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 the rapid growth of 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 an important component of 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

The Council Code of 1649 is a set of laws of the Russian state, a monument of Russian law of the 17th century, the first legal act in Russian history that covered all existing legal norms, including the so-called “newly ordered” articles.

The Council Code was adopted at the Zemsky Sobor in 1649.

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.

The Code was the first printed code in Russia; its text was sent to all orders and localities. The sources of the Council Code were Sudebniks, decree books of the Local, Zemsky, Robber and other orders, royal decrees, Duma sentences, decisions of Zemsky Sobors, Stoglav, Lithuanian and Byzantine legislation. In total, the Code had 25 chapters and 967 articles. It systematized and updated all Russian legislation. It developed issues of state, administrative, civil, criminal law and legal proceedings. In the SU for the first time the status of the head of state was designated, i.e. the Tsar as an autocratic and hereditary monarch. In a number of chapters, norms were enshrined that ensured the protection of the tsar, the church, and nobles from protests by the masses. In ch. II and III, the concept of a state crime was developed, which meant, first of all, actions directed against the personality of the monarch, the authorities and its representatives. Actions “en masse and conspiracy” against the tsar, boyars, governors and officials were punishable by “death without any mercy.” Ch. I was dedicated to protecting the interests of the church from “church rebels.” The Council Code of 1649 protected nobles for the murder of slaves and peasants (chapters XX-XXII). The difference in fines for “dishonor” is evidence of sharp social differentiation and the state’s protection of the interests of the “tops”: for a peasant - 2 rubles, for a walking person - 1 ruble, and for persons of the privileged classes - up to 70-100 rubles. Those. The text of the Code openly secured the privileges of the dominant class and recorded the unequal position of the dependent classes. The Council Code of 1649 is a significant step forward compared to previous legislation. It regulated not individual groups of social relations, but all aspects of socio-political life of that time. The adoption of the Council Code of 1649 was an important milestone in the development of autocracy and the

eposth system; it served the interests of the noble class. This explains its durability. It remained the basic law in Russia until the first half of the 19th century. (until 1832).

19. Criminal law according to the Code of 1649

The Council Code (SU) considers acts dangerous to feudal society to be a crime (C). P, as in Code of Laws, are called dashing deeds. The class essence of P is more clearly manifested: for the same P, different punishments were assigned depending on the criminal’s membership in a particular social group.

By subjects, the PSU distinguishes both an individual person and a group of persons.

Based on their roles, subjects are divided into main and secondary and those involved in committing P, which indicates the development of the institution of complicity.

On the subjective side, the SU divides all P into intentional, careless and accidental. The punishment for careless and intentional P is the same, since punishment follows not for the motive of P, but for its result.

On the objective side, the SU distinguishes mitigating (state of intoxication, affect) and aggravating circumstances (recurrence, amount of harm, totality).

SU distinguishes the stages of P: intent, attempt and commission of P.

The concept of relapse, extreme necessity, necessary defense appears.

The objects of PSU are the church, the state, the family, the individual, property and morality.

In order of importance, the P system was built as follows:

P against religion (blasphemy); state P (treason, attack on the life and health of the king, rebellion);

P against the order of management (forgery of seals, false accusation);

P against the person (murder, beatings, insult to honor);

official P (bribe, falsification of official documents, military P);

property P (theft, robbery, fraud);

P is against morality (children disrespecting their parents).

The purposes of punishment were deterrence and retribution. Punishment is characterized by: individualization, the class principle, the principle of uncertainty in the method, measure and duration of punishment, the use of several types of punishment for one P.

The types of punishment were:

death penalty (qualified (quartering, burning) and simple (hanging, beheading));

self-mutilation (truncating a hand, cutting off a nose, ear);

painful punishments (lashing);

prison (term of imprisonment from 3 days to indefinite);

The upper classes were punished by deprivation of honor and rights (turned into serfs, declared “disgraced,” deprivation of a position, deprivation of the right to file a lawsuit in court). Property punishments included fines and confiscation of property. There were church punishments (exile to a monastery, penance).

The history of the creation of the cathedral code of 1649

Still fresh from the Moscow unrest, the young Tsar Alexei and his advisers decided to draw up a new set of laws. New legislation was necessary to satisfy, at least in part, the demands of the nobility and townspeople and to try to prevent a recurrence of riots. But, regardless of this special reason, the need for a new code of laws was felt by both the government and the people.

The earliest code, the code of law of Tsar Ivan the Terrible of 1550, was mainly devoted to court procedure. In addition, it was almost a hundred years old, and since then a large number of important laws and decrees have been issued. They were issued not only by the Boyar Duma, but also by some administrative and judicial bodies, and they were not agreed upon, becoming a source of confusion in often contradictory rules and regulations.

The decision to issue a new set of laws was approved by the Zemsky Sobor on July 16, 1648. On the same day, Tsar Alexei appointed a commission that was entrusted with the task of consolidating the laws. It was headed by the boyar Prince Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky, and also included the boyar Prince Semyon Vasilyevich Prozorovsky, the okolnichy prince Fyodor Fedorovich Volkonsky and the clerks Gabriel Leontyev and Fyodor Griboedov.

Prince N.I. Odoevsky (1602-1689) was one of the outstanding Russian statesmen of the 17th century. His wife Evdokia was the daughter of the boyar Fyodor Ivanovich Sheremetev, and this circumstance provided Odoevsky with a prominent position at the court of Tsar Mikhail. In 1644, during the temporary stay of Princess Irina’s supposed fiancé, Count Voldemar Odoevsky, in Moscow, he took part in a religious dispute. After the ascension of Tsar Alexei to the throne, Odoevsky seemingly took a neutral position in the emerging conflict between Morozov and the Sheremetev–Cherkassky boyar group.

