From Catherine to Catherine: Karl Karlovich Anderson Stockholm boy Karl Anderson was one of those numerous foreigners whose talent blossomed in St. Petersburg; in this sense, his fate is typical. But the beginning of his life's journey was far from ordinary;

In a two-volume collection of monuments of Russian legislation of the early 20th century, it was noted: “The Order” of Empress Catherine II never had the force of a valid law, but nevertheless it is a monument of exceptional significance. It is important as the first attempt to base legislation on the conclusions and ideas of educational philosophy; it is important for the sources directly from which the empress came; it is also remarkable for its positive content; it is interesting, finally, because of the special circumstances that accompanied its writing.

The main content of the “Nakaz,” which Catherine II intended to make “the foundation of the legislative building of the empire,” consists of 20 chapters (522 articles) and an ending (articles 523-526). In addition, a little later, Catherine made two additions to the main text - special chapters on the police (Articles 527-566) and on income, expenses, public administration (Articles 567-655).

The text (draft) of the “Nakaz” presented by Catherine II was discussed by a very representative Commission of more than 550 deputies elected from different socio-political strata of the then Russian society - government officials, nobility, townspeople, service people, free (non-serf) rural population. The deputy corps consisted of people of the most diverse faiths, cultures and languages ​​- from the highly educated representative of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Dimitri of Novgorod, to the deputy of the service Meshcheryaks of the Iset province, Mullah Abdullah Murza Tavyshev, and to the pagan Samoyeds.

The official procedure for discussing the “Order” was very free. Here is how S. M. Solovyov describes it: “When the deputies gathered in Moscow, the Empress, while in the Kolomensky Palace, appointed different persons of different minds to listen to the prepared “Order.” Here, with each article, debates arose. The Empress allowed them to blacken and blot out whatever they wanted. They blotted out more than half of what she had written, and the “Order” remained, as if it had been printed.”

It should be borne in mind that an important circumstance is that the deputies were ordered to study the needs of the population of their region, summarize them and present them to the Commission as deputy “instructions” for reading and discussion. Many deputies presented several orders according to the needs of different groups of the population. The deputy especially distinguished himself from the “odnodvortsy” of the Arkhangelsk province, who brought with him 195 orders. In total, one and a half thousand deputy orders were presented, of which about two-thirds were drawn up by representatives of the peasants. At first, the work of the Commission consisted mainly of reading and discussing parliamentary orders, which were of interest to the government, because they made it possible to judge the state of the country.

Catherine II’s “mandate” received a loud response in Europe. It is curious that many of the ideas of the French Enlightenment voiced by the Russian Empress, upon returning to their homeland, caused obvious confusion among the royal authorities. The text of the “Nakaz”, published in Russia in 1767, devoid of the most liberal articles and formulations, was prohibited from translation in France.

Let us briefly list the main ideas of Catherine II’s “Mandate” in order to emphasize the courage and foresight of her political and legal views.

Based on the fact that laws must correspond to the “general mentality” of the people, i.e. his mentality, Catherine II at the very beginning poses a fundamental question: how useful can the conclusions drawn by European social thought be for the Russian people? Her answer is unequivocal: “Russia is a European power, the Russian people are European people; what gave him the characteristics of a non-European people was temporary and accidental.” After the reforms carried out by Peter I, the state of the Russian people fully meets the requirements of the introduction of the new Code.

Empress Catherine II considered an autocratic monarchy to be the best form of government in the vast Russian state. “The sovereign is autocratic,” says the “Nakaz,” “for no other power, as soon as united in his person, can act in a manner similar to the space of such a great state. Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous.” “The sovereign is the source of all state and civil power.”

But an autocratic sovereign, in the understanding of Catherine II, is not a dictator, not a tyrant. He is a wise leader and mentor, a strict but fair father of his subjects (Catherine II herself was often called “Mother Empress”). With his instructions and decrees, the sovereign protects the people “from spontaneous desires and from inexorable whims.” In the second additional chapter (XXII), the Russian Empress calls the most important state “needs”: “preserving the integrity of the state,” which requires maintaining defense, land and sea troops, fortresses, etc. at the proper level; “maintaining internal order, peace and security of one and all”; “the administration of justice, decency and supervision of various institutions serving for the common benefit.”

Catherine II calls all subjects of the Russian state “citizens” and quite definitely advocates their equality before the laws, regardless of rank, title and wealth. At the same time, in the “explanatory” chapter XX, she warns against such an understanding of equality when “everyone wants to be equal to the one who is established by law to be his boss.” Realizing that “European states differ from Asian states in the freedom in the relations of subjects to governments,” Catherine II sought to determine the measure of this freedom, or “liberty,” in an autocratic state. She agrees that “freedom is the right to do everything that the laws allow, and if any citizen could do what the laws prohibit, there would be no more freedom; for others would equally have this power.”

