trade execution to imprisonment. But chapter 1 with its 9 articles does not exhaust the legalization on church issues; they are scattered throughout the entire text of the Code. And in further chapters there are decrees on the oath of office for people of the spiritual and secular ranks, on limiting the rights of people of other faiths, on marriage, on the protection of church property, on the veneration of holidays, etc. All these measures were designed to protect the honor and dignity of the church. But the Code also contained points that caused strong discontent among the church hierarchy. According to Chapter 13, a special Monastic Order was approved, which was entrusted with judgment in relation to the clergy and people dependent on them. The clergy was deprived of judicial privileges, and this was done through petitions of elected people. Church land ownership was also subject to significant restrictions. The settlements and estates that belonged to the church authorities in the cities, in the suburbs and near the suburbs were taken “for the sovereign as a tax and for service without flight and irrevocably” (chapter 19, art. 1). Further, all clergy and institutions were categorically forbidden to acquire estates in any way and for lay people to give estates to monasteries (chapter 17, art. 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 caused resistance from the clergy, since the Code deprived them, with the exception of the patriarch, of judicial privileges. All church and monastery lands were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Monastery Prikaz.

Patriarch Nikon, who was not satisfied with the Code, called it nothing more than a “lawless book,” and the first head of the Monastic Order, Prince N.I. Odoevsky, “the new Luther.” As a result of an intense struggle, the spiritual power overcame the secular: in 1667 the Monastic Order was abolished.

For the first time in Russian legislation, the Code allocates a special chapter devoted to the criminal legal protection of the personality of the monarch (Chapter 2). It is emphasized that even intent is punishable by death. In addition, the composition of state and political crimes is determined. The chapter rarely separates these crimes from other “dashing cases,” being “the first codification in the history of Russian legislation that provides, if not an exhaustive, then still a relatively complete system of state crimes.” The chapter establishes the composition of each crime, the subjective and objective aspects of anti-state encroachments, circumstances that eliminate punishability, and procedural norms in these cases, which establish the dominant role of the search.

The next group of chapters is related to the “court”, and these chapters are distinguished both by the subject of regulated relations (chapter 9 - the court of peasants, chapter 10 - the court of townspeople) and by the object (chapter 17 - of estates, Chapter 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 the archers, about the Cossacks, about taverns, etc. (S.V. Yushkov, M.F. Vladimirs-kiy-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 with “new decree articles”, the most important among them: “New decree articles on robbery and murder” in 1669, “On estates” in 1676, “On estates and estates” in 1677, etc.

The articles of the Council Code depict the legal status of various classes and social groups of society: important articles depicting the legal status of peasants (for example, Articles 1,5,12,16,32 of Chapter 11, Article 13 of Chapter 2, Articles 94,235,262 of Chapter 10, Art. 7 of Chapter 13, Art. 9, 15, 37 of Chapter 19), etc. It is clear from them that the Code finally enshrined the complete prohibition of peasant exit - the “fixed summer” was abolished - the period for searching for runaway peasants, after which the searches stopped and in fact at least a small possibility remained for exiting the serfdom, even by escape. According to the Code, the search for fugitives became unlimited, and a fine of 10 rubles was established for their harboring. Thus, the peasants were finally attached to the land and the legal formalization of serfdom was completed. The adoption of these norms met the interests of service people who actively participated in the Third Council of 1648. But it is important to note that according to the Code, peasants still had some class rights. The fugitive peasants were categorically ordered to be returned along with their property, thereby recognizing their property rights. Recognition of personal rights was the provision according to which peasants who married while on the run were subject to return to the owner only by their families. But in general, the peasants were almost completely powerless both in personal and in public life (Article 13 of Chapter 2, Article 6 of Chapter 9, Article 261 of Chapter 10), etc. It must be taken into account that the Code, without interfering in many relations of feudal lords with peasants, leaves room for the arbitrariness of patrimonial owners and landowners: in the Code there are no norms regulating the amount of peasant duties.

If the position of patrimonial, and especially landowner, peasants was much more difficult than the position of state peasants, then at the very bottom of this ladder stood slaves and enslaved people (Articles 8, 16, 27, 35, 63, 85, Chapter 27). Serfs did not have personal and property rights, although in fact they increasingly turned into arable people and were included in taxation. If we compare articles about peasants and serfs, we can note that the position of the serf peasant approached the legal status of the serf. The Code also paid a lot of attention to some social issues. In the Time of Troubles, the force that ensured the final victory over external and internal enemies was the classes of service people and residents of the suburbs. Chapters 16 and 17 were devoted to streamlining land relations that 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 elite 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 ownership - votchina. From now on, estates can be exchanged for estates and vice versa. The 19th chapter, specially dedicated to them, satisfied the demands of the townspeople. According to it, the posad population was isolated into a closed class and attached to the posad (in addition, fighting attempts to evade the posad tax, the Code deprived the people of the “black hundreds” - the right to move from city to city (Articles 19, 22, 37, 38 Chapter 19). All residents of the posad had to pay certain taxes and perform duties in favor of the state. It was now impossible to leave the posad, but it was possible to enter only if they joined the tax community. This provision satisfied the demand of the posad people to protect them from the competition of different ranks of people who, coming from the service, clergy, and peasants, traded and were engaged in various trades near the towns, at the same time not bearing taxes. Now everyone who was engaged in trades and trades turned into an eternal townsman's tax. At the same time previously free from taxes, “white settlements” (whitewashed, i.e., freed from taxes and duties to the state), belonging to secular feudal lords and the church, were attached to the sovereign's estates free of charge. All those who had previously left were subject to return to the settlements. They were ordered to “take them to their old township places, where someone lived before this, flightless and irrevocable.” 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 engaging in trades and crafts.