Clerks Leontyev and Griboyedov (like most clerks in the Moscow administration) were not only enterprising and experienced, but also talented and smart. Fyodor Ivanovich Griboyedov (distant ancestor of the playwright Alexander Griboedov) was of Polish origin. His father Jan Grzybowski settled in Moscow at the beginning of the Time of Troubles.

Leontyev and Griboyedov organized the collection and coordination of laws and regulations for the new code; they can be considered editors-in-chief.

A new meeting of the Zemsky Sobor met on the day of the Moscow New Year, September 1, 1648. Odoevsky was supposed to report on the progress of the commission’s work. However, the work was not yet completed, and only at the meeting on October 3, readings of the draft articles began in order for them to be approved by the Zemsky Sobor. But even after this, the editorial work was not completed.

In a report to his government on October 18, the Swedish diplomat Pommereng stated: “They [the Odoevsky Commission] are still working hard to ensure that the common people and everyone else are satisfied with good laws and freedom.”

Dramatic changes occurred in the government of Tsar Alexei at this time. Under the influence of Morozov's friends and associates, the tsar returned the exiles. He returned to the capital on October 26.

In his unfinished work on the code of laws, Morozov intended to pay special attention to legislation relating to urban communities. He defended the restoration of his previous plan for the reorganization of municipalities, which was implemented by Trachaniotov in the city of Vladimir in 1646.

Even before Morozov’s return, his followers came into contact with the Zemsky Sobor delegates from the cities, and on October 30, the latter presented a petition to the Tsar for consideration, in which they demanded the elimination of all “white” and tax-free estates and lands in the cities. On the same day, delegates from the nobility presented their petition supporting the demands of the townspeople.

The initiator of both petitions, in all likelihood, was Morozov and his followers. In this regard, the next day witnessed a heated debate in the presence of the Tsar between Prince Yakov Cherkassky (officially still the Tsar's chief adviser and Morozov. Cherkassky left the palace in great indignation. He was relieved of the high posts he had held, such as the head of the Streltsy army The Great Treasury, the Pharmacy Order and others.

The Tsar did not dare to officially make Morozov his “Prime Minister.” Morozov himself understood that from a psychological point of view this would be impossible. Instead, Morozov was forced to rely on his friends and followers. On November 1, Ilya Danilovich Miloslavsky (father-in-law of the Tsar and Morozov) was appointed head of the Streltsy army. He later received Cherkassky's other posts, thus becoming his official successor as "Prime Minister".

As a statesman, Miloslavsky lacked initiative and energy. Another of Morozov’s protégés, Prince Yuri Alekseevich Dolgorukov, a relative of Tsar Mikhail’s first wife Maria Vladimirovna Dolgorukova, had a completely different character. Dolgorukov was a decisive and energetic person, possessing great talent as an administrator and military leader, intelligent and cunning; ruthless if the situation required it. Dolgorukov’s wife Elena Vasilievna, nee Morozova, was B.I.’s aunt. Morozova.

Thanks to the influence of Morozov, Dolgorukov was appointed head of the Order of Detective Affairs, which was given the task of clearing city communities from the penetration of residents who do not pay taxes. At the same time, the tsar made Dolgorukov chairman of the “response chamber” of deputies of the Zemsky Sobor for reading and discussing the articles of the Code for its final approval.

The nobility supported the demands of the townspeople, expressed in their petition of October 30. The interests of the latter were defended by Morozov's party. On the other hand, the removal of Cherkassky from power deprived the nobles of their main patron. They responded by sending a new petition to the Tsar for consideration on November 9. In response to support from the nobles, on October 30, the townspeople signed a noble petition.

In a petition dated November 9, the nobility demanded that all land acquired by the patriarch, bishops, monasteries and priests after 1580 (from that time on, churches and monasteries were prohibited from acquiring new land) be confiscated by the government and divided among those army officers and military personnel from the noble class who did not own estates, or whose estates were too small and did not correspond to their life needs and the nature of their military service.

In the interaction of political forces and the struggle between the parties of Cherkassky and Morozov, the actions of the nobility were directed against Morozov and Miloslavsky. The latter was on friendly terms with the patriarch and needed his support.

The radical demand of the nobles for the confiscation of church and monastery lands caused sharp opposition from the clergy. However, the government considered it necessary to order the preparation of a list of all land acquired by the church and monasteries between 1580 and 1648.

Information about such lands was requested from all major monasteries, but data collection was slow. One suspects that this was the result of deliberate delays on the part of the church elite, and that the Miloslavsky administration did not intend to put pressure on them. In any case, the materials for the relevant legislation were not collected by the deadline for the publication of the Code.

Earlier petitions from citizens and nobility, submitted for consideration on October 30, influenced the decree of the Boyar Duma of November 13. It approved the demands of the townspeople, but in such a modified form that could not satisfy them. Then he was sent to the detective order, headed by Prince Dolgorukov, who was also the chairman of the meeting of deputies of the Zemsky Sobor. After the deputies became familiar with the contents of the decree, they submitted a petition to Prince Dolgorukov, in which they insisted that their demands of November 9 be approved. This was done by the king on November 25.

