The work of the era of the “enlightened monarchy”.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 3

✪ Catherine II: Russian model of “enlightened absolutism”

✪ Domestic policy in 1762 - 1796 Catherine II

✪ Domestic policy of Catherine II

Subtitles

Reasons for creating "Order"

Despite the huge number of legal acts created in previous years, the situation in the legal sphere was complex. On the territory of the Russian Empire, contradictory decrees, charters and manifestos were in force. Moreover, apart from the Council Code, there was no single set of laws in Russia.

Catherine II, realizing the need for legislative activity, not only announced the convening of a commission, but also wrote her “Order” for this Commission. It outlined modern, progressive principles of politics and the legal system. With this “Order,” the Empress directed the activities of the deputies in the right direction and, in addition, declaratively emphasized her commitment to the ideas of Diderot, Montesquieu, D'Alembert and other enlighteners.

Sources of the "Nakaz"

• A significant part of the text (about 350 articles) is borrowed from the treatises of Charles Montesquieu "On the Spirit of Laws" and Cesare Beccaria "On Crimes and Punishments".
• The remaining articles are a compilation of publications by Denis Diderot and Jean d'Alembert from the famous Encyclopedia.

Thus, Catherine the Great just used the already existing material, which, however, does not detract from the significance of her work.

The text of the “Nakaz” consisted of 22 chapters and 655 articles.

1. Ch. I-V (Art. 1-38) - General principles of state structure.
2. Ch. VI-VII (art. 39-79) - “On laws in general” and “On laws in detail”: the foundations of the legislative policy of the state.
3. Ch. VIII-IX (art. 80-141) - Criminal law and legal proceedings.
4. Ch. X (Art. 142-250) - The concept of criminal law from the point of view of Cesare Beccaria.
5. Ch. XI-XVIII (Art. 251-438) - Class organization of society.
6. Ch. XIX-XX (Art. 439-521) - Issues of legal technology.

The Supplement to the “Order” of 1768 analyzed the financial management system and listed the main goals of the state in this area. Finance was supposed to ensure the “common benefit” and “the splendor of the throne.” To solve these problems, the correct organization of the state budget was required.

Criminal law

Regarding criminal law, Catherine noted that it is much better to prevent a crime than to punish the criminal.

The Order noted that there is no need to punish pure intent that has not caused real harm to society. For the first time in Russian legislation, the idea was voiced in 1785, the Charter of the Deanery of 1782.

The Commission never created a new Code: the wars that Russia waged in the 1960s and the Pugachev rebellion had an impact. Inconsistency in the actions of representatives of different classes also played a negative role: the manifestation of corporate, class interests made joint codification work difficult.

However, the “Order” was not only an instruction for deputies. It was a carefully developed philosophical work of a man who thoroughly knew the history and all the achievements of modern legal thought.

In “Nakaz”, legal techniques were developed that were previously unknown to Russian law, and new ideas about the legislative system were developed:

1. We absolutely need laws A little and they must remain unchanged. This greatly makes the life of society more stable.
2. There must be laws simple and clear in their formulations. All subjects must understand the language of legislators for successful execution of orders.
3. There is a hierarchy of regulations. Decrees are by-laws, therefore they can have a limited validity period and be canceled depending on the changed situation.

Quotes

• The Christian law teaches us to mutually do good to each other as much as possible.
• Russia is a European power.
• A spacious state presupposes autocratic power in the person who rules it. It is necessary that speed in solving cases sent from distant countries rewards the slowness caused by the remoteness of places. Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous.
• The equality of all citizens consists in everyone being subject to the same laws.
• Love for the fatherland, shame and fear of reproach are taming means that can restrain many crimes.
• A person should not and can never be forgotten.
• 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.

§ 3. “Free economic society”

One example of the implementation of the ideas of enlightened absolutism is the establishment and activities of the imperial “Free Economic Society”.

IN conditions of Russia, where agriculture was the main source of abundance, and the serf village was its main sphere, in order to stimulate the landowner economy, the “Free Economic Society” was created in 1765 under the patronage of the reigning person. Quite in line with the ideas of enlightened absolutism, its creators understood their main task as follows: to contribute to the “increase in national well-being.” To do this, it was necessary to “try to bring the economy to a better state, showing the most important way in which natural growth can be used with greater benefit, and previous shortcomings can be corrected.” One of its organizers, T.I. Klinstedt, explaining the above, pointed out that the subject of the society’s activities is “agriculture, the maintenance and reproduction of livestock, the increase in the necessary products in the state and encouragement for greater breeding of them, the most useful exercises of the villager, the most convenient structure of courtyards and economic services for him, and in general everything that can contribute to the fact that his work will be useful both to himself and to the fatherland, with regard to those matters that this Society has chosen as its subject.” A special “pre-notification” about its establishment emphasized the practical nature of its activities. The society took upon itself the obligation to “make... its own experience and notify the people of its successes.” The solution to the set tasks was seen in pushing the landowner to use rational farming methods by the force of example.

