In 1649, Tsar Alexei himself took up the affairs of government. On his personal instructions, a code of laws was drawn up - the Cathedral Code. The young sovereign wanted to establish justice and better order by giving the people a new set of laws. This thought was very reasonable and correct. The people then did not know the laws by which they should live and be judged; This was what helped the lawlessness of the clerks and governors. The old code of conduct was not published, it could only be copied, and therefore very few people knew it. Additional decrees to him were known only to officials, they were not announced to the people, but only recorded in the “decree books” of Moscow orders. In such conditions, the clerks and judges turned things around as they wanted: some laws were concealed, others were distorted; there was no way to check them. It was very necessary to put in order the old laws, to make a single set of them and to publish it for general information. In addition, it was necessary to revise the content of the laws, improve them and supplement them in order to meet the needs and desires of the population. All this was decided to be done at the Zemsky Sobor. The cathedral began to function on September 1, 1648. It was attended by elected people from 130 cities, both servicemen and taxpayers; met separately from the boyar duma and the clergy. They discussed old laws and decrees and asked the king to abolish obsolete or inconvenient ones and to adopt new laws. The sovereign usually agreed and the new law was approved.

Strengthening the central authority.

The second half of the 17th century is characterized by the strengthening of absolutist tendencies, the tsar's power became less despotic in form, but more powerful and unlimited in essence. The strengthening of autocratic power, in addition to general historical ones, was caused by the following specific factors:

• - enslavement of the population and aggravation of social contradictions;
• - the completion of the formation of the service class, which was under the control of the state;
• - economic recovery, development of agriculture, handicraft production and foreign trade, allowing to increase tax revenues;
• - the complication of the management system, the growth of the apparatus of officials;
• - the emergence of new foreign policy tasks, the need to improve the armed forces, which are now called upon to resist not the backward eastern, but the advanced European armies; in addition, with the annexation of Ukraine, an acute problem arose of its preservation and integration within Russia.

Absolutist tendencies were manifested:

• - in changing the title of the king. Instead of the former: "Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke of All Russia" after the annexation of Ukraine, he became the following: "By God's mercy, the Great Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke of All Great and Small and White Russia is an autocratic". The title emphasized the idea of \u200b\u200bthe divine origin of the royal power and its autocratic character;
• - in strengthening the authority of power and the prestige of the personality of the tsar by the Cathedral Code. A crime against the person of the monarch was equated with a crime against the state, which was one of the signs of absolutism.

Of particular importance is the Cathedral Code of 1649 - a grandiose monument to the legal thought of Russia, which summed up a kind of summary of the legislative activity of the Moscow state. The decision to create it was made at the Zemsky Sobor in July 1648, which met immediately after the famous Moscow revolt. A special commission headed by Prince Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky prepared a draft Code. It was discussed at the Zemsky Sobor during September 1648 - January 1649, and in April-May it was printed in the first edition (1200 copies). After the approval by the cathedral, the code was called the Cathedral Code and remained in effect for about 200 years, until the adoption of the Code of Laws in 1832.

The original of the Cathedral Code has also been preserved. It is a scroll - a column about 309 meters long, written by different scribes, who left notes on its margins about the source of this or that article or what material was used as the basis for new articles. The original list contains the signatures of the members of the Council who adopted the Code (315 in total). In a silver gilded ark, cast by order of Catherine II, it is now kept in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts in Moscow.

The Cathedral Code consists of a preface conveying the history of its creation, 25 chapters, divided into 967 articles. They regulate almost all aspects of socio-political and social life. According to the branches of law, all chapters can be grouped into several sections: chapters IX combine the norms of state law ("On blasphemers and church rebels", "On the sovereign honor and how to protect his sovereign health", "On the sovereign's court, so that the sovereign's court does not whom there was no outrage and abuse ”,“ On the forgery of seals ”,“ On the money masters who learn to make thieves' money ”,“ On going abroad ”,“ On the service of military men ”,“ On prisoners ”,“ On the customs service "," About myty and about transportation and about bridges "). The second section - the norms of the judiciary and legal proceedings - chapters X-XV ("On the court", "The court of peasants", "On the court of patriarchal clerks", "On the monastery order", "On kissing the cross", "On accomplished deeds") Chapters XVI ("About local lands"), XVII ("About fiefdoms"), XIX ("About townspeople") and XX ("About lackeys") can be combined from the point of view of property rights. Finally, chapters XXI ("On robbery and tatina affairs") and XXII ("On the death penalty ...") are mainly devoted to criminal law.

The Code of 1649 is the last collection of law, built on the type of Moscow law codes (casual principle). Its theoretical basis was formed by the religious-Orthodox doctrine. As before, it lacked many important parts of the law (on state institutions, family and inheritance law, etc.), data about which historians draw from other sources. The implementation of the Code concerned the following:

• - in the adoption of this Code itself, systematizing and codifying laws;
• - in the attenuation of the activities of the Zemsky Sobor. The central government, having grown stronger, no longer needed the support of this estate-representative body; that is why, after the decision of 1653 on reunification with Ukraine, they did not meet in full force;
• - in changing the composition and role of the Boyar Duma. On the one hand, the number and influence of the Duma nobles and clerks, who entered the Duma not for nobility, but for personal abilities and service to the tsar, increased in it, and on the other hand, the numerical expansion turned it into a cumbersome, ineffective governing body, which forced the tsar to discuss the most important questions with a narrow circle of confidants and confidants who were part of the Repression Chamber;
• - in the development of the order system. Approximately 40 standing orders can be divided into three groups: state, palace and patriarchal. In turn, among the state can be distinguished territorial, in charge of the management of individual regions (Siberian, Smolensk, Malorossiysk, etc.), and branch (orders of the Great Treasury and the Great Parish, in charge of financial and economic issues; Local Order - land provision of service people; military - Streletsky, Pushechny, Reitarsky; Posolsky - led foreign policy, etc.);
• - the number of commanding people grew, the bulk of which were "mongrels". The formation of professional bureaucracy was also a sign of absolutism;
• - in strengthening the positions of the central government in the localities in connection with the appointment from the center of the governor, who now obeyed the zemstvo and lip elected elders;
• - at the beginning of the army reorganization. Regiments of "foreign order" appeared (infantry - soldier and horse - Reitar), ousting the noble militia and consisted of Russian mercenary soldiers under the command of officers - foreign mercenaries;
• - in strengthening the subordination of the church to the state as a result of the establishment (according to Chapter X111 of the Code) of the Monastic Order, which was entrusted with the trial of the clergy and people dependent on it, restriction of church land ownership (however, under pressure from the church in 1677, the Monastery Order was abolished), and the church reform of Patriarch Nikon;
• - economic backwardness, leading, for example, to a lack of funds for the maintenance of the command and control apparatus and the army that meet the requirements of the time;
• - the social immaturity of the nobility, which has not yet outlived its patriarchy and does not understand well its general estates, and even more so national interests;

