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

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

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

✪ Cathedral Code of 1649 (narrated by Alexander Lavrentiev)

✪ Salt riot of 1648 Cathedral Code of 1649

✪ Copper Riot of 1662

✪ Chiang Kai-shek (narrated by Alexander Pantsov)

Subtitles

Reasons for the adoption of the Council Code

As a result, by 1649 in the Russian state there was a huge number of legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other.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 Revolt 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 rebellion gradually subsided, but as one of the concessions to the rebels, the tsar went to convene the Zemsky Sobor, which continued its work until the adoption of the Council Code in 1649.

Legislative work

To develop a draft Code, a special commission was created, headed by Prince N.I. Odoevsky. It included Prince S.V. At the same time, it was decided to begin the practical work of the Zemsky Sobor on September 1.

He was intended to consider the draft Code. The cathedral was held in a wide format, with the participation of representatives of the township 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 different ranks.

Much attention was paid to procedural law.

Sources of the Code

• Decree books of orders - in them, from the moment a particular order arose, the current legislation on specific issues was recorded.
• Sudebnik 1497 and Sudebnik 1550 .
• - was used as an example of legal technique (wording, construction of phrases, rubrication).
• Pilot book (Byzantine law)

Branches of law according to the Cathedral Code

The Council Code outlines the division of norms into branches of law, which is inherent in modern legislation.

State law

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

Criminal law

The system of crimes looked like this:

Punishments and their purposes

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

• Death penalty - hanging, beheading, quartering, burning (on religious matters and in relation to arsonists), as well as "pouring hot iron down the throat" for counterfeiting.
• Corporal punishment - divided into malignant(cutting off a hand for theft, branding, cutting nostrils, etc.) and painful(beating with a whip or batogs).
• Imprisonment - terms from three days to life imprisonment. Prisons were made of earth, wood and stone. Prison inmates were fed at the expense of relatives or alms.
• Link is a punishment for "noble" persons. It was the result of disgrace.
• Disgraceful punishments were also applied to "noble" persons: "removal of honor", that is, deprivation of ranks or demotion. A mild punishment of this type was a "reprimand" in the presence of people of the circle to which the offender belonged.
• Fines - were called "sales" 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 wife of the offender and his adult son). It was applied to state criminals, to "covetous men", to officials who abused their official position.

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

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

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

Civil law

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

• The grant of land is a complex set of legal actions, which included the issuance of a letter of commendation, the entry in the order book of information about the endowed person, the establishment of the fact that the transferred land was unoccupied, and taking possession in the presence of third parties.
• Acquisition of rights to a thing by concluding a contract of sale (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, this property (for example, a house) becomes the property of a bona fide owner. The Code determined this period of 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 for debts into slaves, etc.) under contracts with property liability.

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

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

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

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

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

Family relationships

The code did not directly concern the area of ​​family law (which was under the jurisdiction of the church court), however, even in criminal cases, the principles of Domostroy continued to operate - huge parental power over children, the actual community of property, the division of duties of spouses, the need for a wife to follow her husband.

In relation to children, parents retained the rights of power until their death. So, for the murder of a father or mother, a son or daughter was supposed to be "executed by death without any mercy," while the mother or father who killed the child was sentenced to a year in prison, followed by repentance in the church. Children, under threat of punishment, were forbidden to complain about their parents, if, nevertheless, "which son or daughter learns to beat the forehead about the court on the father or on the mother and do not give them a court on the father and mother in anything, but beat them with a whip for such a petition

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

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

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

Litigation

The Regulations detail the procedure for judgment(both civil and criminal).

1. "Introduction" - filing a petition.
2. Calling the defendant to court.
3. Judgment - oral with the obligatory maintenance of a "court list", that is, a protocol.

The evidence was varied: testimonies (not less than 10 witnesses), documents, cross-kissing (oath).

Procedural measures aimed at obtaining evidence:

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

Development of the Code

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

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

In addition to the Code, several statutes and orders.

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

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

Meaning

1. The Cathedral Code summarized and summed up the main trends in the development of Russian law in the 17th centuries.
2. It consolidated new features and institutions characteristic of the new era, the era of the advancing Russian absolutism.
3. In the Code, for the first time, the systematization of domestic legislation was carried out; an attempt was made to distinguish between the rules of law by industry.

The Cathedral Code became the first printed monument of Russian law. Before him, the publication of laws was limited to their announcement in marketplaces and temples, which was usually specifically indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of a printed law largely ruled out the possibility of abuses by governors and clerks who were in charge of legal proceedings. The Cathedral Code has no precedent 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 clear that the Cathedral Code is not the first collection of acts of this kind. One of the first was Casimir's Sudebnik of 1468, compiled by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir IV and developed later, in 1529, then the code in Denmark (Danske Lov) in 1683; it was followed by the code of Sardinia (1723), Bavaria (1756), Prussia (1794), Austria (1812). Europe's most famous and influential civil code, the French Napoleonic Code, was adopted in 1803-1804.

