Monday, 21 October 2019

About debts writing off in the ancient time

Andrew Stepanenko

June 29, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/06/blog-post_29.html>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

MICHAEL HUDSON’S REMARK
(https://emdrone.livejournal.com/300645.html)

Practice of debts writing off in the anniversary year has ancient roots. The word "anniversary" goes back to the bible term yovel, designating the fiftieth year when property debts were forgiven and debt slaves were released (Leviticus, 25:8-13). Similar traditions as C.Goodheart and M.Hudson mention in their article, existed in many Middle Eastern states - in Sumer, Assyria, Babylon. In agrarian societies, it was usual to take credits in the Temple (the Supreme religious organization) or from the governor, but in case of a poor harvest year, there was no possibility to pay them. In that case, the debtor either sold the property, or sold himself or a member of his family in slavery. However, those so-called agrarian debts - debts of households were forgiven in the anniversary year. Debts of merchants (investment), the result of commercial activity, were not written off.
Debts writing off occurred during the first millennium (BC).

RUSSIA. RESTRICTION OF THE LOAN IN A THREE-YEAR PERIOD
According to Vladimir's Charter, the collection of the borrowed money interest was strongly limited. The term of interest collection was limited to three years.
(© Pasynkov Alexander Sergeevich. “Usury Phenomenon”, Пасынков Александр Сергеевич. «Феномен ростовщичества»)

Why it was only three years? My not proved hypothesis: every fourth year there was debts writing off.

TORAH. ANNIVERSARY YEAR
(Retelling)
In our world, it is possible to transfer or sell the land to other people. Nevertheless, every 7th or 49th year, and the 50th year debts are written off - everything comes back again. The obligation to remit a debt periodically led to that people evaded from landing money to those in need with the approach of the Saturday year and anniversary year.

MY RECALCULATION
In my work, there are four variants of chronology reducing, and two of them have powerful justifications:
1) Transfer from the octal Roman calendar to the denary one without special efforts and without conspirology attraction transforms 12 months of a year into 15 years (indictum)
2) A Bible year is a synodic month of 29.53 days.
It is not excluded that both schemes were used: the Roman one - for the Roman history, the Judaic one - for the Judaic history.

We transform the terms of bible persons’ life into synodic months:
Adam's son Seth lived 912 years (76 years)
Enos - 905 years (75 years)
Cainan - 910 (76 years)
Mahalaleel - 895 (74 years)
Jered - 962 (80 years)

If so, the anniversary year came not in 49-50 years, but in 49-50 synodic months, that is, it is equal to 4 years. And, the usurer should start to write off the debt 2 weeks prior to the 4th years term (in a full moon) and finish all calculations two weeks later the 4th years term (in a full moon).

Why it was a 4 year period - as in Russia?
My answer: Judea (as well as Khazaria, related to it), Rome Empire (as well as the Byzantine Empire, related to it) and Russia used similar variants of the political system analogous to the Olympic 4 year period.

OLYMPIC FOUR-YEAR PERIOD
(The more detailed hypothesis)

THE SIZES OF ROMES
Each Rome consisted of a set of phratry-tribes standard for the union of tribes: 2, 4, 8, 12 and so on - more often it was 4 phratries with two leading ones. In the Byzantine Empire there were 4"circus" (that is, Olympic) political parties, leaders - Venets and Prasines. In Mexico, there were 4 of them, leaders – orders of the Jaguar and the Eagle.

PERIODICITY OF CHANGES
A married couple usually comes to crisis, when the child is 3 years old. At this age, the baby is able to eat him/herself, go to sleep, and hide if necessary. It is a biological signal identifying that if the pair does not match, it is time to part.

Change of governing parantelas is closely connected with repartition of regal women: a situation when the winner takes the wife of the previous governor is typical in the history of ruling families. There are tens of examples, and a 4 year period (there is a variant of a 5 year period) is biologically convenient.

CHANGE OF PARANTELAS
Change of governing parantela in a tribal society is necessity. There are a lot of ways to do it – stating from direct murder of all men of the senior parantela (there are some examples) finishing with sports games where the emperor who lost the game was sacrificed to gods. At first the sacrificing was natural (in archaic Rome and Aztecs’ Mexico), but then, probably, it became symbolical. I think, the emperor and all his parantela simply entered monasteries - after symbolical death for the world. They lived there not worse, than it was in liberty.

THE ROLE OF STADIUM (HIPPODROME)
There are three examples: the Mexican stadiums, the Roman stadiums (hippodromes) and competitions of the Turkic people: bajga (horse racing), kokpar, kazakhsha kures, kush synasu (powerlifting), kyz kuu (catch up with the girl).

The Turkic competition had a better original sense: to catch up with the girl meant to have a claim on her and if this girl was a princess, the victory was of great importance.

Aztecs following the results of a ball game sometimes sacrificed all lost command. Here again let’s remember that in Europe the seigneur could propose for a duel his knight-vassal instead of himself. Here we have a method to keep the power, rather backward and doubtfully masculine.

Historians of 19 century prescribed to the stadium games rather dishonorable role. The parties fighting for power were contemptuously named as circus, and regal matrons who determined power delegation – as circus prostitutes. Nobody was going to explain to us how prostitutes - one following another - became empresses of The Byzantine Empire. Successors of the Byzantine Empire should believe that their regal foremothers were all dirty whores.

In practice, it was the trial by ordeal, which took place at stadiums.

THE FRENCH VARIANT
In 1811 in France fights of two parties still passed in cities: the Black God and the White God (that ceremony was called "kazachi"). They fought fiercely, there were victims, but the aim was not murder, but certain not named symbolical act (I think, raising of the idol on the stipulated place). It granted the won party the right to administer the city all next year. So it was something of the kind of municipality elections.

Therefore, it was legally the trial by ordeal too.

RUSSIA
Who knows what role fisticuffs played in the life of the Russian village? It is clear that later it became just daring display, but the background of the ceremony was definitely was of greater importance.

FIGHTS OF GLADIATORS
I managed to find one distinct explanation of the essence of the matter. The fight was between men who had not solved the conflict (in particular, for property) by some other way. Men always had that right. The situation of fights of the dead mister’s slaves was widespread, - the destiny of succession laws, in this case, the debt dared. I will remind that the slave in Rome kept legal capacity in full, and in civil sense was more equal to any free. And here in a disputable case the slave had the right to throw down a challenge. It is clear that wishing to change the destiny force always were.

Moreover, it was too - legally - the trial by ordeal.

We have a created picture, where in the past all were slaves from the top to the bottom – though particularly at stadiums all were men from the top to the bottom.

THE ROMAN POWER
The main information for the Roman emperors was as follows: the power was given for a year. My interpretation: following the results of Olympic Games, four representatives of four phratries of new parantelas came to the power. They were formally equal between themselves, but there was a phratry-champion, and there were those who had come to the finish at Games later. In this order, they also should take the power: the champion - the first year, the silver prize-winner - the second year, etc.

In four years, the situation repeated, but that time the dominating parantela defended from claims of а younger parantela.

