Cathedral Code of 1649
On July 26, 1648, on behalf of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, work began on drawing up the Council Code - a set of laws of Russia. The Council Code was adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1649 and was in force for almost 200 years.
The immediate reason for drawing up the Council Code was the riot that occurred in Moscow in early June 1648. Then, among the demands of the rebellious townspeople was, in addition to reducing taxes, the adoption of new legislative acts. The time for this is also ripe due to the fact that the previous legislative code - the Code of Laws of Ivan the Terrible, adopted in 1550, largely required revision. In addition, by the middle of the 17th century, the country had a colossal number of legal acts and norms that were not only outdated, but also contradicted each other. To consider the new Council Code, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich convened the Zemsky Sobor.
To prepare a draft code of laws, a kind of “editorial commission” was formed, headed by the boyar Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky. Together with him, other experienced administrators worked on drawing up the document - princes Semyon Vasilyevich Prozorovsky and Fyodor Fedorovich Volkonsky, clerks Gavriil Leontyev and Fyodor Griboedov.
The new code of laws was based on a number of norms of Byzantine law, translated from the collection of legal acts “Nomocanon”, Code of Laws of Tsar Ivan IV and later Russian laws, a body of Western Russian law - the Lithuanian Statute, as well as petition letters from nobles, merchants and townspeople, submitted to the Tsar in 1648.
Already on September 1, 1648, the commission was supposed to report to the council on its work, but due to the large volume of documents, the reading of the draft articles began only on October 3. The council, which discussed the Code, was held in a wide composition: it was attended by the tsar, boyars, clergy, elected representatives from the nobility and townspeople. The deputies made many amendments, so the final text of the Code was prepared only at the end of January 1649.
The new code of laws consisted of 25 chapters, each of which was divided into articles; There were 967 articles in total. The Code outlined a division into branches of law, and systematized the norms of state, criminal, civil and family legislation. There was talk about norms regarding land ownership and land tenure, in relation to peasants, townspeople and serfs. The system of punishments and the procedure for legal proceedings were described. Separate chapters contained provisions on Cossacks, taverns and archers. The Code of 1649 was adopted on July 26 (16 old style) and became the first Moscow state code containing legislative norms relating to religion and the church (for example, blasphemy was punishable by death penalty, obscene behavior in church was punishable by whipping). Thus, the entire legal system that existed at that time in Russia was brought into a certain order.
What was new in the Code was that it proclaimed the principle of equality in the administration of justice for all subjects, “from the highest to the lowest rank,” and was supposed to deliver the offended “from the hand of the unjust.”
The cathedral code looked like a long paper scroll consisting of 959 columns. The text was completed by more than those hundreds of signatures of the Zemsky Sobor participants. The cathedral code was almost immediately reprinted in the form of a book, published in two editions with a total of 2,400 copies, and subsequently it was also reprinted more than once. More than a hundred years after its adoption, during the reign of Catherine II, to preserve the original list, it was placed in a special silver box. The Council Code remained in force until 1832, when a new Code of Laws was prepared Russian Empire. But even then it, as historical monument was included in the first volume of the Full Assembly Laws of the Russian Empire.
Cathedral Code Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich for its time represented a big step forward in the development of the legal system and legislation of the Russian state. http://rusplt.ru/wins/sobornoe-ulojeni e-istoriya-27829.html
Code of the Sovereign, Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich: reprinted from the Complete Collection of Laws: [in memory of the tercentenary of the House of Romanov]. – [B.m.]: State Printing House, 1915. – 337, CXXX p.
Attached: Photos from the original list of the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.
In 1767, on the occasion of the establishment of a Commission in Moscow to draft a new Code, Empress Catherine II wished to see the original Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich with the intention of finding out who exactly secured it with their assault. Prince Alexander Alekseevich Vyazemsky, who was holding the post of Prosecutor General at that time, and who was entrusted with presenting the Code to the Empress, looked for it in the Senate and Razryadny archives, in the Synodal Printing House and even under the altar in the Assumption Cathedral, where the most important state documents were usually kept. But all searches were in vain. The Column Laid, as it was called in the 17th century, was kept, almost from the time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself, in the so-called Prikaz of the Great Treasury, which later became part of the Workshop and the Armory Chamber together with the Treasury Prikaz. It was here, as the repository of many state documents, that the Prosecutor General finally turned to demand news of the original Code. The presence of the Workshop and the Armory Chamber gave an affirmative answer, and on the same day, April 18, in the ancient Treasury Chamber “near the Annunciation Cathedral, an iron chest was found, where the original Code of the Sovereign Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was kept; only that chest, because the key was not found, was not opened”; That's why it was decided to make a new key immediately. The next day, the original Code and a printed copy of its first edition, 7157, were “taken out of this chest in a red cloth bag.” On the same day, April 19, both the column and the books were presented by Prince Vyazemsky to the Empress. Her Majesty, examining the original, “Highly deigned to command, with all care, that Councilor Miller write down who had a hand in the genuine Code.” The collegiate adviser and professor Miller, who was in the Archives of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and was called by Prince Vyazemsky to listen to this command of the Empress, announced that it was impossible for him to do this in the Workshop and Armory Office. Therefore, the presence of the Office determined: “Having weighed the original Code of Pillars, give it to Miller with a receipt.” Thus, the “Column” was hung in compliance with the legal order, i.e., in the presence of a member of the Office and in the presence of two merchants, and was given to Miller. The weight turned out to be 11 pounds 79 spools without wrapping paper and without string.
The Code column, as Miller announced, is 334 arshins in length; there are up to 400 different hands. There are 315 of all persons who had their hands on the Code. However, in the list of assaults compiled by Miller, there are 1416 of them; but the voters of two Streletsky Orders were incorrectly included in this account, the electors of which, when signing, mentioned their number, one 500 houses, the other 600 people, which gave rise to their inclusion in the general account. In addition, one person ended up here who signed only due to inability to read and write.
The statute was signed by: Patriarch Joseph, 2 metropolitans, 3 archbishops, one bishop, 5 archimandrites, abbot, 15 boyars, 10 okolnichy, treasurer, Duma nobleman, printer, Duma clerk, Blagoveshchensk archpriest, confessor of the Sovereign, 5 Moscow nobles, 148 city nobles , three guests, 12 elected from Moscow hundreds and settlements, 89 elected townsmen from cities and, finally, 15 elected from 15 Moscow Streletsky Prikaz.
The assaults are written on the back of the sheets of paper and follow one after another, for the most part warehouse after warehouse, continuously, on each sheet (with the exception, however, of five), with the intention that all sheets of the original were fixed by the Zemsky Sobor, as accurately as all The gluing columns, numbering 960, on the front side and on the back are fastened with clerks. On the front side, these gluings were signed by the Duma clerk Ivan Gavrenev, and on the back by the Duma clerks Fyodor Elizarov and Mikhailo Volosheninov and clerks Gavrilo Leontyev and Fyodor Griboyedov.
