The Council Code of 1649 was. Establishment of serfdom (enslavement of peasants)

ABOUT blasphemers and church rebels

And there are 9 articles in it

1. If someone of other faiths, of whatever faith, or even a Russian person, lays blasphemy on the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, or on our Most Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, who gave birth to Him, or on the honorable Cross, or on His saints: and search about it with all sorts of investigations.

Let it be clear about this; and having exposed that blasphemer, execute him and burn him.

2. And if some lawless person comes to the Church of God during the Holy Liturgy, and whatever the custom, the Divine Liturgy will not be allowed to be performed: and having seized him and having found out about him to the point that he will commit such a thing, he will be executed by death without any mercy. .

3. If anyone, having forgotten the fear of God and despised the Royal command, teaches him to the Sovereign, or the Patriarch, or another authority, in the Church of God during church singing, about what deeds of his to beat with his forehead: and for that, throw that petitioner into prison, as much as the Sovereign will indicate.

ABOUT THE STATE CHESGI

AND HOW TO PROTECT ITS STATE HEALTH

And there are 22 articles in it

1. If someone has any intention of planning an evil deed against the State’s health, and someone informs about that evil intention of his, and from that information about that his evil intention will be revealed to the point that he was thinking of an evil deed against the Tsar’s Majesty, and wanted to do it: and This is the search for execution by death.

3. If someone betrays the Tsar’s Majesty’s city to an enemy by treason, or someone accepts the Tsar’s Majesty into the cities from other states to commit treason, and it is proven outright: such traitors shall be executed by death.

4. If someone sets fire to the city or courtyards through intent and treason, and at that time or after that the lighter will be confiscated and his theft will be clearly established: and he himself will be burned without any mercy.

5. And take the estates and estates and the lives of traitors to the Sovereign.

6. And the wives and children of such traitors knew about their betrayal: and according to the same they will be executed by death.

7. If there is a wife about the betrayal of her husband, or the children did not know about the betrayal of their father, and it is established that they did not know about this betrayal: and they will not be executed for this, and no punishment will be inflicted on them; and for subsistence from estates and estates, whatever the Sovereign will grant.

19. If someone knows or hears about the Tsar’s Majesty in which people there is a conspiracy, or some other evil intent, but will not inform the Sovereign and His Sovereign Boyars and neighbors, and in the cities to the Governors and officials, about this, but to the Sovereign it will be known that he knew about such a thing, but did not inform him, and it will be found out about it directly: and for that he will be executed by death without any mercy.

21. And whoever incites to the Tsar’s Majesty, or against His Sovereign Boyars and Okolnichi and Duma and long-term people, and in cities and in regiments against the Voivod, and against the commanding people, or against anyone, come en masse and in a conspiracy, and instruct someone to rob , or beat: and those people who do this, for the same reason, will be executed by death without any mercy.

ABOUT THE GOVERN'S COURTYARD, SO THAT IN THE GOVERN'S COURTYARD THERE WILL BE NO DISORDERS OR ARGUMENTS FROM ANYONE And there are 9 articles in it

1. There will be someone under the Tsar's Majesty, in His Sovereign's court, and in His State Chambers, without fearing the honor of the Tsar's Majesty, whom he dishonors with a word; and the one whom he dishonors will instruct the Sovereign to beat him with his brow about justice, and it is established that the one he hits with his brow has dishonored him: and upon investigation for the honor of the Sovereign's court, the one who dishonors someone in the Sovereign's court will be imprisoned to prison for two weeks, so that no matter what, it would be discouraging for others to do this in the future. And whomever he dishonors, show him the dishonor.

2. If someone in the presence of the Sovereign sweeps out a weapon against anyone, whatever it may be, but does not wound or kill him: he too will be executed, his hand will be cut off.

ABOUT SUBSCRIBERS AND WHICH SEALS ARE FORGETED

And there are 4 articles in it

1. If someone writes a letter from the Sovereign to himself as a thief, or in the original Sovereign’s letter and in other letters of order, he will forward something with his own invention, past the Sovereign’s decree and the Boyar’s sentence, or he will sign the Duma and the order’s people and the clerk’s hands or make a seal on himself such as the Sovereign's seal is: and such is the punishment for such guilt upon investigation by death.

ABOUT MONEY MASTERS WHO TEACH YOU TO DO

THIEVES' MONEY

And there are 2 articles in it

1. Which money masters learn to make copper, or tin, or stacked money, or in money matters, they learn to add copper, or tin, or lead to silver, and thereby teach the Sovereign treasury to repair the decline: and those money masters for such work will be executed by death , flood your throat.

ABOUT TRAVEL CERTIFICATES TO OTHER STATES And it contains 6 articles

1. If someone happens to travel from the Moscow state, for trade or other business, to another state, which is a state with Moscow

the state is peaceful: and in Moscow, beat the Sovereign with his forehead, and in the cities, the Voivodes for a travel certificate, and he cannot travel without a travel certificate. And in the cities, the Voivodes will give them travel certificates without any detention.

3. If someone goes to a certain state without a travel certificate, and having been in another state, comes to the Moscow state, and someone else publishes a report that he went without a travel certificate without permission for treason, or for something else that is bad: and for that I will tell you about someone who traveled to another state without the Sovereign’s travel documents, and I will try to find out all sorts of investigations. Let it be said about him during the investigation that he actually traveled to another state without a travel certificate for treason or for some other dashing matter: and upon investigation, he will be executed for treason by death.

ABOUT THE SERVICE OF ALL MILITARY PEOPLE OF THE MOSCOW STATE

And there are 32 articles in it

With the Polish and with the Lithuanian, and with the German, and with other surrounding states, the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia has eternal peace and consummation.

8. And those Sovereign military men of all ranks will be in the Sovereign's service in the regiments, and the Sovereign's service will serve them powerfully according to the analysis, and without waiting for leave from the Sovereign's service they will run away: and for their escape, issue a decree, whoever escapes first, and beat him with a whip ; and if the same one runs away to others, and beat him with a whip, and reduce his local salary by fifty quarters, and the money from his local salary from one hundred quarters per ruble; and if he runs away to the third, they will beat him with a whip, and take away his estate and give it away.

19. If a serviceman, being in the Sovereign’s service, runs away in battle to his house, and the Governors report him to the Sovereign: and for such people, for that escape, half will be deducted from their locals and from their monetary salaries; Yes, take half of their estates from the Sovereign, and inflict punishment on them for this, beat them with a whip without delay.

29. If someone in the service steals a horse from someone, his hand will be cut off for that crime.

ON THE REDEMPTION OF THE PRISONERS

And there are 7 articles in it

3. And those who are taken in captivity, not in battle, and not in parcels: and give them a payback of one hundred quarters of five rubles.

4. For the Moscow Streltsy forty rubles.

6. For the townspeople, twenty rubles per person.

7. For arable peasants and for boyars, fifteen rubles per person.

ABOUT POINTS AND ABOUT TRANSPORTATION AND ABOUT BRIDGES

And there are 20 articles in it

4. And if all sorts of people of Moscow ranks, and city nobles, and boyar children, and foreigners, by washing and by transport and by bridge, begin to bring with them merchants of all ranks of people with goods, and about this they will be asked to beat those people with a whip, but on them take the wash and the bridgeman and the transportation three times, and give it to the washer and the carrier and the bridgemaker.

Chapter X ABOUT THE COURT And it contains 287 articles

1. The court of the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of all Russia, to be judged by the Boyars and Okolnichy and the Duma people and the Clerk, and all clerks, and Judges, and all justice to be done to all people of the Moscow State, from the great to the

change my rank really. Also, visiting foreigners, and any arriving people who will be in the Moscow state, will be judged and punished by the same court according to the Sovereign's decree in truth, and with your own invention in court cases, on friendship and on unfriendship, nothing will be added, nor subtracted, and in nothing do not be friends with a friend, and do not take revenge on an enemy, and do not strive for anything for anyone, do all the sovereign’s deeds, without being ashamed of the face of the powerful and deliver the offender from the hand of the unrighteous.

2. Controversial matters, which the orders will not be able to carry out in the orders, should be included from the orders in the report to the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, and to His Sovereign Boyars and Okolnich and Duma people. A Boyar

and the Okolnichi and Duma people sit in the chamber, and according to the Sovereign’s decree, the Sovereign’s decree does all sorts of things together.

3. And if the judge is an enemy to the plaintiff, but a friend or his own to the defendant, and the plaintiff will teach the Sovereign to beat him with his forehead before the trial, that he cannot seek the judge before him; Likewise, before the trial, the defendant will learn to beat with his forehead that the plaintiff is a friend of his judge or his own and it is not powerful to answer him before that judge: the judge against whom such a petition is filed should not judge both the plaintiff and the defendant, but judge them to another judge, to whom the Sovereign will indicate.

24. And if the judge does not teach him to go to the order by his stubbornness, not even wanting to be in that order, except for fatherly affairs, and not for illness, and not for other necessary lack of time, and he will not be in the order for many days: and that judge for his guilt, inflict the punishment that the Sovereign will indicate, and order him to be with the Sovereign's business, and to carry out all judicial matters without red tape, so that there is no unnecessary red tape for the judge and for every orderly person in any order.

