<<
>>

2.3. Way of home life of the Russian peasant under the legislation of second half of 19 centuries.



«We-people dark, do not know laws», - peasants, especially daily spoke when were mistaken against the law and its requirements. However, the ignorance of law not is the justification to anybody for the Empire organic law clearly spoke: nobody can plead ignorance of the law; [81] hence, the broken law comes under to the answer, he knows it or does not know — is indifferent.

Not to break commands of the law and for this crime not to come under to the answer, it was necessary for everyone to know the law, and a problem national broshjurok, carried ofenjami on villages, consisted in that simple and clear language to state that part of the Russian law which concerned a country family — so-called laws semejstvennye.
These laws have been extended to peasants since February, 19th, 1861, i.e. from that day as Emperor Alexander II has changed the country position which was at that time which was called as the serfdom then peasants have got the driver's licence of a condition of free rural inhabitants [82]. Ever since and before critical events of 20 centuries in the law it was spoken: „On peasants general provisions of laws civil about the rights and duties semejstvennyh" [83] extend.
From these words of the law it is visible, that since 1861 for a country family there are same rights and duties what the law has given also to other estates.
Let's try to consider in detail how peasants the rights given to it as they thus and assigned on them together with the rights executed the duties specified by the law for it is impossible to have only the rights had, but it is necessary, demanding something from others, to them to give that is obliged by it to give. The law, a life also consisted in it under law requirements.
The name of the law „About the rights and duties semejstvennyh" clearly shows, that this law instructed in how there should live between themselves members of a family.
The family consists, first, of parents and children, in-second-from suprugrov, at last - from the senior in a family of a member to which submitted other, and from all other members of a family, younger in relation to this senior, the head of the family, houses, domohozjainu. Therefore we will try to consider consistently relations between ourselves, parents and children, further-relation between ourselves of the husband and the wife, at last relations between domohozjainom and younger members of a family. We will consider how the law ordered to concern it to each other.
Let's begin with parents and children.
In Russia before devastating fights Russian-Japanese and the First World War was a little more, rather, country children on which share the sad fate of orphans dropped out from a birth. The great majority since a birth to the age of maturity lived in a native family, under a parental shelter.
While children did not become independent, parents who have been obliged cared of them not only to feed, give to drink to them and to dress [84], to protect them from any insult [85] and to look behind their property [86], but, that is not less important also to bring up them, i.e. to pay all attention to moral formation of children, to try to instal house education in them respect for the law and fear Divine [87]. To bring up the child in this direction, was one words and lectures parental, much important for children an example a little.
According to psychology, the child — that a mirror: that will see, will represent. For example, sees, that the father «beats every day mother, will start to play, and otkolotit, joking, the little girl, and will come in age, marries, and itself will start to offend the wife by an example parental. Sees, for example, on then Russian customs, that the father is not drunk rare day — as to it, in boyish still age, not to try fault! The girl sees, that mother at neighbours of egg or that else steals, how it not to think what to steal and it is possible and it is good? »
Parents should try to attach the grown up child in uchene [88], could give it not only to the lowest, i.e. in zemskuju or tserkovno-parish school, but also in average — in a grammar school, in real school [89]. «Tutors Will start yes to interpret to the child of the teacher, as to steal, and to drink, and the wife to beat guilty and badly; the child at all does not understand long time, that it is serious, thinks, that with it joke. Will start to understand, but has come home from school-sees, that all is parents make, — again takes its doubt, that anything in that is not present the bad. And if still will reproach the father that it is bad so to do supposedly, and the father ottaskaet for vihry — is young to learn it still: eggs do not learn a hen, and the child in concept absolutely has already got off, cannot understand, that is good, that badly.»
So the paternal home frequently instead of most to bring up children in respect for the law and in that to help school, on the contrary, spoilt the child and only stirred to school.
But here the child left school, grew up, his parents should to any business or occupied to define [90].
«Kaby have brought up it since the childhood in fear Bozhiem and respect for the law so it would remember and precept Bozhiju, that at school has learnt, yes has forgotten», it would remember and the law on which children should treat with to parents frank respect, obedience, humility and love, to serve them actually, «to respond about them yours faithfully, to take down parental admonitions and corrections is patient and without grumble. [91]. So the law and Acceptable and human and if it it would be good and easy to peasant to live. Was executed orders»
«However-one must reap as one has sown: the sonny of vodka has taken, has subdued his mother — has cursed its strong word, the father has stood up, to teach wanted-an, the sonny so has taught it, that the old man runs to complain to zemskomu to the chief or the investigator.»
