Adoption of the cathedral code of centuries. Reasons and prerequisites for the creation of the cathedral code

On January 29 (February 8), 1649, the Zemsky Sobor adopted a new set of laws of the Russian state - the Council Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

The appearance of this document at the very beginning of the reign of the second tsar of the Romanov family was associated with a serious socio-political and socio-economic crisis, as a result of which a wave of popular uprisings swept across the country. The legal system that existed in Russia did not suit not only the peasants, townspeople and ordinary archers, but also the nobility, who sought to expand and legislate their rights and privileges.

In June 1648, Moscow nobles and the upper ranks of the posad turned to the tsar with a request to convene a Zemsky Sobor to discuss the accumulated problems. Based on the joint decision of the tsar, the highest clergy and the Boyar Duma, a commission of 5 people was organized under the leadership of Prince N.I. Odoevsky, which included boyar S.V. Prozorovsky, okolnichy prince F. F. Volkonsky and clerks G. Leontiev and F. A. Griboyedov.

The commission had to harmonize with each other all existing regulations and, supplementing them with new regulations, combine them into one code. The Code was based on decree books of orders, Moscow codes of law, boyar sentences, collective petitions, extracts from the Lithuanian statute of 1588, the Kormchaya Book, which contained the codes and laws of the Greek kings, decrees of ecumenical and local church councils.

The text of the Code was submitted for discussion and approval to the Zemsky Sobor, specially convened for this purpose, which began work on 1(11) September 1648 The Tsar, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral met separately from the elected representatives of the estates, led by Prince Yu. A. Dolgoruky. During the discussion, the draft document underwent significant revision, resulting in 82 new articles appearing in the final version.

Divided into 25 chapters, the 967 articles of the new code of laws, in contrast to similar documents of the previous period, contained norms not only of procedural law, but also of state, civil, administrative and criminal law. The Code for the first time determined the status of the head of state, the procedure for civil service, and the types of state and criminal crimes. The greatest attention was paid to issues of legal proceedings.

The Code finally established serfdom in the country, abolishing the “fixed summer” and declaring the search for fugitive peasants indefinite. The eternal hereditary dependence of the peasant was established, and his property was recognized as the property of the landowner.

The entire posad population was attached to the posads and transferred to the category of tax-paying estates, but received as a privilege the exclusive right to engage in commercial and industrial activities.

The Code seriously limited the rights of the clergy, who, with the exception of the patriarch and his employees, were henceforth subject to trial on a general basis and could not acquire estates. To manage the former estates of monasteries and clergy, a Monastic Order was established.

In the interests of the serving nobility, the document equalized estates and estates, allowing landowners to own and dispose of land allocated for service.

The adoption of the Code was one of the main achievements of the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. It remained the fundamental law of the Russian state until 1830.

Lit.: Maslov K. A. Cathedral Code: materials for a seminar on the history of state and law of Russia [Electronic resource] // Website of students and graduates of the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg State University. 2001-2011. URL: http://www .law -students .net /modules .php ?name =Content &pa =showpage &pid =333 ; Cathedral Code of 1649. L., 1987;

The need to create the Council Code of 1649

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

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

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

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

However, the treasury remains empty and the government begins to deprive the archers, gunners, city Cossacks and minor officials of their salaries, and introduces a ruinous tax on salt. Many townspeople begin to move to “white places” (the lands of large feudal lords and monasteries, exempt from state taxes), while the exploitation of the rest of the population increases.

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

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

Following Moscow, in the summer of 1648, a struggle between townspeople and small service people unfolded in Kozlov, Kursk, Voronezh, Narym, Tomsk and other cities of the country.

Practically, throughout the entire reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676), the country was gripped by small and large uprisings of the urban population. It was necessary to strengthen the country's legislative power. This prompted the start of a new complete codification.