It is further specified that “state liberty in a citizen is peace of mind, resulting from the opinion that each of them enjoys his own security; and for people to have this freedom, the law must be such that one citizen cannot be afraid of another, but everyone would be afraid of the same laws.”

Let us pay attention to the formulation of the idea of ​​the possibility of self-limitation of power. Article 512 states that there are cases when “the government must act within the limits it has set for itself.” Of course, what is meant here is not the supreme power, which should be absolute, but the “middle powers” ​​subordinate to it, the delimitation of competencies between them. “Where the limits of police power end,” says Article 562, “there the power of civil justice begins.”

In the articles of “Nakaz”, which consider the problem of crimes and punishments, one can see an approach to the features of a rule of law state. Crime is a violation of the law, and the criminal should not escape responsibility; he must be punished, but in strict accordance with the law - this is the leitmotif of the articles on crimes and punishments. Article 200 states: so that the punishment is not perceived as violence of one or many people against the person who committed the crime, it must be strictly in accordance with the laws. In this regard, the following circumstances are emphasized:

a) The crime must be proven and the verdicts of the judges known to the people, so that every citizen can say that he lives under the protection of the laws (Article 49).

b) Until the crime is proven, the presumption of innocence of the person accused of committing the crime applies. Article 194 says the following: “A person cannot be considered guilty before a judge’s verdict, and the laws cannot deprive him of his protection before it is proven that he has violated them.”

c) The punishment must correspond to the crime: “If the one who kills the animal is subject to equal punishment; the one who kills a person and the one who forges an important document, then very soon people will cease to distinguish between crimes” (v. 227).

The wording of the “Order” regarding particularly serious crimes is of interest. These include crimes against the sovereign, the state and society as a whole, and they are called crimes of “lese Majesty” (Articles 229, 465). Moreover, the corpus delicti is determined only by action, but not by thought or word. “Words are never charged with a crime” (Article 480); thoughts are not punished. Article 477 tells how one man dreamed that he had killed the king. This king ordered the execution of this man, saying that he would not have dreamed of this at night if he had not thought about it during the day, in reality. Catherine II regards such an execution as “great tyranny.”

Among the most serious crimes, the “Mandate” also includes encroachments “on the life and liberties of a citizen” (Article 231). At the same time, it should be clarified that this means “not only murders committed by people from the people, but also the same kind of violence committed by individuals of any privileged class.”

The “Nakaz” also condemns the death penalty. “Experiments show,” it says there, “that the frequent use of executions has never made people better; in the ordinary state of society, the death of a citizen is neither useful nor necessary” (Article 210). And only in one case does Catherine allow the death penalty - when a person, even convicted and imprisoned, “still has a method and power that can disturb the peace of the people.” Clearly anticipating the appearance of such “disturbers of the peace,” the empress extinguishes her inherent feelings of philanthropy and condescension: “Whoever disturbs the peace of the people, who does not obey the laws, who violates these ways in which people are united in societies and mutually protect each other, must to be excluded from society, i.e.: to become a monster” (Article 214).

In full accordance with this part of the “Order”, in 1775, on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow, the leader of the Cossack-peasant uprising, Emelyan Pugachev, to whom Catherine II could not and did not want to allow any leniency, and for the reason that he dared to give his name Peter III, her husband killed in 1762. In connection with this uprising, of particular interest are those articles of the “Nakaz” that spoke about the difficult situation of peasants in Russia and which were “redacted” by the deputies of the Commission and were not included in its printed text.

The deputies rejected, first of all, those articles that concerned serfs. The principles of serfdom, personified by the widely known Saltychikha, were supported by deputies, only from the nobility, but also from other classes - everyone wanted to have their own serfs. The articles that said: “Every person must have food and clothing according to his condition, and this must be determined by law, also turned out to be unnecessary. The laws must also take care of this, so that slaves are not abandoned in old age or illness.”

The same fate befell Catherine’s reference to the freer position of peasants in “Russian Finland” and her conclusion: “A similar method could be usefully used to reduce the domestic severity of landowners or servants who they send to manage their villages, which is often ruinous for the villages and the people.” and it is harmful to the state when the peasants, dejected by them, are forced involuntarily to flee from their fatherland.” The Empress proposes to pass a law that “can prevent any torment of masters, nobles, masters, etc.”