SENSE OF SUPERIORITY
The sense of the victory at the Olympic Games was enormous. In the first year, all debts were forgiven, and that phratry that started to rule in the first year was in huge honor. By the fourth year problems accumulated, and the last emperor, first of all, got all those problems.

SENSE OF DEBTS WRITING OFF
Merchant debts were liquid, therefore nobody wrote off anything to merchants - neither in Rome, nor in Judea, nor in Russia. Peasants’ debts were a more difficult case. If the village could not repay a debt three years running, that household was unprofitable. Sure, it was possible to take the village into bondage, but as a result, it was the same as to take on balance an unprofitable collective farm.

I will remind that all questions of the property repartition are solved in a tribal society through becoming related with each other. However, if you have become related with someone, you are responsible for this person, and according to the Customer Law, any of your new relatives can ask you to give them money, for example, to pay off the penalty for murder. Moreover, it is impossible to refuse. In addition, if the village starves, it is necessary to feed related people. To reconcile to losses and to write off a debt is much more reasonable.

ONE MORE SENSE
When the Olympic Games passed, the power changed. The former emperor was from phratry № 4, and then - from phratry № 2. Moreover, a new parantela came to the power; it displaced the previous one by force (victory) and was unwilling to take obligations of that previous one. So, the main thing was that to bear responsibility for the affairs of a former the power cohort was legally impossible: phratry № 2 had no right to answer for obligations of phratry № 4.

CONFIRMATION: THE WRITE-OFF CONDITION WAS POWER CHANGE
Let’s see what Michael Hudson spoke. “Herodotos wrote about debts writing off in Babylonia. It was a solid tradition in the Near East that a new governor, acceding to the throne, cancelled farmers’ debts”.

The hypothesis has harmoniously grown together with the real historical texture.

TWO TYPES OF DEBTS
If the debt was internal, the tribe-phratry borrowed crops in the central warehouse of the union of tribes, so the debt write-off was a normal part of their life: everyone could suffer from poor harvest. The Torah described exactly the same scheme; sure, for the period of indebtedness the tribe leaves got under external management of the Temple, it was both humane and reasonable. Historians named it slavery, but it was, more likely, like help of strong managers to weak managers.

Such internal debts are fixed in the Rus’ Justice.
The CITATION:... If the usurer lent 10 grivnas, one “third slice” was equal to 5 grivnas. Taking from the debtor “two slices” - 10 grivnas, the creditor had the right to collect and the basic amount of debt - 10 grivnas. Having collected from the debtor “three slices” (5+5+5), the usurer lost the right to collect the basic amount of debt. (© Пасынков Александр Сергеевич. «Феномен ростовщичества». Pasynkov Alexander Sergeevich. “Usury Phenomenon”)

In practice, here we have a liberty admitted by a historian Tikhomirov that the third slice was taken in 4 months’ time (the third of a year). Now the third slice is called as annual and if so, three third slices were exactly equal to the restriction imposed by Vladimir - only three years interest payments. That is, the usurer lent 100 %, and returned maximum 60 %. The solution is simple: in the Rus’ Justice the mechanism of intertribal mutual aid is described, instead of the modern credit. It was necessary to take interest payments, to keep the debtor in tonus, but nobody would bleed him white. Because he was the related person. He would pay off with other currency - with his fidelity.

The second variant of indebtedness was external when the union of tribes borrowed money from other breeding union. That variant of indebtedness went according to the merchant scheme, and it would hardly be written off. However, it is clear that usurers were not involved in that process; it was foreign policy - sometimes successful, sometimes not.

REVALUATION OF THE PEASANTRY PLACE 
So, it was hardly possible to enslave the peasantry. A solid village would pay off, and nobody would take a weak one on balance. Capitalists (so named bankers and usurers) in the middle of 19 century declared: “the earth as pledge is not suitable; for us, the earth is illiquid”.


Worse than that, until 1848-1853 patrimony (and it was 99 % of real estate property) was inalienable. Legal rates for alienation had not been developed yet. Therefore neither the lands and nor peasants were sold, but the feudal rights of landowners to the lands and peasants appeared at the market. In particular, the right to collect the tithe (speaking about Europe), so that right was already liquid.

Therefore when, quoting Lozinsky, I say that Churches had the third of Europe population was in slavery, it is inexact. Sure, peasants were not free, but the Church gave loans not to peasants, but to their landowners, and demanded interest payment not from peasants, but from their landowners, and - accordingly - whom did it enslave? Those who were released by Catherine II synchronously with secularization of the church property – the noblemen.

The Georgian historians exactly wrote: in 1833 our noblemen were released from serfdom. The Danish historians exactly wrote: until 1850s, our noblemen were obliged to the seigneurs with the corvee - that is, personal labor for the seigneur: to hand him socks in the morning, to wash his ass, to bring a horse.

CHURCH CRISIS
Nevertheless, the reform of civil legal rights took place with Christianity introduction.
The ancient Roman concept "libertine" totally disappeared; the enslaving with the Church appearance became eternal. To capture the third of that time world resources was the fact that neither Jewish, nor pagan usurers had never dreamed about.

The revolution reason could be only one, and it was complex: cancellation of the power rotation at the Olympic Games, and accordingly, establishment of irremovability and continuity of power when there was no sense to write off debts. With disappearance of regular change of the tribal elite, the legal impossibility to continue to charge interest for the debt vanished as well .

ST. GEORGE’S DAY. THE NEW VIEW
St. George’s day was waited for, as it was godsend. St. George’s day is an exact analogue of the Jewish Anniversary Year and the Roman Saturnalia when with coming to the supreme power of a new parantela, all old debts were written off. Moreover, it was clear that a new boss came to each village - one of younger relatives of the new emperor.

THE BASIC IDEA
Cancellation of St. George’s day was a consequence of the monarchy birth as a management principle. The power rotation stopped; there appeared a possibility for unlimited interest charge for the debt, which was previously restricted to 4-7 years, which meant termless servitude.

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Law of succession. Basic

Andrew Stepanenko

June 20, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/06/blog-post_20.html>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

This is a short piece of text, but it is the central point in the history.

Source:
https://lib.sale/pravo-grajdanskoe-uchebnik/osobyie-poryadki-nasledstva-nasledovanie-47524.html

The inheritance of peasants is determined according to their customs. IX т., Особ. прил., Общ. крест. пол. 38. Пол. Вык. 166. Местн. Велик. 110. Местн. Малор. 93. Местн. Закавк., ст. 81. Местн. Бессар., ст. 36.The rule is applied irrespective of, whether the inheritance is a part of the peasant plot or other property and whether the inheritance case is in the volost or general courts.

MY COMMENT: in 1828-1856 in Russia 91 % of the population were peasants. The same was both in Europe, and in colonies, except for cities-ports. So that 91 % of the population followed the law, fixed nowhere, with rare exception, being not related to the city law. Lawyers de facto in general bypass this question and it is the right decision, - the village followed ancient laws like Lex Salica and Rus’ Justice of 11th century origin. In the middle of 19th century of the village did not need any changes – their life was the same as 800 years ago.