The Code pays main attention to feudal lords. It secured the privileged position of representatives of the ruling class (Article 1 of Chapter 9, Article 27, 30, 90, Chapter 10, Article 1 of Chapter 11), etc. From the text of the Code it is clear which population groups 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), establishes their privileges (Articles 5,12,92,133,135 of Chapter 10, Articles 16,56 of Chapters 18,9 and 22) and their responsibilities “state service” (Article 7, 19 Chapter 7, Article 69 Chapter 16, Article 2 Chapter 20). The main part of the feudal lords were called “service people,” although they included not all feudal lords, and not only feudal lords, but also archers, Cossacks, gunners, etc., who had neither peasants, nor estates, nor estates, and received cash and grain salaries and some benefits for service. 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 (Articles 13,33,38,41,42,45 of Chapter 17) and estates (Articles 1-3,5-8,13,34,51 of Chapter 16). The Code takes a serious step in the direction of 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 appears earlier in the law than the chapter on estates.

Equating estates with estates proceeded along the lines of primarily granting landowners the right to dispose of land. Until now, essentially only patrimonial owners had the right to own land (but their rights were somewhat limited, which was preserved in the Code), but in principle, the patrimonial owner had the necessary element of property rights - 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 the case if the landowner left the service). The Council Code introduced significant changes to this matter: first of all, it expanded the landowner’s right to own land - now a landowner who retired retained the right to land, and although he was not left with his former estate, he was given the so-called -a living estate is a kind of pension. The widow of the landowner and his children up to a certain age received the same pension.

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

The Code contains many articles protecting numerous other economic objects 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 related to the criminal law; non-fulfillment of many contracts was subject to criminal punishment.

Much attention is paid to criminal law (chapters 1-5,10,21,22, etc.) and process. Compared to previous legislation, the Code provides for more cases of public criminal prosecution (Article 31 of Chapter 21, Article 14 of Chapter 22). In punitive policy, the features of right-privilege clearly appear (Articles 90, 92 of Chapter 10, Article 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 crime system is becoming more complex. The set of rules 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 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 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 punishment system 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 an increasing tendency to expand the scope of the search, although the court is still in first place in terms of jurisdiction. The meaning of court 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 - property, contracts, inheritance - are widely interpreted. The articles of the Council Code do not provide 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, characteristic of an estate-representative monarchy and reflecting the tendency to develop into an absolute monarchy. The articles relating to the Boyar Duma give some idea of ​​its role in the state of the 17th century (Article 2 of Chapter 10).

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

The Council Code satisfied the main class demands of the nobility and partly of its allies - the upper classes of the town, marked the first systematic set of laws, covering almost all branches of law, and was the final stage in the process of formation of a unified Russian state.

8. Various branches of law in the Council Code.

a) Judicial law.

Judicial law in the Code constituted a special set of rules that regulated the organization of the court and process. Even more clearly than in the Code of Laws, 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 the “court”: the process was divided into trial and “judgment”, i.e. sentencing. The “trial” began with the “initiation”, the filing of a petition. Then the defendant was summoned to court by the bailiff. 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 party was given a corresponding certificate.

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

The adjudication in the adversarial process was oral, but was recorded in the “court list”. Each stage was formalized with a special certificate. The search or “detective” was used in the most serious criminal cases. Special place and attention was given to crimes that were declared: “the word and deed of the sovereign,” i.e. in which the state interest was affected. The case in the search process could begin with a statement from the victim, with the discovery of a crime (red-handed) or with an ordinary slander unsupported by the facts of the accusation (9 “language rumor”). After this, government agencies got involved. The victim submitted a “appearance” (statement), and the bailiff and witnesses went to the crime scene to conduct an inquiry. The procedural actions were a “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 use could be the results of the “search”, when the testimony of witnesses was divided: part in favor of the accused, part against him. If the results of the “search” were favorable for 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 testimony given during torture (“slander”) had to be cross-checked through other procedural measures (interrogation, oath, “search”). The testimony of the tortured person was recorded.

b) Criminal law.

In the field of criminal law, the Council Code clarifies the concept of “dashing business”, developed in the Code of Laws. The subjects of the crime could be either individuals or a group of persons. The law divided them into main and secondary, 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 subject, even a slave who committed a crime at the direction of his master began to be recognized. The law distinguished from accomplices persons who were only involved in the commission of a crime: accomplices (who created the conditions for the commission of a crime), enablers, 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 person who committed them is punished in the same way as for intentional criminal actions. The law distinguishes between mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The first include: a state of intoxication, uncontrollability of actions caused by an insult or threat (affect), the second - repetition of a crime, a combination of several crimes. There are separate stages of a criminal act: intent (which in itself can be punishable), attempted crime and commission of a crime. The law knows the concept of relapse (coinciding in the Code with the concept of “dashing person”) and extreme necessity, which is not punishable only if it is proportionate to the real danger on the part of the criminal. Violation of proportionality meant exceeding the necessary defense and was punished. The Council Code considered the objects of crime to be the church, state, family, person, property and morality.