164. And those people who tell you during searches say that they know nothing about the matter about which the search will be carried out, but other people will convict them of knowing about that matter, and it will be found out about it conclusively: and on those people for their false speeches, according to the same rule, fine the Sovereign, and inflict punishment on them against the same, as written above this

167. And send a general search to find cases in which the plaintiff and the defendant do not have close common links. And if the plaintiff and the defendant at the trial are both sent to the common truth, although against one person: and according to the common exile, the case will be decided. And beyond that, don’t send general exiles through a general search, so that the plaintiff and defendant won’t have too much to eat and red tape.

200. And if the one to whom they come with such intent, fighting from themselves, and defending their house, he kills one of them to death, and brings those beaten to the judges, and it is proven outright that he committed that murder involuntarily, defending himself: don’t blame him either; and whoever he kills, and that murder will be done to him on his own, do not come to someone else’s house by force.

201. And if someone picks up someone, and a fight breaks out between them, and in that fight, the one who picks up in advance, who wounds, and he will hit the one who wounds him with his forehead to the point of injury; and the one on whom

he will strike him with his forehead, he will not forbid himself, and will say that he wounded him while defending himself; but it is clear that that battle started from that petitioner himself: do not blame the defendant in that battle, and do not point out anything to the wounded man for his injury, because the wounded man himself is in the wrong.

208. If someone is a landowner, or a votchinnnik, or their people and peasants drive in some of their grain, or someone’s horses, or some other animal from unmown meadows: and having revealed this to strangers, send him to the person whose animal it is, so that he, coming with strangers, would inspect his spoiled bread or meadows. Let the person whose that animal is, come to him with outsiders, inspect his poisoned bread, or meadows, and that poisoned bread, or grass, will pay him: and let him have the animal that he drives from that bread, or from the meadows , give it to the one whose animal is all intact. And it will be the one whose

an animal will not go to the inspection of the poisoned bread or meadows: and he should keep the animal with himself, and beat the Emperor against him in the poisoned bread and in the meadows with his forehead, and look for it in court. Let it be clear from the court that his bread or meadows were poisoned by the animal that he drove to himself: and who is that animal, he will order him

the poisoned bread and meadows, sweeping away according to the investigation, should be corrected in full: yes, he should be ordered to replenish the food of that animal, sweeping away the food of that animal, and to order the same guilty person to double the Sovereign's duties from the ship's case for his violence.

And if someone drives someone else’s animal into his yard from his own grain, or from the meadows he starts to keep it in constipation, and keeping it in constipation, he starves to death, and there will be petitions against him and the court will find out about this outright: and for that animal that he will kill, order the price to be adjusted on it, at the indicated price, and give it to the plaintiff. And if the plaintiff has that horse, or some other animal, in advance of the one who traded, and gave more money than that, and it is found out about this: and for that dead horse, or for another animal, order the one who kills it to finish that the price that the merchants gave.

224. If someone starts burning straw in his fields, or grass in meadows, and at that time a fire will flare up and burn other people’s fields or vegetable gardens, and there will be petitioners against him: and find out about it. Let it be revealed upon investigation that he did it by cunning, set fire to the wind, and did not take away someone else’s field or vegetable garden through his laziness, but the taking was powerful: and the plaintiffs should be ordered to correct their losses through investigation.

226. If someone’s yard catches fire by accident, and other people’s yards will burn as a result: and on the one whose yard first catches fire, no one can do anything because the fire in his house was not caused by his intention.

228. If someone, for the sake of enmity or plunder, sets fire to someone’s yard, and after that it will be confiscated, and it will be found out about him that he started the fire on purpose: and such a lighter will be executed, burned.

272. If a craftsman takes patterned goods from someone: a diamond stone, or a yakhont, or an emerald, or a lal, or some other stone for glazing, or granite, or cutting a seal, and by carelessness he breaks that stone, or causes some kind of destruction, and there will be petitioners against him: and he will take a price from him for that stone, which outsiders will value.

273. If someone borrows a dress from someone at some point in time, or the dress is taken by a tailor, and that dress is wasted with mice, or spoiled, and there will be petitioners against him: and for that worn-out dress the plaintiff will take it for them the price, and give them the dress.

280. If someone, having had a fight with someone, calls the other a bastard, and the one whom he calls a bastard will bring the Emperor to his head for dishonor, and the court will find out about that petitioner outright that he is not a bastard: and he will blame him for the one who He will call him a bastard and order him to correct his dishonor with double the amount of mercy. And if they say about that petitioner during the investigation that he is a straight bastard, he will live with the concubine before his lawful wife, or with his lawful wife, or after his lawful wife: and such a bastard will be denied dishonor, and with the legitimate children of the one who is with his concubine he will live without lamenting, and the estates and estates of the one who unlawfully brought him in will not be given to him. And if the one who took that bastard with his concubine marries that concubine, he shouldn’t count that bastard as his legitimate child, and don’t give him a place or estate, because he brought that bastard with his concubine unlawfully before marriage.

282. If someone kills someone’s dog on purpose: and upon investigation, order for that dog, adding the specified price, and give it to the plaintiff.

283. If someone kills a dog by hand, not with a gun, fighting from himself: he will not pay the price for that dog, and he will not blame him.

COURT OF PEASANTS

And there are 34 articles in it

Which Sovereign palace villages and black volosts, peasants and peasants, having run out from the Sovereign palace villages and black volosts, live as the Patriarch, or for the Metropolitans, and for the Archbishops, and for the Bishop, or for the monasteries, or for the Boyars, or for

Okolnichi, and for the Duma, and for the house people, and for the solicitors, and for the nobles of Moscow, and for the clerks, and for the tenants, and for the city nobles, and for the children of the boyars, and for foreigners, and for all sorts of patrimonial landowners and landowners, and in the scribe books, which the scribes submitted the books to the Local and to other orders after the Moscow fire last year 134, those runaway peasants, or their fathers, were written to the Sovereign, and looking for those Sovereign runaway peasants and peasants, take them to the Sovereign's palace villages and to the black volosts, to their old lots , according to scribe books, with wives and children and with all their peasant bellies without lesson years.

2. There will also be some votchinniki and landowners who will teach the Sovereign to beat their foreheads about their runaway peasants and about the peasants, and they will say that their peasants and landlords, having run out because of them, live in the Sovereign’s palace villages, and in black volosts, or in the suburbs in Posad people, or in the archers, or in the Cossacks, or in the gunners, or in some other service people in the cities outside Moscow and in the Ukrainian cities, or for the Patriarch, or for the Metropolitans, and for the Archbishops and Bishops, or for the monasteries, or for Boyars, and for the Okolnichy, and for the Duma, and for the house people, and for the Stolniki, and for the attorneys and for the Moscow nobles, and for the clerks, and for the Tenants, and for the city Nobles, and for the children of the Boyars and for foreigners and for all sorts of patrimonies and landowners: to hand over those peasants and peasants for trial and investigation according to the scribe books, which books the scribes gave to the Local Order after the Moscow fire last year 134, will be those of their runaway peasants, or those of their runaway peasants’ fathers, in those scribe books written after them, or after those scribe books, the same peasants, or their children at new dachas are written after someone in separate or in abandoned books. And to send runaway peasants and peasants to run through the scribe books of all ranks to people, without a lesson.

9. And which peasants and peasants followed whom were written in the census books of the past 154 and 155 years, and after those census books, because of those people for whom they were written in the census books, ran away, or will continue to run: those fugitive peasants and cattle, and their brothers, and children, and nephews, and grandchildren, with their wives and children, and with all their bellies, and with standing bread and with milk, give from the races to those people, because of whom they will run out, according to the census books, without assignments years, and from now on, do not accept foreign peasants to anyone, and do not keep them with you.

33. And from those of all ranks from landowners and votchinniki and from foreign cities, their people and godparents run abroad, and having been abroad, having come from abroad, they do not want to live with their old landowners and votchinniki, they begin to ask for freedom: and those fugitives asking the peasants to give them back to their old landowner and patrimonial owner, for whom they were running, and not giving them their freedom.

ABOUT THE COURT OF THE PATRIARCHAL, ORDERS AND DOVERS

ALL PEOPLE AND PEASANTS

And there are 3 articles in it

ABOUT THE MONASTERY ORDER

And there are 7 articles in it

1. On Metropolitans, and on Archbishops, and on Bishops, and on their clerks, and on courtyard people, and on the children of the Boyars and on their peasants, and on monasteries, on Archimandrites, and Abbots, and on Builders, and Cellars, and on Treasurers , and to the ordinary brothers, and to the monastery

servants, and peasants, and priests, and church officials, in all sorts of cases, according to the current Sovereign Code, judgment is given by the Order of the Great Palace.

And now the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of all Russia, according to the petition of Stolnikov, and Solicitors, and Moscow nobles, and city nobles, and Boyar children, and guests, and living rooms and cloth stores and other various hundreds and settlements and city merchants and

posad people, indicated to the monastic order to be special, and to Metropolitans, and to Archbishops, and Bishops, and to their clerks and to courtyard people, and to the Boyar children and to their peasants, and to monasteries, to Archimandrites, and Abbots, and to The builders, and the Kelares, and the Treasurers, and the ordinary brothers, and the monastery servants, and the peasants, and the priests, and the church clergy, in all types of plaintiffs' claims, the court will be given in the monastery order.