The editorial work of Prince Odoevsky's commission continued throughout December. No earlier than January 29, 1649, a copy of the official manuscript of the code of laws was presented to the Tsar and the Zemsky Sobor for approval. Before this, the entire code was read again to the members of the Council.

This document became officially known as the “Cathedral Code”. The original manuscript has 315 signatures. The first of those to sign was Patriarch Joseph.

Neither Nikita Ivanovich Romanov nor Prince Yakov Cherkassky signed the Code. The signature of Prince Dmitry Cherkassky is also missing. And Sheremetev did not sign this document. This could hardly have been accidental, since all of them were opponents of Morozov’s program.

“The Code was immediately printed (twelve hundred copies). It was reprinted many times after 1649, and it was included as a historical document in Volume I (No. 1) of the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire of 1832.

The main sources for the 1649 code of laws are as follows:

1. “The Helmsman’s Book” (Slavic translation of the Byzantine “Nomocanon”) - available at that time only in handwritten copies (first printed in Moscow a year later than the “Code”).

From the "Helmsman's Book" were taken into use individual biblical prescriptions, excerpts from the laws of Moses and Deuteronomy, as well as many norms of Byzantine law, selected mainly from textbooks of the eighth and ninth centuries - "Ecloga" and "Procherion".

2. “Code of Law” of 1550 and subsequent Moscow laws, statutes and codes until 1648.

3. Petitions of the nobility, merchants and townspeople of 1648

4. Western Russian (so-called Lithuanian) Statute in its third edition (1588).

By the way, Western Russian law originates from Russian law of the Kyiv period, as does Novgorod, Pskov and Moscow law. In addition, the influence of Western Russian legislation on Moscow began long before the “Conciliar Code” of 1649. In this sense, many Russian historians and lawyers, such as Leontovich, Vladimirsky-Budanov, Taranovsky and Lappo, concluded that the Lithuanian Statute should be considered completely an organic element in the development of Russian law as a whole, and not just a foreign source.

Individual articles were not simply borrowed (or adapted) from the Lithuanian Statute for the “Code” - a much greater overall influence of the Statute on the plan of the “Code” is felt. There is no doubt that Fyodor Griboyedov was familiar with the statute in detail, and it appears that Odoevsky and other boyars knew it in general terms, as well as those of its norms that affirm the status and rights of the aristocracy.

In general, we can agree with Vladimirsky-Budanov that the Code is not a compilation of foreign sources, but truly a national code of laws, which mixed the foreign elements it contains with the old Moscow legislative basis.

Provisions of the cathedral code of 1649

According to the preface, the main purpose of the code of 1649 was “to make the administration of justice in all suits equal for people of all ranks, from the highest to the lowest.”

The code consisted of twenty-five chapters, each of which was divided into articles, totaling 967. The first nine chapters dealt with what can be called the state law of the kingdom of Moscow; in chapters X to XV - about judicial procedure; in chapters XVI to XX - about land ownership, land tenure, peasants, townspeople and slaves. Chapters XXI and XXII contained the criminal code. Chapters XXIII to XXV dealt with archers, Cossacks and taverns, and these chapters formed a kind of appendix.

Chapter I was devoted to the defense of the holiness of the Orthodox faith and the correct conduct of church services; blasphemy was punishable by death; Bad behavior in church was punishable by whipping.

Chapter II dealt with the protection of royal health, power and: the greatness of the sovereign; in Chapter III - about preventing any wrong actions at the royal court. The penalty for treason and other serious crimes was death; for lesser crimes - prison or whipping. Taken together, chapters II and III constituted the fundamental law of the kingdom of Moscow.

The Code of 1649 was the first Moscow state code containing legislative norms relating to religion and the church. In the Code of Laws of 1550 there was no mention of them. These norms were included in a special set of church law - “Stoglav”, issued in 1551.

It should be remembered that at the ordination of Patriarch Philaret in 1619, Patriarch Theophan of Jerusalem proclaimed the Byzantine commandment of the “symphony” of church and state and the “diarchy” of the patriarch and the king. In accordance with these ideas, Filaret received the same title as the tsar - the Great Sovereign. The fact that he was the father of Tsar Michael contributed to the general approval of this step.

If the Code had been issued during the reign of Philaret, Chapter I would probably have affirmed the sanctity of the patriarchal throne in approximately the same spirit as Chapter II - the greatness of the royal supreme power.

However, after the death of Patriarch Filaret, the boyars, tired of his dictatorship in state affairs, acted to curtail the power of the patriarch and prevent the new patriarch from interfering in state politics. And moreover, some of the boyars were inclined to establish state control over the church administration, especially in managing the population on church and monastic lands.

Prince Nikita Odoevsky, chairman of the commission for drawing up the Code, belonged to this boyar group, along with others. This way of thinking is explained by the lack of a general definition of the power of the patriarch (in Chapter I) in comparison with the power of the king (in Chapter II).

In Chapter X, which dealt with the administration of justice, the articles that dealt with punishments for insults to honor (mainly verbal insults) predetermined the patriarch’s personality with worthy respect, since in the list of persons whose insult was punished especially harshly, the patriarch occupied the top line. The honor of the tsar was valued higher than the honor of the patriarch and all others, and was protected by special codes in Chapter I. If a boyar or any member of the Boyar Duma insulted the patriarch, he should have been personally handed over to the latter (Chapter X, Article 27). Such “delivery by head” gave the offended person the right to punish the offender at his own discretion. Psychologically, this was the most humiliating for the latter.

