“The Mandate” of Catherine II: the history of writing, its significance for the development of law and the activities of the established commission. Order of Catherine II Order of Catherine 2 laid down by the commission briefly

"Order" of the Legislative Commission- the document was developed by Catherine II over the years 1765-1767, and is a collection of ideas of such Western educators as D'Alembert, Diderot, Montesquieu and Beccaria, which the empress herself did not hide. Being the concept of enlightened absolutism in the understanding of Catherine II, the “Nakaz” consisted of 506 articles and was supposed to serve as a direction for the activities of the deputies of the Statutory Commission.

The meetings of the Legislative Commission, announced by the manifesto of December 14, 1766, were called upon to develop a new set of laws to replace the outdated Council Code of 1649.

Meaning

The activities of the Legislative Commission were not crowned with success - the nobles did not want to give up their own rights, the merchants tried to expand their privileges, and no one took the requests of the peasant deputies seriously. However, the authorship of such a significant document and his loud statements about the need for fair governance, favorably emphasized Catherine II as a supporter of enlightenment and a caring ruler.

The contradictions between the deputies were eloquent evidence that the society of the Russian Empire was not ready for a peaceful change in its internal system. The subsequent rebellion of Emelyan Pugachev in 1773-1775 showed how tense relations between the classes were.

Exactly based on the “Order”, were developed and such documents as the Charter of the Deanery of 1782, the Charter of the nobility and the Charter of the cities of 1785 were issued. Catherine II herself called the last two documents the pinnacle of her lawmaking.

Key points:

Autocracy is the best and only form of government for the Russian Empire
Society is divided "naturally" into those who rule (emperor + nobles) and those who are ruled (everyone else).
The law must prevail in the state and apply equally to all its citizens. There should not be many laws, they should be unchanged and easy to understand.
Freedom is the right to do everything that is not prohibited by law. The absolute power of the monarch does not take away people's freedom, but only directs them to achieve the common good.
The sovereign is obliged to take care of his subjects - to improve their education, to promote the development of medicine, arts and science.

Despite the apparent loftiness of the proposals described, in fact, most of the future reforms not only did not affect the peasantry (constituting about 90% of the population of the Russian Empire), but even complicated their situation. Some of the changes were of a populist nature, serving the purpose of presenting the empress in the most favorable manner for foreign monarchs and figures.

Catherine II with the Order of the Legislative Commission

The laws acted exclusively in favor of the nobles, and most of the elected and administrative positions were occupied by the noble class.

in the discipline "History"

on the topic: “Order of Catherine II”

Introduction

1.Political and legal activities of Catherine II. Sources of her “Order”

2. “Order” of Empress Catherine II

Conclusion

Introduction

Catherine II is an extraordinary figure in the history of Russia, and, above all, in the history of political and legal thought and public administration. For thirty-four years (1762 - 1796) she was at the top of Russian state power - more than all the reigning persons both before (with the exception of Ivan the Terrible) and after her, including the general secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee. She played an important role in the emergence of the ideology of “enlightened absolutism” in our country. Catherine II continued the work of Peter I in reforming Russian society and the state, their exaltation.

Whether she deserves the title “great” is a matter of personal preferences, personal perception of this figure, rather than a possible objective assessment. More likely no than yes, although in general its activities can be assessed positively. What she did, what she initiated, what she gave impetus to, even what she tried to do but could not, allows us to call the years of her reign the “Era of Catherine II” in the history of Russia. Many literary sources devoted to the activities of Catherine II focus on her social activities, and one may get the impression that she was only engaged in palace intrigues, empty conversations, organizing balls and various kinds of celebrations, as well as the fact that she often changed her favorites.

The main thing that popularizers of this historical period miss is that during the reign of Catherine II, a noticeable transformation of Russian state power took place, new ideas and ideas spread. At the initiative of the empress, a discussion began on the topic “power – society – law”. This discussion is still relevant today. Turning to the past is important for modern people not only from the point of view of historical and political science knowledge, but also from a correct understanding of today's pressing problems.