ABOUT THE KISSING OF THE CROSS

And there are 10 articles in it

1. Those of the Moscow State of all ranks of the Russian people will have to kiss the cross in court cases from all orders: and for them or for them people will kiss their cross in separate lawsuits three times. And the age of those people who should kiss the cross would be twenty years old, and those under twenty years old should not be kissed and such people should not be allowed to approach the cross. And whoever doesn’t have such people, they should kiss the cross for themselves.

ABOUT DONE THINGS

And there are 5 articles in it

4. And which all judicial cases of all ranks of people in all Prikazes according to the Sovereign's decree and according to the Boyar verdict were completed before the current code: and those judicial cases will not be settled in the future, and those cases will be according to how those cases were completed before.

ABOUT LAND LANDS

And there are 69 articles in it

In the Moscow district there are estates:

1. For the Boyars, two hundred quarters per person. For the Okolnichys, for the Duma clerks, one hundred and fifty quarters per person. For the Stolniki, and for the Attorneys, and for the Moscow Nobles and for the clerks, and the Moscow Streltsy for the Heads, and for the sedate ones, and for the worthwhile housekeepers, one hundred quarters per person.

For nobles from cities who serve by choice, seventy quarters per person.

For the tenants and for the stirrup grooms and for the centurions of the Moscow Streltsy, fifty quarters per person. .

For the courtyard people, for the solicitors, and for the sytniki and the Tsarina’s rank, for the Boyar children, from their local salaries from one hundred quarters to ten quarters.

2. And those landowners of all ranks want to exchange their estates among themselves: and in registering those of their exchange estates, beat the Sovereign with their foreheads, and submit petitions for this to

Local Order, by hand.

ABOUT DOMINATIONS

And there are 55 articles in it

1. Last year, in the 136th year of blessed memory, the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Mikhail Fedorovich of All Russia, and the Father of His Sovereigns, the Great Sovereign of blessed memory, His Holiness Philaret Nikitich, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia indicated

about ancestral and served estates according to the rules of the Holy Apostle and Holy Father: whoever passes away, his wife will remain childless, and after that his relatives and cousins ​​and clan will remain: and those estates will be given to the brothers of the family of the deceased who passes away relatives and cousins ​​and in the family, who is closer to whom. And to the wives of those deceased who remain childless, give them a quarter and a dowry from their bellies. And to the ancestral and to the estates they have served

there is no business, besides the purchased estates. And those votchinniks died, and their votchinas after them, according to their spiritual and data, were given to their nieces and grandsons, and great-grandchildren: and those votchinas should be theirs by kinship.

6. And which patrimony is purchased, after the deceased, will be given to his wife, including children: and she is free in that patrimony; and no one else cares about that patrimony.

9. And to sell the local lands into the votchina according to the Sovereign's personal decree, to whomever the Sovereign grants, and without the Sovereign's nominal decree, the landowner should not sell their local lands into the votchina to anyone.

Chapter XVIII

ABOUT PRINTING FEES.

And there are 71 articles in it

1. To whom the Sovereign's salary will be given, the estate again: and from those people, collect stamp duties from the dacha, from a quarter of arable land, half a third of the money.

4. If a nobleman or a boyar’s son is killed in the Sovereign’s service, and his estates will be given to his wife and children: and from those, collect duties from petitions, and not from quarters.

ABOUT THE POSAD PEOPLE

And there are 40 articles in it

7. And which Patriarchs, and rulers, and monasteries, and Boyars, and Okolnichi, and Duma and all ranks of people of the settlement, are established in cities on Sovereign posad lands, or on white places, on purchased and not purchased, or on livestock releases without The Sovereign decree: and those settlements, with all the people and lands, upon request, be taken into settlement without years and irrevocably, for this reason, do not build settlements on the Sovereign’s land, and do not buy the settlement’s land.

21. And those townspeople gave the daughters of their girls to free men for all sorts of people and do not take those free people as their wives into black settlements.

COURT ABOUT SLAVES

And there are 119 articles in it

1. Which children of the Boyars have been caught up, both in the analysis and in the service lists and in any of the Sovereign’s services have not appeared anywhere, and there are no local and patrimonial dachas behind them, and now they are in bondage in the Boyar courtyards, and they are beaten with their foreheads in the Boyar courtyards in last year, until the current Sovereign's decree: and those Boyar children will continue to be in the Boyar courtyards as before.

2. And ahead of time, the children of the Boyars, established and untrained, should not be taken into bondage by anyone, and in the Serfs, without the Sovereign’s named decree, they should not be subjected to bondage.

32. If they put two full, or two reports, on one slave, and whichever fortress is older, and give that slave to him upon investigation.

35. And whoever the slave betrays, he will run to another dominion, and after that he will emerge from that dominion into the Moscow state by himself: and he is a slave to the old Boyar according to the old serfdom, because he was on the run in another land, and was not completely captured.

80. And whoever in his house learns to commit lawlessness with a slave, with a wife, or with a girl, and has children with her, and that slave will instruct the Tsar to beat him with her forehead: and such wives and girls, and against whom they teach the Tsar to beat brow, send to Moscow to the Patriarch's yard

to the Patriarchal clerks, and in the cities to the Metropolitan and to the Archbishop's clerks, and order them to be sought by the bishop's court, and the decree to be issued to them according to the rule of the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers, and after the interrogation of both of their spiritual fathers.

92. And to whomever the fugitive person is ordered will be given into servitude as before: and the one to whom that fugitive person will be given will be firmly ordered so that he does not kill that fugitive man of his to death, or mutilate him, or starve him to death.

ABOUT ROBBERS AND TATI'S CASES

And there are 104 articles in it

1. Which robbers are robbing, and beating people, and stealing from tati in the Moscow district and in cities, in suburbs and in districts: and such robbery and murder and tati’s affairs are to be dealt with in the Robbery Order.

2. And those thieves steal and commit all sorts of murderous deeds in Moscow: and this is in charge of the Zemsky Dvor, but in the Robbery Prikaz they are not in charge of anything.

3. And in the cities, robberies and murderous and tatty cases are in charge of the provincial elders and the tselalnik according to orders from the Robbery Order, and the Voivods in the cities do not know anything about such cases. And where there are no provincial elders, and in those cities the provincial affairs are in charge of the governors and clerks.

8. And if people bring a thief or a robber into Guba, and those robbers or thieves go after those people, and their servants, and the peasants who bring them to Guba, say robbery, or theft, or some other kind of theft: and to that do not believe, so that all people would fearlessly bring theft into the lip.

9. And they will bring the taty, and they will bring one crime against him: and that taty will be tortured in other crimes and in murder, so that he will not be guilty of torture in other crimes and murder, but will say that he stole for the first time, but did not commit murder. : And for the first crime, beat that guy with a whip and cut off his left ear, and put him in prison for two years, and give his bellies to the plaintiff to howl, and take him to prison to send him in shackles to work on all sorts of products where the Sovereign indicates. And how will he serve two years in prison, and send him to the Ukrainian cities, where the Emperor will indicate, and order him to be in the Ukrainian cities, in what rank he will be useful, and give him a letter

Dyachey wrote that he served time in prison for his theft and was released from prison.

12. And they will bring the taty, and they will bring three or four or more thieves against him: they tortured that taty to death, although he did not commit murder, and give his bellies to the plaintiff to howl.

13. If the thief commits murder at the first robbery, he will be executed by death.

14 And the church thieves shall be executed by death without any mercy, and their bellies shall be handed over to the church thieves.

17. If the robber is caught in other robberies, he will be tortured for the same reasons in other robberies. Let him be guilty of only two robberies, and although he did not commit murder: for the other robberies, he will be executed by death, and his bellies will be given to the howl of the plaintiff.

18. And those robbers who confess to themselves during questioning and torture, that they were at the same robbery and during the same robbery committed murder, or burned the courtyards, or bread: and those robbers for the first robbery shall be executed by death.

DECREE FOR WHICH GUILTY THE DEATH PENALTY IS PERMITTED TO WHOM, AND FOR WHAT GUILTY THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT EXECUTED, BUT PUNISHMENT IS PERFORMED And it contains 26 articles

1. If any son or daughter commits capital murder against his father or mother, they will be executed by death without any mercy for paternal or maternal murder.

3. If a father or mother kills a son or daughter to death: for that they should be put in prison for a year, and after serving a year in prison, they should come to the Church of God, and at the Church of God they should declare their sin to all people out loud. , but the death of a father and mother cannot be executed for a son or daughter.

7. If someone kills a brother or sister to death himself, or at his behest, someone else kills them, and it is proven outright: and for that they themselves will all be executed by death.

9. And if someone’s man kills the one he serves to death, he himself will be executed by death without any mercy.

10. If someone, not fearing God, and not fearing the State’s disgrace and execution, inflicts a torturous abuse on someone, cuts off an arm, or a leg, or a nose, or an ear, or lips

he will circumcise or gouge out his eyes, but it will be found out about it: and for such an insult, do the same to him; Yes, he will take from his estates and from the bellies of the one against whom he commits such an outrage, he will cut off his hand, and fifty rubles for the hand, and he will cut off his leg, and fifty rubles for the leg; and for the nose, and for the ear, and for the lips, and for the eye, and the same for each, fifty rubles.

13. And those thieves create confusion among people, and with their thieves’ intentions they start plots against many people: and such thieves for such theft shall be executed by death.