I mean that the English case law in colonies (including the USA) could be valid only in case of large trading companies. In remote places the developed forms of law were useless: a microscope and a calliper in a rural blacksmith shop were of no use.

THE BASIC IDEA
I declare: at least until 1848 the rural Customer Law worked for 90 % of the world population and thus had nothing in common to the law forms dominating in modern history textbooks.

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, 8 October 2019

Common law in the USA

Andrew Stepanenko
June 15, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/06/blog-post.html>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

THE NORWEGIAN COUNTS AND SHERIFFS
In Norwegian, a sheriff means lensmann - the vassal who received the land area (fee) from his lord - the owner of the land. Together with fee lensmann also received landowner (seigneural, patrimonial) judicial authority over the peasants living at the fee, that is, he became a sheriff. The lensmann also carried out the functions of the notary, solved hereditary problems. His lord – lensherre - stood a step higher than the lensmann.
Therefore, when we see that sheriffs in England or the USA had unusually great powers, there is the reason to think that here we have an English variant of lensmann - the vassal of the lord.
The Norwegian Wikipedia directly names its lensmanns (functionally they were landowners) as farmers that is when in 1848, the decision to release the farmers was taken, and some translated them as "peasants", it was incorrect: in 1848, the farmers were released from the vassal dependence in Europe, that is, lensmanns, or landowners.

NEW MEANINGS
Now a lensmann is often the synonym of a police officer (however, as well as the second synonym of lensmann - a sheriff), - but both words have acquired new senses. I will present an example from Russian Wikipedia. Lensmann (Finnish nimismies, Swedish länsman, Norwegian lensmann) - an executive police rank in the countryside of Finland, Norway and Sweden, similar to a district police superintendent in pre-revolutionary Russia.
***
Here we must ask a question who was a district police superintendent before the peasant reform, - perhaps, the same as a lensmann or a sheriff?

THE PEASANT-GENTLEMAN
There was one more category - a peasant-gentleman, bondelensmann. He was the representative of the sheriff (lensmann) in a crain village, and his name consists of two parts: bond + lensmann. Google offered one more name for this - a Bond Sheriff. I think that is a village head.

RENAMING
In 1662 (obviously, in connecon with the flooding of Brighton in 1665 and transgression of the Caspian Sea in 1669) there was a sharp concentration of power at the king level, and the Norwegian fee (len) was renamed into a county (amt), and lensmanns (sheriffs) became amtmanns, which is translated as district police officers. The difference of amtmann from lensmann: amtmann’s lord was not lensherr, but the king.
During this period, a similar resolution passed in the USA: in 1663, England quickly enacted new legislation in colonies.

THE RESUME: WHAT IS WHAT IN NORWAY
The county (district) is yesterday's vassal fee
The count is the yesterday's sheriff whose lord became the king
The sheriff it lensmann, the vassal of lensherr (the lord, but not the king)

COMMON LAW AND CUSTOMER LAW
I declare that in the law history there is a basic legal mistake that is perfectly clear in the history of England and the USA. There are two major kinds of law:
Common Law - case law, based on the custom
Customer Law – communal law, similar to Lex Salica and Rus’ Justice)
There is also a problem: the same definitions – custom - for both terms – Common and Custom. Historical evidences specify that both these laws (Common Law and Customer Law) mean the same in different sources: customer law.

ARGUMENT
Source: The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers. The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States. By George Painter. © Copyright, George Painter 1991-2002.
The author repeatedly specifies that in the common law of England acting in states, death was the only punishment for a variety of serious “civil crimes” (common-law crime). The reason: due to communal character of the law imprisonment as punishment is impossible in a community: nobody would feed the criminal free of charge. Chains cost as three sickles, and it was a very big sum of money. Therefore, the criminal passed through a ceremony of symbolical death (borrowed by cities as civil execution) and went wherever he/she liked. Formally, from the moment of end of the ceremony, the criminal was dead, and if the father and brothers of the victim decided to take revenge over the "dead person", nobody would not say a word against that.

THE MEANING OF THE CEREMONY
The patrimonial society had developed the ceremonial part of the legislation to perfection.
It was possible to adopt symbolically, and the person would become a relative to the necessary degree of relationship.
It was possible to expel symbolically from the family, and the person would loose all rights, and obligations.
It was possible to conduct a wedding ceremony, and both spouses would find a new legal status.
It was possible to conduct a divorce ceremony, and it would work too.
It was also possible to pass a person through symbolical death and then he/she would totally cease to exist in the opinion of the law.
Now I strongly believe that violence in patrimonial structures was strictly regulated, and everywhere where it was possible, it was substituted for a suitable ceremony. A number of circumstances specifies in it, for example, that, as nowadays for many primitive tribes exile is a supreme penalty. There is nothing worse than this. The reason is obvious: spill blood, and all relatives of the killed one will remember it, and the world in the community will end.
The same is in modern army and prison: all compulsions have a lot of violence, however a great part of them are strictly regulated and carried out according to this or that rule of the unwritten internal law. Moreover, some part of acts is deeply symbolical: the old-timer is beat with a metal plate on his bottom through a pillow, and this metal plate is definitely symbol of a much more ancient and cruel custom.
It is necessary to remember the custom to avoid punishment by touching the altar horns... "And the altar will be a great relic: everyone touching the altar will be consecrated" (Exodus 29:37). This rule of disposal of punishment was sometimes broken, but the main question is what for the society introduce this rule? The answer is simple: to avoid the direct violence breaking balance in a community. The person passed a ceremony of self-sacrifice and, most likely, automatically got into the group of those who were subordinated to the Temple rules.
If it is so, even the ancient Roman custom to kill the emperor following the results of the lost Olympic Games is most likely symbolical. Men of senior parantela simply passed through a ceremony of symbolical death and altogether transferred to a monastery, handing over their wives together with power rights to the replacing them parantela. Single violence is admissible and is even necessary, but when violence acquires some system character, it is necessary to substitute it for a suitable ceremony. In such cases the power, in ancient Roman as well, was most interested in the ceremonialism transforming direct violence into a symbol.
Annalistic tsars executed people in a bulk, with the most perverted methods but how much is it authentic and lawful? Not at all. “If an abbey has a suit in royal court, - the English feud agreement said, - his vassal will take his side even against the king”. Whence is such impudence? But it was not impudence; it was the law. According to this law to behead a criminal not expelled from the family meant to receive immediate reciprocal vendetta. Nevertheless, if the criminal was expelled from the family (or redeemed, having paid a huge penalty), the need in punishment disappeared.
Pay attention that real wars of the past often contained a genocide element, and the reason is obvious: if the number of deaths exceeds possibilities of penalties repayment, it is possible to finish the conflict only with total annihilation of the opponent. Therefore, there is only solidary responsibility at this level of development.

THE SECOND ARGUMENT
In the history of the USA sodomy was execute since 1610, but neither sentences, but we can see no executions or a very long time – they are physically absent. The first (removed for the schedule) case was in 1810. Stable growth of number of events began since 1861, that is, for 250 years the law had been paralyzed.
By the way, the same gap of about 250 years we see in the chronology of geographical discoveries.


