1. General characteristics Holland is the first country in Europe where, during a long national liberation struggle against the domination of feudal-monarchical Spain (second half of the 16th - early 17th centuries), the bourgeoisie came to power and a bourgeois system was established

1. General characteristics of the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century. dealt a crushing blow to feudalism and opened up space for rapid growth capitalist relations in one of the leading countries of Western Europe. It had an incomparably wider resonance than

1. General characteristics The Enlightenment is an influential general cultural movement of the era of transition from feudalism to capitalism. It was important integral part the struggle that the then young bourgeoisie and the masses waged against the feudal system and its ideology. Specifics

1. General characteristics The socio-political life of Western Europe in the first half of the 19th century was marked by the further establishment and strengthening of bourgeois orders in this region of the world, especially in such countries as England, France, Germany,

1. General characteristics In the 20th century. The development of political and legal research is gaining momentum. Continuity with previous teachings (neo-Kantianism, neo-Hegelianism) is noticeably supplemented by new directions and schools in jurisprudence (integrative jurisprudence,

§ 1. General characteristics Chapter 24 of Volume I of this Textbook showed various, mainly non-contractual, legal grounds for the use of housing. Here it is advisable to consider the contractual basis and content of the housing rental agreement. For many

Before the Code of 1650 is visible 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As a result, by 1649, the Russian state had a huge number of legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other.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 convening 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 convened the Zemsky Sobor, which continued its work until the adoption of the Council Code in 1649.

Legislative work

A copy from the Ferapontovsky Monastery

He was intended to review the draft Code. The cathedral was held in a broad format, with the participation of representatives of the townspeople's communities. The hearing of the draft Code took place at the cathedral in two chambers: in one were the tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral; in the other - elected people of various ranks.

All the delegates of the Council signed the list of the Code, which in 1649 was sent to all Moscow orders for guidance in action.

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

Much attention was paid to procedural law.

Sources of the Code

• Decree books of orders - in them, from the moment of the emergence of this or that order, it was recorded current legislation on specific issues.
• - was used as an example of legal technique (formulation, construction of phrases, rubrication).

Branches of law according to the Council Code

View of the Kremlin. 17th century

The Council Code only outlines the division of norms into branches of law. However, the tendency towards division into industries, inherent in any modern legislation, has already emerged.

State law

The Council Code determined the status of the head of state - the tsar, autocratic and hereditary monarch.

Criminal law

• The death penalty is 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-harm(cutting off a hand for theft, branding, cutting off nostrils, etc.) and painful(beating with a whip or batogs).
• Imprisonment - terms from three days up to life imprisonment. The prisons were earthen, wooden and stone. Prison inmates fed themselves at the expense of relatives or alms.
• Exile is a punishment for “high-ranking” persons. It was the result of disgrace.
• Dishonorable punishments were also used for “high-ranking” persons: “deprivation of honor,” that is, deprivation of ranks or reduction in rank. A mild punishment of this type was a “reprimand” in the presence of people from the 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 “extortion” 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 “greedy people”, to officials who abused their official position.

Purposes of punishment:

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

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

Civil law

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

• The grant of land is a complex set of legal actions, which included the issuance of a grant, entry in the order book of information about the grantee, establishment of the fact that the land being transferred is unoccupied, and taking possession in the presence of third parties.
• Acquiring rights to a thing by concluding a purchase and sale agreement (both oral and written).
• Acquisitive prescription. A person must in good faith (that is, without 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 set this period at 40 years.
• Finding a thing (provided that its owner is not found).

Law of obligations in the 17th century, it continued to develop along the line of gradual replacement of personal liability (transition to serfs for debts, etc.) under contracts with property liability.

The oral form of the contract is increasingly being replaced by a written one. For certain transactions, state registration is mandatory - the “serf” form (purchase and sale and other real estate transactions).

Legislators paid special attention to the problem patrimonial land ownership. The following were legislatively established: a complicated procedure for alienation and the hereditary nature of patrimonial property.