On the other hand, if a clergyman (the patriarch was not mentioned in this connection), the abbot of a monastery or a black monk insulted a boyar or a person of any other social status, then he had to pay a fine to the insulted person in accordance with the latter’s rank (Article 83). If an archimandrite or a black monk (metropolitans and bishops were not mentioned in this connection) did not have the money to pay the fine, then he was sentenced to public corporal punishment, carried out by officially appointed persons every day, until the offended person agrees to what - reconciliation with the offender and his release (Article 84).

These two articles applied not only to random insults expressed by a clergyman to a boyar ahi some other government official, but also to criticism of a boyar (or other official) in a sermon ex cathedra during a church service. This amounted to government control over the statements of priests in churches and was thus a violation of the freedom of church preaching.

Later, Patriarch Nikon expressed a fierce protest against this violation, addressing Odoevsky the following statements: “You, Prince Nikita, wrote this [those two articles] on the advice of your teacher, the Antichrist. Isn’t this a satanic invention - to prohibit the free preaching of the word of God under the threat of severe punishments?

The tendency towards strengthening government control over the church administration is clearly evident in chapters XII and XIII of the Code. Chapter XII confirms the exclusive right of the patriarch (either directly or through his representatives) to administer justice in all litigation between people living under his jurisdiction and his dominions. This right was established during the reign of Patriarch Filaret. However, a new clause (Article 2) added that in the event of an unfair trial by the patriarch’s proxies, the accused could appeal to the Tsar and the boyars.

Chapter XIII dealt with the jurisdiction of church priests, bishops and abbots, as well as peasants subordinate to the church and monastic estates, and everyone who was under church jurisdiction (with the exception of those who were under the direct authority of the patriarch, which was discussed in chapter XII).

During the reign of Tsar Michael, the laity could bring proceedings against church ministers and church people in the Prikaz of the Great Palace. The main purpose of this Order was the maintenance of the royal palace. Apparently, his employees did not pay enough attention to claims against church officials and church people.

In any case, nobles, merchants and townspeople wrote in petitions during the drafting of the Code about the need to organize a special order to deal with claims and litigation with the church and church people. Such an order was created under the name Monastic Order. Through him, secular government control over the church administration and the population of church and monastic estates became significantly more effective. It is quite understandable that the majority of church and monastic hierarchs were against this reform.

Another reason for their dissatisfaction with this code was the establishment in Chapter XIX that all settlements (settlements) founded by the church and monasteries in and around Moscow itself, as well as in provincial cities, should be given to the state, and their inhabitants will receive the status of tax-paying townspeople (posads).

Despite all this, the patriarch, two metropolitans, three archbishops, one bishop, five archimandrites and one rector signed the original copy of the Code. One of the archimandrites was Nikon from the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow, who after some time, as patriarch, would become the main opponent of the Code.

Characteristics of the cathedral code of 1649

Philosophical reasoning about the nature of royal power by the rector of the Volokolamsk monastery Joseph Sanin (died in 1515) states: “Although physically the king is like all other people, but, being in power, he is like God.”

In the Code, the tsar was discussed not as a person, but as a sovereign. Chapter II, devoted to punishments for the most serious state crimes, was titled: “On the sovereign’s honor and how to protect the sovereign’s health [safety].”

The king personified the state. He reigned “by the grace of God” (with these words the royal letters began); he defended the church (Chapter I of the Code). In order to reign, he needed the Lord's blessing. However, Joseph Sanin's commandment that “being in power, he [the king] is like God” was not included in the Code.

Personifying the state, the king had supreme rights that extended to all lands of the state. This principle was applied in its clearest form to Siberia. All land wealth of Siberia belonged to the sovereign. Legally, private individuals had the right only to use plots of land that they actually cultivated (borrowings, the use of which is based on the right of a worker), or for which they received special permissions. There was no private ownership of land in Siberia.

In the old lands of the kingdom of Moscow, the tsars were forced to accept and approve the existence of privately owned hereditary land plots, or estates, that belonged to the boyars and others, but, starting with Ivan the Terrible, they could be required to perform military service. On the other hand, with regard to estates, these lands were distributed to the holders for use only under the condition of compulsory military service on their part and only for the time during which they carried out this service. The state owned such lands.

Apart from boyar and other estates that were privately owned, as well as church and monastery land, all other lands belonged to the sovereign, that is, to the state. These were lands inhabited by state peasants (“black” lands), as well as land plots in and around cities.

In addition to these state lands, there was another category of lands that belonged to the sovereign - sovereign lands, also called palace lands. They were intended to maintain the sovereign's palace. (In addition, each king could own (and owned) land privately, not as a sovereign, but as an ordinary person).

While tsarist power was the basis of state law in the Code, united social groups, or ranks, whose will was expressed by the Zemsky Sobor, formed the “framework” of the nation. To a certain extent, Moscow ranks played a sociopolitical role similar to the Polish and Western European estates.

The “Code” proclaimed the principle of equality in the administration of justice for people from all ranks “from the highest to the lowest.” At the same time, it specifically confirmed certain personal and property rights for representatives of the highest ranks.

It should be remembered that in 1606, Tsar Vasily Shuisky, having ascended the throne, vowed not to sentence an aristocrat or merchant to death without the trial of a boyar court; do not take away the land and other possessions of the convicted person, but transfer them to his relatives, widow and children (if they are not guilty of the same crime); and her to listen to accusations until they are definitely proven by careful investigation.

These guarantees are reflected in Chapter II of the Code, although in a less definite form.