14. If a wife commits capital murder to her husband, or feeds him with poison, and it is found out about this: she should be executed for that, live, dig into the ground and execute her with such an execution without any mercy, although the killed child will be the children or others close to the family They won’t want him to execute her, and they won’t give her mercy at all, and keep her in the ground until she dies.

15. And whichever woman is sentenced to death, and at that time she is pregnant: and that woman, until she gives birth, shall not be executed by death, but executed at the time when she gives birth, and until then keep her in prison : or for strong bailiffs so that she doesn’t leave.

16. If someone, with thieves in mind, comes to someone’s house, and wants to do something bad to the mistress’s house, or wants to take her away from that house somewhere, but the people will not protect her from such a thief, and will try to help repair those people who she will come, and after that such a deed of theirs will be discovered: and those thieves who come to someone else’s house with such intent, and who people help them with such theft, will all be executed by death.

19. If someone commits capital murder against someone, according to whose instruction, and it will be found out about this clearly: the one who taught capital murder, and the one who killed, both shall be executed by death.

21. If someone’s person kills someone to death, or injures someone in defense of the one he serves: do not blame that person, but blame the murder on the one he serves.

23. If someone poisons someone with a potion, and the one who is poisoned will die from that poison: therefore, whoever commits such an evil deed will be severely tortured;

and having tortured him, execute him by death.

24. And if the Busurman, by some kind of measures, force or deception, forces a Russian person to his Busurman faith, and according to his Busurman faith, he circumcises him, and it is found out straight about this: and that Busurman, upon investigation, will be executed, burned with fire without any mercy. And whoever he is a Russian person will bewilder: send that Russian person to the Patriarch, or another authority, and order him to issue a decree according to the rule of the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers.

25. And if someone, male or female, forgetting the fear of God and the Christian law, teaches to marry wives and girls for fornication, and it is found out about this: and for such a lawless and nasty deed, inflict cruel punishment on them, beat them with a whip.

26. If a woman teaches to live an immoral and filthy life, and in fornication she lives with someone else’s children and those children herself, or another who, at her command, destroys, and it is found out about this: both such lawless wives, and someone who, at her command, destroys her children will destroy, execute by death without any mercy, so that no matter what, others will not do such a lawless and nasty deed, and will cease from fornication.

Chapter XXIII ABOUT SAGITTARIUS And there are 3 articles in it

1. Streltsov in all cases, including robbery and red-handed theft, shall be judged and justice between them established in the Streltsy Prikaz. And therefore, the archers are charged fees for their claims in court cases, and that is written above this.

DECREE ON ATAMANES AND COSSACKS

And there are 2 articles in it

1. And on whom will the Atamans and Cossacks answer, or to whom will they answer: and in court and in all legal matters, issue a decree, both for fortresses and for investigation, to what extent it comes to that. And the Sovereign's duties on the guilty person should not be collected from twelve rubles, but if there is a claim in excess of twelve rubles, and from that claim the Sovereign's duties will be collected from the Atamans and from the Cossacks by decree. And for dishonor, the Ataman and the Cossack, whoever dishonors them in any way, will pay their monetary salaries, and those who receive food, and those for dishonor will be paid five rubles.

DECREE ON TINKS

And it contains 21 articles

1. Those who have their taverns cleaned out for the first time, or who smoke wine to sell: and for those for the first time the commandments are to be regulated at five rubles, and for the pituhs at half a half per person. And whoever’s food is suddenly washed out in a row: and on those people the commandments are to rule twice, ten rubles, and on the roosters, half a ruble per person, and the same people whose food is suddenly washed out in a row, beat the trader with a whip, and beat the roosters with batogs.

2. If anyone has a tavern selling drink and their pets are taken out for the third time: and on those commandments, impose twenty rubles per person, and on the pets, a ruble per person, and beat them with a whip, and put the sellers in prison, until the Sovereign decree.

8. And those people who are not ordered to keep drinks at their place without showing up, but they will keep the drink at their place without showing up, and that unseen drink will be taken away from them: and on those people, impose commandments of five rubles per person, and keep the drink on the Sovereign.

16. And those archers and walkers and all sorts of people with tobacco will be in the drive twice, or thrice: and those people will be tortured and not alone, and beaten with a whip on a goat, or at auction; and for many arrests, such people have their nostrils flogged and their noses cut, and after torture and punishment, they are exiled to distant cities, where the Sovereign will indicate that, no matter what, it is not common for others to do this.

17. And those innkeepers and tobacconists are caught by the traveling Heads, and the Boyar children, or from whom wine or tobacco is stolen in the courtyards, and those people where they are washed, the traveling Heads and the Boyar children will be given a ransom of five, or ten, or twenty, or thirty rubles. , or make sure that they are not taken with Korchemnoy and with unseen drink and tobacco to the New Quarter; and those traveling Heads and the Boyar children, having taken a ransom from them, will bring them to the New Quarter, and the payoffs will be announced: and they will not have a ransom from them either.

18. And those Golovs and Boyar children who go around, having taken a ransom, will release the innkeeper or tobacconist, but they will not be brought to the New Quarter, but it will be known about it in the New Quarter, and it will be found out about it straight away: those Golovs and the Boyar children will be tortured and inflict punishment, beat with a whip, and in the order they will not be in the future.

19. And whoever all sorts of people from innkeepers and tobacconists, and pitukhs from the Heads, and from the Boyar children will go to recapture: and with that breaker, upon inquiry and investigation, inflict punishment,

beat the whip on the goat at the auction; and beat others with batogs, so that, no matter what, it would not be common for others to do so.

20. And in the cities, the innkeeper and tobacconist carry out the same decree, as written above. This book was completed by the command of the Great Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, Autocrat of All Russia, in the third year of His powers preserved by God, and under His Sovereign's son, the Blessed Tsarevich and Grand Duke Dmitry Alekseevich, in the first year of his birth, the summer of 7157 Genvar on day 29.

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

Reasons for drawing up the Code

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

Preparation and adoption of the Code

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

Publication of the Code

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

Sources and contents of the Code

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

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

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

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

Chapter IV. About subscribers and who forge seals.

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

Chapter VI. On travel certificates to other states.

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

Chapter VIII. About the redemption of captives.

Chapter IX. About tolls and transportation and bridges.

Chapter X. About the trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The meaning of the Code

The Council Code became the most important event and stage in the history of Russian legislation. During the 17th century, it was repeatedly replenished with “new decree articles” (in 1669 - On tateb, robbery and murder cases, in 1676/1677 - On estates and estates, etc.) In the 18th century, attempts were made to create a new Code, for which Special Legislative Commissions were convened, which ended in vain. The Council Code played the role of a code of laws of Russia (with numerous additions and changes) for almost two centuries. Its text opened the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire, published in 1830. To a large extent, it was taken into account when developing the XV volume of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, which played the role of the criminal code, was published in 1845 and was called the “Code of Punishments”.

The adoption of the Council Code was one of the main achievements of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. The nobles and the elite of the merchants took advantage of the armed uprising of the urban lower classes and archers to present class demands to the government.” In petitions, the nobles demanded the payment of salaries and the abolition of “lesson years” for the search for fugitive peasants; visitors and merchants sought restrictions on the trade of foreigners. They also sought the confiscation of privileged urban settlements.

The demands of the nobles could be satisfied in each individual case, but the unrest led the ruling circles into confusion. It was necessary to solve the accumulated problems at once. Yielding to the harassment of the nobles and the top of the settlement, the government convened the Zemsky Sobor to develop a new code of law (code).

At the Zemsky Sobor on September 1, 1648, elected officials from 121 cities and districts arrived in Moscow. In first place in terms of the number of elected officials were provincial nobles (153 people) and townspeople (94 people). The “Conciliar Code” as a new set of laws was compiled by a special commission, discussed by the Zemsky Sobor and published in 1649 in the amount of 2 thousand copies. At that time this was an unheard of circulation.

The main documents on the basis of which the Code was compiled were the Code of Laws of 1550, royal decrees and the Lithuanian Statute. The 25 chapters in the Code were divided into articles. The introductory chapter to the “Code” established that “all ranks of people, from the highest to the lowest, should have equal judgment and punishment in all matters.” But in reality, the “Code” affirmed the class privileges of the nobles and the top of the posad world.

The “Code” confirmed the right of owners to transfer the estate by inheritance, provided that the new landowner will perform military service. Further growth of church land ownership was prohibited. The peasants were finally assigned to the landowners, and the “lesson summers” were abolished. The nobles had the right to search for runaway peasants for an unlimited time.

The “Code” forbade the feudal lords and clergy to establish their so-called white settlements in the cities, where their dependent people lived. Since they were engaged in trade and craft, they were required to have a townsman tax.

As we see, these “articles of the Code” satisfied the demands of the townspeople, who were looking for ways to ban white settlements, the population of which, unencumbered by the townsman tax, successfully competed with the taxation of black settlements. The liquidation of privately owned settlements strengthened the city.

The “Conciliar Code” became the main legislative code of Russia for almost two centuries. True, after some time many of his articles were canceled.