System of crimes according to the Council Code:

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

3) crimes against the order of government (intentional failure of the defendant to appear in court, resistance to the bailiff, production of false letters, acts and seals, counterfeiting, unauthorized travel abroad, moonshine brewing, taking a false oath in court, false accusation), 4) crimes against deanery (keeping brothels, harboring fugitives, illegal sale of property, imposing duties on persons exempt from them), 5) official crimes (extortion (bribery, extortion, illegal exactions), injustice, forgery in service, military crimes), 6) crimes against the person (murder, divided into simple and qualified, beatings, insults to honor. The murder of a traitor or thief at the scene of the crime was not punished), 7) property crimes (simple and qualified theft (church, in the service , horse theft committed in the sovereign's courtyard, theft of vegetables from the garden and fish from the cage), robbery committed in the form of a trade, ordinary and qualified robbery (committed by servicemen or children against their parents), fraud (theft associated with deception, but without violence), arson, forcible seizure of someone else’s property, damage to someone else’s property), 8) crimes against morality (children’s disrespect for their parents, refusal to support elderly parents, pimping, “fornication” of a wife, but not a husband, sexual relations between a master and a slave).

Punishments under the Council Code and their purposes:

The punishment system was characterized by the following features: 1) individualization of punishment: the wife and children of the criminal were not responsible for the act committed by him, but the institution of third party responsibility was preserved - the landowner who killed the peasant had to transfer the damage to the landowner of another peasant , the procedure of “rights” was preserved, to a large extent the guarantee was similar to the responsibility of the guarantor for the actions of the offender (for whom he was guaranteeing), 2) the solo nature of 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 - deterrence). The sentence may not have indicated the type of punishment, and if it was indicated, the method of its execution (“punish with death”) or the measure (term) of punishment (throw “in prison until the sovereign’s decree”) was unclear, 4) plurality of punishment - for the same crime several punishments could be established at once: whipping, cutting of 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 criminal. To intimidate the criminal, they applied the punishment that he would have desired 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 analogues of hellish torment.

The Council Code provided for the death penalty in almost 60 cases (even smoking tobacco was punishable by death). The death penalty was divided into qualified (cutting, quartering, burning, pouring metal into the throat, burying alive in the ground) and simple (hanging, beheading). Self-mutilation punishments included: cutting off an arm, leg, cutting off the nose, ear, lip, tearing out an eye, nostril. These punishments could be applied as additional or as main ones. Mutilating punishments, in addition to intimidation, served the function of identifying the criminal. Painful punishments included flogging with a whip or batogs in a public place (at a market). Imprisonment, as a special type of punishment, could be set for a period from 3 days to 4 years or for an indefinite period. As an additional type of punishment (or as the main one), exile was imposed (to monasteries, fortresses, prisons, to boyar estates). Representatives of the privileged classes were subject to such a type of punishment as deprivation of honor and rights (from complete extradition by head (becoming a slave) to declaring “disgrace” (isolation, sharpness, disgrace from the state)). The accused could be deprived of his rank, the right to sit in the Duma or the order, and deprived of the right to file a claim 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 type was the complete confiscation of the criminal's property. In addition, the system of sanctions included church punishments (repentance, penance, excommunication, exile to a monastery, confinement in a solitary cell, etc.).

c) Property, obligation and inheritance rights.

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 identify civil law relations regulated by special norms with sufficient certainty. It should be taken into account that in the Code one and 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 a particular category often created a situation in which heterogeneous norms and obligations were mixed. The subjects of civil legal relations were both private (individuals) 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 clan and family unions, a private individual at the same time falls under the strong influence of other collective entities, 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 has become 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 rights to own and use, but not to dispose of the object (enrollment of minor sons in the service, marriage of a daughter to a person taking over 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: from the age of 15, children of service people could be allocated estates, and from the same age, subjects had the right to independently assume enslaving obligations. Parents retained the right to enroll their children in indentured 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 (chap. 14 of the Council Code). At the same time, the legislator left such norms as the age of marriage to practice and custom. The fact of reaching a certain period (whether age or prescription) was not considered at all by him as decisive for the legal status of the subject: even after reaching adulthood, children did not completely leave the power of their father. As for the sexual qualifications, in the 17th century there was a significant increase in a woman’s legal capacity compared to the previous period. Thus, a widow is endowed by law with a whole range of powers, procedural and obligatory rights. There were also significant changes in the scope and procedure for 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 restrictions of subjective rights. When dividing clan property, the clan as a collective subject, transferring its rights to collective subjects, retained the right to dispose of property, which could be alienated only with the consent of all members of the clan. The family retained the right to repurchase the sold family property within the period established by law. The grant of land to an estate (the act of transferring property by the state to a landowner) did not fundamentally change the subject of ownership - it remained the state. The landowner was assigned only the right of lifelong ownership. But if the land fell (when additional actions were performed) 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 division of powers of the owner and the possessor also differed when allocating a land plot to a separate peasant family using it from the lands of the peasant community, which had ownership rights to this plot.

The grant of land was a complex set of legal actions, including the issuance of a grant, drawing up 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 land and consisting of establishing the fact of actual vacancy of the transferred land, taking possession, which consisted in a public measurement of the 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 Rank Order, the Order of the Great Palace and other orders. In the act of granting, subjective will gave rise to objective consequences (the emergence 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 the legal basis for the possession of ownership rights, in particular to land, provided that this property was in legal possession for the period established by law. If in the decrees of the early 17th century 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 different nature and time of origin.

d) Treaty in the 17th century.