Preservation of many norms and organs of the traditional management system. For example, the activities of administrative bodies were based on custom and were not regulated by written laws; the functions of orders were not delimited and were often intertwined (almost every order dealt with financial and judicial issues). The executive apparatus practically itself determined what to carry out from the plans of the supreme power and what not.

Thus, the order system based on custom, which did not have a clear division of functions and legal regulation, limited the supreme power. It turned out to be impossible to transform this system on a traditional basis. So, Alexey Mikhailovich created an order of Secret Affairs, subordinate only to him and designed to control the activities of other orders. But soon it turned into an additional organ of the ordering system, without changing its essence. Therefore, in order to overcome the omnipotence of orders, Peter 1 had to break this system and even move the administrative center to the new capital.

The local government system also retained many archaic features. In some places, where local self-government bodies remained, a kind of dual power developed, which impeded the performance of managerial functions. Although, unlike the breeders, the activity of the voivode was a service, not a reward, it was not paid by the state. The voivode was kept at the expense of the local population, as the feeders of the 16th century.

The noble militia remained the main military force. At the same time, the demands of modern warfare forced the creation of a standing regular army equipped with powerful firearms. The emerging regiments of the "foreign system" due to lack of funds for their permanent maintenance, weapons and training were formed only for the duration of hostilities and could not completely replace the already obsolete noble cavalry.

The royal power continued to be sanctified by the authority of the Church and Orthodoxy, which substantiated its divine origin. But in the conditions of the beginning of the crisis of religious consciousness and the secularization of culture, which engulfed part of the upper circles of society and the posad, a new rational ideological justification of its omnipotence was required. This was also prompted by the need to develop economic and cultural ties with European countries, where, under the influence of the Reformation and other factors, the attitude towards the nature of royal power has radically changed.

The personality of Alexei Mikhailovich had a contradictory influence on the course of events. On the one hand, largely thanks to his personal qualities (sincere piety, inclination to compromise, nobility, erudition and intelligence), it was possible to overcome the consequences of social upheavals, annex Ukraine and, as a result, strengthen the authority of the royal power. But, on the other hand, his qualities such as contemplation and passivity, the desire to entrust the administration of the country to his closest associates (Morozov was replaced by Prince N.I. Odoevsky, then Patriarch Nikon came, and after his disgrace, Ordin-Nashchekin and Matveev followed), and the main thing is the desire to preserve and improve the traditional order, predetermined the inconsistency of the political course. On the whole, Alexei Mikhailovich was an outgoing type of Orthodox tsar who no longer met the requirements of the time.

The most important of the new regulations were as follows:

• 1) the clergy were deprived of the right to continue to acquire land for themselves, and lost some judicial benefits;
• 2) the boyars and clergy have lost the right to settle near cities, in settlements, their peasants and slaves and to accept mortgages;
• 3) the posad communities received the right to return all the mortgagers who left them and to remove from the posad all people who do not belong to the communities;
• 4) the noblemen received the right to look for their fugitive peasants without "fixed years";
• 5) merchants ensured that foreigners were forbidden to trade within the Moscow state, anywhere except Arkhangelsk.

Considering all these new decrees, you can see that they are all made in favor of service people (noblemen) and townspeople (townspeople). Therefore, the nobles and townspeople were very pleased with the new laws. But the clergy and boyars could not praise the new order, which deprived them of various benefits. The mob was also dissatisfied: mortgagers returned to a taxable state, peasants deprived of the opportunity to exit. Thus, the new laws, established in favor of the middle classes of the population, irritated the upper classes and the common people. Legislative work was completed in 1649 and a new code of laws, called the Cathedral Code, was printed and distributed throughout the state.

In the Code, the most important were three groups of chapters.

One group of chapters dealt with crimes against the royal power and against the Church. Any criticism of the Church and blasphemy against God was punishable by burning at the stake. Treason to the tsar, insult to the honor of the sovereign, as well as boyars and governors were executed. This testified to the fact that an absolute monarchy had actually developed in Russia - the tsar had unlimited power in the country. Monarchy, as a form of government, began to take shape in Russia from the time of Ivan III. In 1649 it took legal form.

Another group of chapters was devoted to the rights of nobles. From now on, according to the Code, the nobleman was recognized as having the right to transfer the estate by inheritance, provided that the nobleman's sons would also be in the sovereign's service. These articles of the "Code" testified that the noble estate (received for service) was equated to the boyar patrimony (received by inheritance). A new layer of feudal lords - the nobility - was more and more equalized in rights with the boyars.

The most important section of the Code was devoted to peasants and townspeople. From now on, according to the Code, the peasants were prohibited from moving from one landowner to another and a life-long search for fugitives was established. The people of Posad were forbidden to move from one settlement to another, to move from one craft to another. The runaway townspeople were also wanted. The "Cathedral Code" of 1649 completed the long process of the formation of serfdom in Russia, which began in 1497.

Adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1649 and operated for almost 200 years, until 1832.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

✪ Baskova A.V. / IOGiP / Cathedral Code of 1649

✪ Cathedral Code of 1649 (tells Alexander Lavrentyev)

✪ Salt revolt in 1648 Cathedral Code of 1649

✪ Copper riot of 1662

✪ Chiang Kai-shek (narrated by Alexander Pantsov)

Subtitles

Reasons for the adoption of the Cathedral Code

As a result, by 1649 in the Russian state there were a huge number of legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other.