And Empress Catherine, having appointed to keep the original Code as before in the Workshop and Armory, ordered “to immediately make a silver ark with gilding for its preservation.” Thus, instead of the previous red cloth bag, sewn for the Code probably under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the famous and most important monument of ancient Russian legislation was placed in a silver gilded ark, in which it is preserved to this day. On this ark, the following inscription is carved on the sides: “The authentic Code of Rights in the Russian State, composed under the rule of His Majesty Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, “1649. - To preserve this Code, this ark was made “by the most merciful command of Her Majesty the Empress Catherine Alekseevna the Second, 1767.”
During 1648-1649. It was adopted during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. Compilation of this document was carried out by a commission headed by Prince N.I. Odoevsky. The Code of Law of 1550, the books of Razboynoy, Zemsky, collective petitions of townspeople, provincial and Moscow nobles, as well as the Kormchaya Book and the Lithuanian Statute were used as the basis for creating the code. In general, the Council Code included 25 chapters and 967 articles, which are devoted to issues of state criminal and property proceedings and law.
Several chapters address issues related to public law. The first chapters define the term “state crime,” which implied an action that is directed against the power of the monarch and the person of the king. Participation in a criminal act and conspiracy against the tsar, governor, boyars and officials was punishable by death without any mercy.
The Council Code in the first chapter describes the protection of the interests of the church from rebels, the protection of nobles even when they kill peasants and slaves.
Russia’s defense of the interests of the ruling class is also evidenced by the difference in fines for insulting: for insulting a peasant one had to pay two rubles, drinking man- ruble, and for persons belonging to the privileged class - up to 80-100 rubles.
The chapter “The Court of Peasants” includes articles that established the eternal hereditary dependence of the peasants; in this chapter, the deadline for searching for runaway peasants was abolished, and a large penalty was established for harboring a runaway. The Council Code took away the landowner's right in relation to property disputes from the peasants.
In accordance with the chapter “On Posad People,” private settlements in cities were liquidated and returned to people who were previously exempt from paying taxes. The judicial code provided for the search for fugitive townspeople; the population of the town was subject to taxes. The chapters “On Estates” and “On Local Lands”, which are devoted to issues of land ownership by nobles, talk about enslaved slaves.
The Council Code contains an extensive chapter “On the Court,” which examines judicial issues. It regulated in detail the procedure for conducting investigations and conducting legal proceedings, determined the amount of court fees and fines, covered issues of premeditated and premeditated crimes, and regulated controversial cases regarding property.
The structure of the armed forces of the state is discussed in the chapters “On the service of soldiers “On the archers”, “On the redemption of prisoners of war”. The conciliar code, briefly described in this article, became an important stage in the formation of serfdom and autocracy. It was the basic law in Russian state until the middle of the 19th century.
In 1649, a new set of laws was adopted in Russia - the Council Code. Relying on it, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich significantly expanded the social base of autocratic power and strengthened the position of the state as a whole. This circumstance predetermined the longevity of the Code, which was in force until the 30s of the 19th century.
Salt riot in Moscow. 1648 Hood. E.E. Lissner. 1938 - photo courtesy of M. Zolotarev
The history of the emergence of the Council Code is inextricably linked with the beginning of the reign Alexey Mikhailovich, who ascended the throne in June 1645, after the sudden death of his father, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich…
Uncle Quiet
In the first years, the young sovereign did little business. Real power passed to the person whom the Quiet One trusted endlessly - his teacher and uncle, the boyar Boris Ivanovich Morozov. The boyar was knowledgeable, businesslike and dexterous in his manners. But he lacked breadth of mind.
In addition, Boris Ivanovich was selfish and hastened to surround himself with businessmen, most of them dishonest. The moral character of these people will subsequently become one of the reasons for open popular indignation.
Morozov's omnipotence caused a lot of gossip and unflattering words addressed to... Alexei Mikhailovich. “The young sovereign is stupid, but he sees everything from the mouths of the boyars, they own everything, but he, the sovereign, knows everything and is silent, the devil has taken his mind,” they said in people, meaning by boyars primarily Morozov.
Meanwhile, Alexei Mikhailovich’s gullibility is quite understandable: he was not “stupid,” but young and inexperienced. And he is not alone, finding himself in at a young age on the throne, looking for support.
So it was with his father Mikhail Fedorovich, the first Romanov, and so it will be with his sons - Fedor, Ivan and Peter. True, tradition assumed the co-government of the Boyar Duma or the Regency Council. Morozov crushed everyone, preferring to single-handedly support the scepter - still heavy, as one diplomat aptly put it, for the young man’s hand.
Morozov and his entourage realized that solving the main foreign policy problems - first of all, the return of Russian lands that had been ceded to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - was impossible without ensuring the security of the southern borders.
In this sense, the government was ready to continue the titanic efforts that were made by the authorities during the previous reign - to erect abatis and fortified cities in the Wild Field. And this, in turn, acutely raised the problem of finding funds to replenish the treasury.
Morozov salt
In solving this problem, Morozov focused on two directions.
First, he sharply reduced government spending. Cash and food payments were reduced for serving people. The clerks, “who feed on business,” had their salaries cut or stopped paying them altogether.
Particular attention was paid to arrears - taxes from the population that were not received over the past years. Debtors were brought to justice on a scale previously unheard of.
The whistling of the batogs interspersed with the groans of the arrears - this is the true music of the first years of the reign of the Quietest.
Secondly, the government tried to find fundamentally new types of taxes. Thus, in 1646, a high duty on salt was introduced. Its initiators proceeded from the fact that all segments of the population have a need for salt and everyone, depending on their income, will pay for it “of their own free will.”
Having relied on an indirect tax, the government, in anticipation of a monetary flood, even abolished the main types of direct taxes.
However, all these measures led to the exact opposite results. State austerity has caused intense dissatisfaction. Covetousness and lawlessness flourished in the orders and voivodeship huts. Finding the “truth” became extremely difficult, and “worldly wisdom” triumphed in the courts: whoever is strong and rich, “there will be more spades for him.”
The government also suffered a fiasco with the salt tax. The population has sharply reduced salt consumption. As a result, the supposed financial flood turned into drying up, thin streams of money.
In 1647, the new tax was abolished and the previous taxes were restored. At the same time, the authorities demanded that tax-paying people pay them for two “preferential” years. Such a shameless revision of one's own legislation caused an explosion of indignation.
Big petition
Morozov and his entourage became a target for the dissatisfied. The head of the Zemsky Prikaz earned particular hatred from Muscovites. Leonty Pleshcheev. Contemporaries even started talking about the “Pleshcheevshchina” as a symbol of the triumph of lawlessness and the rule of might.
All attempts to complain about him to the king ended in nothing. Pleshcheev and others like him were invulnerable. Hatred, although it accumulated drop by drop, was bound to sooner or later turn into an explosion of unprecedented force.
This explosion occurred in the summer of 1648. On June 2, Muscovites burst into the Kremlin, demanding that unjust judges and bribe-takers be punished. Boris Ivanovich Morozov, who headed the Streletsky order, gave the command to the Streltsy to disperse the rebels.
