The “Order” of Catherine II, which is a treatise of a philosophical and legal nature, was presented by the Empress to the Legislative Commission that opened on July 30 (August 10), 1767 in Moscow. On the same day, the “Nakaz”, which outlined the Empress’s views on the future legislation and structure of Russia, was published as a guide for the deputies of the Commission. The document, consisting of 22 chapters and 655 articles, an introduction, a conclusion and two additions, is based on: the treatise of the French educator Charles Louis de Montesquieu “On the Spirit of Laws” and the work of the Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria “On Crimes and Punishments”. The Mandate was both a philosophical work containing the concept of enlightened absolutism and an important legal document of the era. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, Catherine II herself regarded the “Nakaz” as a political confession.
Obviously, the idea of the “Order” was not directly related to the work of the Statutory Commission. Catherine II worked on drawing up the “Nakaz” in 1764-1765, widely using the ideas and advice of thinkers of the European Enlightenment. In addition to the works of Montesquieu and Beccaria, many articles were a compilation of works by Denis Diderot and Jean D'Alembert from the Encyclopedia.
The convening of deputies to work in the Coded Commission was announced by the tsar’s manifesto only on December 14, 1766. The purpose of the convened Commission was to develop a new set of laws designed to replace the clearly outdated Council Code of 1649. In addition, a huge number of contradictory decrees were in force on the territory of the Russian Empire , charters and manifestos. Attempts to organize the work of a commission to draw up a new Code date back to the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, but this was prevented by Russia’s participation in the Seven Years’ War. Whereas the idea of the “Order,” as mentioned above, was broader than the actual legal provisions.
Elections of deputies were held in the provinces, representing the nobility, state institutions, peasants and Cossacks (serfs did not participate in the work of the Commission). But the leading role in the Legislative Commission was played by noble deputies. The Empress’s “Order” was read to all the deputies gathered in Moscow (there were 572 of them). The motto of the Legislative Commission, which began its meeting in the Faceted Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin, was the words: “The Bliss of Each and All.” After reading the “Instruction”, the deputies began speaking. At the fifth meeting, the empress was given the title “Great, Wise Mother of the Fatherland,” which meant the final recognition of Catherine II by the Russian nobility. Secretly from the deputies, hidden from prying eyes, in the meeting room there was a chair on which the empress sat, listening to the speeches. She later noted that “the number of ignorant nobles was immeasurably greater than I could ever have imagined, among them there were not twenty people who thought humanely and like people.”
The “mandate” substantiated the political principles of absolutism and, above all, the power of the monarch and the class division of society, which were derived from the “natural” right of some to command and others to obey. Thus, the monarchy was recognized as an ideal form of government, and the monarch was declared the source of unlimited power. That is, the “Order” did not provide for any restrictions on the supreme power, except ethical ones: “The king has the duty to wish the good of his subjects”; “...all people are brothers, and I will devote my whole life to the art of acting in accordance with this rule.” The Empress wrote that it was necessary to maintain a strong autocratic form of government in Russia, “for it is the only one that can serve the necessary speed for the needs of remote regions, and any other form is disastrous due to the slowness of these actions.” Catherine explained the need for strong autocratic power by saying that “it is better to obey the laws under one master than to please many.”
The “mandate,” based on the need for strong autocratic power, nevertheless assumed the equality of all citizens before the law and their “freedom” within the limits of the law. That is, freedom (political, not personal) was understood as the right to do what is permitted by law. In turn, Catherine II, following the example of Frederick the Great, considered the law as the main instrument of public administration, which should ensure its complete and, most importantly, conscious implementation. As for the class structure of society, it was considered organically inherent in Russian society.
The general principles of criminal law were based on a number of new ideas for Russia: crime prevention, inevitability and proportionality of punishment, the absence of the need to punish for “bare intent” and correction of the identity of the criminal. The “Nakaz” contained provisions according to which no one should be imprisoned until his guilt was proven in court and announced to the people. Social inequality had to be combined with the equality of all before the law: “The All-Russian Empire of all ranks and status may have equal judgment and punishment for all people.” Albeit in a class interpretation, the concept of the presumption of innocence was introduced into Russian legislation. The “mandate” rejected torture, limited the use of the death penalty and proposed separating the judicial branch from the executive branch. Moreover, the document formulated new approaches to the legislative system in general: the small number and immutability of laws; their simplicity, clarity of language and clarity in formulation; the presence of a hierarchy of regulations.
The "mandate" was repeatedly corrected by the empress herself, especially in the part where it was said about peasants: all references to the limitation of serfdom were removed. However, at a meeting of the Legislative Commission, when discussing the peasant issue, a number of deputies raised the issue of limiting and even abolishing serfdom. But these proposals received a sharp rebuff from the landowners: “It is impossible to make the serfs free; the estates will turn into the most dangerous places, because the landowners will depend on the peasants, and not the peasants on them.” The nobles, on the contrary, asked for the expansion of their class rights and privileges, elected noble courts and assemblies, a monopoly on the ownership of land and serfs and, at the same time, freedom of trade in cities and the creation of manufactories.
The Addendum to the “Order” of 1768 listed, analyzed the financial management system, listed the main goals of the state in the financial sphere and, above all, the correct organization of the state budget. That is, despite overt borrowings from Western sources, the significance of the “Nakaz” was that for the first time in the history of Russia, general principles of legal policy and the legal system were formulated.
However, the wishes expressed in the “Nakaz” about the equality of citizens, the primacy of law over lawlessness, freedom based on the force of law, justice, etc. were impracticable and were addressed, despite the declaration of their general class nature, exclusively to the nobility. The existence of serfdom in relation to peasants was presented as an unshakable fact: “We should not suddenly and through general legalization make a large number of liberated people.” Moreover, during the reign of Empress Catherine II, the position of the landowner serfs noticeably worsened. Many contemporaries compared their condition to slavery. This, however, was confirmed by the terminology of the “Order” and the subsequent Decrees of Catherine II herself. For example, in articles 254-260, Catherine II writes about the harmfulness of cruel treatment of slaves for ancient states, on the basis of which she concludes that “laws can establish something useful for the property of their own slaves.” To avoid criticism in connection with the strengthening of serfdom and the deterioration of the situation of serfs, Catherine II issued a decree in 1786 prohibiting signing in official acts and petitions with the word “slave,” which was proposed to be replaced with the words “all-subject” and “loyal subject.”
Since the members of the Commission were not ready to accept the principles set out in the “Nakaz,” the general meeting of the Commission was closed in January 1769 under the pretext of starting a war with Turkey. And in December 1774, the Empress officially dissolved the Statutory Commission itself. The Commission never created a new Code. However, the ideas of the “Order” did not disappear and became the basis of the Charter to the nobility and the Charter to the cities of 1785, the Charter of the Deanery of 1782, etc. As for the private commissions that were created along with the Grand General Meeting to consider specific laws, they existed until the end of the reign of Catherine II.
ORDER
Commission on the drafting of a new Code
1. The Christian law teaches us to mutually do good to each other as much as possible.
2. Believing that this rule, prescribed by the law of faith, is rooted or should be rooted in the hearts of an entire people, we cannot make anything other than this, that every honest person in society has or will have the desire to see his entire fatherland at the highest level of prosperity, glory, bliss and peace.
3. And every fellow citizen should be especially protected by laws that would not oppress his well-being, but would protect him from all enterprises contrary to this rule.
4. But in order to now begin to quickly fulfill what we hope is a universal desire, then, based on the first rule written above, you must enter into the natural position of this state.
5. For laws that are very similar to nature are those whose special disposition is better suited to the disposition of the people for whose sake they were instituted. This natural situation is described in the first three chapters that follow.
Chapter I
6. Russia is a European power.
7. The proof of this is as follows. The changes that Peter the Great undertook in Russia were all the more successful because the customs that existed at that time were not at all similar to the climate and were brought to us by the mixing of different peoples and the conquest of foreign regions. Peter the Great, introducing European morals and customs into the European people, then found such conveniences as he himself did not expect.
Chapter II
8. The Russian state's possessions extend to 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.
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.
Chapter III
17. On the safety of State regulations.
18. Middle powers, subordinate, and dependent on the supreme, constitute the essence of government.
19. It has been said by Me: the powers are middle, subordinate, and dependent on the supreme: in the thing itself the Sovereign is the source of all state and civil powers.
20. Laws, which constitute the foundation of the Power, presuppose small channels, that is, governments, through which the power of the Sovereign flows.
21. Laws that allow these governments to imagine that such and such a decree is contrary to the Code, that it is harmful, dark, that it is impossible to comply with it; and determining in advance which decrees should be obeyed, and how execution should be carried out according to them; These laws are undoubtedly those that make the establishment of any State firm and immovable.
Chapter IV
22. It is necessary to have a repository of laws.
23. This repository cannot be anywhere else than in state governments, which notify the people of newly made laws and restore forgotten laws.
24. These governments, accepting laws from the Sovereign, consider them diligently and have the right to present them when they find that they are contrary to the Code and so on, as stated above in Chapter III in Article 21.
25. And if they don’t find anything like that in them, they are added to the number of others already established in the state, and the news is announced to all the people.
26. In Russia, the Senate is a repository of laws.
27. Other governments must and can represent with the same force the Senate and the Sovereign himself, as mentioned above.
28. However, if someone asks what is the repository of laws? To this I answer: the repository of laws is a special instruction, which, following the above-mentioned places, established so that the will of the Sovereign is observed through their care, similar to the laws laid down as the basis and with the establishment of the state, are obliged to act in the exercise of their title in the manner prescribed there.
29. These instructions will forbid the people to despise the Sovereign’s decrees, without fear of any punishment for doing so, but also to protect them from spontaneous desires and from inflexible whims.
30. For, on the one hand, these instructions justify the condemnations prepared for those who break the laws, and on the other hand, they also affirm that it is correct to deny that laws that are contrary to state decency are included among others that have already been adopted, or that they act according to them in administration of justice and common affairs of the entire people.
Chapter V
31. About the state of everyone living in the State.
32. It is great well-being for a person to be in such circumstances that when his passions force him to think of being evil, he, however, considers it more useful for himself not to be evil.
33. It is necessary that laws, as far as possible, protect the safety of every citizen.
34. Equality of all citizens consists in everyone being subject to the same laws.
35. This equality requires a good establishment, which would prohibit the rich from oppressing those who have less wealth and turning to their own advantage the ranks and titles entrusted to them only as government officials of the state.
36. Social or state freedom does not consist in doing whatever anyone wants.
37. In a state, that is, in an assembly of people living in society, where there are laws, freedom cannot consist in anything other than the ability to do what everyone should want, and not be forced to do what they should not want .
38. Do you need to clearly and accurately imagine in your mind what freedom is? Liberty is the right to do everything that the laws allow; and if any citizen could do what is prohibited by law, there would be no more freedom there; for others would equally have this power.
39. 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.
Chapter VI
40. About laws in general.
41. Nothing should be prohibited by law, except that which can be harmful either to each person in particular, or to the whole society.
42. All actions that do not contain anything of the kind are in no way subject to laws, which were established with no other intention than to bring the greatest peace and benefit to people living under these laws.
43. For the inviolable preservation of the laws, it would be necessary for them to be so good and so filled with all the ways leading to the achievement of the greatest good for people, so that everyone is undoubtedly sure that for the sake of his own benefit he must preserve these laws inviolable.
44. And this is the highest degree of perfection that one should try to achieve.
45. Many things dominate a person: faith, climate, laws, rules adopted as a basis from the government, examples of past deeds, morals, customs.
46. From these things is born a common mentality among the people, consistent with them, for example:
47. Nature and climate reign almost alone in all wild peoples.
48. Customs govern the Chinese.
49. Laws reign tormentingly over Japan.
50. Morals once arranged the life of the Lacedaemonians.
51. Rules adopted as a basis from the authorities, and ancient customs possessed Rome.
52. The different characters of peoples are composed of virtues and vices, of good and bad qualities.
53. That composition can be called prosperous, from which many great benefits flow, the reasons for which often cannot be guessed.
54. Here I give as evidence of this various examples of the action of various things. The kind heart of the Spaniards has been glorified at all times. History describes to us their faithfulness in keeping the pledge entrusted to them. They often suffered death to keep it secret. This loyalty that they had before, they still have now. All the peoples trading in Cadiz entrust their acquisitions to the Spaniards and have never repented of it. But this amazing quality, combined with their laziness, makes such a mixture or composition from which actions occur that are harmful to them. The European nations send before their eyes all the trade belonging to their own Monarchy.
55. The character of the Chinese is of a different composition, which is completely contrary to the Spanish character. The reason their life is unreliable (due to the nature of the climate and the land) is that they have an agility that is almost incomprehensible, and a desire for profit so immeasurable that not a single trading nation can entrust itself to them. This well-known infidelity preserved the Japanese bargaining for them. Not a single European merchant dared to enter into this trade under their name, even though this could very easily be done through their coastal regions.
56. What I have proposed here is not said in order to shorten the infinite distance between vices and virtues even by a small line. God forbid! My intention was only to show that not all political vices are moral vices and that not all moral vices are political vices. One must certainly know this in order to refrain from legalizations that are not appropriate with the common wisdom of the people.
57. The legal provisions must apply to popular wisdom. We do nothing better than what we do freely, naturally, and following our natural inclination.
58. To introduce better laws, it is necessary to prepare people’s minds for this. But let this not serve as an excuse that even the most useful work cannot be undertaken; for if your minds are not yet prepared for this, then take the trouble to prepare them, and thereby you will already do a lot.
59. Laws are special and precise regulations of the legislator, and morals and customs are regulations of the entire people.
60. So, when it is necessary to make a great change in the people for great good, it is necessary to correct by laws what is established by laws, and then to change by customs what has been introduced by customs. A very bad policy is that which changes by laws what should be changed by customs.
61. There are ways to prevent crimes from taking hold, for this is laid down in the laws of punishment: there are also ways to introduce a change in customs; There are examples of this.
62. Moreover, the more people communicate with each other, the more conveniently they change their customs.
63. In a word: any punishment that is not imposed out of necessity is tyrant. Law does not come solely from power; things between good and evil are in between, by their nature, not subject to laws.
Chapter VII
64. About the laws in detail.
65. Laws that exceed the measure of good are the reason that immeasurable evil is born from there.
66. In those laws the legal provisions go to extremes, there are ways to get rid of them all. Moderation controls people, not excess.
67. Civil liberty then triumphs when laws on criminals derive any punishment from the property specific to each crime. Whatever is arbitrary in the imposition of punishment should not come from the whim of the lawmaker, but from the thing itself; and it is not man who should do violence to man, but man’s own action.
68. Crimes are divided into four types.
69. The first kind is crimes against the law or faith.
70. The second is against morals.
71. Third - against peace and quiet.
72. Fourth - they rush against the safety of citizens.
73. Punishments inflicted for these must be carried out according to the characteristics specific to each crime.
74. 1) Among the crimes relating to the law or faith, I do not consider any others, except those who strive directly against the law, which are direct and obvious sacrileges. For crimes that confuse the exercise of the law bear the property of crimes that violate the peace or security of citizens, among which they should be included. In order for the punishment for the sacrileges described above to be carried out from the property of the thing itself, it must consist in the deprivation of all the benefits granted to us by law, such as expulsion from churches, exclusion from the assembly of the faithful for a time or forever, removal from their presence.
75. As usual, civil penalties are also used.
76. 2) The second type of crime includes those that corrupt morals.