§ 1. “Order” of Catherine II of the Legislative Commission

Having ascended the throne, Catherine II, albeit in the most general terms, imagined a program of state activity in accordance with the teachings of the Enlightenment philosophers. She considered one of the primary tasks to be the creation of laws that would determine the main directions of the main spheres of life of Russian citizens. It was assumed that their implementation should make Russia an example for other European powers. This was based on the conviction that by the will of the reigning person, who has full power, it is possible to transform a great country in the desired direction.

In the traditions of Russia, laws were adopted “conciliarly,” that is, by representatives of all social classes, except for those who were in a state of serfdom. An example of this was the Council Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Now this tradition was supposed to be revived. But the empress took it upon herself to formulate the essence of the laws that should transform Russian society in accordance with the ideas of the Enlightenment. Such a document was the famous “Order” of Catherine II of the Legislative Commission, i.e., an institution designed to compile a set of such laws.

Catherine worked hard to compile this document for a number of years, making extensive use of the work of the French enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu “The Spirit of Laws” and the Italian jurist Beccaria “Code of Crimes and Punishments”. More than a hundred articles were transferred from both to the “Order” being compiled. On this basis, the opinion was expressed that the “Nakaz” is a compilation, a document not applicable to Russian realities, but intended to present the Empress as enlightened and wise in the eyes of Europe. In fact, was it possible, especially in the conditions of serf Russia, to ensure “the general welfare of the subjects”, “equality of everyone before the law”, “to make the court incorruptible”, to educate “a new breed of people” and so on. However, most of the authors analyzing the “Nakaz” see in it a programmatic, original document, which expressed the main principles of state policy, government structure, judicial functions, and also clearly expressed priorities in the field of economic development and social policy. This is also confirmed by the fact that subsequent legislation regulating various aspects of state policy was carried out, as a rule, in line with the provisions that were formulated in the “Order”. It was repeatedly edited by the empress's confidants, and numerous comments were made, after which the empress, in her words, “erased out” a significant part of what was written. But even in this version it is a voluminous work.

“The Order” consists of twenty (I–XX) chapters and an “addition” - a total of 655 articles. The thematic composition is as follows: one third of the text (7 chapters) is devoted to purely legal problems, including legislation, issues of legal proceedings, problems of judicial practice (crimes, punishments, etc.). The rest cover the main spheres of social life. Thus, economic issues are discussed in the chapter “on handicrafts and trade” (XII), chapters are devoted to the problems of social structure: “on the nobility” (XV), “on the middle class of people” (XVI), “on cities” (XVII). Separate chapters are devoted to issues of “reproduction of the people,” problems of education, etc.

The text opens with an appeal to the Almighty, so that he would admonish the author to “conduct judgment according to the holy law and judge in truth.” This meaningful introduction was intended to emphasize that when compiling the document, the author was guided by the Christian principles of goodness, truth and justice.

What was the immediate content of the “Nakaz”?

One of the first articles reads: “Russia is a European power.” This is one of the fundamental statements designed to clearly state that Russia is a member of the family of European states and its state life, its priorities, should be built on the same principles that guide the enlightened monarchs of Western Europe. At the same time, the compiler refers to Peter I, who implanted European morals and customs in Russia and in them “then found such conveniences as he himself did not expect” (Article 7).

IN subsequent articles proclaimed that only an autocratic method of government was acceptable in Russia, because “any other government would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous” (11). This necessity was due to the vast territory of the state, extending “thirty-two degrees of latitude” and the fact that “it is better to obey the laws under one master than to please many” (12), as well as the fact that Russia is inhabited by many peoples, each of which has its own customs. A single strong government can unite them into one family.

IN The “order” declares the equality of everyone before the law, which consists in “that everyone should be subject to the same laws” (34). It must be conditioned by the obligation of each and everyone to comply with these laws, which should be facilitated by the honesty and integrity of judges. As for punishments for persons who have broken the law, they must be based on the principles of humanism, since the severity of punishment does not lead to a reduction in crimes, but only evokes a reciprocal feeling. Not fear of severity, but the voice of conscience, the condemnation of people, should be the main factors preventing crime.

IN The “Mandate” declares the right of everyone to freely fulfill “his lot,” that is, to do what he should do: a farmer plows the land, a merchant trades, etc. The latter essentially meant the recognition of the existing order of things as legitimate and unshakable, leaving the serfdom of the overwhelming majority of the population unchanged.

A large place is devoted to economic problems, because, as the author claims, an appropriate level of well-being is an indispensable condition for the prosperity of society and the high economic potential of the state.