The adoption of the Code was also prompted by the Salt Riot that broke out in Moscow in 1648; one of the demands of the rebels was the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor and the development of a new code. The revolt gradually subsided, but as one of the concessions to the rebels, the tsar agreed to convene the Zemsky Sobor, which continued its work until the adoption of the Sobor Code in 1649.

Legislative work

To develop the draft Code, a special commission was created, headed by Prince N.I. Odoevsky. It included Prince S.V. Prozorovsky, Prince F.A.Volkonsky, and two clerks - Gavrila Leontyev and F.A.Griboyedov. Then it was decided to begin the practical work of the Zemsky Sobor on September 1.

He was supposed to consider the draft Code. The council was held in a wide format, with the participation of representatives of the posad communities. The hearing of the draft Code was held at the cathedral in two chambers: one was the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral; in the other - elected people of different ranks.

Much attention was paid to procedural law.

Sources of the Code

• Specified books of orders - in them, from the moment of the emergence of a particular order, the current legislation on specific issues was recorded.
• Code of Laws of 1497 and Code of Laws of 1550.
• - was used as an example of legal technique (formulations, construction of phrases, headings).
• Lead book (Byzantine law)

Branches of law according to the Cathedral Code

The Cathedral Code outlines the division of norms by branches of law, inherent in modern legislation.

State law

The Cathedral Code defined the status of the head of state - the tsar, autocratic and hereditary monarch.

Criminal law

The crime system looked like this:

Punishments and their goals

The punishment system looked like this: the death penalty (in 60 cases), corporal punishment, imprisonment, exile, dishonorable punishments, confiscation of property, removal from office, fines.

• Death penalty - hanging, beheading, quartering, burning (for religious purposes and in relation to arsonists), as well as "pouring a hot iron down the throat" for counterfeiting.
• Corporal punishment - divided into self-injurious (cutting off the hand for theft, branding, cutting off the nostrils, etc.) and painful (beating with a whip or batogs).
• Imprisonment - terms from three days to life imprisonment. The prisons were earthen, wood and stone. Prison inmates were fed at the expense of relatives or alms.
• Link is a punishment for "noble" persons. Was the result of disgrace.
• Disgraceful punishments were also used for "noble" persons: "taking away honor", that is, deprivation of ranks or demotion. A mild punishment of this type was a "reprimand" in the presence of people of the same circle to which the offender belonged.
• Fines were called “sale” and were imposed for crimes that violate property relations, as well as for some crimes against human life and health (for injury), for “incurring dishonor”. They were also used for "covetousness" as the main and additional punishment.
• Confiscation of property - both movable and immovable property (sometimes the property of the criminal's wife and his adult son). It was applied to state criminals, to “covetous people”, to officials who abused their official position.

It is important to note that paragraphs 18 and 20 of chapter XXII provide for a pardon if the murder was committed unintentionally.

1. Intimidation.
2. Retribution from the state.
3. Isolation of the offender (in case of exile or imprisonment).
4. Isolation of the criminal from the surrounding mass of people (cutting off the nose, branding, cutting off the ear, etc.).

It should be especially noted that in addition to the general criminal punishments that exist to this day, there were also measures of spiritual influence. For example, a Muslim who converted an Orthodox to Islam was subject to the death penalty by burning. The neophyte should have been sent directly to the Patriarch for repentance and return to the fold of the Orthodox Church. Modifying, these norms reached the 19th century and were preserved in the Code of Punishment of 1845.

Civil law

The main ways of acquiring rights to any thing, including land, ( property rights), were considered:

• The land grant is a complex complex of legal actions, which included the issuance of a letter of grant, the entry in the order book of information about the allotted person, the establishment of the fact that the transferred land is not occupied, and the introduction into possession in the presence of third parties.
• Acquisition of rights to a thing by concluding a sales contract (both oral and written).
• Acquisitive prescription. A person must in good faith (that is, not violating anyone's rights) own any property for a certain period of time. After a certain period of time, this property (for example, a house) becomes the property of a bona fide owner. The Code determined this period to be 40 years.
• Finding a thing (provided that its owner is not found).

Obligatory law in the 17th century, it continued to develop along the line of the gradual replacement of personal responsibility (transition for debts to slaves, etc.) under property liability contracts.

The oral form of the contract is increasingly being replaced by the written one. For certain transactions, the obligatory state registration is established - the "serf" form (purchase and sale and other transactions with real estate).

The legislators paid special attention to the problem patrimonial land tenure... Were legally enshrined: a complicated order of alienation and the hereditary nature of patrimonial property.

During this period, there are 3 types of feudal land tenure: the property of the sovereign, patrimonial land tenure and the estate.

• Patrimony - conditional land ownership, but they could be inherited. Since the feudal legislation was on the side of the land owners (feudal lords), and the state was also interested in the number of ancestral estates not to decrease, the right to purchase the sold patrimonial estates was provided for.
• The estates were given for service, the size of the estates was determined by the official position of the person. The feudal lord could use the estate only during the service, it could not be inherited.

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

Family relationships

The Code did not directly concern the area of \u200b\u200bfamily law (which was under the jurisdiction of the church court), however, even in criminal cases, the principles of Domostroy continued to operate - enormous parental power over children, the actual community of property, the separation of duties between spouses, the need for a wife to follow her husband.

In relation to children, parents retained the rights of power until their death. So, for the murder of a father or mother, a son or daughter was supposed to "be executed by death without any mercy", while the mother or father who killed the child was sentenced to a year in prison with subsequent repentance in the church. Children, under threat of punishment, were forbidden to complain about their parents, if, nevertheless, "whom the son or daughter learns to beat with their brows about the court against the father or the mother, and against the father and mother, they were not allowed to court anything, and they should be whipped for such a petition.

The Code established a special type of execution for female husbands-killers - burying alive up to the throat in the ground.

With regard to crimes against the state, the Code establishes that if "there are wives and children of such traitors, they knew about their treason, and they will be executed by death".