Chapter II of the code prescribes the death penalty for certain categories of political crimes, such as the intention to kill the king, armed uprising, high treason and treacherous surrender of a fortress to the enemy.

In all these cases, the code requires that the death penalty should not be imposed without a preliminary investigation into the guilt of the accused. He could be executed and his property transferred to the treasury only if it was beyond doubt that he was guilty. His wife and children, parents and brothers were not sentenced unless they took part in the commission of the same crime. They had the right to receive part of his possessions in order to have a means of subsistence.

Some articles of Chapter II allow denunciations and denunciations in cases of suspicion of conspiracy or other political crimes. In each case, the body believes that a thorough investigation should be carried out and a substantiated charge brought forward. If it turns out to be false, the informer is sentenced to severe punishment.

Article 22 of Chapter II was intended to protect the nobility and other people from oppression by local governors or their assistants. She defended the right of military personnel or people of any other status locally to submit a petition against administrative harassment to the governors for consideration. If such a petition presented the matter in the correct light, and the governor then, in his report to the king, spoke of it as a rebellion, then the governor in this case should have been punished.

Land rights according to the cathedral code of 1649

Of great political importance were those clauses of the Code that ensured land rights for the boyars and nobility.

Moscow legislation of the 16th and 17th centuries distinguished between two main forms of land rights: votchina - land that is fully owned, and estate - land owned under the terms of public service.

The same person could own both types of land. As a rule, it was the boyars who owned large estates, although the boyar could have (and in the 17th century he usually did) also have an estate. The latter form was the basis of land holdings of the nobles, although many nobles could (and often did) own a fiefdom (usually a small one).

The Time of Troubles, with its peasant revolts and wars, created a disorder in land rights, and many boyars and nobles lost their lands. During the reign of Patriarch Filaret, an attempt was made to return the possessions to their former owners or to make up for the losses with new lands.

Until the code of 1649, however, there was no clear coordination of the various decrees issued since the Time of Troubles and relating to the land rights of boyars and nobles. Owners or holders of land felt insecure and turned to the government for guarantees. They were given in Chapter XVIII of the Code, which was called “On patrimonial landowners.”

In the first part of the chapter (articles from 1 to 15) we talked about the “ancient” boyar and noble lands, either hereditary or granted by the kings. Both of these types were made hereditary. If the owner died without leaving a will, his land would go to his next of kin. The purpose of this law was to preserve the ownership of large lands for the boyar families and thereby support the aristocracy as the highest class in the kingdom.

The second part of Chapter XVII (Articles 16-36) contains confirmation of certain categories of land gifts made during the Time of Troubles. During this period, kings and pretenders, boyars and Cossacks, foreigners and Russians fought each other and tried, in turn or simultaneously, to form a government and reward their followers with money and land gifts, and each of them canceled the gifts made by his rival.

The first two contenders, Tsar Vasily Shuisky, the elected Tsar Vladislav, his father King Sigismund of Poland - they were all generous with promises and favors to their present and future followers, some of whom benefited from the situation, “milking” first one shadow ruler, then - another, or both at the same time, like those who moved here and there - from Tsar Vasily in Moscow to Tsar False Dmitry II in the Tushino region.

It is quite natural that after the victory of the national liberation army and the election of Tsar Michael, the legitimacy of the gifts was recognized only if the persons using these gifts supported the new government. The final confirmation of these gifts was made in the Code. Three categories of land gifts were recognized: (1) gifts made by Tsar Vasily Shuisky during the siege of Moscow by Bolotnikov’s peasant army, and then during the blockade of the second claimant by the Tushino army; (2) gifts made by the second claimant to those of his Tushino followers (Tushins) who later joined the national army (1611-1612); and (3) gifts made to various persons who received the lands of those Tushins who did not support the national army and the new tsarist government. These three categories of gifts were defined as immovable and inalienable.

The third part of Chapter XVII (Articles 37-55) confirmed the legality of the acquisition by the owners of estates of new land, the ownership rights to which were fully guaranteed.

Confirmation of ownership and inheritance rights of ancestral lands benefited mainly the boyars. The nobility, especially the small ones, were more interested in the rights to estates. Chapter XVI of the Code is dedicated to them.

Initially, the estate was given to a person for use and could not be inherited, sold or exchanged for another plot of land. But, as is quite typical of human nature, the holder of the estate, in performing the service required of him, usually made efforts to obtain for himself and his family rights to the land and try to make them hereditary. He needed to secure his old age, and therefore wanted to retain the land until his death. Article 9 of Chapter XVI gave him the right to transfer control of the land, along with compulsory military service, to his son, younger brother or nephew.

If after the death of the landowner (the owner of the estate) there was a minor son (or sons), then guardianship should be established over him until he reaches the age of fifteen and is enlisted in military service and receives the estate in his own name.

The widow and daughters of the deceased landowner were supposed to receive enough land to live on until death or marriage. Each of them had the right to give this land for management or use to anyone who would like to undertake the obligation to feed them and help them with marriage. In the event that the person who received their land did not fulfill his obligations, the agreement must be terminated and the land returned to the woman or girl (“Code”, Chapter XVI, Article 10).

Although the landowner did not have the right to sell his estate, he could, for various reasons, exchange it for another. At first, such transactions were allowed only in special cases. Later, the government, making concessions to petitions, agreed to legalize the exchanges. In order to prevent the illegal sale of estates under the guise of exchange, it was decided that the amount of land in each of the exchanged estates should be the same. The Code made it easier to regulate this issue and even allowed the exchange of estates for patrimony and vice versa (Chapter XVI, Articles 3-5).