IN In accordance with Russian realities, the need for state support, primarily for agriculture, was proclaimed. The “Nakaz” declares: “Agriculture is the first and main work to which people should be encouraged” (113), since both industry and trade are largely determined by its condition (294). The development of industry (“handicrafts” - in the “Instruction”) should also be fully encouraged. But the author here opposes the use of “machines” (machines), since in a populous state, such as Russia, “machines,” by reducing handicrafts, that is, manual labor, can deprive a significant part of the population of work (315).

“Nakaz” advocates for the full development of trade, which should be facilitated by legislation. For trade, constituting the wealth of the state, from there “is removed where it is oppressed, and is installed where its peace is not disturbed” (317). But, based on the above-mentioned principle, according to which each class does what it should do, Catherine in the “Nakaz” has a negative attitude towards the nobles’ engagement in trade, because it distracts them from fulfilling their duties.

A necessary condition for the development of agriculture and industry, it is stated

V document is an assertion of ownership. For “agriculture cannot flourish here where no one has anything of their own. This is based on a very simple rule: every person has more concern for his own than for what belongs to another; and does not make any effort about what he may fear that another will take away from him.” (395–396).

Priorities in the social sphere are clearly defined. The first estate is the nobility - this is the main position declared in the “Order”. The validity of this is justified as follows: “Nobility is a mark of honor, distinguishing from others those who were more virtuous than others, and, moreover, were distinguished by merit, then it has been customary since ancient times to distinguish the most virtuous and more serving people by giving them this mark of honor, that they enjoyed various advantages based on these above-mentioned initial rules” (361), that is, the nobles are the descendants of those who, while serving the Fatherland, had special merits here, and therefore now rightfully enjoy advantages over others.

It is significant that there is not a single article directly devoted to one of the most pressing problems, namely, the situation of the peasantry in Russia. However, this topic is present in a number of articles of the “Nakaz”, but the rights of the peasant class are discussed here only indirectly. The judgment was given above: “agriculture cannot flourish here where no one has anything of their own.” However, in relation to landowner peasants, this provision can only be interpreted speculatively. It further states: “slavery is evil.” However, even here it is not clear to what extent, from the point of view of the compiler, this provision relates to serfdom. But in the “Nakaz” the idea is quite definitely expressed about the need to limit the duties of the peasants in favor of the owner: “it would be very necessary to prescribe to the landowners by law that they allocate their taxes with great consideration, and take those taxes that are less than the peasant excommunicated from his home and families. The more agriculture would spread, and the number of people in the state would increase.

lived" (270).

The population of the city is the “middle class of people.” Here for the first time it appears as a separate social group. “The cities are inhabited by burghers who practice crafts, trade, arts and sciences” (377). “To this class of people should be counted all those who, without being a nobleman or a farmer, practice the arts, sciences, navigation, trade and crafts” (380). Hard work and good morals should be inherent in this category.

Thus, in general terms, stating the existing order of life, the “Nakaz” defines the social structure of society, but does not mention the spiritual class: the secularization of church lands caused discontent among its representatives and the empress considered it necessary to ignore here everything connected with this problem.

§ 2. Commission for drawing up a new code

The “Nakaz” was issued in 1766 as an emergency document. It was sent to all European courts and was supposed to present Russia as a country that, by the will of an enlightened monarch, was on the eve of great transformations. He received exaggeratedly enthusiastic praise from King Frederick II of Prussia and Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, as each warring side sought to gain Russia as an ally. In England, however, restraint was shown in his assessment; in pre-revolutionary France, he was found too radical and publication was banned.

Emphasizing the important state significance of the document that came from the pen of the reigning person, in Russia copies of the “Nakaz” were sent to all official institutions with a special instruction to set aside Saturday days for mandatory study. On an equally high note, preparations were made for the convening of deputies to the commission called “Laid Down”.

Deputies were elected from all classes, except for the bulk of the population - serfs, whose interests, according to the plan, were to be represented by their owners. For the nobles, elections were direct, for other classes they were multi-level, i.e., they initially elected electors, etc. This was done so that local authorities could control the election of the desired persons. Each deputy, and this was a fundamental innovation, brought with him a mandate from his constituents, which was intended to emphasize that the interests of representatives of all classes would be taken into account when drawing up laws.

The elected deputies were granted unprecedented rights and privileges: parliamentary immunity, large salaries, and representatives of the nobility were allowed to include a distinctive sign in their family coat of arms, so that posterity would be proud that their ancestor participated in the drafting of laws designed to transform Russia.

A total of 564 deputies were elected throughout the country. Of these, only 161 were from nobles. From cities, 208. The rest were from other classes, except for serfs. In reality, the nobles made up the predominant part, since a certain part of the representatives from the cities and other categories were nobles. But from the clergy, a large class, there were only 2 representatives: the church was dissatisfied with the secularization of its estates and the authorities did not want to see opposition-minded people in the assembly.

