The laid down commission is one of the ideas of enlightened absolutism, which was based on a modern view of the legal system. Improving legislation has been one of the most important tasks of domestic policy for many years. Even Peter 1 tried to solve this problem to no avail. Similar attempts to change legislation were made by Catherine 1, Anna Ioannovna and Peter 2. In an attempt to resolve this issue, Catherine 2 relied on the works of European philosophers, changing their ideas to suit Russian realities.

The established commission began its work on July 30, 1767. The manifesto on its creation was signed on December 16, 1766. The dissolution of the commission was announced on December 18, 1768, under the pretext of war with the Ottoman Empire.

The main reasons for convening the commission were the creation of a unified set of laws, as well as the study of public opinion about the current state of affairs in the country at various social levels.

Stacked commission concept

The commission laid down under Catherine was distinguished by at least three important details:

1. Wider representation.
2. Catherine compiled an “Instruction”, in which she outlined her views and wishes, which formed the basis of the Statutory Commission of 1767-1768.
3. Receiving orders to deputies "from below".

Representative offices of the commission

The established commission consisted of 564 deputies. The right to nominate deputies was granted to the following categories of citizens:

• Townspeople. 1 deputy per city. 39% of the composition.
• Nobles. 1 deputy per county. 30% of the composition.
• Peasants (except serfs). 1 deputy from each province. 14% of the composition.
• Cossacks and other segments of the population. 12% of the composition.
• Government officials. 5% of the composition.

This was the composition of the Statutory Commission. Considering that government officials were also nobles, this category had a numerical superiority.

Representatives of only 2 segments of the population did not take part in the work of the Statutory Commission: serfs and the clergy.

Historical reference

Deputies of the Legislative Commission received large benefits. They received additional salaries for participating in the work of the commission. All deputies until the end of their days received protection from the death penalty, from physical punishment, and from confiscation of property. Any court decisions regarding deputies could only come into force with the personal approval of the empress. Each deputy received a special badge with the motto - “The Bliss of Each and All.”

Catherine's instructions for the work of the commission

The established commission under Catherine 2 began its work with the “Order”, in which the empress conveyed her point of view and gave direction for the work of the commission. The “order”, it must be said, turned out to be quite extensive. It had 20 chapters and 526 articles. This work was based on the works of other educators of that time:

• 245 articles of the "Mandate" relate to Montesquieu's "Spirit of the Times".
• 106 articles of the “Order” refer to Beccaria’s “Regulations on Crimes and Punishments”.
• The Germans Bielfeld and Just had a great influence on Catherine and her “order”.

The main message to the Commission was that the emphasis in its work should be on strengthening the power of the autocrat. Catherine 2 repeatedly repeated that for Russia this is the only acceptable form of power.

The Russian sovereign must be an autocrat. All the fullness of power must be united in his person, like our vast territory, which is united in Russia. Any other rule other than an autocratic one will only cause harm to Russia.

Ekaterina 2

The “Mandate” was an extremely controversial document. For example, the main task that faced the Statutory Commission was the creation of a law before which everyone would be equal. This was stated in the first lines of the document. But this was the main contradiction. Firstly, equality of law for everyone contradicted the class system of Russia. Secondly, some provisions of the “Order” came into clear conflict with the main task. Here are, for example, some of these provisions:

• Peasants live in the village and this is their destiny. The nobles live in the city and administer justice.
• It is unacceptable when everyone wants to be equal to someone who is approved by law to be a boss.

The main problem of that time (the issue of serfs) was practically not resolved. The established commission was supposed to create laws under which “landowners would have to apply taxes with greater caution.” This was the huge problem with “Nakaz”. In it, Catherine 2 tried to combine the enlightened ideas of bourgeois society and feudal methods of governing Russia. It was impossible to do this. We had to look for compromises in everything. Largely because of this, the work of the Statutory Commission was ineffective and did not lead to any positive results.

Instructions to deputies from various classes

One of the tasks of the commission was to understand the demands of society. To do this, it was decided to receive orders from all the main classes of Russia in order to clearly understand what issues are relevant for society.

• The nobles demanded tougher punishment for peasants for running away. They also demanded that recruitment into the army be reduced in order to protect their serfs.
• Officials and deputies literally demanded the abolition of the “Table of Ranks,” which was introduced under Peter 1. The reason was that the Table of Ranks opened the way to any leadership positions for ordinary people.
• Citizens complained about bureaucracy in all government agencies. The townspeople wanted to receive the privileges of the nobles (prohibition of physical punishment, permission to have serfs, buy them and be the owners of manufactories). They were supported by the merchants.
• State peasants complained that landowners were taking away the best land for themselves, as well as a large poll tax.

Once again, I want to note that no one accepted orders from the serfs. Catherine 2 understood the complexity of the situation and its explosiveness, but talking about freedoms for the peasants meant making enemies among all other classes. Therefore, the Legislative Commission did not even consider the issues of liberating the serfs and improving their living conditions. The performance of nobleman Grigory Korobin is worthy of mention. This person was the only one from the entire commission to raise the question of the terrible situation of serfs in the country. However, his speech was met with hostility by all members of the laid down commission.

Results of the work of the Statutory Commission

The established commission of Catherine 2 worked for almost 1.5 years. During this time, 203 general meetings were held. These meetings did not produce any concrete results. As a result, the Code was not developed, and the only result of the commission’s work can be reduced to the fact that the social issue has once again become acute in Russia. At the meetings, deputies from different classes could not agree among themselves.

Why did Catherine entrust the Statutory Commission to deputies, and not to relevant officials? History has no answer to this question. It is only clear that a group of people with different interests, without any legal knowledge and skills, cannot make up the law for the country. This should be done by specialists. And as soon as Nicholas 1 entrusted this issue to the relevant officials, Russia received the Code.

The commission laid down was sharply criticized by many prominent people. Here are some sayings.

The laid commission is a farce. It’s in vain that Voltaire is interested in Catherine and her affairs. This is a hypocritical work, and Voltaire himself cannot know the whole truth.

Pushkin, Alexander Sergeyevich

In Russia, the Legislative Commission has begun its work, which is supposed to create fair laws. But all her work is a real comedy.

Ambassador of France to Russia

Many prominent figures of the 18th and 19th centuries claim that the Statutory Commission was an attempt by Catherine 2 to glorify her name. This is nothing more than an element of propaganda, which was of a popular nature, but could not lead to any positive changes in Russia.

§ 1. “Order” of Catherine II of the Legislative Commission

Having ascended the throne, Catherine II, albeit in the most general terms, imagined a program of state activity in accordance with the teachings of the Enlightenment philosophers. She considered one of the primary tasks to be the creation of laws that would determine the main directions of the main spheres of life of Russian citizens. It was assumed that their implementation should make Russia an example for other European powers. This was based on the conviction that by the will of the reigning person, who has full power, it is possible to transform a great country in the desired direction.

In the traditions of Russia, laws were adopted “conciliarly,” that is, by representatives of all social classes, except for those who were in a state of serfdom. An example of this was the Council Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Now this tradition was supposed to be revived. But the empress took it upon herself to formulate the essence of the laws that should transform Russian society in accordance with the ideas of the Enlightenment. Such a document was the famous “Order” of Catherine II of the Legislative Commission, i.e., an institution designed to compile a set of such laws.

Catherine worked hard to compile this document for a number of years, making extensive use of the work of the French enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu “The Spirit of Laws” and the Italian jurist Beccaria “Code of Crimes and Punishments”. More than a hundred articles were transferred from both to the “Order” being compiled. On this basis, the opinion was expressed that the “Nakaz” is a compilation, a document not applicable to Russian realities, but intended to present the Empress as enlightened and wise in the eyes of Europe. In fact, was it possible, especially in the conditions of serf Russia, to ensure “the general welfare of the subjects”, “equality of everyone before the law”, “to make the court incorruptible”, to educate “a new breed of people” and so on. However, most of the authors analyzing the “Nakaz” see in it a programmatic, original document, which expressed the main principles of state policy, government structure, judicial functions, and also clearly expressed priorities in the field of economic development and social policy. This is also confirmed by the fact that subsequent legislation regulating various aspects of state policy was carried out, as a rule, in line with the provisions that were formulated in the “Order”. It was repeatedly edited by the empress's confidants, and numerous comments were made, after which the empress, in her words, “erased out” a significant part of what was written. But even in this version it is a voluminous work.

“The Order” consists of twenty (I–XX) chapters and an “addition” - a total of 655 articles. The thematic composition is as follows: one third of the text (7 chapters) is devoted to purely legal problems, including legislation, issues of legal proceedings, problems of judicial practice (crimes, punishments, etc.). The rest cover the main spheres of social life. Thus, economic issues are discussed in the chapter “on handicrafts and trade” (XII), chapters are devoted to the problems of social structure: “on the nobility” (XV), “on the middle class of people” (XVI), “on cities” (XVII). Separate chapters are devoted to issues of “reproduction of the people,” problems of education, etc.

The text opens with an appeal to the Almighty, so that he would admonish the author to “conduct judgment according to the holy law and judge in truth.” This meaningful introduction was intended to emphasize that when compiling the document, the author was guided by the Christian principles of goodness, truth and justice.

What was the immediate content of the “Nakaz”?

One of the first articles reads: “Russia is a European power.” This is one of the fundamental statements designed to clearly state that Russia is a member of the family of European states and its state life, its priorities, should be built on the same principles that guide the enlightened monarchs of Western Europe. At the same time, the compiler refers to Peter I, who implanted European morals and customs in Russia and in them “then found such conveniences as he himself did not expect” (Article 7).

IN subsequent articles proclaimed that only an autocratic method of government was acceptable in Russia, because “any other government would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous” (11). This necessity was due to the vast territory of the state, extending “thirty-two degrees of latitude” and the fact that “it is better to obey the laws under one master than to please many” (12), as well as the fact that Russia is inhabited by many peoples, each of which has its own customs. A single strong government can unite them into one family.

IN The “order” declares the equality of everyone before the law, which consists in “that everyone should be subject to the same laws” (34). It must be conditioned by the obligation of each and everyone to comply with these laws, which should be facilitated by the honesty and integrity of judges. As for punishments for persons who have broken the law, they must be based on the principles of humanism, since the severity of punishment does not lead to a reduction in crimes, but only evokes a reciprocal feeling. Not fear of severity, but the voice of conscience, the condemnation of people, should be the main factors preventing crime.

IN The “Mandate” declares the right of everyone to freely fulfill “his lot,” that is, to do what he should do: a farmer plows the land, a merchant trades, etc. The latter essentially meant the recognition of the existing order of things as legitimate and unshakable, leaving unchanged the serfdom of the overwhelming majority of the population.