But the archers, who tasted the expensive Morozov salt along with everyone else, refused to speak out “against the people.” This sharply escalated the situation. The government did not have the strength to cope with the Gilevists.
Portrait of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov. Unknown artist. Late XVIII – early XIX century - photo courtesy of M. Zolotarev
In order to somehow calm the flames of rebellion, Pleshcheev was handed over for execution. He wasn't even brought to the chopping block. The crowd tore the okolnichy to pieces as soon as he was outside the Kremlin gates.
The shed blood only incited the rebels. The people demanded the extradition of the main culprit of the disaster - the “traitor” Morozov. Frightened Alexei Mikhailovich, with tears in his eyes, “begged” the boyar from the “rabble,” promising to permanently remove him from business and remove him from Moscow. Under the threat of new protests, Boris Ivanovich was forced to leave the capital.
THE TOPIC OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE BECAME THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH. In the context of the era, this approach was perceived as a visible triumph of legality
Meanwhile, Moscow events began to take on organized forms. The initiative was seized by the townspeople's "mirs" and the provincial nobles who joined them. On June 10, their joint Great Petition was submitted to the Tsar, demanding the punishment of the perpetrators and the convening of a Zemsky Sobor to develop a code - a new set of laws.
Alexey Mikhailovich did not dare to contradict the petitioners. Moreover, news of the uprising in the capital caused unrest in other cities. The nature and direction of these unrest usually reflected the characteristics of the regions.
In the north, in Pomerania, where the posads were traditionally strong and there were close ties with the black-growing peasantry, protests attacked the “worldly bloodsuckers and world-eaters” - the urban elite who oppressed the local population.
In the south, where small service people predominated, the rebels vented their anger on the leading people. But in both cases, the blow fell on the voivodeship administration.
The urban uprisings that swept across the country showed that the traditions of self-government and the ability to put forward and defend demands were not lost - “peace” and “land” remained a formidable force.
During the Time of Troubles, they managed to expel the invaders, curb the “thieves” and help revive the kingdom. Now - to force the authorities to reckon with themselves.
Zemsky Sobor
Everything that happened extremely frightened the top. The Kremlin, not without reason, feared the expansion and radicalization of the protests. All those who stood at the helm of power and fed from this power recognized it as advisable to meet the cherished aspirations of the “people”, the main one of which was the creation of new legislation.
“And everyone knows that the Council was not of the will, for the sake of fear and civil strife from all black people, and not for the sake of true truth,” the patriarch noted on this occasion already during the years of his quarrel with the Quiet One Nikon.
Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Moscow, Printing yard. 1649. Chapter “On Blasphemers and Church Riots” - photo courtesy of M. Zolotarev
Opened in autumn 1648 Zemsky Sobor very different from all previous ones. And not only because of its numbers, which were second only to the Council of 1613, when the Tsar was elected. In 1648, just under 300 electors gathered in the capital, with more than 170 people from the district nobility, 89 from cities, 12 from Moscow hundreds and settlements, and 15 from the Streltsy.
What is noteworthy here is the decisive predominance of representatives from counties and provincial cities. Never, perhaps, in the entire history of the existence of zemstvo councils has the government faced such strong and organized pressure from elected officials as this time.
In this sense, accepted Code of 1649 can be called not only a consequence of urban uprisings, but also the brainchild of the province, which literally dictated the content of many articles to the authorities. According to our calculations, more than 100 articles go back to petitions from representatives of the provincial nobility and townspeople.
A feature of the behavior of the noble and townsmen elected officials at the Council was the coordination of their actions and joint pressure on the government. This union (“solitude”) was realized within the framework of class and “bureaucratic” consciousness, and at the Council itself, status barriers were observed with greater severity than in everyday life. The noble and townsman elected officials, reinforcing each other, always beat their heads separately, according to the “curias”.
However, there is no reason to doubt that the mutual support of the two elected “curias” is the result of the understanding that in a “dialogue” with the authorities, solidarity actions will bring greater results than a separate “stronghold”.
Boyar Prince Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky (d. 1689) headed the order commission for the preparation of the Council Code - photo courtesy of M. Zolotarev
Having begun work on the Code, the entourage of the second Romanov was constantly afraid of new indignation. They even named the dates when we should expect a repeat of the “summer event.” The tense atmosphere required the creation of a valve capable of weakening the force of discontent. It became the Responsive Chamber, in which elected people put forward their demands and discussed the articles of the Code.
The code of laws itself was prepared in the Statutory Order, specially designed to write and coordinate all the work. The order-commission was headed by the boyar prince Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky.
Quiet himself also actively participated in the work on the Code. Foreign observers, as a curiosity not previously characteristic of the tsar, noted his amazing zeal: he seemed to work on the laws every day. However, sources provide scant evidence of this. Unless one of the decrees mentions:
“[The king], having listened to petitions [for the abolition of school years. – I.A.], spoke with the Duma people and with the nobles of all cities who beat us with their foreheads about the runaway peasants; indicated and the Council laid down the appointed summers to be set aside.”
Meanwhile, it is obvious that the lessons of the Salt Riot and the Code turned out to be instructive for the second Romanov. It was from this time that he began not to reign, but to rule, constantly interfering in management issues.
For truth, equality and justice
The demands voiced in the Response Chamber, along with previous collective appeals, give reason to talk about the existence of more serious reasons for the speech than simply indignation at Morozov’s policies.
Of course, both eventually became intertwined into a tight knot. And yet the underlying reasons were much more significant. They had a huge influence on the Code, largely determining the direction of the country’s development and the content of the new legislation.
These reasons were connected with dissatisfaction with their legal status and social status of those segments of the population that the historian S.F. Platonov classified them as “middle classes”. The term is not the best. But townspeople and district nobles actually occupied an intermediate position in the social hierarchy.
Even the nobles and boyar children, whom Marxist historiography classified as the ruling class, had little influence on government policy. And this despite the fact that the importance of this part of the “ruling class” increased every decade!
Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Front page and a flyleaf with a portrait of the Tsar from the 1737 edition - photo courtesy of M. Zolotarev
The origins of dissatisfaction with their position among servicemen and townspeople go back to the post-Trouble times.
After all, it was these segments of the population that contributed greatest contribution to save the country. Accordingly, they had the right to expect that the new dynasty would satisfy their most cherished aspirations. But this did not happen. Numerous collective appeals from the servicemen of the “cities” and the townspeople’s “worlds” remained unanswered.
And if concessions were made, they were often cut down and reshaped beyond recognition. Such social deafness was perceived as the sovereign’s forgetting of the promise to do the Truth, as a blatant injustice, which traditional consciousness habitually explained as the machinations of the “sovereign’s ill-willed people” and “traitors” who alienated the tsar from the “people.”
Representatives of the Vladimir nobility were supposed to “fearlessly speak about all sorts of deeds and insults” at the Council, “meet the strong and rich with truth” and force them to forever renounce violence and “soul-destructive self-interest.”
