What were the features of the development of Russian culture? Features of Russian culture
Chapter XI - “the trial of the peasants”, in it we're talking about not about legal status peasants, but about the legal disputes of feudal lords about them. Peasants of all categories occupied the lowest rung of the legal ladder. In addition to the indefinite search for fugitive peasants, the Council Code determined the conditions for returning them to their former owner with their entire family and property. The basis of the peasant fortress was recognized not only by the recently compiled census books of 1646, but also by the scribal description documents of 1626. Serfdom was declared hereditary. In the Code, by introducing a fixed price for the peasant and his property, the view of him as a thing was established. According to the census of 1678, landowner peasants made up 9/10 of the country's total tax population.
Legally, the black-growing peasants were not considered owners of the land, but owned and disposed of it (they could sell, mortgage, or inherit it). The new owners, along with the land, also assumed taxable obligations for the acquired plot. Black-nosed peasants, like townspeople, were obliged to work for free in various state elective positions: customs heads and kissers, yam elders, etc.
After the Council Code, the main direction of serfdom legislation was the fight against escapes of peasants and the organization of their investigation.
Overall, during the second half XVII century, serfdom became stricter, and the peasants, in their lack of rights, approached the servile state.
Posad people
Chapter XIX - “about the townspeople.” The chapter received legislative definition a number of norms that directly affected the relationship of the posad with the feudal class. These included articles on the liquidation of white settlements in cities, on the return of mortgagors taken to counties, villages and hamlets, and the prohibition of mortgaging the yards of non-townspeople. All people living in the owner's settlements were assigned to the townsman's tax "flylessly and irrevocably." The monopolies of the townspeople on city trades and trades were established. The most important change in the legal status of the townspeople was determined by the spread of serfdom to the city, the attachment of the townspeople to taxation and their indefinite search.
In general, the Council Code legislated a special class of townspeople. Moreover, their economic power was strengthened on a purely feudal basis of monopolies and privileges.
The emergence of the Council Code was a direct result of the popular uprisings of the first half of the 17th century, the basis of which were the movements of serfs, and the need to draw up a single all-Russian law, since the casual nature inherent in the previous legislation became ineffective. Clarity and precision in the wording of the law was required
At the beginning of the century, the foundations of the serf state were shaken peasant war under the leadership of Bolotnikov. In the future, anti-feudal movements did not stop. The peasants opposed the continuously increasing exploitation, increasing duties, and the deepening of their lack of rights. Serfs were also active participants in popular, especially urban, movements of the 17th century. In the middle of the 17th century, the struggle reached particular intensity. In Moscow in the summer of 1648 there was a major uprising. Supported by the peasants, the uprisings were anti-feudal in nature. Among the most popular slogans was a protest against the arbitrariness and extortion of the administration. But in general, the Code acquired a clearly pronounced noble character. It is important to note that criticism of the current legislation was also heard from the ranks of the ruling class itself.
Thus, the creation of the Council Code from a socio-historical point of view was the result of an acute and complex class struggle and a direct result of the uprising of 1648. In such difficult conditions, the Zemsky Sobor was convened and decided to develop a new set of laws - the Council Code.
The need for a new set of laws, reinforced by administrative abuses, can be considered the main motivation that gave rise to the new code and even partly determined its character.
Sources The Council Code was served by: Code of Laws of 1497 and 1550. Decree books of orders, royal decrees, verdicts of the Boyar Duma, resolutions of Zemsky Councils, Lithuanian and Byzantine legislation.
A special codification commission of 5 people, from the boyars Prince, was entrusted with drawing up a draft Code. Odoevsky and Prozorovsky, the okolnichy Prince Volkonsky and two clerks, Leontyev and Griboyedov. The three main members of this commission were Duma people, which means that this “order of Prince Odoevsky and his comrades,” as it is called in the documents, can be considered a Duma commission; it was established on July 16. Then they decided to gather the Zemsky Sobor to consider the adoption of the project by September 1. It should be noted that the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649 was the largest of all that were convened during the period of the existence of an estate-representative monarchy in Russia. By September 1, 1648, elected officials “from all ranks” of the state, servicemen and commercial and industrial townspeople were convened in Moscow; electors from rural or district inhabitants, as from a special curia, were not called up. From October 3, the tsar with the clergy and members of the Duma listened to the draft Code drawn up by the commission. Then the sovereign instructed the highest clergy, Duma and elected people to fix the list of the Code with their own hands, after which it, with the signatures of the members of the Council in 1649, was printed and sent to all Moscow orders and throughout the cities to the voivodeship offices in order to “do all sorts of things according to that Code".