77. Such are a violation of the purity of morals - either common to all, or special to each; that is, all sorts of actions against institutions that show how everyone should use the external benefits given to man by nature for his needs, benefit and pleasure. The punishment of these crimes must also be derived from the property of the thing. Deprivation of benefits from the entire society attached to the purity of morals, monetary punishment, shame or disgrace, forced to hide from people, national dishonor, expulsion from the city and from society - in a word, all punishments that depend on correctional justice are satisfied to tame the insolence of both sexes. And truly these things are not so much based on an evil heart as on oblivion and contempt of oneself. This includes crimes that concern only damage to morals; and not those who together violate people’s security, such as kidnapping and rape; for these are already included among the crimes of the fourth kind.
78. 3) Crimes of the third type are those that violate the peace and quiet of citizens. Punishments for these should be made from the property of the thing and relate to this peace, such as deprivation of it, exile, corrections and other punishments that return restless people to the right path and bring them back to the established order. I believe that crimes against peace are only in those things that contain a simple violation of civil institutions.
79. For those who disturb the peace and rush together against the safety of citizens belong to the fourth type of crime.
4) The punishments of these latest crimes are called by the special name of execution. Execution is nothing more than a kind of reverse retribution: through which society deprives the security of the citizen who has taken it away or wants to take it away from another. This punishment is produced from the property of a thing, based on reason and drawn from sources of good and evil. A citizen deserves death when he violates security even to the point of taking someone’s life or attempting to take it. The death penalty is some medicine for a sick society. If the security of the estate is violated, then it is possible to find evidence that in this case it should not be executed by death; but it seems better and more similar to nature itself, that crimes against security in the possession of property should be punished by the loss of property: and this would certainly have to be so if the property were common or equal for everyone. But since those who do not have any acquisitions tend to more readily take it away from others, it was, of course, necessary, instead of monetary punishment, to replenish it with corporal punishment. Everything I have said here is based on the nature of things and serves to protect civil liberties.
Chapter VIII
80. About punishments.
81. Love for the fatherland, shame and fear of reproach are taming means that can restrain many crimes.
82. The greatest punishment for any evil deed in a moderate government will be when someone is convicted of it. Civil laws there will be much easier to correct vices, and they will not be forced to use so much effort.
83. In these areas, they do not strive so much to punish crimes as to prevent them, and more efforts should be made to instill good morals in citizens through legalization, rather than to depress their spirit with executions.
84. In a word, everything that is called punishment in the law is really nothing more than labor and illness.
85. Art teaches us that in those countries where punishments are mild, the hearts of the citizens are as much affected by them as in other places by cruel ones.
86. What kind of disorder caused harm to the state? Violent rule suddenly wants to correct it and, instead of thinking and trying to fulfill ancient laws, establishes a cruel punishment by which evil suddenly stops. The imagination in people acts under this great punishment in the same way as it would act under a small one; and as soon as the fear of this punishment decreases among the people, it will be necessary to establish something else in all cases.
87. There is no need to lead people along the most extreme paths; We must use with frugality the means given to us by nature to carry them to the intended end.
88. Test with attention the guilt of all indulgences; you will see that it comes from the non-punishment of crimes, and not from the moderation of punishments. Let us follow nature, which gave man shame instead of a scourge, and let the greatest part of the punishment be dishonor, which consists in suffering punishment.
89. And if somewhere there is an area in which shame would not be a consequence of execution, then this is due to the tormenting possession that imposed the same punishments on lawless and virtuous people.
90. And if there is another country where people do not abstain from vices except by severe executions, again know that this stems from the violence of the government, which established these executions for minor mistakes.
91. Often a lawgiver who wants to heal evil thinks of nothing more than this healing; His eyes look only at this pretext and do not look at the bad consequences that come from it. When evil is once cured, then we see nothing more than the severity of the lawgiver; but vice remains among the whole people, growing from the cruelty of sowing; the minds of the people have become corrupted, they have become accustomed to violence.
92. In the stories about children’s upbringing among the Japanese, they say that children should be treated with meekness so that punishment instills bitterness in their hearts: just as slaves should not be treated very harshly, for they immediately begin to defend themselves. Noting the soul that should dwell and reign in domestic government, could they not, by reasoning, reach the one that should also be poured into state and civil government?
93. Here, too, it is possible to find ways to return lost minds to the right path: by the rules of the law of God, philosophy and moral teaching, chosen and adapted to these principles; equalized mixture of punishments and rewards; the infallible use of the decent rules of honesty, the punishment of shame, the uninterrupted continuation of well-being and sweet tranquility. And if there was a danger that minds, accustomed to being tamed by nothing other than fierce punishment, could not be pacified by mild punishment; here it would be necessary to act (listen diligently to this, as a rule, evidenced by experiments in those cases where minds are corrupted by the use of very cruel punishments) in a secretive and insensitive manner; and in cases of special outpouring of mercy from the unalienated, impose a moderate penalty for crimes until it can be achieved to moderate it in all cases.
94. It is very bad to punish a robber who robs on the highways in the same way as one who not only robs, but also kills to death. Everyone clearly sees that for the safety of the whole people it would be necessary to make some difference in their punishment.
95. There are states where robbers do not commit capital murder so that thieves who rob only can hope to be sent to distant settlements; and murderers cannot expect this under any circumstances.
96. Good laws adhere to the most precise middle: they do not always impose monetary punishment and do not always also subject lawbreakers to physical punishment.
All punishments that can disfigure the human body must be abolished.
Chapter IX
97. About court proceedings in general.
98. Judicial power consists solely of the execution of laws, and then so that there is no doubt about the freedom and safety of citizens.
99. For this purpose, Peter the Great wisely established the Senate, collegiums and lower governments, which should give judgment in the name of the Sovereign and according to the laws: for this reason, the transfer of cases to the Sovereign himself was made so difficult - a law that should never be violated.
100. And this is how governments should be.
101. These governments make decisions or sentences: they must be preserved and known, so that in governments they judge today as they judged yesterday, and so that through them the own estate and life of each citizen are reliably established and strengthened in the same way as and the very establishment of the state.
102. In an autocratic state, the administration of justice, on the verdicts of which not only life and property, but also honor depends, requires many difficult tests.
103. The judge must go into subtleties and details, the more the larger the deposit he has and the more important the thing about which he is making a decision. And so it should not be surprising that in the laws of these powers there are so many rules, restrictions, extensions, from which special cases multiply, and it seems that all of this constitutes the science of reason itself.
104. The difference in ranks, generations, and states of people, established in a single-rule government, often entails many divisions in the essence of the estate; and the laws related to the establishment of this power can multiply the number of these divisions.
105. Therefore, the estate is one’s own, acquired, dowry, paternal, maternal, household belongings, etc., etc.
106. Every type of estate is subject to special rules; they must be followed in order to put things in order: through this the unity of the thing is fragmented even more into pieces.
107. The more courts in governments multiply in a single-rule government, the more the teaching of law is burdened with sentences that sometimes contradict each other, or because some judges, alternately following others, think differently; or that the same cases are sometimes defended well and sometimes poorly; or, finally, due to the countless number of abuses that are gradually creeping into everything that passes through human hands.
108. This evil is inevitable, which the lawgiver corrects from time to time, as being contrary to nature and the most moderate government.
109. For when anyone is forced to resort to governments, it must happen from the nature of the state establishment, and not from the contradiction and unknownness of laws.
110. In government, where there is division between persons, there are also advantages for persons, approved by laws. A special advantage, established by laws, which burdens society less than all others, is this: it is preferable to sue before one government than before another. Here are new difficulties. That is: to find out before whom the government should sue.
111. It is often heard in Europe that they say: it would behoove the justice to be administered as in Turkish soil. Therefore, there is no people in the entire Sunflower, except those immersed in the deepest ignorance, who would have such a clear understanding of the thing that people need to know more than anything else in the world.
112. When you diligently experience judicial rites, you will no doubt find many difficulties in them, imagining those that a citizen faces when he seeks in court to have his property returned to him or to be given pleasure for an offense caused to him; but, considering them with the freedom and safety of citizens, you will often notice that there are very few of them; and you will see that labor, waste and red tape, also the most dangerous in the courts, are nothing more than the tribute that every citizen pays for his freedom.
113. In Turkish countries, where they look very little at acquisitions, at the life and honor of their subjects, all feuds will soon end in one way or another. They don’t know how to end it, as long as the feuds are over. Pasha, suddenly becoming enlightened, orders, in his dream, to beat those with a lawsuit on the heels with sticks and lets them go home.
114. And in states that observe moderation, where even the least citizen’s life, property and honor are respected, they do not deprive anyone of honor below property before a long and strict search for the truth has been carried out; they do not take anyone’s life unless the fatherland itself rebels against them; but the fatherland does not rebel against anyone’s life except by first allowing him all possible ways to defend it.
115. Judicial rites are multiplied according to the respect in which the honor, property, life and liberty of citizens are maintained.
116. The defendant must be heard not only to find out the case in which he is accused, but also so that he can defend himself. He must either defend himself, or choose someone to defend him.
117. There are people who think that a junior member in any place, according to his position, could defend the defendant: like, for example, a warrant officer in a company. Another benefit would follow from this, namely that the judges would thereby become much more skillful in their rank.
118. To defend means nothing more than to present to the court in favor of the defendant everything that can be used to justify him.
119. Laws that condemn a person after hearing one witness are destructive of liberties. There is a law, issued during the time of the heirs of Constantine I, according to which the testimony of a person of some noble rank is accepted as sufficient evidence of guilt, and other witnesses in that case are no longer ordered to be heard by this law. By the will of this legislator, reprisals were carried out very quickly and in a very strange way: deeds were judged by persons, and persons by rank.
120. As a matter of common sense, two witnesses are required; for one witness, confirming the case, and one defendant, denying it, constitute two equal parts; For this reason, there must be a third one - to refute the defendant, unless there is also other undeniable evidence, or a general reference to one.
121. The obedience of two witnesses is considered satisfactory for the punishment of all crimes. The law believes them as if they spoke the very truth with their lips. The next chapter will show this more clearly.
122. In the same way, it is judged in almost all states that every child conceived during marriage is legitimate: the law in this regard has power of attorney for the mother. This is mentioned here because the laws in this case are unclear.
123. The use of torture is contrary to sound natural reasoning: humanity itself cries out against it and demands that it be completely destroyed. We now see a people who have become very famous for their civil institutions, who reject it, without feeling any bad consequence from it: for which reason it is not needed by its nature. WE will explain this in more detail below.
124. There are laws that do not allow torture, except in cases where the defendant does not want to plead guilty or innocent.
125. Making an oath very general through frequent use is nothing other than destroying its power. The kiss of the cross cannot be used in any other cases, except in those in which the swearer has no personal benefit, such as the judge and witnesses.
126. It is necessary that those judged in high ranks, with the consent of the laws, elect judges for themselves, or at least be able to dismiss a large number of them, so that those who remain appear to be in court at the choice of the criminals being judged.
127. Also, several of the judges should be of the same rank by citizenship as the defendant, that is: equal to him, so that he could not think that he had fallen into the hands of such people who in his case could use violence to his detriment . There are already examples of this in military laws.
128. When a defendant is convicted, it is not the judges who impose punishment on him, but the law.
129. Sentences should be as clear and firm as possible, even to the extent that they contain the most precise words of the law. If they contain the special opinion of the judge, then people will live in society without knowing exactly the mutual obligations to each other in that power.
130. There are various images by which sentences are made. In some lands, judges are locked up and are not allowed to drink or eat until the verdict is unanimously completed.
131. There are kingdoms with one ruler, where judges act like those who conduct an arbitration court. They reason together; communicate their thoughts to each other; agree with each other; they moderate their opinion in order to make it similar to the opinion of others, and seek to agree on votes.
132. The Romans did not sentence in a lawsuit except for what was precisely indicated - without increase or decrease and without any moderation thereof.
133. However, the praetors or city governors invented other examples of the plaintiff’s right, which was called the right of good conscience. In it, rulings or sentences were made based on judicial review and conscientious consideration.
134. For a riveted claim, the plaintiff loses his claim. A fine must also be imposed on the defendant if he has not admitted exactly what he owes, in order to thereby preserve a good conscience on both sides.
135. If the authorities, who must enforce the laws, are allowed the right to detain a citizen who can give bail for himself, then there is no longer any freedom there; unless he is put into custody so that he can immediately answer in a denunciation of such guilt, which, according to the laws of death, is subject to the death penalty. In this case he is truly free; for he is subject to nothing other than the power of the law.
136. But if the legislative power imagines itself to be in danger due to some secret conspiracy against the state or the Sovereign, or due to some kind of communication with foreign enemies, then it can, for a predetermined time, allow the power, according to the laws, to take into custody suspicious citizens who are not for otherwise they lose their freedom for a while, as soon as in order to preserve it unharmed forever.
137. But it is best to clearly define in the laws important cases in which bail cannot be accepted as a citizen; for people who cannot find bail on their own are deprived of their freedom by laws in all lands, as long as general or private security requires it. Chapter X describes this in more detail.
138. Although all crimes are national, however, those relating more to citizens must be distinguished among themselves from those belonging more to the state in consideration of the union maintained between the citizen and the state. The first are called special or private, the second are national or public crimes.
139. In some states, the king, having been enthroned so that the laws in all the powers of his countries are executed, according to the establishment of state law in every government, puts an official in order to persecute crimes in the name of the king himself: why the title of informers in those lands is unknown. And if this people’s avenger is suspected of using the position entrusted to him for evil, then they will force him to announce the name of his informer. This rank, established in society, is vigilant about the welfare of citizens; he does the work, and they are calm. In our country, PETER the Great ordered prosecutors to seek out and carry out all silent cases: if we were to add to this the rank or person responsible for the position described above, then our informers would be less known.
140. This Roman law is worthy of blasphemy, which allowed judges to take small gifts, as long as they did not extend to more than a hundred efimki throughout the year. Those to whom nothing is given desire nothing; and those who are given little, immediately want a little more, and then a lot. Moreover, it is much easier to prove to the one who, being obliged not to take anything, will take nothing, than to the one who takes more when he should have taken less, and who always finds reasons, excuses, reasons and ideas for this that are conveniently able to defend him.
141. There is a Roman law that prohibits the transfer of property to the Sovereign, except in the case of lèse-majesté, and then in the highest degree of this crime. Often it would be prudent to follow the force of this Law and determine that in some crimes only the estate should be described to the Sovereign, and it would also not be necessary to describe to the Sovereign other than acquired estates.
Chapter X
142. About the ritual of the criminal court.
143. We do not intend here to enter into a lengthy study of crimes and into a detailed division of each of them into different types, and what punishment is associated with each of them; We have divided them above into four types: otherwise the multitude and diversity of these objects, as well as the different circumstances of time and place, would introduce US to endless details. It will be enough here to show: 1) the initial rules are the most general and 2) the errors are the most harmful.
144. Question I. Where do punishments originate and on what basis is the right to punish people asserted?
145. Laws can be called the ways in which people are united and preserved in society and without which society would collapse.
146. But it was not enough to establish these methods, which became a guarantee; it was necessary to protect it; penalties are imposed on violators.
147. Any punishment is unjust, as soon as it is unnecessary for preserving the integrity of this pledge.
148. The first consequence of these initial rules is that it belongs to no one, except the laws alone, to determine the punishment for crimes; and that only one legislator has the right to give laws on punishments, as representing in his person the whole society united and containing all power in his hands. It also follows from this that judges and governments, being themselves part only of society, cannot, in fairness, under the guise of the common good, impose punishments on any other member of society that are not precisely defined by laws.