The grand opening of the “Laid Commission” resembled a theatrical performance. Initially, the deputies “introduced themselves” to the empress, who arrived in Moscow and stayed at the Travel Palace. Then, in front of a huge crowd of people, the Empress entered the Kremlin. She was traveling in a gilded carriage drawn by six white horses. She was accompanied by a brilliant escort of guards. Everything was designed to amaze the residents of Moscow, including a large number of nobles who specially arrived here. Such solemnity was supposed to emphasize the exceptional significance of the events. The deputies took the oath of office in the Kremlin. A meeting of the “Laid Commission” also opened here - separately for deputies from the nobility and from other classes. After the official opening, the “Order” was read. According to eyewitnesses, he was received with delight and tears. Its content turned out to be incomprehensible to many people - too complicated.

The work was well organized. Commissions and subcommittees were created. However, the euphoria of the first days disappeared when issues affecting the rights and responsibilities of the estates began to be discussed. There were no incompetent people here. Each class claimed

to full rights and their exclusive use. The nobility demanded to retain all their privileges and, above all, the undivided right to own land and serfs. The spokesman for his interests was the famous historian and prominent dignitary Prince M.M. Shcherbatov. The merchants advocated for the strengthening of self-government bodies, the easing of duties, the monopoly right to engage in trade, etc. The interests of the classes turned out to be irreconcilable. Representatives of nomadic peoples spoke about the arbitrariness of the administration, the seizure of their lands, etc.

The debate became particularly acute when the issue of the reason for the escape of serfs began to be discussed. Deputies from retired soldiers, progressive deputies from the nobility, G. Korobin and J. Kozelsky, in their speeches painted a true picture of the tyranny of the landowners, while their opponents argued that the reason for the escapes was primarily the laziness of the peasants. The meetings, with no end in sight, were moved from Moscow to St. Petersburg. None of the issues discussed were essentially resolved. Taking advantage of the outbreak of the first Russian-Turkish war, the activities of the “Legated Commission” were suspended, as stated, temporarily, under the pretext that many deputies had to leave for the army. Commissions and committees continued to operate for some time, but they soon suspended their work. A code of laws was not compiled. Legislative activity remained, first of all, the prerogative of the reigning person. The commission no longer met, but its activities were still not fruitless. The discussions that flared up at its meetings made it possible to clearly see the specifics of social relations in Russia in the 60s and, in particular, the severity of the peasant question, as well as the fact that the third estate firmly took its place in the social sphere. The Empress later claimed that this helped her better understand the needs of each class. The activities of the “Legified Commission” clearly revealed the features of the policy of enlightened absolutism, in particular, the illusory nature of the idea of ​​“general welfare” and equality of all before the law.

1. About Russia, the autocratic sovereign, state power and governance

Based on the fact that laws must correspond to the “general mentality” of the people, i.e. his mentality, Catherine II at the very beginning poses a fundamental question: how useful can the conclusions drawn by European social thought be for the Russian people? Her answer is unequivocal: “Russia is a European power, the Russian people are European people; what gave them the features of a non-European people was temporary and accidental.” After the reforms carried out by Peter I, the state of the Russian people fully meets the requirements of the introduction of the new Code.

Let's say right away: Catherine II was seriously mistaken here. Russia has only just begun to emerge as a “society.” Even in Europe, advanced legislative ideas were largely just ideas that were not translated into laws. In her desire to “see her entire fatherland at the highest level of prosperity, glory and tranquility,” she was ahead of her age. And this desire cannot be reproached for her.

It is not surprising that Empress Catherine II considered an autocratic monarchy to be the best form of government in the vast Russian state. “The sovereign is autocratic,” says the “Nakaz,” because no other power, as soon as united in his person, can act in a manner similar to the space of such a great state. Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous.” "The sovereign is the source of all state and civil power."

But an autocratic sovereign, in the understanding of Catherine II, is not a dictator, not a tyrant. He is a wise leader and mentor, a strict but fair father of his subjects (Catherine II herself was often called “Mother Empress”). With his instructions and decrees, the sovereign protects the people “from spontaneous desires and from inexorable whims.” He must be moderately humane and moderately powerful. In a special “explanatory” chapter, completing the main content of the “Order” (XX), it is said: “the highest art of public administration is to know exactly what part of the power, small or great, should be used in different circumstances” (Art. 513).

Apparently, feeling the somewhat abstract nature of her reasoning about public administration, the Russian Empress in the second additional chapter (XXII) calls the most important state “needs”: “preserving the integrity of the state,” which requires maintaining at the proper level of defense, land and sea troops, fortresses and etc.; “maintaining internal order, peace and security of one and all”; “the administration of justice, decency and supervision of various institutions serving the common benefit” (Articles 576, 577) and others.