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

The Council Code of 1649 was in effect until 1832, when, as part of the work on the codification of 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. The previous numerous attempts to codify the legislation that appeared after the publication of the Code were not successful (see.

1. Historical and economic background of creation

Cathedral Code of 1649.

3. The system of crimes.

4. The system of punishments.

5. Significance of the Council Code of 1649 in the social and political life of Russia.

1. Historical and economic prerequisites for the creation

Cathedral Code of 1649.

The beginning of the 17th century is characterized by the political and economic decline of Russia. To a large extent, this was facilitated by the wars with Sweden and Poland, which ended in the defeat of Russia in 1617.

After the signing of a peace treaty in 1617 with Sweden, Russia lost part of its territories - the coast of the Gulf of Finland, the Karelian Isthmus, the course of the Neva and the cities on its coast. Russia's access to the Baltic Sea was closed.

In addition, after a campaign against Moscow in 1617-1618 by the Polish-Lithuanian army and the signing of a truce, Smolensk land and most of Northern Ukraine were ceded to Poland.

The consequences of the war, which resulted in the decline and ruin of the country's economy, required urgent measures to restore it, but the whole burden fell mainly on the black-haired peasants and townspeople. The government widely distributes land to the nobles, which leads to the continuous growth of serfdom. At first, given the ruin of the countryside, the government somewhat reduced direct taxes, but various kinds of extraordinary fees increased (“fifth money”, “tenth money”, “Cossack money”, “streltsy money”, etc.), most of which were introduced almost continuously sitting Zemsky Sobors.

However, the treasury remains empty and the government begins to deprive archers, gunners, city Cossacks and petty bureaucrats of their salaries, a ruinous tax on salt is introduced. Many townspeople begin to leave for "white places" (the lands of large feudal lords and monasteries exempted from state taxes), while the exploitation of the rest of the population increases.

In such a situation it was impossible to avoid major social conflicts and contradictions.

On June 1, 1648, an uprising broke out in Moscow (the so-called “salt riot”). The rebels held the city in their hands for several days, ruined the houses of the boyars and merchants.

Following Moscow in the summer of 1648, the struggle of townsmen and small service people unfolded in Kozlov, Kursk, Solvychegodsk, Veliky Ustyug, Voronezh, Narym, Tomsk and other cities of the country.

In practice, throughout the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), the country was engulfed in small and large uprisings of the urban population. It was necessary to strengthen the legislative power of the country and on September 1, 1648, the Zemsky Sobor opened in Moscow, the work of which ended with the adoption in early 1649 of a new set of laws - the Cathedral Code. The project was drawn up by a special commission, and the members of the Zemsky Sobor (“by chambers”) discussed it in whole and in parts. The printed text was sent to the orders and to the places.

2. Sources and main provisions of the Council Code

1649.

The Cathedral Code of 1649, summarizing and absorbing the previous experience in creating legal norms, relied on:

Code of Laws;

Decree books of orders;

Royal decrees;

Duma sentences;

Decisions of the Zemsky Sobors (most of the articles were compiled according to the petitions of the council's vowels);

- “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.

In the Council Code, the head of state, the tsar, was defined as an autocratic and hereditary monarch. The regulation 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.

The Code contained a set of norms that regulated the most important branches of public administration. These norms can be conditionally referred to as administrative ones. Attachment of peasants to the land (ch. 11 "Court on the peasants"); township reform, which changed the position of the “white settlements” (ch. 14); change in the status of the patrimony and estate (Ch. 16 and 17); regulation of the work of local governments (ch. 21); the regime of entry and exit (Article 6) - all these measures formed the basis of administrative and police reforms.

With the adoption of the Council Code, changes occurred in the field of judicial law. A number of rules have been developed regarding the organization and work of the court. There is an even greater division into two forms compared to the Sudebniks: “trial” and “search”.

The court procedure is described in chapter 10 of the Code. sentencing, decision. The trial began with the “introduction”, the filing of a petition. The defendant was summoned to court by the bailiff, he could introduce guarantors, and also not appear in court twice, if there were good reasons for that. The court accepted and used various evidence: testimonies (at least ten witnesses), written evidence (the most reliable of them are officially certified documents), kissing the cross (in disputes for an amount not exceeding one ruble), drawing lots. 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 the practice of the court, when the defendant (most often an insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to the procedure of corporal punishment (beating with rods) by the court. The number of such procedures was to be equivalent to the amount owed. So, for example, for a debt of one hundred rubles, they were flogged for a month. Pravezh was not just a punishment - it was also a measure that prompted the defendant to fulfill the obligation (himself or through guarantors). Judgment was oral, but recorded in the "judicial list" and each stage was drawn up by a special letter.