149. Another consequence is that the Autocrat, who represents and has in his hands all the power that defends the entire society, can alone issue a general law on punishment, to which all members of society are subject; however, he must refrain, as stated above in Section 99, so as not to judge for himself. That is why he should have other persons who would judge according to the laws.
150. Third consequence: whenever the cruelty of punishment has not already been refuted by the virtues that have mercy on humanity; then it would be enough to reject them that it is useless; and this serves to show that she is unjust.
151. Fourth corollary: judges who judge crimes simply because they are not legislators cannot have the right to interpret laws on punishments. So who will be the legitimate interpreter of these?
I answer this: An autocrat, not a judge; for the office of a judge consists solely of examining whether such and such a person did or did not do an action contrary to the law?
152. A judge judging any crime must make only one syllogism or co-reasoning, in which the first sentence, or the first premise, is a general law; the second sentence, or premise two, expresses the action in question, whether it is similar to the laws or contrary to them; the conclusion contains the acquittal or punishment of the accused. If a judge, on his own or convinced by the darkness of the laws, makes more than one syllogism in a criminal case, then everything will be unknown and dark.
153. There is nothing more dangerous than this general saying: one must take into account the meaning or reason of the law, and not the words. This means nothing more than to break the barrier that opposes the rapid flow of human opinions. This is the most irresistible truth, although it seems strange to the minds of people who are greatly affected by the smallness of the present disorder, rather than by the consequences, still far away, but overly more harmful, which are entailed by one false rule adopted by some people. Every person has his own, different way of looking at the things that appear to his thoughts. We would see the fate of a citizen changed by the transfer of his case from one government to another, and his life and freedom depending at random on some false reasoning or on the bad disposition of his judge. We would see the same crimes punished differently at different times by the same government, if they wanted to obey not the voice of the immutable laws of the immovable; but the deceptive inconstancy of spontaneous interpretations.
154. It is impossible to compare with these disorders those errors that can occur from the strict and precise words of someone who adheres to the explanation of the laws on punishments. These quickly passing errors oblige the legislator to sometimes make light and necessary amendments to the words of the law, which are subject to double meaning; but at least then there is still a rein that reins in willfulness to interpret and philosophize, which can be detrimental to every citizen.
155. If the laws are not precisely and firmly defined, and are not understood word for word; if not the only position of the judge is to examine and put down actions that are contrary to the prescribed laws or similar to them; If the rule of justice and injustice, which should govern equally the actions of the ignorant, as well as the teachings of an enlightened person, is not a simple question for judges about the act committed, then the state of the citizen will be subject to strange adventures.
156. Other laws on punishments, always understood word for word, anyone can correctly lay out and know exactly the indecency of a bad action, which is very useful for turning people away from it; and people enjoy security both in their person and in the property that belongs to them, which is necessary because this is the intention and object, without which society would collapse.
157. If the right to interpret laws is evil, then there is also evil and the vagueness of them, imposing the need for interpretation. This disorder is even greater when they are written in a language unknown to the people, or in unknown expressions.
158. Laws must be written in simple language; and the code, containing all the laws, should be a book that is very commonly used and which could be obtained at a low price, like an ABC book; otherwise, when a citizen cannot by himself learn the consequences of those associated with his own affairs and concerning his person and liberty, then he will depend on a certain number of people who have taken the laws into their custody and interpret them. Crimes will not be as frequent as more people begin to read and understand the code. And for this purpose, it must be prescribed that in all schools children are taught to read and write alternately from church books and from those books that are contained in the legislation.
159. Question II. What are the best means to use when it is necessary to take a citizen into custody, also to discover and expose a crime?
160. He will sin against the personal safety of every citizen who allows the government, which must enforce the laws and has the power to imprison a citizen, to take away the freedom of one under the guise of how unimportant, and leave another free, despite the clearest signs of a crime.
161. Taking into custody is a punishment that differs from all other punishments in that it necessarily precedes the judicial declaration of a crime.
162. However, this punishment cannot be imposed, except in a case where it is probable that the citizen has committed a crime.
163. For this reason, the law must precisely define those signs of a crime by which the accused can be taken into custody and which would subject him to this punishment and verbal interrogations, which are also a kind of punishment. For example
164. The voice of the people who blame him, his escape, the confession he made outside of court; the testimony of an accomplice who was with him in that crime, threats and known enmity between the accused and the offended, the very act of the crime and other similar signs of satisfaction can provide a reason to take a citizen into custody.
165. But this evidence must be determined by law, and not by judges, whose sentences are always contrary to civil liberty, if they are not derived, in any case, from the general rule in the code of law.
166. When prison will not be so terrible, that is, when pity and love for humanity will enter the very prisons and penetrate from the hearts of judicial servants; Then the laws can be content with signs to determine who to take into custody.
167. There is a difference between detention and imprisonment.
168. Taking a person into custody is nothing more than keeping the person of the accused citizen in danger until it is known whether he is guilty or innocent. And so detention should last as little as possible, and be as lenient as possible. The time for this should be determined by the time required to prepare the case for hearing by the judges. The severity of detention cannot be other than that which is necessary to prevent the accused from escaping or to discover evidence of a crime. The matter must be resolved as quickly as possible.
169. A person who was in custody and then acquitted should not be subject to any dishonor as a result. Among the Romans, we see so many citizens against whom the most serious crimes were denounced before the court, after their innocence was recognized, they were respected and therefore elevated to very important positions of government.
170. Imprisonment is the consequence of a decisive decision by the judges and serves instead of punishment.
171. The following should not be imprisoned in one place: 1) probably accused of a crime; 2) accused thereof and 3) convicted. The accused is kept only in custody, while the other two are in prison; but this prison will be only part of the punishment for one of them, and the punishment itself for the other.
172. Being in custody should not be considered a punishment, but a means of keeping the person of the accused dangerous, which storage reassures him about freedom when he is innocent.
173. Being in military custody does not cause dishonor to any military man; in the same way, honor among citizens should be under civil custody.
174. Custody changes into imprisonment when the accused is found guilty, and so there should be different places for all three.
175. Here is a general proposal for calculation, according to which one can be approximately certain about the truth of the lawlessness committed. When the evidence of a particular action depends on one another, that is, when the signs of a crime cannot be proven or their truth can be established in any other way than one through the other; when the truth of many proofs depends on the truth of one proof only, then the number of proofs neither increases nor diminishes the probability of an action, because then the strength of all proofs lies in the strength of that one proof on which the others all depend; and if this one proof does not depend on one another and the truth is especially affirmed in each proof, then the probability of the action is multiplied by the number of signs so that the injustice of one proof does not entail the injustice of the other. Perhaps, hearing this, it will seem strange to someone that I use the word “probability” when speaking about crimes that must be undoubtedly known in order for someone to be punished for them. However, it should be noted that moral certainty is a probability, which is called certainty because every prudent person is forced to recognize it as such.
176. Evidence of crimes can be divided into two types: committed and imperfect. I call perfect those who exclude all possibilities for demonstrating the innocence of the accused; and imperfect - those who do not exclude this possibility. One perfect proof is enough to confirm that the condemnation inflicted on the criminal is correct.
177. As for imperfect evidence, there must be a very large number of them to compile perfect evidence: that is, it is necessary that the combination of all such evidence excludes the possibility of showing the innocence of the accused, although each individual evidence does not exclude it. Let us add to this that imperfect evidence, to which the accused does not answer anything that would be enough to justify him, although his innocence should provide him with the means to answer, in this case become already perfect.
178. Where the laws are clear and precise, there the duty of the judge is nothing other than to bring the action to light.
179. In finding evidence of a crime, one must have agility and ability; in order to deduce the final position from this research, one must have accuracy and clarity of thoughts; but in order to judge according to this final position, nothing more is required than simple sound reasoning, which will be a surer guide than all the knowledge of a judge who is accustomed to finding the guilty everywhere.
180. For this reason, this law is very useful for the society where it is established, which prescribes that every person should be judged through his equals, for when it comes to the lot of a citizen, then we must impose silence on all the speculations that are pressed into us from the difference of ranks and wealth or happiness; they do not need to have a place between the judges and the accused.
181. But when the crime involves insulting a third person, then half of the judges must be taken from those equal to the accused, and the other half from those equal to the offended.
182. It is also true that the accused can dismiss a certain number of his judges against whom he has suspicions. Where the accused exercises this right, the guilty person will seem to be condemning himself.
183. 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 laws; a thought that gives encouragement to citizens and which is most pleasing and beneficial to the Autocratic ruler, who directly looks at his true benefit.
184. There is a very important thing in all laws: to accurately determine the initial rules on which the credibility of witnesses and the strength of evidence of any crime depend.
185. Every person of sound mind, that is, whose thoughts have some connection with one another and whose feelings are similar to the feelings of others like him, can be a witness. But the faith that he must have will be measured by the reason for which he wants to tell the truth or not tell it. In any case, witnesses should be believed when they have no reason to bear false witness.
186. There are people who consider, among the abuses of words that have crept in and are already strongly rooted in everyday affairs, that opinion worthy of note is that which led the legislators to destroy the testimony of a guilty person by the sentence of someone already convicted. Such a person is considered civilly dead, say the teachers of the law; and a dead person cannot produce any action. If only the testimony of a guilty convict does not interfere with the judicial course of the case, then why not allow even after the conviction, in favor of the truth and the terrible fate of the unfortunate man, there is still little time for him to either justify himself, or the other accused, if only he can present new ones? evidence that can change the essence of the action.
187. Rituals are necessary in the administration of justice, but they should never be so defined by laws that they could ever serve to destroy innocence; otherwise they will bring with them great futility.
188. Why can any person be accepted as a witness who has no reason for false obedience? Therefore, the faith that a witness should have towards the accused will be greater or less in comparison with the hatred or friendship of the witness towards the accused, as well as other alliances or ruptures between them.
189. One witness is not enough because when the accused denies what one witness asserts, then there is nothing known here, and the right, which belongs to everyone, to believe him that he is right, in this case weighs on the side of the accused.
190. The credibility of a witness is less powerful the more serious the crime and the less probable the circumstances. This rule can also be used when making accusations of magic or severe actions without any reason.
191. Whoever is stubborn and does not want to answer the questions put to him by the court deserves punishment, which should be determined by law and which should be one of the gravest among those established, so that the guilty cannot avoid thereby, so that they are not presented to the people as the example that they set themselves must. This special punishment is not necessary when there is no doubt that the accused committed exactly the crime that he is accused of; for then a confession is no longer necessary when other indisputable evidence shows that he is guilty. This last case is more ordinary; Since then, experience has shown that for the most part in criminal cases, the perpetrators do not admit their guilt.
192. Question III. Does torture not violate justice, and does it lead to the end intended by the laws?
193. Severity, approved by the use of very many nations, is torture carried out on an accused during the judicial process of his case, either to force his own confession to a crime, or to explain the contradictions with which he was confused during interrogation, or to force him to announce his accomplices, or for the sake of opening other crimes of which he is not accused, of which, however, he may be guilty.
194. 1) 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. For what reason can anyone be given the right to impose punishment on a citizen at a time when it is still doubtful whether he is right or wrong? It is not very difficult to reach this co-reasoning with conclusions. A crime is either known or not. If it is known, then the criminal should not be punished other than the punishment prescribed by law; so there is no need for torture. If the crime is unknown, then the accused should not be tortured for the reason that an innocent person should not be tortured and that according to the law he is not guilty whose crime has not been proven. It is very necessary, without a doubt, that no crime, having become known, should remain unpunished. The accused, suffering torture, has no control over himself so that he can tell the truth. Is it possible to trust a person more when he is raving in a fever than when he is of sound mind and in good health? The feeling of pain can increase to such an extent that, having completely mastered the entire soul, it no longer leaves it any freedom to perform any action appropriate to it, except at the same moment of an eye to take the shortest path to get rid of that pain. Then the innocent one will scream that he is guilty, if only they would stop torturing him. And the same means used to distinguish the innocent from the guilty will destroy all the difference between them, and the judges will also be unknown whether they have a guilty person or an innocent one before them, as was the case before the beginning of this biased questioning. Therefore, torture is a reliable means to condemn the innocent, who has a weak constitution, and to justify the lawless, who trusts in his strength and strength.
195. 2) Torture is also used on the accused to explain, as they say, the contradictions with which he was confused during the interrogation carried out on him: as if the fear of execution, the unknown and anxiety in reasoning, just as ignorance itself, common to the innocent and the guilty, could not lead to contradictions both between the fearful innocent and the criminal seeking to hide his iniquity; as if the contradictions, so common to a person who is in a calm spirit, should not multiply when the soul is alarmed, completely immersed in those thoughts, how to save itself from the approaching misfortune.
196. 3) Performing torture to discover whether the guilty person has committed other crimes besides the one that has not been proven to him is a reliable means of ensuring that all crimes remain without the punishment due to them; for the judge will always want to open new ones; however, this act will be based on the following reasoning: you are guilty of one crime; so, perhaps, you have committed a hundred other iniquities. Following the laws, they will torture and torment you not only because you are guilty, but also because you may be much more guilty.
197. 4) In addition, the accused is tortured so that he reveals his accomplices. But when we have already proven that torture cannot be a means to knowledge of the truth, then how can it contribute to recognizing the accomplices of the crime; Without a doubt, it is very easy for someone who points to himself to point to others. However, is it fair to torture a person for the crime of others? As if it is not possible to discover accomplices by testing the witnesses found against the criminal, examining the evidence brought against him, and the very act that occurred in the execution of the crime, and, finally, by all the means that served to expose the crime, the accused committed?
198. Question IV. Should punishments be equalized with crimes, and how can a firm provision be made regarding this equation?
199. It is necessary by law to determine the time for the collection of evidence and everything necessary for the case in great crimes, so that those guilty, by deliberate changes in their case, do not delay the punishment due to them or confuse their case. When all the evidence has been collected and the authenticity of the crime becomes known; the guilty person must be given time and ways to justify himself, if he can. But this time should be very short, so as not to prejudice the speed required for punishment, which is considered to be a very powerful means of deterring people from crimes.
200. So that the punishment does not seem like the violence of one or many rebels against a citizen, it must be popular, properly prompt, necessary for society, as moderate as possible under the given circumstances, equalized with the crime and precisely shown in the laws.
201. Although laws cannot punish intentions, it cannot be said that the action by which a crime begins and which expresses the will that strives to produce that crime by the deed itself does not deserve punishment, although less than what is established for a crime committed by itself. Punishment is necessary because it is very necessary to prevent the very first attempts at crime; But since there may be a period of time between these attempts and the execution of the lawlessness, it is not bad to leave a greater punishment for the crime that has already been committed, so that the one who started the crime can be given some incentive that can turn him away from the execution of the crime that has begun.
202. It is also necessary to impose punishments that are not as great on accomplices in lawlessness, who are not the direct perpetrators of it, as on the real perpetrators themselves. When many people agree to expose themselves to a danger that is common to all of them, then the greater the danger, the more they try to make it equal for everyone. Laws that punish with greater cruelty the perpetrators of a crime than mere accomplices will prevent the danger from being shared equally among everyone, and will cause it to be more difficult to find a person who would want to take upon himself to commit a deliberate crime, given the danger he poses subject, there will be more punishment in the judgment, for which he is due unequally with other accomplices. There is only one case in which an exception can be made from this general rule, that is, when the perpetrator of lawlessness receives a special reward from his accomplices. Then, in order for a difference in danger to be rewarded with a difference in benefits, there must be an equal punishment for all of them. These arguments will seem very subtle; but one must think that it is very necessary that the laws leave as little means as possible for the accomplices of the crime to agree among themselves.