On the resulted fragment from the Russian moralizing literature of 19 centuries we see, that was forgotten semejstvennyj the law in a country family, despite severe for that punishment [92]. Prove it is better complaints of parents to the insult their children. zemsky the chief from under Moscow has informed one, that the quantity of complaints of parents their children has increased by the insult within 5 years, since 1899 on 1903, is equal in 2,5 times.
«Certainly, and children are guilty, yes not without a sin and parents, and in general all peasantry. Parents are guilty because have not inspired to children of fear Bozhija and respect for the law, the example have destroyed that and another, and all peasantry-because is not ashamed, is resolute without any constraint, the God knows what to make publicly in the street, on eyes at children, than and accustoms them from the early childhood both to drunkenness, and to revelry, both to scandals, and to fights, and to everyone nepotrebstvu; besides, frequently on holidays or on weddings, laughter for the sake of, podpaivajut 9—10-летних children also poison with their vodka since the childhood. They do it, it is necessary to think, not to harm to own children. That and a grief, that darkness does not understand, that is harmful and that is not harmful. To give vodka 9—10-летнему to the child all the same, what to give it strong poison, to poison him for ever.»
Such jokes peasants from generation to generation produced drunk and sick, since the childhood of the people poisoned with alcohol, and those make the same with children. The present child himself will come in age and children will have.
After achievement by the son of 18 years, and the daughter of 16 years, both could marry [93]. On their introduction into marriage it was not required the nobody's permission, except the consent of parents. [94] however, granting the right to parents to destroy or forbid marriage to children, the law at the same time strictly punished parents for abusing svoeju the power, for compulsion of children to marry. For it the prison, not including church repentances [95] relied. On peasantry it was often observed: will not be in time son or daughter to enter in age, does not think still to begin a new family as already parents demanded from them: marry or marry. The reason for it was covered that in country families often did not get workers. Sons have been forced to marry often against the will, only that the family has received the new working woman. «In a sort of that a new horse to buy.» A lot of family disorder left in due course for the husband and for the wife such marriage, and vinoju it there were parents.
Having received parental blessing, the peasant addressed directly to the parish priest [96] who has been obliged it to marry if there were no to that legal bars and interferes with marriage those cases could only: when
1) wishes to marry already married [97], or The widower after the third marriage [98], or If to it more than 80 years otrodu [99], or If he wishes to marry the madwoman [100], or the close relative [101], or If the groom, or the bride do not agree marriage [102].
If there were no these obstacles marriage was made. If marriage has been made, it in any case could not be terminated, destroyed only because spouses have not wished to live together [103]. Cases when they and got divorced are known, and separately to live began, and all were considered as the husband and zhenoju and nevertheless have been connected between itself under the law which ruled to live to spouses always together and to the wife always to follow the husband [104].
It is known, that a part of the Russian peasantry adhered to split, or, otherwise, „old belief". The law was in this respect wide veroterpim, i.e. did not prevent to pray and trust everyone in own way. This law looked at Old Believers as on «the stray children of the general Orthodox Church», did not search for their punishment for "sin" which they took on soul, bringing split, i.e. contention in Church, but tried to enter into their interests, on the contrary. The law permitted also to them to get married in an orthodox temple, under a condition to swear in fidelity of Church [105]. If dissenters and to it did not wish to take advantage, it gave the right, having got married in own way to show the marriage in police, i.e. to bring it, to write down in special, for this purpose founded, books. The marriage shown thus was considered lawful, and children, from it proisshedshie, too as the legitimate children [106], successors after the father.
If marriage has not been shown in these books entered it for the law were esteemed single, and their children were considered illegal, as well as any illegal child in the country environment, following a condition of mother [107], i.e. was registered in family of mother and her parents.
Let's result known in 1893 in the Moscow province, in Volokolamsk district, a case when the husband-dissenter, using that under the passport it was registered single because its marriage has not been shown in police, married the party the second time already a legal marriage from the live wife, with kotoroju any person of children has begot. The deceived woman of a recognition of the marriage how many would not achieve, but under the law it has been recognised by the "maid" who has begot some illegal children which could not neither to carry a surname of the father, nor property after it, under the law, to inherit. However, and in similar cases the law came to the aid of unfortunate children: under decision Pravitelstvujushchego of the Senate from February, 28th, 1891, for № 1392, children from raskolnichego the marriage which has been not brought in police books if only they are written down in posemejnyj the list of the father, admitted adoptees and had the right to a plot of that society in which their father was registered.