During this period, there were 3 types of feudal land ownership: the property of the sovereign, patrimonial land ownership and estate. Votchina is conditional land ownership, but they could be inherited. Since feudal legislation was on the side of the land owners (feudal lords), and the state was also interested in ensuring that the number of patrimonial estates did not decrease, the right to buy back sold patrimonial estates was provided for. Estates were given for service; the size of the estate was determined by the official position of the person. The feudal lord could only use the estate during his service; it could not be passed on by inheritance. The difference in the legal status between votchinas and estates was gradually erased. Although the estate was not inherited, it could be received by a son if he served. The Council Code established that if a landowner left the service due to old age or illness, his wife and young children could receive part of the estate for subsistence. The Council Code of 1649 allowed the exchange of estates for estates. Such transactions were considered valid when following conditions: the parties, concluding an exchange record between themselves, were obliged to submit this record to the Local Order with a petition addressed to the Tsar.

Family law

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

An important role was played by the “verdict” of the Zemsky Sobor of 1682 on the abolition of localism (that is, the system of distribution of official places taking into account the origin, official position of a person’s ancestors and, to a lesser extent, his personal merits.)

The meaning of the Cathedral Code

1. The Council Code summarized and summarized the main trends in the development of Russian law in the 17th century.
2. It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of advancing Russian absolutism.
3. The Code was the first to systematize domestic legislation; An attempt was made to differentiate the rules of law by industry.

Cathedral Code became the first printed monument of Russian law. Before him, the publication of laws was limited to their announcement in marketplaces and in churches, which was usually specifically indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of a printed law largely eliminated the possibility of abuses by governors and officials in charge of legal proceedings. The Council Code 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 over.

When compared with Western Europe, it is striking that the Council Code relatively early, already in 1649, codified the 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 (). Europe's most famous and influential civil code, the French Napoleonic Code, was adopted in -1804.

It is worth noting that the adoption of European codes was probably hampered 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, making it overly long and unreadable. By comparison, the Napoleonic Code took 4 years to develop, contained 2,281 articles, and required the personal active participation of the emperor to push for its adoption. The cathedral code was developed within six months, numbered 968 articles, and 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 1670-1670. 1671.

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

see also

Notes

Literature

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

• Mankov A. G. Code of 1649 - code feudal law Russia. - M.: Science, 1980.
• Tomsinov V. A. The Cathedral Code of 1649 as a monument to Russian jurisprudence // Cathedral Code of 1649. Legislation of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich / Compiled, author of the preface and introductory articles V. A. Tomsinov. M.: Zertsalo, 2011. P. 1-51.

Oslash; Sources and main provisions of the Council Code of 1649.

The Council Code of 1649, summarizing the previous experience of creating legal norms, was based on:

Legal experts;

Directive books of orders;

Royal decrees;

Duma verdicts;

Decisions of Zemsky Sobors (most of the articles were compiled based on petitions from council members);

- “Stoglav”;

Lithuanian and Byzantine legislation;

New decree articles on “robbery and murder” (1669), on estates and estates (1677), on trade (1653 and 1677), which were included in the Code after 1649.

State administrative system.

The head of state, the king, was defined as an autocratic and hereditary monarch. The provision on the approval (election) of the tsar at the Zemsky Assembly substantiated these principles. Any actions directed against the person of the monarch were considered criminal and subject to punishment.

Attaching peasants to the land (Chapter 11 “The Trial of the Peasants”).

Posad reform, which changed the position of the “white settlements” (chapter 14).

Change of status of patrimony and estate (chap. 16 and 17).

Regulation of the work of local government bodies (Chapter 21).

Regime of entry and exit (Article 6) - all these measures formed the basis of administrative and police reforms.

Legal proceedings.

The two main forms are court and search.