Development and adoption of the Code

On July 16, 1648, the tsar and the Duma, together with the council of clergy, decided to harmonize with each other all the sources of existing law and, supplementing them with new decrees, bring them into one code. The draft code was then commissioned to be drawn up by a commission of boyars: Prince. I. I. Odoevsky, book. Sem. V. Prozorovsky, okolnichy prince. F. F. Volkonsky and clerks G. Leontyev and F. Griboyedov (the latter were the most educated people of their century). At the same time, it was decided to convene the Zemsky Sobor for consideration and approval of this project by September 1. The active participation of the council in the drafting and approval of the Code is beyond doubt. In particular, on October 30, 1648, a petition was submitted from nobles and townspeople for the destruction of private boyar church settlements and arable lands around Moscow and other cities, as well as for the return to the cities of taxable city property inside the cities that had passed to the same boyars and monasteries; the proposal of the elected officials was accepted and included in the XIX chapter. Code. Around the same time, “elected from the whole earth” asked for the return to the treasury and distribution to serving persons of church property incorrectly acquired by the church after 1580, when any new acquisition was already prohibited to it; the law in this sense was introduced in Chapter XVII. Code (Article 42). In the same way, the secular elected officials, not finding a remedy for the grievances of the clergy, asked that the claims against them be subordinated to state institutions; In satisfaction of this petition, Chapter XIII arose. Code (on the monastic order). But the main role of the council was to approve the entire Code. The discussion of the Code was completed the following year, 1649. The original scroll of the Code, found by order of Catherine II by Miller, is now kept in Moscow. The Code is the first of Russian laws, published immediately after its approval.

If the immediate reason for the creation of the Council Code of 1649 was the uprising in 1648 in Moscow and the aggravation of class and estate contradictions, then the underlying reasons lay in the evolution of the social and political system of Russia, and the processes of consolidation of the main classes - estates of that time - peasants, serfs, townspeople and nobles - and the beginning of the transition from an estate-representative monarchy to absolutism. These processes were accompanied by a noticeable increase in legislative activity, the desire of the legislator to subject to legal regulation as many aspects and phenomena of social and state life as possible.

The intensive growth in the number of decrees for the period from the Code of Laws of 1550 to the Code of 1649 is visible from the following data: - 1550-1600. - 80 decrees; - 1601-1610 -17; - 1611-1620 - 97; - 1621-1630 - 90; - 1631-1640 - 98; - 1641-1948 - 63 decrees. In total for 1611-1648. - 348, and for 1550-1648. - 445 decrees.

The main reason for the adoption of the Council Code was the intensification of the class struggle. The Tsar and the top of the ruling class, frightened by the uprising of the townspeople, sought, in order to calm the masses of the people, to create the appearance of easing the situation of the tax-laden townspeople. In addition, the decision to change the legislation was influenced by petitions from the nobility, which contained demands for the abolition of school years.

Sources of the Council Code of 1649

The Council Code was compiled hastily, somehow, and retained traces of this haste. Without immersing itself in the study of all the ordered material, the commission limited itself to the main sources indicated to it in the verdict on July 16, 1648.

The sources of the Code were partly indicated by the legislator when appointing the editorial commission, and partly taken by the editors themselves. This:

3.1 The Tsar’s Code of Law and Decree Orders; the first is one of the sources of Chapter X. Code - “about the court”, which, in addition, in all likelihood, drew the order from these books. These books each served as sources for the corresponding chapter of the Code.

3.2 Greco-Roman sources of the Code were taken from the helmsmen, namely from the Eclogue, Prochiron, the short stories of Justinian and the rules of Basil V. Of these, the more abundant source was Prochiron (for chapters Ud. X, XVII and XXII); the short stories served as the source for Chapter 1. St. (“about blasphemers”). In general, borrowings from helmsmen are few and fragmentary and sometimes contradict regulations taken from Russian sources on the same subject and included in the same Code (cf. Ul. XIV Ch., Art. 10 Ch. XI, Art. 27). Many features of the cruelty of criminal law penetrated into the Code from the helmsmen.