For the 17th century. it was a grandiose set of laws. Attempts to adopt a new “Code” were later made under Peter I and Catherine I, but both times were unsuccessful. The meaning of the Code was well understood by both contemporaries and descendants. The words spoken by Prince Yakov Dolgoruky to Peter the Great are very indicative: “Sire, in another you are thy father, in another you are worthy of more praise and thanksgiving. The main affairs of sovereigns are three: the first is internal violence and the main thing is justice; in this your father did more than you did.”

The fairness of such a high assessment will become clear if we remember that the legislative monument that surpassed the “Code” of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in completeness and legal elaboration - the “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire” in fifteen volumes, appeared only in 1832, under Nicholas I. And before This “Code” remained for 180 years the complete set of Russian laws.

Compared to its predecessor, the Code of Law of Ivan the Terrible (1550), the Council Code, in addition to criminal law, also includes state and civil law, thus being an incomparably more complete code. Much more impressive is its total volume - the text of the Code includes a total of 967 articles, divided into 25 chapters.

What is surprising is not only the completeness, but also the speed of adoption of the code. This entire extensive code was developed in a draft by a commission specially created by royal decree of Prince Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky, then, as already mentioned, discussed at the Zemsky Sobor specially convened for this purpose in 1648, corrected on many articles, and adopted on January 29.

The alarming atmosphere of life at that time predetermined the speed of adoption of the Code. Patriarch Nikon said that the council of 1648 “was not by will: for the sake of fear and civil strife from all black people, and not for the sake of true truth.”

There was another, internal reason that stimulated legislative activity in the middle of the 17th century. Since the time of the Code of Law of 1550, many private decrees have been adopted for various cases. Each such case was considered as a precedent for future court decisions, since it was not resolved in the old Code of Laws. Therefore, such decrees were collected in orders, each with its own type of activity, and then recorded in the “Ukazniki” books. These latter were guided by the clerks along with the Code of Law in administrative and judicial matters. Over the course of a hundred years, a great many legal provisions have accumulated, scattered under different orders, sometimes contradicting each other. This complicated the administration of the order and gave rise to a lot of abuses from which the petitioners suffered. It was necessary to have one code instead of a mass of separate laws.

But the reason for the adoption of the Code was not only the need to systematize and codify laws. Too much has changed and moved in Russian society after the Time of Troubles. Therefore, what was required was not a simple update, but a reform of legislation, bringing it into line with new living conditions. Petitions from different cities and classes directly asked the Zemsky Sobor about this.

Conciliar Code- a set of laws of the Russian kingdom, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1649 and in force 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 Lavrentyev)

✪ 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, the Russian state had a huge number of legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other.

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

Legislative work

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

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

Much attention was paid to procedural law.

Sources of the Code

• Decree books of orders - in them, from the moment of the emergence of a particular order, current legislation on specific issues was recorded.
• Sudebnik of 1497 and Sudebnik of 1550.
• - was used as an example of legal technique (formulation, construction of phrases, rubrication).
• The Helmsman's Book (Byzantine law)
  • Mosaic legislation (10 commandments)
  • Deuteronomy

Branches of law according to the Council Code

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

State law

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

Criminal law

The crime system looked like this:

Punishments and their purposes

The punishment system was as follows: death penalty (in 60 cases), corporal punishment, imprisonment, exile, dishonorable punishments, confiscation of property, removal from office, fines.

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

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

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

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

Civil law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Family relationships

The Code did not concern the area of ​​family law (which was under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court), the only provisions of the Council Code relating to family relations relate to criminal and property practices.

In relation to children, parents retained 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 at the same time the mother or father who killed the child was sentenced to a year in prison followed by repentance in church. Children, under the threat of punishment, were forbidden to complain about their parents, if, nevertheless, “whose son or daughter taught to beat the head about the court against the father or mother and they should not give trial against the father or mother for anything, and 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 neck in the ground.

With regard to state crimes, the code establishes that if “the wives and children of such traitors knew about their treason, they will be executed by death according to the same.”

In addition, the Code spoke about the possibility of a husband giving children or himself into bondage, but only together with his wife, established the amount of the fine for dishonor (insult) of a wife, and regulated issues of inheritance of spouses. For example, a wife had the right to return the dowry after the death of her husband. The Code abolishes the right of a surviving wife to lifelong ownership of the ancestral and venerable estates of her deceased husband. In addition, the husband's records of estates in favor of his wife, which provided her dowry, cease to exist. All this was replaced by the opportunity for the wife to receive 1/4 of the husband's movable property, while the wife was guaranteed the restoration of the dowry. After the publication of the Code, the husband received the right to 1/4 of his wife’s dowry after her death. If after the death of the husband there were common children, then the wife continued to manage all the husband’s property. Thus, the Council Code mainly touched only on the property side of the relationship between spouses, leaving the personal side without attention

Legal proceedings

The Code describes in detail the procedure “ court decisions"(both civil and criminal).

1. “Initiation” - filing a petition.
2. Summoning the defendant to court.
3. Arbitration is oral with the obligatory maintenance of a “court list”, that is, a protocol.

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

Procedural events aimed at obtaining evidence:

1. “Search” - consisted of questioning the population about the commission of a crime or about a specific (sought) person.
2. “Pravezh” - was carried out, as a rule, in relation to an insolvent debtor. The defendant was subjected to corporal punishment by caning. For example, for a debt of 100 rubles, they flogged for a month. If the debtor paid the debt or had guarantors, the right ceased.
3. “Search” - complex activities related to clarifying all the circumstances of the “sovereign’s” case or other particularly serious crimes. During the “search” it 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 changes were necessary in the field of legal relations, the following were added to the Council Code: new decree articles:

• In 1669, additional articles were adopted on “tate cases” (about thefts, robberies, robberies, etc.) due to an increase in the crime rate.
• 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 city deanery (on measures to combat crime).
• 1667 - New Trade Charter (on the protection of domestic producers and sellers from foreign competition).
• 1683 - Scribe order (on the rules for land surveying estates and estates, forests and wastelands).

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

Meaning

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

The Council Code became the first printed monument of Russian law. Before him, the publication of laws was limited to their announcement in marketplaces and in churches, which was usually specifically indicated in the documents themselves. The appearance of a printed law largely eliminated the possibility of abuses by governors and officials in charge of legal proceedings. The Council Code has no precedents in the history of Russian legislation. In terms of volume it can only be compared with Stoglav, but in terms of the wealth of legal material it surpasses it many times over.

When compared with Western Europe, it is clear that the Council Code is not the first collection of acts of this kind. One of the first was Casimir's Law Code of 1468, compiled by Grand Duke Casimir IV of Lithuania and developed later, in 1529, then a 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 is worth noting that the adoption of European codes was probably hampered by the abundance of the legal framework, which made it very difficult to systematize the available material into a single coherent, readable document. For example, the Prussian Code of 1794 contained 19,187 articles, making it overly long and unreadable. By comparison, the Napoleonic Code took 4 years to develop, contained 2,281 articles, and required the personal active participation of the emperor to push through its adoption. The cathedral code was developed within six months, numbered 968 articles, and was adopted with the aim of preventing the development of a series of urban riots in 1648 (started by the Salt Riot in Moscow) into a full-scale uprising like the uprising of Bolotnikov in 1606-1607 or Stepan Razin in 1670-1670. 1671.

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

Editions

• Cathedral Code of 1649: Text, comments / Ed. board: V. I. Buganov, M. P. Iroshnikov, A. G. Mankov (head of the editorial team), V. M. Paneyakh; Prep. text by L. I. Ivina; Comments by G. V. Abramovich, A. G. Mankov, B. N. Mironov, V. M. Paneyakh; Reviewers: Yu. G. Alekseev, A. L. Shapiro; , Leningrad. department - L.: Science, Leningrad. department, 1987. - 448 p. - (Legislative monuments of the Russian centralized state of the XV-XVII centuries). - 7500 copies.(in translation)

Notes

1. Vladimirsky-Budanov M. F. Review of the history of Russian law. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1995. - P. 235
2. Casual interpretation is an interpretation that is applied to a specific case. It is mandatory only for the persons in respect of whom it is given. Often it is the motivational part of a law enforcement act (court decisions, sentences). The casual interpretation cannot be extended to other similar cases.

The Council Code of 1649 contained an order that justice must be administered fairly. However, under the conditions of a feudal state, such a prescription was largely an empty declaration.

In the development of feudal legal proceedings and procedural law for the first half of the 17th century. characterized by the coexistence of adversarial (accusatory) and investigative (investigative) processes with a clear predominance of the second over the first. The growth of class struggle and the strengthening of the absolutist features of the monarchy brought to the fore the investigative process of the inquisition as the most effective means of suppressing popular uprisings and strengthening law and order and the interests of the ruling class. At the same time, there was a certain difference in the scope of application of both processes. The investigative one clearly dominated in political and criminal proceedings, and the adversarial one had predominance in civil cases. However, in the absence of a sufficiently definite distinction between criminal and civil law, criminal and civil proceedings, the specified division of the scope of application of adversarial and investigative processes should not be made absolute. Typically, disputes over sales and purchase agreements, loans, deposits, as well as insults, malfeasance, murders not committed for the purpose of robbery, including during legal proceedings, were considered according to the rules of the accusatory process.

Political crimes and the most serious criminal offenses (robbery, robbery, theft and related murders), as well as serf cases involving slaves, peasants, estates and estates were considered using the search process.