The nobles longed for justice and equality: so that “from the highest to the lowest rank, the court and justice would be equal to everyone in all matters.” This phrase is taken from the preamble to the Code, but it, like a tracing paper, repeats what was heard in the orders of the nobility - and there the petitioners demanded from the sovereign that he arrange “a just trial for all people, equal to the greatest, so to the least.”
Of course, we were talking about equality within the class - the equalization, for example, of service people “in the homeland” in rights, awards and ranks. But from here it was already one step to the absolutist principle of promotion and reward for service on the basis of personal merit.
This is essentially an anti-local oppression of the “breed,” which would later result in Peter’s famous commentary on the Table of Ranks: “The noble nobility should be counted according to their suitability,” then it was already cherished dream district nobility.
This is how legal equality developed - the most important condition for the consolidation of many layers and groups of the nobility into a single class.
Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Title page of the 1776 edition - photo courtesy of M. Zolotarev
Of course, the demand for class equality, and especially the form of its expression in 1648, is insolence. But service people are living people, and Alexei Mikhailovich’s fear of the “rabble” greatly impressed them.
So why not take advantage of the fact that powerful courtiers, the true embodiment of status inequality, have wavered in their influence? The cry of the street that “now the sovereign is merciful, leads the strong out of the kingdom” can be placed as an epigraph to the history of the entire year 1648.
Elected nobles also insisted on the complete and indefinite enslavement of the peasants, the oblivion of traditional practices and the recognition of the serfdom of the oldest fortresses - the scribe books of the late 1620s - early 1630s.
Serfdom had already poisoned the landowners so much that they did not want to give up a single runaway peasant.
The nobles were also concerned about issues of inheritance and disposal of estates. Their ideal was the patrimony.
The demands of the trade and townspeople part of the population turned out to be no less profound. She also longed for fair trials and accessible legislation. The weakness of the Russian city gave rise to the desire of the townspeople and merchants to monopolize the right to trade and craft activities and limit competition.
Meanwhile, in the demand for the liquidation of the “white settlements” (so that “everything around is the sovereign’s”) one can discern not only the desire to destroy rivals, but also the idea of justice: all inhabitants of the settlements must bear the “tax” equally.
Compromise option
For the ruling circles, the bitter experience gained as a result of the uprising was not in vain. The leaders realized the inevitability and need for change, including the task of streamlining legislation and legal proceedings. Since the time Code of Laws of 1550 Many new decrees were adopted, often contradicting one another. In addition, the laws remained inaccessible to the population.
All this opened up great opportunities for the extortion of clerks and threatened to undermine the feudal legal order. By establishing uniform, declared norms, the future Code, if not completely overcoming these shortcomings, then significantly limited their impact.
As time has shown, Cathedral Code went beyond the exclusively legal norm, bringing with it changes throughout domestic policy. However, it would be a mistake to see in what happened only a concession from the top - such a system would turn out to be too narrow and short-lived.
Based on the new set of laws, the Romanovs began to “rebuild” and “renew” the building of the monarchy, strengthening and expanding, first of all, their social support.
The creators of the Code may have acted largely under compulsion, but ultimately they strengthened the autocratic power and the state. And this is the main thing that predetermined the longevity of this set of laws.
TO January 1649 The arrangement was generally completed. Including 25 chapters and almost a thousand articles, it was completely rewritten and pasted into a column 309 meters long, on the back of which the Duma and court officials, spiritual authorities and the majority of elected officials had their hand.
And among the Duma officials he was the first to sign Boris Ivanovich Morozov, and his signature thus ended up on the same scroll with the signatures of those who had recently driven the influential boyar out of Moscow.
It was precisely thanks to the fact that the Code embodied the most cherished aspirations of the “middle classes” into a legal norm that the tsar’s uncle had the opportunity to return to the capital. The parties "made peace." Mainly due to the peasantry.
Drawing up the Council Code under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. 1649 Hood. N.F. Nekrasov - photo courtesy of M. Zolotarev
Unlike previous legal codes, the Code, in its desire to regulate all the most important aspects of life, became a real code of laws. At that time, it was as modern as a legal document that responded to the most pressing public demands and needs can be.
It was also fundamental, since it normatively consolidated what determined the essence of the domestic historical process - serfdom and autocracy. Possessing a universal character, the Code ensured the regulatory “presence” of the state in many spheres of life, which undoubtedly increased its importance.
THE CODE OF 1649 CAN BE CALLED NOT ONLY A CONSEQUENCE OF CITY UPRISINGS, but also the brainchild of the province, which literally dictated the content of many articles to the authorities
The Code made the law accessible. Thanks to this publicity, the monopoly of judges and clerks on the interpretation of a legal norm and the possession of it, if not ended forever, then at least such a monopoly was temporarily shaken.
In this regard, it is not even significant that the first and second printed editions of the Code were quickly bought up and distributed to places and orders, but that extracts from it became an integral part of personal local archives. With them, landowners felt more confident in defending their property rights.
From time immemorial, autocracy in Russia is not only an anointed tsar in whose hands enormous power was concentrated. Autocracy is also an autocratic idea as an ontological expression of the royal sacred being, an absolute given, outside of which the man of that time could not imagine his existence.
That is why the drafters of the Code did not feel any need to justify and define the limits royal power and its institutions. There are no articles about this.
However, the legislative itch itself testified to important changes in the state of autocracy. The medieval theme of Truth, implanted and protected by the monarch, lost its sacred radiance in the Code and was transformed into a down-to-earth legal norm necessary for everyone. Publicity was supplemented by convincing declarativeness, which was so necessary for the authorities to stabilize the situation.
Criminal intent
It would be wrong to assume that the topic of power is not reflected at all in the Code. If the comprehensiveness of the legislation on power was replaced by the principles that guided the creators of the code, then the current needs received a very specific embodiment in it. The riot made people especially concerned about the protection of the state.
An attempt on power and the sovereign has long been interpreted as a grave state crime. But the new set of laws, simply by combining all possible threats, raised this topic to a different height.
Even the very intent to encroach on the personality, health and honor of the sovereign was declared criminal. Everything that contained the concept of monarchy was subject to protection: the sovereign himself, his family, the royal palace, the state, employees, and the established legal order.
Speech against the governor and clerks was qualified as “spree and conspiracy.” Thus, the Code, with medieval cruelty, stood up to defend the existing system, since everything was punishable by the rack and death.
Zemsky Sobor (XVII century). Hood. S.V. Ivanov. 1907 - photo courtesy of M. Zolotarev
The activity of the elected officials had its limits: none of them encroached on the power prerogatives of the monarch. Even the timidly expressed proposals for an elected court and participation in local government, voiced in the June Great worldly petition th, have not received their development. However, this position of the elected officials should hardly come as a surprise: something similar happened at the end of the Time of Troubles, when the townspeople’s “mirs” and the service “cities” withdrew from active political and administrative activities.
The ideological attitudes of the service class played a role in this, for which even “zemstvo business” by the middle of the 17th century had become a burdensome task, a kind of yet another service obligation.