203. Some governments exempt from punishment the accomplice of a great crime who denounces his comrades. This method has its advantages, as well as its inconveniences, when it is used in special cases. The general, everlasting law, which promises forgiveness to any accomplice who discovers a crime, should be preferred to a temporary special announcement in some special case; for such a law can prevent the union of evildoers, placing fear in each of them, so as not to expose themselves alone to danger; but we must therefore observe this promise sacredly and give, so to speak, a protective guard to anyone who refers to this law.
204. Question V. What is the measure of the magnitude of crimes?
205. The intention of the established punishments is not to torment a creature gifted with feelings; they are prescribed in order to prevent the guilty person, so that he cannot harm society in the future, and to discourage fellow citizens from committing such crimes. For this purpose, between punishments it is necessary to use those that, being equated with crimes, would impress a very living and long-lasting mark in human hearts, and at the same time would be less than cruelty over the criminal body.
206. Who is not filled with horror, seeing in history so many barbaric and useless torments, sought out and carried out without the slightest conscience by people who gave themselves the name of the wise? Who does not feel inside the shudder of a sensitive heart, at the sight of those thousands of unfortunate people who have endured and are enduring, many times accused of crimes, difficult or impossible to come true, often intertwined with ignorance, and sometimes with superstition? Who can, I say, look at the torn apart of these people, carried out with great preparations by people, their fellow human beings? The countries and times in which the most brutal executions were used are those in which the most inhumane iniquities were committed.
207. For punishment to produce the desired effect, it will be sufficient if the evil caused by it exceeds the good expected from the crime, adding, in a calculation showing the superiority of evil over good, also the certainty of the punishment and the loss of benefits acquired by the crime. Any severity that goes beyond these limits is useless and, therefore, tormenting.
208. If where the laws were harsh, then they were either changed, or the non-punishment of atrocities was born from the very severity of the laws. The magnitude of punishments must be related to the present state and the circumstances in which a nation finds itself. As the minds of those living in society become enlightened, so does the sensitivity of each individual citizen increase; and when sensitivity increases among citizens, it is necessary that the severity of punishments be diminished.
209. Question VI. Is the death penalty useful and necessary in society to maintain security and good order?
210. Experiments show that the frequent use of executions has never made people better. Why, if I prove that in the ordinary state of society the death of a citizen is neither useful nor necessary, then I will overcome those rebelling against humanity. I say here: in an ordinary state of society; for the death of a citizen can only be necessary in one case, that is, when he, being deprived of his freedom, still has a way and power that can disturb the peace of the people. This case cannot take place anywhere except when the people lose or regain their freedom, or during times of anarchy, when the very unrest takes the place of laws. And under a calm reign of laws and under a mode of government united by the desires of the entire people, affirmed, in a state protected against external enemies, and internally supported by strong supports, that is, by its own strength and ingrained opinion in the citizens, where all power is in the hands of the Autocrat, - in such There can be no need for the state to take the life of a citizen. Twenty years of the reign of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna set an example for the fathers of nations to imitate more gracefully than the most brilliant conquests.
211. It is not excessive cruelty and destruction of human existence that produces a great effect in the hearts of citizens; but a continuous continuation of punishment.
212. The death of a villain is less able to restrain lawlessness than the long-term and continuously abiding example of a person deprived of his freedom in order to reward with his work, which continues throughout his life, the harm he has done to society. The horror caused by the imagination of death can be much stronger, but it cannot resist the natural oblivion in man. The rule is general: impressions in the human soul, swift and violent, disturb the heart and amaze, but their actions do not remain in memory for long. For punishment to be similar to justice, it should not have a great degree of tension, as long as it is sufficient to turn people away from crime. And so I boldly affirm that there is no person who, even with a little thought, could put in balance, on the one hand, a crime, no matter what benefits it promises, and on the other, a complete and life-ending deprivation of liberty.
213. Question VII. What penalties should be imposed for various crimes?
214. Who disturbs the peace of the people, who does not obey the laws, who violates these ways by which people are united in societies and mutually protect each other; he must be excluded from society, that is, become a monster.
215. There must be more important reasons for expelling a citizen than a foreigner.
216. Punishment that declares a person dishonest is a sign of the nation's bad opinion of him, which deprives the citizen of the respect and trust that society had previously shown him, and which ejects him from the brotherhood preserved between members of the same state. The dishonor imposed by laws must be the same as that which comes from universal moral teaching; for when actions, called average by moral teachers, are declared dishonorable in the laws, then this disorder will follow that actions that should be considered dishonest for the benefit of society will soon cease to be recognized as such.
217. One must be very careful not to punish with corporal and painful punishments those infected with the vice of feigned inspiration and false holiness. This is a crime based on pride and arrogance, to gain glory and food from pain itself. There were examples of this in the former Secret Chancellery, that on special days they came only to suffer punishment.
218. Dishonor and ridicule are the only punishments that should be used against feigned inspiration and false saints; for this pride can dull them. Thus, opposing forces to forces of the same kind, enlightened laws will scatter into dust the surprise that can take root in weak minds about false teaching.
219. Dishonor should not be suddenly imposed on many.
220. Punishment must be ready, similar to the crime and known to the people.
221. 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 unknown of his lot. The proceedings in court should be completed in the shortest possible time. I have said that punishment inflicted at the proper speed is beneficial; so that the less time passes between the punishment and the crime, the more they will consider the crime to be the cause of punishment, and the punishment the effect of the crime. Punishment must be immutable and inevitable.
222. The most reliable curb on crime is not the severity of punishment, but when people truly know that those who break the laws will certainly be punished.
223. The knowledge of a small but inevitable punishment is more impressive in the heart than the fear of a cruel execution, coupled with the hope of getting rid of it. Since punishments will become milder and more moderate, mercy and forgiveness will be needed less; for the laws themselves are then filled with the spirit of mercy.
224. In all, no matter how extensive, there should be no place in the state that would not depend on the laws.
225. In general, efforts should be made to eliminate crimes, and especially those that cause more harm to people. So, the means used by the laws to turn people away from this should be the most powerful in dealing with all kinds of crimes, the more they are contrary to the public good and the more powerful they are that can attract evil or weak souls to carry them out. Why should there be an equation between crime and punishment?
226. If two crimes that are not equally harmful to society receive equal punishment, then the unequal distribution of punishments will produce this strange contradiction, which few people have noticed, although it happens very often, that laws will punish crimes that they themselves have caused.
227. When the same punishment is imposed on the one who kills an animal, and the one who kills a person, or who forges an important letter, then soon people will not make any distinction between these crimes.
228. Assuming the need and benefits of uniting people into societies, it is possible to put crimes, starting from great to small, side by side, in which the most serious crime will be the one that tends to the final disorder and the immediate then destruction of society, and the lightest - the slightest irritation, which can happen to any private person. Between these two edges will be contained all actions that are contrary to the common good and are called lawless, acting in an almost insensitive manner from the first place in this series to the very last. It will be enough when in these ranks, gradually and decently, in each of the four genera, about which We spoke in the seventh chapter, actions worthy of blasphemy belonging to each of them appear.
229. WE have made a special section on crimes that relate directly and immediately to the destruction of society, and tend to harm the one who is the leader of it, and which are the most important because they are more harmful to society than all others: they are called crimes of lese majeste .
230. This first type of crime is followed by those who strive against the safety of private people.
231. There is no way to avoid punishing those who violate this right with some important punishment. Lawless enterprises against the life and liberty of a citizen are among the greatest crimes; and under this name are included not only murders committed by people from the people, but also the same kind of violence committed by individuals, no matter what their origin and dignity.
232. Thefts, coupled with violence and without violence.
233. Personal grievances that are contrary to honor, that is, tending to deprive a citizen of that fair share of respect that he has the right to demand from others.
234. Regarding duels, it is useful to repeat here what many claim and what others have written: that the best way to prevent these crimes is to punish the offender, that is, the one who presents the opportunity for a duel, and to declare innocent the one forced to defend his honor, without giving any causes.
235. The secret transportation of goods is sheer theft from the state. This crime originated from the law itself: for the greater the duty and the greater the profit from secretly transported goods, therefore, the stronger the temptation, which is even more multiplied by the convenience of fulfilling it, when the circle surrounded by barriers is of great space and when the goods are prohibited or subject to duties, there is a small quantity. The loss of prohibited goods and those that are carried with them is very just. Such a view deserves important punishments, such as prison and lyceum, which are similar to the nature of the crime. The prison for someone who smuggles goods secretly should not be the same as for a murderer or a highway robber; and the most decent punishment seems to be the work of the guilty person, laid out and set at the price with which he wanted to deceive the customs.
236. Mention should be made of those who bargained or come forward with debts from the auction. The need for good conscience in contracts and the safety of trade obliges the legislator to provide creditors with ways to collect payment from their debtors. But one must distinguish between a cunning person who comes forward with debts from the auction and an honest person who bargained without intent. With someone who bargained without intent, who can clearly prove that the penalty in the word of his own debtors, or the waste that happened to him, or the unfavorable situation inevitable by human reason, deprived him of the acquisitions that belong to him, this should not be dealt with with the same severity. What reason would there be to throw him in jail? Why deprive him of his freedom, of the only property left to him? Why subject him to punishment, only decent for a criminal, and convince him to repent of his honesty? Let them, if they want, consider his debt as unpaid, even until the creditors are fully satisfied; let them not give him the freedom to go somewhere without the consent of his accomplices; let them force him to use his labors and talents in order to be able to satisfy those to whom he owes: however, no solid argument can ever justify that law that would deprive him of his freedom without any benefit for his creditors.
237. It seems that in all cases it is possible to distinguish deception with hateful circumstances from a grave mistake, and a grave mistake from a light one, and this from unalloyed innocence; and establish punishment according to this law.
238. A careful and prudent law can prevent most of the cunning deviations from trade and prepare ways to avoid cases that could happen to a person of honest conscience and diligence. A public signature, made in accordance with all merchant agreements, and unhindered permission for every citizen to view and deal with it, a bank established in a way that is reasonably distributed among those trading, from which it would be possible to take decent sums to assist unfortunate, albeit zealous traders, would be the establishment , bringing with them many benefits, and not causing any inconvenience in the thing itself.
239. Question VIII. What are the most effective means of preventing crime?
240. It is much better to prevent crimes than to punish them.
241. Preventing crimes is the intention and end of good lawmaking, which is nothing more than the art of leading people to the most perfect good or leaving between them, if everything cannot be eradicated, the slightest evil.
242. When we prohibit many actions that are considered mediocre by moral teachers, we will not prevent the crimes that may result from them, but will thereby create even new ones.
243. Do you want to prevent crimes? Make sure that the laws are less beneficial to the different ranks of citizens than to any particular citizen.
244. Make people fear the laws and fear no one but them.
245. Do you want to prevent crimes? Make enlightenment spread among people.
246. The Book of Good Laws is nothing more than the prevention of harmful willfulness from causing harm to one’s own kind.
247. It is also possible to prevent crime by rewarding virtue.
248. Finally, the most reliable, but also the most difficult means of making people better is bringing education to perfection.
249. In this chapter there will be repetitions of what has already been said above; but the one who examines, albeit with little diligence, will see that the thing itself required it; and, besides, it is very possible to repeat what should be useful to the human race.
Chapter XI
250. Civil society, like every thing, requires a certain order. There must be some who rule and command, and others who obey.
251. And this is the beginning of every kind of obedience. This can be more or less relieving, depending on the state of the employees.
252. And so, when the natural law commands us, according to our strength, to take care of the well-being of all people, then WE are obliged to alleviate the condition of those under our control, as far as sound reasoning allows.
253. Consequently, avoid cases, so as not to bring people into captivity, unless extreme necessity attracts them to do so, and then not for one’s own self-interest, but for the benefit of the state; however, even that almost happens very rarely.
254. Whatever the type of obedience, it is necessary that civil laws, on the one hand, avert the abuse of slavery, and on the other, warn against the dangers that could arise from it.
255. Unhappy is the government in which it is forced to establish cruel laws.
256. Peter the Great legalized in 1722 that the insane and those who tortured their subjects should be under the supervision of guardians. The first article of this decree is being carried out, but the last why it was left without action is not known.
257. In Lacedaemon slaves could not demand any pleasure in court; and their misfortune was multiplied by the fact that they were not only slaves of a citizen, but also slaves of the entire society.
258. Among the Romans, when an injury was done to a slave, they looked at nothing more than the loss caused to the master. They considered the wound inflicted on the animal and the slave as one thing, and did not take anything else into consideration except a reduction in price; and this turned out to benefit the owner, and not the offended one.
259. The Athenians severely punished anyone who acted cruelly to a slave.
260. One should not suddenly and through general legalization create a large number of liberated people.
261. Laws can establish something useful for the property of slaves.
262. Let us finish all this by repeating the rule that a government very similar to nature is one whose private disposition better corresponds to the disposition of the people for whose sake it is established.
263. Moreover, however, it is very necessary that those reasons be warned that so often led slaves to disobedience against their masters; Without knowing these reasons, it is impossible to prevent such cases by laws, although the peace of some and others depends on it.
Chapter XII
264. About the reproduction of the people in the State.
265. Russia not only does not have enough inhabitants, but also has an excessive amount of land that is neither inhabited nor cultivated. So, one cannot find enough encouragement to multiply the people in the state.
266. Most men have twelve, fifteen and up to twenty children from one marriage; however, rarely even a quarter of them reach adulthood. Why there must certainly be some kind of defect either in food, or in their way of life, or in education, which causes the death of this hope of the state. What a flourishing state would the sowing powers be in if they could, through prudent institutions, avert or prevent this destruction.
267. Add to this the fact that two hundred years have passed since a disease unknown to our ancestors spread to the north from America and rushed to the destruction of human nature. This disease is spreading sad and disastrous consequences in many provinces. It is necessary to take care of the health of citizens: for the sake of which it would be reasonable to stop the spread of disease through laws.
268. The Mosesites can serve as an example for this.
269. It also seems that the newly introduced method from the nobles - to collect their income - in Russia is reducing the people and agriculture. All villages are almost on rent. The owners, having not been at all or very little in their villages, will tax each soul with a ruble, two, or even up to five rubles, regardless of how their peasants get this money.
270. It would be very necessary to prescribe by law to landowners that they allocate their taxes with great consideration, and take those taxes that exclude less than a peasant from his home and family. Thus, agriculture would spread more and the number of people in the state would increase.
271. And now some farmer does not see his home for fifteen years, but every year he pays his dues to the landowner, farming in cities remote from his home, wandering throughout almost the entire state.
272. With the great prosperity of the state, the number of citizens easily increases.
273. Countries with meadows and capable of cattle breeding usually have few people because few people find employment there; arable land supports and has a greater number of people in the exercise.
274. Wherever there is a place in which they can live profitably, people multiply there.
275. But a country that is so burdened with taxes that through diligence and hard work people in great need can find food for themselves, must be stripped of its inhabitants after a long time.