It is worth noting that ecclesiastical law (developed back in Stoglava and supplemented by the decisions of the Great Moscow Cathedral) allowed one person to conclude no more than three marriage unions during his life, and the age of marriage for men was 15 years, for women - 12 years. Divorce was allowed, but only on the basis of the following circumstances: the departure of the spouse to the monastery, the accusation of the spouse in anti-state activities, the wife's inability to bear children.

Legal proceedings

The Regulations detail the order " judgment"(Both civil and criminal).

1. "Submission" - filing a petition.
2. Summons of the defendant to court.
3. Judicial negotiation is oral with the obligatory maintenance of a "judicial list", that is, a protocol.

The evidence was diverse: testimony (at least 10 witnesses), documents, kissing the cross (oath).

Procedural activitiesaimed at obtaining evidence:

1. "Search" - consisted in a survey of the population on the fact of a crime or a specific (sought) person.
2. "Right" - carried out, as a rule, in relation to the insolvent debtor. The defendant was subjected to corporal punishment with rods. For example, for a debt of 100 rubles, they flogged for a month. If the debtor paid the debt or he had guarantors, the rule was terminated.
3. "Search" - complex measures related to clarification of all the circumstances of the "sovereign" of the case or other especially grave crimes. When "searching" was often used torture... The use of torture was regulated in the Code. It could be used no more than three times with a certain break.

Development of the Code

If necessary, changes in the field of legal relations were added to the Cathedral Code new articles:

• In 1669, additional articles were adopted on "tateb cases" (about thefts, robberies, robberies, etc.) in connection with the increase in the crime rate.
• In -1677 - about estates and estates in connection with disputes over the status of estates and estates.

In addition to the Code, several statutes and orders.

• 1649 - Order of the City Deanery (on measures to combat crime).
• 1667 - New Trade Charter (on the protection of domestic producers and sellers from foreign competition).
• 1683 - Scribe's order (on the rules of land surveying of estates and estates, forests and wastelands).

An important role was played by the "verdict" of the Zemsky Sobor in 1682 on the abolition of parochialism (that is, the system of distribution of official positions taking into account the origin, official position of the ancestors of the person and, to a lesser extent, his personal merits.)

Value

1. The Cathedral Code summarized and summarized the main trends in the development of Russian law -XVII centuries.
2. It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of the upcoming Russian absolutism.
3. The Code was the first to systematize domestic legislation; an attempt was made to differentiate the norms of law by industry.

The Cathedral Code became the first printed monument of Russian law. Before him, the publication of laws was limited to their promulgation in trading areas and in churches, which was usually specifically indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of the printed law largely ruled out the possibility of abuses by voivods and clerks in charge of legal proceedings. The Cathedral Code has no precedents in the history of Russian legislation. In terms of volume, it can only be compared with Stoglav, but in terms of the wealth of legal material it surpasses it many times.

When compared with Western Europe, it is clear that the Cathedral Code is not the first collection of acts of this kind. One of the first was the Code of Law of Casimir in 1468, compiled by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir IV and developed later, in 1529, in, then the code in Denmark (Danske Lov) in 1683; it was followed by the code of Sardinia (1723), Bavaria (1756), Prussia (1794), Austria (1812). Europe's most famous and influential civil code, Napoleon's French Code, was adopted in 1803-1804.

It is worth noting that the adoption of European codes was hampered, probably, by the abundance of the legal framework, which made it very difficult to systematize the available material into a single coherent readable document. For example, the Prussian Code of 1794 contained 19,187 articles, which made it too long and unreadable. For comparison, the code of Napoleon was developed for 4 years, contained 2,281 articles, and it took the personal active participation of the emperor to push through its adoption. The cathedral code was developed within six months, numbered 968 articles, but it was adopted in order to prevent the development of a series of urban riots in 1648 (started by the Salt Riot in Moscow) into a full-scale uprising like the uprising of Bolotnikov in 1606-1607 or Stepan Razin in 1670- 1671.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 was in effect until 1832, when the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was developed as part of the work on the codification of the laws of the Russian Empire, carried out under the leadership of M.M.Speransky. Previous numerous attempts to codify legislation that appeared after the publication of the Code were unsuccessful (see.

Begins to active legislative activity.

An intensive growth in the number of decrees for the period from the Code of Laws of 1550 to the Code of 1649 is evident from the following data:

• 1550-1600 - 80 decrees;
• 1601-1610 −17;
• 1611-1620 - 97;
• 1621-1630 - 90;
• 1631-1640 - 98;
• 1641-1648 - 63 decrees.

In total for 1611-1648. - 348, and for 1550-1648. - 445 decrees

As a result, by 1649 in the Russian state there were a huge number of legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other.

The adoption of the Code was also prompted by the Salt Riot that broke out in Moscow this year; one of the demands of the rebels was the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor and the development of a new code. The revolt was suppressed, but as one of the concessions to the rebels, the tsar went to the convocation of the Zemsky Sobor, which continued its work until the adoption of the Sobor Code in the year.

Legislative work

He was supposed to consider the draft Code. The council was held in a wide format, with the participation of representatives of the posad communities. The hearing of the draft Code was held at the cathedral in two chambers: one was the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral; in the other - elected people of different ranks.

All the delegates of the Council signed the list of the Code, which in 1649 was sent to all Moscow orders to guide them in action. When drawing up the code, the task was not set to draw up a code, it was only intended to generalize the entire available stock of legal acts, agreeing them with each other and abolishing outdated norms.

The electives submitted their amendments and additions to the Duma in the form zemstvo petitions... Some decisions were made by joint efforts of the elected officials, the Duma and the Tsar.

Much attention was paid to procedural law.

Sources of the Code

1. Specified books of orders - in them, from the moment of the emergence of a particular order, the current legislation on specific issues was recorded.
2. years - was used as an example of legal technique (formulations, construction of phrases, headings).

Branches of law according to the Cathedral Code

View of the Kremlin. 17th century

The Cathedral Code only outlines the division of norms by branches of law. However, the trend towards division into branches, inherent in any modern legislation, is already outlined.

State law

The Cathedral Code defined the status of the head of state - the tsar, autocratic and hereditary monarch.