1. Political and legal activities of Catherine II. Sources of her “Order”

The future empress, Catherine II, was born in 1729 in Germany into one of the small princely families. The girl was named Sophia-Augusta. In 1744 she was brought to Moscow, and then to St. Petersburg, and converted to the Orthodox faith. The following year, she became the wife of the heir to the Russian throne, Peter, the son of Empress Elizabeth. The only goal of the organizers of this marriage was the birth of a “spare heir,” because Peter was very unreliable in his physical and mental abilities.

Peter demonstratively bullied, humiliated, and intended to send his wife into lifelong exile in a monastery. As a result of a coup carried out by the noble guard in 1762, Catherine became the autocratic empress of Russia. On the medals in memory of the coronation of Catherine II, the inscription was made: “For the salvation of faith and fatherland.”

Speaking about Catherine’s human qualities, her behavior and way of life, we can say that she was an extraordinary person. The main quality of her character was hard work. She always followed a strict daily routine. I got up at 6 o'clock in the morning, read and wrote for two hours. Then began classes in government affairs, hearing reports, and meetings with dignitaries. After lunch, current state affairs were again considered, and work with books continued. And only towards evening did she relax: she examined objects of art, painted and engraved herself. And in the evening there were cards, billiards, and theatrical performances. Went to bed at 11 o'clock. And so on from year to year. Constant work was the norm of her life.

Catherine II was stubborn, willful, and could look arrogant. Nevertheless, according to the testimony of many people around her, she was able to listen to a different opinion, a different assessment, knew how to restrain her anger, and admit her mistakes. She was smart enough not to extol her own wisdom. She said that she knew many people incomparably smarter than her. As V. O. Klyuchevsky put it, she “knew how to be smart at the right time and in moderation.” Catherine possessed the qualities necessary for a person in power: quick wits, a sense of position, the ability to quickly grasp and summarize all available data in order to make a decision in time, and having made it, try to implement it.

Another valuable quality was that she knew how to win over a variety of people - from servants to kings. Moreover, contrary to the general rule of noticing other people’s weaknesses in order to take advantage of them, Catherine preferred to find strengths in people in order to rely on them. Like any crowned person, especially a woman, Catherine II was not without vanity and selfishness. She willingly listened to flattering words addressed to her. Once she was informed that Italian artists were making her profile based on busts or medals of Alexander the Great and were quite pleased with the resulting resemblance. The Empress joked about this with obvious self-satisfaction.

But when Catherine II was asked, on behalf of the deputies of the Commission for drawing up the draft of a new legislative Code, to accept the title of the Great Wise Mother of the Fatherland, she replied as follows: “As for the titles that you want me to accept from you, I answer to this: 1) to the great – I leave my affairs to time and posterity to judge impartially; 2) wise - I can’t call myself such, for only God is wise, and 3) mother of the fatherland - I honor the subjects given to me by God as a duty of my title, to be loved by them is my desire.”

German by blood, French by her favorite language and upbringing, Catherine, as she herself admitted, really wanted to be Russian. Having quickly mastered the Russian language, she with great energy and eagerness began to study Russian-Russian history: she read a lot, and later wrote, about Rurik and the first Russian princes, about Dmitry Donskoy and Peter I. In response to the proposal of D. Diderot, the founder and editor of the famous French “Encyclopedia”, wrote a number of articles about the population, relationships between different classes, and arable farming in Russia.

Noteworthy is the fact that Catherine II immediately outlined her fundamental theoretical and political position in her approach to the peculiarities of the culture and way of life of Russians. When in 1769 a certain Abbé Chappe published in Paris a “bad” book about Russia and Russians, according to Catherine, she took an active part (as the main organizer and author) in the appearance of a refutation book in Amsterdam in French. The latter emphasized that Russians are no lower than other Europeans.