The search or “search” was used only in the most serious criminal cases, and a special place and attention in the search was given to crimes in which the state interest was affected (“the sovereign’s word and deed”). The case in the search process could begin with the statement of the victim, with the discovery of the fact of the crime, or with the usual slander.

Chapter 21 of the Council Code of 1649 for the first time establishes such a procedural procedure as torture. The basis for its application could be the results of the “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 under torture (“slander”) had to be cross-checked with the help of other procedural measures (interrogation, oath, search).

The following changes were also made in the field of criminal law - the circle of subjects of the crime was determined: they could be either individuals or a group of persons. The law divided the subjects of the crime into main and secondary ones, understanding the latter as accomplices. In turn, complicity could be physical (assistance, practical assistance, committing the same actions as the main subject of the crime) and intellectual (for example, incitement to murder in Chapter 22). In this regard, even a slave who committed a crime at the direction of his master began to be recognized as the subject of a crime. At the same time, it should be noted that the law distinguished persons only involved in the commission of a crime from minor subjects of a crime (accomplices): accomplices (persons who created the conditions for the commission of a crime), conniving parties (persons obliged to prevent a crime and who did not do this), non-informers (persons who did not report the preparation and commission of a crime), concealers (persons who hid the criminal and the traces of the crime). The code also divided crimes into intentional, reckless and accidental. For a careless crime, the perpetrator was punished in the same way as for a deliberate criminal act (punishment followed not the motive of the crime, but its result). But the law also identified mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances included: state of intoxication; uncontrollability of actions caused by insult or threat (affect); and aggravating - the repetition of the crime, the amount of harm, the special status of the object and subject of the crime, the totality of several crimes.

The law singled out three stages of a criminal act: intent (which in itself may be punishable), attempted crime and commission of a crime, as well as the concept of recidivism, which in the Council Code coincides with the concept of “a dashing person”, and the concept of extreme necessity, which is not punishable. only if the proportionality of its real danger on the part of the criminal is observed. Violation of proportionality meant exceeding the limits of necessary defense and was punished.

According to the Council Code of 1649, the objects of the crime were determined: church, state, family, person, property and morality. Crimes against the church were considered the most dangerous, and for the first time they were put in the 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.

Major changes in the Council Code of 1649 concerned the area of ​​property, obligation and inheritance law. The scope of civil law relations was defined quite clearly. This was prompted by the development of commodity-money relations, the formation of new types and forms of ownership, and the quantitative growth of civil law transactions.

The subjects of civil law relations were both private (individual) and collective persons, and the legal rights of a private person were gradually expanded due to concessions from the collective person. For legal relations that arose on the basis of norms regulating the sphere of property relations, the instability of the status of the subject of rights and obligations became characteristic. First of all, this was expressed in the division of several powers associated with one subject and one right (for example, conditional land ownership gave the subject the right to own and use, but not dispose of the object). With this, difficulties arose in determining the true full-fledged subject. Subjects of civil law had to meet certain requirements, such as gender (there was a significant increase in the legal capacity of a woman compared to the previous stage), age (a qualification of 15-20 years made it possible to independently accept an estate, bonded obligations, etc.), social and property position.

1649 is a list of laws of the Russian state. It is the first legal act that regulated almost all areas of life at that time.

The emergence of this code of laws is due to the results of the uprisings in the seventeenth century, which arose as a result of peasant movements, as well as the need to adopt a single law. During these times, anti-feudal movements also took place in the serf state against the intensification of exploitation, the increase in service and lack of rights. The movement was based on small monastic and church organizations, townspeople and serfs. When the struggle reached its peak, the government decided to cut the salaries of the so-called service people, which caused an outcry, resulting in an uprising in 1648. The adoption of the Council Code was the result of this uprising and a sharp class struggle.

The king announced the convening of the Zemsky Sobor to develop the Code. The need for new laws is considered the main reason for the creation of the Code, we can say that this determined its character.

The nobles, boyars and merchants, who were frightened by the uprising, demanded that a Council be convened to discuss the current situation, although in fact each of them pursued their own goals. The government made concessions in order to appease the people.

The adoption of the Council Code dates back to 1648, when the king issued a decree on writing the Code Book. They decided to write out the articles written by the Greek kings, as well as the old government, which needed to be corrected and supplemented in such a way that the trial and punishment for crimes were equal for every person living on the territory of the Muscovite state.

A special commission, consisting of five people, was entrusted with compiling a set of laws. This commission developed new laws, which were submitted to the king for consideration. The king gave an instruction according to which the adoption of the Council Code was to be carried out by people chosen by him from settlements and cities (one person from each).

At the Council, the draft Code was heard, discussed and signed. This document was sent to all cities in the office. Thus, it became the largest of all those that were convened during the reign of the tsars in Russia.