Criminal law

• Death penalty - hanging, beheading, quartering, burning (for religious matters and in relation to arsonists), as well as "pouring a red-hot iron down the throat" for counterfeiting.

• Corporal punishment - divided into self-injurious (cutting off the hand for theft, branding, cutting off the nostrils, etc.) and painful (beating with a whip or batogs).

• Imprisonment - terms from three days to life imprisonment. The prisons were earthen, wood and stone. Prison inmates were fed at the expense of relatives or alms.

• Link is a punishment for "noble" persons. Was the result of disgrace.

• Disgraceful punishments were also used for "noble" persons: "taking away honor", that is, deprivation of ranks or demotion. A mild punishment of this type was a "reprimand" in the presence of people of the same circle to which the offender belonged.

• Fines were called “sale” and were imposed for crimes that violate property relations, as well as for some crimes against human life and health (for injury), for “incurring dishonor”. They were also used for "covetousness" as the main and additional punishment.

• Confiscation of property - both movable and immovable property (sometimes the property of the criminal's wife and his adult son). It was applied to state criminals, to “covetous people”, to officials who abused their official position.

Purposes of punishment:

1. Intimidation.
2. Retribution from the state.
3. Isolation of the offender (in case of exile or imprisonment).
4. Isolation of the criminal from the surrounding mass of people (cutting off the nose, branding, cutting off the ear, etc.).

Civil law

The main ways of acquiring rights to any thing, including land, ( property rights), were considered:

• The land grant is a complex complex of legal actions, which included the issuance of a letter of grant, the entry in the order book of information about the allotted person, the establishment of the fact that the transferred land is not occupied, and the introduction into possession in the presence of third parties.
• Acquisition of rights to a thing by concluding a sales contract (both oral and written).
• Acquisitive prescription. A person must in good faith (that is, not violating anyone's rights) own any property for a certain period of time. After a certain period of time, this property (for example, a house) becomes the property of a well-known owner. The Code established this period at 40 years.
• Finding a thing (provided that its owner is not found).

Obligatory law in the 17th century, it continued to develop along the line of the gradual replacement of personal responsibility (transition for debts to slaves, etc.) under property liability contracts.

The oral form of the contract is increasingly being replaced by the written one. For certain transactions, the obligatory state registration is established - the "serf" form (purchase and sale and other transactions with real estate).

The legislators paid special attention to the problem patrimonial land tenure... Were legally enshrined: a complicated order of alienation and the hereditary nature of patrimonial property.

During this period, there are 3 types of feudal land tenure: the property of the sovereign, patrimonial land tenure and the estate. Patrimony - conditional land ownership, but they could be inherited. Since the feudal legislation was on the side of the land owners (feudal lords), and the state was also interested in not decreasing the number of ancestral estates, the right to purchase the sold patrimonial estates was provided for. The estates were given for service, the size of the estates was determined by the official position of the person. The feudal lord could use the estate only during the service, it could not be inherited. The difference in legal status between estates and estates was gradually erased. Although the estate was not inherited, it could be received by a son if he served. The Cathedral Code established that if the landowner left the service due to old age or illness, his wife and young children could receive part of the estate for "living". Cathedral Code of 1649 allowed the exchange of estates for estates. Such transactions were considered valid under the following conditions: the parties, concluding an exchange record among themselves, were obliged to submit this record to the Local Order with a petition addressed to the king.

Family law

Scenes of Russian life. 17th century

• year - Order of City Deanery (on measures to combat crime).
• year - New trade charter (on the protection of domestic producers and sellers from foreign competition).
• year - Scribe's mandate (on the rules for surveying estates and estates, forests and wastelands).

An important role was played by the "verdict" of the Zemsky Sobor of the year on the abolition of parochialism (that is, the system of distribution of official positions in accordance with the origin, official position of the ancestors of the person and, to a lesser extent, his personal merits.)

The meaning of the Cathedral Code

1. The Cathedral Code summarized and summarized the main trends in the development of Russian law -XVII centuries.
2. It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of the upcoming Russian absolutism.
3. The Code was the first to systematize domestic legislation; an attempt was made to differentiate the norms of law by industry.

The Cathedral Code became the first printed monument of Russian law. Before him, the publication of laws was limited to their promulgation in retail space and in churches, which was usually specifically indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of the printed law largely excluded the possibility of abuses by the voivods and clerks in charge of legal proceedings. The Cathedral Code has no precedents in the history of Russian legislation. In terms of volume, it can only be compared with Stoglav, but in the wealth of legal material it surpasses it many times.

When compared with Western Europe, it is striking that the Cathedral Code relatively early, already in 1649, codified Russian civil law. The first Western European civil code was developed in Denmark (Danske Lov) in 1683; it was followed by the code of Sardinia (), Bavaria (), Prussia (), Austria (). The most famous and influential civil code in Europe, Napoleon's French Code, was adopted in -1804.

It is worth noting that the adoption of European codes was hampered, probably, by the abundance of the legal framework, which made it very difficult to systematize the available material into a single coherent readable document. For example, the Prussian Code of 1794 contained 19,187 articles, which made it too long and unreadable. For comparison, the code of Napoleon was developed for 4 years, contained 2,281 articles, and it took the personal active participation of the emperor to push through its adoption. The cathedral code was developed within six months, numbered 968 articles, but it was adopted in order to prevent the development of a series of urban riots in 1648 (started by the Salt Riot in Moscow) into a full-scale uprising like the uprising of Bolotnikov in 1606-1607 or Stepan Razin in 1670- 1671.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 was in effect until 1832, when the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was developed as part of the work on the codification of the laws of the Russian Empire, carried out under the leadership of M.M.Speransky.

Notes

Literature

• Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. Full course of lectures. - M .: 1993.
• Isaev I.A. History of the state and law of Russia. - M .: 2006.
• Ed. Titova Yu. P. History of the state and law of Russia. - M .: 2006.
• AND ABOUT. Chistyakov History of the domestic state and law .. - M .: 1996.
• Grigory Kotoshikhin About Russia during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. - Stockholm: 1667.