They write that courts did not conduct shorthand, so there are no data, and it is truth: until 1848 all courts in the world were courts of seigneurs or senior relatives over younger ones. They acted basing on the customer law – like Lex Salica and Rus’ Justice – so they did not need verbatim records for their heads. I will give some exact descriptions.

1857, Mormon State of Utah. The man was castrated for a sexual crime with the consent of the president LDS Brigham Young.
In 1859 in Utah there were also two castrations for sodomy.
In 1864 in Utah the military man was convicted in sodomy, however he was released and almost immediately killed, most probably by the father of the victim. There were no witnesses of the murder.
As a whole, there are no documents concerning death penalty for sodomy in the State of Utah. The problems were solved in a simple way - without documents.

Tragicomic cases happened as well. In 1857 in the same State of Utah, a military man copulated with a horse, was sentenced to death, but pardoned. As a result, only the horse was shot, - justice should work. It was real understanding of justice in the USA states in the middle of 19 century; it is necessary to understand that Mormons of the State of Utah were not the worst, but one of the best life-organized community.

All these are facts, and only so it should occur. There was a count, he had a network of villages managed by vassals-sheriffs, the law was strictly communal, and the village would not understand and accept something different. The level of the count court solved only affairs concerning conflicts between the communities and sheriffs, and the state level court - only conflicts between counts or villages belonging to different counts.

Documents are absent in states archives not because there were no local events, but because local problems were not solved at the state level. The village solved itself, who should live, who should die, and who should be exiled. The main reason for such situation: until the “Spring of Nations” of 1848, which resulted in appearance of vast territories of lands for redemption, the Supreme authorities had neither power, nor budgets to control the village. The power technically was not capable to control the village.

THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT
The myth about a human civilization before the middle of 19 century was finally created, in fact, it was life of approximately 9 % of the population, - and the village could not support more. Those 9 % of the literate population also created a myth about the Golden Age - de facto, about themselves. Townspeople described reluctantly the life of 91 % of the population feeding them. The reason: each of them desperately was afraid to touch the world where there were no rains, it was necessary either to bury an old woman alive or dead children. All of them remembered it, because they came therefrom. As all of us did.

SODOMY IN AMERICA
In Europe, as the result secularization the world was flooded with people used to live in a unisex society but not a bisexual one. It became a serious social problem, and retaliatory measures in relation to sodomites were a part of the state policy. In the North America, there were no monasteries, and the laws against sodomy remained formal.

I will show two schedules. It is a general picture, and it is clear that everything that was earlier 1770s was artificially rejected in the past.


And now we will consider a situation more detailed. Yellow colour - radical legal reforms, red colour - the first punishments for sodomy in different states. It is good to see that more or less rhythmically punishments happened after 1861, and became the most dense - approximately since 1883.


The reason is simple: the power found budgets and forces and for the first time got interested in the liquidation of "brotherhoods" mixed up on homosexual homage. The article for sodomy was a hook allowing to disorganize such brotherhoods, in case it would overstep the permitted bounds. Judging by a long absence of real sentences, in the USA such brotherhoods did not much disturb anybody. In fact, when financial capital got the next batch of assets, a new series of mortgages began, and the thesis about struggle against sodomy emerged again.

ABOUT DEATH PENALTY
Practically in all cases, death penalty for sodomy is absolutely illusory. The lawyers had the following logic: the State of Iowa borrowed the code from the State of Wisconsin, which received the code from the State of Michigan which received the code from England where the Common Law crime acted, so there was the case law. As there were death penalty precedents for sodomy in England, this law should be extended to the State of Iowa as well.
This logic leads to a conclusion that death penalty for sodomy was introduced even in 1864, thus even in 1910 judges regularly became in deadlock in elementary questions and discussed, for example, whether the onanism was sodomy from the law position.


In the history of the USA, there is about ten bright descriptions of executions, but these cases are rare, and they happened mainly in 1660s. These evidences look like forgery: not a single copy of the statute book remained in states during the given historical periods and here we see so bright and isolated evidences.

There is a typical situation when the law was based only on the Book of Leviticus. That is, if there had not been that book, there would not have been any struggle against sodomy consecrated with its authority. That is, we again see the hands of financial capital, which corrected the Writing since 18 century as it was required for society reforming.

COMMON LAW IN AMERICA
Sometimes states refused English Common Law, sometimes punished for sodomy by death in the consent with the Common Law, and sometimes imprisoned a criminal - in the consent with the Common Law as well.


The standard situation was when the state took the law from England – together with the embedded but directly not mentioned death penalty for sodomy, and later replaced it for imprisonment. It occurred 14 times in different states from 1787 to 1864 - without any accounting legal experience of their predecessors. It was possible, if the English Common Law was implemented in the past artificially, stereotypically and without any connection with the historical reality. If so, the English General (Case) Law changed the local Customer (Communal) Law so that the past looked more civilized, more prestigious.

THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE
In 1915, at last, facing the question, whether the civil law of the State of Vermont had precedents of the English court interpreting the Common Law, the Supreme Court of the State of Vermont declared “no” in the In Re Hilton.

The State of Vermont in 1782 accepted not only the Common Law, but also all legal acts accepted by the Parliament of England until October, 1st, 1760 which included also the Elisabeth’ sodomy law of 1562. Then in 1915, the Supreme Court of the State of Vermont suddenly admitted that it did not receive the precedents of the English Court interpreting the common law. To judge basing on the English Common Law for 133 years, without considering the precedents of the Common Law, which appeared to be absent at all ... It calls a lot into question.

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, 4 October 2019

Gender as a marker of changes

Andrew Stepanenko
June 11, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/06/9.html>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

LGBT SOURCES 
The first source is biological. If you have read the chapter “Submission Ritual”, this pair of short paragraphs will be enough. The gene of paederasty does not exist, but there is the excessive sexuality, which is inherent in primacies, closely connected with the public status and a power struggle. The higher status the person has, the better personal sexual choice he/she has. The lower status the person has, the more imposed roles he/she has, including sexual.
As a result, even nowadays some tribes keep male tribesmen in submission through ritual copulation or its imitation. Right now, there are tribes where each child passes through it, and power change is accompanied with destruction or lowering in the status (with the same method) of all prepotent men.
***
The second source is demographic. In chronically starving communities some part of girls are killed, in chronically satiated communities some part of guys are isolated from women, and in both cases there is a disbalance between genders. The result is known: the forced unisex sex. At late stages when demography was already regulated by means of monasteries, such relations found force in the customs. The best example: mixed up on unisex sex homage in The Order of Knights Templars.
Today unisex relations is a socially significant phenomenon only in hierarchical, compulsorily isolated unisex communities. Prisons, the USA fleet, monasteries - all these communities are unisex and closed, and, as consequence, are internally force-based organizations. The nature regards absence of sex with an opposite sex as an important argument for aggressive behavior, selecting a way to unwind.
***
LGBT outside of the barbed wire or the isolated African tribe is, from my point of view, an unresolved acute psychological problem of a person, or refusal from the struggle for the opposite sex, or being stuck in a condition of struggle against his/her own gender. Actives and passives find each other not because they prefer their own gender, but because both groups have psychologically not developed to have relationship with the opposite sex. It is, actually, a certain display of infantilism. The extreme manifestation of this problem is fetishism when the person does not dare to have sexual relationship at all.