The speed of adoption of the code is amazing. The entire discussion and adoption of the Code of 967 articles took just over six months. But it should be borne in mind that the commission was entrusted with a huge task: firstly, to collect, disassemble and rework into a coherent set of existing laws that were different in time, not agreed upon, scattered among departments; it was also necessary to normalize cases not provided for by these laws. In addition, it was necessary to know public needs and relationships, to study the practice of judicial and administrative institutions. This kind of work required for long years. But Cathedral Code decided to compile at an accelerated pace, according to a simplified program. Already by October 1648, more precisely in 2.5 months, the first 12 chapters for the report, almost half of the entire code, were prepared. The remaining 13 chapters were compiled, heard and approved in the Duma by the end of January 1649, when the activities of the commission and the entire council ended and the Code was completed in manuscript. The speed with which the Code was drawn up can be explained by the alarming news of the riots that broke out in the wake of the June riot, in addition, there were rumors about a new uprising being prepared in the capital, not to mention the need to create a new code. That is why they were in a hurry to draw up the Code.
Structure of the Code
The Council Code of 1649 was a new stage in the development of legal technology. The appearance of a printed law largely eliminated the possibility of committing abuses by governors and officials,
The Council Code had no precedents in the history of Russian legislation. The Council Code is the first systematized law in the history of Russia.
In literature, it is often called a code, but this is not legally correct, since the Code contains material related not to one, but to many branches of law of that time. It's more of a code than a set of laws.
Unlike previous legislative acts, the Council Code differs not only in its large volume ( 25 chapters, divided into 967 articles), but also with greater focus and complex structure. Brief introduction contains a statement of the motives and history of the drafting of the Code. For the first time the law was divided into thematic chapters. The chapters are highlighted with special headings: for example, “On blasphemers and church rebels” (chapter 1), “On the sovereign’s honor and how to protect his sovereign’s health” (chapter 2), “On money masters who learn how to make thieves’ money” (chapter 5) etc. This scheme for constructing chapters allowed their compilers to adhere to the usual sequence of presentation for that time from the initiation of a case to the execution of a court decision.
Local and patrimonial land ownership
The Code as a code of feudal law protects the right private property, and above all, land ownership. The main types of land ownership of feudal lords were estates ( Articles 13,33,38,41,42,45 of Chapter 17) and estates ( Art. 1-3,5-8,13,34,51 chapter 16). The Code takes a serious step towards equating the legal regime of estates with the regime of estates; this concerned a wide range of feudal lords, especially small ones. It is no coincidence that the chapter on estates appears earlier in the law than the chapter on estates.
Equating estates with estates proceeded along the lines of primarily granting landowners the right to dispose of land. Until now, essentially only patrimonial owners had the right to own land (but their rights were somewhat limited, which was preserved in the Code), but in principle, the patrimonial owner had the necessary element of property rights - the right to dispose of property. The situation with the estate is different: in previous years, the landowner was deprived of the right to dispose, and sometimes even the right to own land (this was the case if the landowner left the service). The Council Code introduced significant changes to this matter: first of all, it expanded the landowner’s right to own land - now the landowner who retired retained the right to the land, and although he was not left with his former estate, he was given, according to a certain norm, a so-called subsistence estate - a kind of pension. The widow of the landowner and his children up to a certain age received the same pension.
During this period, the previously established three main types of feudal land tenure received legal recognition. First type - state property or directly the king (palace lands, lands of black volosts). Second type - patrimonial land ownership. Being conditional ownership of land, estates still had a different legal status than estates. They were passed down by inheritance. There were three types: generic, honored (complained) and purchased. The legislator made sure that the number of clan estates did not decrease. In this regard, the right to buy back sold ancestral estates was provided for. The third type of feudal land tenure is estates, which were given for service, mainly military. The size of the estate was determined by the official position of the person. The estate could not be inherited. The feudal lord used it as long as he served.
The difference in the legal status between votchinas and estates was gradually erased. Although the estate was not inherited, it could be received by a son if he served. It was established that if the landowner died or left the service due to old age or illness, then he himself or his widow and young children could receive part of the estate for subsistence. The Council Code of 1649 allowed the exchange of estates for estates. Such transactions were considered valid under the following conditions: the parties, concluding an exchange record between themselves, were obliged to submit this record to the Local Order with a petition addressed to the Tsar.