The contract remained the main way of acquiring ownership rights to property, and in particular to land; it appeared in this quality before the institution of grant. The development of this form took place against the background of the gradual replacement of formalized actions (participation of witnesses when concluding an agreement) with written acts (“assault” of witnesses without their personal participation in the transaction procedure). “Assault” gradually lost its symbolic character and turned into a simple testimony of the parties to the contract. A contract document drawn up by interested parties acquired legal force only after it was certified by an official authority, which was expressed in a resolution on the document in the seal. But even an approved contractual document created a new legal relationship only if it was actually legal. Sometimes, to ensure it, additional legal actions were required that were not directly related to the content of the main obligation. Thus, the Council Code provided for the issuance, in addition to contractual documents establishing the right to land, of renunciation certificates, which were sent to the areas where the lands transferred under the contract are located.

According to the law of the 16th and 17th centuries, estates 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 ancestral, served and purchased.

As for local land ownership, as already mentioned, the Council 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 (“feed 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 rental of estates for money was already permitted by Article 12 of Chapter 16 of the Cathedral Code.

d) 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 the property liability of the debtor. The transfer of obligations to property turned out to be related to the issue of their transfer by inheritance. The Council Code allowed such a transition in the case of inheritance by law, stipulating that refusal of inheritance also removes obligations for debts (Chapter 10, Article 245). One of the most important conditions when concluding a contract was the freedom of expression of the contracting parties, but this condition was often not met either in law or in practice. In the Cathedral Code (Article 190, Chapter 10) a hint is made that the owners of apartments where military personnel are accommodated in the performance of their duties become custodians of the belongings of these military personnel when the latter enter a 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 party with the opportunity to challenge such a deal within a week (Article 251, Chapter 10). As guarantees against violence and deception, 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 contract to come into force, the contractual act drawn up by the clerk was sealed by assault of witnesses (up to 6 people), and then registered in the administrative hut (Article 39 of Chapter 17 of the Council Code).

f) Institute of easements.

For the first time, the Council Code regulated the institution of easements (i.e., a legal restriction of the property rights of one subject in the interests of the right of use of another or others). The legislator knew personal easements (restrictions in favor of certain persons specifically specified in the law), for example, the weeding of meadows by warriors in service, the right to their entry into forest lands owned by a private individual (Chapter 7). Easements in rem (limitation of property rights in the interests of an indefinite number of subjects) included: the right of the mill owner to flood the underlying meadow belonging to another person for production purposes, the opportunity to build a stove near the wall of a neighbor’s house or to build a house on the boundary of someone else’s plot (Chapter 10). The development of easement law indicated the formation of clear ideas about the right of private property, the emergence of a large number of individual owners and the conflict of their interests. Along with this, the right of ownership was limited either by direct regulations of the law (for example, widows were forbidden to mortgage their estates, employees were forbidden to accept collateral from foreigners), or by the establishment of a legal regime that did not guarantee “eternal” property (maintaining a period of 40 years for ransom of the clan community). Thus, the right to private property continued to be subject to restrictions.

g) Inheritance law.

Restrictions and regulation also extended to 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 serviceable estates passed to the heirs by law. The ancestral estates were inherited by the sons, and in their absence, by the daughters. A widow could inherit only part of the inherited estate - “for subsistence” (i.e. for lifelong use). Ancestral and granted estates could be inherited only by members of the clan to which the testator belonged. The purchased estates could be inherited by the testator's widow, who received a quarter of the movable property and her own dowry.

h) Family law.

The principles of house-building continued to apply here - the supremacy of the husband over his wife and children, the actual community of property, etc. They were also revealed in legislative provisions. Only church marriage was recognized as legally significant. The law allowed one person to enter into no more than 3 marriages during his life. 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 obliged the wife to follow her husband - to 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”, “to serve” or to work. The father could punish the children, but not excessively. The murder of a child was punishable by imprisonment (but not the death penalty, as for the murder of a stranger). The law knows the concept of illegitimate; persons in 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,” or when the wife was unable to bear children.

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

The meaning of the Cathedral Code

The adoption of the Council Code was one of the main achievements of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. This code of laws, grandiose 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: “Sire, in another you are thy father, in another you are worthy of more praise and thanksgiving. The main affairs of sovereigns are 3: the first is internal violence and your main business is justice, in this you are more than you have done.” The Code, having consolidated 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 largely used in the compilation of the 15th volume 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 period of 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, “in the arrangement of objects of legislation, there is a desire to depict the state system in a vertical section, from the church and the sovereign with his court to the Cossacks and the tavern, as discussed in the last 2 chapters.” And although in technical terms, as a monument to codification, it (the Soborniye Code) did not surpass the old codes of law, as a monument to legislation, the Code made a significant step forward in comparison with them: The code is much broader than the Code of Laws, it captures the area of ​​legislation, it tries to penetrate into the composition of society, to determine the position and mutual relations of its classes, speaks of service people and service landownership, of peasants, of 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 concern his interests and relations.

Literature

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

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

Cathedral Code of 1649, M., 1958, edited by I.A. Gre-kov

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

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

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

Workshop on the history of the USSR (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.

The adoption of the Council Code (date of adoption - 1649) is one of the most significant events in the history of Russian law. For its time, this was the most important document that forced the Moscow state to evolve into a developed society.

Basic Prerequisites

The adoption of the Council Code did not happen in a vacuum. There were many reasons for creating a single document regulating human life in the Russian state.

Until 1649, the Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, written in 1550, was a single set of laws. Over the course of a hundred years, the system of feudal governance had changed greatly, requiring the introduction of new norms for governing the state. And they were accepted. True, in the form of decrees, which are not added to the code of law.