2. About citizens, their “liberties” and attitude towards laws

Catherine II calls all subjects of the Russian state “citizens” and quite definitely advocates their equality before the laws, regardless of rank, title and wealth. At the same time, in the “explanatory” chapter XX, she warns against such an understanding of equality when “everyone wants to be equal to the one who is established by law to be his boss.”

Realizing that “European states differ from Asian states in the freedom in the relations of subjects to governments,” Catherine II seeks to determine the measure of this freedom, or “liberty,” in an autocratic state. She agrees that “freedom is the right to do everything that the laws allow, and if any citizen could do what the laws prohibit, there would be no more freedom; for others would equally have this power.”

It is further specified that “state liberty in a citizen is peace of mind, resulting from the opinion that each of them enjoys his own security; and in order for people to have this freedom, the law must be such that one citizen cannot be afraid of another, but everyone would be afraid of the same laws.”

The purpose of the laws is, on the one hand, to prevent the “abuses of slavery,” and, on the other, to warn against the dangers that may arise from it.

The author of “Nakaz” believes that there is nothing more dangerous than the right to interpret laws, that is, to look for some hidden meaning in the law and not pay attention to the words and wording of the law. The right to interpret laws is as evil as the ambiguity of the laws themselves, which forces them to be interpreted (Articles 153, 157). Therefore, the language of laws should be clear, simple and concise. Laws are made for all people and all people must understand them in order to be able to act in accordance with them (vv. 457, 458).

It is interesting to note that the “Nakaz” uses the term “civil society,” but its understanding comes down to the establishment of an order in which some rule and command, while others obey (Article 250).

The term “legal state” is not in the work of Catherine II, but some of the signs and features that form it, or, perhaps, it would be better to say, what formally approaches such, are indicated in it.

Let us pay attention to the formulation of the idea of ​​the possibility of self-limitation of power. Article 512 states that there are cases when “the government must act within the limits it has set for itself.” Of course, what is meant here is not the supreme power, which should be absolute, but the “middle powers” ​​subordinate to it, the delimitation of competencies between them. “Where the limits of police power end,” says Article 562, “there the power of civil justice begins.” An approach to the features of a rule-of-law state can be seen in the articles of the “Nakaz”, which examine the problem of crimes and punishments.

3. About crimes and punishments

Crime is a violation of the law, and the criminal should not escape responsibility; he must be punished, but in strict accordance with the law - this is the leitmotif of the articles on crimes and punishments. Article 200 states: so that the punishment is not perceived as violence of one or many people against the person who committed the crime, it must be strictly in accordance with the laws. In this regard, the following circumstances are emphasized:

• a) The crime must be proven and the verdicts of the judges known to the people, so that every citizen can say that he lives under the protection of the laws (Article 49).
• b) Until the crime is proven, the presumption of innocence of the person accused of committing the crime applies. Article 194 says the following: “A person cannot be considered guilty before a judge’s verdict, and the laws cannot deprive him of his protection before it is proven that he has violated them.”
• c) The punishment must correspond to the crime: “If the one who kills the animal is subject to equal punishment; the one who kills a person and the one who forges an important document, then very soon people will cease to distinguish between crimes” (v. 227).
• d) Punishment must be swift: “The closer the punishment is to the crime, and carried out at the proper speed, the more useful and fair it will be. It is fairer because it will save the criminal from the cruel and unnecessary heartache of the uncertainty of his lot” (v. 221).

The wording of the “Order” regarding particularly serious crimes is of interest. These include crimes against the sovereign, the state and society as a whole, and they are called crimes of “lese Majesty” (Articles 229, 465).

Moreover, the corpus delicti is determined only by action, but not by thought or word. “Words are never charged with a crime” (Article 480); thoughts are not punished. Article 477 tells how one man dreamed that he had killed the king. This king ordered the execution of this man, saying that he would not have dreamed of this at night if he had not thought about it during the day, in reality. Catherine II regards such an execution as “great tyranny.”

Among the most serious crimes, the “Nakaz” also includes encroachments “on the life and liberties of a citizen” (Article 231). At the same time, it should be clarified that this means “not only murders committed by people from the people, but also the same kind of violence committed by individuals of any privileged class.”

The “Instruction” strongly condemns the use of torture as a means of obtaining the testimony of the accused: “Torture is not necessary. The accused, suffering torture, has no control over himself so that he can tell the truth.” Under torture, “and the innocent will scream that he is guilty, if only they would stop torturing him.” Therefore, with the help of torture, one can convict an innocent person and, on the contrary, acquit a guilty person if he is able to endure torture.