LGBT IN THE HISTORY
Our history is really need of scientific estimation of paederasty as a norm of a monastic and army way of life and as an integral part of the tribal (feudal) type power arrangement. By the way, ethnographers have already had this estimation for a long time.

SECULARIZATION AND THE PAEDERASTY PROHIBITION
Before the secularization act (which was the third of property in Europe) it was impossible to punish monasteries for paederasty. There were two reasons: 1) it was impossible to punish the third of population, 2) homage (which was always only unisex in the monastic communities) before the act of freedom giving was a legal rule.
Secularization flooded the world with former monastic workers of both sexes, and there were no for them any other way to survive than to rent or redeem a piece of the former monastic lands. Financial capital understood it, and it was expected that men and women would move an ordinary way of marriages and family making.
***
However, there were a number of negative circumstances:
1). Those men and women remembered also series of hungry years, and acts of cannibalism – in the outer world, behind the walls, and that they survived, first of all, just because they didn’t need to feed children;
2). Those men and women got used to unisex relation during 20-30 years of life in monasteries - with all its displays;
3). Those men and women had their own leaders and the government structures for keeping of the internal order, realizing perfectly well that in case of marriages, their power would fall down;
***
I believe, just at this moment there appeared communities of skoptsi and other sects who tractated the Writing in a habitual way due to the years of monastery life: the sin is a way to the hell, and it is better to remain unmarried. The power which created this thesis in days of hunger and made that third of population get into monasteries and gave them a chance to survive at least, finally had to face its own creation.
***
Here - not earlier and not later – the struggle against unisex relations begun, first of all, with male ones. Monks had to be made husbands.
***
The problem was enormously great. The term “secularization” is usual slightly mentioned, without any details, and that fact that the world was flooded with the people (they constituted the third part of total population in Europe) thrown out unready for social life, is usually kept silent. There is also no scientific evidence that these people were brought up in the unisex world. Here again is the case when scabrousness is inappropriate. Secularization was not the church tragedy; it was a tragedy of universal character. Moreover, it is necessary to understand: the government (and civilization) had no other way out of the situation, except to force to refusal from unisex relations at that time.
***
In Russia (under the influence of the German laws), Poland and Britain the real struggle against homosexuality started in 1835. In my opinion, it is the earliest date from all possible ones: such legal acts could be introduced later, but never earlier. In Europe the antithesis to this date were France and Holland where the unisex relationship was permitted long time ago without any connection with economy, but personally I do not believe these evidences.
***

LGBT REJECTION
The real necessity for punishments for “not standard” sexual orientation disappeared, maximum, by 1932 when the basic land payments came to the end. However the nervous relation to LGBT will always remain. The reason: biologically, from the level of primacies, LGBT it is a signal of the gender disbalance or the period of power change among large males. Both of them are the strongest irritating factor.

GENDER. GENERAL STATISTICS
It is a general picture. There are1757 evidences about 24 versions of gender relations. Until 1500 these are mostly homosexual facts: like stories about Alexander the Great who loved his gay friends, etc., but the political and economic analysis is absent, just bélles-léttres stories.


Only in 1768 we see a true development: the first attempt to suppress polygamists. The official data specify that gender relations come into the crisis (change of the matrilineal inheritance to the patrilineal one) mainly in the interval 1834-1917 and a year before.


And here we see certain important details: married women start to get the rights in the external, in relation to her family, world of men. We will discuss these rights more detailed later, and now just note: the period 1834-1883 is the period of the basic changes.


Here is the list of these rights in the order they appeared (all this information is found out by feminists, - thanks them a lot, - therefore, the data are mostly from the USA).
Red: Married women got the right to possess their property on their own behalf (but not to manage it)
Dark blue: Married women got the right to possess and dispose their property on their own behalf in case the spouse was disabled
Yellow: Married women were granted with their separate economy
Black: Married women got the control over their earnings
Blue: Married women got trading licenses
Green: Married women got legal majority

MY COMMENTS:
At first here is a general deal. The female power pyramid managed the internal policy of communities, and the contacts outside (usually trading and military) were men’s duties. After some series of hunger the value of external contacts greatly increased, - it was required to take loans, for example, with sowing material. When time of loan payments (and a bit later – of the debts redemption) came, quite naturally only men were the people (in the legal sense) who visited city courts and municipalities.

SPECIFICATION
To be exact, not men as representatives of the female gender were personalities in the eyes of the law, but the communities of men like: guilds, shops, orders and, in particular, mentioned in the Byzantine history fractions of land aristocrats. Therefore, it is impossible to say that certain rights were taken away from women; female had no rights in trading-financial communities as this sphere initially belonged to men. The reason: traditional sexual segregation of the tribal (later feudal) way of life: female duties were tabooed for men and vice versa.

RED MARKER
However, the woman was an individual on her lands, and of the USA courts just confirmed the right of the woman to own their property on their own behalf. Historians regularly remind that up to the middle of 19 century and even later almost all immovable property officially belonged to women. It was a natural relict of the patrimonial way of life. However, besides, the external world laws dealt with one person – a man.

DARK BLUE MARKER
In 1718-1881 (mainly in 1835-1852) married women got the right to own and dispose their property on their own behalf in case the spouse was disabled.

ACTIVE CAPACITY
The person can be limited in active capacity if his/her actions put his/her family in a heavy financial position, but the main thing, active capacity of an organization or a citizen is limited during insolvency proceedings.
It is very likely that the USA endured a series of great bankruptcies, and there was a situation when the man could not make legal acts on his own behalf. Still someone had to manage the manor, so the signature authorization was transferred to lawful proprietresses of manors - to women.

YELLOW, BLACK, BLUE MARKERS
Married women were granted with their separate economy
Married women got the control over their earnings
Married women got trading licenses

They are derivative of the previous point. They chronologically appeared in the same period. It is clear, if the woman signed papers about crop sale, she also had to possess the license for the trade right, the separate from her bankrupt husband budget, and the control over the incomes. Women entered the world of civil laws not because someone felt pity of them, or they achieved something, but it happened because of the financial system collapse and the need of this system in new pouring of assets. Here is the trouble - these real assets were in the ownership of women at that time.

GREEN MARKER - THE BASIC ONE
Married women got legal majority. It means that wives come out of guardianship of their husband and become individuals in the eyes of the law. Financial capital understood that money from female hands worked by the same rules, as money from men's hands.
Only now it was possible to put a question concerning the right to divorce, the right to education (and need in it), the right to get a profession and even the right to ballot. If there were liquid assets, so the rights appeared. Besides, the source of changes was not pity, not struggle, but the requirement of the financial capital for the assets to move.