For its time, the Free Economic Society was one of the most democratic institutions. All positions were elective. Everyone was invited to cooperate, “no matter what rank or title.” The founding documents stated: in the Society “all disputes about ranks and seniority between members are completely eliminated.” While remaining primarily an organization for the nobility, it nevertheless allowed

V their own ranks and representatives of other classes. So, its members were the Arkhangelsk merchant A.I. Fomin, Tula merchant M. Golikov. Kupets A.G. Shelekhov was one of his correspondents. There is no information about the participation of peasants.

The patronage of the reigning person provided the Society with the support of the local administration, especially since the then favorite of Catherine, Grigory Orlov, was elected as the first chairman, not without intention, which in itself emphasized the importance of the established Society.

One of the first steps in his activities was to familiarize himself with the situation in agriculture across Russia. For this purpose, questionnaires were sent to the localities. They talked, first of all, about crops and grain harvests, the quality of the land, the state of livestock farming, etc. - 65 questions in total. Geographically, they covered the main regions of Central Russia. However, few responded.

Since 1766, the “Proceedings” of the Society began to be published. Until the end of the 18th century. Over 40 volumes were published, and some of them, due to high demand, were reprinted. The circulation in other years was 1000 copies - quite large for that time.

IN “Proceedings” focused on the rational structure of the landowner economy, based on the labor of serfs. In published correspondence from the field, recipes were presented according to the following stereotype: initially there was a description of the farm that was being carried out in the old-fashioned way and the income was indicated, which was very low.

Then the innovations being carried out were outlined in detail, the main links of which were a more perfect, from the author’s point of view, organization of the labor of serfs, innovations

agronomic order, organization of processing and marketing of products. And, as a result, a multiple increase in profitability. And so from room to room. Essentially, the discussion was, first of all, about how to adapt landowner farms to the needs of the developing market.

In addition, especially in the first issues, big fundamental problems were posed. It is significant that among those who put forward these for discussion was the empress herself. So, an “unknown person” approached the Society with a request to put forward for competitive discussion the question: “what is more useful for the Society - for a peasant to own land or only movable property, and how far should his rights to both property extend?” Along with the letter, the “unknown author” donated one thousand red rubles for the needs of the Society and for awarding the winners. The rather transparent allusion to the empress was clear. Both domestic and foreign correspondents were invited to the discussion. The question posed thus touched upon one of the fundamental problems of the serfdom of the peasants. 162 responses were received. The work of Bearde de Labey, a Frenchman and member of the Dijon Academy, was unanimously recognized as the best. It stated that “we must give unlimited ownership to the peasants of the lands that they can cultivate.” But “before a slave can be given any property, he must be made free.” However, the serfs should be “prepared to accept freedom.” Thus, the right to property and the expediency of liberating peasants from serfdom were affirmed here, but this should not have happened suddenly; the terms of liberation and specific conditions were not indicated. However, the very fact of recognizing that slavery should be ended is significant, and the author was not alone in this judgment. After all, preference was given to him by members of the Society. Another of the awarded answers belonged to compatriot, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.Ya. Polenov. His answer contained a sharp condemnation of the excesses of serfdom. The author recommended limiting the arbitrariness of the landowner in relation to the serf, and at the same time argued that it was necessary to transfer the land they cultivated to the peasants for hereditary use.

The discussion did not lead to any changes in the position of the serfs. But, as the historian of the Russian peasantry summarized, “the idea of ​​the need to somehow change the position of the serfs was thrown into society and a hundred years later it bore fruit.” Another significant detail should be noted here: out of 162 responses sent, there were only seven from Russia - indirect evidence that the Russian nobility for the most part at that time had not yet thought about the possibility of changing the existing state of affairs in the area under discussion.

On the pages of the magazine, a number of more specific questions were raised: about the procedure for using land, extensive recommendations were offered on ways to better cultivate it, and the use of fertilizers. Almost every issue touched upon the topic of animal husbandry, recommended new varieties of crops, in particular potatoes, which were then little known in the countryside, improved tools, recipes for storing and processing products, and other useful tips for the household. Thus, a wider opportunity arose for the landowner to get acquainted with recommendations in the field of practical activities on his estate, to become involved in the sphere of economic and social problems of the fortress village.

However, numerous recommendations took root in the Russian village slowly, and the main reason for this was the serfdom of the peasants. In the eyes of most correspondents, the peasant appeared as a lazy, sluggish person, whose work for the master required constant supervision. Most of the landowners either did not know how to put their farming on a rational basis, or preferred to live the old fashioned way. Besides

innovations required financial investments, but most nobles did not live according to their income, so there was not enough money. But the grain was thrown. For the first time in Russia, the “Free Economic Society” began to consistently promote the best achievements in economic organization and in the field of agricultural technology and did this on a nationwide scale.