The reasons for the adoption of the Council Code lie in the need to bring all decrees and laws into a single system. Until 1649, they were all scattered among various sources. Often the situation became absurd - a decree was issued and successfully forgotten, and the state continued to live according to old concepts.

1649

Against the background of such a disorganized and poorly functioning system, the need for such a legal act as the adoption of the Council Code became clear. The data turned out to be far from accidental.

The final impetus for the much-needed reform was the events of 1648, which went down in history as the “Salt Riot.” The shock of the unexpected uprising forced Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to act immediately. Fortunately, at that time Rus' had an extremely intelligent leader who understood what the people expected from him. The convening of the Zemsky Sobor, which ultimately led to the creation of the code, was an extremely correct reaction to the riot in Moscow. It allowed people to calm down and the situation to stabilize. Who knows, perhaps if another person had sat in the place of the wise politician Alexei Mikhailovich, the adoption of the Council Code in Russia would have occurred centuries later.

Creating a document

Alexei Mikhailovich entrusted the responsible mission of preparing a code of laws to a specially created commission consisting of princes and clergy. They had to do hard work: analyze and put together all the sources that contained decrees and norms written earlier, not in the year of adoption of the Council Code.

In fact, the entire elite of the then Moscow kingdom was involved in editing and listening to the document. The Boyar Duma considered every article included in the code. Another editorial committee was also created, consisting of specially selected people of different ranks.

After the proposal of the law and its consideration by the two above-mentioned authorities, which also involved re-editing, the law was signed by each member of the Zemsky Sobor. The presence of responsibility for each editor made the adoption of the Council Code completely legal and legally justified.

Crime and Punishment

The system of punishment in the Council Code is extremely interesting. At that time, such a view of justice seemed absolutely normal, but now it causes nothing but disgusting surprise.

The adoption of the Council Code of 1649 carried many different punishments, working on the principle of “an eye for an eye.” Thus, a criminal who deliberately caused injury was inflicted with exactly the same injury as “education.” Particularly interesting in this context is the punishment for perjury. The offender had to suffer the punishment that was provided for by the crime that was not actually committed. If the crime actually took place, and the opposite was shown, the person was recorded as an accomplice.

Quite indicative and telling about the society of that time is the frequent postscript that accompanied the punishment measures - “at the discretion of the king.” Thus, Alexei Mikhailovich preserved the institution of absolute monarchy, making the throne above any code and code and leaving the last word to the ruler.

Serfdom

The adoption of the Council Code of Alexei Mikhailovich finally completely completed the formation of the institution of serfdom in Rus', forever tying the peasants to the land and the landowner and completely limiting their freedom of movement. For example, a serf could no longer defend himself in court - he had to rely on the beneficence of his overlord.

Such decisions for a long time consolidated a solid and coherent feudal system within Rus'. The Council Code itself was aimed precisely at this, so it is not surprising in the emergence of such norms that cruelly limited the lower strata of the population.

But even in this barrel of ointment there was a fly in the ointment for the peasant: from now on he had the right to protect his life and personal property from the encroachments of the overlord. It is clear that this did not always work (especially with the note that the peasant cannot answer for himself before the court), but the very presence of such a norm in the code meant that the government was aware of the problem of abuse of power and was making attempts to eliminate this shortcoming of feudalism.

Church and Council Code

In connection with Alexei Mikhailovich’s policy regarding the church, the dominant role of churchmen in the state structure is clearly visible in the Council Code. The only thing that outraged the church was the deprivation of the clergy's right to be single and absolute judges during proceedings. Now officials dealt with such things.

However, despite this, it cannot be denied that the adoption of the Council Code only consolidated the power of the churchmen in the country. It has gotten to the point that there are almost more articles for “crimes against the church” in the code of laws than for other items combined. Here you can find damage to church property, blasphemy, insults to the priest, and heresy. In a word, the clergy always had the opportunity to eliminate the “superfluous” person. The punishment for offenses in front of the church for almost all counts was the same - burning at the stake.

Court

The year of the adoption of the Council Code also forever and radically changed the judicial system in the Moscow state. Probably, it was he who came to the attention of most of the reforms.

Firstly, a clear definition of the concepts of “trial” and “search” has finally appeared. They were divided among themselves and were different stages of the investigation, whereas before 1649 the search for the criminal was already (legally) a trial.

Secondly, there was a legal basis for the search. Now its organization by the authorities and the things found during it were considered full-fledged evidence during the trial.

Thirdly, the procedure for interrogation through torture was regulated. Now they could be carried out no more than three times and after a clearly established period of time, which should have significantly reduced the number of false repentances.

Perhaps it was precisely because of the last point that Rus' managed to do without its own Inquisition.

Family

Strange as it may sound for our time, the Council Code devotes a lot of space to family issues. Great importance was attached to the description and explanation of the structure of the smallest unit of society.

In fact, the adoption of the Council Code did not bring any fundamental changes, but it completely consolidated the status of the family and its structure. Of course, the family had to remain patriarchal - the man was the “builder of the house”, he made all the most important decisions. The status of a woman depended entirely on the status of a man, and this meant that a free woman would never marry a serf.

A family was a man and a woman who were married in a church. This was another important point related to the clergy.

However, there were still changes, and important ones. This is the emergence of divorce as a rightful act. Of course, it happened extremely rarely, but now it was allowed: in the case of the wife’s infertility or the criminal actions of one of the spouses.