The study of Russian history was not a passing hobby for the empress. On the contrary, over time, it grew and deepened. For her, ancient manuscripts were searched and found in various monasteries. About a hundred chronicles made up her library at hand. In 1783 - 84 Catherine II published “Notes on Russian History,” especially intended for youth. They conveyed the idea that humanity everywhere is guided by the same ideas and passions, which are only modified under the influence of local characteristics. The Notes proposed a periodization of Russian-Russian history, which was later followed by Russian historiography. The Empress ordered the opening of archives for scientists and helped in the publication of the Ancient Russian Library. In the words of Catherine II: “I love this history (of Russia) to madness” there is neither great exaggeration nor insincerity. A few days before her death, in a letter to Baron F. M. Grimm, she reported that she was busy compiling a huge historical work.

Catherine’s political consciousness was formed both through reading and studying the advanced and then fashionable literature of the European, primarily French, Enlightenment, and under the influence of everyday palace life, conversations with the people around her, and correspondence with friends. Her mindset was more practically - political than abstract - philosophical. From her study of political philosophy she learned more about politics than philosophy. But even in politics, she knew how to choose the most important and essential.

Even when Catherine was not an autocratic empress, a focus on power was clearly and definitely defined in her mind. “I will either die or reign,” she wrote. Having become empress, Catherine defined why she needed power: “I wish, I only want good for the country where God has brought me; the glory of the country is my own glory, that is my principle; I would be very happy if my ideas could contribute to this.”

Catherine II’s study of the works of Montesquieu, Voltaire and other European educators, taught her, according to Klyuchevsky, “... to reflect on such difficult subjects as government, the origin and composition of society, the relationship of a person to society, gave direction and illumination to her random political observations, “understood for her the basic concepts of law and society, those political axioms without which it is impossible to understand public life and even less possible to lead it.”

Being at the center, or even just the center of clashes of various, often opposing interests and trends, it preferred to be guided by general state interests, rather than private or group ones. “God forbid you play the sad role of the leader of the party,” she said, “on the contrary, you should constantly try to gain the favor of all your subjects.” Catherine II was in friendly correspondence for many years with the main freethinker of Europe in the 18th century, Voltaire. In the “Voltaire Society,” which was a society of European celebrities, the Russian Empress was highly revered and called the most wondrous woman of all time, or simply Kato. Although she did not, and could not become, a “Voltairean,” Voltaire’s ideological influence on Catherine II is beyond doubt.

Catherine II not only corresponded with French encyclopedists, but also helped them financially. Having learned that the French authorities had deprived D'Alembert of his academic pension for a book against the Jesuits, she bought his personal library for a large sum, leaving it in the philosopher's lifelong use (“It would be cruel to separate a scientist from his books,” the Russian empress explained). And as the custodian of her books, she assigned D'Alembert a salary of a thousand francs. Admired by this act, Voltaire wrote: “Who would have imagined 50 years ago that the time would come when the Scythians would so nobly reward in Paris virtue, knowledge, philosophy, which they treat so unworthily among us?”

Neither then nor later, after becoming empress, Catherine did not hide the source of her ideas. The works of Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, Hume, the Italian educator and lawyer Beccaria, and many other thinkers of the 18th century. and past eras were her reference books. About the book by Sh.-L. Montesquieu’s “On the Spirit of Laws” Catherine II responded this way: “The Spirit of Laws” should be a prayer book for monarchs with common sense,” and about Montesquieu himself even more definitely: “If I were pope, I would recognize him as a saint, without even listening to the speeches of Satan’s advocate.” .

If the 18th century of Russian history began with the Tsar-carpenter, Peter I, then it ended with the Empress-writer. The literary heritage of Catherine II is more than impressive, if only in terms of volume - at the end of the 19th century, the Academy of Sciences published her works in 12 voluminous volumes. But the content of her works deserves attention, and her main work in the field of political and legal thought is “The Order of Empress Catherine II, given to the Commission on the drafting of a new Code of 1767,” or simply “The Order.”

Catherine II thoroughly prepared the development of the “Nakaz”. She wrote: “For two years I read and wrote, without saying a word for a year and a half, following my only mind and heart with a zealous desire for the benefit, honor and happiness of the empire, and to bring everyone to the highest degree of prosperity.” It is necessary to immediately stipulate that the Russian Empress, in formulating the foundations of her political and legal doctrine, used the works of Western European authors, and many works have been devoted to the study of the sources of Catherine II’s “Order.” Catherine herself never hid the ideological and literary derivativeness of her brainchild. Sending d’Alembert what she called “a certain notebook” in 1765, she admitted, in particular, that for the benefit of her empire she had “robbed President Montesquieu.” However, out of many sources, this was the only one named by her.