Court. The court procedure is described in Chapter 10 of the Code. The court was based on two processes - the “trial” itself and the “decision”, i.e. rendering a sentence, a decision. The trial began with the “initiation”, the filing of a petition. The court accepted and used various evidence:

Testimony (at least ten witnesses),

Written evidence (the most reliable of them are officially certified documents),

Kissing of the Cross (for disputes over an amount not exceeding one ruble),

To obtain evidence, a “general” search was used - a survey of the population about the fact of a crime committed, and a “general” search - about a specific person suspected of a crime. The so-called “pravezh” was introduced into court practice, when the defendant (most often an insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to corporal punishment (beating with rods) by the court. The number of such procedures should have been equivalent to the amount of debt. So, for example, for a debt of one hundred rubles, they flogged for a month. Pravezh was not just a punishment - it was also a measure that encouraged the defendant to fulfill the obligation (himself or through guarantors).

Search or “search” was used only in the most serious criminal cases, and special place and attention in the search was given to crimes in which the state interest was affected (“the word and deed of the sovereign”).

In Chapter 21 of the Council Code of 1649, such procedural procedure is like torture. The basis for its use could be the results of a “search”, when the testimony was divided: part in favor of the suspect, part against him. The use of torture was regulated: it could be used no more than three times, with a certain break; and the testimony given during torture (“slander”) had to be cross-checked using other procedural measures (interrogation, oath, search).

The law distinguishes three stages of a criminal act:

Intent (which in itself may be punishable),

Attempted crime

And committing a crime

And also the concept of relapse, which in the Council Code coincides with the concept of “dashing person”, and the concept of extreme necessity, which is not punishable only if its proportionality is observed real danger by the criminal.

Objects of crime According to the Council Code of 1649, the following were determined:

Church,

State,

Personality,

Property

And morality. Crimes against the church were considered the most dangerous and for the first time they were placed in first place. This is explained by the fact that the church occupied a special place in public life, but the main thing is that it was taken under the protection of state institutions and laws.

Economic measures. The Code of 1649 specifically addresses the procedure for granting land. It was a complex set of legal actions, including:

Issuance of a letter of complaint;

Drawing up a certificate (i.e., recording in the order book certain information about the person assigned);

Taking possession, which consisted in the public measurement of land.

Ø System of crimes.

The system of crimes according to the Council Code of 1649 looked like this:

Crimes against the church: blasphemy, seducing an Orthodox Christian into another faith, interrupting the liturgy in the church;

State crimes: any actions and even intent directed against the personality of the sovereign or his family, rebellion, conspiracy, treason. For these crimes, responsibility was borne not only by the persons who committed them, but also by their relatives and friends;

Crimes against the order of administration: the defendant’s intentional failure to appear in court and resistance to the bailiff, production of false letters, acts and seals, unauthorized travel abroad, counterfeiting, maintaining drinking establishments without permission and moonshine, taking a false oath in court, giving false testimony, “sneaking.” ” or false accusation;

Crimes against decency: maintaining brothels, harboring fugitives, illegal sale of property, unauthorized entry into mortgages, imposing duties on persons exempt from them;

Official crimes: extortion (bribery, illegal exactions, extortion), injustice (deliberately unfair decision of a case due to self-interest or personal hostility), forgery in service (falsification of documents, information, distortions in monetary papers, etc.), military crimes ( damage to private individuals, looting, escape from a unit);

Crimes against the person: murder, divided into simple and qualified (murder of parents by children, murder of a master by a slave), mutilation, beatings, insult to honor (insult, slander, spreading of defamatory rumors). The killing of a traitor or thief at the scene of the crime was not punished at all;

Property crimes: simple and qualified theft (church, in the service, horse theft committed in the sovereign's courtyard, theft of vegetables from the garden and fish from the cage), robbery (committed in the form of a trade) and ordinary or qualified robbery (committed by service people or children against parents), fraud (theft associated with deception, but without the use of violence), arson (the caught arsonist was thrown into the fire), forcible seizure of someone else's property (land, animals), damage to someone else's property;

Crimes against morality: children’s disrespect for their parents, refusal to support elderly parents, pimping, “fornication” of a wife (but not a husband), sexual relations between a master and a slave.