Criminal law according to the Code
In the field of criminal law, the Council Code clarifies the concept of “dastardly deed” - an act dangerous for feudal societies; developed back in Sudebniki. The subjects of the crime could be: individuals, so group of persons. The law divided them into main and secondary, understanding the latter as accomplices. In turn, complicity can be as physical(assistance, practical assistance, etc.), and intellectual(for example, incitement to murder- chapter 22). In connection with this subject, even a slave who committed a crime at the direction of his master began to be recognized. The law distinguished persons from accomplices only those involved in the commission of a crime: accomplices (who created the conditions for the commission of a crime), connivers, non-informers, concealers. The subjective side of the crime is determined by the degree of guilt: The Code knows the division of crimes into deliberate, careless And random. For careless actions, the person who committed them is punished in the same way as for intentional criminal actions. The law highlights softening And aggravating circumstances. The first includes: a state of intoxication, uncontrollability of actions caused by an insult or threat (affect), the second - repetition of a crime, a combination of several crimes. Stand out individual stages of a criminal act: intent (which in itself may be punishable), attempted crime and commission of a crime. The law knows concept of relapse(coinciding in the Code with the concept of “dashing person”) and extreme necessity, which is not punishable only if the proportionality of its real danger on the part of the criminal is observed. Violation of proportionality meant exceeding the necessary defense and was punished. The Council Code considered the objects of crime to be the church, state, family, person, property and morality.
Crime system
1) Crimes against the church, 2) state crimes, 3) crimes against the order of government (intentional failure of the defendant to appear in court, resistance to the bailiff, production of false letters, acts and seals, counterfeiting, unauthorized travel abroad, moonshine, taking a false oath in court, false accusation), 4) crimes against the decency (keeping brothels, harboring fugitives, illegal sale of property, imposing duties on persons exempt from them), 5) official crimes (extortion (bribery, extortion, illegal exactions), injustice, forgery in service, military crimes), 6) crimes against the person (murder, divided into simple and qualified, beatings, insults to honor. The murder of a traitor or thief at the scene of the crime was not punished), 7) property crimes (simple and qualified theft (church, in the service, horse theft, perfect in the sovereign's court, theft of vegetables from a garden and fish from a fish tank), robbery committed in the form of a trade, ordinary and skilled robbery (committed by servicemen or children against their parents), fraud (theft associated with deception, but without violence), arson, forcible taking other people’s property, damage to other people’s property), 8) 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).
Punishments according to the Council Code
The punishment system was characterized by the following features: 1) individualization of punishment: the wife and children of the criminal were not responsible for the act committed by him, but the institution of third party liability was preserved - the landowner who killed the peasant had to transfer another peasant to the landowner who suffered the damage, the “right” procedure was preserved, to a large extent the guarantee was similar to the responsibility of the guarantor for the actions of the offender (for whom he vouched), 2) nightingale nature of punishment, expressed in the difference in the responsibility of different subjects for the same punishments (for example , chapter 10), 3)uncertainty in establishing punishment(this was due to the purpose of punishment - intimidation). The sentence may not have indicated the type of punishment, and if it was indicated, the method of its execution (“punish with death”) or the measure (term) of punishment (throw into prison until the sovereign’s decree) was unclear, 4) plurality of punishment- for the same crime several punishments could be established at once: whipping, cutting of the tongue, exile, confiscation of property.
Purposes of punishment:
Intimidation and retribution, isolation of the criminal from society was a secondary goal. It should be noted that the uncertainty in establishing the punishment created an additional psychological impact on the criminal. To intimidate the criminal, they applied the punishment that he would have desired for the person he had slandered. The publicity of punishments and executions had a socio-psychological significance: many punishments (burning, drowning, wheeling) served as analogues of hellish torment.
The Council Code provided for the use of the death penalty almost in 60 cases (even smoking tobacco was punishable by death). The death penalty was divided into qualified(chopping, quartering, burning, pouring metal into the throat, burying alive in the ground) and simple(hanging, beheading). Self-harm punishments included: cutting off an arm, leg, cutting off a nose, ear, lip, tearing out an eye, nostrils. These punishments could be applied as additional or as main ones. Mutilating punishments, in addition to intimidation, served the function of identifying the criminal. Painful punishments included flogging with a whip or batogs in a public place (at a market). Imprisonment, as a special type of punishment, could be set for a period from 3 days to 4 years or for an indefinite period. As an additional type of punishment (or as the main one), exile was imposed (to monasteries, fortresses, prisons, to boyar estates). Representatives of the privileged classes were subject to such a type of punishment as deprivation of honor and rights (from complete surrender by the head (turning into a slave) to the declaration of “disgrace” (isolation, ostracism, state disfavor). The accused could be deprived of rank, the right to sit in the Duma or order, deprive the right to file a claim in court. Property sanctions were widely used ( Chapter 10 of the Code in 74 cases established a gradation of fines “for dishonor” depending on social status victim). The highest sanction of this type was the complete confiscation of the criminal's property. In addition, the sanctions system included church punishments(repentance, penance, excommunication, exile to a monastery, confinement in a solitary cell, etc.).