Chapter XVI of the Code left supervision of the national fund of manorial lands in the hands of the government, which was important for ensuring appropriate military service on the part of the nobility.

On the other hand, the regulations in this chapter guaranteed the nobility ways to maintain land holdings in the same family or clan. In addition, these codes provided noble families with a balanced system of social protection, including care for the elderly and children.

These guarantees of land tenure rights for the boyars and nobles were necessary in order to ensure loyalty and support for the throne from these two social groups, which traditionally played key roles in the Moscow administration and army.

Moreover, the government was forced to guarantee “serving people” not only land, but also the provision of workers to cultivate the land. What the boyar or landowner wanted was not just land, but land inhabited by peasants.

The boyars and, to a lesser extent, the nobles owned serfs, some of whom they could and did use as agricultural workers (business people). But this was not enough. Under the social and economic organization of Muscovy in the 17th century, the main source of labor on the land was peasants.

For more than forty years after the beginning of temporary regulations (during the reign of Ivan the Terrible) curbing the freedom of movement of peasants during certain “reserved years,” the boyars and especially the nobility fought for the complete abolition of the peasant right to move from one landholding to another. With the advent of the Code, they achieved their goal.

Chapter XI abolished the established period during which the owner could make claims on his fugitive peasant and, thus, forever attached the peasant to the land on which he lived. From this time on, the only legal way for a peasant to leave the land of the landowner was to receive a special document (“vacation permit”) from his master.

Although slavery (in the sense of a person’s personal attachment to the land) was legalized by the code of 1649, the peasant was still not a slave. Slaves were discussed in a separate chapter of the Code (Chapter XX).

Legally, according to the code, the peasant was recognized as a person (a subject, not an object, of law). His dignity was guaranteed by law. In case of insult to his honor, the offender had to pay him compensation, although the lowest (one ruble) from the list of fines (Chapter X, Article 94).

The peasant had the right to initiate proceedings in court and take part in legal transactions of various types. He owned movable property and property. The harvest from the plot of land that he cultivated for himself (harvested or unharvested) belonged to him.

Taxes in the cathedral code of 1649

In Chapter XIX of the “Code” we were talking about townspeople (townspeople) who paid taxes. They were organized into communities (often called hundreds) with a status similar to that of state (black) peasants. The posadskys could be called state citizens.

The articles of the Code concerning townspeople are based on petitions from this social group submitted to the Tsar in October and November 1648. These petitions were supported by Morozov and corresponded to his original program for organizing urban communities.

The main desire of the townspeople was to equalize the burden of taxes and therefore prohibit any individual member of the community from moving, with the help of certain tricks, from the category of blacks to the category of untaxed whites, as well as to eliminate all white estates from the city.

In accordance with this principle, Article 1 of Chapter XIX required that all groups of settlements (settlements) in the city of Moscow itself, belonging to church hierarchs (patriarch and bishops), monasteries, boyars, okolnichy and others, in which merchants and artisans live who do not pay state taxes and those who do not perform public service - all such settlements with all their inhabitants must be returned to the state, being obliged to pay taxes and perform public service (tax). In other words, they were supposed to receive the status of posads.

The same rule applied to settlements in the vicinity of Moscow (Article 5), as well as to settlements in provincial cities (Article 7).

As a general principle, it was proclaimed that from now on “there will no longer be any other settlements either in Moscow or in provincial cities, except those of the sovereign” (Article 1).

Another important point in the legislation of the Code concerning townspeople was the rule of forced return to taxation of those former members of urban communities who illegally left the community by selling their estates to tax-free persons and institutions or becoming their mortgagees. For the future, all townspeople were strictly forbidden to become a mortgagee under the patronage of any white person or institution. Those guilty will be sentenced to severe punishment - whipping and deportation to Siberia (Article 13).

On the other hand, those townspeople who, before 1649, moved from the provincial city community to Moscow, or vice versa, or from one provincial city to another, were allowed to remain in their new estates, and the authorities were forbidden to send them back to their places of origin. original residence (Article 19).

The “Code” legitimized a taxable urban community, based on the principle of equalizing the rights and obligations of its members and a joint guarantee of the payment of taxes on their part.

This establishment satisfied the financial and administrative needs of the Moscow state and, at the same time, the desires of the majority of the townspeople themselves. However, despite the principle of equalization on which the community was based, from an economic point of view there were three levels of members in the community: rich, middle and poor, and this fact was legitimized in the Code itself, which defined three layers (articles) of the townspeople: the best, medium and smaller articles.

According to the scale of compensation for insult to honor, the best townspeople were to receive seven rubles from the offender, the middle ones - six, and the smaller ones - five (Chapter X, Article 94).

The richest (mainly wholesale) merchants and industrialists stood significantly above urban communities. Most of them lived in Moscow. They did not pay taxes, but had to serve in the royal financial administration. The high level of their social and economic status was clearly demonstrated by their place on the scale of compensation for insult to honor compared to the posads.

Compensation for insulting a member of the Stroganov family (the Stroganovs had a unique rank - “famous people”) was set at one hundred rubles; for insulting a “guest” (the richest wholesale merchant) - fifty rubles. At the next level there was an association of wealthy merchants (the living hundred). This level was divided into three layers. The compensation for each of them was respectively equal to twenty, fifteen and ten rubles.