276. Where people are wretched for no other reason than that they live under heavy laws and consider their lands not so much as a basis for their maintenance, but as a pretext for oppression, in such places the people do not multiply: they have no food for themselves , so how can they think of giving more of it to their offspring? They themselves cannot use proper supervision in their illnesses, so how can they educate creatures that are in continuous illness, that is, in infancy? They bury their money in the ground, afraid to put it into circulation; they are afraid to appear rich; They are afraid that their wealth will bring persecution and oppression upon them.
277. Many, taking advantage of the convenience of speaking, but not being able to test the subtlety of what they are talking about, say: the more their subjects live in squalor, the more numerous their families. It is the same: the greater the tribute imposed on them, the more they are able to pay it; These are two wisdoms that have always caused destruction and will always cause destruction to autocratic states.
278. There is an almost incurable evil when the stripping of the state from its inhabitants occurs over a long period of time due to some internal vice and bad government. People there disappeared through an insensitive disease that had almost become nature: having been born in despondency and poverty, in violence or in false reasoning adopted by the government, they saw their extermination, often not noticing the reasons for their extermination.
279. In order to restore the state, thus naked from the inhabitants, we will in vain expect help in this from children who may be born in the future. This hope is completely timeless. People living in their deserts have no encouragement, less than zeal. Fields that can feed an entire nation barely provide food for one family. The common people in these countries have no share in poverty, that is, in lands that have never been destroyed, of which there are a great many. Some initial citizens or the Sovereign became insensitively the owners of the entire space of those lands lying in vain; ruined families left them for their flock, and a hardworking person has nothing.
280. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to do throughout the entire expanse of that land what the Romans did in one part of their state: to undertake in the shortage of inhabitants what they observed in their abundance; distribute land to all families that have none; Give them ways to plow them and process them. This division should be made at the moment when a person is found who would accept it so that not a little time is lost to begin the work.
281. Julius Caesar gave awards to those who had many children. The August laws were much more coercive. He imposed punishment on those who did not marry and increased rewards for those who married and those who had children. These laws were unlike the provisions of our Orthodox law.
282. In some areas the laws define benefits for married people. For example: there, village elders and electors must be chosen from among the married - an unmarried and childless person cannot be involved in any business, and cannot sit in the village court. The one who has more children sits in that court in a large place. The man who has more than five sons no longer pays any taxes.
283. Unmarried Romans could not receive anything under the will of strangers, and married but childless people did not receive more than half.
284. The benefits that a husband and wife could have under mutual wills were limited by law. They could refuse everything after themselves in a will if they had children from each other; and if they had no children, then they could inherit only a tenth of the estate of the deceased in the context of their marriage; if they had children from their first marriage, they could give each other a tenth as many times as they had children.
285. If a husband was absent from his wife for some other reason, not on matters relating to society, then he could not be her heir.
286. In some countries, a reduced salary has been determined for those who have ten children, and even more for those who have had twelve. However, the point is not to reward the extraordinary; fertility; It would behoove us to make their life as profitable as possible, that is, to give the thrifty and hardworking an opportunity to feed themselves and their families.
287. People's abstinence serves to multiply it.
288. Usually in laws it is prescribed for fathers to combine their children in marriage. But what will come of this if oppression and love of money reach the point where they improperly appropriate the paternal authority to themselves? Fathers should also be encouraged to marry their children, and not take away from them the will to marry their children according to their best wishes.
289. In discussing marriages, it would be very necessary and important to make once known and clear the statement to what degree of kinship marriage is permitted and to what degree of kinship marriage is prohibited.
290. There are areas in which the law (in case of shortage of inhabitants) makes citizens of foreigners or illegitimate children, or who are born only of a citizen mother; but when they thus receive a sufficient number of people, they no longer do this.
291. The savage Canadian people burn their captives; but when they [the Indians] have empty huts that can be given to prisoners, then they recognize them as their fellow tribesmen.
292. There are peoples who, having conquered other countries, unite in marriage with the conquered; through which two great intentions are fulfilled: the establishment of a conquered people and the multiplication of one’s own.
Chapter XIII
293. About handicrafts and trade.
294. There can be neither skillful handicraft nor firmly established trade, where agriculture is destroyed or carried out carelessly.
295. Agriculture cannot flourish here where no one has anything of their own.
296. This is based on a very simple rule: “Every person has more concern for his own than for what belongs to another; and does not make any effort about what he may fear that another will take away from him.”
297. Agriculture is the greatest work for a person. The more the climate leads a person to avoid this labor, the more the laws should encourage him to do so.
298. In China, Bogdykhan is annually notified of a farmer who has surpassed all others in his art, and makes him a member of the eighth rank in the state. Every year this Sovereign, with magnificent rituals, begins to plow the land with a plow with his own hands.
299. It would not be bad to give rewards to farmers who have brought their fields to a better condition than others.
300. And to the handicraftsmen who used the most excellent care in their labors.
301. This establishment will bring success in all countries. It has also served in our times to establish very important handicrafts.
302. There are countries where in every churchyard there are books published by the government on agriculture, from which every peasant can use instructions in his perplexity.
303. There are lazy peoples. In order to eradicate laziness, which is born in the inhabitants from the climate, it is necessary to make laws there that would take away all means of subsistence from those who will not work.
304. Every nation is lazy and arrogant in its behavior; for those who do not work consider themselves in some way rulers over the workers.
305. Peoples drowning in laziness are usually proud. It would be possible to turn the action against the cause that produces it, and destroy laziness with pride.
306. But love of fame is as strong a support for government as pride is dangerous. To be sure of this, one must only imagine, on the one hand, the countless number of benefits that come from the love of fame: hence zeal, science and art, courtesy, taste, and on the other hand, an infinite number of evils that are born from the pride of some peoples: laziness, squalor, disgust from everything, the extermination of peoples who accidentally came into their power, and then their own destruction.
307. Pride leads a person to avoid work, and love of fame prompts him to be able to work better in front of others.
308. Look diligently at all nations, you will see that for the most part arrogance, pride and laziness go side by side in them.
309. The peoples of Achim are both arrogant and lazy: whoever of them does not have a slave hires one, even if it was only to walk a hundred steps and carry two quadruples of Saracen millet; he would have considered it a dishonor if he had carried them himself.
310. Wives in India shame themselves into learning to read. This business, they say, belongs to slaves; who sing spiritual songs in their churches.
311. A person is poor not because he has nothing, but because he does not work. Someone who doesn’t have any estate and works, lives just as profitably as someone who has an income of a hundred rubles and doesn’t work.
312. The craftsman, who taught his children his art and gave them as an inheritance, left them such an estate that multiplies according to their number.
313. Agriculture is the first and main work to which people should be encouraged; the second is handicraft from one's own growth.
314. Machines that serve as abbreviated needlework are not always useful. If something made by hand costs a mediocre price, which is equally similar to both the merchant and the one who made it, then the machines that reduce handicraft, that is, reduce the number of workers, will be harmful in a multinational state.
315. However, it is necessary to distinguish between what is done for one’s own state and what is done for export to foreign lands.
316. It is not possible to make enough progress with handicrafts in things sent to other peoples who receive or can receive the same things from our neighbors or from other peoples; and especially in our situation.
317. Trade is removed from there, where it is oppressed, and is established where its peace is not disturbed.
318. Athens did not carry out that great trade that was promised to them by the labors of their slaves, the great number of their sailors, the power they had over the Greek cities, and, most of all, the extraordinary regulations of Solon.
319. In many lands where everything is farmed out, the government of state taxes ruins trade with its injustice, oppression and excessive taxes; however, it ruins it without even getting started with the difficulties it causes and the rituals required of it.
320. In other places where customs are on guard, the convenience of trading is very excellent; one written word ends great deeds. There is no need for a merchant to waste time in vain and to have special agents in order to stop all the difficulties started by tax farmers, or to submit to them.
321. The freedom of trade is not when traders are allowed to do whatever they want; this would be more slavery. What hinders the trader does not hinder trade. In free regions, a merchant finds countless contradictions, but where slavery is established, he is never bound by so many laws. England prohibits the export of its yarn and wool; she legalized the transport of coal to the capital city by sea; she prohibited the export of capable horses to stud farms; ships trading from her American villages to Europe must anchor in England. She embarrasses the merchant in this and that way, but everything is in favor of trade.
322. Where there are auctions, there are also customs.
323. The pretext of trade is the export and import of goods for the benefit of the state; The pretext of customs is a well-known collection from this very export and import of goods for the benefit of the state. For this, the state must maintain an exact middle ground between customs and trade, and make such orders so that these two things do not confuse one another: then people there enjoy the freedom of trade.
324. England does not have a prescribed trade duty statute [or tariff] with other nations: its trade duty statute changes, so to speak, at every meeting of parliament through special duties that it imposes and removes. Always having an excessive suspicion of the trade carried out in its lands, it rarely commits itself to treaties with other powers and does not depend on anyone’s laws other than its own.
325. In some states, laws have been passed that are very capable of humiliating the powers leading house-building auctions. They are forbidden to bring there other goods, except simple unprocessed ones, and then from their own land; and they are not allowed to come there to trade except on ships built in the land from which they come.
326. The power that imposes these laws must be in such a state that it can easily send trades itself, otherwise it will at least cause harm to itself. It is better to deal with a people who demand little and who, due to the needs of trade, are in some way tied to us; with a people who, by the space of their intentions or deeds, know where to put excess goods; who is rich and can take many things for himself; who will pay for it with ready money; who, so to speak, is forced to be faithful; who is peaceful according to the rules ingrained in him; who seeks profit, not conquest; It is much better, I say, to deal with such people than with other constant partners, and who will not give all these benefits.
327. Even less should a power expose itself to selling all its goods to the people alone under the pretense that they will take all the goods at a certain price.
328. The true rule is not to exclude any people from your trade without very important reasons.
329. In many states, banks have been established with good success, which, through their good reputation, having invented new price signs, have increased their circulation. But in order for such institutions to be safely trusted in a one-man government, these banks must be added to the institutions involved in sanctity, independent of governments and stings, equipped with oval letters, with which no one can and should not have anything to do, such as hospitals, orphanages, etc. : so that all people are confident and reliable that the Emperor will never touch their money and will not harm the credit of these places.
330. Some of the best writers on laws [Montesquieu] say the following: “People, prompted by actions used in some powers, think that laws should be established to encourage the nobility to engage in trade. This would be a way to ruin the nobility without any benefit for trade. They act prudently in this matter in those places where merchants are not nobles: but they can become nobles; they have the hope of obtaining nobility without having any real obstacles to it; They have no other reliable way to get out of their philistine title than to carry it out with extreme diligence or have happy success in it; a thing that is usually added to contentment and abundance. It is against the essence of trade for the nobility to do it under autocratic rule. This would be disastrous for the cities, as Emperors Honorius and Theodosius say, and would take away the convenience between merchants and the mob to buy and sell their goods. It is also contrary to the essence of autocratic rule for the nobility to carry out trade in it. The custom that allowed the nobility to conduct auctions in a certain power belongs to those things that greatly contributed to rendering the former established government powerless there.”
331. There are people of this opposite opinion, who argue that nobles who do not serve can be allowed to trade with the requirement that they subject themselves to merchant laws in everything.
332. Theophilus, seeing a ship loaded with goods for his wife Theodora, burned it. “I am the Emperor,” he told her, “and you make me master of the plane. How can poor people feed their lives if we also enter into their rank and trade?” He could add to this: Who can restrain us if we begin to enter into tax farming? Who will force us to fulfill our obligations? Seeing the trades we carry out, the noble people of the court will also want to carry out them: they will be more self-interested and more unfair than us. The people have confidence in us in judging our justice, and not our wealth. So many taxes that bring them into poverty clearly testify to our needs.
333. When the Portuguese and Castilians began to rule over the eastern Indies, trade there had such rich branches that the Sovereigns decided it was good for them to seize on them themselves. This ruined the villages they had established in those parts of the world. The royal governor in Goya gave exceptional certificates to various people. No one has power of attorney for such persons; trade was collapsing due to the constant change of those people to whom it was entrusted; no one spares this trade and does not care the least when he leaves it completely ruined to his successor; the profits remain in the hands of a few people and do not spread far.
334. Solon legalized in Athens that they should no longer commit hypocrisy for civil debts. This law is very good for ordinary civil matters, but we have reason not to observe it in matters related to trade. For merchants are forced to entrust large sums, often for a very short time, to give them and take them back; This is how the debtor must always fulfill his obligations at the appointed time; which already presupposes hypocrisy. In cases that occur according to ordinary civil agreements, the law should not create hypocrisy for the sake of the fact that it damages the freedom of the citizen more than contributes to the benefit of another; but in agreements regarding trade, the law should look more at the benefit of the whole society than at the freedom of the citizen. However, this does not discourage the use of reservations and restrictions that humanity and a good civil institution may require.
335. The Genevan law is very commendable, which excludes from government and from entering the great council the children of those people who lived or who died in default of paying their debts, unless they satisfy the creditors for the debts of their fathers. The effect of this law produces a power of attorney for merchants, for the government and for the city itself. The personal loyalty of each person in that city still has the force of the common loyalty of the entire people.
336. The Rodians went even further in this regard. Their son could not avoid paying debts for his father and refusing to inherit from him. Rhodian law was given to a society based on trade; for which reason it seems that the very nature of trade required the following restriction to be added to this law: so that the debts acquired by the father after the son began to trade himself should not touch the estate acquired by him and would not devour it. A merchant must always know his obligations and behave at every time according to the state of his acquisition.
337. Xenophon determines that rewards should be given to those in charge of trade who are most likely to carry out the justice that has happened. He foresaw the need for verbal proceedings.
338. Cases involving trade can withstand very few judicial rites. They are daily, things that constitute trade in production, which others of the same kind must inevitably follow every day: for this reason they must be decided daily. It is completely different with everyday affairs, which have a great conjugation with the future human condition, but very rarely happen. They rarely marry and encroach more than once; it is not every day that wills or donations are made; No one can reach the age of perfection more than once.
339. Plato says that in a city where there is no maritime trade, there should be half as many civil laws. And this is very fair. Trade brings to one place various tribes of peoples, a great number of contracts, different types of property and methods for acquiring it. So, in a commercial city there are fewer judges and more laws.
340. The right assigning to the Sovereign an inheritance over the estate of a foreigner in the areas of his deceased, when he has an heir; also the right appropriating to the Sovereign or subjects the entire cargo of a ship wrecked off the coast; very unreasonable and inhumane.
341. The Great Charter in England prohibits taking the lands or income of a debtor when his movable or personal estate is enough to pay debts and when he wants to give that estate away: then all the property of an Englishman was considered for cash. This charter does not stipulate that the lands and income of an Englishman should not represent cash in the same way as his other estate: this intention tends to avert insults that could happen from harsh creditors. Righteousness is dejected when the taking of an estate for debts violates by its superiority the security that anyone can demand, and if one estate is enough to pay off debts, there is no reason inducing one to take another in payment for them. And since lands and incomes are taken to pay off debts even when there is not enough other property to satisfy the creditors, it seems that they cannot be excluded from the number of signs representing cash.
342. The hallmark of gold, silver and copper in a coin, as well as the printing and internal price of the coin, must always remain in the position once established, and there is no need to deviate from this for any reason; for every change in the coin damages the public credit. Nothing should be so subject to change as that thing which is the general measure of everything. The merchants themselves are very unknown; and so the evil would increase even more by adding a new unknown to that which is based on the nature of the thing.