Meaning

The year of adoption of the Council Code became a new step in the evolution of Russian society. A full-fledged code of laws, by which the whole world now lived, finally visited the Moscow state. This was an important step not only in development within the country, but also in strengthening its status in the international sense.

It would seem, what difference does it make to foreign merchants? But even they more actively reached out to Muscovy, where, after the adoption of the Council Code, written forms of agreement became mandatory for any trade transaction.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the Council Code. Periodically changing, it survived until the 19th century, being the main support for the legal life of Rus'. It became unnecessary with the advent of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, which marked a new round of development of the Russian state.

Cathedral Code - the first set of laws of the Russian state in Russian history, adopted on January 29, 1649 at the Zemsky Sobor, held in 1648-1649. The monument itself does not have a title; in the preface it is simply called “Olozhenie”. It is quite acceptable to use as definitions the Code of 1649, the Code of the Tsar and others, used as synonyms in historical and legal literature.

Reasons for drawing up the Code

The convening of this council was caused by a number of uprisings that took place in Russian cities. The most powerful of them and dangerous for the authorities was the performance in Moscow in June 1648. The young Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who ascended the throne in 1645 at the age of 16, transferred a significant part of the power and responsibility to his “uncle”-educator B.I. Morozov. He failed to establish governance of the country, which was plagued by corruption and arbitrariness on the part of the boyars, governors, and other officials. With reference to the 17th century foreign traveler A. Olearius, in the historical tradition the Moscow uprising of 1648 is often called the “salt riot”, but this does not reflect its real reasons, among which the increase in the price of salt was not among the main ones. The population of Moscow who spoke out (posad people and archers, serfs and courtyard servants) tried to submit a petition to the Tsar complaining about bribes, extortions and unfair trials on the part of people in power. The rioters demanded the removal and severe punishment of particularly hated dignitaries from the government headed by Morozov. The spontaneous rebellion began to take on organized forms with clearer demands when, a few days later, the movement was joined by nobles and other service people gathered in the capital to be sent to guard the southern border. They, together with the top merchant class, seized the initiative for negotiations with the tsar. This development of events put the supreme power in a difficult position. On the one hand, service people were a privileged class and were not interested in continuing the rebellion. On the other hand, their interests and armed force could not be ignored. Simply suppressing speech became impossible. On July 16, the Zemsky Sobor was convened with the participation of elected representatives of nobles and merchants. The quintessence of their demands was the proposal to draw up a new Code to put in order and improve written legislation.

Preparation and adoption of the Code

The commission for the preparation of the preliminary text of the Code was headed by the Tsar’s closest boyar and governor, Prince N.I. Odoevsky (1605-1689). There is every reason to believe that he was not a nominal head, but a real leader of the work on the text of the Code, as an intelligent, firm, authoritative person. The commission included two more princes, boyar F.F. Volkonsky and Okolnichy S.V. Prozorovsky, as well as two clerks, G. Leontyev and F.A. Griboyedov. The composition of the commission turned out to be very efficient and experienced, since it completed the task in a relatively short time (1.5 months). On September 1, 1648, as planned, the Zemsky Sobor, with an expanded composition of delegates, resumed its work, having received a written draft of the Code. The work of the cathedral was carried out in two chambers. One included the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Council, that is, the highest church hierarchs. The other was called the Reply Chamber, it was dominated by nobles and representatives of the towns. Amendments were made to the preliminary text both at the meetings of the cathedral and during the ongoing work of the Odoevsky commission on the texts of collective petitions that the elected representatives brought with them to the cathedral as instructions from voters. The situation in the country, which remained alarming and explosive, forced a rush to resolve legislative issues. In the winter of 1648-1649, unrest intensified in various places. On January 29, 1649, the drafting and editing of the Code was completed; it was adopted and signed by all members of the cathedral. These signatures were left by 315 people: Patriarch Joseph, 6 bishops, 6 archimandrites and abbots, the archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral - the tsar’s confessor, 27 members of the Boyar Duma (boyars, okolnichy, printer and duma clerk), 5 Moscow nobles, 148 noble policemen, 3 “guests” “- privileged merchants, 12 elected from Moscow hundreds and settlements, 89 townspeople from different cities, 15 elected from Moscow Streltsy “orders”-regiments.

Publication of the Code

The original Code is a scroll glued together from 959 columns - “stavs”. The length of the scroll is 309 meters. The Code is currently stored in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts in a gilded “ark” specially made for this purpose. There is text on the front side and signatures on the back. It is almost impossible to use such a scroll for practical purposes. An exact copy was made from it in the form of a handwritten book, and typographical typesetting was already carried out from it. The Code of 1649 is the first printed monument of Russian law. The first edition, with a circulation of 1,200 copies, began printing on April 7 and was completed on May 20, 1649. Several copies were presented to the Tsar, Patriarch, and boyars. The bulk of the circulation (up to 90%) was put on sale to institutions and individuals. For the first time in the history of Russia, the text of the code of laws could be read and even purchased by everyone. The price, however, was high - 1 ruble. Openness and accessibility of legislation were one of the main demands of the participants in the popular uprisings and the Zemsky Sobor. The fact is that laws could only be learned through oral announcements in squares and churches, from handwritten texts, in the original, or in a small number of lists stored in government institutions. In fact, officials had a monopoly on knowledge of the texts of laws, and they themselves were poorly informed about them. The publication of the Code in print and in mass circulation prevented the possibility of concealing and falsifying basic legal norms and committing the most blatant abuses in the judiciary. The first edition did not satisfy the needs of authorities and public demand. The copies put on free sale sold out quickly from June 14 to August 7, 1649. In December 1649, a second edition was published in the same edition of 1,200 copies. and at the same price for 1 rub. It was sold out (more than 98% of the circulation went on sale this time) from January 1650 to August 1651. Great interest in the Code was shown abroad. This is evidenced by the purchase of its copies by foreigners, translations into Latin and French in the 17th century, and into German and Danish at the beginning of the 18th century.