The Code contained twenty-five chapters (nine hundred and sixty-seven articles). They contained the laws and codes of the Greek kings, Moscow lawsuits and additional sentences to them, as well as boyar sentences issued from the Lithuanian Statute, church resolutions, and criminal law. According to the Council Code, each law or decree was entered into special books, to which codes were written indicating the changed laws, as well as orders regarding changes in laws that had not been considered earlier, and those that included cases not provided for by law. The Cathedral Code had three hundred and fifteen contributors, as well as special marks on the columns that indicated the source of a particular article.

Thus, this document had a complex structure, it was divided into thematic sections devoted to certain areas of law, each section had its own heading.

The adoption of the Council Code is the greatest achievement of the reign of Alexei. This great collection of laws served as a legal code for quite a long period of time. The code covered a wide area of ​​legislation, contributed to the definition of relations between classes. It was not possible to change the Code for a long period of time.

The history of the creation of the cathedral code of 1649

Under the still fresh impressions of the Moscow unrest, the young Tsar Alexei and his advisers decided to draw up a new code of laws. New legislation was needed to satisfy, at least in part, the demands of the nobility and townspeople and to try to prevent a recurrence of riots. But, whatever this particular reason, the need for a new code of laws was felt both by the government and the people.

The earliest collection, the judicial code of Tsar Ivan the Terrible of 1550, was mainly devoted to court procedure. In addition, he 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 coordinated, becoming a source of confusion in often conflicting 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 entrusted with the task of bringing the laws together. It was headed by the boyar Prince Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky, and it also included the boyar Prince Semyon Vasilyevich Prozorovsky, the okolnichi prince Fyodor Fedorovich Volkonsky and the clerks Gavriil Leontiev 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 a temporary stay in Moscow, the alleged fiancé of Princess Irina, Count Voldemar, Odoevsky took part in a religious debate. After the ascension to the throne of Tsar Alexei, Odoevsky, it would seem, took a neutral position in the emerging conflict between Morozov and the Sheremetev-Cherkassky boyar group.

The clerks Leontiev and Griboyedov (like most of the clerks in the Moscow administration) were not only enterprising and experienced, but also talented and intelligent. Fyodor Ivanovich Griboyedov (a distant ancestor of the playwright Alexander Griboyedov) was of Polish origin. His father Jan Grzhibovsky settled in Moscow at the beginning of the Time of Troubles.

Leontiev and Griboyedov organized the collection and coordination of laws and regulations for a 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 had not yet been completed, and only at the meeting on October 3 did the readings of the draft articles begin to be approved by the Zemsky Sobor. But even after that, the editorial work was not completed.

In a report to his government dated October 18, the Swedish diplomat Pommereng stated: "They [Odoevsky's commission] are still working diligently to ensure that the common people and all others are satisfied with good laws and freedom."

In the government of Tsar Alexei at this time there were drastic changes. Under the influence of Morozov's friends and associates, the tsar returned the exile. He returned to the capital on 26 October.

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

Even before Morozov's return, his followers made contact with the delegates of the Zemsky Sobor from the cities, and on October 30, the latter submitted a petition to the tsar, 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 bitter controversy 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. Big treasury, Pharmaceutical order and others.

The tsar did not dare to formally 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 positions, 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 resolute and energetic man, possessing great talent as an administrator and military leader, smart and cunning; ruthless if the situation called for it. Dolgorukov's wife Elena Vasilievna, nee Morozova, was B.I.'s aunt. Morozov.

Thanks to the influence of Morozov, Dolgorukov was appointed head of the Order of Investigative Affairs, which was given the task of clearing urban communities from the infiltration of residents who do not pay taxes. At the same time, the tsar made Dolgorukov the chairman of the “reciprocal 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 30 October. 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 reacted by submitting a new petition to the Tsar on November 9th. In response to support from the nobility on October 30, the townspeople signed the nobility's 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 members of the nobility who did not own estates, or whose estates were too small and did not correspond to their living needs and the nature of 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. It can be suspected 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 date of the publication of the Code.

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

The editorial work of the commission of Prince Odoevsky continued throughout December. Not earlier than January 29, 1649, a copy of the official manuscript of the code of laws was submitted for approval to the tsar and the Zemsky Sobor. Before that, the entire code was once again read to the members of the Council.

This document became officially known as the "Cathedral Code". 315 signatures were put under the original manuscript. The first signatory 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 they were all 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 in 1832.

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

1. "The Pilot's Book" (Slavic translation of the Byzantine "Nomocanon") - available at that time only in handwritten copies (first published in Moscow a year later than the Code).

Separate 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 - "Esloga" and "Procherion" were taken from the Pilot's Book.

2. "Sudebnik" of 1550 and subsequent Moscow laws, statutes and regulations up to 1648

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

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

Incidentally, Western Russian law traces its origins to the Russian law of the Kyiv period, as well as the law of Novgorod, Pskov and Moscow. In addition, the influence of Western Russian legislation on Moscow began long before the "Council 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 quite an organic element in the development of Russian law as a whole, and not just a foreign source.

From the Lithuanian Statute, not only individual articles for the Code were borrowed (or adapted), but 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 seems 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.