This is what can largely explain the attitude of the majority of nobles and boyar children towards zemstvo councils. They viewed participation in them as sovereign service and, accordingly, demanded the due reward. The Zemsky Sobor became more and more associated with the “sovereign matter” and less and less with the “zemsky affair.”
A well-known socio-psychological attitude emerged, according to which the tsar was thought of as the first and only protector of the serving nobility. As a result, the spearhead of the noble opposition turned not against the monarch, but against the aristocracy, “ strong people».
Division of labor
In 1648–1649, a similar type of thinking was reflected in the reformism of the nobility, which was limited to social sphere. The demands of the settlements were of a similar nature - with a greater bias, however, towards easing the financial situation. Interest in the politics of the “middle strata” was thus temporary - as long as it contributed to the realization of social aspirations.
The Code and work on it revealed a fact characteristic of Russian history for many decades - a peculiar division of spheres of interest between the authorities and the bulk of the nobles and boyars' children: for the first - absolute dominance in the political sphere, for the second, as a "payment" for apoliticality , – satisfaction of social requirements.
So, the events of the second half of 1648 and the Code determined significant changes in the relationship between the authorities and the nobility. Apparently, there is no point in talking about a complete breakdown of the previous model of relationships. However, adjustments were made, and the adjustments were significant. Faced with the opposition of the provincial nobility, the government felt its weakness and the narrowness of its own social support.
The need for support for service ranks, previously more declared than real, appears as the main content of the government’s updated social policy.
The idea that it is necessary to meet the service and merchant classes halfway is no longer in doubt, and the dispute is transferred to the soil of specific policies - about the boundaries of concessions and the conditions for their implementation.
At the same time, the authorities, while maneuvering, retained their independence within certain limits. A kind of “division of labor” was formed when the monarchy, increasingly equalizing the status of the provincial nobility with the status of the Moscow nobility and satisfying the material needs of both, in exchange demanded and received obedience and political lack of initiative from service people.
And this, in turn, gave the monarchy a strong weapon against the aristocratic encroachments of the nobility, who dreamed of a more significant participation in government.
The nobility received public law, which it had long dreamed of, in the hope of ousting clerks and “strong people” who had ample opportunity to manipulate legislative norms. But it is important to emphasize that such a situation ultimately suited the authorities, which turned towards absolutism and announced that “nothing was ordered to be done outside the Cathedral Code.”
Secrets of longevity
Contemporaries did not miss the opportunity to credit the Code to Alexei Mikhailovich. Boyarin Nikita Ivanovich Odoevsky, with a clear allusion to a new set of laws, wrote to the king in 1652:
“...God gave wisdom, as of old to King Solomon,” and “loved justice and righteousness and mercy and hated iniquity.”
It is clear that the boyar was an interested person: while heaping praise on the sovereign, he simultaneously praised himself, the main creator of the Code. However, the fact remains: the theme of Truth and Justice - naturally, conceptualized in its own way, within the framework of autocratic ideology - became the most important for Alexei Mikhailovich. In the context of the era, this was perceived as a visible triumph of legality.
Many years later Peter I asked the prince Yakov Fedorovich Dolgoruky, in which he himself, as a sovereign, succeeded, and in which he lagged behind his father. Yakov Fedorovich could compare - he had a long life behind him. Having praised many of the deeds of the reformer tsar, the old boyar also noted omissions: Peter lagged behind “in internal justice,” where “your main business is justice.”
Serfdom has already managed to poison the landowners so much that they did not want to sacrifice a single runaway peasant
“In this, your father did more than you,” Dolgoruky summarized, hinting first of all at the Code. In fact, the country both under Peter and after Peter - right up to the 30s of the 19th century - lived according to this code. And all because the Code became legal basis in total, forming the framework of Russian law. However, it was a peculiar life!
It is impossible not to notice that many articles and even chapters of the Code were rapidly aging and falling out of circulation. It is no coincidence that in the second half of the same seventeenth century there appeared a whole series the so-called “newly laid down” decrees.
In form, they all remained special cases, amendments to the Council Code, without which the weak unity of Russian civil law that existed in the 18th century would have been unthinkable. In reality, they often deviated from the Code and even contradicted it. It is not surprising that soon the idea of the need for a new set of laws matured at the top.
The first serious attempt was made under Peter I. The next attempts occurred during the reign of Elizaveta Petrovna, and after - Catherine II, who even wrote the famous “Order” and convened the Legislative Commission, this paraphrase of the Zemsky Sobor of the era of enlightened absolutism. But this commission did not give the country a new code.
How can we explain such longevity?
The well-known paradox is that the more articles of the Code lost their force, giving way to new norms, the greater became the chances of the Code... for longevity. This was due to the peculiarities of the functioning of law in Russia in the 17th–18th centuries. The law and the application of the law were one of the most vulnerable points of Russian statehood.
Any attempt to radically change the legislation was fraught with the appearance of such skeletons hidden in the closet of autocracy that the authorities abandoned their intentions in fear.
It was much safer to rely on principles going back to the Council Code. Over time, they acquired the status of that untouchable antiquity, the sanctity of which does not require proof. In other words, it was more harmless to refer to the Code and supplement it with the necessary innovation than to try to shake up the entire existing system of law. Each one postponed this task, passing the task, like a baton, to his successor. But even the marathon distance has its limits.