Here, in a protection of interests in what of not guilty children, the law granted to dissenters the right to show the marriages in police. If many of them for them did not use this good law, being afraid «the press Antichrist's», "love cannot be ordered".
So, each Russian peasant, on reaching known age, could marry, begin a new family. As it was already marked: spouses have been obliged to live together, and the wife should follow always the husband at change of a residence [108]. However, to live together, it did not mean still to execute all law. To live in marriage as follows, under the law, was considered-with the parties of the husband: to love the wife as own body, to live with it in the consent, to protect, excuse its lacks and offences, to facilitate to it an infirmity, delivering to it livelihood and the maintenance on force of possibility [109]; from the party of the wife-love and to esteem the husband as the head of the family, to please it as the mistress of the house and to obey it [110], even more, than to own parents [111].
It would be much better than 19 centuries if this law was executed for Russia. Meanwhile, in the country environment business in huge the majority of cases went absolutely on the contrary. Who of whom more contained-country husband or the wife-peasant — a question rather doubtful. Both and who is more - it to tell very difficultly worked, frequently the wife observed all house from the drunkard of the husband thinking what to it only to pull down from the house on sing. That concerned moral, so to say, the parties of the matrimonial law which we have resulted here the ugliest among husbands-peasants ugliest and ruthless beating of wives, their requirement that the wife hardly after sorts went next day to press a rye, pasture of wives upon termination of working hours from the house — all it clearly proves, that in the country environment many husbands did not execute the matrimonial law.
And meanwhile the Russian family laws so highly put matrimonial relations, that at all did not suppose consideration in court of complaints of one spouse against another about the insult [112]. Not for nothing the proverb said, that „between the husband and the wife one God the judge".
The husband came under to punishment only in the event that tortured the wife or, instead of forgiving it its offences, too severely, from revenge, it banged; then he answered before court, as for arbitrariness [113].
Last decade 19 centuries the reference of husbands with wives began to contradict so shockingly to laws, that Pravitelstvujushchy the Senate has found possible for country wives to make an exception of the general rule and has given zemskomu to the chief the right, in cases constantly severe from the husband of the reference to give out to the wife the passport without the consent and against the will of the husband [114]. Orders zemskogo the chief under such requests could be appealed and the husband and zhenoju in flow 30 days in District Congress which or the order zemskogo approved the chief and then the wife could receive the passport, or cancelled it and then the wife should live with the husband. In general, under the general rule, the wife was entered in the passport of the husband [115] and a separate kind could not receive differently, as under the consent of the husband [116]. And any husband if he observed the law about which we spoke above, could be assured, that anywhere the wife without it will not receive the separate passport.
«It would be rather desirable, that country husbands remembered the law and looked at the wife not as on working cattle on which it is possible to bring down work as much as necessary and as on the girlfriend, venchannuju with them in church.» Again we will recollect, that the nasty life of spouses spoilt children, that the son who has grown on a bad example, having entered into age, also started to look at own wife.
And that it repeated in increasing frequency, is proved at least to that, under data from zemskogo the chief whom we already mentioned, the quantity of applications of wives about separate passports has increased in 1902 against 1899 in II time, and in 1903 25 times. Certainly, existed and «foolish women», forgetting, that they in church venchany, and going to ask passports, «as soon as husbands a little bit will teach them». Such zemskie chiefs generally also refused in separate passports, but in general it is possible to tell with confidence, that in most cases the wife asked a kind separate of the husband knowingly that is why, that already nevterpezh to live became, that in general "woman" will bear from the husband much and only as a last resort will exchange position of the mistress of the house for position of the parasite at native or batrachki in people. At reception of the passport separate of the husband the wife, certainly, had the right to take away with itself the personal, own property.
In general, it is necessary to tell, that each spouse freely could dispose of the personal good [117], and that the wife brought in a dowry or, already being married, whether probrela purchase, a gift, or a different way to it personally under the law and belonged [118]. Any dispute between spouses about property was resolved by court [119], and neither the head nor the foreman, in general any power, except court, had no right to select property at one and to give to its other spouse. As well at reception of the separate passport: if the husband did not give a chest or still that, the wife should address in court, and only when the court awarded to the husband to give, and it all the same did not give out, the head, the foreman could interfere with business, urjadnik or in general administrative authority.
