339 or in writing, and he should thereby (3) the place where, (and) (4) the time, let the defendent know who the prose- day, and hour shall be given, when he cutor is, what the matter is, where the is to appear. place is, at what time, namely to which trial day and hour he is summoned, as is prescribed. As these quotations show, the manner in which the case was brought before the court did not determine how the trial was to be conducted. Even cases brought before the court by private individuals were to be tried and judged according to inquisitorial procedure. Historians have disagreed about the extent to which this legislation was applicable outside of the realm of military affairs. The text itself limits its applicability to military courts and to “officers, soldiers, and other people belonging to the military, that the Voennyi Ustav and the Kratkoe izohrazhenie protsessov became the norms for procedures in the civil courts, as well.^'*^ The principal evidence offered in support of this opinion is an ukaz promulgated by Peter on April 10, 1716 to the effect that the Voennyi Ustav should be printed and distributed. Together with the rubric provided for it by the editors of Polnoe Sohranie Zakonov, the ukaz was published in its entirety in that collection in the following form: On the distribution of books with the Voennyi Ustav to military units, gubernii, and chancelleries, and on making it the basis for both military and civil cases. Lords (of the) Senate! I send you the book Voinskii Ustav, which was begun at Petersburg and now completed and which you shall order published in not a small number, namely no less than 1,000 books, of which 300 or more in Slavic or German for the foreigners in our service; and since it, in spite of the fact that it forms the basis for the military peoples, nonetheless concerns all local officials {zemskie praviteli), as you see from it yourselves: therefore, when they print it, send it in proportions to all our military units, as well as to the gubernii and chancelleries, so that no one can disclaim knowledge of it, and retain the original with you in the Senate. FromDanzig, April 10, 1716. but it has long been argued ” 142 There is no statement in the ukaz which justifies the broad interpretation made by the editors of Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov in formulating the rubric quoted above.That the military code was to be sent to civil Ibid., 579—580. This opinion is represented among modern scholars, for example, by A. G. Man’kov, “Proekt Ulozheniia Rossiiskogo Gosudarstva 1720—1725 gg.,” in S. L. Peshtich et al., eds., Problemy istorii feodal’noi Rossii. Sbornik statei k 60-letiiti prof. V. V. Mavrodina (Leningrad, 1971), 161, and Richard Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago, 1976), 14. PSZ, V, no. 3,010, p. 457. The original ukaz had no rubric or title; ZA (no. 38), 52—53. 143
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=