This group of changes began in 1848, and this date seems to me correct.

LGBT POLITICAL ESTIMATION 
The historical background is greatly distorted – by all parties. LGBT is neither illness nor a norm; it is a signal about trouble in the society, closely connected with violence, power struggle and possibility to support a family. To prohibit LGBT is the same as to prohibit divorces; it is a way to mental trouble in the society. To encourage LGBT is the same as to encourage divorces - with the same great negative consequences.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
The main thing that has cleared up, is the connection of secularization, flooding of the world with people with unisex orientation and great need of economy in returning these people in the world of bisexual relations (even when some part of communities, referring to the embedded in them understanding of the Writing, continued their line of family refusal).

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, 1 October 2019

Great Social Revolution of 1848

Andrew Stepanenko
June 07, 2019 <https://scan1707.blogspot.com/2019/06/8.html>

Translated by Berenkova Violetta Michailovna

Discourse about the replacement of feudal legal norm with bourgeois norms.

CORRECT DATING
In China slavery abolition and peasantry liberation happened in 221-206 BC, however the blind trust to such evidences is inappropriate. In practice, the most events, characteristic for the end of the feudalism epoch took place in 1848-1869. Only the “Spring of Nations” in 1848 raised the question about change of legal bases for the first time.


Thus, Russia did not stay behind – neither for 300 years, even nor for 20. Moreover, Austria which had already twice released the serfs, in 1862 still observes the act of serfs liberation in Russia with horror.


Land-owning aristocracy of all part of Austria were worried with the peasantry reform being prepared and carried out in Russia at that time (1859-1862). Austrian reactionary circles loudly argued about revolutionary but not historical” character of the Russian reform and were greatly afraid of total and free of charge liquidation of feudal survivals kept in Austria after 1848.

Taking into consideration that the last Czech knights-vassals - in the most developed region of Europe - got freedom only in 1869, it is not surprising. The process had not come to the end yet, and last trial of the nobleman who had performed his feudal seigneur’s right, happened in 1875.

MAIN ANTI-FEUDAL REFORMS
1. Abolition of inalienability of patrimony
2. Abolition of patrimonial courts
3. Abolition of personal dependence without redemption
4. Abolition of feudal duties (corvee, tithe) for redemption

Not specified:
1. Abolition of the seigneur’s right (composers got embarrassed)
2. Abolition matrilinial status inheritance (it directly concerns succession to the throne that is why it was entirely removed from the history)
3. Change of the order of property inheritance from matrilinial to patrilineal
4. Polygamy prohibition
5. Cancelation of such inheritance form as nepotism - from the uncle to the nephew

In practice, only the basic social changes constituted the list of more than forty positions. We will also go directly to the points - in the real order of importance.

MATRILINIAL DOCTRINE
In matrilinial relations owing to the old Roman doctrine Partus sequitur ventrem the child inherits the mother’s status. It is classical matriarchy, and in 1662 it reigned not only in Virginia, but also in other states. It means that in 1662 in the North America still there were no translations of the Old Testament corrected from the patriarchal positions. It not an idle statement; protests about new translations were fixed by Llorente.

PATRILINEAL DOCTRINE
The patrilineal doctrine is legally fixed in “Liberties of nobility” of 1785: the nobleman transferred the nobility to his children … the noblewoman … did not transfer their nobility … to her husband and children. It is the direct opposite to the ancient Roman doctrine Partus sequitur ventrem, valid in America, at least, till 1662. It is important that the new doctrine was directly connected with the granted liberties to nobility.

DATING OF DOCTRINES CHANGE
The Old Testament, persistently promoting patriarchy, is impregnated with the matriarchal society organization. It is necessary to search for change of translation of the Old Testament in connection with polygamy prohibition and matriarchy remainders.
1768 Scotland. James Watt got Glasgow citizenship thanks to his marriage
1768 Spain. Inquisitors tried to take hold of processes of polygamy cases
1769 Russia. All copies of the Old Testament were ordered to be destroyed
1771 Spain. Inquisitors took hold of processes of polygamy cases
It is also possible to date later terms; the main idea here is logic coherence of the events.

MATRILINIAL PROPERTY INHERITANCE
Inheritresses of the woman - her daughters, inheritors of the man - nephews, children of his uterine sisters. James Watt was introduced into the science world by his uncle in 1750. Transfer of the Holy See from the uncle to his nephew existed until Napoleon's intrusion into Rome, that is, till 1798. To Vsevolod Alekseevich Vsevolozhskiy (the Rjurikovs’ family) bequeathed all his wealth to his nephew in 1796. Yevgeny Onegin came into a fortune from the uncle (instead of his father) n about 1819. Up to the middle of 19 century, the dowry was inviolable: the father and the husband of the woman managed it, but it was not in their full dispose.

PATRILINEAL PROPERTY INHERITANCE
The distinct evidences specifying on patrilinial character of inheritance, are closely connected with giving liberties to nobility and the redemption of feudal duties in the middle of 19 century.

MAN'S PROPERTY
In tribal communities the male and female property is mutually tabooed, and the situation developed in such a way so that the real estate (the house and lands) are mainly female and movable are mainly male. Both types of property are inherited matrilinially, but man's one, transferred from the uncle to the nephew, is liquid, alienated, that is why it rarer becomes the crediting subject. As a result, the man's property did almost not get to usurious schemes and the cattle in Russia Concerning draft animals the landowner depended on peasants, as peasants depended from the landowner in the question of the land.
Pay attention, feudalism was known in fishing and cattle tribal communities, and redemption operation - not. The reason: boats and cattle were man's property.

REASON OF THE TITHE WAR OF 1832
The war happened in Britain when the authorities encroached not only on the tenth part of crop, but also on the tenth of livestock. In the considered above scheme of relations all is clear: cattle is man's property separated from the female part, which was pledged - the lands.

FEMALE PROPERTY
The main thing in female property (land, constructions) is that it needs attraction of resources from the outside. It is the basic moment. The land requires working hands, draft animals, and sowing material in lean years as well. Moreover, the owner of land is doomed to bear losses every lean year while the owner of movable liquid resources, following the conjuncture, flexibly changes the policy and regularly benefits even in case of the fiercest hunger. In such situation, the land was simply obliged to follow the personal estate status.

INALIENABILITY
The inalienability of patrimony was the main obstacle in the capitalism way. The father had no right to waste the dowry of the daughter. The husband could not redeem his loss by sale of his wife’s house. The creditor could not withdraw the land from the run into debt community. The patrimonial right did not contain self-destruction procedure that is why it was possible to transfer fixed capital only together with souls.
Thus, there was need in repartition of fixed capital; operations were just carried out under the existing legal norms. Werner von Bolland was the vassal of 43 various sovereigns from whom he received more than 500 fees, including 15 counties, and himself, in turn, had more than 100 vassals. In practice, alienation and rotation of fixed capital took place, but had some veiled character.