One must assume that Catherine II knew what she was writing about. In Russia in the 18th century, such tricks as cutting out nostrils, branding, and others were still practiced.

The “Nakaz” also condemns the death penalty. “Experiments show,” it says there, “that the frequent use of executions has never made people better; in the ordinary state of society, the death of a citizen is neither useful nor necessary” (Article 210).

And only in one case does Catherine allow the death penalty - when a person, even convicted and imprisoned, “still has a method and power that can disturb the peace of the people.” Clearly anticipating the appearance of such “troublemakers,” the empress extinguishes her inherent feelings of philanthropy and condescension: “Whoever disturbs the people’s peace, who does not obey the laws, who violates these ways in which people are united in societies and mutually protect each other, must to be excluded from society, i.e.: to become a monster” (Art. 214).

Several years will pass and in 1775 the leader of the Cossack-peasant uprising Emelyan Pugachev, to whom Catherine II could not and did not want to allow any leniency, will be executed on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow for the reason that he dared to call himself by the name of Peter III, her murdered in 1762 wife. In connection with this uprising, which was anti-serfdom in nature, those articles of the “Nakaz” that spoke about the difficult situation of the peasants in Russia and which were “redacted” by the deputies of the Commission and were not included in its printed text are of particular interest.

4. About serfs

The deputies rejected, first of all, those articles that concerned serfs. In this regard, we will give a short historical background.

In Rus', since ancient times, land was owned not by rural residents, peasants, but by city dwellers - princes and boyars. For the right to use the land, peasants bore various duties: they worked with their equipment on the farm of the land owner (corvée), and annually paid him money and food (quitrent).

At first, peasants could change owners. However, already in the 15th-16th centuries, the possibility of peasants moving from one owner to another was limited to the week before and the week after November 26 according to the old style, called “St. George’s Day”. In 1957, “St. George’s Day” was also cancelled.

It was established that every peasant must constantly live and work in one place, with the same owner. This is how the system of serfdom was established (a fortress in ancient Russian law was a symbolic or written act that asserted the power of a person over any thing), which implied not only the attachment of peasants to the land, but also the right of the landowner to the personality of the peasant. In the second half of the 18th century, i.e. under Catherine II, godparents were forbidden to complain about landowners, and landowners received the right to send peasants to hard labor.

Now it is difficult to say whether there was an alternative to a different, non-serfdom development of feudal relations in Russia. One thing is indisputable: the system of serfdom, serfdom, is a very heavy burden, not only economic and not only for the peasants.

IN. Klyuchevsky noted that the moral impact of serfdom on society was broader than the legal one. It further lowered the level of citizenship in Russia by excluding almost the entire rural agricultural population from the Zemsky Sobor, which was beginning to take shape as an elected representative assembly. All classes of society participated in “serfdom.” But this right had a particularly negative impact on the serf-owners themselves, making them slaves of the existing government. Serfdom gave rise to deep “social discord” in society, and the agricultural nobility, as the leading class, gave a perverted, ugly direction to the entire Russian culture (Klyuchevsky, Vol. III, pp. 176-178).

Speaking about serfdom, Catherine distinguishes between two types of “obedience” - essential and personal. “Substantial ties the peasants to the plot of land given to them. The Germans had such slaves. They did not serve in positions at the master's houses, but gave their master a certain amount of bread, livestock, household handicrafts, etc., and their slavery did not extend further. Such a service is now established in Hungary, the Czech Land and in many places in Lower Germany. Personal service, or servitude, is associated with improvement in the home and belongs more to the individual. There is great abuse when it is both personal and significant at the same time.” (Soloviev, 1993, p. 497; my italics - V.Z.) All this is not in the printed “Order”, because this “great abuse” took place in Russia on a large scale and the deputies did not want any reforms here.

The articles that said: “Every person must have food and clothing according to his condition, and this must be determined by law, also turned out to be unnecessary. The laws must also take care that slaves are not abandoned in old age or illness. One of the Roman Caesars legitimized sick slaves to be free when they recovered. This law affirmed freedom for slaves; but it would also be necessary to establish by law the preservation of their lives.”

The same fate befell Catherine’s reference to the freer position of peasants in “Russian Finland” and her conclusion: “A similar method could be usefully used to reduce the domestic harshness of landowners or servants sent by them to manage their villages, which is often ruinous for the villages and the people.” and it is harmful to the state when the peasants, dejected by them, are forced involuntarily to flee from their fatherland.” The Empress proposes to adopt a law that “can prevent any torment of masters, nobles, masters, etc.”