A large place is devoted to economic problems, because, as the author claims, an appropriate level of well-being is an indispensable condition for the prosperity of society and the high economic potential of the state.

IN In accordance with Russian realities, the need for state support, primarily for agriculture, was proclaimed. The “Nakaz” declares: “Agriculture is the first and main work to which people should be encouraged” (113), since both industry and trade are largely determined by its condition (294). The development of industry (“handicrafts” - in the “Instruction”) should also be fully encouraged. But the author here opposes the use of “machines” (machines), since in a populous state, such as Russia, “machines,” by reducing handicrafts, that is, manual labor, can deprive a significant part of the population of work (315).

“Nakaz” advocates for the full development of trade, which should be facilitated by legislation. For trade, constituting the wealth of the state, from there “is removed where it is oppressed, and is installed where its peace is not disturbed” (317). But, based on the above-mentioned principle, according to which each class does what it should do, Catherine in the “Nakaz” has a negative attitude towards the nobles’ engagement in trade, because it distracts them from fulfilling their duties.

A necessary condition for the development of agriculture and industry, it is stated

V document is an assertion of ownership. For “agriculture cannot flourish here where no one has anything of their own. This is based on a very simple rule: every person has more concern for his own than for what belongs to another; and does not make any effort about what he may fear that another will take away from him.” (395–396).

Priorities in the social sphere are clearly defined. The first estate is the nobility - this is the main position declared in the “Order”. The validity of this is justified as follows: “Nobility is a mark of honor, distinguishing from others those who were more virtuous than others, and, moreover, were distinguished by merit, then it has been customary since ancient times to distinguish the most virtuous and more serving people by giving them this mark of honor, that they enjoyed various advantages based on these above-mentioned initial rules” (361), that is, the nobles are the descendants of those who, while serving the Fatherland, had special merits here, and therefore now rightfully enjoy advantages over others.

It is significant that there is not a single article directly devoted to one of the most pressing problems, namely, the situation of the peasantry in Russia. However, this topic is present in a number of articles of the “Nakaz”, but the rights of the peasant class are discussed here only indirectly. The judgment was given above: “agriculture cannot flourish here where no one has anything of their own.” However, in relation to landowner peasants, this provision can only be interpreted speculatively. It further states: “slavery is evil.” However, even here it is not clear to what extent, from the point of view of the compiler, this provision relates to serfdom. But in the “Nakaz” the idea is quite definitely expressed about the need to limit the duties of the peasants in favor of the owner: “it would be very necessary to prescribe to the landowners by law that they allocate their taxes with great consideration, and take those taxes that are less than the peasant excommunicated from his home and families. The more agriculture would spread, and the number of people in the state would increase.

lived" (270).

The population of the city is the “middle class of people.” Here for the first time it appears as a separate social group. “The cities are inhabited by burghers who practice crafts, trade, arts and sciences” (377). “To this class of people should be counted all those who, without being a nobleman or a farmer, practice the arts, sciences, navigation, trade and crafts” (380). Hard work and good morals should be inherent in this category.

Thus, in general terms, stating the existing order of life, the “Nakaz” defines the social structure of society, but does not mention the spiritual class: the secularization of church lands caused discontent among its representatives and the empress considered it necessary to ignore here everything connected with this problem.

§ 2. Commission for drawing up a new code

The “Nakaz” was issued in 1766 as an emergency document. It was sent to all European courts and was supposed to present Russia as a country that, by the will of an enlightened monarch, was on the eve of great transformations. He received exaggeratedly enthusiastic praise from King Frederick II of Prussia and Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, as each warring side sought to gain Russia as an ally. In England, however, restraint was shown in his assessment; in pre-revolutionary France, he was found too radical and publication was banned.

Emphasizing the important state significance of the document that came from the pen of the reigning person, in Russia copies of the “Nakaz” were sent to all official institutions with a special instruction to set aside Saturday days for mandatory study. On an equally high note, preparations were made for the convening of deputies to the commission called “Laid Down”.

Deputies were elected from all classes, except for the bulk of the population - serfs, whose interests, according to the plan, were to be represented by their owners. For the nobles, elections were direct, for other classes they were multi-level, i.e., they initially elected electors, etc. This was done so that local authorities could control the election of the desired persons. Each deputy, and this was a fundamental innovation, brought with him a mandate from his constituents, which was intended to emphasize that the interests of representatives of all classes would be taken into account when drawing up laws.

The elected deputies were granted unprecedented rights and privileges: parliamentary immunity, large salaries, and representatives of the nobility were allowed to include a distinctive sign in their family coat of arms, so that posterity would be proud that their ancestor participated in the drafting of laws designed to transform Russia.

A total of 564 deputies were elected throughout the country. Of these, only 161 were from nobles. From cities, 208. The rest were from other classes, except for serfs. In reality, the nobles made up the predominant part, since a certain part of the representatives from the cities and other categories were nobles. But from the clergy, a large class, there were only 2 representatives: the church was dissatisfied with the secularization of its estates and the authorities did not want to see opposition-minded people in the assembly.

The grand opening of the “Laid Commission” resembled a theatrical performance. Initially, the deputies “introduced themselves” to the empress, who arrived in Moscow and stayed at the Travel Palace. Then, in front of a huge crowd of people, the Empress entered the Kremlin. She was traveling in a gilded carriage drawn by six white horses. She was accompanied by a brilliant escort of guards. Everything was designed to amaze the residents of Moscow, including a large number of nobles who specially arrived here. Such solemnity was supposed to emphasize the exceptional significance of the events. The deputies took the oath of office in the Kremlin. A meeting of the “Laid Commission” also opened here - separately for deputies from the nobility and from other classes. After the official opening, the “Order” was read. According to eyewitnesses, he was received with delight and tears. Its content turned out to be incomprehensible to many people - too complicated.

The work was well organized. Commissions and subcommittees were created. However, the euphoria of the first days disappeared when issues affecting the rights and responsibilities of the estates began to be discussed. There were no incompetent people here. Each class claimed

to full rights and their exclusive use. The nobility demanded to retain all their privileges and, above all, the undivided right to own land and serfs. The spokesman for his interests was the famous historian and prominent dignitary Prince M.M. Shcherbatov. The merchants advocated for the strengthening of self-government bodies, the easing of duties, the monopoly right to engage in trade, etc. The interests of the classes turned out to be irreconcilable. Representatives of nomadic peoples spoke about the arbitrariness of the administration, the seizure of their lands, etc.

The debate became particularly acute when the issue of the reason for the escape of serfs began to be discussed. Deputies from retired soldiers, progressive deputies from the nobility, G. Korobin and J. Kozelsky, in their speeches painted a true picture of the tyranny of the landowners, while their opponents argued that the reason for the escapes was primarily the laziness of the peasants. The meetings, with no end in sight, were moved from Moscow to St. Petersburg. None of the issues discussed were essentially resolved. Taking advantage of the outbreak of the first Russian-Turkish war, the activities of the “Legated Commission” were suspended, as stated, temporarily, under the pretext that many deputies had to leave for the army. Commissions and committees continued to operate for some time, but they soon suspended their work. A code of laws was not compiled. Legislative activity remained, first of all, the prerogative of the reigning person. The commission no longer met, but its activities were still not fruitless. The discussions that flared up at its meetings made it possible to clearly see the specifics of social relations in Russia in the 60s and, in particular, the severity of the peasant question, as well as the fact that the third estate firmly took its place in the social sphere. The Empress later claimed that this helped her better understand the needs of each class. The activities of the “Legified Commission” clearly revealed the features of the policy of enlightened absolutism, in particular, the illusory nature of the idea of ​​“general welfare” and equality of all before the law.

Catherine II(1729-1796) - an extraordinary figure in the history of Russia and, above all, in the history of political and legal thought and public administration. For thirty-four years (1762-1796), she, who came from a family of small German princes, by the will of fate was at the top of Russian state power - more than all the reigning persons both before (with the exception of Ivan the Terrible) and after her. She played an important role in the emergence of the ideology of “enlightened absolutism” in our country. Catherine II continued the work of Peter I in reforming Russian society and the state.

During her lifetime, Catherine was offered, on behalf of the deputies of the Commission for drafting a new legislative Code, to accept the title of the Great Wise Mother of the Fatherland. In response, she “wrote” the following: “As for the titles that you want me to accept from you, I answer to this: 1) to great - I leave my affairs to time and posterity to judge impartially; 2) wise - I cannot call myself such, for only God is wise, and 3) mothers of the fatherland - I honor the subjects entrusted to me by God as a duty of my title; to be loved by them is my desire.”

In one of her manifestos, Catherine II stated that she accepted “from the hand of God the All-Russian throne not for her own pleasure, but to expand its glory and to establish good order and justice in our beloved fatherland.” She really did a lot “for the glory of the fatherland.” There are reasons, following Aristotle, who called a good male ruler a “real statesman” (ho politikos), to use the concept of a “states wife” in relation to her.

Under her rule, great Russian warriors led by A.V. Suvorov on land and F.F. Ushakov at sea established the glory of Russia as a first-class military power. “I don’t know how it will be with you,” said His Serene Highness Prince A.A. Bezborodko to young Russian diplomats, - and with us not a single cannon in Europe dared to fire without our permission.”

German by blood, French by her favorite language and upbringing, Catherine, as she herself admitted, really wanted to be Russian. Having quickly mastered the Russian language, she with great energy and eagerness began to study Russian-Russian history: she read a lot, and later wrote: about Rurik and the first Russian princes, about Dmitry Donskoy and Peter I. In response to the proposal of D. Diderot, the founder and editor of the famous French “Encyclopedia”, wrote a number of articles about the population, relationships between different classes, and arable farming in Russia.

Noteworthy is the fact that Catherine II immediately outlined her principled position in her approach to the peculiarities of the culture and way of life of Russians. When in 1769 a certain Abbé Chappe published in Paris a “bad” book about Russia and Russians, according to Catherine, she took an active part (as the main organizer and author) in the publication of a refutation book in Amsterdam in French. The latter emphasized that Russians are no lower than other Europeans.

The study of Russian history was not a passing hobby for the empress. On the contrary, over time it increased and deepened. For her, ancient manuscripts were searched and found in various monasteries. About a hundred chronicles made up her library at hand. In 1783-1784. Catherine II published “Notes on Russian History,” especially intended for youth. They conveyed the idea that humanity everywhere is guided by the same ideas and passions, which are only modified under the influence of local characteristics. The Notes proposed a periodization of Russian-Russian history, which was later followed by Russian historiography.