Judicial law in the Code constituted a special set of rules that regulated the organization of the court and process. Even more clearly than in the Code of Laws, here there was a differentiation into two forms of process: “trial” and “search”.

This is fully reflected in the Code of 1649. Chapter X, “On the Court,” is the largest, containing 287 articles, and deals with issues of judicial structure and legal proceedings. Legal norms are given in Chapter X not by branches of law, but by objects of offenses. Therefore, in the same article, and sometimes in a group of neighboring articles devoted to the same issue, the rules of substantive and procedural law, both criminal and civil, are combined.

Another important feature of the legal proceedings of that time was the lack of separation of the court from administrative bodies. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the judicial function was the most important task of the administration; This, one must assume, is the reason why judicial and procedural issues received detailed regulation in the legislation before the Code and in the Code.

All judiciary XVII century were divided into state church and patrimonial. Thus, the judicial system corresponded to the system of state authorities and administration. The Code does not apply to the patrimonial court, although it removes from its jurisdiction cases of theft and robbery and legitimizes certain norms of relations between feudal lords and peasants and slaves.

State judicial bodies consisted of three instances: 1) provincial, zemstvo institutions, local governors, 2) orders and 3) the court of the Boyar Duma and the Tsar. The trial of regimental commanders and judges under them over military people during the period of their service and regiments was also a type of state court. The Code, developing the establishment of the Code of Law of 1550, proclaimed: “The court of the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, judged by the boyars and the okolnichy and the Duma people and the deacon, and all the clerks, and judges...” (X, I). Here, in the form of listing ranks and positions, all categories of persons of the state apparatus involved in legal proceedings are named.

The most important central judicial link were orders, among which there were judicial (court, quarter orders) and orders with special jurisdiction (Zemsky, Local, Robbery, Kholopy).

The highest judicial and appellate authority in relation to orders was the Boyar Duma and the Tsar: “And controversial cases, which in the orders will not be able to be resolved, should be included from the orders in the report to the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, and to his sovereign boyars and devious and thoughtful people" (X, 2). This article, perhaps, contains another idea - the orders could be incompetent in considering some cases within the competence of the tsar and the Boyar Duma. A similar situation is provided for in relation to the local court in the person of the governor or provincial elder. Not being able to resolve the court case, they are obliged to send it to Moscow, to the order, and at the same time send guaranty notes to the plaintiff and defendant about their appearance in court. Otherwise, food, red tape and court fees were collected from them (X, 130, 131).

The Code regulated the work of judges, primarily in orders and in the field. The orders usually had several judges. At the head of some orders was a boyar, or a okolnichy, or a Duma man “with his comrades” - three or four people. The Code prescribed that court cases should be resolved collegiately (“everyone vopche”). In the absence of someone due to illness or other valid reason, the remaining judges decided cases independently (X, 23). For malicious evasion of appearing at the order “for many days,” the judge was subject to punishment “whatever the sovereign would indicate” (X, 24). On Sundays, major church holidays and namesake days, she did not consider any cases in orders, except for “the most necessary state affairs” (X, 25). The court decision was considered final and could only be reviewed by appeal to a higher authority. Therefore, add any documents to the court list - new witness statements, etc. - after the trial was not allowed. The judges were instructed “after the trial by their own invention in a court case, to no one, whether for friendship or unfriendship... to add or subtract anything...” (X, 21, 22). Following the Code of Law of 1550, the law provided for the possibility of a miscarriage of justice when a judge “judges his judgment... without cunning.” If this was confirmed, then the punishment that “the sovereign would specify” was determined against the judge, and the case was referred to “all the boyars” for consideration (X, 10). The Code allowed for the recusal of judges by parties on the grounds of kinship or bias towards one of the litigants, but not otherwise than before the trial. Such complaints were not taken into account after the trial (X, 3,4).

Judicial paperwork in orders, like any other, was carried out by clerks and clerks. “And the clerks will write down the court cases in the orders.” Corrections (blackening, scraping) and writing between the lines were prohibited. The clerk was obliged to put the matter “on the table for completion soon.” After the court decision, the parties “put their hands” to the records. Then the clerk copied the file in white, and the clerk, having checked the white copy, sealed it with his signature. The draft copy was also kept “for future reference.” It was forbidden to show the court case to the parties and remove it from the order. If the clerk did this on the level of any of the parties, the case was taken away from him and transferred to another clerk (X, II, 13). Clerks kept records of court cases and the collection of court fees in orders and books with the exact date of the hearing of the case. The books were sealed with the signatures of clerks (X, 128, 129). Such office work was used for less important criminal and civil cases, which were considered in an indictment process, i.e., a court, with the active participation of the parties. Civil cases of this kind included claims caused by violation of the terms of contracts of exchange, purchase and sale, loan, luggage-transactions that did not require approval by the serfs

in order.

Ch. X Code describes in detail various procedures “court”: the process split into the trial itself and “judgment”, i.e. passing a sentence, a decision. Anyone could be a party to the process: monks, serfs, minors; people accused of sedition and “composition” and perjury, as well as children against their parents, cannot be sought.

The mutual relationship of the parties before the trial (call) is determined by the agreement; but in concluding an agreement the authorities intervene much more decisively than in the ancient Russian process. Relations are established through “petition”, “added memory” and “urgent”: the first determines the boundaries of the disputed law, the second - which judge to go to; the third determines the deadline for appearance. The contractual relations of the parties were gradually removed by the state: thus, in the era of the Code, a call through an additional memory gave way to a call through a “call letter” (Code X, 100, etc.); the first was held only for Moscow and its immediate environs. The difference in the consequences of a summons through an added memory and a calling memory and a calling letter was that someone who did not appear in court on a summons of the first kind was immediately accused without trial; on the contrary, the 2nd and 3rd letters of invitation were sent to the person who did not appear on a summons of the second kind, but gave his own guarantee, and only after that the person who did not appear was accused without trial; if the defendant did not give bail, then the governor took him by force through the gunners and fighters. The contract is definitely sealed guarantee, bail can be given by force by order of the authorities (Code X, 117,140, ​​229). The necessary guarantors were neighbors and relatives who formed a mutual guarantee among themselves, which, however, disappeared during the era of the Code. The purpose of the bail was initially not only to present the defendant to court, but also to secure a claim in the event of his failure to appear; but only the first goal remained in the Code.

The parties may not appear in court in person; they were replaced by natural ones representatives- relatives and people (Code X, art. 108,109,149,156,157,185; cf. decree of the book of land regulations. V; XIII, 3 and 12); only in the absence of such are free representatives allowed, who for the most part were slaves (UK.KN.Ved.Treasury XX) and for whom a power of attorney was not required until 1690. The consequence of this was the nullity of the rights of attorneys and the easy possibility of restoring resolved cases.

At the trial itself, the parties file “bidding petitions.” The consequence of failure to appear on time for the defendant was the issuance of a “court-free letter”, i.e., the assertion of the right of the plaintiff as if the trial had taken place; The failure of the plaintiff to appear led to the termination of the claim. Those who appeared were not supposed to leave the place of trial under threat of the same consequences; in 1645 an exception was made from this for cases based on serfdom. (Ul. Book. Land Prik., Art. X, 1,3,4; XIII, 4, 5, II; XXXVII, and ХLVII; Code, X, 108, 109, 149, 185; ХVI, 59; ХVIII , 22-23; XX, III, 119).

Relations of the parties to the court: the parties have only a negative influence on the composition of the court (through challenge of judges). In the era of the Code, the passive role of the judge in the process is becoming increasingly active.

Proof, which were used and taken into account by the court in the adversarial process, were diverse - witness testimony (practice required the involvement of at least ten witnesses in the process), written evidence (the most confidential of them were officially certified documents).

1.Obedience takes the following forms in the Moscow process:

a) Reference from the guilty, when a party refers to one witness with the condition of submitting to the accusation if the witness testifies against the referenced one. The exile of the guilty was of unconditional importance for both sides before the era of judicial officers because then there was still a field to which the opposing side could call attention. Its always secondary significance is an accusation of the side that referred to it. The unconditional value of the link, after the field is destroyed, is recognized in the following cases: when one party refers to the father or mother of the other, when referring to several persons (at least 10) servicemen (for a claim up to 50 rubles) and the rest (for a claim up to 20 rubles .), if these persons show unanimously (Ukr. book of the departmental treasury, art. V, 9; Code X, 158-159, 160, 176).

b) “General reference” - the remainder of the arbitration resolution of disputes - is a reference by both parties to the same person or to the same rumors. However, the law limits the right of the parties to choose third parties: you cannot refer to people who heard about the fact but did not see it; The general reference cannot be a person dependent on one of the parties.

c) Witnesses could be adults; a wife could not be a witness against her husband, children against their parents, slaves against their masters. A witness from the higher classes was preferred to a witness from the lower classes: “the testimony of one person from the noble class (says Herberstein) means more than the testimony of many people of low status” (trans. Anonymous, p. 84). The attendance of a witness is mandatory; the entire claim, damages and fees will be collected from those who fail to appear without a good reason (Court. Tsar., Art. 18; Ac. Legal., No. 13).