The next level of merchant association - the cloth hundred - was divided in the same way. The compensation amounts were 15, 10 and 5 rubles. From an economic and social point of view, it was an intermediate category between the Gostiny Sotny and the Posads.

It was from the upper stratum of the townspeople that the government filled vacancies among the members of the living room and cloth hundreds. Having been transferred to such an association, a posadsky from a provincial city had to sell his estate and business and move to Moscow (Chapter XIX, Article 34).

The guests occupied an influential position in the Moscow government, and the voice of the living room and the cloth hundred had to be taken into account by the administration in many cases. The ordinary urban community of townspeople, although it led an autonomous internal life and was represented at meetings of the Zemsky Sobor, did not have a permanent voice in either the central or the provincial administration. Of course, communities could exercise their right to petition in the event of any serious conflict with the administration. However, the government did not always pay attention to such petitions, if they were not supported by guests and merchant associations. Then the only way left for the townspeople was open rebellion.

The chance of success of such revolts depended on the unity of the movement in the city, but the differences in political and economic interests between guests and townspeople made such unity almost unattainable.

In addition, there was always the possibility of conflict among the townspeople themselves, whose upper layer often supported guests and large merchant associations. Such a lack of agreement between the various layers of merchants and townspeople undermined the power of the unrest in Novgorod and Pskov in 1650.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 has a complex and strict construction system. It consists of 25 chapters, divided into articles, totaling 967. The chapters are preceded by a brief introduction containing a formal explanation of the motives and history of the codex. According to one historian, the introduction is “a monument to journalistic dexterity rather than historical accuracy.” The Code has the following chapters:

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 courtyard, so that there is no disorder or abuse from anyone in the sovereign's courtyard.

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 transports and bridges.

Chapter X. About the trial.

Chapter XI. The court about peasants, and it has 34 articles.

Chapter XII. About the court of patriarchal writs, 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 is about serfs, and there are 119 articles in it.

Chapter XXI. About robberies and Taty’s affairs, and there are 104 articles in it.

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

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

Chapter XXIV. Decree on atamans and Cossacks, and there are 3 articles in it.

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

All these chapters can be divided into five groups:

• 1) chapters I - IX - state law;
• 2) chapters X - XIV - statute of the judicial system and legal proceedings;
• 3) chapters XV - XX - property rights;
• 4) chapters XXI - XXII - criminal code;
• 5) chapters XXIII - XXV - additional part: about archers, about Cossacks, about taverns.

But this classification succeeds only with a certain stretch, because such a grouping of material is present in a monument devoid of compositional harmony only as a hardly discernible tendency, a desire for some systematicity.

For example, the first chapter of the “Code” contains legal norms “on blasphemers and church rebels” - the most terrible crime, according to legislators of the 17th century, because it is considered even earlier than an attempt on the “sovereign honor” and “sovereign health”. For blasphemy against God and the Mother of God, the honorable cross or the saints, according to Article 1 of Chapter 1 of the Code, the culprit, regardless of whether he was Russian or a non-Russian, was to be burned at the stake. Death also threatened any “disorderly person” who interfered with the service of the liturgy. For any excesses and disorders carried out in the temple, which included filing petitions to the Tsar and the Patriarch during divine services, severe punishments were also imposed, from trade execution (for “indecent speech” during the liturgy) to imprisonment (submission of petitions, insult someone with a word during worship). But the first chapter with its nine articles of legalization on church issues is not exhausted; they are scattered throughout the text of the Code. And in further chapters we find decrees on the oath for people of spiritual and peaceful rank, on the seduction of Orthodox Christians into infidelism, on the restriction of the rights of non-believers, on self-proclaimed priests and monks, on marriage, on the protection of church property, on the honor of clergy, the veneration of holidays, etc. etc. All these measures were designed to protect the honor and dignity of the church. But the Code also contained points that caused strong discontent among the church hierarchy. According to Chapter XI-II, a special monastic order was established, which was entrusted with justice in relation to the clergy and people dependent on them (patriarchal and monastic peasants, servants, church clergy, etc.). Prior to this, the court for non-ecclesiastical cases regarding the clergy was carried out in the Order of the Grand Palace. Spiritual fiefdoms here, bypassing national institutions, were subject to the court of the tsar himself. Now the clergy was deprived of judicial privileges, and this was done based on petitions from elected people. According to these same petitions, church land ownership was subject to significant restrictions. The settlements and estates that belonged to the church authorities were taken “for the sovereign as a tax and for service, childless and irrevocable.”

Further, all clergy and institutions were categorically forbidden to acquire estates in any way and for lay people to give estates to monasteries (Chapter XVII, Art. 42). From the state's point of view, this contributed to further centralization and strengthening of autocratic power. But the provisions of the new code caused resistance from the clergy and fierce criticism from them. After all, the Code deprived the highest clergy, with the exception of the patriarch, of judicial privileges. All church and monastery lands were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Monastery Prikaz.

Patriarch Nikon, dissatisfied with the “Code,” called it nothing more than a “lawless book,” and the first head of the Monastic Prikaz, Prince V.I. Odoevsky, “the new Luther.” As a result of an intense struggle, spiritual power overcame secular power: first, after Nikon’s removal from business, in 1667 the secular court against the clergy was abolished, and in 1677 the Monastic Order was abolished.