Bodies administering justice
Central judicial bodies: the court of the king, the boyar duma, orders. Justice could be carried out either individually or collectively.
“Court” and “search” according to the Code
Judicial law in the Code constituted a special set of rules that regulated the organization of the court and process. Even more clearly than in the Code of Laws, there was a division into two forms of process: “trial” and “search ”. The legislation of that time still lacked a clear distinction between civil procedural law and criminal procedural law. However, two forms of the process were distinguished - adversarial (court) and investigative (search), and the latter acquired all higher value. Chapter 10 of the Code describes in detail the various procedures of the “trial”: the process was divided into court and “completion”, those. sentencing. The "trial" began (Chapter X. Art. 100-104) With “initiation”, filing a petition. Then the defendant was summoned to court by the bailiff. The defendant could provide guarantors. He was given the right not to appear in court twice for good reasons (for example, illness), but after three failures to appear, he automatically lost the process ( Chapter X. Art. 108-123). The winning party was given a corresponding certificate.
Proof, used and taken into account by the courts in the adversarial process, were diverse: witness's testimonies(practice required the involvement of at least 20 witnesses), written evidence (the most trustworthy of them were officially certified documents), kissing the cross (allowed in disputes over an amount not exceeding 1 ruble), drawing lots. Procedural measures aimed at obtaining evidence were “general” and “indiscriminate” search: in the first case, the population survey was carried out about the fact of a crime committed, and in the second - about a specific person suspected of a crime. Special types of testimony were: “link to the guilty” and general link. The first consisted in the reference of the accused or defendant to a witness, whose testimony must absolutely coincide with the testimony of the referrer; if there was a discrepancy, the case was lost. There could be several such references and in each case full confirmation was required. General link consisted in the appeal of both disputing parties to the same or several witnesses. Their testimony became decisive. The so-called “pravezh” became a kind of procedural action in court. The defendant (most often an insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to corporal punishment by the court, the number of which was equal to the amount of debt (for a debt of 100 rubles, they were flogged for a month). “Pravezh” was not just a punishment - it was a measure that encouraged the defendant to fulfill the obligation: he could have guarantors or he himself could decide to pay the debt. The adjudication in the adversarial process was oral, but was recorded in the “court list”. Each stage was formalized with a special document.
The search or “detective” was used in the most serious criminal cases. Special place and attention was given to crimes in which the state interest was affected. The case in the search process could begin with a statement from the victim, with the discovery of a crime (red-handed) or with an ordinary slander unsupported by the facts of the accusation - “linguistic rumor”). After that, let's get to work government agencies stepped in. The victim submitted a “appearance” (statement), and the bailiff and witnesses went to the crime scene to conduct an inquiry. The procedural actions were a “search”, i.e. interrogation of all suspects and witnesses. IN Chapter 21 of the Council Code For the first time, such a procedural procedure as torture is regulated. The basis for its use could be the results of the “search”, when the testimony was divided: part in favor of the accused, part against him. If the results of the “search” were favorable for the suspect, he could be taken on bail. The use of torture was regulated: it could be apply no more than three times, with a certain break. Testimony given during torture (“slander”) should have been rechecked through other procedural measures (interrogation, oath, “search”). The testimony of the tortured person was recorded.
Civil law according to the Council Code of 1649
Ownership is defined as a person's dominance over property. Researchers agree that the right of ownership according to the Code must be respected by everyone and the protection of this right is allowed only by the court, and not own strength. In extreme cases, the Code allows the use of force to protect property. For the same purpose, unauthorized management of other people's property, unauthorized taking of other people's property, and recognition of rights through the courts were prohibited.
The Council Code protected the right of private ownership of land.
2. Complete enslavement of the peasants according to the cathedral code of 1649..
The central and most important place in the Council Code is occupied by Chapter XI. Its title “The Court of Peasants” shows that the purpose of the chapter was legal regulation relationships between landowners in matters of ownership by peasants. The monopoly right of ownership of peasants was assigned in the Code to all categories of service ranks in the country. The law on hereditary (for feudal lords) and hereditary (for serfs) attachment of peasants is the largest and most radical norm of the Code, and the abolition of the fixed-term years for searching for fugitives became a necessary consequence and condition for the implementation of this norm. The other chapters of the Code do not contain anything similar either in meaning or consequences.
The Law on Attachment The Code applies to all categories of peasants and peasants. It divides peasants into two large varieties: sovereign peasants - palace and black-sown peasants, sovereigns of palace villages and black volosts, peasants in the land and peasants of estates and estates of service people in the fatherland. A subtype of privately owned peasants are the peasants of patriarchal, sovereign (metropolitan, episcopal) and monastic estates.