Subsequently, already in the first half of the 19th century, agricultural societies were established in many provinces. The publication of agronomic literature has expanded. The activities of the Free Economic Society were aimed at meeting the needs of the landowner economy, primarily market-oriented. And, finally, the implementation of the recommendations presupposed the preservation of serf labor, the nobleman’s monopoly right to own land, which corresponded to the ideas and interests of the landowners. All this predetermined the success of the Society’s activities.

Plan
Introduction
1 Reasons for creating “Order”
2 Sources of the “Nakaz”
3 Plan
Introduction
3.2 The concept of freedom

3.5 Finance and budget
3.6 Criminal law
3.7 Legal technique

4 The meaning of “Order”

Introduction

Reasons for creating "Order"

Laid commission. The goal was to develop a new set of laws, which was intended to replace the Council Code of 1649.

Despite the huge number of regulations created in previous years, the situation in the legal sphere was complex.

On the territory of the Russian Empire there were conflicting decrees, charters and manifestos. Moreover, apart from the Council Code, there was no single set of laws in Russia.

Catherine II, realizing the need for legislative activity, not only announced the convening of a commission, but also wrote her “Order” for this Commission. It outlined modern, progressive principles of politics and the legal system. With this “Order,” the Empress directed the activities of the deputies in the right direction and, in addition, declaratively emphasized her commitment to the ideas of Diderot, Montesquieu, D'Alembert and other enlighteners.

Sources of the "Nakaz"

Title page of the Encyclopedia

• "On the Spirit of Laws" and Cesare Beccaria.

Ch. XI-XVIII (Art. 251-438) - Class organization of society.

6. Ch. XIX-XX (Art. 439-521) - Issues of legal technology.

Monarchy was recognized as the ideal form of government. The monarch was declared a source of unlimited power: he consolidates society, creates and interprets laws.

"middle power" subordinate to the monarch and helping him manage society.

It was a kind of executive power, a “government” that performs its functions “in the name of the monarch.” The role of the monarch in relations with the “middle powers” ​​is to supervise their activities.

3.2. Freedom concept

The class structure corresponded to the “natural” division of society into those who, by birthright, can (and should) command and those who are called upon to gratefully accept the care of the ruling stratum.

In addition to the nobility and the “lower class of people,” that is, the peasants, there was also a “middle class,” that is, the bourgeoisie. The abolition of class inequality in society, according to Catherine, is destructive and completely unsuitable for the Russian people.

Law is the main management tool

Following the example of Frederick the Great, Catherine II wanted to see the triumph of the Law in the state under her control. She considered the law as the main instrument of public administration, which must be consistent with the “spirit of the people,” in other words, with the mentality.

conscious performance.

the same

3.5. Finance and budget

The Supplement to the “Order” of 1768 analyzed the financial management system and listed the main goals of the state in this area. Finance was supposed to ensure the “common benefit” and “the splendor of the throne.” To solve these problems, proper organization of the state budget was required.

Criminal law

The Order noted that there is no need to punish pure intent that did not cause real harm to society. For the first time in Russian legislation, the idea of ​​​​humanistic goals of punishment was voiced: about correcting the personality of the criminal.

And only then - about preventing him from causing harm in the future. Punishment, according to the Order, must be inevitable and proportionate to the crime.

Legal technology

1. We absolutely need laws A little and they must remain unchanged

2. There must be laws simple and clear understand the language of legislators

There is a hierarchy of regulations. Decrees are by-laws, therefore they can have a limited validity period and be canceled depending on the changed situation.

4. The meaning of “Order”

Russia. Catherine II. Order

However, the “Order” was not only an instruction for deputies.

It was a carefully developed philosophical work of a man who thoroughly knew the history and all the achievements of modern legal thought.

Quotes:

• A spacious state presupposes autocratic power in the person who rules it. It is necessary that speed in solving cases sent from distant countries rewards the slowness caused by the remoteness of places.

Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous.

• Text of "Order"

8. The Russian state's possessions extend over 32 degrees of latitude and 165 degrees of longitude around the globe.

9. The sovereign is autocratic; for no other power, as soon as the power united in his person, can act similarly to the space of such a great state.

10. A spacious state presupposes autocratic power in the person who rules it. It is necessary that speed in solving cases sent from distant countries rewards the slowness caused by the remoteness of places.

11. Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous.

ORDER OF CATHERINE II

12. Another reason is that it is better to obey the laws under one master than to please many.

13. What is the pretext for autocratic rule? Not one to take away people’s natural freedom, but to direct their actions to obtain the greatest good from everyone.