On the whole, we can agree with Vladimirsky-Budanov that the Code is not a compilation of foreign sources, but really a national code of laws that mixes the foreign elements it contains with the old Moscow legal framework.

Provisions of the Council Code of 1649

According to the preface, the main purpose of the code of 1649 was "to make the administration of justice in all litigations 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, a total of 967. The first nine chapters dealt with what can be called the state law of the kingdom of Moscow; in chapters X to XV, on judicial procedure; in chapters XVI to XX - on land ownership, land ownership, peasants, townspeople and serfs. 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 sanctity of the Orthodox faith and the proper conduct of church services; blasphemy was punishable by death; for bad behavior in the church was supposed to be beaten with a whip.

In chapter II, it was about the protection of the royal health, power and: the greatness of the sovereign; in chapter III, on the prevention of any misdeeds in the royal court. The punishment for high treason and other serious crimes was death; for lesser crimes - prison or beating with a whip. Taken together, chapters II and III constituted the basic 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 "Sudebnik" of 1550, they were not discussed. These norms were included in a special code of church law - "Stoglav", issued in 1551.

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

If the Code had been issued during the reign of Filaret, probably Chapter I would have affirmed the holiness 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 in such a way as to curtail the power of the patriarch and prevent the new patriarch from interfering in state policy. Moreover, some of the boyars were inclined to establish state control over the church administration, especially in the management of the population on church and monastery lands.

To this boyar group belonged, along with others, Prince Nikita Odoevsky, chairman of the commission for compiling the Code. This way of thinking is explained by the lack of a common 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 dealing with punishments for insulting honor (mainly verbal insults) predetermined the personalities of the patriarch with worthy respect, since in the list of persons whose insult was punished especially severely, the patriarch occupies 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 regulations 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 a "delivery of the head" gave the right to the offended 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 offended in accordance with the rank of the latter (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 a fine, then he was sentenced to public corporal punishment, carried out by officially appointed persons every day, until the offended person agreed to what - either reconciliation with the offender and his release (Article 84).

These two articles were applied not only to casual insults expressed by a clergyman to a boyar ahi to any other civil servant, but also to criticism of a boyar (or other official) in a sermon ex sathedra during a church service. This was tantamount to establishing government control over the statements of priests in churches, and thus was a violation of the freedom of church preaching.

Later, Patriarch Nikon protested furiously against this violation, addressing Odoevsky the following statements: “You, Prince Nikita, wrote this [those very two articles] on the advice of your teacher, the Antichrist. punishment?

The tendency to strengthen government control over church administration is clearly visible 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 litigations between people living under his jurisdiction and his dominions. This right was established during the reign of Patriarch Filaret. However, a new paragraph (Article 2) added that in the event of an unjust trial by the patriarch's proxies, the accused could turn to the tsar and the boyars.

Chapter XIII discussed the jurisdiction of church priests, bishops and abbots, as well as peasants who were subordinate to the church and monastic possessions, 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 initiate proceedings against the ministers of the church and church people in the Order 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, the nobles, merchants and townspeople wrote in petitions during the preparation of the Code about the need to organize a special order to deal with claims and lawsuits with the church and church people. Such an order was created under the name of the Monastic order. Through him, secular government control over the church administration and the population of the church and monastic estates became much more effective. It is quite understandable that the majority of church and monastery hierarchs were against this reform.

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

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 a patriarch, would become the main opponent of the Code.

Characteristics of the cathedral code of 1649

Philosophical reasoning about the nature of the royal power of the rector of the Volokolamsk monastery Joseph Sanin (died in 1515) says: “Although bodily the tsar is similar to all other people, but, being in power, he is like God.”

In the Code, the tsar was spoken of not as a person, but as a sovereign. Chapter II, devoted to punishments for the most serious state crimes, was entitled: "On the sovereign's honor and how to protect the sovereign's health [security]".

The king personified the state. He reigned "by the grace of God" (these words began royal letters); 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 the lands of the state. This principle was applied in the clearest form to Siberia. All the land wealth of Siberia belonged to the sovereign. Legally, private individuals were only entitled to use the plots of land that they actually cultivated (borrows, the use of which is based on the right of the worker), or for which they received special permits. There was no private ownership of land in Siberia.

On the old lands of the kingdom of Moscow, the tsars were forced to accept and approve the existence of privately owned hereditary land, or estates, owned by 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 on the condition that they were obligated to military service and only for the time during which they carried out this service. These lands were owned by the state.

In addition to boyar and other estates that are privately owned, as well as church and monastery land, all other land belonged to the sovereign, that is, the state. These were the 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 for the maintenance of the sovereign's palace. (In addition, each king could own (and own) the land in private, not as a sovereign, but as an ordinary person).

While the royal power was the basis of state law in the Code, the united social groups, or ranks, whose will was expressed by the Zemsky Sobor, constituted the “skeleton” of the nation. To a certain extent, the 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 rights and property rights for representatives of the highest ranks.