INALIENABILITY CRISIS
The main gravedigger of the out-of-date rules is crisis. Each economic collapse in the history generates repartition, but in a case with tribal system, such repartition meant rearrangement of marriages, and repartition of statuses of already born noble posterities. As a rule, the emperor castrates tens princes, depriving their right to the power, then the sultan already castrates three hundreds princes, but then repartition happens in Europe, and it was hundred thousands of small and large fees.
In 1833 in Russia there were 127103 owners of people, that is, in Europe - more than 500 thousand total, and in the existing matrilinial system it meant several millions applicants for the power. It was necessary to break the link between matrilinial relationship and formal rights.

LEADERS OF REFORMS
Synchronously there were two hierarchies: patrimonial and financial and economic, imposed on the first one from the top, however, it was arranged according to patrimonial rules. In the Church sphere, these two pyramids confidently coincided: monasteries were also the largest usurers of that epoch, and, simultaneously, objects of the feudal property. In the situation of several series of hungry years, followed by transition of the third of the property to the Church and the legal right of a monastery to prohibit marriages (this was a really important advantage) the Church could successfully dictate its prices to the other two thirds.

SLAVERY AS DEADLOCK
The word combination "God's servant" definitely had a literal sense, however termless enslaving created a new problem: stably unprofitable agricultural industry ruled by financiers threatened to collapse the system. Monasteries confidently managed such large social spheres as medicine and formation, but nobody could accept for support 95 % of chronically starving population. Slaves on continuing basis were an unprofitable sector from the first day of enslavement.

THE REDEMPTION LOAN AS A TYPICAL SCHEME
The usurer who has received pledge (people and their inalienable lands) does not hold it, and will try to sell it off somehow. To give all it to the redemption via the loan is an expected method of realization, just because this method is typical.

PYRAMID OF DEBTS
The debtor was not only the peasant, but also the majority of those who were above him. Each businessman owed to his seigneur and demanded debts from his vassals. The redemption scheme was necessary not only to vassals who were the bottom link above peasants; in this pyramid, everyone paid off from the mister. Class obstacles did not exist: peasants could redeem themselves as well - if there was money to pay and understanding how it worked. As a result, the redeemed person became the full legal owner of those who were under him. For example, the head of the family became the legal mister for his wife and children - for the first time.

INALIENABILITY LIQUIDATION
The debt together with pledge could be sold, the trade began on the first day of the redemption, and in 1848-1853, and the principle of patrimony inalienability was abolished. There was only one level where the principle of pledge inalienability from the debtor was preserved up to 1880 - level of the peasant. It also created illusion of serf trade.

SLAVERY ILLUSION
In practice, the serfdom is slavery - in original historical sense of the term: debt bondage without the loss of legal capacity. The community remained a legal subject – of the feudal law indistinguishable from family law, where the younger relative totally subordinated to the senior one. However, there was a nuance: in practice, the landowner sold the related right to his manor and people, not the manor and the people.

ABOUT THE COMMON LAW
The law of the Russian empire of first half of 19 century was the written law - publicly announced, but for 91 % of the population there was absolutely other law in force – the common law, and only it determined the peasant’s life.
We will not find exact texts of norms of this common law. Those accessible fragments of the law are modified: so, they write that the Buryats had the penalty for the woman murder twice lower than for the man murder, but it should be vice versa. We consulted the expert person who explained that nowadays the law is vice versa at the Caucasus region and it is correct.
Owing to the common law, there were no penal servitude for a long time Russia, - there was nobody to imprison, and the community solved all problems. The horsestealer was trampled to death by all village, and in case of poor harvest, they could bury an old woman - alive. There is an evidence for 1855. The landowners did not hesitate to use the right of the seigneur, and that communities seemed not to object to it: the mechanism to hold birth rate under the strict control was still necessary.
Here is a question: how the procedure of the landowner change passed following the results of the manor sale? How was this owner change affirmed in the common law? The community was simply obliged to confirm such change. The answer: according to standard feudal norms: for example, through "civil" marriage with the main princess of the community.
Let us remember such "bad custom" as arsia - breast feeding of the children landowner by peasants that made the peasants and their new misters relatives. Here again it is necessary to remember that there were also procedures of living the family - for the landowners selling the manors. The common law since ancient times contained the norms, allowing bypassing patrimony inalienability, and the very bottom of the social pyramid used them not less skilfully than the top.

THE EXACT PERIOD OF RADICAL CHANGES
This data concern only Russia.
1875 The last seigneur right court
1875 The earliest date of fixing snokhachestvo in a village (the seigneur right passed downwards)
1876 The splash of notes about illegitimate children in Google Ngram Viewer
1876 The first idea about the peasantry redemption with the help of state credits
1876 Confirmation of the landowners’ rights to the land (not yet redeemed)
1877 The process of "193th" revolutionaries going to the people
The same must occur everywhere and at the same time.

PATRIMONIAL COURTS
Patrimonial courts were mostly cancelled following the results of the “Spring of Nations” in 1848. The reason: the change of legal norms simply left no place for these forms of judicial authority. Peasants solved current problems within the common law, but vassals, having signed contracts with banks, were not under the control of the seigneurs any more. Oaths on fidelity given by vassals during the homage lost their sense.
Thus, besides patrimonial judicial structures, there had to be matrimonial ones solving women's problems. The most probable place of their existence were female monasteries. Abbesses solved number of questions.

FUNCTION OF FEMALE MONASTERIES
Lavoisier’s spouse, rather high-ranking person possessing the part of the French East Indian company property, was brought up in a monastery. The reason: the monastery could give system education and, surely, preserved the wards against risk of casual conception. In a situation when the father of the child got the right to the dowry, the elite had to be careful.
It is necessary to remind that the matriarchal society did not impose prohibitions on sex. In such situation, monastic severity was not useless. In Poland female monasteries were mostly liquidated in 1860th, and then the control over the daughters’ affairs laid down on the families shoulders. Puritanism and the Family Tyranny were early bourgeois models, which were typical just because the feudal model of the moral behaviour control, including personal check of the bride virginity by the seigneur, were destroyed by the bourgeoisie.

PROHIBITION OF DIVORCES
That fact that the Catholic church (unlike Orthodox) does not know the concept of divorce, specifies the extreme youth of the present version of the Catholic church. At least until 1730, the right to divorce in Russia was ordinary, and it is necessary to notice that encyclopedic articles carefully avoid exact dates of acts of the right to divorce abolition. There are only dates of this right renewal, and in Germany it was 1874 - 2 years after crash of the Viennese stock exchange (1872), basing on the calculation (1848 + 24 = 1872) coinciding with the end of fees redemption.
The main interested party in legal firmness of marriage is the usurer who had lent money to the vassal signing the agreement on the pledge redemption of the total property of his spouse. The largest usurer who possessed the third of the property in his regions was the Church, and so the Church prohibited divorce.
In Europe the laws concerning divorces prohibition should chronologically coincide with the corvee and tithe redemption laws in 1848-1852.

THE AMICABLE SCHEME OF THE REDEMPTION
I have just understood, what exactly I have written. Amicable schemes of the redemption of a manor from pledge is possible like that: the husband signs the paper and pays off the pledge, though the manor formally belongs to his wife as her dowry. Such strictly family schemes certainly existed.