The Empress ordered the opening of archives for scientists and helped in the publication of the Ancient Russian Library. A few days before his death, in a letter to Baron F.-M. She informed Grimm that she was busy compiling a huge historical work.

Catherine’s political consciousness was formed both through reading and studying the advanced and then fashionable literature of the European, primarily French, Enlightenment, and under the influence of everyday palace life, conversations with the people around her, and correspondence with friends. Her mindset was more practical-political than abstract-philosophical. From her study of political philosophy she learned more about politics than philosophy. But even in politics, she knew how to choose the most important and essential.

Even when Catherine was not an autocratic empress, a focus on power was clearly and definitely defined in her mind. “I will either die or reign,” she wrote. And having become empress, the first thing she did was to strengthen her autocratic power. Being the center of clashes between various, often opposing interests and trends, it preferred to be guided not by private or group interests, but by general state interests. “God forbid you play the sad role of the leader of the party,” she said, “on the contrary, you should constantly try to gain the favor of all your subjects.”

Catherine II never hid the source of her ideas. The works of Montesquieu - especially “On the Spirit of Laws”, Voltaire, Diderot, the Italian educator and lawyer Beccaria, and many other thinkers of the 18th century. and past eras were her reference books. The study of these works, noted V.O. Klyuchevsky, “accustomed her mind to think about such difficult subjects as government, the origin and composition of society, the relationship of a person to society, gave direction and illumination to her random political observations, clarified for her the basic concepts of law and society, those political axioms without which it is impossible understand social life and even less can lead it.”

Catherine II was in friendly correspondence for many years with the main freethinker of Europe in the 18th century. Voltaire, who in his youth visited the Bastille for his poetry, and in his mature years was elected an honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and even wrote “The History of Russia under Peter the Great.” In the “Voltaire Society,” which was a society of European celebrities, the Russian Empress was highly revered and called the most wondrous woman of all time, or simply Cathos. Although she did not and could not become a Voltairian, Voltaire’s ideological influence on Catherine II is beyond doubt.

“Kato” not only corresponded with French encyclopedists, but also helped them financially. Having learned that the French authorities had deprived d’Alembert of his academic pension for a book against the Jesuits, she bought his personal library for a large sum, leaving it in the philosopher’s lifelong use (“It would be cruel to separate a scientist from his books,” the Russian empress explained), and how D'Alembert was given a salary of one thousand francs to the keeper of her books. Admired by this act, Voltaire wrote: “Who would have imagined 50 years ago that the time would come when the Scythians would so nobly reward in Paris virtue, knowledge, philosophy, which they treat so unworthily among us.”

Voltaire could have added that before this, Catherine II invited D’Alembert to come “together with all his friends” to Russia to train and educate the heir to the throne, Tsarevich Paul. But D'Alembert refused. Just nine days after her accession, Catherine II suggested that Diderot move the publication of the Encyclopedia from Paris, where it was subject to strict censorship, to Russia. Diderot then also refused. But, having arrived in Russia at the invitation of Catherine in 1773, he himself turned to her with a request to organize a new edition of his “Encyclopedia” in Russia, without omissions or censorship distortions. Catherine II sent him to her officials, who “blacked up” this issue and then refused. And in 1795, Catherine II blamed the Encyclopedia for the French Revolution of 1789-1794.

We can probably say: if the Great French Revolution had happened three decades earlier, the “Mandate” (at least the one we will consider) might not have existed.

“The Order of Empress Catherine II, given to the Commission on the drafting of a new Code of 1767,” or simply “The Order,” is the main work of Catherine II in the field of political and legal thought.

In a two-volume collection of monuments of Russian legislation, published at the beginning of the 20th century, it was noted: “The “Order” of Empress Catherine II never had the force of a valid law, nevertheless it is a monument of exceptional significance. It is important as the first attempt to base legislation on the conclusions and ideas of educational philosophy; it is also important for the sources directly from which the empress came; it is also remarkable for its positive content; it is interesting, finally, because of the special circumstances that accompanied its writing. There are so many questions connected with the study of the “Instruction” that anyone who works on the history of Catherine’s era certainly turns to it.”

The main ideas of the “Nakaz” and its fate. General remarks. The main text of the “Nakaz,” which Catherine II intended to make “the foundation of the legislative building of the empire,” consists of 20 chapters (522 articles) and an ending (articles 523-526). In addition, a little later, Catherine made two additions to the main text - special chapters on the police (Articles 527-566) and on income, expenses, public administration (Articles 567-655).

When considering and assessing the “Order”, it is necessary to take into account a number of circumstances.

First. Some Russian figures of those times, characterizing the “Nakaz”, spoke about the “legislative succession” of Russia from the Greek Byzantium, Catherine II from Justinian. There really was “succession” (in several cases, Catherine refers to the Justinian Code, to Greek and Roman legislation), but for the most part not direct, but indirect: from Ancient Greece, Rome and Byzantium to European political and legal teachings of the 17th-18th centuries. and from them - to Russia. The main ideas and many formulations of this work were borrowed (the Empress herself admitted this more than once) from the works of C. Montesquieu (“On the Spirit of Laws”) and C. Beccaria (“On Crimes and Punishments”) and were famous among the European educated public. But for Russia they were new and did not come from some “freethinker,” but from the empress herself. This have not happened before.

Second. The text (draft) of the “Nakaz” presented by Catherine II was discussed by a very representative Commission of more than 550 deputies elected from different socio-political strata of the then Russian society: government officials, nobility, townspeople, service people, free (non-serf) rural population. The deputy corps consisted of people of the most diverse faiths, cultures and languages ​​- from the highly educated representative of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Demetrius of Novgorod, to the deputy of the service Meshcheryaks of the Iset province, Mullah Abdullah Murza Tashev, and to the pagan Samoyeds.

The official procedure for discussing the “Order” was very free. This is how S.M. describes it. Soloviev: “When the deputies arrived in Moscow, the Empress, while in the Kolomensky Palace, appointed different persons of different minds as nobles in order to listen to the prepared “Order.” Here, with each article, debates arose. The Empress allowed them to blacken and blot out whatever they wanted. They blotted out more than half of what she had written, and the “Order” remained, as if it had been printed.”

Third. The passages deleted by deputies from Catherine’s text “Instructions” (some fragments of the original edition were found between the papers of Catherine II after her death and published) are of undoubted interest for understanding the spiritual mood of both the empress herself and representatives of Russian society of that era.

Fourth. It should be borne in mind that an important circumstance is that the deputies were ordered to study the needs of the population of their region, summarize them and present them to the Commission as deputy “instructions” for reading and discussion. Many deputies presented several orders according to the needs of different groups of the population. The deputy especially distinguished himself from the “odnodvortsy” of the Arkhangelsk province, who brought with him 195 orders. In total, one and a half thousand deputy orders were submitted, of which about two-thirds were drawn up by representatives of the peasants. At first, the work of the Commission consisted mainly of reading and discussing parliamentary orders, which were of interest to the government, because they made it possible to judge the state of the country.

Catherine II’s “Order,” or, as contemporaries called it, the “Big Order,” received a loud response in Europe. It is curious that many of the ideas of the French Enlightenment voiced by the Russian Empress, upon returning to their homeland, caused obvious confusion among the royal authorities. The text of the “Nakaz”, published in Russia in 1767, devoid of the most liberal articles and formulations, was prohibited from translation in France.

What are these ideas that frightened the French authorities so much?

About Russia, the autocratic sovereign, state power and governance. Based on the fact that laws must correspond to the “general mentality” of the people, i.e. his mentality, Catherine II at the very beginning poses a fundamental question: how useful can the conclusions drawn by European social thought be for the Russian people? Her answer is unequivocal: Russia is a European power, the Russian people are European people; what gave him the characteristics of a non-European people was temporary and accidental. After the reforms carried out by Peter I, the state of the Russian people fully meets the requirements of the introduction of the new Code.

Let's say right away: Catherine II was seriously mistaken here. Russia has just begun to emerge as a “society.” Even in Europe, advanced legislative ideas were largely just ideas that were not translated into laws. In her desire to “see her entire fatherland at the highest level of prosperity, glory and tranquility,” she was ahead of her age. And this desire can hardly be reproached for her.

It is not surprising that Empress Catherine II, following Montesquieu’s theoretical principles and her own understanding, considered the autocratic monarchy the best form of government in the huge Russian state. “The sovereign is autocratic,” says the “Nakaz,” “for no other power, as soon as united in his person, can act in a manner similar to the space of such a great state. Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous.” The sovereign is the source of all state and civil power.

But the autocratic sovereign in the understanding of Catherine II is not a dictator, not a tyrant. He is a wise leader and mentor, a strict but fair father of his subjects (Catherine II herself was often called “Mother Empress”). With his instructions and decrees, the sovereign protects the people “from spontaneous desires and from inexorable whims.” He must be moderately humane and moderately powerful. The special “explanatory” chapter that concludes the main content of the “Order” (XX) states: “The highest art of public administration consists in knowing exactly what part of the power, small or great, should be used in different circumstances” (Art. 513).

Apparently, feeling the somewhat abstract nature of her discussions about public administration, the Russian Empress in the second additional chapter (XXII) calls the most important state “needs”: “preserving the integrity of the state,” which requires maintaining at the proper level of defense, land and sea troops, fortresses and etc.; “maintaining internal order, peace and security of one and all”; “the administration of justice, decency and supervision of various institutions serving the common benefit” (Articles 576, 577).

About citizens, their “liberties” and attitude towards laws. Catherine II calls all subjects of the Russian state “citizens” and quite definitely advocates their equality before the law, regardless of rank, title and wealth. At the same time, in the “explanatory” chapter. XX she warns against such an understanding of equality when “everyone wants to be equal to the one who is established by law to be his superior.”

Realizing that “European states differ from Asian states in the freedom in the relations of subjects to governments,” Catherine II sought to determine the measure of this freedom, or “liberty,” in an autocratic state. She agrees that “freedom is the right to do everything that the laws allow, and if any citizen could do what the laws prohibit, there would be no more freedom; for others would equally have this power.” It is further specified that “state liberty in a citizen is peace of mind, resulting from the opinion that each of them enjoys his own security; and for people to have this freedom, the law must be such that one citizen cannot be afraid of another, but everyone would be afraid of the same laws.” The purpose of the laws is, on the one hand, to prevent the “abuses of slavery”, and on the other, to warn against the dangers that may arise from it.