14. And so the government that reaches this end better than others and at the same time restricts natural freedom less than others, is the one that best resembles the intentions assumed in rational creatures, and corresponds to the end that is relentlessly looked at in the establishment of civil societies.

15. The intention and end of autocratic rule is the glory of the citizens, the state and the Sovereign.

16. But from this glory comes in the people, governed by unity of command, the mind of liberty, which in these powers can produce as many great deeds and contribute as much to the well-being of the subjects as liberty itself.

Plan
Introduction
1 Reasons for creating “Order”
2 Sources of the “Nakaz”
3 Plan
Introduction
3.1 Monarchy is the ideal form of government
3.2 The concept of freedom
3.3 Class structure of society
3.4 Law is the main management tool
3.5 Finance and budget
3.6 Criminal law
3.7 Legal technique

4 The meaning of “Order”

Introduction

“Mandate” of Catherine II is the concept of enlightened absolutism, set forth by Catherine II as an instruction for the codification (Laid) commission.

The "Nakaz", originally consisting of 506 articles, formulated the basic principles of politics and the legal system.

“The Mandate” is not only an important legal document of the 18th century, but also a typical philosophical work of the era of the “enlightened monarchy”.

1. Reasons for creating the “Order”

Letter and autograph from Catherine the Great

With a manifesto of December 14, 1766, Catherine II announced the convening of deputies to work in Laid commission .

The goal was to develop a new set of laws, which was intended to replace the Council Code of 1649.

Despite the huge number of regulations created in previous years, the situation in the legal sphere was complex. On the territory of the Russian Empire there were conflicting decrees, charters and manifestos. Moreover, apart from the Council Code, there was no single set of laws in Russia.

Even during the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, an attempt was made to organize the work of the commission to draw up a new Code.

However, these endeavors were hindered by the Seven Years' War.

Catherine II, realizing the need for legislative activity, not only announced the convening of a commission, but also wrote her “Order” for this Commission.

It outlined modern, progressive principles of politics and the legal system. With this “Order,” the Empress directed the activities of the deputies in the right direction and, in addition, declaratively emphasized her commitment to the ideas of Diderot, Montesquieu, D'Alembert and other enlighteners.

• Photo of the title page of the Order.

2. Sources of the “Nakaz”

Title page of the Encyclopedia

• A significant part of the text (about 350 articles) is borrowed from the treatises of Charles Montesquieu "On the Spirit of Laws" and Cesare Beccaria "On Crimes and Punishments" .
• The remaining articles are a compilation of publications by Denis Diderot and Jean D'Alembert from the famous Encyclopedia.

Thus, Catherine the Great just used the already existing material, which, however, does not detract from the significance of her work.

The text of the “Nakaz” consisted of 22 chapters and 655 articles.

Ch. I-V (Art. 1-38) - General principles of the structure of the state.

2. Ch. VI-VII (art. 39-79) - “On laws in general” and “On laws in detail”: the foundations of the legislative policy of the state.

3. Ch. VIII-IX (Art. 80-141) - Criminal law and legal proceedings.

4. Ch. X (Art. 142-250) - The concept of criminal law from the point of view of Cesare Beccaria.

5. Ch. XI-XVIII (Art. 251-438) - Class organization of society.

Ch. XIX-XX (Art. 439-521) - Issues of legal technology.

In 1768, the text of the “Order” was supplemented by Chapter. XXI, which contained the basics of administrative and police management, and Ch. XXII - on the regulation of financial issues.

3.1. Monarchy is the ideal form of government

The “mandate” substantiated the political principles of an absolutist state: the power of the monarch, the class division of society.

These signs were derived from the “natural” right of some to command and of others to obey. Catherine, justifying these postulates, made references to Russian history.

Monarchy was recognized as the ideal form of government.

The monarch was declared a source of unlimited power: he consolidates society, creates and interprets laws.

The presence of the so-called "middle power" subordinate to the monarch and helping him manage society. It was a kind of executive power, a “government” that performs its functions “in the name of the monarch.”

The role of the monarch in relations with the “middle powers” ​​is to supervise their activities.

The monarch must have not only managerial talents, but also show “meekness and condescension”, strive to ensure “the bliss of each and everyone” in society.

The “Order” did not provide for any restrictions, other than ethical ones, for the supreme monarchy.

According to the empress, absolute power does not exist to take away people's freedom, but to direct their actions to achieve a good goal.

3.2. Freedom concept

By freedom, “Nakaz” understood “peace of spirit” stemming from the consciousness of one’s own safety.

Freedom is the right to do what is permitted by law.

The general concept of freedom was associated with political, but not personal freedom.

3.3. Class structure of society

The class structure corresponded to the “natural” division of society into those who, by birthright, can (and should) command and those who are called upon to gratefully accept the care of the ruling stratum. In addition to the nobility and the “lower class of people,” that is, the peasants, there was also a “middle class,” that is, the bourgeoisie.