The Code also paid a lot of attention to certain social issues. In the Time of Troubles, the force that ensured the final victory over external and internal enemies was the classes of service people and residents of the suburbs. Chapters XVI and XVII of the “Code” were devoted to streamlining land relations that were confused during the years of the “Moscow ruin”. Someone then lost the fortresses on their possessions, someone received them from impostors. The new legislative code established that only service people and guests had the right to own estates. Thus, land ownership became a class privilege of the nobility and the elite of the merchant class. In the interests of the nobility, the “Code” smooths out the difference between conditional ownership - an estate (on condition and for the duration of service) and hereditary - votchina. From now on, estates can be exchanged for estates and vice versa. The petitions of the townspeople were satisfied by the XIX chapter specially dedicated to them. According to it, the posad population was separated into a closed class and attached to the posad. All its residents had to bear taxes - that is, pay certain taxes and perform duties in favor of the state. It was now impossible to leave the posad, but it was possible to enter only if one joined the tax community. This provision satisfied the demand of the townspeople to protect them from the competition of different ranks of people who, coming from servicemen, clergy, and peasants, traded and were engaged in various crafts near the towns, and at the same time did not have taxes. Now everyone who was engaged in trades and trades turned into an eternal townsman's tax. At the same time, the previously free “white settlements” (whitewashed, that is, freed from taxes and duties to the state), which belonged to secular feudal lords and the church, were attached to the sovereign's estates free of charge. All those who left there without permission were subject to return to the settlements. They were ordered to be “taken to their old township places, where someone lived before this, childless and irrevocable.” Thus, according to the precise description of V. O. Klyuchevsky, “the townsman’s tax on trades and trades became an estate duty of the townspeople, and the right to urban trade and trade became their estate privilege.” It is only necessary to add that this provision fixed by law was not fully implemented in practice. And the entire 17th century. Posad people continued to petition for the elimination of “white places”, the expansion of urban areas, and the prohibition of peasants from engaging in trades and crafts.

The peasant issue was also regulated in a new way in the Code. Chapter XI (“Court of the Peasants”) abolished the “fixed summer” established in 1597 - a five-year period for finding runaway peasants, after which the searches stopped and in fact, at least a small loophole was preserved for escaping from serfdom, even by escape. According to the Code, the search for fugitives became unlimited, and a fine of 10 rubles was established for their harboring. Thus, the peasants were finally attached to the land and the legal formalization of serfdom was completed. The adoption of these norms met the interests of the service people who actively participated in the Zemsky Sobor of 1648. But it is especially important to note that according to the Code, the peasants, being, of course, one of the most humiliated and oppressed classes, still had some class rights. The fugitive peasants were categorically prescribed their property rights. Recognition of personal rights was the provision according to which peasants and peasant women who married while on the run were subject to return to the owner only by their families.

These are just some of the most important provisions of the Council Code of 1649. In essence, the adoption of this set of laws was a victory for the middle classes, while their everyday rivals, who stood at the top and bottom of the then social ladder, lost.

The Moscow boyars, the clerical bureaucracy and the higher clergy, who were defeated at the council of 1648, on the contrary, remained dissatisfied with the “Code”. Thus, it is clearly revealed that the council of 1648, convened to pacify the country, led to discord and discontent in Moscow society. Having achieved their goal, the conciliar representatives of provincial society turned strong people and the serf masses against themselves. If the latter, not putting up with being attached to the tax and to the landowner, began to protest with “gilem” (i.e., riots) and going to the Don, thereby preparing Razinism, then the social elite chose the legal path of action and led the government to the complete cessation of Zemsky cathedrals

During 1648-1649. It was adopted during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. The drafting of this document was carried out by a commission headed by Prince N.I. Odoevsky. The Code of Law of 1550, the books of Razboynoy, Zemsky, collective petitions of townspeople, provincial and Moscow nobles, as well as the Kormchaya Book and the Lithuanian Statute were used as the basis for creating the code. In general, the Council Code included 25 chapters and 967 articles, which are devoted to issues of state criminal and property proceedings and law.

Several chapters address issues related to public law. The first chapters define the term “state crime,” which implied an action that is directed against the power of the monarch and the person of the king. Participation in a criminal act and conspiracy against the tsar, governor, boyars and officials was punishable by death without any mercy.

The Council Code in the first chapter describes the protection of the interests of the church from rebels, the protection of nobles even when they kill peasants and slaves.

Russia's defense of the interests of the ruling class is also evidenced by the difference in fines for insulting: for insulting a peasant he had to pay two rubles, a drinking person - a ruble, and persons belonging to the privileged class - up to 80-100 rubles.

The chapter “The Court of Peasants” includes articles that established the eternal hereditary dependence of the peasants; in this chapter, the deadline for searching for runaway peasants was abolished, and a large penalty was established for harboring a runaway. The Council Code took away the landowner's right in relation to property disputes from the peasants.

In accordance with the chapter “On Posad People”, private settlements in cities were liquidated and returned to people who were previously exempt from paying taxes. The judicial code provided for the search for fugitive townspeople; the population of the town was subject to taxes. The chapters “On Estates” and “On Local Lands”, which are devoted to issues of land ownership by nobles, talk about enslaved slaves.

The Council Code contains an extensive chapter “On the Court,” which examines judicial issues. It regulated in detail the procedure for conducting investigations and conducting legal proceedings, determined the amount of court fees and fines, covered issues of premeditated and premeditated crimes, and regulated controversial cases regarding property.

The structure of the armed forces of the state is discussed in the chapters “On the service of soldiers “On the archers”, “On the redemption of prisoners of war”. The conciliar code, briefly described in this article, became an important stage in the formation of serfdom and autocracy. It was the basic law in the Russian state until the middle XIX century.