It should be remembered that in 1606, Tsar Vasily Shuisky, having ascended the throne, swore not to sentence an aristocrat or merchant to death without a trial by a boyar court; not to take away the land and other possessions of the convict, but to transfer them to his relatives, widow and children (in the event that they are not guilty of the same crime); and listen to her accusations until they are accurately 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 imposes the death penalty for certain categories of political crimes, such as the intention to kill the king, armed action, high treason, and treacherous surrender of the fortress to the enemy.

In all these cases, the Code requires that no death sentence 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 clearly established that he was guilty. His wife and children, parents and brothers were not sentenced to punishment if they did not take part in the commission of the same crime. They had the right to receive part of his possessions in order to have a livelihood.

Certain articles of Chapter II allow for denunciations and denunciations in cases of suspicion of conspiracy or other political crimes. In each case, the code considers that a thorough investigation should be carried out and a well-founded charge brought. If it turns out to be false, then the informer is sentenced to severe punishment.

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

Rights to land according to the conciliar code of 1649

Of great political importance were those paragraphs of the Code, which ensured the rights to land to the boyars and the nobility.

Muscovite legislation of the 16th and 17th centuries distinguished between two main forms of land rights: votchina - land that is in full ownership, and estate - land that is owned on 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 a boyar could have (and in the 17th century usually had) an estate. The latter form was the basis of the nobles' land holdings, although many nobles could (and often did) own a fiefdom (usually a small one).

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

Before the code of 1649, however, there was no clear coordination of the various decrees issued since the Time of Troubles concerning the land rights of boyars and nobles. Land owners or holders felt insecure and turned to the government for guarantees. They were given in Chapter XVIII of the Code, which was called "On the Estates".

In the first part of the chapter (articles from 1 to 15), the discussion was about the "old" boyar and noble lands, either hereditary or bestowed by the tsars. Both of these types were made hereditary. If the owner died without leaving a will, his land was to go to the next of kin. The purpose of this law was to keep the boyar families in possession of large lands 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, tsars 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, were all generous with promises and favors to their present and future followers, some of whom took advantage of the situation by "milking out" first one shadow ruler, then - the other, 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 Tushin region.

It is quite natural that after the victory of the national liberation army and the election of Tsar Michael, the legitimacy of gifts was recognized only if the persons who used 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 the peasant army of Bolotnikov, and then during the blockade of the second pretender by the Tushino army; (2) gifts made by the second pretender to those of his Tush followers (Tush people) 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 have been 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 of which was fully guaranteed.

Confirmation of ownership and inheritance rights of hereditary lands benefited mainly the boyars. The nobility, especially the petty 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 land plot. But, as is quite typical of human nature, the holder of the estate, performing the service required of him, usually made efforts to secure for himself and his family the right to land and try to make them hereditary. He needed to secure his old age, and therefore he wanted to keep the land for himself until death. Article 9 of Chapter XVI gave him the right to transfer the administration of the land, along with compulsory military service, to his son, younger brother or nephew.

If after the death of the landowner (owner of the estate) an underage son (or sons) remained, then guardianship must be established over him until he reaches the age of fifteen and will be enrolled in military service and receive the estate in his own name.

The widow and daughters of the deceased landowner were 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 take upon themselves the obligation to feed them and help 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, change it to another. At first, such transactions were allowed only in special cases. Later, the government, making concessions to the petitions, agreed to legalize the exchanges. In order to prevent the illegal sale of an estate under the guise of an exchange, it was decided that the amount of land in each of the exchanging estates should be the same. The "Code" facilitated the regulation of this issue and even allowed the exchange of an estate for a fiefdom and vice versa (Chapter XVI, Articles 3-5).

Chapter XVI of the "Code" left oversight of the national fund of local 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 regulations gave noble families 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 the loyalty and support of the throne from these two social groups, which traditionally played key roles in the Moscow administration and the army.

Moreover, the government was forced to guarantee "service people" not only land, but also the provision of workers for cultivating 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 use, and in fact used, as agricultural workers (business people). But that wasn't enough. With the social and economic organization of Muscovy in the 17th century, the main source of labor on the land was the 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 the peasant in certain "reserved years", the boyars and especially the nobility fought for the complete abolition of the peasant's right to move from one land holding to another. With the advent of the Code, they achieved their goal.

Chapter XI abolished the fixed period during which the owner could make claims on his runaway peasant and, thus, forever attached the peasant to the land on which he lived. Starting from that time, the only legal way for a peasant to leave the land of the landowner was to receive a special document (“vacation”) 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 (the subject, not the object, of law). His dignity was guaranteed by law. In the event of an 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 to take part in legal transactions of various kinds. He owned movable property and property. The harvest from the piece of land he cultivated for himself (harvested or unharvested) belonged to him.