The author of the “Nakaz” believes that there is nothing more dangerous than the right to interpret laws, i.e. look for some hidden meaning in the law and not pay attention to the words and wording of the law. The right to interpret laws is as evil as the ambiguity of the laws themselves, which forces them to be interpreted (Articles 153, 157). Therefore, the language of laws should be clear, simple and concise. Laws are made for all people, and all people must understand them in order to be able to act in accordance with them (vv. 457, 458).

It is interesting to note that the “Nakaz” uses the term “civil society,” but its understanding comes down to the establishment of an order in which some rule and command, while others obey (Article 250). The term “rule of law” is not in the work of Catherine II, but some of the signs and features that form it, or, perhaps, it would be better to say, what approaches such, are indicated in it. Let us pay attention to the formulation of the idea of ​​the possibility of self-limitation of power. In Art. 512 states that there are cases when “the government must act within the limits it has set for itself.” Of course, what is meant here is not the supreme power, which should be absolute, but the “middle powers” ​​subordinate to it, the delimitation of competencies between them. “Where the limits of police power end,” says Art. 562, - there begins the power of civil justice.” An approach to the features of the rule of law can be seen in the articles of the “Nakaz”, which examine the problem of crimes and punishments.

About crimes and punishments. Crime is a violation of the law, and the criminal should not escape responsibility; he must be punished, but in strict accordance with the law - this is the leitmotif of the articles on crimes and punishments. In Art. 200 says: so that punishment is not perceived as violence of one or many people against the person who committed the crime, it must be strictly in accordance with the laws. In this regard, the following circumstances are emphasized:

there must be a crime proven and judges' verdicts known to the people, so that every citizen can say that he lives under the protection of laws (Article 49);

until the crime is proven, valid presumption of innocence a person accused of committing a crime. Article 194 says the following: “A person cannot be considered guilty before a judge’s verdict, and the laws cannot deprive him of his protection before it is proven that he has violated them”;

punishment should correspond crime: “If the one who kills the animal is subject to equal punishment; the one who kills a person and the one who forges an important document, then very soon people will cease to distinguish between crimes” (v. 227);

there should be punishment to the ambulance:“The closer the punishment is to the crime, and the more quickly it is carried out, the more useful and fair it will be. It is fairer because it will save the criminal from cruel and unnecessary heartache about the uncertainty of his lot” (v. 221).

The wording of the “Order” regarding particularly serious crimes is of interest. These include crimes against the sovereign, the state and society as a whole, and they are called crimes of “lese Majesty” (Articles 229, 465). Moreover, the corpus delicti is determined only by action, but not by thought or word. “Words are never charged with a crime” (Article 480); thoughts are not punished. Article 477 tells how one man dreamed that he had killed the king. This king ordered the execution of this man, saying that he would not have dreamed of this at night if he had not thought about it during the day, in reality. Catherine II regards such an execution as “great tyranny.” Let us note that later Catherine II will reconsider this position: the outstanding Russian educators A.N. will suffer for their anti-serfdom thoughts and words. Radishchev and N.I. Novikov - the first will be exiled to Siberia, the second will end up in the Shlisselburg fortress.

Among the most serious crimes, the “Mandate” also includes encroachments “on the life and liberties of a citizen” (Article 231). At the same time, it should be clarified that this means “not only murders committed by people from the people, but also the same kind of violence committed by individuals of any privileged class.”

The “Instruction” strongly condemns the use of torture as a means of obtaining testimony from the accused: “Torture is not necessary. The accused, suffering torture, has no control over himself so that he can tell the truth.” Under torture, “an innocent person will scream that he is guilty, if only they would stop torturing him.” Therefore, with the help of torture, one can convict an innocent person and, on the contrary, acquit a guilty person if he is able to endure torture.

One must assume that Catherine II knew what she was writing about. In Russia in the 18th century. Tortures such as cutting out nostrils, branding, etc. were still practiced.

The “Nakaz” also condemns the death penalty. “Experiments show,” it says there, “that the frequent use of executions has never made people better; in the ordinary state of society, the death of a citizen is neither useful nor necessary” (Article 210). And only in one case does Catherine allow the death penalty - when a person, even convicted and imprisoned, “still has a method and power that can disturb the peace of the people.” The Empress writes: “Whoever disturbs the peace of the people, who does not obey the laws, who violates these ways by which people are united in societies and mutually protect each other, must be excluded from society, i.e. become a monster” (v. 214).

Several years would pass, and in 1775, the leader of the Cossack-peasant uprising, Emelyan Pugachev, would be executed on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow. “Contemporaries understood well,” he would write in the 20th century. famous Russian politician and historian P.N. Miliukov - that Pugachev’s strength does not lie in himself, but in the socio-political program that flowed from the entire centuries-old history of the peasantry and was an inevitable, irreducible expression of its class consciousness. In this historical sense, all peasant Russia was Pugachev’s.” In this regard, of particular interest are those articles of the “Nakaz” that spoke about the difficult situation of peasants in Russia and which were “redacted” by the deputies of the Commission and were not included in its printed text.

About serfs. The deputies rejected, first of all, those articles that concerned serfs.

Let's give a little historical background. In Rus', since ancient times, land was owned not by rural residents, peasants, but by city dwellers - princes and boyars. For the right to use the land, peasants bore various duties: they worked with their equipment on the farm of the land owner (corvée), and annually paid him money and food (quitrent).

At first, peasants could change owners. However, already in the XV-XVI centuries. the possibility of peasants transferring from one owner to another was limited to the week before and the week after November 26 according to the old style (St. George's Day). In 1580-1590 St. George's Day was also cancelled. It was established that every peasant must constantly live and work in one place, with the same owner. This is how the system of serfdom was established (a fortress in ancient Russian law was a symbolic or written act that asserted the power of a person over any thing), which implied not only the attachment of peasants to the land, but also the right of the landowner to the personality of the peasant. In the second half of the 16th century, i.e. under Catherine II, peasants were forbidden to complain about the landowners, and landowners received the right to send peasants to hard labor.

Now it is difficult to say whether there was an alternative to a different, non-serfdom development of feudal relations in Russia. One thing is indisputable: the system of serfdom, serfdom, is a very heavy burden, not only economic and not only for the peasants. IN. Klyuchevsky noted that the moral impact of serfdom on society was broader than the legal one. All classes of society participated in the “serfdom”. The deputies tried to remove from the original text of the “Nakaz” everything that in any way affected the interests of landowners and other social strata who participated in the “serfdom.”

Speaking about serfdom, Catherine distinguishes between two types of “obedience” - essential and personal. “Substantial ties the peasants to the piece of land given to them. The Germans had such slaves. They did not serve in positions at the master's houses, but gave their master a certain amount of grain, livestock, household handicrafts, etc., and their slavery did not extend further. Such a service is now established in Hungary, the Czech Land and in many places in the Lower

Germany. Personal service, or servitude, is associated with service in the house and belongs more to the individual. There is great abuse when it is both personal and significant at the same time."" (emphasis added - Auth.). All this is not in the printed “Nakaz”, because this “great abuse” was widespread in Russia and the deputies did not want any reforms here.

The articles that said: “Every person must have food and clothing according to his condition, and this must be determined by law, also turned out to be unnecessary. The laws must also take care that slaves are not abandoned in old age or illness. One of the Roman Caesars legitimized sick slaves to be free when they recovered. This law affirmed freedom for slaves; but it would also be necessary to establish by law the preservation of their lives.”

The same fate befell Catherine’s reference to the freer position of peasants in “Russian Finland” and her conclusion: “A similar method could be usefully used to reduce the domestic harshness of landowners or servants sent by them to manage their villages, which is limitless, which is often ruinous for the villages and the people.” and it is harmful to the state when the peasants, dejected by them, are forced involuntarily to flee from their fatherland.” The Empress proposed to adopt a law that “can prevent any torment of gentlemen, nobles, masters, etc.”

Note that just in the 60-70s. XVIII century There was a trial in the case of the landowner Daria Saltykova (known as “Saltychikha”), who was accused of brutal abuse of her peasants and the murder of 75 people of both sexes. And although the terrible Saltychikha was convicted and exiled to distant lands, the principles of serfdom she personified were supported by deputies not only from the nobility, but also from other classes. As it turned out, everyone wanted to have their own serfs. They also deleted the following article from the “Nakaz”: “It is necessary that civil laws determine exactly what slaves must pay for their emancipation to their master, or that the agreement on emancipation determines exactly this debt instead of laws.”

It should be admitted that Catherine II, without much resistance, accepted the truncations and amendments of the deputies, and then came to terms with the fact that the “Nakaz” never became a valid law. In December 1768, the Empress ordered the dissolution of the Great Commission, which during the year and a half of its existence held 203 meetings (several special commissions continued to work until 1774). Various rumors around “Nakaz”

forced the Senate to ban the distribution of this document in society - a document that Catherine II, at the time of its writing, wanted to see cheap in price, published in mass circulation and as widespread as an ABC book. Nevertheless, over the next thirty years, “Nakaz” was republished, so to speak, for internal use. The ideas contained in it guided in some cases legislative and administrative practice. And the Commission’s materials served as a guide for a number of important reforms of the administrative and judicial structure in Russia in subsequent years.

Among them is, first of all, the “Institution for the management of the provinces of the Russian Empire” of 1775. In accordance with it, instead of the previous 20, 50 provinces were created, which were divided into counties and volosts. The size of administrative-territorial units was reduced, and the number of persons vested with power was significantly increased. The governor-general was at the head of the province; under him, the provincial government was established, and under the latter, the chamber of criminal and civil courts was established as the highest judicial body of the province. In addition, a “Conscience Court” was also established to examine criminal cases committed by minors and the insane. An audit of court cases was envisaged, which meant “a diligent examination of whether the case was carried out decently and in accordance with the laws.” The “institution” created class courts - separately for the nobles, for the merchants and townspeople, for the non-serf rural population. Oversight of the entire judicial system was entrusted to government-appointed prosecutors and their assistants.

In 1785, Catherine II issued a “Charter on the rights and benefits of the cities of the Russian Empire,” which established the personal rights of the “philistines,” i.e. citizens - the right to protection of honor, dignity and life of the individual, as well as the right to travel abroad, and their property rights - the right of ownership of property belonging to the city dweller, the right to own commercial and industrial enterprises, crafts and the right to conduct trade. The entire urban population was divided into six categories depending on their property and social status, and the rights of each of them were determined. Among the political innovations contained in this charter, it is worth noting the “permission” to create city Dumas designed to solve the most pressing problems of the city.