Sources and contents of the Code

To compile the Code, various sources were used: the Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible of 1550, the Lithuanian Statute of 1588, the verdicts of the Boyar Duma, collective petitions of nobles and townspeople, the decree books of the Local, Zemsky, Robber and other orders, which recorded the laws and regulations received by these institutions. orders. Separate norms and provisions from the monuments of Byzantine and church law were also used, primarily from the Book of the Helmsman. In the new set of laws, issues of state, church, economic, inheritance, family, contract and criminal law, and judicial procedural norms were developed. In total, the Code included 25 chapters and 967 articles. They are distributed and named as follows:

Chapter I. And it contains 9 articles about blasphemers and church rebels.

Chapter II. About the state's honor, and how to protect the state's health, and there are 22 articles in it.

Chapter III. About the sovereign's court, so that in the sovereign's court there is no disorder or abuse from anyone.

Chapter IV. About subscribers and who forge seals.

Chapter V. About money masters who will learn how to make thieves' money.

Chapter VI. On travel certificates to other states.

Chapter VII. About the service of all military men of the Moscow State.

Chapter VIII. About the redemption of captives.

Chapter IX. About tolls and transportation and bridges.

Chapter X. About the trial.

Chapter XI. The court is about peasants, and there are 34 articles in it.

Chapter XII. About the court of patriarchal clerks, and all kinds of courtyard people, and peasants, and there are 3 articles in it.

Chapter XIII. About the Monastic Order, and there are 7 articles in it.

Chapter XIV. About kissing the cross, and there are 10 articles in it.

Chapter XV. About accomplished deeds, and there are 5 articles in it.

Chapter XVI. About local lands, and there are 69 articles in it.

Chapter XVII. About estates, and there are 55 articles in it.

Chapter XVIII. About printing duties, and there are 71 articles in it.

Chapter XIX. About the townspeople, and there are 40 articles in it.

Chapter XX. The court about slaves, and there are 119 articles in it.

Chapter XXI. The court is about robbery and Taty’s cases, and there are 104 articles in it.

Chapter XXII. And there are 26 articles in it, a decree for which crimes the death penalty should be inflicted on whom, and for which guilts the death penalty should not be executed, but punishment should be inflicted.

Chapter XXIII. About Sagittarius, and there are 3 articles in it.

Chapter XXIV. Decree on atamans and Cossacks, and it contains 3 articles.

Chapter XXV. Decree on taverns, and it contains 21 articles.

Actually, there are few new norms in the Code. It basically brought the existing legislation into order and into a certain system. However, the new and significantly edited norms included in the Code made a very significant contribution to social, economic, and legal relations, since they became a direct response to the events of 1648, the demands of their participants, and the lessons that the ruling circles learned from them. The main ones are as follows. Legislatively, the church was taken under the protection and protection of the state; blasphemy against the church and faith was subject to the death penalty. At the same time, the subordination of the patriarchal court to the secular court was emphasized, the entire clergy was declared subject to the jurisdiction of the Monastic Order, and the clergy were forbidden to acquire estates. The Orthodox hierarchs were dissatisfied with the introduction of such rules, and the patriarch Nikon, although he signed the Council Code as Metropolitan of Novgorod, after coming to the leadership of the Russian Church (1652) he began to call this code a “cursed” book, a “devilish” law. The status of the tsar was determined as an autocratic and hereditary monarch, not only criminal acts, but also criminal intentions against whom were severely punished. The concept of a crime against the state was developed; actions against the tsar, the tsarist government and its representatives were punishable by “death without any mercy.” Manufacturers of counterfeit documents, seals, and money were also punished extremely severely. In general, the criminal legislation in the Council Code was distinguished by medieval cruelty. At the same time, it proclaimed the principles of impartiality and objectivity in the consideration of cases, provided for the recusal of judges and their prosecution in the event of an acquittal of a guilty person or an accusation of an innocent person for “promises” of bribes. Very important in socio-economic terms were the steps to bring together the two forms of land ownership, local and patrimonial, including the allowance, under certain conditions, of inheritance of estates by the wives and children of landowners, and the exchange of estates for estates. The most important rule of law was the abolition of “lesson years” - the period for searching for runaway peasants who left the landowners without permission. Most historians believe this norm is evidence of the final enslavement of peasants in Russia. A fine of 10 rubles was introduced for harboring fugitives. Judicial representation of serfs in property disputes was abolished, since their property began to be considered as the property of a landowner or patrimonial owner. In the cities, “white”, that is, privately owned settlements and courtyards that belonged to the patriarch, monasteries, boyars, and other patrimonial lands were eliminated and were free from state taxes. All those living in them were now obliged to “bear the tax,” that is, to pay taxes and bear duties, along with the rest of the townspeople. The posad population itself was forever attached to the posads and the sovereign's tax. Like serfs, townspeople could not voluntarily leave their place of residence or change their occupation. An indefinite search for fugitive townspeople was introduced.