3 Punishment system.

In the system of punishments according to the Council Code of 1649, the main emphasis was on physical intimidation (ranging from whipping to cutting off hands and quartering for the death penalty). Imprisonment of the criminal was a secondary objective and was an additional punishment.

For the same crime, several punishments could be established at once (multiple punishments) - whipping, cutting of the tongue, exile, confiscation of property. For theft, the punishments were established in increasing order: for the first - whipping, ear cutting, two years in prison and exile; for the second - whipping, ear cutting and four years in prison; for the third - the death penalty.

In the Council Code of 1649, the death penalty was provided for in almost sixty cases (even smoking tobacco was punishable by death). The death penalty was divided into simple (cutting off the head, hanging) and qualified (cutting, quartering, burning, pouring metal into the throat, burying alive in the ground),

In general, the system of punishments according to the Council Code of 1649 was characterized by the following features:

1. Individualization of punishment. The wife and children of the criminal were not responsible for the act he committed. However, remnants of the archaic system of punishment were preserved in the institution of third party liability: a landowner who killed another peasant had to transfer another peasant to the landowner who suffered the damage; the procedure of “rights” was preserved.

2. Class nature of punishment. This feature was expressed in the fact that for the same crimes different subjects bore different responsibilities (for example, for a similar act a boyar was punished with deprivation of honor, and a commoner with a whip. Chapter 10).

3. Uncertainty in establishing punishment. This sign was associated with the purpose of punishment - intimidation. The sentence may not have indicated the type of punishment itself and used the following formulations: “as the sovereign directs,” “due to guilt,” or “to punish cruelly.”

Even if the type of punishment was determined, the method of its execution remained unclear (similar formulations such as “punish with death” or “throw into prison until the sovereign’s decree”), i.e. uncertainty of punishment.

The uncertainty in establishing punishment created additional psychological impact on the criminal. The purpose of intimidation was served by special symbols of punishment: pouring molten metal down the criminal’s throat; applying to him such punishment as he would wish for the person he slandered. The publicity of punishments had a socio-psychological purpose, since many punishments (burning, drowning, wheeling) served as analogues of hellish torment.

4. Imprisonment, as a special type of punishment, could be established for a period of three days to four years or for an indefinite period. As an additional type of punishment (and sometimes as the main one), exile was imposed (to distant monasteries, forts, fortresses or boyar estates).

Representatives of the privileged classes were subject to such a type of punishment as deprivation of honor and rights, ranging from complete surrender (becoming a slave) to declaring “disgrace” (isolation, ostracism, sovereign disgrace). The accused could be deprived of his rank, the right to sit in the Duma or the order, and deprived of the right to file a claim in court.

With the adoption of the Code of 1649, property sanctions began to be widely used (Chapter 10 of the Code in seventy-four cases established a gradation of fines “for dishonor” depending on the social status of the victim). The highest sanction of this type was the complete confiscation of the criminal's property. Finally, the system of sanctions included church punishments (repentance, excommunication, exile to a monastery, confinement in a solitary cell, etc.).

Ø The significance of the Council Code for the socio-political life of Russia.

With the adoption of the Council Code in 1649, for the first time in the history of Russian statehood, an attempt was made to create a single set of all existing legal norms, to cover all aspects of the socio-political and economic life of Russia, and not individual groups of social relations. - As a result of codification, the Council Code was consolidated into 25 chapters and 967 articles, and a division of norms into sectors and institutions was outlined.

The Council Code strengthened the judicial and legal system of Russia and was the foundation on which it subsequently developed and was supplemented as a set of laws of feudal-serf Russia.

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

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

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

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

At the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. An attempt was made to carry out a general systematization of legislation by compiling so-called codes of legal codes. But this work was not properly completed; the codes of legal codes were not officially approved.

The most important monument of law in the 17th century. became the Council Code of 1649 . (Code), which largely determined the legal system Russian state for many subsequent decades.