In this regard, we note that just in the 60-70s. In the 18th century, there was a trial in the case of landowner Daria Saltykova (known as “Saltychikha”), who was accused of brutal abuse of her peasants and the murder of 75 people of both sexes. And although the terrible Saltychikha was convicted and exiled to distant lands, the principles of serfdom she personified were supported by deputies. Not only from the nobility, but also from other classes. As it turned out, everyone wanted to have their own serfs. They also deleted the following article from the “Order”: “It is necessary that civil laws determine exactly what slaves must pay for their emancipation to their master, or that the agreement on emancipation determines exactly this debt instead of laws.”

Empress Catherine II was more liberal in her intended legislative reformism than the deputies of the Commission for drawing up the new Code. But she accepted their truncations and amendments without much resistance, and then came to terms with the fact that the “Order” never became a valid law. In December 1768, the Empress ordered the dissolution of the Great Commission, which during the year and a half of its existence held 203 meetings (several special commissions continued to work until 1774).

Different rumors surrounding the “Order” forced the Senate to prohibit the dissemination of this document in society - a document that Catherine II, at the time of its writing, wanted to see cheap in price, published in mass circulation and as widespread as an ABC book. Nevertheless, “Nakaz” was republished eight times over the next 30 years - so to speak, for internal use.

The ideas contained in it guided in some cases legislative and administrative practice. And the Commission’s materials served as a guide for a number of important reforms of the administrative and judicial structure in Russia in subsequent years.

Among them is, first of all, the “Establishment for the Administration of the Provinces of the Russian Empire” of 1775. In accordance with it, instead of the previous 20, 50 provinces were created, which were divided into counties and volosts. The organization of local government established then lasted for almost a hundred years, and the administrative division into provinces and districts survived until 1917, and in a slightly modified form into the “region - district” system to the present day.

The size of administrative-territorial units was reduced, and the number of persons vested with power was significantly increased. At the head of the province was the governor-general, under him the provincial government was established, and under him, the last - the chamber of criminal and civil courts as the highest judicial body of the province.

In addition, a “Conscience Court” was also established to examine criminal cases committed by minors and the insane. An audit of court cases was envisaged, which meant “a diligent examination of whether the case was carried out decently and in accordance with the laws.” The “institution” created class courts - separately for the nobles, for the merchants and townspeople, for the non-serf rural population. Oversight of the entire judicial system was entrusted to government-appointed prosecutors and their assistants.

In 1785, Catherine II issued a “Charter on the rights and benefits of the cities of the Russian Empire,” which affirmed the personal rights of the “philistines,” i.e., townspeople, the right to protect the honor, dignity and life of the individual, as well as the right to travel abroad. border, as well as their property rights - the right of ownership of property belonging to a citizen, the right of ownership of commercial and industrial enterprises, crafts and the right to conduct trade. The entire urban population was divided into six categories depending on their property and social status, and the rights of each of them were determined.

Among the political innovations contained in this charter, it is worth noting the “permission” to create city Dumas designed to solve the most pressing problems of the city.

Catherine II did not forget to thank the class to which she owed her rise to power and her entire reign - the nobility. She did not limit herself to two decrees adopted in 1782; in 1885 she issued a special “Charter on the rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility.”

In accordance with it, nobles were exempted from taxes, compulsory service and corporal punishment; they were allowed to acquire factories and factories, as well as trade in the products produced at these enterprises. Not only the land, but also its subsoil was assigned to the nobles. They received broad class self-government (Anthology of World Legal Thought, 1999, pp. 333-342).

There was also a “Certificate of Grant to the Peasants”. In the 30s of the 19th century, fragments of this document began to emerge from the depths of the archives, according to which Catherine II intended to declare the children of serfs born after 1785 free. If this document had been accepted and published, serfdom would have died out quite quickly. But this was prevented by the nobles, “high society” in general.

Later, in the 90s, when Catherine II, presumably, understood that life was coming to an end and when usually people were no longer hypocrites, she recalled with bitterness: “You can barely dare to say that they (serfs) are the same people as we, and even when I say this myself, I risk that they will throw stones at me... Even Count Alexander Sergeevich Stroganov, the gentlest and, in essence, the most humane man, whose kindness of heart borders on weakness, even this a person defended the cause of slavery with indignation and passion... I think there were not even twenty people who would think humanely and like people on this issue” (Political History.., 1996, pp. 147, 150).

This should be kept in mind by those modern Russian historians who believe that Catherine II pursued a “pro-noble, serfdom policy”, using “the mask of a champion of the enlightenment of Russia” (History of the Fatherland..., 1991, pp. 221-235).