Catherine II did not forget to thank the class to which she owed her rise to power and her entire reign - the nobility. Not limited to two decrees adopted in 1782, in 1785 she issued a special “Charter on the rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility.” In accordance with it, nobles were exempted from taxes, compulsory service and corporal punishment; they were allowed to acquire factories and factories, as well as trade in the products produced at these enterprises. Not only the land, but also its subsoil was assigned to the nobles. They received broad class self-government.

There was also a “Certificate of Grant to the Peasants”. In the 30s XIX century From the depths of the archives, fragments of this document began to emerge, according to which Catherine II intended to declare the children of serfs born after 1785 free. If this document had been accepted and published, serfdom would have been abolished quite quickly by itself. But this was prevented by the nobles, “high society” in general. And later, in the 90s, when Catherine II, presumably, understood that life was coming to an end, and when usually people were no longer hypocrites, she recalled with bitterness: “You can barely dare to say that they (serfs) are the same people , like us, and even when I say this myself, I risk that they will throw stones at me... Even Count Alexander Sergeevich Stroganov, the gentlest man and, in essence, the most humane, whose kindness of heart borders on weakness , even this man defended the cause of slavery with indignation and passion... I think there were not even twenty people who would think humanely and like people on this issue” Soloviev S.M. Decree. op. P. 497.

2 The organization of local self-government established at that time lasted for almost a hundred years, the administrative division into provinces and districts existed until 1917, and the division, in a slightly modified form, into regions and districts - to the present day.

See: Anthology of world legal thought. T. 4. pp. 333-342.

Quote from: History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, solutions. M., 1991. S. 147, 150.

"Order" of Catherine II

Having ascended the Russian throne, Catherine set out to develop the main directions of activity of the entire state machine. Moreover, to develop it independently, without looking back at the past, without listening to advisers, relying on the knowledge that she gained over the 18 years she spent in Russia before her accession.

POLITICAL IDEAS OF CATHERINE. She wanted to pursue a purely personal policy, not covered by any nearby, even if only advisory, but legally formalized and responsible institution. In the sphere of government closest to her, she did not allow even a shadow of law that could darken the brilliance of her guardian autocracy. According to her, the task of law is to lead subordinate governing bodies; it should act like solar heat in the earth's atmosphere: the higher, the weaker.

Power, not only unlimited, but also indefinite, devoid of any legal form, is the basic fact of our state history, which had developed by the time of Catherine. She protected this fact of the place from any attempts to give a logical structure to the supreme government. But she wanted to cover up this native fact with the ideas of the century. The processing that these ideas received in her mind made it possible to apply them in such a difficult way logically.

Even before her accession... she focused her diligent reading on historical and political literature and especially on educational literature. Exotic admirers and admirers of this literature perceived it differently. Some drew from it a supply of abstract principles and radical methods and, when interpreting the structure of human society, loved to build it on foundations derived from pure reason and not tested in historical reality, and when they turned to existing, real society, they found it worthy only of complete destruction . Others made use of this literature not for nutrition, but, so to speak, for taste, and were carried away by its abstract ideas and bold plans, not as a desirable everyday order, but simply as entertaining and piquant twists of brave and idle thought.

Catherine treated this literature more cautiously than political radicals and more seriously than liberal helipads. From this abundant source of new ideas, she tried to extract only that which, in her words, nourished the great spiritual qualities of an honest man, a great man and a hero, and that prevented vulgarity from darkening the “ancient taste for honor and valor.” Traces of such study and reflection inspired by it were preserved in the notes, extracts and fleeting notes left behind in French or Russian. “I wish, I only want good for the country where God has brought me,” she writes even before her accession, “the glory of the country is my own glory; here is my principle; I would be very happy if my ideas could contribute to this. I want the country and subjects to be rich - this is the principle from which I start. Power without popular trust means nothing to those who want to be loved and glorious; this is easy to achieve: make it a rule for your actions, your statutes of state and public life, to understand the basic concepts of law and society; Only by the turn of one’s mind or by the spirit of one’s reading, the good of the people and justice, inseparable from each other, are freedom, the soul of all things. Without you everything is dead. I want people to obey laws, not slaves; I want a common goal to make people happy, and not whim, nor strangeness, nor cruelty. How these notes remind us of the treasured institute notebooks of our grandfather’s times, where our favorite poems and first girlish dreams were written.

But Catherine’s “principles,” for all their complacent free-thinking, had a more business-like, educational meaning for her: they taught her to think about literary issues; she gave her principles an unusual meaning. For her, reason and its companions - truth, truth, equality, freedom - were not fighting principles, irreconcilably fighting for domination over humanity with tradition and its companions - lies, untruth, privilege, slavery - these were the same elements of community life as their opponents , only neater and more noble than them.

From the creation of the world these noble principles were in humiliation; now their dominance has come. They can get along with principles of a different order; Every business, whatever its goal, must assimilate these principles for its success.

“The gravest mistake,” Catherine wrote to d’Alembert, “that the Jesuit order has made and that any institution can make, is not to be based on principles that no reason could refute, for the truth is indestructible.” These principles are a good propaganda tool. “When truth and reason are on our side,” we read in one of her notes, “we must expose them to the eyes of the people, say: such and such a reason led me to such and such; reason must speak for necessity, and rest assured that it will prevail in the eyes of the crowd.”

The ability to agree in the management of principles of different orders is political wisdom. She inspired Catherine with intricate ideas. “It is contrary to the Christian religion and justice,” she writes, “to enslave people who will all be born free. In some European countries, a church council freed all peasants; such a revolution now in Russia would not be a means of gaining the love of landowners, full of stubbornness and prejudices. But here is an easy way - to decide to release peasants when selling estates; in 100 years, all or almost all lands change owners - and now the people are free.”

Or: our empire needs population, therefore it is hardly useful to convert foreigners to Christianity, where polygamy prevails. “I want to establish that they tell me the truth out of flattery: even a courtier will do this, seeing in this the path to mercy.” With a utilitarian view of principles, transactions are possible with them. “I have found that in human life, honesty has helped in times of difficulty.” Injustice is acceptable if it brings benefits; Only needless injustice is unforgivable.

We see that reading and reflection gave Catherine’s thoughts dialectical flexibility, flexibility in any direction, gave an abundant supply of maxims, commonplaces, examples, but did not give any convictions; she had aspirations, dreams, even ideals, not convictions, because the recognition of the truth was not imbued with the determination to build a moral order on it in herself and around herself, without which the recognition of the truth becomes a simple pattern of thinking. Catherine belonged to those spiritual constructs who do not understand what conviction is and why it is needed when there is a consideration. Her hearing also suffered from a similar defect: she could not stand music, but she laughed heartily when listening to a comic operetta in her Hermitage, in which a cough was set to music. Hence the diversity and mutual harmoniousness of her political views and sympathies.

Under the influence of Montesquieu, she wrote that laws are the greatest good that people can give and receive; and following the free, uncaptive movement of her thoughts, she thought that “the condescension, the conciliatory spirit of the sovereign will make more than millions of laws, and political freedom will give a soul to everything.” But, recognizing in herself a “perfectly republican soul,” she considered the most suitable form of government for Russia to be autocracy or despotism, which she did not fundamentally distinguish; Scientists also find it difficult to distinguish between these types of the same form of government.

She herself carefully practiced this form of government, although she agreed that it might seem strange to combine the republican “soul temper” with despotic practice. But equally with despotism, she also moved towards Russia and the aristocracy. “Although I am free from prejudice and from the nature of a philosophical mind, I feel a great inclination to honor the ancient families, I suffer, seeing some of them here in poverty; I want to lift them.” And she considered it possible to raise them by restoring the primogeniture, adorning the elders in the clan with orders, positions, pensions, and lands.

This did not prevent her from recognizing the aristocratic plan of the rulers as a reckless matter. In her capacious mind, the traditions of German feudalism fit alongside the habits of Russian rule and the political ideas of the Enlightenment Age, and she used all these means according to her inclinations and considerations. She boasted that, like Alcibiades, she would get along in both Sparta and Athens. She wrote to Voltaire in 1765 that her motto is the bee, which, flying from plant to plant, collects honey for its hive, but the warehouse of its political concepts is more reminiscent of an anthill than a hive. V. K-sky

"MANDASH" OF CATHERINE II- a document drawn up by Empress Catherine II for the Statutory Commission of 1767.

The “Nakaz” set out the basic principles that, in the opinion of Catherine II, should form the basis of the new Code (Code of Laws) of the Russian Empire. The main ideas of the document were inspired by the writings of French enlighteners - Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot. The works of the French educator Sh.L. had a particular influence on the drafting of the provisions of the “Order”. Montesquieu "On the Spirit of Laws". He wrote about the need to separate powers into executive, legislative and judicial.

The text of the “Order” consisted of 22 chapters, each of which was devoted to a particular problem of the social order. In them, Catherine expressed her views on such important issues as monarchical power, laws, crimes and punishments, the national economy, education, inheritance law, and the court.

The nobles with whom the empress consulted regarding the content of the “Nakaz” persuaded her to remove the most liberal articles. The final text of the document was greatly modified from the original version.

Catherine II considered an absolute monarchy to be the most suitable form of government for Russia. At the same time, in her opinion, it was necessary to introduce laws that would protect the fundamental rights of subjects. The Empress insisted on the need for equality of all before the law. The trial was supposed to be public, and without its decision no one could be found guilty. In “Nakaz”, Catherine opposed torture and the death penalty. She defended the need to develop trade and industrial activities, build new cities, and bring order to agricultural issues. At the same time, to please the nobility, Catherine II’s position on the issue of the existence of serfdom in Russia was reduced to general discussions about the need for humane treatment of landowners with peasants.

The “Mandate” was discussed by the Legislative Commission, which consisted of 500 people. She sat in the Faceted Chamber of the Kremlin. Its members were not ready to accept the principles set out in the “Order”. And the “Mandate” itself was an extremely contradictory and utopian document. Catherine was unable to reform Russian legislation. The “Order” never became the basis for the creation of a new Code. The Statutory Commission itself was officially dissolved in December 1774, although it ceased its activities in the end. 1768 I.V.

ORIGIN AND SOURCES OF THE “MANDACY”. Soon Catherine found wide application for her ideas. According to her, in one late note in the first years of her reign, from the petitions submitted to her, from Senate and collegiate affairs, from senatorial reasoning and the discussions of many other people, she saw that uniform rules were not established for anything, but laws issued at different times under different dispositions of minds, seemed contradictory to many, and therefore everyone demanded and wanted the legislation to be put into better order. From this she drew the conclusion that “the way of thinking in general and the civil law itself” cannot be corrected otherwise than by establishing written and approved rules for the entire population of the empire and on all subjects of legislation.