G) Whole search in judicial grandfathers is allowed in the absence of a general (name) reference or reference from the guilty (cit. book. Ved. Exchequer., V, 1, 3-6; st. book. div. app. VI). A general search consisted of questioning devious people (not witnesses) about the identity of the suspect or accused; they gave an assessment of personality (good or bad person, criminal or not). This was of particular importance when recognizing the suspect as a well-known dashing person, that is, the most dangerous criminal who systematically committed crimes. A rule was established under which the data of a general search had specific legal consequences. If the majority of respondents recognized the person as a known dashing person, then no additional evidence was required. He was subject to life imprisonment. If, under the same conditions, a qualified majority (two-thirds) expressed this opinion, then the death penalty was applied.

2. Judgments of God, surviving in the Moscow period, are as follows:

A) Field in the era of Code of Laws it was still commonly used; it occurs between the plaintiff and the defendant, the hearing and the party, and between the hearings of one party when they are different. The parties must have attorneys and guarantors, who, along with outsiders, refuse to participate in the battle; equality of the parties is now observed physically. Hiring (Judge Tsar., 13 and 14) is allowed in the same way as in the Pskov Judgment Charter. The field is allowed only in personal claims: battle, loan deed, burning, murder, robbery, theft (Court. 1st, 4-7, 69; Court. Tsar., 13-14; criminal code. Ved. treasury, V, 15). The field disappears unnoticed at the beginning of the 17th century.

b) Cross kiss, i.e., the oath of the parties, is allowed in claims exceeding 1 ruble, for persons of adult age and who have kissed the cross no more than twice in their life. Its auxiliary value in the field is the same as in the ancient process; the eye gradually replaces the field. The right to take the oath is decided by lot (Ukr. book. Prik. serf, court, art. X; Dec. book. zem. prik. X, 6; XII, 12, XXXI, 4; Code: XIV).

V) "Lot", in addition to the auxiliary (mentioned above) significance, in the era of the Code it receives independence in cases of less than a ruble and in claims against spiritual persons.

3. Written acts in the era of the Code, only serfs have unconditional importance; in the era of the Code, they could be rejected only if the opposing party was criminally accused of forcibly extorting an act or forgery (street book. zem. pr., XXIV; Code, X, 246-247).

Judgment: The Power of Court Decisions. Previously, in the absence of written records in the personal interest of judges in the process, there was an easy possibility of restoring decided cases. The Code prohibits, under pain of punishment with batogs and payment of “waste” and red tape, the repetition of a claim, if it is the same claim, against the same person; in claims in rem, the change of natural persons of the subjects of rights, for example, bishops and abbots in church estates, landowners and patrimonies in private ones, is not recognized as a circumstance allowing the restoration of a settled case. Cases resolved by a peace deal require a record of this so as not to start them again (Ulozh., X, 154; XV, 1-5). From the very beginning of the Moscow state, the court decision took the form of a “legal charter”.

Concerning method of execution of court decisions, then all personal claims are addressed to the person. Hence, “pravezh”, the defendant (most often an insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to corporal punishment by the court - he was beaten with rods on his bare calves. The number of such procedures should have been equivalent to the amount of debt (for a debt of one hundred rubles, flogging for a month): here the archaic principle of replacing property liability with personal responsibility clearly sounds. “Pravezh” was not just a punishment - it was a measure to encourage the defendant to fulfill an obligation (he could have guarantors or he himself could decide to pay the debt).

Since the time of the Code, foreclosure has gradually extended to real estate: to empty estates, from 1656 - to empty estates, and since 1685 - to all kinds of property (Court. Tsar., Art. 55; Est. Important Gr.; Criminal Code . book of land pr., X, 7-8; uk. led. treasury art., III, XII and XVI).

Search, or "detective" used in the most serious criminal cases. Special place and attention were given to crimes that were declared: “The word and deed of the sovereign,” i.e., in which the state interest was affected. In a wanted case, the plaintiff is the state; this beginning is developing gradually: through the prohibition of lynching (Constitutional book, section, order 66; Code XXI, 79), imposing on communities the obligation to search for criminals and a large general search; prohibition of peace in criminal cases and the obligation of a private person to continue the initiated (criminal) lawsuit (Constitutional book. dis. bylaw. Article 41: Criminal book. land pr., art. IV). In the search, the relationship of the parties before the trial is no longer contractual: instead of bailiffs, they use “records”, “calling letters”, an order to arrest and bring the accused and “running letters” - an order to local authorities and neighbors to catch the accused. One of the characteristic differences of ancient Russian law is the widespread development of surety instead of arrest; Usually the guarantors were relatives and members of the same community (see Sud. 1=th, art. 34-36; Gubi. Belg. gr.; Sud., tsar., 53,54, 70; Ort. Important gram. Ort. book, partition, appendix, article 4 and V). The case in the search process could begin with a statement from the victim, with the discovery of a crime (red-handed) or with an ordinary slander, anyway, up to this point no one will read this work, so you are a teacher and you, who downloaded very bad people an accusation not supported by facts (“linguistic rumor”). After this, government agencies got involved. The victim submitted a “appearance” (statement), and the bailiff and witnesses went to the scene of the incident to conduct an inquiry. The procedural action was a “search,” i.e., interrogation of all suspects and witnesses.

Own confession and torture. Before the legalization of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, one’s own confession was not a necessary and the last method of judicial evidence in a search (stat. book. raz. pr. art. 9; cf. art. 6), although the coercion of one’s own vocation by torture began already in the first period. From the time of the decree of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, torture became the main means of search and was practiced in various forms (mainly in the form of a “rack”) until the time of Catherine II.

In ch. XXI Council Code, for the first time, such a procedural procedure as torture is regulated. The basis for its use could be the results of a “search” when the testimony was divided: part in favor of the suspect, part against him. If the results of the “search” were favorable for the suspect, he could be taken on bail, that is, released under the responsibility (personal and property) of his guarantors.

Application torture regulated: it could be used no more than three times with a certain break. Testimony given during torture (“slander”) had to be cross-checked through other procedural measures (interrogation, oath, “search”). The testimony of the tortured person was recorded.

In cases of religious and state crimes, torture was applied to all suspects (in the presence of denunciations or slander), regardless of class affiliation. As for other matters, here representatives of the ruling class had privileges. Torture in these cases was rarely used against them and only after the results of a general search were unfavorable for them.

Search tools: A) red-handed, which is valid only when the thing is taken out from the accused from behind the lock (st. Beloz. Gr., art. 11; st. book razb. pr., 21-23; Code, XXI, 50-57) . The ancient unconditional significance of red-handedness is gradually falling.

b) Whole search there is a remnant of the ancient right of communities to participate in court; There is an opinion according to which the search arises from the duty of communities to catch criminals (information about the general search is presented above on p. 15 "Forensic Evidence").

The verdict and its execution. During the search, indecisive verdicts are possible, precisely when there is contradiction in evidence, and then always in the absence of one’s own confession; if there is no personal confession, but the search “deprives” the accused, then the latter, instead of the execution that follows, is imprisoned for life (Constitution of the book, part. pr. 12); if the search is approved, then the accused is given a clean bail with a note “that he will not steal or break in the future” (Code XXI, 29, 36, etc.).

Sentences in search cases are carried out by the state itself. In relation to criminal cases, the right of the state and the punishment of the criminal gradually triumphs over the right of private plaintiffs (victims) to compensation.

8. The role of the Council Code of 1649

in the development of feudal law

In feudal society, law in its development goes through three stages: relatively unified law, particular and unified law. Each of these phases corresponds to a certain level of development of production relations and the political superstructure. The stage of unified law arises in the process of formation of a single state. In Russia it was marked by the emergence of unified codes of national law - Sudebnikov 497, 1550. and-as the pinnacle of the process-Code of 1649

The Code arose at a time of significant legislative activity of the tsarist government, coming from the second to fifth decades of the 17th century. The Code of 1649 is a qualitatively new code in the history of feudal law in Russia, the significance of which lies primarily in the further development of the system of feudal legislation. It presents the law that expresses the crown interests of the ruling class and regulates, on a national scale, many processes in the socio-economic, political and legal spheres of feudal Russia. Thus, the remnants of particularism characteristic of the previous period were largely overcome. The predominant form of law became the law, which to a significant extent supplanted and subjugated common law.

Another aspect of the universality of the law is expressed in the words of the preface to the Code: “. . . to. . . court and punishment were equal to everyone in all matters,” which should be understood as universal submission to the state court and law. The law was not the same for all classes. Right-privilege for the feudal class remains the dominant principle of the Code.

It was impossible to implement the principles of territorial estate-based community of law in the period before the Code in the conditions of limited scope of written laws, expressed mainly in the form of numerous decrees emanating from different authorities. The introduction of a unified and printed code of laws not only met the increased tasks of feudal statehood, but also made it possible to unify and orderly the feudal judicial system and legal proceedings throughout the country. What was said concerned all spheres of social life in feudal Russia, starting from land ownership and the legal status of classes and ending with the political and legal superstructure.

The Council Code contributed to the expansion and strengthening of the social base of the feudal system of Russia. To the extent that the Code opened up access for estates to estates, it looked forward; to the extent that it limited this process and guaranteed the legal integrity of the estate, the Code reflected current needs dictated by the domestic and foreign political situation of the first half of the 17th century. In general, the Code of 1649 served as a major milestone in the development of feudal patrimonial and local law in the direction of strengthening feudal rights to land and creating a unified right of feudal land ownership.