Art.1. Who are the sovereigns of the palace villages and black volosts, peasants and peasants, having run out from the sovereign palace villages and black volosts, live for the patriarch, or for the metropolitans, and for the archbishops, and for the bishop, or for the monasteries, or for the boyars, or for the okolnichy and for the duma and for house people, and for stewards, and for solicitors, and for Moscow nobles, and for clerks, and for tenants, and for city nobles and boyar children, and for foreigners, and for all sorts of patrimonial landowners and landowners, and in scribe books, which are scribe books submitted to the Local in other orders after the Moscow fire last year 134, those runaway peasants, or their fathers, were registered with the sovereign, and those sovereign runaway peasants and peasants were looking for to be brought to the sovereign's palace villages and to the black volosts, to their old lots according to the scribes books with wives and children and with all their peasant bellies without lesson years.
Dissecting this classification, it should be answered that the Code deals with two main types of peasants and peasants - privately owned and state-owned. The Code proclaimed the law on the attachment of black-sown peasants to their plots, along with the attachment of privately owned peasants. The basis for attaching both of them was the scribe books of 1626. The government, therefore, went further than the promises given in the order to the scribes of 1646. In relation to patrimonial and estate peasants for the period after 1626, the law established additional grounds for the fortress - separate or abandoned books in which peasants and nobles or their children are recorded “according to new dachas" "after those scribe books".
Art. 2. “...and those peasants and peasants in court and 161 for investigation will be given according to the scribe books, which books the scribes gave to the Local Order after the Moscow fire last year 134, will be those of their runaway peasants, or those of their runaway peasants’ fathers, in those scribes the books behind them are written, or after those scribe books, the same peasants, or their children, for new dachas are written behind someone in separate or in abandoned books. And to hand over runaway peasants and peasants from the races according to the scribe books of all ranks to people without formal years.”
The basis for the return of peasants who fled from both black-plowed and privately owned lands was the fact that they or their fathers were recorded in the scribe books of 1626. The wives and children of the fugitives were subject to return at the same time.
Verse 3 “... and give those peasants with their wives and children and with all their bellies, and with standing bread and with milk.”
The Code, therefore, consolidated hereditary serfdom, extending it to family members of the peasant and peasant. As another basis for serfdom in the future, census books of 1646-1648 were established, which took into account the male population of peasant and bobyl households of any age. For the future, the circle of relatives of peasants and peasants, who were subject to serfdom, expanded significantly. In addition to the wives and children enslaved by the census books of the 20s, in this circle according to the census books of 1646-1648. brothers, nephews and grandchildren with wives and children were included.
Art.9. “...and those runaway peasants and peasants, and their brothers, and children, and nephews, and their grandchildren with their wives and children and with all their bellies, and with standing bread and with milk, give away from the run to those people because of whom they run out according to census books, without reference years, and from now on, do not accept foreign peasants to anyone, and do not keep them with you.”
The Code, therefore, extended hereditary serfdom in a straight line down to the fourth generation (great-grandchildren) and in a lateral line down to the third line (children of nephews), including wives and husbands. Scribe books of the 20s. and census records of the 40s. as the basis of serfdom they could complement each other (fathers could be listed in the first, and children in the second) or act independently of each other: serfdom was established:
1) according to the recording of fathers in the scribe books, even if for some reason the children were not included in the census;
2) according to entries in the census books, if the fathers of those recorded in them were not listed in the scribe books.
Art. 11 “And someone will teach the sovereign to beat him with his forehead about the runaway peasants and peasants, but in the census books of those peasants and their fathers it is not written under the plaintiff and behind the defendant, but those peasants are written under the plaintiff or behind the defendant in the census books of the past 154th and 155, and those peasants and peasants should be given according to the census books to the person for whom they are written in the census books.”
Serfdom included two forms of attachment of the direct producer: attachment to the land - to feudal ownership and attachment to the personality of the feudal lord - to the patrimonial owner and landowner. This is reflected in the Code of 1649. The peasant appears in it as an organic affiliation of the estate and patrimony, regardless of the identity of the owner. This is evident from the ban on transferring peasants from estates to estates, even within the same estate. Standing in the position of protecting local land ownership and motivating the ban on the transfer of peasants with the fear that otherwise the estates might become desolate, the legislator proceeded from the principle of attaching peasants to the land, and therefore extended the ban on transfer to those peasants who were recorded in the books of the estates.
Art. 30. “And for which the landowners and patrimonial owners, peasants and lords in scribes, or in separate or in refuse books, and in the extracts written on their local and on patrimonial lands separately, and to those landowners and patrimonial lords of their peasants from their local lands to their patrimonial lands do not reduce the land, and therefore do not waste your estates.”