343. In some areas there are laws prohibiting subjects from selling their lands, so that they do not thus transfer their money to foreign states. These laws could have been good at that time, when the wealth of each power belonged to it so that there was great difficulty in transferring it to a foreign region. But after the wealth no longer belongs to any particular state through bills of exchange, and when it can be so easily transferred from one region to another, then the law must be called bad that does not allow one to dispose of one’s lands at one’s own discretion for the establishment of one’s affairs, when Everyone can dispose of their money according to their own will. This law is even worse because it gives preference to movable property over immovable property, because it makes foreigners averse to coming to settle in those areas; and finally, because you can get out of doing it.
344. Whenever someone prohibits something that is naturally permitted or necessarily necessary, he will do nothing else except to commit dishonest people on those who do it.
345. In areas devoted to trade, where many people have nothing but their art, the government is often obliged to make efforts to assist the old, sick and orphans in their needs. A well-established state bases the content of such on the arts themselves: in it they impose on some work similar to their powers, others are taught to work, which is also work.
346. Giving alms to a beggar on the street cannot be considered a fulfillment of the obligations of the government, which must provide all citizens with reliable maintenance, food, decent clothing and a lifestyle that does not harm human health.
Chapter XIV
347. About education.
348. The rules of education are the first foundations that prepare us to be citizens.
349. Each family should be governed according to the example of a large family, which includes all private ones.
350. It is impossible to give a general education to a large people and to feed all the children in houses established specifically for this purpose. And for this purpose it will be useful to establish several general rules that can serve instead of advice to all parents.
1) 351. Everyone is obliged to teach his children the fear of God as the beginning of all chastity and to instill in them all those positions that God requires of us in His Decalogue and our Orthodox Eastern Greek Faith in its rules and other traditions.
352. Also instill in them love for the fatherland and induce them to have respect for established civil laws, and to honor the governments of their fatherland, as caring, according to the will of God, for their good on earth.
2) 353. Every parent must abstain in front of his children not only from deeds, but also from words tending towards injustice and violence, such as: abuse, oaths, fights, all cruelty and similar actions; and not allow those who surround his children to give them such bad examples.
3) 354. He must forbid children and those who walk around them, so as not to lie, below as a joke; for lying is the most harmful vice of all.
355. We will add here, for the instruction of every special person, what has already been printed, as serving as a general rule, already established by Us and still being established for the education of schools and the whole society.
356. We must instill in youth the fear of God, confirm their hearts in laudable inclinations and accustom them to solid and proper rules; to arouse in them a desire for hard work, and so that they fear idleness, as the source of all evil and delusion; teach decent behavior in their deeds and conversations, courtesy, decency, condolences for the poor, unfortunate, and aversion from all insolence; teach them housebuilding in all its details, and how much useful it contains; turn them away from extravagance; especially to instill in them their own inclination towards neatness and cleanliness, both in themselves and in those belonging to them; in a word, all those virtues and qualities that belong to a good education, with which in due time they can be direct citizens, useful members of society, and serve as an adornment to it.
Chapter XV
357. About the nobility.
358. Farmers live in villages and hamlets and cultivate the land, from which the fruits that grow feed people of all kinds; and this is their lot.
359. In the cities live burghers who practice crafts, trade, arts and sciences.
360. Nobility is a designation of honor that distinguishes from others those who are adorned with it.
361. Since among people some were more virtuous than others, and at the same time differed in merits, it was customary from ancient times to distinguish those who were the most virtuous and those who served more than others, giving them this distinction in honor, and it was established that they should enjoy various advantages based on these above-mentioned initial rules
363. Virtue with merit elevates people to the degree of nobility.
364. Virtue and honor should be its rules, prescribing love for the fatherland, zeal for service, obedience and loyalty to the Sovereign, and constantly inspiring never to do a dishonorable deed.
365. There are few cases that would lead more to the acquisition of honor than military service: defending one’s fatherland, defeating its enemy is the first right and exercise befitting nobles.
366. But although military art is the most ancient method by which one achieved noble dignity, and although military virtues are necessarily necessary for the existence and preservation of the state.
367. However, justice is no less necessary in times of peace as in war, and the state would collapse without it.
368. And from this it follows that not only is it appropriate for the nobility, but this dignity can also be acquired by civil virtues, as well as military ones.
369. From which it follows that it is impossible to deprive anyone of the nobility, except the one who deprived himself of his dignity by his own basely contrary actions and thereby became unworthy of his title.
370. And already honor and the preservation of the integrity of noble dignity require that such a person, through his actions, violating the foundation of his title, be, upon conviction, expelled from the ranks of the nobles and deprived of the nobility.
371. Actions contrary to the title of nobility are treason, robbery, theft of all kinds, violation of an oath and given word, perjury, which one did or persuaded others to do, drawing up false fortresses or other similar letters.
372. In a word, any deception that is contrary to honor, and especially those actions that entail humiliation.
373. The perfection of maintaining honor consists in love for the fatherland and observation of all laws and duties; what will follow
374. Praise and glory, especially to that family which among its ancestors considers more such people as were adorned with virtues, honor, merit, loyalty and love for their fatherland, and therefore for the Sovereign.
375. The advantages of the nobility must all be based on the above-mentioned initial rules, which constitute the essence of the title of nobility.
Chapter XVI
376. About the neuter gender of people.
377. I said in Chapter XV: in the cities live burghers who practice crafts, trade, arts and sciences. In which state a foundation has been made for the nobles, similar to the prescribed rules of Chapter XV; here it is also useful to establish a leading position based on good morals and hard work, which will be used by those about whom we are talking here.
378. This type of people, about whom we should speak and from whom the state expects a lot of good, if it receives a position based on good morals and encouragement for hard work, is the middle one.
379. He, taking advantage of his liberty, is not ranked either among the nobility or among the cultivators.
380. 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.
381. Moreover, all those who will emerge without being nobles from all the schools and educational houses established by Us and Our ancestors, whatever the rank of those schools, spiritual or secular.
382. Also the orderly people of children. And since in this third kind there are different degrees of advantages, then without going into detail, we only open the way to reasoning about it.
383. Just as the entire basis for this middle class of people will be good morals and hard work, then, on the contrary, violation of these rules will serve to exclude them from it, such as, for example, treachery, failure to fulfill one’s promises, especially if the reason for this is laziness or deception.
Chapter XVII
384. About cities.
385. There are cities of different nature, more or less important in their position.
386. In other cities there are more requests for trade by dry or water routes.
387. In others, only the goods brought are stored for release.
388. There are also those who solely serve to sell the products of visiting farmers of one or another district.
389. Others bloom with factories.
390. Another lying near the sea combines all these and other benefits.
391. The third uses fairies.
392. Others are capitals, etc.
393. No matter how many different regulations there are for cities, the only thing they all have in common is that they all need to have the same law, which would determine what a city is, who is considered a resident in it, and who makes up the society of that city, and who should enjoy the benefits according to the nature of the natural position of that place, and how one can become a city resident.
394. From this it will be born that those who are obliged to take part in the good condition of the city, having a house and estates in it, are given the name burghers. These beings are obliged, for their own well-being and for their civil security in life, property and health, to pay various taxes in order to enjoy these benefits and their other property without hindrance.
395. Those who do not give this general, so to speak, pledge, do not enjoy the right to have bourgeois benefits.
396. Having founded cities, it remains to consider what benefits can be given to which type of cities without prejudice to the general benefit, and what institutions should be established in their favor.
397. In cities in which trade has many circulations, great care must be taken to ensure that through the honesty of citizens credit is maintained in all parts of commerce; for honesty and credit are the souls of commerce, and where cunning and deception prevail over honesty, there cannot be credit.
398. Small towns are very necessary in the districts, so that the farmer can sell the fruits of the land and his hands and provide himself with what he needs.
399. The cities of Arkhangelsk, St. Petersburg, Astrakhan, Riga, Revel and the like are cities and sea ports; Orenburg, Kyakhta and many other cities have appeals of a different kind. From which one can see how great a property the position of places has with civil institutions, and that, without knowing the circumstances, it is not possible to make a convenient position for each city.
400. There is still a great debate about guild skills and the establishment of workshops for crafts in cities: whether it is better to have workshops in cities or without them, and which of these provisions is more conducive to handicrafts and crafts.
401. But it is indisputable that guilds are useful for establishing craftsmanship, but they can be harmful when the number of workers is determined, because this very thing prevents the proliferation of handicrafts.
402. In many cities in Europe, they are made free in that the number is not limited, but can be included in them at will, and it is noted that this served to enrich those cities.
403. In sparsely populated cities, guilds can be useful in order to have people skilled in their crafts.
Chapter XVIII
404. About inheritances.
405. Order in heritage is derived from the foundations of state law, and not from the foundations of natural law.
406. The division of property, the laws regarding this division, the inheritance upon the death of the one who had this division, all this could not be established otherwise than by society, and, consequently, by state or civil laws.
407. Natural law commands fathers to feed and educate their children, and does not oblige them to make them their heirs.
408. A father, for example, having taught his son some art or handicraft that can nourish him, makes him much richer than if he had left him his small property, making him slothful or idle.
409. True, state and civil order often requires that children be heirs after their fathers, but it does not require this to always be so.
410. This general rule: raising your children is an obligation of natural law, and giving them your inheritance is the establishment of civil or state law.
411. Every state has laws on the ownership of estates that correspond to state regulations; therefore, the father’s estate must be owned in the manner prescribed by the laws.
412. And it is necessary to establish an order that is immovable for the inheritance, so that it is possible to conveniently know who the heir is, and so that no complaints or disputes about this can occur.
413. Every law must be executed by everyone, and it should not be allowed to be violated by any citizen’s own orders.
414. Since the order of inheritance was established as a result of state law among the Romans, no citizen should have corrupted it with his own will, that is, from the first times in Rome it was not allowed for anyone to make wills; however, it was bitter that a person in the last hours of his life was deprived of the power to do good deeds.
415. And so a means was found in this reasoning to harmonize the laws with the will of private individuals. They were allowed to dispose of their estate in the assembly of the people, and any will was in some way a matter of the legislative power of that republic.
416. In subsequent times, they gave indefinite permission to the Romans to make wills, which greatly contributed to the insensitive destruction of the state regulation on the division of lands; and this, most of all, introduced a very great and disastrous difference between rich and wretched citizens; Many appanage estates were thus collected into the possession of one master; Roman citizens had a lot, but countless others had nothing, and through this they became an unbearable burden to that power.
417. Ancient Athenian laws did not allow a citizen to make wills. Solon allowed, excluding those who had children.
418. And the Roman legislators, convinced by the imagination of paternal power, allowed fathers to make wills to the detriment of their own children.
419. It must be admitted that the ancient Athenian laws were much more similar to the conclusions of common reason than the Roman laws.
420. There are states where they keep a middle ground in all this, that is, where it is allowed to make wills about acquired property, and it is not allowed for a village to be divided into different parts, and if the father’s inheritance, or, better said, the fatherland, is sold or squandered, then it is legalized that a portion of the purchased or acquired estate equal to the inheritance be given to the natural heir; unless the evidence established by the laws has made him unworthy of inheritance: in this latter case, those following him take his place.
421. Both the natural heir and the heir chosen by will may be allowed to refuse the inheritance.
422. Roman daughters were excluded from wills; For this reason they were claimed under deception and forgery. These laws forced us either to become dishonest people or to despise the natural laws that instill in us love for our children. These are cases which, when giving laws, must be avoided.
423. Nothing weakens the laws more than the possibility of escaping them by deceit. Likewise, unnecessary laws detract from respect for necessary ones.
424. Among the Romans, wives were heirs if this was agreed with the law on the division of lands; and if this could violate that law, then they were not heirs.
425. My intention in this matter leans more towards the division of property, since I consider it my duty to want everyone to have a sufficient portion of their food; Moreover, agriculture can thus come to a better state; and the state will thereby benefit more by having several thousand subjects enjoying moderate prosperity than by having several hundred great rich people.
426. But the division of property should not cause harm to other general rules in establishing laws, which are equally or more necessary for preserving the integrity of the state, which should not be left unnoticed.
427. Division according to souls, as the axis has done until now, is harmful to agriculture, causes a burden in collections and leads the last dividers into poverty; and the division of the heritage is to some extent more similar to the preservation of all these main rules and to the profit of the public and everyone’s own.
428. A minor under the specified age is a member of the household family, and not a member of society. So, it is useful to make a guardianship arrangement, such as
429. 1) For children left after the death of their father in the years of imperfect age, when it is not yet possible to entrust them with their estates in full power for the sake of the danger, so that they, due to their immature mind, do not go bankrupt;
430. So 2) and for the insane or those who have lost their minds;
431. No less than 3) and the like.
432. In some free powers, the close relatives of a person who has squandered half of his estate, or who has fallen into debt equal to that half, are allowed to prohibit him from owning the other half of that estate. The income from this remaining half is divided into several parts, and one part is given to the person who falls into this situation for his maintenance, and the others are used to pay off debts; Moreover, he is prohibited from selling and mortgaging any more; after paying off the debts, if he gets better, they give him again his estate, saved by his relatives for his own benefit, and if he doesn’t get better, then they give him only the income annually.
433. It is necessary to lay down rules appropriate to each of these cases, so that the law protects every citizen from violence and extremes that may occur in this case.
434. Laws entrusting the guardianship of the mother have more regard to the preservation of the remaining orphan; and those who entrust it to a nearby heir respect the preservation of the estate more.
435. Among nations with corrupt morals, the legislators entrusted guardianship of the orphan to the mother; and in those where the laws must rely on the morals of the citizens, they give guardianship to the heir of the estate, and sometimes to both.
436. The Germans could never have wives without a guardian. Augustus legalized: wives who had three children should be free from guardianship.
437. Among the Romans, the laws allowed the groom to give gifts to the bride, and the bride to the groom, before marriage; and after the marriage it was forbidden to do this.
438. The law of the Western Goths commanded that the groom should not give more than a tenth of his estate to his future wife; and in the first year after the wedding he would not give her anything.
Chapter XIX
439. About the composition and style of laws.
440. All rights must be divided into three parts.
441. The first part will have the title: laws.
442. The second will take the name: temporary institutions.
443. The third part is given a name: decrees.
444. The word laws refers to all those institutions that cannot change at any time, and there cannot be a great number of such.
445. The name temporary institutions refers to the order in which all affairs should be carried out, and various orders and regulations regarding this.
446. The name decrees includes everything that is done for some kind of adventure, and that is only accidental, or pertaining to someone, and can change over time.
447. It is necessary to include in the book of rights all separate matters in order in the place that belongs to them: for example, judicial, military, commercial, civil or police, city, zemstvo, etc., etc.
448. Every law must be written in words understandable to everyone, and, moreover, very briefly; for which reason, without a doubt, it is necessary, where need requires, to add explanations or interpretations for those judging, so that they can easily see and understand both the power and the use of the law. The military regulations are filled with similar examples that can be conveniently followed.
449. But, however, one must act very carefully in these explanations and interpretations: since they can sometimes easily overshadow rather than explain a case; There have been many examples of this.
450. When in any law exceptions, restrictions and moderations are not necessary, then it is much better not to introduce them; for such details lead to other more details.
451. If the writer of laws wants to depict in them the reason that prompted the publication of some of them, then the reason must be worthy of this. Among the Roman laws there is a defining one: a blind person should not carry out any business in court, so that he does not see the signs and decorations of the judge. This reason is very bad when quite a few other good ones could be given.