The abolition of class inequality in society, according to Catherine, is destructive and completely unsuitable for the Russian people.

3.4. Law is the main management tool

Following the example of Frederick the Great, Catherine II wanted to see the triumph of the Law in the state under her control.

"MANDASH" OF CATHERINE II

She considered the law as the main instrument of public administration, which must be consistent with the “spirit of the people,” in other words, with the mentality.

The law must ensure full and conscious performance.

Catherine noted that all classes are obliged the same answer for criminal offenses.

3.5. Finance and budget

The Supplement to the “Order” of 1768 analyzed the financial management system and listed the main goals of the state in this area. Finance was supposed to ensure the “common benefit” and “the splendor of the throne.”

To solve these problems, proper organization of the state budget was required.

3.6. Criminal law

Regarding criminal law, Catherine noted that it is much better to prevent a crime than to punish the criminal.

The Order noted that there is no need to punish pure intent that did not cause real harm to society. For the first time in Russian legislation, the idea of ​​​​humanistic goals of punishment was voiced: about correcting the personality of the criminal. And only then - about preventing him from causing harm in the future.

Punishment, according to the Order, must be inevitable and proportionate to the crime.

3.7. Legal technology

In Nakaz, a legal technique was developed that was previously unknown to Russian law, and new ideas about the legislative system were developed:

We absolutely need laws A little and they must remain unchanged. This greatly makes the life of society more stable.

2. There must be laws simple and clear in their formulations. All subjects must understand the language of legislators for successful execution of orders.

3. There is a hierarchy of regulations. Decrees are by-laws, therefore they can have a limited validity period and be canceled depending on the changed situation.

The meaning of "Order"

The “Order” of Catherine II became the basis for such normative acts as the Charter of the Nobility of 1785, the Charter of the Cities of 1785, and the Charter of the Deanery of 1782.

The Commission never created a new Code: the wars waged by Russia in the 1770s and the Pugachev revolt had an impact.

Inconsistency in the actions of representatives of different classes also played a negative role: the manifestation of corporate, class interests made joint codification work difficult.

However, the “Order” was not only an instruction for deputies. It was a carefully developed philosophical work of a man who thoroughly knew the history and all the achievements of modern legal thought.

Quotes:

• The Christian law teaches us to mutually do good to each other as much as possible.
• Russia is a European power.
• A spacious state presupposes autocratic power in the person who rules it.

It is necessary that speed in solving cases sent from distant countries rewards the slowness caused by the remoteness of places. Any other rule would not only be harmful to Russia, but also completely ruinous.

• The equality of all citizens consists in everyone being subject to the same laws.
• Love for the fatherland, shame and fear of reproach are taming means that can restrain many crimes.
• A person should not and can never be forgotten.
• 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.

• Text of "Order"

Having ascended the throne, Catherine II, albeit in the most general terms, imagined a program of state activity in accordance with the teachings of 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.

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 “Order” 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” (Art.

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.

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.

The “Order” declares the right of everyone to freely carry out “their lot,” i.e.

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 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, the document states, is the approval of property rights.

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 be afraid 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 legitimacy 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), i.e.

That is, nobles are the descendants of those who, while serving the Fatherland, had special merits here, and therefore even 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.”

Order of Catherine II (1765-1767)

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.

Thus, agriculture would spread more, and the number of people in the state would increase” (270).

The population of the city is the “middle class of people.” Here for the first time it appears as a separate social group. “In the cities live the townspeople 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.

So, 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 bypass here everything connected with this problem.

After ascending the throne, Catherine II discovered that one of the significant shortcomings of Russian life was the outdatedness of legislation: a collection of laws (the Council Code of 1649) was published under Alexei Mikhailovich, and life since then has changed beyond recognition. The Empress focused her attention on the latest works on legal theory. The first of them was the work of the French educator S. L. Montesquieu “On the Spirit of Laws.” In it, the author outlined the theory of the emergence of laws under the influence of natural and social conditions. Laws must be consistent with the needs of the country, with the concepts and customs of the people. Another source was the treatise “On Crimes and Punishments” by C. Beccaria. He strongly protested against the harsh norms of medieval legislation.