The Code considered the peasant and his property (equipment, livestock, grain in all forms) in an indissoluble unity. Hence the categorical demands of the law for the return of fugitive peasants along with their property, regardless of which lands they fled from - privately owned or black-mown ones. The black-nosed peasants sat on land that belonged to the state, but the yards, livestock, implements and other property of the peasant household were the property of the peasants.
Finally, since with the abolition of school years the search for fugitives became unlimited, the return of the fugitive with property through big gap time could mean that the peasant was returning with property acquired in a new place, from a new owner. The law did not stipulate that the latter was deprived of peasant property as a sanction for holding a fugitive (as, for example, it is stipulated in the Code regarding a loan). Property n in in this case belonged to a peasant. The Code enshrines the right of the landowner and patrimonial owner, along with filing a claim against someone for his runaway peasant, to file a claim for the property (lives) of the runaway. If the plaintiff did not indicate either the contents or the price of the bellies, the claim for property was still satisfied (in the amount of five rubles), despite the defendant’s assertion that the fugitive peasant came to him without bellies. Such bellies were called “deaf.”
Art. 26. “And whoever the defendant does not deny himself as a peasant, but says about bellies that that peasant came to him without bellies, and the plaintiff says that his peasant came to that defendant with his bellies, and how many bellies did that peasant have, and in his petition of claim he won’t write the price for those peasant bellies, but he will bring it to the faith, and for such peasant deaf bellies, the faith will put five rubles each, and the peasants, having taken it from the defendant, will be given to the plaintiff.”
If at trial the defendant denied the presence of runaway peasants and their property, and then admitted to hiding them during the kissing of the cross, then he still suffered the punishment - he compensated the cost of the peasant property. The legislator motivated this by the desire to gain self-interest (i.e., take possession) of peasant property.
Art. 29. “And whoever the defendants will say at the trial that the fugitive peasants and their peasant bellies are zapiratsa, and after that, at the kiss of the cross of those peasants, they will say in themselves, and they will teach the plaintiff to give, and in their bellies they will still be considered zapiratsa, and to Those peasant bellies are ordered to be corrected, and given to the plaintiff without a kiss on the cross, because at the trial they locked themselves up in everything, in people and in their bellies, and after that they give the peasants away, but they themselves want to be selfish with their bellies.”
In all these cases, the law was based on the understanding unbreakable connection peasant with property as the initial condition for his productive activity. Moreover, for the same reason, the land actually belonged to the peasant, which entailed securing for him a certain (very limited and conditional) right to own and use it. Thus, the Code of 1649, in comparison with previous legislation, developed in much more detail and depth the legal basis for the ownership of peasants’ property and its return according to their ownership as necessary condition functioning of the peasant farm.
To summarize the analysis of the norms of the Code relating to the peasantry, we note that the Code of 1649 is associated with the establishment of permanent hereditary and hereditary serfdom of peasants, including their families, as well as direct and lateral relatives. Because of this, the regular years of searching for fugitives were cancelled. The investigation became indefinite.
Black-growing peasants were also assigned to the volost communities and were subject to search and return to their former plots on a general basis. The Code of 1649 secured the monopoly right of ownership of peasants for all categories of service ranks in the fatherland. The legal basis for the rights to peasants, their attachment and investigation were the scribe books of the 20s. XVII century, and for the period after the Code, in addition to them - census books of 1646-1648, individual and refusal books, letters of grant, acts of transactions for peasants between feudal lords, inventories of the return of peasants as a result of investigation. The Code owns the development legal framework, searching for runaway peasants. To give private acts of transactions on peasants official force, their registration in the Local Order was mandatory.
The Code completed the process of legal rapprochement between bobyls and peasants, extending to bobyls an equal measure of serfdom. Being important stage on the path of legal rapprochement between estates and estates, the Code, at the same time, in order to preserve the estate system, which prevailed in the first half of the 17th century, limited the rights of disposal of peasants recorded in the books of the estates: it was forbidden to transfer them to estate lands and give them vacation pay. Rights to patrimonial peasants were more complete. Confession economic connection feudal ownership with peasant farming was expressed in the protection by law of the property and life of the peasant from the arbitrariness of the feudal lord, although the sanction for the feudal lord in such cases was determined much weaker than for representatives of the lower classes, with the exception of the premeditated murder of the peasant. Thus, the Code, following the immediately preceding legislation and supplementing it, resolved land and peasant issues in conjunction, subordinating the question of the peasantry to the land issue.