Among the handwritten materials of the “Cabinet of Catherine II” there are two drafts, two early versions of the XXIst chapter, written by the Empress in French. Studying these autographs allows us to see how Catherine’s work on this part of the “Nakaz” proceeded, and what borrowings formed its basis. The earliest edition of the chapter consists of two notes. Its first part is the Empress’s extracts from the seventh chapter of Baron Bielfeld’s “Political Instructions” with very minor insertions of her own. Following the outline of the “Political Instructions” in the early edition of the chapter, there are excerpts from Catherine II from the article “Police” compiled by Antoine-Gaspard Boucher d’Argy for the XII volume of the famous “Encyclopedia”, published in 1765. The empress included extensive quotes from this source in the basis of thirteen articles of the XXI chapter of the “Mandate”, namely, Art. 543 – 546 and 552 – 560.

But Boucher’s article itself contained certain borrowings. When writing it, the author of the Encyclopedia used, in particular, a book published in 1705 by a French lawyer of the late 17th - early 18th centuries. Nicola de Lamara "Treatise on the Police, which sets forth the history of its institutions, the functions and prerogatives of its magistrates and all the laws and police relating to it." When making extracts from the Encyclopedia, Catherine II inevitably took advantage of this indirect source for her. A comparison of the editions of Chapter XXI shows that work on it began with extracts from Bielfeld and Boucher d'Argy (Lamar), and only at a later stage of her work Catherine II included borrowings from the 24th chapter of the twenty-sixth book of “The Spirit of Laws” Montesquieu.

2. “Order” of Empress Catherine II

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.”

Conclusion

In her desire to “see her entire fatherland at the highest level of prosperity, glory and tranquility,” Catherine II was seriously mistaken, considering her country to be at the same level of civil development as Western countries. 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.

Catherine II was ahead of her time, this is obvious - after all, she, the autocrat, was more liberal in her intended legislative reforms 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 “Nakaz” forced the Senate to prohibit the distribution 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.

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.

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, she recalled with bitterness: “You barely dare to say that they (serfs) are the same people as we are, and even when I I say this myself, I risk that they will throw stones at me... I think there were not even twenty people who would think humanely and like people on this issue.”

The study of Catherine’s “Order” is of great historical interest, if only to reveal the fullness of the image of Catherine II, who in this monumental work appears not only as an intelligent woman and a far-sighted politician, but also as an ardent patriot, not alien to the ideas of humanism. But the story of “Nakaz” is also interesting because it vividly illustrates the real possibilities of a person invested with seemingly unlimited power to carry out reforms and promote his ideas. The objective conditions of Catherine II’s activities did not allow her patriotism and humanity to be revealed in their entirety, but her attempts to demonstrate them did not disappear without a trace for the history of Russia.

List of used literature

1. Zotov V.D. Empress Catherine and her "Order". // Bulletin of the Russian Peoples' Friendship University. - Ser. Political science. - 2000. - No. 2 - P. 21-32.

2. History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, decisions. Essays on the history of Russia in the 9th - early 20th centuries. – M., 1991.

3. Klyuchevsky V.O. Works: T.5 – M., 1989.

4. The order of Empress Catherine II given to the Commission on the drafting of a new Code. / Ed. N.D. Chechulina // Monuments of Russian legislation of 1649-1832, published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences. – St. Petersburg, 1907.