• A.G. Mankov "Code of 1649 - the code of feudal law of Russia". - M .: 1980.

• Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. "Review of the history of Russian law", 6th ed. - SPb. ; Kiev: Publishing house of the seller N.Ya. Ogloblin: 1909.

• Yu.L. Protsenko "Estates-representative monarchy in Russia (mid-16th - mid-17th century)", 6th ed. - Volgograd: 2003.

Cathedral Code of 1649

On July 26, 1648, on behalf of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, work began on the compilation of the Cathedral Code - the code of laws of Russia. The cathedral code was adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1649 and was in force for almost 200 years.

The immediate reason for drawing up the Cathedral Code was the riot that took place in Moscow in early June 1648. Then, among the demands of the rebellious townspeople was, in addition to tax cuts, the adoption of new legislative acts. The time for this was ripe also due to the fact that the previous legislative code - the Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible, adopted in 1550, in many respects required revision. In addition, by the middle of the 17th century, a colossal number of legal acts and norms were in force in the country, which were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich convened the Zemsky Sobor to consider the new Cathedral Code.

To prepare the draft code of laws, a kind of "editorial commission" was formed, headed by boyar Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky. Together with him, other experienced administrators worked on drawing up the document - princes Semyon Vasilyevich Prozorovsky and Fedor Fedorovich Volkonsky, clerks Gabriel Leontiev and Fedor Griboyedov.

The new code of laws was based on a number of norms of Byzantine law, translated from the collection of legal acts "Nomokanon", the Code of Laws of Tsar Ivan IV and later Russian laws, the code of Western Russian law - the Lithuanian Statute, as well as letters of petition from nobles, merchants and bourgeois to the king in 1648.

Already on September 1, 1648, the commission was supposed to report at the council about its work, but due to the large volume of documents, the reading of the draft articles began only on October 3. The council, which discussed the Code, was held in a wide format: it was attended by the tsar, boyars, clergy, elected representatives from the nobility and the bourgeoisie. The deputies made many amendments, so the final text of the Code was prepared only at the end of January 1649.

The new code of laws consisted of 25 chapters, each of which was divided into articles; there were 967 articles in total. The Code outlined a division into branches of law, systematized the norms of state, criminal, civil and family legislation. They talked about the norms in relation to land ownership and land ownership, in relation to peasants, burghers and slaves. The system of punishments and the order of legal proceedings were described. Separate chapters contained provisions on Cossacks, taverns and archers. The Code of 1649 was adopted on July 26 (16 according to the old style) and became the first Moscow state code containing legislative norms related to religion and the church (for example, for blasphemy, punishment was imposed in the form of the death penalty, obscene behavior in the church was punishable by whipping ). Thus, the entire legal system that existed at that time in Russia was brought into a certain order.

New in the Code was that it proclaimed the principle of equality in the administration of justice for all subjects, "from the greatest to the least rank", and was supposed to deliver the offended "from the hand of the unrighteous."

The cathedral code looked like a long roll of paper, consisting of 959 columns. The text was completed by more than those hundreds of signatures of the Zemsky Sobor participants. The cathedral code was almost immediately reprinted in the form of a book, published in two editions with a total of 2,400 copies; subsequently, it was also reprinted more than once. More than a hundred years after its adoption, during the reign of Catherine II, in order to preserve the original list, it was placed in a special silver box. The Cathedral Code remained in force until 1832, when a new Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was prepared. But even then it, as a historical monument, was included in the first volume of the Complete Collection of the Laws of the Russian Empire.

The Cathedral Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich for its time represented a great step forward in the development of the legal system and legislation of the Russian state. http://rusplt.ru/wins/sobornoe-ulojeni e-istoriya-27829.html

Deceit, injustice and all kinds of oppression to the people, which caused riots and unrest, naturally drew the attention of government officials to the shortcomings of the legislation itself, which should guide judges and rulers. The old Moscow judicial codes, by their incompleteness and backwardness, did not correspond to many new conditions and needs, social and state. For example, serfdom alone, which emerged after the publication of the law codes, initiated many cases on the part of the service or landlord estate and demanded more legal procedures; the orders that multiplied over time, without clearly defined boundaries of their department, produced a lot of confusion in matters of jurisdiction; why, of course, the lower classes suffered and the well-known Moscow red tape increased. After the judiciary, life demands and various cases caused a lot of additional royal decrees and boyar sentences; but it was not easy to understand this mass and, moreover, they did not give answers to all the questions that arose. Under the pressure of the formidable popular movement that had just taken place, the Moscow government hastened now to satisfy the urgent needs of justice with a new legislative code; and since any such undertaking was accompanied by the convocation of the Great Zemsky Duma or Zemsky Sobor, the authorities undoubtedly had in mind that a meeting of elected people from all over the state for such a great cause would give support to the government, take public attention and have a pacifying effect on the agitated popular passions.