In the bulk of cases, the legal capacity of peasants was limited (landowners were “searched for” and “responsible” for them), but in criminal cases they remained the subject of a crime. As a subject of law, a peasant could participate in a trial, as a witness, or be a participant in a general search. In the civil legal sphere, he could bring material claims within the limits of 20 rubles. In the fact of compensation for dishonor and injury provided for by the Code, the peasant, along with other classes, received recognition (from the standpoint of feudal society) - a certain complex civil rights inherent in the lower class-estate of this society. The peasant, according to the Code, had a certain legal capacity and legal capacity. Black-sown peasants had more rights than privately-owned peasants.
The most important task The Code and, above all, Chapter XI was the fight against the escape of peasants, but the content of the chapter is not limited to this. And although Chapter XI by no means exhausts the entire variety of norms of the Code concerning peasants, on its basis it can still be concluded that the Code of 1649, having completed the legal formalization of serfdom for all categories of peasants, at the same time created to a certain extent a legal fence for the class-class integrity of the peasantry, trying to close it within class boundaries. Being in social and legal terms a degraded class-estate, from which the ruling class was separated by significant partitions of rights and privileges, the peasants nevertheless had the right of ownership of their property, including the tools of production, as well as certain powers and legal capacity, which ensured for that time stable balance and functioning of the entire feudal-serf system. In connection with the general concept of serfdom as legal expression Historians associate production relations of feudal society with the Council Code of 1649 new level on the path to the final enslavement of the main producers of material goods.
Even change titles by giving up your freedom. In this situation, he could only give up, but the peasant question received such a solution a little later, with the adoption of the Council Code of 1649. The Council Code of 1649 We determined that the small landed nobles could not by economic means keep the peasants on their lands. For this reason, they persistently sought abolition...
To strengthen the autocratic system. The Council Code in general and on individual problems has repeatedly been the subject of research in pre-revolutionary and Soviet literature, as well as modern researchers. 2. Study of the Council Code Its study began in the 30-40s. XIX century representatives of noble historical and legal science (V. Stroev, F. Moroshkin, V. Linovsky, etc.), in whose works...
By the middle of the 17th century. Major changes were revealed in the economy of the Russian state. However, at the core public life there was still a feudal mode of production. The presence of corvée, the growth of natural and monetary dues from peasants; the rapid expansion of noble land ownership - all this placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of the peasants and contributed to the intensification of the class struggle. It was in such a situation that the Council Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was born - the code of serfdom.
In the 16th century The local system, closely connected with corvée, became widespread, which contributed to increased exploitation various groups dependent peasantry. The number of escapes of peasants and slaves increased, the cases of forced plowing of lands by peasants and cutting down of forests of feudal lords increased. Cases of direct murder of individual feudal lords by peasants became more frequent.
In official documents of the mid-century, there were persistent complaints about the increase in the number of “robbers” who attacked landowners’ villages and destroyed documents that secured the rights of feudal lords to lands and peasants. The Council Code of 1649, fulfilling the demands of the nobility, specifically introduced Ch. 11 “The Trial of the Peasants”, in which fixed-term summers were abolished, the search for runaway peasants became indefinite. Articles 1, 2 ch. 11 said that the escaped peasant was wanted throughout his life and returned with his children. For accepting fugitives, a sanction of 10 rubles was established. per year for each peasant in favor of the plaintiff. The peasant's position is approaching more and more to serfs. Article 13 ch. 11 gave the feudal lord the right to separate parents and children, serfs. Articles 3.9, 34 ch. 11 also indicate the lack of rights of the peasants: “...The husbands of the daughters, sisters and nieces of a runaway peasant, who do not belong to his legal owner, remain with their patrimonial owner or landowner.”
In Art. 34, the view of the peasant as a thing was clearly expressed: “... His belonging to one or another owner was decided by lot, the losing landowner was rewarded with money.”
In Art. 7, 24, 34 Ch. II, there is a tendency to transform the peasant’s personality into a commodity.
“If a patrimonial owner bought a patrimonial property along with runaway peasants, who must be returned to their owner, then the buyer has the right to demand compensation for losses from the seller. The loss is not compensated by the transfer to the buyer of equivalent “property” - the peasants of the seller of the estate. The peasant becomes a commodity for which a fixed price is set - 4 rubles, and property was valued on average at 5 rubles. The court proceeded from this provision if it was impossible to return the peasant or his property in kind or to prove its actual value.
Articles 10, 23 ch. 11 establish responsibility for the reception of fugitive peasants who fled after the Council Code of 1649.
Landowners who accepted the fugitives were obliged not only to return them, but also to pay a certain amount to the rightful owner of the peasants. At the same time, a judicial procedure (“by trial and investigation”) is established for resolving disputes about the return of peasants.