The meaning of the Code

The Council Code became the most important event and stage in the history of Russian legislation. During the 17th century, it was repeatedly replenished with “new decree articles” (in 1669 - On tateb, robbery and murder cases, in 1676/1677 - On estates and estates, etc.) In the 18th century, attempts were made to create a new Code, for which Special Legislative Commissions were convened, which ended in vain. The Council Code played the role of a code of laws of Russia (with numerous additions and changes) for almost two centuries. Its text opened the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, published in 1830. To a large extent, it was taken into account when developing the XV volume of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, which played the role of the criminal code, was published in 1845 and was called the “Code of Punishments”.

History of state and law of Russia. Cheat sheets Knyazeva Svetlana Aleksandrovna

30. Structure and content of the Council Code of 1649

Changes that have occurred in socio-political relations, should have been reflected in law. Otherwise, the full existence of the state is impossible. In 1648 it was convened Zemsky Sobor, which continued its meetings until 1649. To compile draft code a special commission was established discussion of the project representatives of the Zemsky Sobor passed by class. The unexpected mass uprising in 1648 in Moscow pushed and accelerated the work of the Council on the code.

Cathedral Code was adopted in 1649 Zemsky Sobor And king Alexey Mikhailovich. The Code was the first printed code in Russia; its text was sent to orders and localities.

Sources of the Council Code There were Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550, Stoglav of 1551, decree books of orders (Robbery, Zemsky, etc.), royal decrees, verdicts of the Boyar Duma, decisions of Zemsky Councils, Lithuanian and Byzantine legislation. Later the Code was supplemented Newly ordered articles.

The Council Code consists of 25 chapters and 967 articles. It had systematized And updated all Russian legislation. It’s interesting that the Code outlines division of legal norms by industry And institutions. As stated rules of law preserved causality. The text of the Code was openly enshrined privileges of the ruling class and recorded unequal position dependent classes.

In the Council Code it was first designated status of head of state, i.e. the king, as an autocratic and hereditary monarch.

With the adoption of the Code it ended the process of enslaving peasants, now the right of indefinite investigation and return of fugitives to the previous owner was established.

Much attention was paid in the Code legal proceedings And criminal law. More detailed regulation was subjected to forms of trial: accusatory-adversarial and investigative. stood out new types of crimes.

The purposes of punishment were designated deterrence, retribution and isolation of the criminal from society.

Unlike all previous codes, Cathedral Code of 1649 remained out of competition for a long time and was the main source of Russian law before the adoption Code of Laws of the Russian Empire in 1832. The Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was used for almost two hundred years.

From the book Prosecutor's Office and prosecutorial supervision author Akhetova O S

50. Federal Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation”: structure and content The Federal Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation” was adopted on January 17, 1992. Structure: The Federal Law consists of 7 sections and contains 54 articles. Section 1. General provisions. Contains the concept of the prosecutor's office, examines

From the book Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Text with changes and additions as of October 1, 2009. author author unknown

From the book Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Text with changes and additions as of September 10, 2010. author Team of authors

From the book Cheat Sheet on the History of State and Law of Russia author Dudkina Lyudmila Vladimirovna

Article 41. Content and structure of the collective agreement The content and structure of the collective agreement are determined by the parties. The collective agreement may include obligations of employees and the employer on the following issues: forms, systems and amounts of payment

From the book General History of State and Law. Volume 2 author Omelchenko Oleg Anatolievich

Article 46. Content and structure of the agreement The content and structure of the agreement are determined by agreement between representatives of the parties, who are free to choose the range of issues for discussion and inclusion in the agreement. The agreement may include mutual

From the book Introduction to the Code of State Laws author Speransky Mikhail Mikhailovich

32. General characteristics of the cathedral code of 1649 On July 16, 1648, the tsar and the Duma, together with the council of clergy, decided to agree among themselves and bring together into one code all the sources of the existing law and supplement them with new decrees. The draft code was compiled by a commission from

From the book Social Partnership: A Practical Guide to Creating a Corporate Knowledge Resource for a Legal Entity author Kazimov Karl Gasanovich

Development of the Code The largest (both in importance and volume) body of law of the era of “enlightened absolutism” was the Code of Prussian land law, prepared at the end of the reign of Frederick II. It summarized all existing law on new principles. For the first time

From the book The Bar Exam by the author

The system and doctrine of the code “General Land Law for the Prussian States” (AUgemeimes Landrecht fur Preussischen Staaten) was essentially a set of laws, a collection of specialized codes. The collection was huge (over 15 thousand articles without a single numbering) and was generally divided into 2 parts:

From the book History of Public Administration in Russia author Shchepetev Vasily Ivanovich

Development of the Code The preparation of a code of civil law (on new grounds) in Austria began in 1753 with the unfolding of the transformations of “enlightened absolutism”. A special commission of legal scholars was created to develop a code of laws. The task of the commission

From the author's book

ABOUT THE PLAN OF THE CODE In order to determine the plan of the state code, it is necessary first of all to form a true concept of laws in general

From the author's book

ABOUT THE REASON OF THE STATE CODE

From the author's book

From the author's book

From the author's book

Question 46. Lawyer's dossier on the case. The meaning, structure and content of legal proceedings. The main recommendations regarding the lawyer’s dossier on the case are contained in the Methodological Recommendations for the Conduct of Lawyer Proceedings, approved by the Council

From the author's book

Question 57. Acts of legal investigation: types, forms, structure, content and meaning. It seems that the question of the concept of an act of lawyer’s investigation is of an exclusively theoretical nature, since the Code of Criminal Procedure not only does not define this act, but there is no