The same occurred and when the husband turned the wife out of the house, and good to it did not give, with toju only raznitseju, that for scandal and pasture of the wife from the house and the head and the foreman could punish the husband, as for lawlessness and 6езобразие [120]. And business about things all the same should understand court; if the property is not more expensive than 300 roubles, volost [121].
Especially often country husbands expelled wives «on autumn», upon termination of field works not to feed in winter. Let alone that this lawlessness was not on conscience of a country community, these to husbands «did not know dangers» what to return the wife on spring if she lives somewhere nearby where it is possible to live without passport [122], it will be very difficult as to oblige wife return to husband cannot any power, except court, and besides district [123] where to have legal proceedings both far and long.
Also it is necessary to pay attention to the one who should contain children if to the wife it was resolved to delivery separate the passport and it could leave with it. Though in the Russian law precisely about it it is not spoken, but it is necessary to think, that their husband as under the law it is obliged to contain the wife [124] and children [125] as the head of the family [126] should contain.
Delivery of the separate passport owing to what spouses before the passport expiry of the term parted and dispersed, was not the marriage termination as to that. Marriage could be ceased exclusively under the decision of special spiritual court, and it was called as divorce.
The spiritual court could agree to divorce spouses anyway only when it one of the parties searched, i.e. One of spouses, and a lawful occasion to divorce could be:
1) the proved adultery of one of spouses,
2) inability to live in marriage, the reference of one of spouses to Siberia with the deprivation and
4) more than 5-year-old absence without a message of one of spouses. Other occasions and ways of divorce in the law was not [127].
From marriage, as is known, there are children. We already spoke about duties of children and parents. We did not speak only about how could under the Russian legislation in the country environment dispose of the property parents and children, i.e. about their property relations.
As we have already told, parents have been obliged to majority of children to feed, give to drink, dress them [128], to bring up [129], to protect their interests [130] to train [131], to attach to business, to marry daughters [132].
The head of the family is the father [133], it the owner of the house, domohozjain [134]. Children an essence younger members of a family, at least they have already come to full age. Generally in a country family domohozjainom the father or mother were, sometimes, behind death of the father, glavoju families, domohozjainom, there was one of sons. Then to it passed all rights of the father on court yard disposal of community property, and all other members of this court yard already were younger members of a family-court yard. Therefore, speaking about a country family, an unseparable, general court yard, we also will consider property relations domohozjaina and younger members of a family, that the same, that relations of parents and children.
The main difference between domohozjainom and younger members of a family that, that domohozjain independently disposed of the community property of a court yard and did not ask for that the consent of younger members of a family. A unique case when under the Russian legislation younger members of a family could contradict it, can be such order from the party domohozjaina which is obviously unprofitable for all court yard, all family which was, so to say, obviously inexpedient in the economic relation [135]; in that case younger members of a family could declare the displeasure to a rural descent which had the right to prohibit domohozjainu this or that order property if recognised that upsetting its economy [136]. In general domohozjain as it is already told, independently led the general economy, and younger members of a family, as participants in the general economy, having in it the though and the part not allocated still, should support this general economy: Work if there live houses, or money if live on the party. Thereof any younger member of not divided family could not receive the passport without the consent domohozjaina [137].
With the consent of a society and the permission zemskogo the chief domohozjain could even select through police already given out passport book and to demand a younger member of a family for work [138], at least on a stage. [139] this measure, at first sight severe, really, was necessary. Really, it was very often observed, that, leaving on the party «on will» as peasants spoke, the son promised to the father to send by the month so much, gave even the written obligation. The father, razschityvaja, that the son will keep the promise, released it in hope, that that will send in time money both for taxes and for employment of the time worker in busy season. « You look, there passes month, the year, two, from the son hearing spirit », and the general economy suffers. Meanwhile die now the father, the son immediately will appear and will demand to itself an equal part with brothers whom while it walked on an ox and if as has acquired, only on itself, instead of on the general court yard, worked on the general economy. And if it besides and the senior that kind and all property of a family could take away in hands, became itself domohozjainom, and brothers became in the subordinated position. One exit remained at domohozjaina in that case: to select at it the book and to demand it home, for work, for the aid to a common cause.
It is necessary to tell thus, that the law meant a chance, that domohozjain can abuse the right of a prohibition of the passport, that he on a whim will want to drive the son from a good place or strebovat from it for free life an excessive payment for the son. Therefore the Russian legislation granted the right zemskomu to the chief to give out to children and in general younger members of a family pasporty without the consent domohozjaina and even against its will.