5. Omelchenko O. A. Order of the Commission on the drafting of a new code of Catherine II. The official political theory of Russian absolutism of the second half of the 18th century. Abstract of thesis. ... k.i. n. M., Moscow State University, 1977

6. Political history: Russia - USSR - Russian Federation. In 2 volumes. T. 1. – M., 1996.

7. Soloviev S.M. About the history of new Russia. – M., 1993.

The reforms undertaken in 1763 seemed unsuccessful to Catherine II. She decided, like some of her predecessors on the throne, to appeal to society, convene a commission of deputies elected by the people in all provinces, and entrust this commission with developing the laws necessary for the country. At the same time, Catherine II felt the need for some kind of generalizing theoretical document that would comprehend all the necessary changes and was intended for this Commission. And she got to work. The Commission's order for the creation of a new Code, written by the Empress herself in 1764-1766, was a talented compilation of the works of French and English jurists and philosophers. The work was based on the ideas of C. Montesquieu, C. Beccaria, E. Luzac and other French educators.

“The order of Her Imperial Majesty Catherine the Second, the All-Russian Autocrat, given to the Commission on the drafting of a new code”

Almost immediately, the Nakaz states that for Russia, with its spaces and characteristics of the people, there can be no other form other than autocracy. At the same time, it was proclaimed that the sovereign must rule in accordance with the laws, that laws must be based on the principles of reason, common sense, that they must carry goodness and public benefit, and that all citizens must be equal before the law. The first definition of freedom in Russia was also expressed there: “the right to do everything that the laws allow.” For the first time in Russia, the right of a criminal to defense was proclaimed, it was said about the presumption of innocence, the inadmissibility of torture and the death penalty only in special cases. The Order says that property rights must be protected by law, that subjects must be educated in the spirit of laws and Christian love.

The Nakaz proclaimed ideas that were new in Russia at that time, although now they seem simple, well-known, but, alas, sometimes not implemented to this day: “The equality of all citizens is that everyone should be subject to the same laws.” ; “Liberty is the right to do everything that the laws allow”; “The verdicts of judges must be known to the people, as well as the evidence of crimes, so that every citizen can say that he lives under the protection of the law”; “A person cannot be considered guilty before a judge’s verdict, and the laws cannot deprive him of their protection before it is proven that he has violated them”; “Make people afraid of the laws and not afraid of anyone but them.” And although the Nakaz did not talk about the need to abolish serfdom, the idea of people’s natural right to freedom from birth was conveyed quite clearly in the Nakaz. In general, some of the ideas of the Order, a work written by the autocrat, were unusually bold and aroused the delight of many progressive people.

The system of state institutions being reformed according to the ideas of Catherine II are only mechanisms for implementing the supreme will of an enlightened autocrat. There is not a trace of institutions that could in any way oppose the supreme power. The sovereign himself must “keep” the laws and monitor their observance. Thus, the principle of autocracy, that is, unlimited power, was the first and basic principle of state building of Catherine II, and unshakably underlay the political regime she reformed.

The order did not become an official document, a law, but its influence on legislation was significant, since it was a program that Catherine II would like to implement.

In Europe, the Nakaz brought Catherine II the glory of a liberal ruler, and in France, the Nakaz was even banned. The order, as already said, was intended for a Commission convened from all over the country to draw up a Code. It was in her activities that the ideas of the Order were originally intended to be implemented. It cannot be said that the very idea of the Commission was particularly new. Such commissions existed almost continuously during the 18th century. They reviewed legislative projects, attracted representatives from the localities, and discussed their opinions. But various reasons prevented these commissions from creating a new set of laws to replace the Council Code of 1649 - a code that was used in judicial practice even during the time of Catherine II.

Let's look at the source

When the Empress wrote the Nakaz, the main direction of her reformist thought was to substantiate the concept of an inherently unshakable autocracy with new ideological and legal arguments, in addition to those that had long been used by Russian law and journalism of the 18th century (theological justification - the power of the king from God), the concept of charismatic leader - “Father (or Mother) of the Fatherland.” Under Catherine II, a popular “geographical argument” appeared in the West, justifying autocracy as the only acceptable form of government for a country of the size of Russia. The Order says:

“The sovereign is autocratic, for no other power than the one united in his person can act in a manner similar to the space of a great state... A spacious state presupposes autocratic power in the person who rules it. It is necessary that speed in resolving matters sent from distant countries should reward the slowness caused by the remoteness of places... Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also ultimately ruinous... Another reason is that it is better to obey the laws under one master than to please many... What is the excuse for autocratic rule? Not one to take away people’s natural freedom, but to direct their actions to obtain the greatest good from everyone.”