Igor Andreev, candidate of historical sciences
Andreev I.L. Alexey Mikhailovich. M., 2003 (series “ZhZL”)
Tomsinov V.A. The Cathedral Code of 1649 as a monument to Russian jurisprudence // Cathedral Code of 1649. Legislation of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. M., 2011
(conciliar) - In 1648, on July 16, when the tsar was in his 20th year, he, in consultation with the consecrated council and the Duma, ordered the collection and preparation of material for the compilation of a new collection of laws to a special commission consisting of two boyars - Prince. N.I. Odoevsky and Prince. S. V. Prozorovsky, okolnichy prince. F. F. Volkonsky and two clerks - G. Leontyev and F. Griboyedov. At the same time, it was decided to convene a zemstvo council, “so that his sovereign’s royal and zemstvo business with those with all elected people would be approved and established according to the measure, so that all the great deeds according to his sovereign’s decree and the council’s code would henceforth be indestructible.” The matter itself was carried out extremely hastily. Already from July 28, letters were sent to cities about sending elected officials by September 1. On October 3, the discussion of the project began in two special rooms: in one the tsar sat with the consecrated cathedral and the Duma; especially in the response chamber, chaired by the boyar Prince. Yu. A. Dolgoruky, elected people sat. By 29 Jan. In 1649, the discussion was completed and the U. was rewritten onto a list, to which the members of the cathedral contributed their hands. From April 7 to May 20, the code was printed; its first edition soon sold out; in the same year two new editions were printed. Such a rapid completion of such a complex and difficult task as the publication of a new U., forces, on the one hand, to assume the presence of extremely important motives that prompted the Moscow government to take up the matter and carry it out with particular determination, on the other hand, it indicates the existence of favorable conditions that contributed to carrying out a difficult task. The emergence of the question of a new codification in the half of the 17th century. is explained, first of all, by a number of common reasons. A whole century has passed since the publication of Code 2, during which Moscow State experienced a number of serious changes and even shocks. Time of Troubles left the new Moscow government with a difficult legacy: loosening of public relations, ruin of the population and upset financial situation. From the very first steps and for many years it was necessary to strain all the meager state and social forces for protection from internal and external enemies. Under such conditions, restoring normal order in the spheres of administration and justice was an unattainable task. Abuses of power by rulers and judges were committed with complete shamelessness; central government was powerless against them. This was largely due to the state of the legislation at that time. The compilers of the 2nd Code of Law themselves were aware of its incompleteness and established the further path of legislation by reporting from orders to the sovereign and the Duma all cases not provided for in the Code of Law. This order of initiation of legislative issues caused the extreme casuistry of decrees and boyar sentences, and this imperfection was aggravated by the fact that they were not only not published, but were not even communicated to all central government offices, but were written down only on a copy of the Code of Law of the order from which the report came . The Duma also did not keep a record of the decrees issued, and therefore the legislative branch could easily fall into conflict with its previously issued decrees. All these unfavorable circumstances taken together led, apparently, to an attempt to re-issue the Code of Laws less than 40 years after its promulgation: under Tsar Feodor, in 1589, a draft of a new Code of Laws was drawn up, which, however, did not receive official approval . The Time of Troubles put aside the issue of codification, and legislation continued to develop on the same casuistic basis. The imperfections of the legislation and the associated abuses of judges fell with all their weight on the lower classes of the service and tax population. It is natural, therefore, that petitions came from among him to re-issue the Code of Law. By decree of July 28, 1648, it was ordered to write a code of law and a set book for all sorts of reprisal cases “on the petitions of captains, and solicitors, and Moscow nobles, and residents, nobles and boyar children of all cities, and foreigners, and guests, and living rooms and cloth hundreds in all ranks of merchants." When such a petition was submitted remains unknown; It is quite possible that it was not the only one. If the government remembered it and decided to implement it precisely in at the moment , then there were special reasons for this. The year 1648 was one of the most difficult for the young king and his closest advisers; Since June 2, serious popular unrest arose in Moscow and other cities. In Moscow they were accompanied by an open riot, with murders and arson. The first victim of popular hatred was the clerk N. Chistoy, who was reminded of the heavy salt tax introduced on February 7, 1646 and abolished on February 17, 1648. The tsar was demanded to hand over the boyars B. Morozov, L. Pleshcheev and P. Trakhaniotov, and the tsar was forced hand over the last two, who were subjected to brutal lynching by the rebellious crowd. The Tsar had to personally enter into negotiations with the rebels twice and managed to “beg the world” not to execute Morozov, with the understanding, however, that he would be exiled to the Kirillov Monastery, “and henceforth he and all his Morozov family would not be in Moscow.” not to be in the orders of the sovereign’s affairs or to the voivodships and not to own anything.” To confirm these promises, the tsar was even forced to venerate the image of Spasov. The unrest did not stop there. Back in August, letters of worship were sent to the cities, in which it was reported that “internecine warfare took place in Moscow and in the cities, and to this day there is rebellion in the cities, grain shortages and cattle deaths.” In the midst of the unrest, a decree was issued on July 16. Patr. Nikon quite correctly, although with his characteristic harshness, noted the connection between these events; about the Zemsky Sobor, he said: “And everyone knows that the gathering was not by will, for the sake of fear and civil strife from all black people, and not for the sake of true truth”; He considered the “written book” to be “passionately written by many people for the sake of embarrassment.” The commission appointed to prepare the bill was given a program of activities, indicating the sources from which the necessary material should be drawn. In particular, the commission had to: 1) write out articles from the rules of St. that were suitable for state and zemstvo affairs. apostles and saints fathers and from the city laws of the Greek kings; 2) select previous decrees of sovereigns and boyar sentences on all sorts of cases and compare them with old codes of law, and 3) for all questions that would not be answered in code books, old decrees and boyar sentences, draft new articles by “general council”. The order in which this program was carried out remains unknown. Some light on this question is shed only by the original column of U., found by order of Catherine II in 1767. In it, against some articles there are notes indicating the source from which this article was taken. There are only 176 such litters, for 967 U. articles; This means that the sources of most articles are not indicated at all. The indicated sources are 176 Art. are distributed as follows: 62 articles are taken from different codes, 12 - from the old Code of Laws, 24 - “from the city codes”, 1 - from the Mosaic Law, 1 - from Deuteronomy, 2 - from Stoglav, 56 from the Lithuanian Statute; against 17 articles marked "again". How random these marks are is evident from the fact that from Article 62, taken from the old codes, on Ch. 17 accounts for 12 articles; but in the same chapter there are undoubtedly at least 22 more articles borrowed from old decrees, which are not marked. The marks “again” and “from Lithuanian” are especially interesting. The mark “again” means that this article is new; Regarding the new articles, the decree of July 16 said that they were to be drawn up by a “general council.” To clarify this expression, it is necessary to remember that in the preface of the U. about the electives summoned to the Zemsky Sobor, it is said that they “were chosen to that general council in Moscow and from the cities.” From this we can conclude that they had to take part in the work of the commission. This guess is confirmed by the direct indication of the letters about sending electives: the letters said that the electors “to be in Moscow for the sovereign and zemstvo affairs with the sovereign’s boyars, with Prince N.I. Odoevsky and his comrades.” Likewise, in the cases of the payment of salaries to elected nobles, it is mentioned that they were given allowances for the fact that “they were in Moscow for sovereign and zemstvo affairs in order from the boyars: with Prince N.I. Odoevsky, and with Prince S. V. Prozorovsky, and with the okolnichy, Prince F. F. Volkonsky and the clerks.” All of these documents list the composition of the codification commission and say that elected officials should have been and were included in its composition; This means that they took part in her works, in particular, in the development of the draft of new articles. The original U. column contains only 17 new articles; but this indication, as in other cases, turns out to be incomplete, since in the U. there are undoubtedly new articles, against which there is no mark “again” or “newly replenished”. Contrary to the old view of the completely passive role of the Zemsky Sobor, little by little it became clear that a number of articles of the U. arose from petitions of elected