For this purpose, she began to read and then write the “Order” of the Code Commission. For two years she read and wrote. In a letter (March 28, 1765) to her Parisian friend m-me Geoffren, very famous at that time for her literary salon, Catherine wrote that for two months now she had been working for three hours every morning on the laws of her empire: this is a hint at drawing up "Nakaza." This means that the work began in January 1765, and by the beginning of 1767 the “Order” was already ready.

In the critical edition of the text of the “Nakaz”, prepared by our Academy of Sciences (1907), the abundant material from which this monument was produced was carefully analyzed and its sources were indicated. “Order” is a compilation based on several works of educational literature of that time. The main ones are Montesquieu’s famous book “The Spirit of Laws” and the work of the Italian criminologist Beccaria “On Crimes and Punishments”, published in 1764, which quickly became famous in Europe. Catherine called Montesquieu's book a prayer book for sovereigns with common sense.

The “Order” consisted of 20 chapters, to which two more were later added; The chapters are divided into articles, brief provisions by which statutes are written. All articles in the printed “Nakaz” are 655; of these, 294 were borrowed from Montesquieu. Catherine also made extensive use of Beccaria’s treatise, which was directed against the remnants of the medieval criminal process with its torture and similar judicial evidence, introducing a new look at the sanity of crimes and the appropriateness of punishment. The most extensive chapter X of the “Order” about the ritual of the criminal court is almost entirely taken from this book (104 articles out of 108). A critical study of the text of the “Nakaz” also found traces of borrowings from the French “Encyclopedia” and from the writings of the German publicists of that time, Bielfeld and Justi.

In the entire “Nakaz”, researchers find only about a quarter of unborrowed articles, and most of them are headings, questions or explanatory inserts inspired by the same sources, although there are original articles of very important content.

Catherine herself did not exaggerate, she even belittled the participation of her authorship in “Nakaz”. Sending Frederick II a German translation of her work, she wrote: “You will see that I, like a crow in a fable, am dressed in peacock feathers; in this work I own only the arrangement of the material, and here and there one line, one word.”

The work proceeded in this order: Catherine copied from her sources the passages suitable to her program verbatim or in her retelling, sometimes distorting the source’s thoughts; the extracts were crossed out or supplemented, distributed into chapters with divisions into articles, translated by Secretary Kozitsky and again corrected by the Empress.

With this order of work, there were inevitable shortcomings in the work: a phrase taken out of the context of the source became unclear. In the Russian translation of complex reasoning, with unsettled terminology, it is sometimes difficult to find the meaning; in such places, the French translation of the “Nakaz”, made at the same time, is more intelligible than the Russian original, although borrowed from the same French source. The incomprehensibility of many places in the “Nakaz” was pointed out by persons whom Catherine introduced to parts of her work before its completion. There were also contradictions in places: in one article, taken from Montesquieu, the death penalty was allowed; in other articles compiled according to Beccaria, it is rejected. V. K-sky

MONTESQUIEU Charles Louis, Baron de Secondat, Count (French) Charles Louis Montesquieu) (01/18/1689–02/10/1755) - one of the outstanding French thinkers of the Enlightenment, jurist, philosopher. He came from an aristocratic family that lived in Bordeaux from the beginning. 15th century He received his initial education at the Oratorian College in Juy, returning to Bordeaux to study law. In 1708 he became a lawyer, in 1714 - an adviser to the parliament (court) of Bordeaux. In 1716, he inherited from his uncle, Baron de Montesquieu, the title, name and position of President of the Parliament of Bordeaux. After the death of his father, he became the master of La Breda Castle. Montesquieu combined his service in parliament with studies in science. In 1716, he was elected a member of the Bordeaux Academy and wrote a huge number of reports and speeches on various fields of science (“On the causes of echoes”, “On the purpose of the renal glands”, “On the ebb and flow of the sea”, etc.).

In 1721, Montesquieu anonymously published his first work, “Persian Letters” (Russian translation in 1789), into the mouths of whose heroes he put criticism of the political life of France in the era of Louis XIV and outright ridicule of the king. The book was a sensational success, fueled by the ban imposed on it by censorship. In 1726, having resigned his judicial duties and the powers of president of the Academy of Bordeaux, Montesquieu moved to Paris; in 1728 he became a member of the French Academy, and was later elected to the London and Berlin Academies. In 1728–1731 took a long journey through the countries of Europe, studying the laws and customs of each country. The result of the journey was published anonymously in a small edition. 1748 in Geneva, the book “On the Spirit of Laws”. The work, written in a lively and fascinating language, with excursions through countries and eras, gained the author European fame and, despite being included in the “Index of Prohibited Books,” was reprinted 22 times. Believing that social life is governed by natural laws, Montesquieu argued that the moral character of a people and the nature of its laws are determined by geographical conditions, economics, religious beliefs and political institutions. Montesquieu believed that the content of laws is determined mainly by differences in forms of government, which, in turn, depend on geographical conditions, as well as on the size of its territory. Democracy, in his opinion, is possible only in small states, while despotism is justified in large ones. Montesquieu distinguished three powers in the state: legislative, executive and judicial, indicating that these powers should be in the hands of various government bodies. Opposing the concentration of all power in the hands of the monarch and fearing the absolute power of representative bodies, Montesquieu put forward the idea of ​​a balance of powers, in which one body of the state moderates another.

Montesquieu spent his last years improving the texts of The Spirit of the Laws and the Persian Letters. In 1753, he wrote his last work, “An Essay on Taste,” in the 7th volume of the Encyclopedia. He died of pneumonia and was buried in the Church of Saint-Sulpice (the grave has not survived). Montesquieu's coffin was accompanied only by D. Diderot.

Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted during the French Revolution of 1789 and was reflected in the constitutional acts of France (Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789, Constitution of 1791). The principle of separation of powers was adopted in the US Constitution in 1787 and served as an ideological justification for the independence of the president and government from representative bodies. V.S.

CENSORSHIP AND CRITICISM OF THE “MANDACY”. “The Order” suffered a lot from censorship, or criticism, which it was subjected to before its publication. According to Catherine’s story, when her work progressed sufficiently, she began to show it in parts to different people, according to each person’s taste. N. Panin said about the “Order” that these are axioms that can overturn walls.

Whether under the influence of the comments she heard, or on her own reflection, she crossed out, tore up and burned a good half of what she had written - this is how she informed D’Alembert at the beginning of 1767, adding: “And God knows what will happen to the rest.” And this is what happened to the rest. When the deputies of the Commission gathered in Moscow, Catherine called “several people of great differing opinions” for a preliminary discussion of the “Order.” “Here, with every article, debates arose; I gave them the freedom to blacken and blot out everything they wanted; They blotted out more than half of what I wrote, and the “Order of the Code” remained as if it had been printed.”

If this was, as one might think, a secondary attack of reduction, then in the printed “Nakaz” we read no more than a quarter of what was originally written. This, of course, must have done a lot of damage to the harmony of the work. Chapter XI, about serfdom, especially suffers from incoherence; the reason is that from the original edition of the chapter, up to 20 articles were published in the printed edition about the types of serfdom, about measures against the abuse of master's power, about ways to free serfs. This is what the censor-deputies from the nobility were most frightened of.

Despite the objections and cuts, Catherine was very pleased with her work as her political confession. [She] wrote even before it appeared in print that she said everything in it, emptied her entire bag and would never say another word in her entire life, that everyone who saw her work unanimously said that this was the height of perfection, but it seemed to her that needs to be cleaned. V. K-sky

CONTENT OF THE “ORDER”. In 20 chapters, “Nakaz” talks about autocratic power in Russia, about subordinate governing bodies, about the repository of laws (the Senate), about the state of everyone living in the state (about equality and freedom of citizens), about laws in general, about laws in detail, specifically about coordination punishments with crimes, about punishments, especially about their moderation, about court proceedings in general, about the ritual of a criminal court (criminal law and legal proceedings), about serfdom, about the reproduction of people in the state, about handicrafts (crafts) and trade, about education, about the nobility, about the middle class of people (the third estate), about cities, about inheritances, about the compilation (codification) and style of laws; the last, XX chapter sets out various articles that require explanation, namely, it talks about the trial for lese majeste, about extraordinary courts, about religious tolerance, about signs of the fall and destruction of the state.

Two additional chapters deal with the deanery, or police, and the state economy, i.e., income and expenses. We see that, despite the cuts, the “Order” quite broadly covered the area of ​​legislation, touching on all the main parts of the state structure, the supreme power and its relationship to its subjects, governance, the rights and duties of citizens, estates, most of all legislation and the court. At the same time, he gave the Russian people a number of versatile revelations.

He proclaimed that the equality of citizens consists in everyone being subject to the same laws, that there is state liberty, that is, political freedom, and it consists not only in the right to do everything that the laws allow, but also in not to be forced to do what one should not want, and also in the peace of mind that comes from confidence in one’s safety; For such freedom, a government is needed in which one citizen would not be afraid of another, but everyone would be afraid of the same laws. The Russian citizen has never seen anything like this.

The “Mandate” taught that natural shame, and not the scourge of power, should deter people from crime, and that if they are not ashamed of punishments and are only deterred from vices by cruel punishments, then the cruel government is to blame for this, which has embittered people and accustomed them to violence. Frequent use of executions never reformed people. Unhappy is the government in which it is forced to establish cruel laws. The “Nakaz” sharply condemns torture, which the Russian court so readily resorted to, as an institution contrary to common sense and the feeling of humanity; he also recognizes the requirement of prudence to limit the confiscation of a criminal’s property as a measure that is unfair, but common in Russian judicial practice.

It is known with what senseless cruelty and arbitrariness cases of lese majeste were conducted: a careless, ambiguous or stupid word about power caused denunciation, a terrible “word and deed” and led to torture and execution. Words, says the “Mandate,” are never charged with a crime unless they are combined with actions: “everyone who perverts and subverts everything, whoever commits a crime from words is worthy of the death penalty.”

For Russian judicial and political practice, the review of “Nakaz” about emergency courts is especially instructive. “In autocratic governments,” he says, “the most useless thing is to sometimes appoint special judges to judge one of their subjects.”