Largely thanks to Catherine’s Order, which opened a new page in the history of Russian law, and numerous laws arising from the principles of the Order, the legal regulation of autocracy was implemented in Russia. In the next, 19th century, it was cast in the formula of Article 47 of the “Basic Laws of the Russian Empire,” according to which Russia was governed “on the solid basis of positive laws, institutions and statutes emanating from autocratic power.”

It was precisely the development of a set of legal norms that substantiated and developed the first “fundamental” law - the monarch is “the source of all state power” (Article 19 of the Order), and became Catherine’s main task. The Enlightenment concept of autocracy included recognition of the basis of the life of society as legality, laws established by an enlightened monarch. “The Bible of Enlightenment” - the book “The Spirit of Laws” Montesquieu argued: if the monarch intends to enlighten his subjects, then this cannot be accomplished without “strong, established laws.” This is what Catherine did. According to her ideas, the law is not written for the monarch. The only limitation on his power can be his own high moral qualities and education. An enlightened monarch, possessing a high culture, thinking about his subjects, cannot act like an uncouth tyrant or a capricious despot. Legally, this is expressed, according to Article 512 of the Order, by the words that the power of an enlightened sovereign is limited to “the limits set by itself.”

The established commission met in 1767 in Moscow. 564 deputies took part in its work, more than a third of them were nobles. There were no delegates from serfs on the Commission. However, speeches were made against the omnipotence of the landowners and the exorbitant burden of serf duties. These were speeches by G. Korobyov, Y. Kozelsky, A. Maslov. The last speaker even proposed transferring the management of serfs to a special state institution from which landowners would receive their income. However, the majority of deputies were in favor of maintaining serfdom. Catherine II, despite her understanding of the depravity of serfdom, did not oppose the existing social order. She understood that for the autocratic government, an attempt to eliminate or even soften serfdom would be fatal. The meetings of the Commission, as well as its subcommittees, quickly revealed huge contradictions between the classes. The non-nobles insisted on their right to buy serfs, and the nobles considered this right their monopoly. Merchants and entrepreneurs, for their part, were sharply opposed to the nobles who set up factories, conducted trade and, thereby, “invaded” the class occupations of the merchants. And there was no unity among the nobles. Aristocrats and well-born nobles opposed the “upstarts” - those who had risen from the bottom according to the Table of Ranks, and demanded the abolition of this act of Peter the Great. The nobles of the Great Russian provinces argued about rights with the Baltic Germans, who seemed great to them. The Siberian nobles, in turn, wanted the same rights that the Great Russian nobles had. Discussions often resulted in quarrels. The speakers, caring about their class, often did not think about the common cause. In a word, the deputies were unable to overcome differences and seek agreement in order to develop general principles on which laws would be based. After working for a year and a half, the Commission did not approve a single law. At the end of 1768, taking advantage of the outbreak of war with Turkey, Catherine II dissolved the Commission. However, the empress-legislator widely used her materials in her work for many years. The Commission never adopted the new Code. Perhaps the reason for the failure lay in the organization of the work of the Commission, or more precisely, in the lack of a working atmosphere, which was difficult to create in such a grandiose and motley meeting of representatives of different social, regional and national groups of delegates, torn by contradictions. And the legislators gathered in the Kremlin were not prepared for the difficult work. It is possible that time has passed for such universal codes of laws in general. What was needed was a different, holistic system of legal codes, which would be united by one general idea. Catherine II followed this path. The preparation for the work of the Statutory Commission and its work itself, which did not end in anything, provided Catherine II with a great service: they gave food for legislative work to the empress herself, who has since been professionally engaged in legislation. Assessing what she has done over many years, it can be said without much exaggeration that Catherine II, working on legislation for decades, in a sense replaced the entire Statutory Commission.

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

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.

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).

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.

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 the landowners, and the 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 “Nakaz”: “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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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).