officials, which is either directly stated in the text of the articles, or can be concluded from a comparison of the surviving petitions of electors with the corresponding articles of the U. These are the resolutions of the U. on the ransom of prisoners, on the abolition of school years for the search of fugitive peasants, on the establishment of a monastic order, on the prohibition of the clergy and monasteries from acquiring real estate, on the confiscation of all privately owned settlements adjacent to the settlements to the sovereign, etc. In total, such articles containing answers to petitions and further conclusions from these answers currently number up to 60. As can be seen from the recently published document, many elected officials brought with them petitions from their constituents about their various needs; but not all of these petitions were taken into account when drawing up the U. Therefore, the elected officials, in particular of the Zamoskovsky and Seversk Ukrainian cities, petitioned for the issuance to them, to protect them from the wrath of voters, of careful letters, since “your sovereign’s cathedral U. on the petition of zemstvo people regarding their needs, your sovereign decree was issued not against all articles.” The government issued such letters in the name of local governors, with instructions to protect the elected officials against the townspeople who “are making noise that the elected officials in Moscow did not fulfill their various whims in the U..” Unfortunately, nothing is yet known about these unsatisfied desires of the population. Also curious are the notes in the original U. column about the borrowing of some articles “from Lithuanian”. Although the Lithuanian Statute, by decree of July 16, is not mentioned among the sources for the development of the draft Law, borrowings from it were made clearly and to a much greater extent than one might think based on the note. The original column notes a total of 56 articles taken from the Statute; but upon closer comparison it turned out (Vladimirsky-Budanov) that there are many more such articles and that the Statute is one of the most important sources of the Law. Chapters II, III, IV, V, VII and IX are an almost literal retelling of the corresponding articles from Sections I and II of the statute ; in one chapter there are at least 55 articles taken from different parts Statute. In subsequent chapters the borrowing is less noticeable; but ch. XXII is taken almost entirely from Sect. XI. In general, borrowings from the Statute were made with a strict assessment of everything borrowed, and in many cases with a radical revision of the norms of the Statute. In some cases, the norm of the Statute is taken in its entirety; These are, for example, the concepts of necessary defense and unpunished negligence. In other cases, only the question is borrowed, but a different solution is given, sometimes the exact opposite. This was due, first of all, to differences in the political system. The Constitution of the State of Lithuania, by virtue of which the supreme power of the king was limited by the class privileges of the nobility, was not reflected in any way in the Constitution. Thus, borrowing from section. II "On the defense of the zemstvo" ch. VII “On the service of all military men”, the U. takes a number of rules about the duties of serving people, but solves the question of the procedure for declaring war in a completely different way: the Statute speaks about the right to declare war at the Diet, the U. - about “at what time the sovereign deigns to take revenge on his sovereign enemy for unfriendship." In the department of judicial organization, the Statute sets out the provision “On the free deception of the district judges”; and in U. this section begins with the rule: “The court of the sovereign Tsar and the Grand Duke is to be judged by the boyars ... The entire section III “on the liberties of the nobles” is left completely aside; only one article on the procedure for leaving for Russia is taken from it foreign countries, but in the Statute we are talking about “the freedom to leave our lordships to other lordships,” and in the U. it says that if “anyone goes from the Moscow state to another state, then they cannot go without travel documents.” Even in individual borrowed articles, the receptor carefully smooths out all traces of class; the rule of the Statute “about golovshchinas, about lameness of chlonks and about navezki of the nobility” is conveyed, for example, in the following form: “And someone will commit an insult against anyone”; the following art.: “If only the nobleman would be taken before luck” is conveyed as follows: “And such a scolder will invite someone...” In a number of cases, the receptor, adhering to its source, falls into excessive casuistry, sometimes in contradiction with other articles of the code , but transfers some things without understanding the true meaning of the source. To properly understand such articles, it is necessary to compare them with the source. Sometimes forms are also borrowed; the words with which almost every article of the U. begins: “And who will be,” are a simple transfer of the usual formula of the Statute - “whenever who.” An attempt to borrow the system of the Statute itself is also noticeable, mainly in the first part of the U. Such numerous borrowings, strictly thought out and in many cases radically revised, suggest long-term work of receptors on the Statute. It is very difficult to admit that it could be carried out in the short time available to the commission appointed by the decree of July 16. Rather, it can be assumed that the commission took advantage of ready-made material, previously, over the course of decades, selected by order practice by semi-officially borrowing from the Statute of individual norms, which were entered into the order books. Documentary evidence This guess is the Hermitage list of the statutory book of the Robust Order, which represents the first stage of processing the borrowed norms. The same decree books of orders greatly facilitated the work of the commission in selecting old codes, decrees and boyar sentences. In comparison with previous legislative collections, the Law represents, from the point of view of the system, a step forward: it is divided into chapters, each chapter into articles. There are 25 chapters, and 967 articles. The most extensive is Ch. X, "On the Court", containing 287 articles and corresponding, in its meaning, to the previous Code of Law. In the original column, only the first ten chapters are numbered in Church Slavonic letters and have titles; then the counting of chapters stops, not all chapters have titles, others are named decrees (XVI - XIX, XXI and ΧΧ I ΙΙ). The text is mostly separated into articles by spaces, but the articles are not renumbered. All these technical gaps have been eliminated and corrected in the first printed edition. Despite the relatively greater systematicity, one must still recognize the U. system as very primitive. Even if we assume that the drafters of the Law sought to arrange the chapters in a certain order, following the model of the Statute: first, the chapters related to state law (I - IX), then to the judicial system and legal proceedings (X - XV), to property law (XVI - XX, excluding XVIII) and, finally, to the criminal (XXI - XXII), and consider the last three chapters additional, then it is still impossible not to notice that the sample turned out to be much higher than the photograph and that for the use of U. such a system not only will not help , but can even be misleading. In terms of completeness of content, the U. is undoubtedly significantly ahead of the Code of Laws, but it by no means covers all the law in force and contains a number of important gaps. It does not contain answers to a number of the most important questions in the field government system and management, e.g. about the power of the sovereign, about the boyar duma, about orders, about taxes and duties. In the field of civil law, only legal relations arising from the ownership of estates and estates are examined in more detail; family and commitment relationships are touched upon lightly, in a few articles scattered across different chapters. The criminal legislation is most detailed, but even in it one encounters incomprehensible gaps: U., for example, knows an insult with a word or an unsuitable word for private and officials, but does not protect the personality of the sovereign from such an encroachment. Taking into account this incompleteness, then numerous borrowings from the Statute and, finally, significantly larger number new articles than previous researchers of the monument allowed, it is necessary to significantly limit the opinion of the U., as a strictly national collection of Moscow law, which embraces historically developed norms of law “in sympathy with the popular beliefs of all regions and all classes of the state.” Not for the first time in Ukraine, but with particular clarity it is possible to prove the validity of the situation that the Moscow law (decree) diverged from Moscow law. Editorial U. completed January 29. 1649; it was completed by printing on May 20, but it came into force not as a whole, but in parts, as its individual parts were approved. Individual chapters were considered not in the order in which they are located in the U., but according to the clarification and importance of the issues raised. So, XIX ch. arose by petition on October 30, 1648, but not immediately; some parts of it were reported back on December 18. and even January 15. Meanwhile, upon approval of the main principles of the new regulation on posads, the sovereign ordered the collection of pawnbrokers in Moscow and in the cities on November 25. Ch. XI on peasants was considered back in January, and the law on the abolition of fixed-term years for the search for runaway peasants was supposed to come into force on January 2. The latter, apparently, were considered some articles of Ch. XVII, as can be seen from the prohibition on renewing old cases of estates, decided on January 28. Literature.