The Code legitimized a whole system of documentary grounds for serfdom and the search for runaway peasants. At the same time, recognition of the economic connection between feudal ownership and peasant farming was expressed in the protection by law of the property and life of the peasant from the tyranny of the feudal lord.

In civil cases concerning personal property rights and in criminal cases, peasants remained the subject of law. A peasant could participate in the process as a witness, or be a participant in a general search. Thus. The Code of 1049, having completed the legal formalization of serfdom, at the same time sought to lock the peasantry within class boundaries, prohibited the transition to other classes, and, to some extent, legally protected the feudal lords from the willfulness. This ensured for that time a stable balance and functioning of the entire feudal-serf system.

The Code of 1649 includes an extensive set of laws of slave law, which constitutes the most important part of the law of feudal Russia. The Code reflected the completion of the process of withering away of the previous categories of servitude and their displacement by indentured servitude. And this latter, being also doomed to die out in the relatively near future, in the 17th century. continued to be a means of mobilizing the free elements of society by the feudal system. At the same time, the code of serf law was created at a time when serfdom had already taken a noticeable step towards merging with the serf peasantry. And yet, the dominant line of the Code remained to consolidate the slave class, to strengthen its class framework in the era of the greatest consolidation of the main classes-estates of feudal society. This determined the isolated position of indentured servants, who continued to play an important role in the social structure of society.

The Code consolidated the rights and privileges of the ruling class of feudal lords under the auspices of the nobility. The interests of the nobility played an important role in the formation of many laws regarding land ownership, peasantry, and legal proceedings. Even V. O. Klyuchevsky noted that in the Code “the main attention is paid to the nobility, as

the dominant military service and landowning class: almost half of all articles of the Code directly or indirectly concern its interests and relations. Here, as in its other parts, the Code tries to stay grounded in reality.”

The Code of 1649, for the first time in the history of Russian legislation, gave the most complete expression of the status of the tsar's power in the conditions of the transition from an estate-representative monarchy to absolutism. The code reveals the composition of the state apparatus centrally (the Tsar, the Boyar Duma, orders) and locally (voivodeship administration, provincial elders and their apparatus). The rules governing the activities of central institutions are presented mainly in terms of legal proceedings.

The Code shows that the feudal state, although the main, decisive, but not the only element of the political organization of feudal society. The church plays an important role, which is given a separate chapter, placed in first place. In the interests of strengthening the royal power, the Code undermined the economic power of the church, depriving it of the legal opportunity to increase land holdings, have settlements and trade and trade establishments in cities. The creation of the Monastic Order limited the privileges of the church in the field of administration and court. This reform was not consistent. Land holdings and his own court remained in the hands of the patriarch, which, however, was subordinate to the tsar and the Boyar Duma. At the same time, the Code placed under the protection of the law the doctrine of the church and the established order of service in it, seeing in their weakening a decline in the authority of the church and its influence on the masses.

In the sphere of local government, the Code reflected the leading position of the bureaucratic links of the voivodeship power, but at the same time showed that the grassroots apparatus was not yet completely divorced from the population and used institutions and customs characteristic of the communal system.

The presence in the political organization of Russia in the mid-17th century. elements that did not formally belong to the organs of the state apparatus did not contradict the fact that the leading force was the feudal state. Hence, the concepts of state sovereignty, state security, citizenship and military duty received legal formalization in the Code. For the first time in the history of Russian legislation, a systematic description of state crimes is given and the process for them is defined.

In the Code, issues of substantive and procedural law and legal proceedings have received significant development. There is a noticeable desire to improve the judicial-administrative system, to protect it from abuses on the part of the voivodeship and judicial apparatus and to ensure that court cases are resolved in accordance with the law.

The Code enshrines that stage of development of the law of obligations at which the obligations arising from contracts extended not to the person himself, but to his property. If it was impossible to pay off the debt, it was worked off (“paying back with your head until redemption”) at the established time price. The class nature of law also came into play here: peasants and slaves were responsible for the obligations of their masters.

The Code provided for a broad practice of contractual relations, which were sealed by officially authorized acts (deposit agreements, work contracts and easement law).

Family law according to the Code combined elements of civil and criminal law. It was based on property relations. There was an expansion of the inheritance rights of women (widows, daughters, sisters). A number of family crimes are regulated for the first time by secular legislation (for example, crimes of children against parents). In general, the Code established the unlimited rights of parents in relation to children, and of husbands in relation to their wives.

To develop norms of criminal law in the first half of the 22nd century. influenced by the strengthening of the class struggle associated with the events of the early 17th century. and the uprisings of 1648

For the first time in the history of Russian legislation, a classification of crimes was given (anti-state, against the church, criminal and civil offenses). In terms of the taxonomy of crimes and their legal qualifications, the relevant sections of the Code are an undoubted step forward in comparison with the judicial books and decree books of the Robbery Order.

The imputation of guilt was further developed. The Code consolidated the concepts of intent, negligence, and accident that arose in the legislation of the previous period, although there was still no clear distinction between them. The circumstances influencing the determination of the degree of guilt or its elimination were highlighted - necessary defense, extreme necessity. However, the use of self-defense and its consequences were not linked to the degree of danger. Repeated crime was considered an aggravating circumstance. We received a more detailed treatment of the issues of complicity in a crime than in the legal codes. The main culprit was singled out from accomplices, connivers, concealers and non-informers. Finally, in contrast to the early stages of the development of Russian law, criminal liability now fell on all layers of society, albeit on the basis of the principle of right-privilege. The situation was finally consolidated when state bodies were entrusted with the obligation to punish criminals regardless of the complaints of the victims.

Conclusion

The adoption of the Council Code of 1649 was a significant step forward compared to previous legislation. This law regulated not individual groups of social relations, but all aspects of socio-political life of that time. In this regard, the Council Code of 1649 reflected the legal norms of various branches of law. The system for presenting these norms, however, was not clear enough. The norms of different branches of law were often combined in the same chapter.

The Council Code of 1649 differs in many respects from the legislative monuments that preceded it. Law books of the XV-XVI centuries. were a set of decisions of a predominantly procedural nature.

The Code of 1649 significantly surpasses previous monuments of Russian law, primarily in its content, the breadth of coverage of various aspects of the reality of that time - the economy, forms of land ownership, class system, the position of dependent and independent layers of the population, the state-political system, legal proceedings, material, procedural and criminal law.

The second difference is structural. The Code provides a fairly definite taxonomy of legal norms on subjects, which are arranged in such a way that they can easily be combined by types of law - state military, legal status of certain categories of the population, local and patrimonial, legal proceedings, civil offenses and criminal offenses.

The third difference, as a direct consequence of the first two, is the immeasurably large volume of the Code in comparison with other monuments. Finally, the Code plays a special role in the development of Russian law in general. Both the Russian Truth and the codes of law ceased to exist, having had a rather modest influence on the Code in comparison with its other sources (for example, decree books of orders). The Code as a current code, although supplemented by many new regulations, existed for over two hundred years.

List of used literature:

1. Reader on the history of state and law of the USSR. Pre-October period. – M., 1990.

2. Monuments of Russian law, V. - M., 1959.

3. Law books of the XV-XVI centuries. M.-L., 1952.

4. Mankov A.G. The Code of 1649 is the code of feudal law of Russia. – L., 1980.

5. Tikhomirov M.N., Elifanov P.P. Cathedral Code of 1649 - M., 1961.

6. Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law. – Rostov-on-Don, 1995.

7. Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia. – M., 1996.

8. Karganov V. Cathedral Code // Man and Law, 1979, No. 11.

Tikhomirov M.N., Elifanov P.P. Cathedral Code of 1649. – M., 1961, p.7.

Mankov A.G. The Code of 1649 is a code of feudal law. – L., 1980, p. 11,12.

Tikhomirov M.N., Elifanov P.P. Cathedral Code of 1649. – M., 1961, p.22.

Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law. – Rostov-on-Don, 1995, p206.

Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia. – M., 1996, p. 73.

Mankov A.G. The Code of 1649 is a code of feudal law. – L., 1980, p. 24.25.

Mankov A.G. The Code of 1649 is a code of feudal law. – L., 1980, p. 28.

Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia. – M., 1996, p. 73, 74.

Tikhomirov M.N., Elifanov P.P. Cathedral Code of 1649. – M., 1961, p. 30, 31.

Mankov A.G. The Code of 1649 is a code of feudal law. – L., 1980, p. 34.

Monuments of Russian law, V. – M., 1959, p. 98.

Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law. – Rostov-on-Don, 1995, p. 212, 213.

Tikhomirov M.N., Elifanov P.P. Cathedral Code of 1649. – M., 1961, p.42, 43.

Karganov V. Cathedral Code // Man and Law, 1979, No. 11, p. 16,17.

Mankov A.G. The Code of 1649 is a code of feudal law. – L., 1980, p. 37-41.

Karganov V. Cathedral Code // Man and Law, 1979, No. 11, p. 16.

Vladimirsky-Budanov M.F. Review of the history of Russian law. – Rostov-on-Don, 1995, p. 205.

Tikhomirov M.N., Elifanov P.P. Cathedral Code of 1649. – M., 1961, p. 5-7.

Mankov A.G. The Code of 1649 is a code of feudal law. – L., 1980, p. 154.

Karganov V. Cathedral Code // Man and Law, 1979, No. 11, p. 18,19.

Related information.