3.3 The most important source of the Code was the Lithuanian Statute of the 3rd edition (1588). Borrowings from the statute were canceled (but not all) on the original scroll of the Code. The path for borrowing was made easier by the fact that already earlier (as has already been said) clerks took and translated some suitable articles from the statute. The method of borrowing is varied: sometimes the content of the statute is borrowed literally; sometimes only the system and order of objects is taken; sometimes only the subject of the law is borrowed, and a solution is given; For the most part, the Code splits one article into several articles. Borrowings from the statute sometimes introduce errors into the Code against the system and even the reasonableness of the legislation. But in general, the statute as a monument of Russian law, very similar to the Russian Pravda, can be recognized as almost a local source of the Code. Despite so many borrowings from foreign sources. The Code is not a compilation of foreign law, but a completely national code, which has processed foreign material in the spirit of Old Moscow law, which makes it completely different from the translated laws of the 17th century.

3.4 As for new articles in the Code, there are probably few of them; one must think that the commission (before the council) itself did not draw up new legislation (except for borrowings).

The Council Code determined the status of the head of state - the tsar, autocratic and hereditary monarch. His approval (election) at the Zemsky Sobor did not shake the established principles; on the contrary, it justified and legitimized them. Criminal intent (not to mention actions) directed against the person of the monarch was severely punished.

The Code contained a set of norms that regulated the most important branches of public administration. These norms can be conditionally classified as administrative. Attaching peasants to the land (Chapter XI, “The Court of Peasants”), the townsman reform, which changed the position of the “white settlements” (Chapter XIX), changing the status of patrimony and estate in the new conditions (Chapters XVI, XVII), regulation of the work of authorities local self-government (Chapter XXI), entry and exit regime (Chapter VI) - all these measures formed the basis of administrative and police reforms

The Code begins with a preface, which states that it was drawn up “by the sovereign’s decree by the general council, so that the Moscow state of all ranks of people, from the highest to the lowest rank, judgment and punishment in all matters would be equal to the great royal affairs of the zemstvo.” On October 3, 1649, the Tsar, together with the Duma and the clergy, listened to the Code; it was “read” to the elected people. From the list of the Code there was “a list into a book, word for word, and from that book this book was printed.”

The Council Code consisted of 25 chapters, which included 967 articles. In this large-scale monument of feudal law, the legal norms that were in force earlier were systematized at a higher level of legal technology. In addition, there were new legal norms that appeared mainly under pressure from the nobility and black-tax settlements. For convenience, the chapters are preceded by a detailed table of contents indicating the contents of the chapters and articles. The system is quite chaotic, adopted by the Code; in the 1st part of the code it copies the system of the statute. The first chapter of the Code (“on blasphemers and church rebels”) considers cases of crimes against the church (9 articles), in which “blasphemy” against God is punishable by death and against the Mother of God by imprisonment - disorderly behavior in the church. Chapter two (“about the sovereign’s honor and how to protect his sovereign’s health,” Article 22) talks about crimes against the tsar and his authorities, calling them “treason.” Adjacent to it is chapter three (“about the sovereign’s courtyard, so that in the sovereign’s courtyard there is no disorder or abuse from anyone,” 9 articles) with strict punishments for carrying weapons in the courtyard and so on.

Chapter four ("about the money-makers and those who forge seals", 4 articles) talks about forgery of documents and seals, chapter five (2 articles) - "about money masters who learn to make thieves' money." Chapter six (6 articles) reports “on travel documents to other states.” The following chapters are closely related to them in content: the seventh ("on the service of all military men of the Moscow State", 32 articles) and the eighth ("on the redemption of prisoners", 7 articles).

The ninth chapter talks about “tollhouses and transportation and bridges” (20 articles). Actually, from the tenth chapter (“on the court”, 277 articles) the most important decrees of the Code begin. Adjacent to this article is Chapter 11 (“the court of peasants”, 34 articles), Chapter 12 (“about the court of patriarchal orders, and all kinds of courtyard people, and peasants”, 3 articles), Chapter 13 (“about the monastic order”, 7 articles ), chapter 14 (“about kissing the cross,” 10 articles), chapter 15 “about accomplished deeds,” 5 articles).

Chapter 16 (“about estate lands”, 69 articles) is united by a common theme with Chapter 17 “about estates” (55 articles). Chapter 18 talks about “printing duties” (Article 71). Chapter 19 is called “about the townspeople” (40 articles). Chapter 20 concludes the “trial of serfs” (119 articles), chapter 21 speaks “about robberies and Taty’s cases (104 articles), chapter 22 concludes “a decree for what guilts the death penalty should be inflicted on whom and for what guilts the death penalty should not be executed, chiniti punishment" (26 articles). The last chapters - 23 ("about archers", 3 articles), 24 ("decree on atamans and Cossacks", 3 articles), 25 ("decree on taverns", 21 articles) - are very brief .