- - feudal code. rights of Georgia. See Vakhtang laws...
- - code of laws, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor 1648-49...
Russian Encyclopedia
- - a set of laws of the Russian state, compiled at the Zemsky Sobor, convened on July 16, 1648. At it, the nobles submitted a petition for the preparation of the Code, so that all sorts of things could be done and accomplished according to that Coded Book...
Russian Encyclopedia
-
Dictionary of legal terms
- - the largest monument of Russian feudal law, representing a codification of all major branches of legislation...
Encyclopedia of Lawyer
- - the largest monument of Russian feudal law, codification of all major branches of legislation...
Large legal dictionary
- - a set of laws of the Russian state; adopted by the Zemsky Sobor 1648-49. For the first time, state crimes were highlighted, serfdom was finally formalized...
Political science. Dictionary.
- - code of laws Rus. state, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-1649 after the uprisings in Moscow and other cities of Russia. In 1649 S. u. was first published...
Soviet historical encyclopedia
- - daughter of Tsar Alexei Mikh., † May 8, 1655...
- - daughter of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and N. Kirillovna, younger sister of Peter the Great. In the village of Preobrazhenskoye, she started a home theater in her palace; here, at her request, all the “cleaning” from “...
Large biographical encyclopedia
- - a set of laws of the Russian state; adopted by the Zemsky Sobor in 1648-1649. It highlighted state crimes for the first time and finally formalized serfdom...
Encyclopedic Dictionary economics and law
- - daughter of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and N. Kirillovna, younger sister of Peter the Great. In the village of Preobrazhenskoye she started a home theater in her palace...
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron
- - Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, code of laws Rus. state, adopted by the Zemsky Sobor of 1648-49 after uprisings in Moscow and other cities...
- - The Council Code, one of the monuments of the law of the Russian state. Consisted of 25 chapters and 967 articles...
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- - Code of Feudal Law of Georgia. See Vakhtang laws...
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- “Three brothers came from the Tsar, the Tsar, from Rez: they cut themselves with knives, chopped with axes, there was no blood, nothing happened...
V.I. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people
"The Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich 1649." in books
About the marriage of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Quiet
From the book Russian Nostradamus. Legendary prophecies and predictions author Shishkina ElenaAbout the marriage of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Quiet “The sovereign has a great choice. 200 brides will be brought to him from all over Rus' and from distant countries. Let him not marry his beloved. A special friend of the kings will pour a potion into her wine to thereby show her corruption. He himself will bring his goddaughter
II. WEDDING OF TSAR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH, WHICH WAS IN 1648 JAN. 16
From the book Life of the Russian People. Part 2. Weddings author Tereshchenko Alexander VlasievichII. WEDDING OF TSAR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH, WHICH WAS IN 1648 JAN. 16 CHOICE OF THE BRIDETsar Alexei Mikhailovich, soon after his coronation (1646 September 28), consulted with the patriarch, clergy, boyars and duma people about his marriage. Patriarch and clergy
Reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich
From the author's bookThe reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Tsar Mikhail died in 1645, before reaching the age of 50. A month later, his wife, Queen Evdokia, also went to her grave. On the shoulders of their son, 16-year-old Alexei Mikhailovich, proclaimed tsar at the Zemsky Sobor, that is, in essence, chosen, as Mikhail once was,
Matchmaking of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich
author Author unknownThe matchmaking of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich As our Orthodox Tsar deigned, He deigned to take a walk around Moscow, To take a walk. As the Most Holy Patriarch, the Patriarch, himself goes to meet him. Blessing. And also the patriarch
Death of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich
From the book Bylina. Historical songs. Ballads author Author unknownDeath of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich You are already a bright month, Father, That you are not shining as before, Not as before, not as before, You are all hiding behind the clouds, Covered by a menacing cloud! As we had in holy Russia. In holy Rus', in stone Moscow. In the Kremlin it was in a glorious city, Near
The time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676)
author Platonov Sergey FedorovichThe time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645-1676) In 1645, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich died, and a month later his wife also died, so Alexei Mikhailovich was left an orphan. He was only 16 years old, and, of course, he did not begin his remarkable reign on his own; first three years
From the book Full course lectures on Russian history author Platonov Sergey FedorovichThe personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Among the Westerners and Old Testament people, not entirely belonging to either one or the other, stands the personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself. There is a well-known idea that if during the period of cultural ferment in the Moscow state of the mid-17th century.
Diamond throne of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich
From the book 100 Great Treasures author Ionina NadezhdaThe Diamond Throne of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the Russian state took huge steps towards exaltation, increasing in its power. It entered into political relations with many European countries, and it itself became a sequence
The time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645–1676)
From the book Unified Textbook of Russian History from Ancient Times to 1917. With a foreword by Nikolai Starikov author Platonov Sergey FedorovichThe time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1645–1676) § 81. The beginning of the reign and unrest of 1648. In the summer of 1645, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and his wife Evdokia Lukyanovna (from the Streshnev family of nobles) died, one after the other, leaving their only son Alexei. The new sovereign was only 16
156. CATHEDRAL CODE OF TSAR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH 1649
From the book Reader on the History of the USSR. Volume 1. author Author unknown156. CONDITIONAL CODE OF TSAR ALEXEY MIKHAILOVICH 1649 “Conciliar Code of Alexei Mikhailovich.” In the summer from the creation of the world 7156. Tenth embossing in St. Petersburg 1820. IntroductionIn the summer 7156, July 16th day, Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexey Mikhailovich, autocrat of all Rus',
Personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich
From the author's bookThe personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Among the Westerners and the Old Testament people, without completely belonging to either one or the other, stands the personality of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich himself. This remarkable personality is clear enough. Many testimonies have been preserved about him, depicting him as everyone else.
Code of Alexei Mikhailovich 1649
From the book Big Soviet Encyclopedia(UL) of the author TSB§ 4. The Cathedral Code of Alexei Mikhailovich of 1649 is the most important monument of Russian military, criminal and judicial legislation of the 17th century
From the book History of Military Courts of Russia author Petukhov Nikolay Alexandrovich§ 4. The Council Code of Alexei Mikhailovich of 1649 is the most important monument of Russian military, criminal and judicial legislation of the 17th century. The most important monument of domestic, and not foreign origin, in the 17th century. there was a Council Code of 1649. Reasons for preparation
3) Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and new decree articles
From the book Review of the History of Russian Law author Vladimirsky-Budanov Mikhail Flegontovich3) Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and new decree articles Given the above-mentioned nature of the movement of legislation after the Tsar’s Code of Law (i.e., with the diversity and obscurity of laws and with the complete abolition of customary law), law became difficult to recognize,
Funeral of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich
From the book Sad Rituals Imperial Russia author Logunova Marina OlegovnaFuneral of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Particular attention, of course, was drawn to the death of the monarch himself. Consider the funeral ceremony of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich; his burial took place the day after his death, January 30, 1676. His son and