According to the official act, on July 16, 1648, in the twentieth year of his life, the Sovereign, on the advice of Patriarch Joseph and the entire consecrated cathedral, as well as with the Boyar Duma, ordered to write out from the rules of church and Greek civil laws articles suitable for our zemstvo affairs, collect the decrees and boyar sentences of Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and his predecessors and compare them with the old lawsuits, and which articles are lacking, they should be written again and put down by the general zemstvo council, “so that the Moscow state of all ranks to people, from greater to lesser, will be equal in all matters. " To immediately draw up a new code and prepare it for the "report" at the same time a commission of five persons was appointed, which are the boyars - princes Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky and Sem. You. Prozorovsky, okolnichny pr. Fyodor Fyodorovich Volkonsky and two clerks, Gavrila Leontiev and Fyodor Griboyedov. And for the consideration and approval of this code, it is indicated to select "good and intelligent people", two people each from stewards, solicitors, tenants and noblemen of Moscow, also two people from nobles and children of boyars in big cities, and in smaller ones, one person, in Novgorod one person from every five, then from the guests of three, from the living room and the cloth hundreds of two, and from the black hundreds and settlements and from the townships, one person. The deadline for the gathering of elected people in Moscow is set to September 1 (i.e., in the new year of 7157 in the style of that time). The choice of persons for the compilation of the new Code was apparently successful. Prince NI Odoevsky "with his comrades" carried out the work entrusted to him, skillfully and quickly, without the usual Moscow red tape. By October, the first 12 chapters of the Legislated Book were ready, which were presented in the report to the sovereign and the highest ranks of the Zemsky Sobor. This cathedral was, as it were, divided into two chambers: upper and lower. The first consisted of the Boyar Duma, together with the spiritual authorities or a consecrated cathedral, and the sovereign himself presided over this chamber. The second chamber was represented by elected people; it was chaired by the newly appointed boyar prince Yuri Alekseevich Dolgoruky, head of the Order of Investigative Affairs. The finished parts of the Code, after consideration in the upper chamber, were read in the lower one, and here, apparently, they were also discussed or remarked before they received the sovereign's sanction. By the end of January of the following 1649, the remaining 13 chapters of the Stacked Book were completed and reviewed by the Cathedral. Consequently, all this legislative work lasted almost six and a half months, the period for the Moscow orders of that time is very short, taking into account the size of the Code, which far exceeded the previous judicial codes and the newly composed articles included in it. Its chapters are very uneven in size; but taken together they contain almost a thousand (967) articles. With a lack of a strict system in their distribution, these articles, in terms of their content, nevertheless fall into several groups. So the first two chapters ("On blasphemers and on church rebels", "On the State honor and how to protect his State health") are aimed at protecting orthodox Church and autocratic power, that is, they represent, so to speak, state law. The following seven chapters are adjacent to them (forgery of acts and coins, regulations on military service, etc.). Chapters X-XY contain articles of the judiciary and legal proceedings. Further there are articles containing the rights of patrimonial, local, township, servile court, criminal law ("robbery and tatina cases" and various murders); at the end there are articles on feeding.

Cathedral Code of 1649. Page with the beginning of chapter 11

Sources for the history of the Code and the Zemsky Sobor 1648-1649 Appointment of the Legislative Commission, convocation of elected people and petitions. Palace. Res. III. 95.SGG and D. III. No. 129. Acts Exp. IV. No. 29. (Memory of the Obonezhskaya pyatina of the Nagornaya half of the labial head about the sending of an elective from the nobles and the children of the boyars, "a person of kind and intelligent, who would use sovereigns and zemstvo affairs for the custom"; to go to Veliky Novgorod "with a reserve without any to be in time in Moscow by September 1). Nos. 32 and 33. (Complaints of elected people: regarding the mortgagers with their new settlements and trade benefits and regarding the prohibition of monasteries to acquire patrimonial lands). Add. to Act. ist. IV. No. 47. (Complaints of guests, living room, cloth and black hundreds and settlements about their needs, about replenishment of some hundreds, etc.). Acts ist. IV. No. 30. Here is the abolition of the term for the search for fugitive peasants; and before that there was a 10-year term. In Suppl. to Act. ist. III. No. 33, in October 1647, a 15-year term was set for the removal of the peasants of the Zaonezhsky churchyards who lived behind the Solovetsky monastery. G. Meichik in Sborn. Archaeologist. East III. P. 100 indicates a 15-year old bondage. The Code itself is in Volume I II. S.R.Zak. Separate edition 1776 First edition, 1,200 copies, commenced with printing on April 7, 1649 and completed on May 20. In the same year, the second edition was printed in the same quantity. (G. Meichik, in the above Collection, on page 116, believes that the third edition was also published in the same year). The original scroll of the Code in 1767 was searched for on behalf of Catherine II and was found in the premises of the Workshop and the Armory in an iron chest. This scroll, when unrolled, is about 434 yards long (as measured by Miller). The Empress ordered a silver ark with gilding to be made for him. Now it is stored in Moscow. Main Archive Min. Foreign Affairs. In addition to Leontyev and Griboyedov, the scroll is sealed with the signatures of the Duma clerks Gavrenev, Elizarov and Volosheninov. Of the 315 persons who signed the Code, 171 were literate; others signed for the rest. In addition, 25 more people of the Cathedral are known who did not sign at all. Judging by the signatures of the found scroll of the Cathedral Code, the actual members of the Boyar Duma participated in the Zemsky Sobor 29, and the Consecrated Cathedral 13 or 14. In total, more than 40 members of the cathedral were the family of the Upper House. And the elective or members of the Lower House, therefore, there were about 300, counting with the unsigned. That this Zemsky Sobor was convened under the pressure of the rebellious times for the people's pacification, Patriarch Nikon later testified to this in the following words: ". (Zap. Dept. Rus. And Slavs. Archeology. II. 526.) Literature of the subject, the most noteworthy. Pavel Pototsky has a reasoning about the Laid Book, but here it is, in fact, about the royal tyranny. (Opera omnia. Varsoviae. 1747.176-177). "On the sources from which the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich is taken" (Moscow Telegraph, ed. Polevoy. 1831. No. 7.). Sroeva"Historical and legal study of the Code, published by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich". M. 1833. Prof. Moroshkinaact speech at Moscow University "On the Code and its subsequent development." M. 1839. Linovsky"Investigation of the beginnings of criminal law set out in the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich." Odessa. 1847. Zabylina"Information about the real Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich". (Archive of historical and legal information, published by Kalachev. Book. I. M. 1850). Review of this article by Kavelin (Op. III). Shchapova"Zemsky Sobor 1648 - 1649 and Meeting of Deputies in 1767". (Fatherland. Zap. "1S62. No. 11). Shpilevskyact speech "On the sources of Russian law in connection with the development of the state." (Scientist, Zap. Kazan University, 1862. Issue 2). Prof. Sergeevich"Zemsky Cathedrals in the Moscow State". (Collection of states, knowledge. Publishing house Bezobrazova. T. II. St. Petersburg. 1875). Prof. Vladimirsky-Budanov"Relations between the Lithuanian Statute and the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich". (Ibid. T. IV. SPb. 1877). His "Review of the history of Russian law." Issue I. Kiev. 1886. Prof. Belyaeva"Lectures on the history of Russian legislation." M. 1879. Prof. Zagoskin"Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Zemsky Sobor 1648 - 1649." (Act. Speech. Scientific notes. Kazan. Univers. 1879. January - February). Meichik and Vodenyuk"Trip of students of the Archaeological Institute to Moscow". (Collection of this Institute. Book. 2. SPb. 1879). Meichika"Additional data to the history of the Code" and "Regarding" the above-mentioned assembly speech by Zagoskin, (Collected Archaeologist. Inst. Books. 3 and 4. St. Petersburg 1880); in the first article in the note. 8 contains information about individuals and service records of members of the commission for drawing up the Code, i.e. princes Odoevsky, Prozorovsky, Volkonsky, clerks Leontiev and Griboyedov, as well as Prince. Yu. A. Dolgorukova. And in approx. 9 list of the number of electives from different cities, posadov, draft hundreds and settlements, in alphabetical order. Platonov"A note on the history of the Moscow Zemsky Cathedrals". (J. M. H. Pr. 1883 No. 3). Pashkin"Zemsky Cathedrals of Ancient Rus". SPb. 1885. Zertsalova"New data on the Zemsky Sobor 1648 - 1649. (" Th. O. I. and D. "1887. III. In the appendices, brief biographical information and service records about the princes Dolgoruk, Odoevsky and Prozorovsky). Tiktina"Byzantine law as a source of the Code of Laws and New Kazan Articles". Odessa. 1898. Borisov"On the issue of the publication of the Code by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich". (Bulletin of Archeology and History, published by the Archeological Institute. Issue II. St. Petersburg, 1899). Shmeleva"On the sources of the Cathedral Code of 1649" (J. M. H. Pr. 1900. October). Alekseeva"A new document on the history of the Zemsky Sobor 1648 - 1649". (Proceedings of the Archaeological Commission of Moscow. Archeological Society T. II. Issue I. M. 1900). There are three letters attached here: two petitions from Gavril Malyshev, the elective Kursk boyar children, and a "Gentle Letter" to him. This elective filed to the tsar his complaint that the Kurchans did not go to church on holidays, but were engaged in night games, on which they roam, do fornication, ride on swings and rails, buffoonery demonic songs, etc .; for which God punished them with ruin from Lithuania, Tatars and locusts. The tsar must have a decree to stop these games. Malyshev complains to the tsar that some Kurchans for this exposure began to persecute him and threaten him with almost murder. The tsar ordered to issue him a special "careful letter" prohibiting any persecution. The author of the named article tries to prove with these documents that the elected in the cities received a kind of mandates for the council; but such a conclusion hardly follows from the aforementioned enclosed letters.