Based on the writings of Montesquieu and Beccaria, Catherine II began to formulate the general principles of the future code of laws of the Russian Empire. They were published under the title “Order of Empress Catherine II, given to the Commission for the drafting of a new Code.” Catherine II worked on “Instruction” for more than two years. In “Nakaz” she talks about the state, laws, punishments, court proceedings, education and other issues. “Instruction” showed both knowledge of the matter and love for people. The Empress wanted to introduce more gentleness and respect for people into legislation. The “mandate” was greeted with enthusiasm everywhere. In particular, Catherine II demanded a mitigation of punishments: “love of the fatherland, shame and fear of reproach are taming means that can restrain many crimes.” She also demanded the abolition of punishments that could disfigure the human body. Catherine II opposed the use of torture. She considered torture harmful, since a weak person may not be able to withstand torture and confess to something he did not commit, while a strong person, even having committed a crime, will be able to endure torture and avoid punishment. She demanded especially great caution from judges. “It is better to acquit 10 guilty people than to accuse one innocent person.” Another wise saying: “it is much better to prevent crimes than to punish them.” But how to do that? It is necessary that people respect the laws and strive for virtue. “The most reliable, but also the most difficult means of making people better is bringing education to perfection. If you want to prevent crimes, make sure that education spreads among people.” Also, Catherine II seemed necessary to provide the nobility and urban class with self-government. Catherine II also thought about the liberation of peasants from serfdom. But the abolition of serfdom did not take place. The “Nakaz” talks about how landowners should treat peasants: not burden them with taxes, levy taxes that do not force peasants to leave their homes, and so on. At the same time, she spread the idea that for the good of the state, peasants should be given freedom.

The creation of this Commission was one of the most important undertakings of Catherine II. In accordance with the manifesto published on December 14, 1766, representatives of all classes (with the exception of landowner peasants) gathered in Moscow to draft a new Code. The commission was supposed to inform the government about the needs and wishes of the population, and then draft new, better laws.

The commission was solemnly opened in the summer of 1767 by Catherine II herself in Moscow, in the Faceted Chamber. 567 deputies were gathered: from the nobility (from each county), merchants, state peasants, as well as settled foreigners. Catherine II transferred the Commission to St. Petersburg, but in St. Petersburg for a year the Commission not only did not begin to draw up a new Code, but did not even develop a single department of it. Catherine II was unhappy with this. Many deputies from the nobility in 1768 had to go to war with the Turks. Catherine II announced the closure of general meetings of the Commission. But separate committees continued to work for several more years.

We can say that the work of the Commission on the Code ended in failure. The commission presented Catherine II with a substantive lesson about the impossibility of implementing the theoretical constructs of European philosophers on Russian soil.

However, although the Commission did not draw up the Code, it did familiarize the Empress with the needs of the country. Catherine II herself wrote that she “received light and information about the entire Empire, with whom to deal, and about whom she should take care.”

The government attached special importance to the Order. After its publication, all government institutions were ordered to have the Order on the judges’ tables along with the old “Mirror of Justice”. The order was not a typical legislative act; it was, in general, a document of a recommendatory nature, a declaration of intent. Catherine II emphasized that she forbade referring to the Order as a law. However, it was not left without direct application in law: there are cases when complex cases were decided by both the Senate and lower courts “according to the rules of the Greater Punishment.” Following the constitutional principles of the “Nakaz,” investigative torture was abolished in Catherine’s time, although the judicial authorities resisted the removal of such a “useful” means from their hands. Less than three months after Catherine II’s accession to the throne, A.P., returned from exile, Bestuzhev-Ryumin took the initiative to present her with the title “Mother of the Fatherland.”

The text was reprinted several times - up to seven times in total with a circulation of over 5 thousand copies. The “Mandate” was translated into all European languages, even Latin and Modern Greek. With the introduction of the school reform in 1782, it was compulsory for study at school: even special copybooks for teaching writing with selected articles of the “Instruction” were printed.

The order of Catherine II was drawn up by the Empress personally as a guide for the Statutory Commission, specially convened for the purpose of codifying and drawing up a new set of laws of the Russian Empire, whose activity dates back to 1767-1768. However, this document cannot be considered only practical instructions. The text of the Order included Catherine’s reflections on the essence of laws and monarchical power. The document demonstrates the high education of the empress and characterizes her as one of the brightest representatives of Enlightened absolutism.

Personality of the Empress

Born Sophia-Frederica-Amalia-Augusta of Anhalt-Zerbst (in Orthodoxy, she was born in 1729 in Pomeranian Stettin into the noble but relatively poor family of Prince Christian Augustus. From an early age, she showed interest in books and thought a lot.

Since the time of Peter I, strong family ties have been established between the German princes and the Russian Romanov dynasty. For this reason, Empress Elizabeth Petrovna (1741-1761) chose a wife from among the German princesses for the heir to the throne. The future Catherine II was her husband's second cousin.

Relations between the spouses did not work out; the heir openly cheated on his wife. The empress also quickly lost interest in Catherine. It did not help their relationship that Elizabeth immediately took in Peter and Catherine’s newborn son, Paul, and actually removed his mother from raising him.

Rise to power

Having barely inherited the throne, Peter immediately demonstrated his inability to govern the state. The shameful exit from the successful Seven Years' War and incessant revelry provoked a conspiracy in the guard, which was led by Catherine herself. Peter was removed from power during a palace coup, and after some time he died under mysterious circumstances in captivity. Catherine became the new Russian empress.