Taxes in the cathedral code of 1649

In chapter XIX of the "Code" it was about the townspeople (townspeople) who paid taxes. They were organized into communities (often referred to as hundreds) with a status similar to that of state (black) peasants. Posadskys could be called state townspeople.

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

The main desire of the townspeople was to equalize the burden of taxes and therefore to prohibit any individual member of the community from moving from the category of blacks to the category of tax-free whites with the help of various tricks, and also to eliminate all white estates from the city.

In accordance with this principle, Article 1 of Chapter XIX required that all groups of settlements (sloboda) 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 non-executive paryu - 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 to receive the status of townspeople.

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

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

Another important point in the legislation of the "Code" concerning the townspeople was the rule of forcible return to the tax 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 pawnbrokers. For the future, all townspeople were strictly forbidden to become a pawnbroker under the patronage of any white person or institution. The guilty will be sentenced to severe punishment - beating with a whip and deportation to Siberia (Article 13).

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

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

This establishment satisfied the financial and administrative needs of the Muscovite 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 legalized in the “Code” itself, which defined three layers (articles) of townspeople: the best, middle and smaller articles.

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

The richest (mainly wholesalers) merchants and industrialists stood significantly above the 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 position was clearly demonstrated by their place on the scale of compensation for insulting honor in comparison with the townspeople.

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

The next level of the merchant association - the cloth hundred - was subdivided 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 living room hundred and the townspeople.

It was from the highest stratum of the townspeople that the government filled vacancies among members of the living room and cloth hundreds. Being transferred to such an association, a posadsky from a provincial town 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 cloth hundreds had to be taken into account by the administration in many cases. The ordinary urban community of townspeople, although it led an autonomous inner life and represented at meetings of the Zemsky Sobor, did not have a permanent voice either in the central or in the provincial administration. Of course, the communities could exercise their right to petition in the event of any serious conflict with the administration. However, such petitions, if they were not supported by guests and merchant associations, the government did not always pay attention to. Then for the townspeople there was only one way - an open rebellion.

The chance of success of such rebellions depended on the unity of the movement in the city, but the differences in political and economic interests between the guests and the 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. A similar lack of agreement between the various layers of merchants and townspeople undermined the power of unrest in Novgorod and Pskov in 1650.

The Cathedral Code of 1649, having generalized and absorbed the previous experience of creating legal norms, had its own sources . Sources of the Code are:

Code of Laws;

Decree books of orders;

Royal decrees;

Duma sentences;

Decisions of the Zemsky Sobors (most of the articles were compiled according to the petitions of the council's vowels);

- “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 body of legal norms of the Code after 1649.

The Council Code defines head of state status- king, autocratic and hereditary monarch. The regulation on the approval (election) of the tsar at the Zemsky assembly did not at all shake the established principles, but, on the contrary, substantiated them. Even criminal intent (not to mention actions) directed against the person of the monarch was severely punished.

The code contained a set of norms that regulated the most important industries government controlled. These norms can be conditionally referred to as administrative ones. Attachment of peasants to the land (ch. 11 "Court on the peasants"); township reform, which changed the position of the “white settlements” (ch. 14); change in the status of the patrimony and estate (Ch. 16 and 17); regulation of the work of local governments (ch. 21); the regime of entry and exit (Article 6) - all these measures formed the basis of administrative and police reforms.

Important transformations with the adoption of the Cathedral Code took place in the region judicial rights. The Code constituted a whole complex of norms regulating the organization of the court and the process. There is an even greater differentiation of the process into two forms compared to the Sudebniks: “trial” and “search”.

Chapter 10 of the Code describes in detail the various procedures of the court: it was divided into two processes - the actual “judgment” and “execution”, i.e. sentencing, decision. The trial began with the “introduction”, the filing of a petition. The defendant was summoned to court by the bailiff, he could introduce guarantors, and also not appear in court twice, if there were good reasons for that. The court adopted and used various proof of: testimonies (at least ten witnesses), written evidence (the most trustworthy of them are officially certified documents), kissing the cross (in disputes for an amount not exceeding one ruble), lot. To obtain evidence, a “general” (survey of the population about the fact of a crime) and “general” (about a specific person suspected of a crime) search were used. A kind of procedural action in court was the so-called “pravezh”. The defendant (most often an insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to corporal punishment by the court (beating with rods on bare calves). The number of such procedures was to be equivalent to the amount owed. So, for example, for a debt of one hundred rubles, they were flogged for a month). “Pravezh was not just a punishment - it was also a measure that prompted the defendant to fulfill the obligation (himself or through guarantors). Judgment was oral, but recorded in the “judicial list”, each stage was drawn up with a special letter.

Search or “search” was used in the most serious criminal cases. A special place and attention was given to crimes, which were declared: “the word and deed of the sovereign”, i.e. in which the public interest is involved. The case in the search process could begin with the statement of the victim, with the discovery of the fact of the crime, or with the usual slander.