Kavelin makes a probable guess that the compilers of the Code used notebooks or reference books of orders, in which newly issued laws and regulations were introduced, which related: to the circle of their department. Vladimirsky-Budanov points to large borrowings from the Lithuanian Statute, and counts 172 articles borrowed from it, but considers such borrowing free, not literal, but revised in the "spirit of Moscow law", and says that the Code is the outcomethe previous Moscow legislation, its vault,despite other people's sources. According to his explanation in the introduction to it, the Lithuanian Statute is not named due to the fact that the articles borrowed from it were already included in the specified books of orders, from where they got into the Code. (Even earlier, a similar opinion was expressed by I. Ye. Zabelin). Zagoskin, saying that the Code was "the cornerstone of Russian legislation until the very publication of the Code of Laws, points to the very active participation of the members of the Council in the compilation of" New Articles "; there are up to 80 such new articles compiled with their participation. But Meichik finds this number exaggerated, since some of them were taken from previous legalizations, and reduces their number to 60. Latkin also refers to customary law as a source, but dully and vaguely. Shmelev also considers new articles to be one of the sources of "opinions and petitions. elective people "; but the most important source is the Determined books of orders. Of the royal judicial records, few were taken, about 36 articles. Stoglav was also among the sources of the Code. Some of his articles were also taken from sources hitherto unknown. There are borrowings from the Nomokanon or Kormchas, therefore , from Eclogue, Prochiron, Novellas of Justinian and ruled by Basil the Great. The cruel nature of criminal law in the Code of names but it is explained by the influence of Byzantine law and partly by the Lithuanian Statute (painful punishments, cutting off members, burning, entrenching in the ground, etc.). In general, according to Mr. Shmelev's conclusion, the Code is not "strictly a national code."

During the publication of the Code, there was a curious case of parochialism of some groups among themselves, namely guests with clerks. The guests beat the sovereign's brow at the clerks Leontyev and Griboyedov in that they, wishing to squeeze the guests, put them in the printed book under the clerks below the clerks. (In Chapter X, when determining the payment for dishonor.) The sovereign "welcomed" the guests, ordered in the second edition of the Code to put them above the clerks, with the exception of the Duma. Then a petition followed from the clerk of the Kazan Palace Order Larion Lopukhin that his name should be placed above the clerks: it turned out that "he was taken from the nobles to the clerks." The sovereign ordered him not to disgrace this incident from now on. ”(Ivanov's Description of the State Discharge Archive. 345.) But usually the clerks at solemn tsarist receptions were higher than the guests in terms of categories. Therefore, after 10 years, that is, in 1659 On April 20, the boyar's verdict on being a deacon's rank above the living name was issued (II. S. Zak. I. No. 247) Regarding the award, if not all, then some elected people, we have the following fact: Nizhny Novgorod Semyon Goltin in 1652 . added to the salary 5 rubles for the fact that in 1649 he "was at the choice of the policemen of all ranks of people in Moscow, Prince Nikita Ivan Odoevsky", that is, at the Code. (Acts of Moscow. State. II. No. 457). It is curious that in Yablonov ordered to send a copy of the Ulozhennaya book, which remained after Prince Bor. A. Repnin. (Ibid. No. 465).

Complaints of stewards, solicitors, etc., together with traffickers on the prohibition of foreigners to trade in other cities, except Arkhangelsk, in 1649 (Collection of Prince Khilkov. 238 p. No. 82). The British boasted that they would force the Moscow guests to trade only bast shoes. (Act Exp. IV. No. 7). Decree abolishing the commercial privileges of the British in SGG I D. III. No. 138.