The state of law in the Russian Empire

The official legal code of the state was the very outdated Council Code, adopted back in 1649. Since that time, both the nature of state power has changed (from the Muscovite kingdom it turned into the Russian Empire) and the state of society. Almost all Russian monarchs felt the need to bring the legislative framework in line with new realities. It was almost impossible to apply the Council Code in practice, since new decrees and laws directly contradicted it. In general, there was complete confusion in the legal sphere.

Catherine did not immediately decide to correct the situation. It took her some time to feel firmly on the throne and to deal with other possible contenders (for example, Ivan Antonovich, who was deposed in 1741, had formal rights to the throne). When this was over, the empress got down to business.

Composition of the Statutory Commission

In 1766, the Empress's Manifesto was released, which later formed the basis of the "Order" of Catherine II of the commission on the drafting of a new Code. Unlike previous bodies created for this purpose, the new commission had a wider representation of townspeople and peasants. A total of 564 deputies were elected, of which 5% were officials, 30% were nobles, 39% were townspeople, 14% were state peasants and 12% were Cossacks and foreigners. Each elected deputy had to bring orders from his province, which would contain the wishes of the local population. It immediately became clear that the range of problems was so wide that many delegates brought with them several such documents at once. In many ways, this is what paralyzed the work, since the work of the Statutory Commission was supposed to begin with the study of just such messages. The “mandate” of Catherine II, in turn, was also one of the recommendations presented.

Activities of the Legislative Commission

In addition to drawing up a new code of laws, the Legislative Commission was supposed to find out the mood of society. Due to the laboriousness of the first task and the unbearable nature of the second, the activities of this meeting ended in failure. The first ten meetings were spent assigning various titles to the empress (Mother of the Fatherland, Great and Wise). The “mandate” of Catherine II and the work of the Statutory Commission are inextricably linked with each other. Its first meetings were devoted specifically to reading and discussing the Empress’s message to the deputies.

A total of 203 meetings were held, after which no concrete steps were taken to improve the situation in the country. Economic transformations were especially often discussed at these meetings. The established commission, according to the “Order” of Catherine II, was supposed to test the waters for the liberation of the peasants, but on this issue deep contradictions emerged between the deputies. Disappointed with the activities of the commission, Catherine first suspended its activities, citing the war with Turkey, and then completely disbanded it.

The structure and history of writing the "Nakaz" of Catherine II

The only obvious evidence of the existence of the Statutory Commission was a document drawn up by the empress. This is a valuable source not only on the history of Enlightened absolutism and intellectual ties between Russia and Europe, but also evidence of the state of affairs in the country. Catherine II's "Mandate" consisted of 526 articles, divided into twenty chapters. Its content covered the following aspects:

• issues of government (in general and Russia in particular);
• principles of lawmaking and implementation of laws (the branch of criminal law has been especially developed);
• problems of social stratification of society;
• financial policy issues.

Catherine II began work on the “Instruction” in January 1765, and on July 30, 1767, its text was first published and read at meetings of the Legislative Commission. Soon the empress supplemented the original document with two new chapters. After the failure of the commission, Catherine did not abandon her brainchild. With the active participation of the Empress, in 1770 the text was published in a separate edition in five languages: English (two versions), French, Latin, German and Russian. There are significant differences between the five versions of the text, clearly at the discretion of their author. In fact, we can talk about five different versions of the “Mandate” of Empress Catherine II.

Document sources

Thanks to her deep education and connections with European enlighteners (Catherine corresponded with Voltaire and Diderot), the empress actively used the philosophical and legal works of foreign thinkers, interpreting and clarifying them in her own way. Montesquieu's essay "On the Spirit of Laws" had a particularly strong influence on the text of the "Nakaz". 294 articles of Catherine’s text (75%) are in one way or another connected with this treatise, and the Empress did not consider it necessary to hide this. In her document there are both extensive quotations from Montesquieu’s work and those given briefly. Catherine II's order to the Legislative Commission also demonstrates the empress's familiarity with the works of Koehne, Beccaria, Bielfeld and von Justi.

Borrowings from Montesquieu were not always direct. In her work, Catherine used the text of the treatise of the French enlightener with comments by Elie Luzac. The latter sometimes took a rather critical position in relation to the commented text, but Catherine did not pay attention to this.

Issues of government

Catherine based her political and legal doctrine on the dogmas of the Orthodox faith. According to the views of the empress, faith should permeate all elements of government. No legislator can compose regulations arbitrarily; he must bring them into conformity with religion, as well as with the expression of the people's will.