Such orders zemskih chiefs were definitive and did not come under from the party domohozjaina to the appeal [140], but zemsky the chief has been obliged to be convinced precisely of necessity of the order and to be in this business rather cautious. [141]
Such case was possible still, that the son all the same though zemsky the chief and will give up to it in the passport, will not wish to live at the father. For example, will leave somewhere nearby where it is possible to live without passport [142], will work on the mother-in-law or in workers, and nothing could be done with it, and the general economy suffered.
In that case domohozjainu there was an exit: to address in court and to ask it to award from the son on peasantry support a monthly monetary payment. Then it was possible and to seize the salary of a younger member of a family and to sell something from its things on collecting. About it it was necessary to ask volost court (or another what) in that place where the son beating off from an economy lives. In general, meant under the Russian legislation, that domohozjain «observes the general economy» and disposes of it independently.
From this, of course, it is necessary to reserve, did not follow, that it has the right to drink freely and the general economy to upset: for it it could be punished, under the complaint of younger members of a family, court (arrest) [143]. On the other hand, younger members of a family domohozjainu obeyed also an economy supported personal work or money.
Debts, without the consent domohozjaina, they could not do [144] and if did for it and answered. However, if the debt is made by a younger member of a family not for itself personally, and for the general needs of an unseparable court yard such debt could be collected from the general, unseparable property [145]. The penalties imposed by court for different offences, the father for the son to pay should not [146]. From other party, mladpy the member of a court yard could not sell pawn unseparable property [147].
The given relations existed according to the Russian legislation between domohozjainom and younger members of a court yard, while they led the general economy, lived in one court yard.
If domohozjain will wish, it could allocate to a younger member of a family a separate part from the community property, give it family-property section after which that already forms a separate court yard, itself becomes the owner of a separate, new court yard.
That the section could take place under the Russian legislation, it is necessary, that it were available sledujushchii conditions:
The first condition for section that the property was for a sharing enough and that each of divided could regularly and beznedoimochno to lead the full economy [148].
The second condition of which it was necessary to make sure at section, whether exists for section a thorough occasion? [149]
The third condition — whether it agree section domohozjain? If he does not agree, under the direct law the descent had no right to start section at all [150]. Those cases when the descent recognised were excluded from this rule only, that domohozjain leads a life immoral and prodigal [151] if for bad behaviour he on court was imprisoned [152] or that between it and younger members of a family goes such constant enmity which does a joint life resolutely impossible [153], together with that circumstance recognised as a descent, that domohozjain the community property spends exclusively for itself one owing to what works of younger members on a common cause have already no sense for they are put domohozjainom in position of farm laborers. [154]
The first condition, i.e. the requirement about that who has enough for this property shared only, existed in the law that the country economy was not split up, and with it the peasantry would not grow poor. What it is possible to make, how it is possible krestjanstvovat on a half-shower of the earth? Certainly, very badly. Therefore, if the descent is convinced, that at sharing it is not enough field earth, insufficiently and manor and a building place it and not in the right was to admit such section [155]. To share it was possible only when each of divided will be quite provided and zemleju, both cattle, and agriculture tools, and strojkoju, in an opposite case to share it is impossible under the Russian legislation; did not follow, means, and to insist on section though was close to live sometimes and it is unpleasant.
Krestjana argued so: «After all there lived the father and the grandfather in much closer log huts, than put now, and lived and did not share to the empty. And now, as soon as operilsja the good fellow, you look, already asks section.»
There was it because during the serfdom the landowner did not suppose to be split up to a country economy and did not allow to disperse without a sufficient occasion, after reform of 1861 the country family has been given to itself and kept only those laws about which we now spoke. These laws have been based, glavnm by image, on conscience, with oblivion of conscience in peasantry in which we specified, it, obviously, broke up. There will be no requirement of the law that it is possible to share, first, only on a descent, and, secondly, that the descent can suppose section only at a cash of known conditions, family sections would occur even more often: each son to whom the father, at least in a trifle has not pleased, autocratically would leave from the father, and veins in itself having forgotten, that it has parents. However it could not be, as autocratically divided for the law were considered nedelennymi [156]. The son from the father will leave, for example, autocratically, the father will contract debts, and for debts will answer both its property, and property of the son who has autocratically departed, so, considered on Russian legislation not separated from father.
The autocratic section was considered really made and admitted the law only then if it has occurred to the edition of the law on sections, i.e. till March, 18th, 1886. [157]
So, under the general rule, domohozjain, at observance of known conditions, could allocate a younger member of a family in an independent economy, that, to ask about it rural a descent, and a rural descent, having convinced, that conditions lawful are, could approve to admit this section.