Except ch. 11 “Court of Peasants”, the powerless position of peasants is legalized by other articles of the Code (Articles 94, 122, 235, 251,262 Chapter 10, Article 7 Chapter 13, Articles 9, 14, 15, 37 Chapter 19. Art. 47, 71 chapter 21, article 7 chapter 21). These articles are evidence of the complete dependence of the peasants on their feudal landowners.
“For the murder of a peasant, the feudal lord was subjected to imprisonment, and as compensation for losses to the feudal lord who suffered from the loss of the peasant, he gave from his farm the best peasant with my wife and children."
According to the Council Code of 1649, the peasant was finally turned into the property of the owner, who could dispose of labor, property, the very personality of the peasant and even his family (Article 18, Chapter 11).
When studying the legal status of peasants, one must keep in mind that the Code, without interfering in many relations of feudal lords with peasants, leaves full scope for the arbitrariness of patrimonial owners and landowners. For example, in the Code there are no rules regulating the amount of peasant duties.
Legislative norms on peasants are presented in the 17 most important sections of the Code, as evidenced by table. 1.
So, 111 articles in 17 chapters of the Code mention peasants. The Code introduces a special chapter. 20 “About bonded slaves.”
The institution of servitude dates back to the time of the Old Russian feudal state. In “Russian Truth”, Code of Laws of 1497, and Tsar’s Code of Laws of 1550, there are references to slaves.
The Council Code retains the division of serfs into full, report, old and bonded, differing in the degree of dependence. All slaves, except for bonded ones, were “strong” to their masters. Throughout their lives and with their families, they were inherited by the relatives of the deceased slave owner.
The main source of replenishment of enslaved slaves were the unenslaved elements of society. In articles 7, 8, 16, 25 ch. 20 says this. The purchased Tatars also replenished the slaves.
At the same time, the Code strictly regulated the sources of replenishment of indentured servitude.
Thus, bondage was formalized only from the age of 15 (Article 20, Chapter 20). It was forbidden to enslave the verstan and non- verstan children of the boyars (Article 2, Chapter 20).
Bonded slaves were dependent on their masters for the period established by the bondage charter. Children of indentured servants were not inherited.
The Code of 1649 comprehensively regulated the process of formalizing dependence on service bondage. The slave order was obliged to strictly check the place of birth, origin and occupation of slaves.
A person who became an indentured slave was paid a “salary” (Article 78, Chapter 20). A feature of the legal status of an indentured slave was dependence on the master until his death (Article 63, Chapter 20). It was forbidden to include enslaved slaves in charters, transfer them as a dowry or in a will (Article 61, Chapter 20).
Economic basis The lack of rights of slaves, unlike peasants, was their lack of property.
If in the Code the concept of “bellies” is inextricably linked with peasants (the return of a peasant from running along with his stomachs), then in relation to slaves this concept provided for the dress in which the slave ran away from the master (Article 93, Chapter 20). “And whoever is caught as a slave, and on that slave for the dress he is brought to the Serf Order... then the dress will be handed over to the plaintiff, and by court and investigation a decree will be issued between them.”
The Code comprehensively regulated the process of formalizing dependence on service bondage and did not create exceptions to the rules of inheritance of bonded slaves by applying to them the old principle: for a slave - a slave, for a slave - a slave (Article 31, Chapter 20). The marriage of an indentured servant to a free woman made her a servant by her husband (Article 85, Chapter 20).
In the process of formation and development of the Russian centralized state, a class of townspeople was formed, living on the sovereign's land and bearing duties in favor of the state. Posad was a special area of application of feudal law.
The Council Code of 1649, for the first time in the history of Russian feudal legislation, devoted a special chapter 19 to the townspeople and the townspeople. They paid taxes from the yards and shops they owned to the sovereign, and bore a number of other duties, expressed in the construction of city fortifications and the provision of horses for racing etc. Some of the streets and houses in the suburbs belonged to private, spiritual and secular persons- all these settlements were called white settlements, or white places. They were exempt from the royal tax, that is, they were in a privileged position compared to the townspeople tax population.
The Council Code regulated the legal status of the townspeople and, first of all, attached them to a given town.
“If the daughter of a townsman or a widow leaves the town and marries an enslaved man or a peasant..., then they, instead of their husband and children, return to the town and are included in the tax (Article 38, Chapter 19). Articles 94-97 ch. 19 determined the procedure for returning the townspeople to a taxable state, and Art. 35-36 - rules for townspeople conducting trade operations in cities.
So, the law on attaching townspeople to the town with a ban on leaving it received a complete expression in the Code.
Posad was confined to class boundaries, the inviolability of which was guaranteed by law.
The main attention in the Code was paid to consolidating the privileged position of the feudal lords; the feudal hierarchy was clearly presented (Article 91, 93, Chapter 10) and the dependence of the local salary on it.