452. Laws should not be filled with subtleties arising from wit: they are made for people of mediocre intelligence, equally as for witty ones; they do not contain science that prescribes rules for the human mind, but the simple and right reasoning of a father who cares about his children and household.
453. It is necessary that sincerity should be visible everywhere in the laws: they are given to punish vices and evil deeds; and so they themselves must contain within themselves great virtue and gentleness.
454. The style of laws should be short and simple; A direct expression can always be understood better than an indirect expression.
455. When the style of laws is inflated and pompous, then they are not revered in any other way than as a composition expressing arrogance and pride.
456. Laws should not be written in vague speeches. An example is given here. The law of one Greek Emperor orders to punish with death the one who buys a slave who has been freed, or who begins to disturb and disturb such a person. One should not have used an expression so vague and unknown: the anxiety and anxiety caused to a person does not depend at all on what degree of sensitivity one has.
457. The syllable of the Code of Blessed Memory of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich is for the most part clear, simple and brief; you listen with pleasure to where there are extracts from it; no one will make a mistake in understanding what he hears; the words in it are intelligible to the most mediocre mind.
458. Laws are made for all people, all people must act according to them, therefore, it is necessary that all people can understand them.
459. One must avoid florid, proud or pompous expressions and not add a single superfluous word in the drafting of the law, so that the thing established by law can be easily understood.
460. One must also take care that among the laws there are not those that do not reach their intended end; which are abundant in words, but insufficient in meaning; which in their internal content are unimportant, but in their external syllable they are arrogant.
461. Laws that recognize as necessarily necessary actions that are not involved in either virtue or vice are subject to the obscenity that they force, on the contrary, actions that are necessary to be considered unnecessary.
462. Laws regarding monetary punishment or penalties, which indicate the exact amount of money to be paid for any crime, must, at least every fifty years, be revised again so that payment in money, considered sufficient at one time, is considered nothing at another, for the price of money changes according to the amount of property. There was once in Rome such an extravagant man who gave slaps to everyone who came his way, immediately paying each of them twenty-five kopecks, that is, as much as was prescribed by law.
Chapter XX
463. Miscellaneous articles requiring clarification.
464. A. Crime of lese majeste.
465. This name refers to all crimes contrary to the security of the Sovereign and the State.
466. All laws must be composed of clear and concise words, but there are none among them, the composition of which would relate more to the safety of citizens, like laws related to the crime of lèse-majesté.
467. The freedom of a citizen does not suffer greater attack from anything than from judicial and third-party accusations in general; how great would be the danger if this such an important article remained obscure: for the freedom of a citizen depends, firstly, on the elegance of criminal laws.
468. Criminal laws should not be confused with laws establishing judicial order.
469. If the crime of lèse-majesté is described in laws with vague words, then enough of this can result in various abuses.
470. Chinese laws, for example, rule that if anyone does not show respect to the Sovereign, he must be executed by death. But just as they do not define what a failure to show respect is, everything there can give rise to the taking of life from whomever they want, and to the extermination of the generation whose destruction they want. Two people, determined to compose court reports, when describing some completely unimportant case, set up circumstances that were dissimilar to the truth; it is written on them that lying in court reports is nothing more than not showing due respect to the court; and they were both executed by death.
One of the princes, at the presentation signed by the Emperor, carelessly put up some kind of sign: they concluded from this that he did not show due respect to Bogdykhan. And this caused terrible persecution to all this prince’s generation.
471. To call an action that does not contain it in the thing itself a crime that involves insult to the Majesty is the most violent abuse. The law of the Roman Caesars treated those who doubted the merits and merits of the people they had chosen for any rank as blasphemers, and therefore condemned them to death.
472. Another law declared those who make thieves' money guilty of the crime of lese majeste. But they are nothing more than state thieves. In this way, different concepts about things are mixed together.
473. Giving the name of the crime of lese majeste to another crime is nothing more than to reduce the horror associated with the crime of lese majeste.
474. The mayor wrote to the Roman Emperor that they were making preparations to judge him as a judge guilty of the crime of lese majeste, who had imposed a sentence contrary to the laws of this Caesar. Caesar responded that in his domain, crimes of lèse-majesté, indirect but devious, were not acceptable in court.
475. There was also one among the Roman laws that commanded that those who, although carelessly, threw something in front of the images of the Emperors, should be punished as criminals for insulting the Majesty.
476. In England, the law alone considered all those who foreshadow the royal death to be guilty of the highest treason. In the illness of the kings, the doctors did not dare to say that there was a danger: one might think that they acted accordingly in their treatment.
477. A man dreamed that he killed the Tsar. This Tsar ordered him to be executed by death, saying that he would not have dreamed of this at night if he had not thought about it in reality during the day. This act was great tyranny; for even if he had thought so, he had not yet acted on the fulfillment of his thought. Laws are not required to punish any other than external or external actions.
478. When many crimes of insult to the Majesty were introduced, it was imperative to distinguish and moderate these crimes. So, finally, they came to the point of not considering such crimes as crimes, except those that contain intent against the life and safety of the Sovereign and treason against the state and the like; for which crimes and punishments the most severe are prescribed.
479. Actions are not everyday; many people can notice them: false accusations in cases can be easily explained.
480. Words combined with an action take on the nature of that action. Thus, a person who comes, for example, to the place of a national assembly to exhort his subjects to indignation, will be guilty of lese majeste because words are combined with action and borrow something from it. In this case, they are punished not for the words, but for the action performed in which the words were used. Words are never charged with a crime unless they prepare, or are combined with, or follow an unlawful action. Everything is transformed and refuted by those who make words into a crime worthy of the death penalty: words should be considered as a sign only of a crime worthy of the death penalty.
481. Nothing makes the crime of insulting the Majesty more dependent on the sense and will of another than when immodest words are the content of it. Conversations are so open to interpretation, there is such a great difference between immodesty and malice, and such a small difference between the expressions used for immodesty and malice, that the law cannot in any way subject words to the death penalty, at least not without precisely defining the words that it subject to execution.
482. So, words do not constitute a thing subject to crime. Often they do not mean anything by themselves, but by the voice in which they are pronounced. Often retelling the same words does not give them the same meaning: this meaning depends on the connection connecting them with other things. Sometimes silence expresses more than all the talking. There is nothing that contains so much double meaning as all of this. So how can one make of this a crime as great as lese majeste, and punish words as much as the action itself? Through this I do not want to reduce the indignation that should be felt against those who want to discredit the glory of their Sovereign, but I can say that a simple corrective punishment is better suited in these cases than an accusation of lèse-Majeste, which is always worse than innocence itself.
483. Letters are a thing that does not pass away as quickly as words; but when they do not prepare for a crime of Majesty, then they cannot be prophetic, containing a crime of Majesty.
484. Very sarcastic writings are prohibited in autocratic states, but they are made an excuse subject to city government, and not a crime; and one must be very careful about spreading research about this far away, imagining the danger that minds will feel oppression and oppression; and this will produce nothing other than ignorance, will refute the gifts of human reason and will take away the desire to write.
485. Slanderers must be punished.
486. In many powers, the law commands that those conspiracies that someone knows about, not through communication with the perpetrators, but through hearsay, be discovered under the death penalty. It is very appropriate to use this law in all its severity in a crime of the highest degree related to lese majeste.
487. And this is a very great importance: not to confuse the different degrees of this crime.
488. V. About courts according to special orders.
489. The most useless thing for sovereigns in autocratic governments is to sometimes appoint special judges to judge one of their subjects. Such judges must be very virtuous and fair, so that they do not think that they can always be justified by their commands, some secret state benefit, a choice made in their person, and their own fear. So little benefit comes from such courts that it is not worth the effort to transform the court procedure into an ordinary one.
490. This can also produce abuses that are very harmful to the peace of citizens. An example of this is offered here. In England, under many kings, members of the upper chamber were judged through judges drawn from the same chamber; In this way they put to death everyone they wanted from the nobles of the assembly.
491. We often confused the investigation of such and such a case through some dressed up judges and their opinion about that case with the verdict of the court in that case.
492. However, there is a great difference: to collect all the news and circumstances of a case and give your opinion about it, or to judge that case.
493. D. The rules are very important and necessary.
494. In such a great State, extending its dominion over so many different peoples, the vice of prohibiting or not allowing their various faiths would be very harmful to the peace and security of its citizens.
495. And there is truly no other means than the reasonable laws of permission, which is not rejected by our Orthodox faith and policy, by which all these lost sheep can be brought back to the true faithful flock.
496. Persecution irritates human minds, and the permission to believe according to one’s own law softens even the most stiff-necked hearts and leads them away from hardened stubbornness, quenching their disputes, which are contrary to the silence of the State and the unity of citizens.
497. One must be very careful in investigating cases of magic and heresy. Accusation of these two crimes can excessively disrupt the peace, freedom and well-being of citizens, and can also be a source of countless torment, if the laws do not set limits for it. For since this accusation does not lead directly to the actions of a citizen, but rather to the concept imagined by people about his character, it can be very dangerous due to the ignorance of the common people. And then the citizen will always be in danger because neither the best behavior in life, nor the most blameless morals, nor the performance of all positions can be his defenders against suspicions of these crimes.
498. It was reported to the reigning Greek Emperor Manuel Komnenos against the protestor that he had intentions against the king and used some secret magic to make people invisible.
499. In the history of Constantinople they write that as it was known by revelation, how the miracle work ceased due to the magic of a certain person, then both he and his son were condemned to death. How many different things are there on which this crime depended and which the judge had to sort out? 1) That the miracle work has ceased; 2) that during this suppression of miracles there was magic; 3) that magic could destroy the miracle; 4) that that man was a wizard; 5) finally, that he performed this act of magic.
500. Emperor Theodore Laskar attributed his illness to sorcery. Those accused of this had no other means of salvation than to touch the red-hot iron with their hands and not get burned. With the most unknown crime in the world, the most unknown experiments were combined to study it.
501. D. How can you know that a state is approaching its fall and final destruction?
502. Damage to any government almost always begins with damage to its initial foundations.
503. The initial foundation of government is damaged not only when that state mentality, impressed by the law in each of them, which can be called equality prescribed by laws, is extinguished, but also when the mentality of equality has taken root, reaching the very extreme, and when everyone wants to be equal to the one who is ordained by law to be his superior.
504. If they do not show respect to the Sovereign, governments, and superiors; if they do not honor the old, they will not honor either fathers, mothers, or masters; and the State will fall insensitively and humiliatingly.
505. When the initial basis of government is damaged, then the provisions adopted in it are called cruelty or severity; the established rules are called coercion; the former zeal is called fear. The property of private people used to constitute the people's treasures; but at that time the national treasure becomes the heritage of private people, and love for the Fatherland disappears.
507. There are two types of damage: the first is when the laws are not observed; the second is when the laws are so bad that they spoil themselves; and then evil is incurable because it is found in the very medicine of evil.
508. The state can also change in two ways: either because its institution is corrected, or because its institution is spoiled. If the initial principles are respected in the State and this institution is changed, then it is corrected; if the initial foundations are lost when the institution changes, then it becomes corrupted.
509. The more executions multiply, the more danger the State faces; for executions multiply as morals are damaged, which also produces the destruction of states.
510. What destroyed the possessions of the Qing and Sunga generations? Some Chinese writer says: that these rulers, not content with the main supervision that is only proper to the Sovereign, wanted to directly manage everything and attracted to themselves all the affairs that should be managed by the establishment of different governments.
511. Autocracy is destroyed even when the Sovereign thinks that he will show his power more if he changes the order of things, and does not follow it, and when he cleaves more to his dreams than to his good wishes, from which laws flow and flow. .
512. True, there are cases where power must and can act without any danger to the State in its full course. But there are also cases where it must act within the limits it has set for itself.
513. The highest art of government consists in knowing exactly what part of the power, whether small or great, should be used in different circumstances; for in an autocracy the well-being of government consists partly in a meek and lenient government.
514. In elegant colossus, art uses as little movement, forces and wheels as possible. This rule is also good in government; The simplest means are often the best, and the most intricate ones are the worst.
515. There is some convenience in government: it is better for the Sovereign to encourage, and the laws to threaten.
516. That minister is very skilled in his rank, who will always tell you that the Sovereign is annoyed, that he was accidentally preempted, that he will act in this according to his authority.
517. This would still be a great misfortune in the State if no one dared to present their fears about some future adventure, nor to excuse their bad successes, from the stubbornness of the happiness of what happened, or to freely speak their opinion.
518. But who will say when one should punish and when one should forgive? This is a thing that can be better felt than prescribed. When mercy is exposed to certain dangers, these dangers are very visible. It is easy to distinguish mercy from the weakness that leads the Sovereign to contempt for punishment, and to such a state that he himself cannot make out who should be punished.
519. It is true that a good opinion about the glory and power of the King could increase the strength of his power; but a good opinion of his justice will equally increase them.
520. All this cannot please the caresses, who all day long tell all earthly possessors that their peoples were created for them. However, We think and for Our own glory we impute to say that We were created for Our people, and for this reason We are obliged to speak about things as they should be. For, God forbid, that after the end of this legislation some people would be more just and, therefore, more prosperous on earth: the intention of Our laws would not be fulfilled - a misfortune that I do not want to live to see.
521. All the examples and customs of different peoples given in this work should have no other effect than to promote the choice of ways in which the Russian people, as far as humanly possible, would become the most prosperous in the world.
522. It now remains for the Commission to compare the details of each part of the laws with the rules of this order.
Ending
523. It may happen that some, having read this order, will say: not everyone will understand it. This is not difficult to answer: indeed, not everyone will understand it after reading it lightly once; but everyone will understand this command if, with diligence and when cases arise, they choose from it that which can serve as a rule for them in their reasoning. This order must be repeated more often, so that it becomes more familiar, and then everyone can firmly hope that they will understand it better.
524. Diligence and zeal overcome everything, since laziness and negligence lead away from all good.
525. But in order to make this difficult matter easier, this order must be read in the Commission on the drafting of a new Code and in all private Commissions dependent on it, and especially the chapters and articles entrusted to them, once at the beginning of each month until the end of the Commission.
526. But since there is nothing perfect that has been invented by man, then if it is discovered in the proceedings that no rules have yet been laid down for any institutions in this order, the commission is allowed to report to US about it and ask for additions.
Legislation of Catherine II. T. 1-2. M., 2000.
Zotov V.D. Empress Catherine and her “Order” // Bulletin of the Russian Peoples' Friendship University. Ser. Political science. 2000. No. 2. P.21-32.
Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia. M., 2006.
Klyuchevsky V.O. Origin, composition and sources of the Order. Censorship and criticism of the Order. Contents of the Order. Thought of the Order // Course of Russian History. Lecture 77. M., 1990.
Tomsinov V.A. Empress Catherine II (1729-1796) // Russian jurists of the 18th-20th centuries: Essays on life and creativity. In 2 vols. T.1. M.: Mirror, 2007. P.63-89.
How was the need for the strong power of the monarch justified in the “Nakaz”?
What general principles of the legal system were formulated in the “Nakaz”?
What are the reasons for writing this document?
Why was the Statutory Commission dissolved?
What is the future fate of the provisions formulated in the “Order”?
The laid down commission and the Order of Catherine II
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. 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, as soon as united in his person, can act similarly to the space of a great state... A spacious state presupposes autocratic power in the person who rules them. 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.