All chapters of the Code can be divided into five groups:

1) I-X constitute the state law of that time, here the following are protected: - reverence for God - the personality of the sovereign; - honor of the sovereign's court; - falsification of government acts is prohibited; - coins and precious things; - passport regulations; - the charter of military service and together with it a special military criminal code; - laws on the ransom of prisoners; - about ports and routes of communication.

2) Ch. X-XV contain the statute of the judicial system and legal proceedings; Mandatory law is also set out here (in Chapter X).

3) Ch. ХVI-ХХ - real rights: patrimonial, local, tax (chap. XIX) and the right to slaves (XX).

4) Ch. XXI-XXII constitute the criminal code, although criminal law invades all other parts of the Code.

5) Ch. XXIII-XXV constitute the additional part.

Crime system

The system of crimes covered various aspects of the life of society, concerned both the common people and the wealthy strata of the population, civil servants, and according to the Council Code of 1649 it looked like this:

Crimes against the church: blasphemy, seducing an Orthodox Christian into another faith, interrupting the liturgy in the church. 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. A general search of the courthouses is allowed in the absence of a general (name) reference or a reference from the guilty (cit. book. Ved. Exchequer., V, 1, 3-6; st. book. divis. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Punishment system

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

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

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

Self-harm punishments included the following: cutting off an arm, leg, cutting off an ear, nose, lip, tearing out an eye, nostrils. These punishments could be applied both as main and additional ones. They were supposed to distinguish the criminal from the surrounding mass of people.

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

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

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

6.3. Uncertainty in establishing punishment. This sign was associated with the purpose of punishment - intimidation. The sentence may not have indicated the type of punishment itself and used the following formulations: “as the sovereign directs,” “due to guilt,” or “to punish cruelly.” Even if the type of punishment was determined, the method of its execution remained unclear (similar formulations such as “punish with death” or “throw into prison until the sovereign’s decree”), i.e. uncertainty of punishment. The uncertainty in establishing punishment created an additional psychological impact on the criminal. The purpose of intimidation was served by special symbols of punishment: pouring molten metal down the criminal’s throat; applying to him such punishment as he would wish for the person he slandered. The publicity of punishments had a socio-psychological purpose, since many punishments (burning, drowning, wheeling) served as analogues of hellish torment.

6.4. Imprisonment, as a special type of punishment, could be set for a period from three days to four years or for an indefinite period. As an additional type of punishment (and sometimes as the main one), exile was imposed (to distant monasteries, forts, fortresses or boyar estates). Representatives of the privileged classes were subject to such a type of punishment as deprivation of honor and rights, ranging from complete surrender (becoming a slave) to declaring “disgrace” (isolation, ostracism, sovereign disgrace). The accused could be deprived of his rank, the right to sit in the Duma or the order, and deprived of the right to file a claim in court.

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

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: “... so that... court and punishment be equal to everyone in all matters,” by which one should understand universal subordination 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. cathedral code Russian law

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 policy 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 1649, 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 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. V. O. Klyuchevsky also 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 on the basis of 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.

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 complaints from victims



Every openly expressed thought, no matter how false, every clearly conveyed fantasy, no matter how absurd, cannot fail to find sympathy in some soul

Lev Tolstoy

In this article we will briefly consider the Council Code of 1649, as one of the first documents that systematized the legislation of Rus'. In 1649, for the first time in the history of Russia, the codification of state law was carried out: the Zemsky Sobor developed the Council Code. For the first time, this regulatory document not only collected the basic laws of the state, they were classified by industry. This significantly simplified the system of Russian legislation and ensured its stability. This article describes the main reasons for the adoption of the Council Code of 1649, its main meaning and brief description, and also analyzes the main consequences of the adoption of the law on the development of Russian statehood.

Reasons for the adoption of the Council Code of 1649

Between 1550 and 1648, about 800 decrees, laws and other regulations were issued. Especially many of them came out during the Time of Troubles. Working with them required not only great knowledge, but also a lot of processing time. In addition, there were cases when some provisions of one decree could conflict with others, which caused great damage to the legislative system of the Russian kingdom. These problems forced us to think about codifying existing laws, that is, processing them and compiling them into a single and integral set of laws. In 1648, the Salt Riot took place in Moscow; one of the demands of the rebels was a call for the convening of a Zemsky Sobor to create an agreed and unified law.

Another reason pushing Alexei Mikhailovich to create the Council Code of 1649 was the state’s tendency towards an absolute monarchy, which required clear enshrinement in laws. The tsar from the young Romanov dynasty actually concentrated all power in his hands, limiting the influence of the Zemsky Sobor; however, the new political system required enshrinement in laws. Also, new class relations, and especially the status of the nobility and peasantry (the tendency towards the formation of serfdom) also needed legal revision. This whole set of reasons led to the fact that at the end of 1648, Alexei Mikhailovich convened the Zemsky Sobor, giving him the task of forming a single set of laws, which went down in history as the Council Code.

Sources of the Code and work on its creation

To create a code of laws, a special commission was created, consisting of those close to the tsar, headed by Prince Nikita Odoevsky. In addition to him, the commission included the hero of the Smolensk War, Prince Fyodor Volkonsky, as well as clerk Fyodor Griboyedov. Tsar Alexei personally took part in the work of the commission. The basis for writing the Council Code of 1649, in short, was the following legal sources:

1. Law codes of 1497 and 1550. The basis of the Russian legal system of the 16th century.
2. Decree books of orders, where the basic laws and orders issued in the late 16th - first half of the 17th centuries were collected.
3. Lithuanian Statute of 1588. The Basic Law of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of this period served as a model of legal technique. From here legal formulations, phrases, rubrics, as well as ideas about the situation of the peasantry were taken.
4. Petitions submitted to government bodies from the boyars for consideration. They indicated the main requests and wishes regarding the existing legal system. Also, during the work of the commission, petitions were sent to its participants from various regions of the country.
5. The helmsman's book (Nomocanon). These are collections of laws that related to church affairs. This tradition came from Byzantium. The helm book is used in the management of the church, as well as in the organization of church courts.

Characteristics of Codes by industry

In 1649, the Council Code was completely completed. It is interesting that this was not only the first collection of Russian laws, formed according to headings that were determined by areas of law. This was the first set of laws of Russia that was in printed form. In total, the Council Code consisted of 25 chapters, which contained 967 articles. Historians of Russian law identify the following legal branches, which were disclosed in the Council Code of 1649:

State law

The law completely determined the legal status of the monarch in Russia, as well as the mechanisms of inheritance of power. Articles from this branch of law addressed questions from the point of view of the legality of the Romanov dynasty on the throne. In addition, these articles consolidated the process of establishing an absolute monarchy in Russia.

Criminal law

Firstly, the types of crimes were classified here. Secondly, all possible types of punishment are described. The following types of crimes were identified:

1. Crimes against the state. This type of crime first appeared in the Russian legal system. Insults and other illegal actions against the monarch, his family, as well as conspiracy and treason were considered a crime against the state. By the way, in cases where the relatives of the criminal knew about the crime against the Russian state, then they bore the same responsibility.
2. Crimes against government. This category included: counterfeiting coins, unauthorized crossing of the state border, giving false evidence and accusations (recorded in the law with the term “sneaking”).
3. Crimes against "decency". These crimes meant sheltering fugitives and criminals, selling stolen goods and maintaining brothels.
4. Official crimes: bribery, waste of public money, injustice, as well as war crimes (primarily looting).
5. Crimes against the Church. This included blasphemy, conversion to another faith, interruption of church services, etc.
6. Crimes against the person: murder, mutilation, beatings, insult. By the way, killing a thief at the scene of a crime was not considered a violation of the law.
7. Property crimes: theft, robbery, fraud, horse theft, etc.
8. Crimes against morality. In this category there was a wife’s betrayal of her husband, “fornication” with a slave, and disrespect for parents.

As for punishments for crimes, the Council Code of 1649 identified several main types:

1. Death penalty by hanging, quartering, beheading, burning. For counterfeiting, the criminal had molten iron poured down his throat.
2. Corporal punishment, such as branding or whipping.
3. Terme conclusion. The term was from three days to life imprisonment. By the way, the prison inmates were supposed to be supported by the relatives of the prisoners.
4. Link. Initially it was used for senior officials who fell out of favor (“disgrace”) with the king.
5. Dishonorable punishments. Also applied to the upper classes, it consisted of deprivation of rights and privileges through demotion in rank.
6. Fines and confiscation of property.

Civil law

For the first time in the history of Russia, attempts were made to describe the institution of private property, as well as to highlight the legal capacity of subjects. Thus, a young man of 15 years old could be given an estate. The types of contracts for the transfer of property rights were also described: oral and written. The Council Code defined the concept of “acquisitive prescription” - the right to receive a thing into private ownership after using it for a certain time. In 1649 this period was 40 years. The basis of the civil sector of the new set of laws was the consolidation of the class character of Russian society. All classes of Russia were regulated, the nobility became the main support of the absolute monarchy.

In addition, the Council Code of 1649 briefly but finally completed the enslavement of the peasants: the landowner had the right to look for runaway peasants any time after the escape. Thus, the peasants were finally “attached” to the land, becoming the property of the landowner.

Family law

The Council Code did not directly concern family law, since it was within the competence of the church court. However, certain articles of the code of laws concerned family life, describing the basic principles of family relations. So, parents had great power over their children, for example, if a daughter killed one of the parents, she was executed, and if a parent killed a child, he received a year in prison. Parents had the right to beat their children, but they were forbidden to complain about their parents.

As for married couples, the husband had actual ownership over his wife. The age of marriage for a man was 15 years, and for a woman - 12. Divorce was strictly regulated and was allowed only in certain cases (entry to a monastery, the wife’s inability to give birth to children, etc.).

In addition to the above provisions, the Council Code dealt with the procedural component of law. Thus, the following procedures were established, the purpose of which was to obtain evidence:

1. "Search". Inspection of things, as well as communication with possible witnesses.
2. "Pravezh". Caning of an insolvent debtor for a specified period of time, in exchange for a fine. If the debtor had money before the end of the “right” period, then the beating stopped.
3. "Wanted." The use of various means to search for a criminal, as well as to conduct interrogations to obtain the necessary information. The Code described the right to use torture (no more than two or three times, using breaks).

Additions to the law in the 17th century

During the second half of the 17th century, additional laws were adopted that introduced changes or additions to the Code. For example, in 1669 a law was passed to increase penalties for criminals. It was associated with the increase in crime in Russia during this period. In 1675-1677, additions were adopted on the status of the estate. This was due to an increase in disputes regarding land rights. In 1667, the “New Trade Charter” was adopted, which was designed to support Russian manufacturers in the fight against foreign goods.

Historical meaning

Thus, the Council Code of 1649 has several meanings in the history of the development of the Russian state and law:

1. This was the first set of laws to be printed.
2. The Council Code eliminated most of the contradictions that existed in the laws of the late 16th and first half of the 17th centuries. At the same time, the Code took into account the previous achievements of the Russian legislative system, as well as the best practices of neighboring states in the field of lawmaking and codification.
3. It formed the main features of the future absolute monarchy, the support of which was the nobility.
4. Serfdom finally formed in Russia.

The Council Code of 1649 was in force until 1832, when Speransky developed the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire.

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

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

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

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

Chapter IV. About subscribers and who forge seals.

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

Chapter VI. On travel certificates to other states.

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

Chapter VIII. About the redemption of captives.

Chapter IX. About tolls and transports and bridges.

Chapter X. About the trial.

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

Chapter XII. About the court of patriarchal writs, and there are 7 articles in it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All these chapters can be divided into five groups:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The history of the creation of the cathedral code of 1649

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provisions of the cathedral code of 1649

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Characteristics of the cathedral code of 1649

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land rights according to the cathedral code of 1649

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taxes in the cathedral code of 1649

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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