Tolerance was allowed in Russia. The “Nakaz” recognizes the vice of not allowing different faiths in such a heterogeneous state as Russia as a very harmful vice for the peace and safety of citizens, and considers, on the contrary, religious tolerance to be the only means of “bringing all the lost sheep back to the true faithful flock.” “Persecution,” continues the “Nakaz,” “irritates human minds, but the permission to believe according to one’s own law softens even the most stiff-necked hearts.” Finally, the “Nakaz” more than once touches upon the question of whether the state, that is, the government, fulfills its obligations to citizens. He points to the horrific child mortality rate among Russian peasants, taking away up to three-quarters of “this hope of the state.” “What a prosperous state the sowing powers would have,” exclaims bitterly “Nakaz,” “if they could ward off or prevent this destruction through prudent institutions!” Along with the mortality of children and imported infectious diseases, among the ulcers ravaging Russia, “Nakaz” also puts the stupid exactions with which landowners burden their serfs, forcing them to abandon their homes and families to earn money for many years and “wander throughout almost the entire state.” Either with irony or with a complaint about the carelessness of the authorities,” a more deliberate way of taxing the serfs.

It is difficult to explain how these articles escaped the censorship of noble deputies and made their way into the printed “Nakaz”. The chapter on the multiplication of people in the state, according to Montesquieu, paints a terrible picture of the desolation of the country from chronic illness and bad government, where people, born in despondency and poverty, amid violence, under the yoke of erroneous considerations of the government, see their extermination, without noticing its reasons themselves, lose courage , the energy of labor, so that fields that can feed an entire people barely provide food for one family. This picture vividly recalls the mass escapes of people abroad that became common in the 18th century. a real disaster for the state. In the list of means for preventing crimes, “Nakaz” seems to list, in the words of Beccaria, the arrears of the Russian government. “Do you want to prevent crimes? Make sure that the laws are less favorable to the different ranks among citizens than to any particular citizen; make people fear the laws and fear no one but them. Do you want to prevent crimes? Make sure that enlightenment spreads among people. Finally, the most reliable, but also the most difficult means of making people better is the improvement of education.”

Everyone knew that the Russian government did not care about these funds. The “Book of Lawful Good” would also restrain the tendency to do evil to others. This book should be so widespread that it can be bought at a low price, like an ABC book, and it should be prescribed to teach literacy in schools using such a book, mixed with church books. But there was no such book in Russia yet; The “Order” itself was written for its preparation. Thus, the act, signed by the highest, informed Russian citizens that they were deprived of the basic benefits of civil society, that the laws governing them did not agree with reason and truth, that the ruling class was harmful to the state and that the government did not fulfill its essential duties to the people. V. K-sky

Excerpts from Catherine II's "Order"

Order of Catherine II to the Commission on the drafting of a new Code. 1767.

1. The Christian law teaches us to mutually do good to each other as much as possible.

3. And every fellow citizen should be especially protected by laws that would not oppress his well-being, but would protect him from all enterprises contrary to this rule.

4. But in order to now begin to quickly fulfill what we hope is a universal desire, then, based on the first rule written above, you must enter into the natural position of this state.

5. For laws that are very similar to nature are those whose special disposition is better suited to the disposition of the people for whose sake they were instituted. This natural situation is described in the first three chapters that follow.

6. Russia is a European power.

7. The proof of this is as follows. The changes that PETER the Great undertook in Russia were all the more successful because the customs that existed at that time were not at all similar to the climate and were brought to us by the mixing of different peoples and the conquest of foreign regions. PETER the First, introducing European morals and customs into the European people, then found such conveniences as he himself did not expect.

9. The sovereign is autocratic; for no other power, as soon as the power united in his person, can act similarly to the space of such a great state.

10. A spacious state presupposes autocratic power in the person who rules it. It is necessary that speed in solving cases sent from distant countries rewards the slowness caused by the remoteness of places.

11. Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous.

13- What is the pretext for autocratic rule? Not one to take away people’s natural freedom, but to direct their actions to obtain the greatest good from everyone.

31. About the condition of everyone living in the state.

33. It is necessary that laws, as far as possible, protect the safety of every citizen.

34. Equality of all citizens consists in everyone being subject to the same laws.

39. State liberty in a citizen is peace of mind, resulting from the opinion that each of them enjoys his own security; and in order for people to have this freedom, the law must be such that one citizen cannot be afraid of another, but everyone would be afraid of the same laws.

40. About laws in general.

41. Nothing should be prohibited by law, except that which can be harmful either to each person in particular, or to the whole society.

45. Many things dominate a person: faith, climate, laws, rules adopted as a basis from the government, examples of past deeds, morals, customs.

52. The different characters of peoples are composed of virtues and vices, of good and bad qualities.

56. What I propose is not said here in order to shorten the infinite distance between vices and virtues even by a small line. God forbid! My intention was only to show that not all political vices are moral vices and that not all moral vices are political vices. One must certainly know this in order to refrain from legalizations that are not appropriate with the common wisdom of the people.

57. The legal provisions must apply to popular wisdom. We do nothing better than what we do freely, naturally, and following our natural inclination.

58. To introduce better laws, it is necessary to prepare people’s minds for this. But let this not serve as an excuse that even the most useful work cannot be undertaken; for if your minds are not yet prepared for this, then take the trouble to prepare them, and thereby you will already do a lot.

59- Laws are special and precise regulations of the legislator, and morals and customs are regulations of the entire people.

60. So, when it is necessary to make a great change in the people for great good, it is necessary to correct by laws what is established by laws, and then to change by customs what has been introduced by customs. A very bad policy is that which changes by laws what should be changed by customs.

63. In a word: any punishment that is not imposed out of necessity is tyrant. Law does not come solely from power; things between good and evil are in between, by their nature, not subject to laws.

THE THOUGHT OF “ORDER”. This is how Russian reality appeared before the ideas proclaimed by the “Nakaz”. How could they be held in an environment so little related to them? The “mandate” finds some means and outlines a guide. In the introduction, he states the general position that laws must correspond to the natural position of the people for whom they are drawn up.

From this thesis in further articles he draws two conclusions. Firstly, Russia by its position is a European power. Proof of this is the reform of Peter I, introducing European morals and customs among the European people, which was all the more successful since the former customs in Russia were not at all similar to its climate and were brought to us from alien peoples. Let us suppose that all this is so, contrary to all belief. It goes without saying that the unspoken conclusion is that Russian laws must have European foundations. These foundations are given by the “Nakaz” in the conclusions he collected about European political thought. It turns out something similar to a syllogism with an implied conclusion, which Catherine found inconvenient to finish.

“Nakaz” does not reveal its sources. Montesquieu, Beccaria and other Western publicists whom he used, in the eyes of the Russian deputies of the Commission of the new Code, did not have any legislative authority: they accepted the rules of the “Nakaz” only as an expression of the thought and will of the Russian supreme power. Such a syllogism would rather have been addressed to the Western European educated public, who might doubt whether Russia had reached such political maturity that such lofty ideas could form the basis of its legal code.

Another conclusion drawn from the natural situation of Russia is that, due to its vast extent, it must be governed by an autocratic sovereign: “It is necessary that speed in resolving matters sent from distant countries should compensate for the slowness caused by the remoteness of places.” If, in the language of that time, the entire “mind” of the autocracy is at the distance of Chita from St. Petersburg, then a much more unexpected syllogism can also be built on the second conclusion.

Montesquieu's book, the main source of the Mandate, is an ideal image of a constitutional monarchy. The first premise of the syllogism is the same: the laws of the state must correspond to its natural state. The second premise: Russia, by its natural, i.e. geographical, extent, should have an autocratic form of government. Conclusion: its legislation should be based on the principles of a constitutional monarchy. The syllogism has the appearance of a paralogism, yet it is Catherine’s actual thought.

Free from political convictions, she replaced them with tactical methods of politics. Without letting go of a single thread of autocracy, she allowed indirect and even direct participation of society in governance and now called for popular representation to cooperate in drawing up a new code. Autocratic power, in her opinion, received a new look and became something like personal-constitutional absolutism. In a society that had lost its sense of law, even such an accident as the successful personality of a monarch could pass for a legal guarantee. V. K-sky

THE DESTINY OF “NAKAZA”. Catherine later wrote about her “Order” that he introduced unity into rules and reasoning, unlike before, and “many people began to judge flowers by their colors, and not like blind people about flowers; at least they began to know the will of the legislator and act according to it.” The “Order” was distributed to deputies, read in the full assembly and in private commissions at the beginning of each month; it was referred to in the debate; The prosecutor general, together with the marshal, had to prevent anything contrary to the reason of the “Nakaz” in the decisions of the Commission. Catherine even thought of establishing a reading of it on the anniversary of its promulgation in all judicial places of the empire. But the Senate, of course, with the knowledge of the Empress, gave him a special appointment, sent him only to the highest central institutions, denying him regional government positions. And in central institutions it was available only to members of power; neither ordinary clerks nor outsiders were allowed not only to copy it, but also to read it.

The “Order” always rested on the judge’s table, and only on Saturdays, when current affairs were not reported, did these members read it in a close circle, as they read it in an office, locked, a forbidden book to selected guests. The “Order” was not intended for the public, it served as a guide for some ruling spheres, and only by their manners and actions were the subordinates and governed allowed to feel the properties of those axioms that the supreme power found necessary to teach for the benefit of its subjects. “Nakaz” was supposed to illuminate the stage and auditorium, remaining an invisible light itself.

The Senate came up with such a theatrical trick to prevent false rumors among the people, but the very mystery of the “Order” could only contribute to the spread of rumors about some new laws. Deputies and rulers who read or listened to the “Nakaz” took away from it several new ideas, flowers of thought, but their effect on the management and way of thinking of society is difficult to grasp. Only Catherine herself, in subsequent decrees, especially in cases of torture, reminded the subject authorities of the articles of the “Order” as mandatory decrees, and, to her credit, it must be added, she strictly insisted “that under no circumstances should any corporal torture be inflicted on anyone during interrogations.” did not have".

Despite its weak practical effect, the “Nakaz” remains a characteristic phenomenon of the reign in the spirit of Catherine’s entire internal policy. She wrote to Frederick II in explanation of her creation that she had to adapt to the present, without, however, closing the path to a more favorable future. With her “Order”, Catherine threw into Russian circulation, although very constrained, many ideas, not only new for Russia, but not fully assimilated by political life in the West, and was in no hurry to translate them into facts, to rebuild the Russian state order based on them, reasoning : if there were ideas, sooner or later they would bring their facts, just as causes bring their effects. V. K-sky

FAILED CODIFICATION ATTEMPTES. Back in 1700, a commission was composed of the highest ranks with several clerks, which was tasked with supplementing the Code of 1649 with legalizations that took place after its publication. Since then, a number of commissions have worked on this case without success.

They tried different ways of working, either basing it on their old Code, supplementing it with new decrees, or combining it with the Swedish code, replacing inappropriate clauses of the latter with articles of the former or new regulations: appointed or elected experts were added to the improvised codifiers from military and civil ranks, “kind and knowledgeable people,” sometimes only from officers and nobles, more often from other classes, the clergy and merchants.