Catherine believed that, in accordance with both the Orthodox faith and popular aspirations, the monarchy was the most optimal form of government for Russia. Speaking about this more broadly, the Empress noted that the monarchy was significantly more effective than the republican system. For Russia, the emperor must also be an autocrat, since this directly follows from the peculiarities of its history. The monarch not only makes all the laws, but he alone has the right to interpret them. Current management affairs should be decided by bodies specially created for this purpose, which are responsible to the sovereign. Their task should also include informing the monarch about the inconsistency of the law with the current state of affairs. At the same time, government agencies must guarantee society protection from despotism: if the monarch adopts a certain resolution that contradicts the legislative framework, he must be informed about this.

The ultimate goal of government is to protect the safety of every citizen. In the eyes of Catherine, the monarch is a figure who leads the people to the highest good. It is he who must contribute to the continuous improvement of society, and this is again accomplished by the adoption of good laws. Thus, from Catherine’s point of view, legislative activity is both a cause and a consequence of monarchical power.

The “Order” of Catherine II of the Legislative Commission also justified and recorded the existing division of society into classes. The empress considered the distinction between privileged and unprivileged layers to be natural, directly related to historical development. In her opinion, equalizing the rights of classes is fraught with social upheavals. The only possible equality lies in their equal subjection to the laws.

It should be noted that Catherine did not say a word about the position of the clergy. This is consistent with the ideological program according to which the separation of clergy into a special layer is unproductive.

Lawmaking

The “Order” pays virtually no attention to specific methods for passing laws and their implementation. Catherine limited herself to only a general ideological scheme directly related to issues of government. Perhaps the only aspect of interest to Catherine in this set of problems is the limitation and possible abolition of serfdom. This consideration directly followed from the idea of ​​equality of all before the law. The peasants belonging to the landowners could not take advantage of this right. There was also an economic interest in this: Catherine believed that rent relations between peasants and landowners led to the decline of agriculture.

In her work, the Empress introduced the principle of hierarchy of normative acts, previously unknown in Russia. It was especially stipulated that some regulations, such as imperial decrees, have a limited validity period and are adopted due to special circumstances. When the situation stabilizes or changes, execution of the decree becomes optional, according to the “Order” of Catherine II. Its significance for the development of law also lies in the fact that the document required that legal norms be presented in terms that are clear to every subject, and the normative acts themselves should be few in number so as not to create contradictions.

Economic issues in the structure of the "Order"

Catherine’s special attention to farming was due to her idea that this particular occupation was most suitable for rural residents. In addition to purely economic considerations, there were also ideological ones, for example, the preservation of patriarchal purity of morals in society.

For the most effective land use, according to Ekaterina, it is necessary to transfer the means of production to private ownership. The Empress soberly assessed the state of affairs and understood that on someone else's land and for someone else's benefit, peasants work much worse than for themselves.

It is known that in the early versions of the "Nakaz" Catherine II devoted a lot of space to the peasant issue. But these sections were subsequently significantly reduced after discussion among the nobles. As a result, the solution to this problem looks amorphous and restrained, rather in a recommendatory spirit, rather than as a list of specific steps.

The “mandate” written by Catherine II provided for changes in financial policy and trade. The Empress resolutely opposed the guild organization, allowing its existence only in craft workshops. The welfare and economic power of the state are based only on free trade. In addition, economic crimes were to be tried in special institutions. Criminal law should not be applied in these cases.

The result of the activities of the Statutory Commission and the historical significance of the “Order”

Despite the fact that the goals stated when convening the Statutory Commission were not achieved, three positive results of its activities can be identified:

• the empress and the upper strata of society received a clearer idea of ​​the true state of affairs thanks to the orders brought by the deputies;
• educated society became more familiar with the then advanced ideas of the French enlighteners (largely thanks to Catherine’s “Order”);
• Catherine's right to occupy the Russian throne was finally confirmed (before the decision of the Legislative Commission to award the empress the title of Mother of the Fatherland, she was perceived as a usurper).

Catherine II valued her “Order” very highly. She ordered that a copy of the text be in any public place. But at the same time, only the upper strata of society had access to it. The Senate insisted on this in order to avoid misunderstandings among its subjects.

The “Order” of Catherine II was written as a guide to the work of the Statutory Commission, which predetermined the predominance in it of general philosophical reasoning over specific proposals. When the commission was dissolved, and the adoption of new laws did not take place, the empress began to say in her decrees that a number of articles of the “Order” were mandatory for execution. This was especially true of the ban on torture during a judicial investigation.

However, it should still be noted that the main significance of Catherine II’s “Order” still relates to the ideological sphere: Russian society became acquainted with the greatest achievements of European philosophical thought. There was also a practical consequence. In 1785, Catherine issued two Charters (to the nobility and cities), which recorded the rights of the townspeople and privileged sections of society. Basically, the provisions of these documents were based on the corresponding paragraphs of the “Order”. The work of Catherine II, thus, can be considered the program of her reign.