However, even separated children should contain parents if parents ran on an old age and at inability to work into poverty and illnesses [158].
The member of a sharing family dissatisfied with section, everyone, even the most younger [159] when the sentence has been already constituted by a society, had the right to appeal against it zemskomu to the chief, within 14 days. Having considered this complaint and having listened to explanations sharing [160], zemsky the chief either approved section, or cancelled it. These orders zemskogo the chief were considered definitive and to appeal against them in congress it was impossible. [161]
Even if all sharing section were happy, all the same did not hasten to disperse, while zemsky the chief will not consider a sentence and does not recognise as its correct. They were afraid it to do because zemsky the chief even without any complaint could find a sentence not consent with the law [162] and then it could be excellent District Congress [163]. If the sentence has been excellent, and sharing already have dispersed and have started to manage independently, something have already sold from property, carpenters have hired for special building and so forth then again to converge it would be already difficult, time at everyone was got the special interests, and under the Russian legislation-time the sentence is excellent, they again not in the section, again one family.
So, followed really disperse only when zemsky the chief recognised a society sentence correct.
The allocated son was already domohozjainom a new court yard, veins and led the economy independently, not being asked in what at from whom has received section, but, of course, the father always remained the father, the power parental stopped only with death of parents or with deprivation by them is right [164], and after death of parents children have been obliged to honour their memory eternally [165].
In these few words all essence of laws semejstvennyh, given to peasantry with the serfdom termination. From this, that we spoke, it is visible, that the law given to it was executed far not full, that the majority of peasants recognised only the rights, but absolutely forgot about the duties connected with these rights. This undesirable phenomenon, of course, depended partly and on unconscientiousness of separate subjects, but should influence it as also a full ignorance of laws of the majority of peasants.
<< | >>
A source: the Family law of 2nd half of 19 centuries. The dissertation. Moscow. 1998

More on topic 2.3. Way of home life of the Russian peasant under the legislation of second half of 19 centuries.:

  1. 2.6. The Russian legislation of second half of 19 centuries on remedial forms of a marriage.
  2. § 2. Term application «destructive religious association» to the Russian legislation of second half XIX - the beginnings of XX centuries
  3. 2 head. «Selective research of some pressing questions of the family legislation of Russian empire of second half of 19 centuries.»
  4. 1.1. The Istorichesko-survey analysis of a condition of the brachno-family legislation of Russia of second half of 19 centuries. The internal logic and operating practice.
  5. 2.2. Development of the search form of litigation in second half XVI - first half XVII centuries
  6. §1. Property complexes and their inheritance in Russian civil law IX - first half XIX centuries
  7. 2.1. Research of the relation of thefamily legislation to the repeated introduction into marriage into Russia into second half of 19 centuries. Question evolution, dozvolennost and legality of number of consecutive marriages.
  8. Chapter 2. Development of forms of litigation in the Moscow state in second half XVI - first half XVII centuries
  9. orthodox culture in the maintenance of formation of various types of the Russian school in second half XIX - beginnings HH centuries
  10. Table 37. Frequency characteristics of details of a funeral ceremony katakombnyh burial grounds of second half V - first half VIII centuries
  11. Table 38. Results of erroneous classification katakombnyh burial grounds of second half V - first half VIII centuries a method of the discriminant analysis
  12. MEZENTSEV YAROSLAV VLADIMIROVNA. PROBLEMS of FORMATION of the RUSSIAN SENSE of justice In TREATMENT of RUSSIAN LAWYERS of SECOND HALF XIX - the BEGINNINGS of the XX-th centuries (ISTORIKO-LEGAL ASPECT). The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. St.-Petersburg - 2004, 2004
  13. Chapter 2. The Legal regulation which was carried out in Russian empire concerning destructive religious associations in second half XIX centuries
  14. THE CHAPTER I. TEORETIKO-METHODOLOGICAL AND ISTORIKOPRAVOVAJA THE BASIS OF RESEARCH OF THE RUSSIAN CONSTITUTIONALISM OF SECOND HALF XIX - THE BEGINNINGS THE XX-TH CENTURIES
  15. CHAPTER 1. ORIGIN And DEVELOPMENT of the CATEGORY of the OFFENCE In WORKS of the RUSSIAN RESEARCHERS (SECOND HALF XVIII - the BEGINNING of XX CENTURIES)