This composition of the codification commissions reflected a vague memory of the participation of zemstvo councils in the compilation of the most important legislative codes of Ancient Rus', the Code of Laws of 1550 and the Code of 1649. The commission of 1754, also composed of officials of the central administration with the participation of the “Decision Academy of Professor” Strube de Pyrmont, prepared two parts of the new code, and in 1761, at the proposal of the Commission, for joint secondary consideration of its work, the Senate ordered to call from each province two elected representatives from the nobility and one from the merchants, and the Synod - to propose electing deputies from the clergy .

The matter was not finished this time either; the electors were dissolved in 1763, but the Commission existed until the convening of new deputies in 1767. V. K-sky

SPECIFIED COMMISSIONS- the name of seven temporary collegial bodies in Russia in the 18th century, convened to draw up a new Code (code of laws), instead of the outdated Council Code of 1649.

The first commission of this kind - the Chamber of 70 service people - was convened by Peter I in 1700. It worked for three years and compiled a new book, in which the tsar found many omissions, and because of this he dissolved the commission. In 1714–1718 a second commission worked, which was able to propose only 10 chapters of the new Code, which were also not approved. In 1718, Peter ordered the creation of a Code based on Russian, Swedish and Danish laws. For this purpose, in 1720 a third, mixed commission was formed with the participation of foreigners, the work of which also led nowhere.

Unsuccessful attempts to draw up a new Code were also made during the reign of Peter II. The Fourth Commission (1728–1730) was mainly engaged in the systematization of laws issued after 1649. Anna Ivanovna dissolved the Commission due to its complete helplessness and created a new, fifth Statutory Commission. She discussed draft laws on the court and estates. During the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna I.I. Shuvalov proposed creating a sixth Statutory Commission. She worked from 1754 to 1766. The commission prepared two parts out of the intended four: about the court and search cases and the project “On the state of subjects in general,” devoted to relations between classes. But this commission was closed due to the struggle of court factions.

Burlak Vadim Niklasovich

Order of Evreinov’s expedition “I have a presentiment that someday, and perhaps during our lifetime, the Russians will shame the most enlightened peoples with their success in the sciences, tirelessness in their work and the majesty of their firm and loud glory,” wrote Peter I. The desire to find out

From the book Chronology of Russian history. Russia and the world author Anisimov Evgeniy Viktorovich

1766 “Order” of Catherine II In 1766, a commission was convened to draw up a new code - a code of laws. Elected representatives from the nobility, merchants, and state peasants gathered at the commission meetings. For the commission, Catherine wrote “Instructions”, in which

From the book Russia in the 18th century author Kamensky Alexander Borisovich

3. “Instruction” of Catherine II The basis for “Instruction”, written in 1764–1766, was the ideas gleaned by Catherine from the writings of Montesquieu, the Italian jurist C. Beccaria and other educators. The “Nakaz” emphasized that Russia is a “European power” and that is why

From the book National History. Crib author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna

26 ENLIGHTENED ABSOLUTISM OF CATHERINE II. REFORM OF CATHERINE II Catherine II ruled almost the entire second half of the 18th century. (1762–1796). This era is usually called the era of enlightened absolutism, since Catherine, following the new European enlightenment tradition, was

From the book History of St. Petersburg in traditions and legends author Sindalovsky Naum Alexandrovich

From the book Conversations with the Mirror and Through the Looking Glass author Savkina Irina Leonardovna

From the book Bolbochan's March to Crimea author Monkevich Boris

Order about the march to Crimea and Donbass on the 9th century, a representative of the Military Ministry, a young otaman (I don’t remember his name), arrived in Kharkov in a special way to get acquainted with the mood of the Zaporizhians, their political views and by the work of Commissioner Pavel Makarenko

From the book From the Varangians to Nobel [Swedes on the banks of the Neva] author Youngfeldt Bengt

From Catherine to Catherine: Karl Karlovich Anderson Stockholm boy Karl Anderson was one of those numerous foreigners whose talent blossomed in St. Petersburg; in this sense, his fate is typical. But the beginning of his life's journey was far from ordinary;

author Vorobiev M N

5. “Order” of the Statutory Commission Next we must move on to the question of the so-called Order. While dealing with the Senate, Catherine very quickly realized that in our country the last regular legislation was the Council Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich of 1649. She also

From the book Russian History. Part II author Vorobiev M N

6. “Order” of the Legislative Commission In 1767, elections took place. Catherine wanted absolutely all categories of the population to be represented in the large Commission for drawing up the new code, except, of course, serfs. Posad residents could get there only in

From the book Colonel Petro Bolbochan: the tragedy of the Ukrainian sovereign author Sidak Volodymyr Stepanovich

Document No. 33 Order 4.210 for the Military Army of the UPR 12th century 1919 “Badge 1731–1840” Order to the troops of the Military Army of the Ukrainian People's Republic] 12th century 1919 4. 210In the remaining hours, I have been noting episodes of disrupted discipline in the Democratic Army. On the other side, I hear voices about necessity

From the book Life and Manners of Tsarist Russia author Anishkin V. G.

Reasons for creating "Order"

Letter and autograph from Catherine the Great

Despite the huge number of regulations created over previous years, the situation in the legal sphere was complex. On the territory of the Russian Empire, contradictory decrees, charters and manifestos were in effect. Moreover, apart from the Council Code, there was no single set of laws in Russia.

Catherine II, realizing the need for legislative activity, not only announced the convening of a commission, but also wrote her “Order” for this Commission. It outlined modern, progressive principles of politics and the legal system. With this “Order,” the Empress directed the activities of the deputies in the right direction and, in addition, declaratively emphasized her commitment to the ideas of Diderot, Montesquieu, D'Alembert and other enlighteners.

Sources of the "Nakaz"

• A significant part of the text (about 350 articles) is borrowed from the treatises of Charles Montesquieu "On the Spirit of Laws" and Cesare Beccaria "On Crimes and Punishments".
• The remaining articles are a compilation of publications by Denis Diderot and Jean D'Alembert from the famous Encyclopedia.

Thus, Catherine the Great just used the already existing material, which, however, does not detract from the significance of her work.

The text of the “Nakaz” consisted of 22 chapters and 655 articles.

1. Ch. I-V (Art. 1-38) - General principles of state structure.
2. Ch. VI-VII (Articles 39-79) - “About laws in general” and “About laws in detail”: the foundations of the legislative policy of the state.
3. Ch. VIII-IX (Art. 80-141) - Criminal law and legal proceedings.
4. Ch. X (Art. 142-250) - The concept of criminal law from the point of view of Cesare Beccaria.
5. Ch. XI-XVIII (Art. 251-438) - Class organization of society.
6. Ch. XIX-XX (Art. 439-521) - Issues of legal technology.

Finance and budget

The Supplement to the “Order” of 1768 analyzed the financial management system and listed the main goals of the state in this area. Finance was supposed to ensure the “common benefit” and “the splendor of the throne.” To solve these problems, the correct organization of the state budget was required.

Criminal law

Regarding criminal law, Catherine noted that it is much better to prevent a crime than to punish the criminal.

The Order noted that there is no need to punish pure intent that has not caused real harm to society. For the first time in Russian legislation, the idea of ​​​​humanistic goals of punishment was voiced: about correcting the personality of the criminal. And only then - about preventing him from causing harm in the future. Punishment, according to the Order, must be inevitable and proportionate to the crime.

Legal technology

The Commission never created a new Code: the wars that Russia waged in the 1960s and the Pugachev revolt had an impact. Inconsistency in the actions of representatives of different classes also played a negative role: the manifestation of corporate, class interests made joint codification work difficult.

However, the “Order” was not only an instruction for deputies. It was a carefully developed philosophical work of a man who thoroughly knew the history and all the achievements of modern legal thought.

Quotes:

• The Christian law teaches us to mutually do good to each other as much as possible.
• Russia is a European power.
• A spacious state presupposes autocratic power in the person who rules it. It is necessary that speed in solving cases sent from distant countries rewards the slowness caused by the remoteness of places. Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous.
• The equality of all citizens consists in everyone being subject to the same laws.
• Love for the fatherland, shame and fear of reproach are taming means that can restrain many crimes.
• A person should not and can never be forgotten.
• Every person has more concern for his own than for what belongs to another; and does not make any effort about what he may fear that another will take away from him.

Links

Literature

• // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: In 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional ones). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
• Isaev I.A.
• Ed. Titova Yu. P. History of state and law of Russia. - M., 2006.
• Tomsinov V.A. Empress Catherine II (1729-1796) // Russian jurists of the 18th-20th centuries: Essays on life and creativity. In 2 volumes. - Mirror. - M., 2007. - T. 1. - P. 63-89. - 672 s. - ("Russian legal heritage"). - 1000 copies. - ISBN 978-5-8078-0144-9

see also

• Certificate of rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Catherine II’s Order” is in other dictionaries:

CATHERINE'S ORDER- II philosophical legal work, published in 1767 for the deputies of the “Commission for drawing up a new Code”, created by the manifesto of December 14, 1766. The mandate consisted of the text of articles of criminal and civil law and process ... Legal encyclopedia

- (Big) was written by Empress Catherine II for the leadership of the large commission she convened to draw up a new Code (see). Noticing disagreement and even contradiction in the laws, the empress, in her own words, began to read, then... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Philosophy legal treatise, ed. in 1767 in Russian, French, German. and lat. language as a guide for deputies of the Commission on the Code of 1767. Consisted of 22 chapters, 655 articles of state, criminal and civil. law and process, as well as introduction, conclusion and 2... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia

Philosophical legal treatise, a guide for deputies of the “Commission on the Code” of 1767, published in 1767 in Russian, French, German and Latin. Consisted of 22 chapters, 655 articles of state, criminal and civil law and... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Mandate is a polysemantic term: Mandate in ordinary usage is strict instruction, command. It may also have a humorous connotation, for example, “an order to the newlyweds.” Deputy instructions from voters to elected deputies... ... Wikipedia

A document setting out an order from a higher authority to a lower one regarding a certain procedure; in this meaning, a mandate is a historical type of legal act. The Order of Catherine II is a philosophical and legal work of Catherine II. Order of assignment... ... Wikipedia

ORDER, order, husband. 1. Order, instruction, instruction (outdated and simple). “And they sang in chorus as ordered.” Pushkin. Give a detailed order. || Statement of instructions given by the boss or authority; instructions (official outdated). Order of Catherine II. 2.… … Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary