Cathedral Code of 1649

At the end of the Time of Troubles , the government of the new dynasty - the Romanovs - begins active legislative activity.

The intensive growth in the number of decrees for the period from the Judicial Code of 1550 to the Code of 1649 is evident from the following data:

• 1550-1600 - 80 decrees;
• 1601-1610 - 17;
• 1611-1620 - 97;
• 1621-1630 - 90;
• 1631-1640 - 98;
• 1641-1648 - 63 decrees.

In total for 1611—1648. - 348, and for 1550-1648. - 445 decrees ^[1]

As a result, by 1649 in the Russian state there was a huge number of legislative acts that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other.

This chaos was “promoted” by the scatter of regulatory acts across departments (traditionally, new laws were issued at the request of a particular industry order , and after approval, they were “attributed” to the order book of this order). There was a lack of coordination in law enforcement: often only officials of a specific order knew about the new entry in the index book.

In addition, the casual nature of the legal norms ^{[2] of the} previous period became ineffective. The legislator now sought to regulate the legal framework , that is, move on to the normative interpretation of legal norms ^[3] .

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

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

He was destined to consider the draft Code. The cathedral was held in a wide composition, with the participation of representatives of the township communities. The hearing of the draft Code was held at the cathedral in two chambers: in one there was a king, the Boyar Duma and the Consecrated Cathedral; in the other, elected people of different ranks.

Deputies of noblemen and towns had a great impact on the adoption of many norms of the Code. January 29 ( February 8 ), 1649 , the compilation and editing of the Code was completed. Outwardly, it was a scroll consisting of 959 narrow paper columns. At the end were the signatures of the participants of the Zemsky Sobor (315 in total), and by gluing the columns together the signatures of the clerks. First, the original was stored in the order of the Big Treasury, then - in the Armory of the Moscow Kremlin, from where it later entered the State Treasury. Currently, the original is stored in the RGADA ^[4] . From this genuine scroll (for storage of which more than a century later, under Catherine II , a silver ark was made) a copy was made in the form of a book, with which 1,200 copies were printed twice in 1650 in 1650 each run. The Cathedral Code was a new stage in the development of domestic legal technology.

All the delegates of the Council signed with their signatures the list of the Code, which in 1649 was sent to all Moscow orders to guide the action.

Elective amendments and additions were introduced to the Duma in the form of zemstvo petitions . Some decisions were made jointly by the elected, the Duma and the Sovereign.

V.O. Klyuchevsky identified several technical stages in the process of drawing up the Code:

1. Codification (work with sources, editing) - it was carried out by a commission led by Prince Odoevsky.
2. Meeting - discussion of the petition submitted to the Duma.
3. Revision - revision and editing by the Duma and the king of the bills he submitted.
4. Legislative decision - a joint decision on the issue of a paragraph of the Code.
5. “Hand-made clamp” - the signing of a code of laws by all members of the Council without exception.

For the first time in the Council Code, the legislator strives to formulate a system of norms and classify them by branches of law .

Much attention was paid to procedural law .

The sources of the Cathedral Code were both Russian and foreign legislation :

• Index books of orders - in them from the moment of the appearance of this or that order the current legislation on specific issues was recorded.
• Judicial Code of 1497 and Judicial Code of 1550 .
• The Lithuanian Statute of 1588 - was used as a model of legal technique (wording, phrase building, rubrication ).
• Petition
• Pilot Book ( Byzantine Law )
  • Mosaic Law (10 Commandments)
  • Deuteronomy

The Council Code provides for the separation of norms in the branches of law inherent in modern legislation.

State Law

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

The Code contained a set of rules governing the most important branches of public administration: the attachment of peasants to the land, the regime of entry and exit from the country, issues related to the status of estates and estates.

Criminal Law

The crime system was as follows:

• crimes against the Church: blasphemy, “seduction” in a different faith, interruption of the liturgy in the church, etc.
• State crimes: any actions directed against the personality of the sovereign or his family, rebellion, conspiracy, treason. Sometimes, for these crimes, responsibility was borne not only by the persons who committed them, but also by members of their families, but only if they knew about the “betrayal” of their loved one ^[5] .
• Crimes against the management system: unauthorized travel abroad, counterfeiting, giving false testimonies, false accusation ("sabotage"), the maintenance of drinking establishments without special permission, etc.
• Crimes against deanery: keeping brothels, harboring runaways, selling stolen or other people's property, levying duties on persons released from it and royal persons
• Official crimes: extortion (bribery, extortion), injustice (obviously unfair decision of the case), forgery in the service, military crimes (looting, escaping from the location of the army), etc.
• Crimes against personality:
  • murder,
  • maiming (in chapter XXII paragraph 10: “ But there will be someone who is not afraid of God, and not fearing the sovereign disgrace and execution, will inflict a tormenting abuse on someone, cut off his arm or leg, or nose, or ear, or lips, or eye he’ll poke him out, and he’s looking for something straightforward, and for the same abuse he will do the same for him, but on him, taking from his estates and from his stomachs, the one over whom he will commit such abuse will cut off his hand and fifty rubles by the hand, and will cut off the leg, and for the leg is fifty rubles, and for the nose, and for the ear, and for the lips, and for the voice, for the same and every wound, fifty rubles each ”);
  • beatings (in chapter XXII, paragraph 11: “ But there will be the same abuser calling someone, or by force dragging him to his yard, he will take into account the beats with a blast, or a whip, or bats, and from the court he will be sought for nothing, and such an insult for such commit his cruel punishment, order him to beat him with a whip at the bargain, and throw him in jail for a month, but on him he will bring to justice the person over whom such a case would be committed, dishonor and mutilation twice ”);
  • insult to honor.
  • The murder of a thief caught at the crime scene was not punishable.
• Property crimes:
  • tatba (theft),
  • horse-stealing (as a separate type of crime),
  • the theft of vegetables from the garden and fish from the cage (as a separate type of crime),
  • robbery,
  • robbery,
  • fraud,
  • arson,
  • damage to other people's property.
• Crimes against morality: “disrespect for children by parents”, pandering, “fornication” of a wife, sexual intercourse of a master with a “slave”.

Punishments and their goals

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

• The death penalty - hanging , beheading , quartering , burning (on religious matters and in relation to arsonists), as well as "pouring red-hot iron in the throat" for counterfeiting .
• Corporal punishment - divided into self-harming (cutting off the hands for theft, stigmatization , trimming of the nostrils, etc.) and painful (whipping or bats).
• Imprisonment - terms from three days to life imprisonment. The prisons were earthen, wooden and stone. Prison prisoners were fed at the expense of relatives or alms.
• Link is a punishment for "high-born" individuals. It was a consequence of disgrace .
• Disgraceful punishments were also used for “high-born” persons: “taking away honor”, ​​that is, deprivation of rank or demotion. A mild punishment of this type was a “reprimand” in the presence of people of that circle to which the offender belonged.
• Penalties were called “selling” and were imposed for crimes that violate property relations, as well as for some crimes against human life and health (for mutilation), for “incriminating oneself”. Also used for "extortion" as the main and additional punishment.
• Confiscation of property - both movable and immovable property (sometimes the property of the wife of the offender and his adult son). Applied to state criminals, to "extortionists", to officials who abused their official position.

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

Purpose of punishment ^[6] :

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

It should be noted that in addition to the general punishments existing to this day, there were also measures of spiritual influence. For example, a Muslim who converted (from the text, there is reason to believe that it means by force or deceit ) the Orthodox to Islam , was subject to death by burning. The neophyte should have been sent directly to the Patriarch , for repentance and return to the fold of the Orthodox Church ^[7] .

Changing, many of these norms reached the XIX century and are preserved in the Penal Code of 1845 .

Civil Law

The development of commodity - money relations, the growth of civil transactions, the increasing role of international trade with Russia contributed to the development of civil law. The subjects of civil law were both individuals (private) individuals and collectives (for example, the peasant community ). The Code established the age of legal capacity of individuals from 15-20 years old (from 15 years old a young man could be endowed with an estate , take on an enslaving obligation, etc., from 20 years old he could testify in court after the adoption of the cross kissing).

The Code, as well as the early Russian collections of laws, ^[8] confirms the legal legal capacity of a woman. So, the widow was endowed with a complex of powers in the field of conclusion of transactions .

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

• Awarding the land is a complex set of legal actions, which included issuing a granted letter, writing in the order book information about the endowed person, establishing the fact of unemployment of the transferred land, putting it into possession in the presence of third parties.
• The acquisition of rights to a thing by concluding a contract of sale (both oral and written).
• Acquiring prescription. A person must in good faith (that is, not violating anyone else's rights) own any property for a certain period of time. After a certain period, this property (for example, a house) becomes the property of a bona fide owner. The Code determined this period of 40 years.
• Finding a thing (provided that its owner is not detected).

Liability law in the 17th century continued to develop along the lines of gradually replacing personal responsibility (transferring debts to slaves , etc.) under property liability contracts.

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

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

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

• Patrimony - conditional land ownership, but they could be inherited. Since feudal legislation was on the side of the land owners (feudal lords), and the state was interested in ensuring that the number of patrimonial estates was not reduced, the right to redeem the sold patrimonial estates was provided.
• The estates were given for the service, the size of the estates was determined by the official position of the person. The feudal lord could use the estate only during the service; he could not be inherited.

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

Family Relationships

The Code did not concern the area of family law (which was in the jurisdiction of the church court ) ^[9] , the only provisions of the Council Code relating to family relations relate to criminal and property practices.

In relation to children, parents retained the rights of power until their death. So, for the murder of a father or mother, a son or daughter was supposed to be “executed by death without mercy,” at the same time, the mother or father who killed the child was sentenced to a year in prison, followed by repentance in the church ^[10] . Children under threat of punishment were forbidden to complain about their parents if, nevertheless, "which a son or daughter would teach beaten with a forehead about the trial of his father or mother and his father and mother should not be given any court, and they should be whipped for such petition ^[eleven]

The Code established a special type of execution for women-murderers - burial alive throat-deep in the ground.

With regard to state crimes, the Code establishes that if "there will be wives and children of such traitors about that they were betraying them, and they will be executed by death in the same way" ^[5] .

Кроме того, Уложение говорило о возможности мужа отдавать в кабалу детей или же себя, но только вместе с женой ^[12] , устанавливало размер штрафа за бесчестье (оскорбление) жены ^[13] , регулировало вопросы наследования супругов. Так, например, жена имела право на возврат приданого после смерти мужа. Уложением отменяется право пережившей жены на пожизненное владение родовыми и выслуженными вотчинами умершего мужа. Кроме того, прекращают существование записи мужа вотчин в пользу жены, обеспечивавшие ее приданое. Все это было заменено возможностью жены получить 1/4 часть из движимого имущества мужа, при этом жене гарантировалось восстановление приданого. После издания Уложения муж получил право на 1/4 часть приданого жены после ее смерти. Если же после смерти мужа оставались общие дети, то жена продолжала распоряжаться всем имуществом мужа. Таким образом, Соборное Уложение в основном коснулось лишь имущественной стороны отношений супругов, оставив личную без внимания ^[14]

В Уложении подробно расписан порядок « вершения суда » (как гражданского, так и уголовного).

1. «Вчинание» — подача челобитной жалобы.
2. Вызов ответчика в суд.
3. Судоговорение — устное с обязательным ведением «судебного списка», то есть протокола.

Доказательства были многообразны: свидетельские показания (не менее 10 свидетелей), документы, крестное целование (присяга).

Процессуальные мероприятия , направленные на получение доказательств:

1. «Обыск» — заключался в опросе населения по факту совершения преступления или о конкретном (искомом) лице.
2. « Правёж » — осуществлялся, как правило, по отношению к неплатежеспособному должнику. Ответчик подвергался процедуре телесного наказания розгами . Например, за долг в 100 рублей пороли в течение месяца . Если должник уплачивал долг или у него находились поручители, правёж прекращался.
3. «Розыск» — комплексные мероприятия, связанные с выяснением всех обстоятельств «государева» дела или и других особо тяжких преступлений. При «розыске» часто применялась пытка . Применение пытки регламентировалось в Уложении. Её было можно применять не более трёх раз с определённым перерывом.

При необходимости изменений в области правовых отношений к Соборному Уложению добавлялись новоуказные статьи :

• В 1669 году были приняты дополнительные статьи по «татебным делам» (о кражах, грабежах, разбоях и т.д.) в связи с повышением уровня преступности .
• В 1676 — 1677 годах — о поместьях и вотчинах в связи со спорами о статусе вотчины и поместья.

В дополнение к Уложению были приняты также несколько уставов и наказов .

• 1649 год — Наказ о городском благочинии (о мерах по борьбе с преступностью).
• 1667 год — Новоторговый устав (о защите отечественного производителя и продавца от иностранной конкуренции).
• 1683 год — Писцовый наказ (о правилах межевания вотчин и поместий, лесов и пустошей).

Важную роль сыграл «приговор» Земского Собора 1682 года об отмене местничества (то есть системы распределения служебных мест с учётом происхождения, служебного положения предков лица и, в меньшей степени, его личных заслуг.)

1. Соборное Уложение обобщило и подытожило основные тенденции в развитии русского права XV — XVII веков .
2. Оно закрепило новые черты и институты, свойственные новой эпохе, эпохе наступающего российского абсолютизма .
3. В Уложении впервые была осуществлена систематизация отечественного законодательства; была сделана попытка разграничения норм права по отраслям.

Соборное уложение стало первым печатным памятником русского права. До него публикация законов ограничивалась оглашением их на торговых площадях и в храмах, о чём обычно специально указывалось в самих документах. Появление печатного закона в значительной мере исключало возможность совершать злоупотребления воеводами и приказными чинами, ведавшими судопроизводством . Соборное Уложение не имеет прецедентов в истории русского законодательства. По объёму оно может сравниться разве что со Стоглавом , но по богатству юридического материала превосходит его во много раз.

При сравнении с Западной Европой видно, что Соборное уложение не первый сборник актов подобного рода. Одним из первых был Судебник Казимира 1468 года, составленный великим князем литовским Казимиром IV и развившийся позднее, в 1529 году в Статут Великого княжества Литовского , затем кодекс в Дании (Danske Lov) в 1683 году; за ним последовал кодекс Сардинии (1723), Баварии (1756), Пруссии (1794), Австрии (1812). Самый известный и влиятельный гражданский кодекс Европы, французский кодекс Наполеона , был принят в 1803—1804 годах ^[15] .

Стоит отметить, что принятие европейских кодексов затруднялось, вероятно, обилием юридической базы, что весьма осложняло систематизацию имеющегося материала в единый связный читаемый документ. Например, прусский кодекс 1794 года содержал 19 187 статей, что делало его чересчур длинным и нечитаемым. Для сравнения, кодекс Наполеона разрабатывался 4 года, содержал 2 281 статью, и потребовалось личное активное участие императора, чтобы продавить его принятие. Соборное уложение было разработано в течение полугода, насчитывало 968 статей, принято же было с целью предотвратить перерастание череды городских бунтов 1648 года (начатых Соляным бунтом в Москве) в полномасштабное восстание по типу восстания Болотникова в 1606—1607 году или Степана Разина — в 1670—1671.

Соборное уложение 1649 года действовало вплоть до 1832 года , когда в рамках работы по кодификации законов Российской империи , проводимой под руководством М. М. Сперанского , был разработан Свод законов Российской империи . Предыдущие многочисленные попытки кодифицировать законодательство, появившееся после издания Уложения, успеха не имели (см. Уложенные комиссии ).

• Соборное уложение 1649 года: Текст, комментарии / Ред. коллегия: В. И. Буганов , М. П. Ирошников , А. Г. Маньков (рук. авт. колл.), В. М. Панеях ; Подг. текста Л. И. Ивиной ; Комментарии Г. В. Абрамовича , А. Г. Манькова, Б. Н. Миронова , В. М. Панеяха; Рецензенты: Ю. Г. Алексеев , А. Л. Шапиро ; Институт истории СССР АН СССР , Ленингр. отд-ние. — Л. : Наука , Ленингр. отд-ние, 1987. — 448 с. — ( Законодательные памятники Русского централизованного государства XV—XVII веков ). — 7500 экз. (per.)

• В. М. Строев . Историко-юридическое исследование Уложения, изданного царем Алексеем Михайловичем в 1649 году . — Санкт-Петербург : при Акад. наук, 1833.
• Н. П. Загоскин . Уложение царя и великого князя Алексея Михайловича и Земский собор 1648-1649 года : Речь, произнесенная в торжественном годичном собр. Имп. Казан. ун-та, 5 нояб. 1879 г., доц. Ун-та, д-ром гос. права Н.П. Загоскиным . — Казань : тип. Imp. ун-та,, 1879.
• Д. М. Мейчик . Дополнительные данные к истории Уложения 1649 г. . - St. Petersburg: type. В. Безобразова и К°, 1880.
• Д. М. Мейчик . По поводу сочинения Н.П. Загоскина: "Уложение царя и великого князя Алексея Михайловича и Земский собор 1648-1949 года" . - St. Petersburg: type. В. Безобразова и К°, 1880.
• Ключевский В. О. Русская история. Полный курс лекций . - M. , 1993.
• Исаев И. А. История государства и права России . — М. , 2006.
• История государства и права России / Под ред. Ю. П. Титова. — М. , 2006.
• Чистяков И. О. История отечественного государства и права. — М. , 1996.
• Котошихин Григорий . О России в царствование Алексея Михайловича . — Стокгольм, 1667.

• Маньков А. Г. Уложение 1649 года — кодекс феодального права России. — М. : Наука, 1980.
• Томсинов В. А. Соборное уложение 1649 года как памятник русской юриспруденции // Соборное уложение 1649 года: Законодательство царя Алексея Михайловича / Составитель, автор предисловия и вступительных статей В. А. Томсинов. — М. : Зерцало, 2011. — С. 1-51. — 422 с. — (Русское юридическое наследие). - 700 copies. — ISBN 978-5-8078-0184-5 . (per.)
• Владимирский-Буданов М. Ф. Обзор истории русского права. 6-е изд . - SPb. ; Киев : Изд.книгопродавца Н. Я. Оглоблина, 1909.
• Проценко Ю. Л. Сословно-представительская монархия в России (середина XVI - середина XVII века): Учебное пособие . - Ed. 6-е. — Волгоград : Изд-во ВолГУ, 2003. — 96 с.
• Тихомиров М. Н. , Епифанов П. П. Соборное уложение 1649 года . М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1961. 414 с.

• Соборное уложение 1649 года в Викитеке
• Соборное уложение 1649 года . 1649 год. Проект Российского военно-исторического общества «100 главных документов российской истории».
• Соборное уложение 1649 года. // Москва : Печатный двор, 29 января 1649 (29.01.7157)
• Соборное уложение 1649 года. // Москва : Печатный двор, 29 января 1649 (29.01.7157)