The emergence of the Council Code had a number of reasons. Firstly, this is the need to bring legislation into line with the tasks of new times. Problems that arose at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. and associated with Russia’s entry into modern civilization determined the need for qualitative improvement of legislation. Thus, the casual nature of legal acts, characteristic of all previous legislation, became ineffective in the new conditions. Of course, the preparation and adoption of the Council Code were caused by the need to streamline and strengthen the centralized state power. The state sought to interest the nobility in the service. Therefore, it expands the rights of nobles to estate lands and enslaves the peasants. To strengthen the tax base for the modernization of state power, it was necessary to eliminate the tax privileges of the “white” settlements.

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

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

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

The Code included 25 chapters and 967 articles. The articles of the law were compiled according to a certain, although not always consistent, system. The Conciliar Code, in contrast to previous legislation, had an extensive preamble, which declared the compliance of the law with the decree of the “Holy Apostles” and affirmed equality before the court for all ranks (of course, in accordance with the understanding of that time, taking into account class status). This was the last collection of law in which theoretical basis still constituted a religious, Orthodox understanding of legal norms. The language of the Code was accessible and understandable to most segments of Russian society. The Code outlined a division of norms into institutions and branches of law, although the causality in the presentation of legal norms was not overcome.

Sources of the Council Code there were judicial codes preceding him, decree books of orders, tsarist legislation, Duma sentences, decisions of Zemsky Sobors. Petitions from nobles and townspeople had a great influence on the content of the Code. Articles of Stoglav, the Lithuanian Statute were used, and there was some borrowing from Byzantine laws.

After the adoption of the Council Code, the legislator included in it the so-called new decree articles. For example, about “robberies and murder” (1669), about estates and estates (1677), about trade (1653 - Trade Charter and 1667 - New Trade Charter). Note that the New Trade Charter (adopted on the initiative of “guests” and Moscow merchants) protected domestic trade from foreign competition. Its drafters proposed organizing a special order that dealt exclusively with trade matters.

When drawing up the Code, it was intended to collect and summarize the entire existing stock of legal acts, coordinating them with the current legislation. However, the Council Code included amendments and additions, which were submitted to the Duma in the form of zemstvo petitions. The Duma, or jointly the sovereign and the Duma, gave them a legislative character and included them in the Code. So, on the basis of petitions from servicemen and townspeople, the chapter of the Code “On Townsmen People” was compiled. Or, for example, a provision prohibiting the alienation of estates in favor of the church, provisions on the abolition of fixed-term years, the establishment of a tax on the ransom of prisoners, etc.

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

The Code paid great attention to procedural law. This is confirmed by the fact that the largest chapter of the Council Code is “On Judgment.” Judicial law The Code compiled a set of rules regulating the organization of the court and process. The division into two forms of process is reflected: “trial” and “search”. Moreover, the search form is clearly aimed at protecting state interests.

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

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

Reasons for drawing up the Code

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

Preparation and adoption of the Code

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

Publication of the Code

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

Sources and contents of the Code

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

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

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

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

Chapter IV. About subscribers and who forge seals.

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

Chapter VI. On travel certificates to other states.

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

Chapter VIII. About the redemption of captives.

Chapter IX. About tolls and transportation and bridges.

Chapter X. About the trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The meaning of the Code

The Council Code became the most important event and a stage in the history of Russian legislation. During the 17th century, it was repeatedly replenished with “new decree articles” (in 1669 - On tateb, robbery and murder cases, in 1676/1677 - On estates and estates, etc.) In the 18th century, attempts were made to create a new Code, for which Special Statutory Commissions were convened, which ended without results. The Council Code played the role of a code of laws of Russia (with numerous additions and changes) for almost two centuries. Its text opened the Complete Collection of Laws Russian Empire, published in 1830. To a large extent, it was taken into account when developing the XV volume of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, which played the role of the criminal code, was published in 1845 and was called the “Code of Punishments”.