“The order of Her Imperial Majesty Catherine the Second, the All-Russian Autocrat, was given to the Commission on the drafting of a new code.”
From the book History of Russia from Rurik to Putin. People. Events. Dates author1766 - Order of Catherine II In 1766, a Commission was convened to draw up a new Code - a code of laws. Elected representatives from the nobility, merchants, and state peasants gathered at the meetings of the Commission. For the Commission, Catherine wrote “Instructions”, in which
From the book History. Russian history. Grade 10. Advanced level. Part 2 author Lyashenko Leonid Mikhailovich§ 53. Laid Commission 1767 – 1768 Convening of the Laid Commission. The most important event of the first years of the reign of Catherine II was the convening of the Legislative Commission. In itself, the convening of a commission to replace the outdated Code of 1649 with a new one did not represent anything original - yet
From the book History of Russia. XVII–XVIII centuries. 7th grade author§ 27. SET FORTH COMMISSION “Order” of Empress Catherine II. In her manifesto upon her accession to the throne, Catherine II promised to introduce life in the country within the framework of the law, so that “every state place has its own limits and laws to maintain good order in everything.” Sobornoe
From the book History of Russia. XVII-XVIII centuries. 7th grade author Kiselev Alexander Fedotovich§ 27. SET FORTH COMMISSION “Order” of Empress Catherine II. In her manifesto upon her accession to the throne, Catherine II promised to bring life in the country within the framework of the law, so that “every state place has its own limits and laws to maintain good order in everything.” Sobornoe
From the book History of Russia in the 18th-19th centuries author Milov Leonid Vasilievich§ 7. The laid down commission of 1767. A very significant link in Catherine’s policy of “enlightened absolutism” was the revision of the dilapidated medieval code of laws - the Council Code of 1649. The relevance and importance of this were obvious to everyone, since over
From the book Textbook of Russian History author Platonov Sergey Fedorovich From the book History of Russia from the beginning of the 18th to the end of the 19th century author Bokhanov Alexander Nikolaevich§ 5. The laid down commission of 1767 A very significant link in Catherine’s policy of “enlightened asbolutism” was the revision of the dilapidated medieval code of laws, the Council Code of 1649. The relevance and importance of this matter were obvious to everyone, since over
From the book Chronology of Russian history. Russia and the world author Anisimov Evgeniy Viktorovich1766 “Order” of Catherine II In 1766, a commission was convened to draw up a new code - a code of laws. Elected representatives from the nobility, merchants, and state peasants gathered at the commission meetings. For the commission, Catherine wrote “Instructions”, in which
From the book Catherine II without retouching author Biographies and memoirs Team of authors -- author3. “Instruction” of Catherine II The basis for “Instruction”, written in 1764–1766, was the ideas gleaned by Catherine from the writings of Montesquieu, the Italian jurist C. Beccaria and other educators. The “Nakaz” emphasized that Russia is a “European power” and that is why
From the book Russia in the 18th century author Kamensky Alexander Borisovich4. The established commission of 1767–1768 More than 550 deputies were elected to the commission, representing all social groups of the population, with the exception of landowner peasants and the clergy, for whom the rights of an independent class were not recognized. The commission was headed
From the book National History. Crib author Barysheva Anna Dmitrievna26 ENLIGHTENED ABSOLUTISM OF CATHERINE II. REFORM OF CATHERINE II Catherine II ruled almost the entire second half of the 18th century. (1762–1796). This era is usually called the era of enlightened absolutism, since Catherine, following the new European enlightenment tradition, was
From the book Conversations with the Mirror and Through the Looking Glass author Savkina Irina Leonardovna author Team of authors“Order” of Catherine II Having ascended the Russian throne, Catherine set out to develop the main directions of activity of the entire state machine. Moreover, to develop it independently, without looking back at the past, without listening to advisers, relying on the knowledge that she
From the book Catherine the Great (1780-1790s) author Team of authorsLaid Commission The Seventh Laid Commission of 1767 was the last and also did not produce results. It was convened on the initiative of Catherine II, who in 1764–1766. wrote with her own hand “Order of Empress Catherine II, given to the Commission for drafting a new
From the book From the Varangians to Nobel [Swedes on the banks of the Neva] author Youngfeldt BengtFrom Catherine to Catherine: Karl Karlovich Anderson Stockholm boy Karl Anderson was one of those numerous foreigners whose talent blossomed in St. Petersburg; in this sense, his fate is typical. But the beginning of his life's journey was far from ordinary;
in 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 system 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.
ORDER OF CATHERINE II, written for the leadership of the Legislative Commission “to compose a project” for reforming the legal system of the Russian state.
Ekaterina worked on the text of this document for about two years. She first showed the results of her work to Count Nikita Panin, Grigory Orlov and some other nobles, then submitted the text for consideration by a wider circle of selected readers, asking to point out provisions and articles that were unnecessary and inappropriate to the conditions of Russian life, in order to exclude them from Nakaza. As a result, it was cut in half.
Order is not an original composition. Thus, its part devoted to criminal law is all taken from two famous works of Montesquieu Spirit of laws and Beccaria About crimes and punishments, a book published in Italy in 1764.
Total in Nakaze 526 articles, of which more than 250 are borrowed from Montesquieu, about 100 (from 147 to 245 from the work of Beccaria). Order was written mainly in French and partly in Russian.
The French text was sent by the Empress to Voltaire, the German to Frederick II. Published Order was first published in 1767 in Russian and German in Moscow, and then in St. Petersburg in 1768 in Russian, and in Latin, German, French and again in Russian in 1770. In the 18th century. There were several translations of it into other foreign languages, and in France in 1769 it became a banned work.
Catherine II wrote Order to guide elected people in the code commission in drawing up new laws; it was to be read monthly in the assembly of deputies. At the same time, at the beginning of classes, the commission was instructed not to be guided by the framework of the old laws, but to follow the articles Nakaza. But after the dissolution of the commission, it became available only to a limited circle of noble people.
Original text Nakaza consisted of an introduction and twenty chapters. In 1768 two more chapters were added.
Main content Nakaza This is: at the beginning, Catherine II writes that the most natural laws are those that “are consistent with the disposition of the people for whom they are written.” Further explaining that, due to the very vastness of the state (a space of 32º latitude and 163º longitude), autocratic power is necessary in Russia: “The subject and goal of monarchical rule is the glory of the citizens, the state and the sovereign himself.” The equality of all citizens consists in this, that all should be subject to the same laws; liberty consists in the ability to do what one should desire and in not being forced to do what one should not desire. To do this, the law must be such that one citizen cannot be afraid of another, but everyone would be afraid of the same laws.
Chapter 8 talks in detail about punishments. Every punishment must stem from the essence of the crime. The most important thing is that the crime is solved; the shame of being caught is already a heavy punishment, and in a moderate government they try more to prevent crimes than to punish them. One should try harder to “instill good morals in citizens through legislation than to dishearten their spirit with executions.” All punishments that disfigure the human body should be abolished. The cruelty of punishment, as Chapter 10 interprets, is unjust because it is useless, because... to be taken into custody is already a punishment, and the law must precisely determine the cases when this is necessary. Judges' verdicts, as well as evidence of crimes, must be made public. Humanity itself cries out against torture. You cannot torture someone who has not yet been convicted; if someone has already been convicted, then he is punished according to the law. The death penalty is possible only in one case - when a criminal, being deprived of his freedom, has the means to disturb the peace of the people, but such cases cannot exist in the “ordinary state of a state, strong in its internal strength, i.e. the opinion of citizens."
Chapter 12 concerns the issue of “the reproduction of the people in the state”, Chapter 13 – “about handicrafts and trade”, 14 – “about education”, 15 – “about the nobility”, 16 – “about the middle class of people”, 17 – “ about cities”, 18 – “about inheritances”, 19 – “about the composition and style of laws”. The 20th chapter is varied in its content: it deals with the issues of “crimes and insults to the sovereign”, “about courts according to special orders”, “about religious tolerance”, etc.
In the last 22nd chapter, Catherine says that “less burdensome are those taxes that are paid voluntarily, without coercion, which are extended to all residents of the state and increase with the accumulation of wealth. In order for taxes to be less sensitive, monopolies must be constantly avoided, i.e. do not give the right to one, to the exclusion of others, to use any fishery.” Next, the rules are indicated by which income is determined, why arrears occur, how to increase the wealth of the country and open up new sources of it, with agriculture being the most encouraged.
The empress's views combined practically incompatible things: liberal views and autocratic serfdom aspirations. She understood that the strengthened nobility would not tolerate a reduction in their ownership rights, while she herself condemned serfdom. IN Nakaze proposals were made to improve the lot of the peasants: Catherine mourns that less than a quarter of peasant newborn children survive, that many lands are deserted, that the oppression of the people after many centuries of slavery has become a custom. The exorbitant taxes that many landowners imposed on their peasants lead to their bitter poverty, they die out of want and disease: “Having been born in despondency and poverty, in violence or in the false reasoning adopted by the government, they saw their extermination, often without noticing the reasons his". (Ch. 12)
Provisions Nakaza were never introduced into Russian legislation by the empress, and the commission itself, which turned out to be uncontrollable and therefore objectionable, was dissolved in 1768 under the pretext of war with Turkey.
The laid down commission is one of the ideas of enlightened absolutism, which was based on a modern view of the legal system. Improving legislation has been one of the most important tasks of domestic policy for many years. Even Peter 1 tried to solve this problem to no avail. Similar attempts to change legislation were made by Catherine 1, Anna Ioannovna and Peter 2. In an attempt to resolve this issue, Catherine 2 relied on the works of European philosophers, changing their ideas to suit Russian realities.
The established commission began its work on July 30, 1767. The manifesto on its creation was signed on December 16, 1766. The dissolution of the commission was announced on December 18, 1768, under the pretext of war with the Ottoman Empire.
The main reasons for convening the commission were the creation of a unified set of laws, as well as the study of public opinion about the current state of affairs in the country at various social levels.
Stacked commission concept
The commission laid down under Catherine was distinguished by at least three important details:
- Wider representation.
- Catherine compiled an “Instruction”, in which she outlined her views and wishes, which formed the basis of the Statutory Commission of 1767-1768.
- Receiving orders to deputies "from below".
Representative offices of the commission
The established commission consisted of 564 deputies. The right to nominate deputies was granted to the following categories of citizens:
- Townspeople. 1 deputy per city. 39% of the composition.
- Nobles. 1 deputy per county. 30% of the composition.
- Peasants (except serfs). 1 deputy from each province. 14% of the composition.
- Cossacks and other segments of the population. 12% of the composition.
- Government officials. 5% of the composition.
This was the composition of the Statutory Commission. Considering that government officials were also nobles, this category had a numerical superiority.
Representatives of only 2 segments of the population did not take part in the work of the Statutory Commission: serfs and the clergy.
Historical reference
Deputies of the Legislative Commission received large benefits. They received additional salaries for participating in the work of the commission. All deputies until the end of their days received protection from the death penalty, from physical punishment, and from confiscation of property. Any court decisions regarding deputies could only come into force with the personal approval of the empress. Each deputy received a special badge with the motto - “The Bliss of Each and All.”
Catherine's instructions for the work of the commission
The established commission under Catherine 2 began its work with the “Order”, in which the empress conveyed her point of view and gave direction for the work of the commission. The “order”, it must be said, turned out to be quite extensive. It had 20 chapters and 526 articles. This work was based on the works of other educators of that time:
- 245 articles of the "Mandate" relate to Montesquieu's "Spirit of the Times".
- 106 articles of the “Order” refer to Beccaria’s “Regulations on Crimes and Punishments”.
- The Germans Bielfeld and Just had a great influence on Catherine and her “order”.
The main message to the Commission was that the emphasis in its work should be on strengthening the power of the autocrat. Catherine 2 repeatedly repeated that for Russia this is the only acceptable form of power.
The Russian sovereign must be an autocrat. All the fullness of power must be united in his person, like our vast territory, which is united in Russia. Any other rule other than an autocratic one will only cause harm to Russia.
Ekaterina 2
The “Mandate” was an extremely controversial document. For example, the main task that faced the Statutory Commission was the creation of a law before which everyone would be equal. This was stated in the first lines of the document. But this was the main contradiction. Firstly, equality of law for everyone contradicted the class system of Russia. Secondly, some provisions of the “Order” came into clear conflict with the main task. Here are, for example, some of these provisions:
- Peasants live in the village and this is their destiny. The nobles live in the city and administer justice.
- It is unacceptable when everyone wants to be equal to someone who is approved by law to be a boss.
The main problem of that time (the issue of serfs) was practically not resolved. The established commission was supposed to create laws under which “landowners would have to apply taxes with greater caution.” This was the huge problem with “Nakaz”. In it, Catherine 2 tried to combine the enlightened ideas of bourgeois society and feudal methods of governing Russia. It was impossible to do this. We had to look for compromises in everything. Largely because of this, the work of the Statutory Commission was ineffective and did not lead to any positive results.
Instructions to deputies from various classes
One of the tasks of the commission was to understand the demands of society. To do this, it was decided to receive orders from all the main classes of Russia in order to clearly understand what issues are relevant for society.
- The nobles demanded tougher punishment for peasants for running away. They also demanded that recruitment into the army be reduced in order to protect their serfs.
- Officials and deputies literally demanded the abolition of the “Table of Ranks,” which was introduced under Peter 1. The reason was that the Table of Ranks opened the way to any leadership positions for ordinary people.
- Citizens complained about bureaucracy in all government agencies. The townspeople wanted to receive the privileges of the nobles (prohibition of physical punishment, permission to have serfs, buy them and be the owners of manufactories). They were supported by the merchants.
- State peasants complained that landowners were taking away the best land for themselves, as well as a large poll tax.
Once again, I want to note that no one accepted orders from the serfs. Catherine 2 understood the complexity of the situation and its explosiveness, but talking about freedoms for the peasants meant making enemies among all other classes. Therefore, the Legislative Commission did not even consider the issues of liberating the serfs and improving their living conditions. The performance of nobleman Grigory Korobin is worthy of mention. This person was the only one from the entire commission to raise the question of the terrible situation of serfs in the country. However, his speech was met with hostility by all members of the laid down commission.
Results of the work of the Statutory Commission
The established commission of Catherine 2 worked for almost 1.5 years. During this time, 203 general meetings were held. These meetings did not produce any concrete results. As a result, the Code was not developed, and the only result of the commission’s work can be reduced to the fact that the social issue has once again become acute in Russia. At the meetings, deputies from different classes could not agree among themselves.
Why did Catherine entrust the Statutory Commission to deputies, and not to relevant officials? History has no answer to this question. It is only clear that a group of people with different interests, without any legal knowledge and skills, cannot make up the law for the country. This should be done by specialists. And as soon as Nicholas 1 entrusted this issue to the relevant officials, Russia received the Code.
The commission laid down was sharply criticized by many prominent people. Here are some sayings.
The laid commission is a farce. It’s in vain that Voltaire is interested in Catherine and her affairs. This is a hypocritical work, and Voltaire himself cannot know the whole truth.
Pushkin, Alexander Sergeyevich
In Russia, the Legislative Commission has begun its work, which is supposed to create fair laws. But all her work is a real comedy.
Ambassador of France to Russia
Many prominent figures of the 18th and 19th centuries claim that the Statutory Commission was an attempt by Catherine 2 to glorify her name. This is nothing more than an element of propaganda, which was of a popular nature, but could not lead to any positive changes in Russia.
Loading...