Chapter 21 of the Council Code of 1649 for the first time regulates such a procedural procedure as torture. The basis for its application could be the results of the “search”, when the testimony was divided: part in favor of the suspect, part against him. The use of torture was regulated as follows: firstly, it could be used no more than three times, with a certain break; secondly, the testimony given under torture (“slander”) had to be rechecked with the help of other procedural measures (interrogation, oath, search).

In area criminal law the following changes have been made. First of all, the circle of subjects of the crime is determined: they can be either individuals or a group of persons. The law divides the subjects of the crime into main and secondary ones, understanding the latter as accomplices. In turn, complicity can be physical (assistance, practical assistance, committing the same actions as the main subject of the crime) and intellectual (for example, incitement to murder in Chapter 22). In connection with this, even a slave who committed a crime at the direction of his master began to be recognized as the subject of a crime. At the same time, it should be noted that the law distinguished from minor subjects of a crime (accomplices) persons who were only involved in the commission of a crime: accomplices (persons who created the conditions for the commission of a crime), conniving parties (persons obliged to prevent a crime and who did not do this), non-informers ( persons who did not report the preparation and commission of a crime), concealers (persons who hid the criminal and the traces of the crime). The Code, among other things, knows the division of crimes into intentional, careless and accidental. For a careless crime, the perpetrator is punished in the same way as for a deliberate criminal act (punishment follows not the motive of the crime, but its result). The law also highlights mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the state of intoxication; uncontrollability of actions caused by insult or threat (affect); and aggravating - the repetition of the crime, the amount of harm, the special status of the object and subject of the crime, the totality of several crimes.

The law identifies separate stages of a criminal act: intent (which in itself may be punishable), attempted crime and commission of a crime. The law also knows the concept of recidivism, which in the Council Code coincides with the concept of "a dashing person", and the concept of extreme necessity, which is not punishable only if the proportionality of its real danger on the part of the criminal is observed. Violation of proportionality meant exceeding the limits of necessary defense and was punished.

According to the Council Code of 1649, the objects of the crime were: church, state, family, person, property and morality. Crimes against the church were considered the most dangerous and that is why they were put in the first place, which was done for the first time in the history of Russian secular codifications. This change had a double meaning. On the one hand, the church occupied a special place in public life, and on the other hand, the acceptance of the church under the protection of state institutions and laws indicated their priority in the political system.

The Cathedral Code of 1649 brought great changes to the region real, liability and inheritance law. The scope of civil law relations was defined quite clearly. The legislator was encouraged to do this by the development of commodity-money relations, the formation of new types and forms of ownership, and the quantitative growth of civil law transactions.

The subjects of civil law relations were both private (individual) and collective persons. In the 17th century, the legal rights of a private person gradually expanded due to concessions from a collective person. For the legal thinking of this era, it was characteristic to consider the established relations as eternal relations. For legal relations that arose on the basis of norms regulating the sphere of property relations, the instability of the status of the subject of rights and obligations became characteristic. First of all, this was expressed in the division of several powers associated with one subject and one right (for example, conditional land ownership gave the subject the right to own and use, but not dispose of the object). With this, difficulties arose in determining the true full-fledged subject. Subjects of civil law had to meet certain requirements, such as gender (there was a significant increase in the legal capacity of a woman compared to the previous stage), age (a qualification of 15-20 years made it possible to independently accept an estate, bonded obligations, etc.), social and property position.

Things according to the Council Code were the subject of a number of powers, relationships and obligations. The main ways of acquiring property were considered to be capture, prescription, discovery, award and direct acquisition in exchange or purchase.

In the Code of 1649, regulation acquires grant of land. It was a complex set of legal actions, including the issuance of letters of commendation; drawing up a certificate (i.e., recording certain information about the endowed person in the order book); putting into possession, which consisted in the public measurement of land. The distribution of land, along with the Local Order, was carried out by other bodies - the Discharge Order, the Order of the Grand Palace, the Little Russian, Novgorod, Siberian and other orders. The contract in the 17th century remained the main way of acquiring property rights to property, and, in particular, to land. Ritual ceremonies lose their significance in the contract, formalized actions (participation of witnesses at the conclusion of the contract) are replaced by written acts (“assaults” of witnesses without their personal participation).

For the first time in the Cathedral Code of 1649, it was regulated institution of easements(legal restriction of the right of ownership of one person in the interests of the right of use of another or other persons). The legislator knew personal easements (restrictions in favor of certain persons, specially stipulated in the law), for example, the destruction of meadows by warriors in the service. Easements in rem (restriction of property rights in the interests of an indefinite number of subjects) included: the right of the owner of a mill for production purposes to flood the underlying meadow owned by another person; the opportunity to build a stove near the wall of a neighbor's house or build a house on the boundary of someone else's plot (ch. 10). Along with this, the right to property was limited either by the direct prescription of the law, or by the establishment of a legal regime that did not guarantee “eternal property”.