SENSE OF THE PRIMOGENITURE RIGHT
In tribal communities first-borns often belonged to seigneurs or monasteries who, in practice, conceived them. This social stratum of first-borns was extremely important for the society: it was impossible to find better state employees, as they were not connected with their matriarchal families that is why were not inclined to family corruption. This approach was applied even later: the elder children were sent to build civil service career, and younger ones remained with old their parents: daughters got estates, and nephews - barns and ships.
This postremogeniture scheme was the best for the tribal structure, first of all, because it allowed to rejuvenate the membership of senior parantelas. A 14-year-old teenager was legally equal to his 36-year-old brothers that is why he sat with them at meetings with full right and when they died, continued to keep the power belonging to him as the eldest in the family.
Since the middle of 19 century, the eldest son became the inheritor more often. The reason is obvious: in case of death of the father, there should be a person in the family, mature enough to undertake continuation of the redemption procedure, and it was better, if this person was not restrained in his rights by his much younger brothers and sisters. Here we have the usurer’s interest of the middle of 19 century time, which was included in the Old Testament as an ancient, so sacred norm.

THE RIGHTS OF FIRST-BORNS
It is an individual question. When the primogeniture was accepted, some part of the first-borns who were conceived from the seigneur and were brought up out of the mother’s family, got undeserved rights to the family inheritance. Those who didn’t recognize these rights, I think, got under inquisition tribunal - with all following consequences. In France they introduced a strict formula, cutting all ways for the maneuver: “the father of the child is the husband of his mother”. It meant that all children from seigneurs after death of the legal fathers became heads of their families.
So it happened not everywhere: in the Ottoman Empire the janizaries were simply butchered - in order to avoid tensity growth in the vassal provinces.

THE RIGHT OF THE DEAD HAND
It is a part of the law of succession: the seigneur could choose from the dead’s inheritance everything that he wished. As a matter of fact, this is a parental right, existing now in the changed form: parents can inherit for the dead the same as their children. Earlier the parental right extended on seigneurs too, as the eldest in their families. Patrilineal character of the inheritance, introduced by "the Spring of Nations”, threw out the seigneur from the group of inheritors.

THE HUSBAND AND THE WIFE
The husband and the wife were not blood relatives, it is common nowadays as well. The wife’s parents can inherit for her but her husband’s parents cannot do it. Earlier on, such relationship meant that the wife, having killed the husband, did not commit an inexcusable blood crime, and had to pay a common penalty. Therefore, the tradition to bury the husband-killer alive is extremely young (the same period of the middle of 19 century) and it did not exist for a long period: the state hastened to interfere. It is curious that the murder of the wife by her husband was regarded as less serious crime, here again, we see the interests of the usurer: the husband paid the loan that is why he had to live.

ROTATION OF PARANTELAS
Violent replacement of elder parantela by the following one according to the rank is actual only in a tribal community. The murder of old men is clearly fixed in the isolated communities, including, those in Russia and at the Caucasus. Now it has remained only in Africa. “The Spring of Nations” de facto liquidated the rotation, and matrilinial parantelas as well, and the revolution together with regicide lost any sense. Surely, the tsars were killed in the second half of 19 century, but it was not already connected with parantelas in any way. The tsar was replaced with his son, instead of one of his nephews the mother’s side.

THE TSAR: THE INHERITOR OR THE SUCCESSOR?
In 1418, the famous French lawyer Jean de Terrevermeille stated: the elder son of the king or other inheritress cannot be named actually by the inheritor of the one whose inheritor he is; it is common but not hereditary succession.
In 1830 Isabella, the daughter of the Spanish king Ferdinand VII had already the right to inherit her father’s throne.
Commentators focus attention on the sex of the inheritor, however the unique significant aspect is the right of succession from the father: not from mother, or the uncle on the mother’s side, or the uterine brother or sister, but from his/her own father (who is legally of the other blood). In 1418, it was legally impossible.

ADOPTION
Bourgeois revolution resulted in adoption loosing any sense. The adopted person inherited the property of the foster mother, nothing more. The throne together with the status was already transferred patrilinially, and the monarch of the masculine gender physically could not feed the potential son with his breast.
The last possible adopted prince in Russia was Konstantin. He aspired to the Ottoman throne and died early together with his spouse in 1831.

CEREMONY OF EXILE FROM THE FAMILY
Entirely lost its sense.

CASTRATION
The great Social revolution princes’ castration in case of turnover devoid of sense. The throne could be occupied by the daughter of the monarch, but the main thing was that lands concentration had already been finished and the government started to work in a different, not matrilinial sense. The last live eunuchs were fixed in the second half of 19 century.

THE EXILE INTO THE MONASTERY
It is a specific topic, which needs investigation, but it is typical, that exactly in 19 century tsarinas stopped to rush to end their days in monasteries and preferred to enjoy themselves at secular balls and parties.

IMPOSTORS
It is interesting that in Russia tsars-impostors disappeared together with the old version of the Old Testament and polygamy. I will remind that I do not trust to the dates, but here are the logic links.

VASSALS’ PARLIAMENTS
The number of records concerning parliaments greatly increases in two epoch: the reception of Ekaterina's liberties by noblemen and the first liberation of peasants and during the period of the "Spring of Nations» (in Germany they brought up the question of the tithe redemption in 1830-1832). The reason of growth of evidences is obvious: all who signed the obligation to redeem the fee became legal subjects in the eyes of the law, so they had the right to expression of their political will.


I will remind here that I do not trust dates, and again I will emphasize that dates are unimportant: logic link with other social changes - that is important.

WHAT POLYGAMY WAS AN OBSTICLE TO
It is clear that the governing top agreed about polygamy abolition - not at once, there were also obstacles from the Spanish king in 1768, but they finally came to the agreement. My today's answer: polygamy did not disturb anything; it just became unnecessary. Concentration of resources moved via other channels. However, of course, it is possible to assume that the monarchs, who managed to collect the lands of their countries thanks to the resources of their wives, simply cut off that possibility for all others.

JOINT LIABILITY
The matrilinial doctrine predetermines joint liability of the family and legally results in enslaving of all tribe: if the princess could not pay off the credit, all young and old members of the family got under the power of the usurer.
The patrilineal doctrine is more progressive, as the chief of the family bears responsibility for his debts himself. The family of a merchant, for example, has the right to know, how many money the head of the family has, but not to aspire to participation in business. The son enters into the business, only when the father allows, anyway, the signboards say “Ivanov and son”. One person responsibility is very high concentration of responsibility: yesterday's vassals, stealing and shirking because they don’t care who is at the top, are trying now as much as they can, that is important for loan repayment.
In the history there is a short period of debt prisons popularity, mainly in 1848-1849. This is the period of paradigm change: families deny joint liability, leaving formal heads of business to rot in a pit - when it is worth it. A bit later, they found means to cope with this category of non-payers, and before 1880, the permanent conflict with non-payers would be mostly settled.

SECULARIZATION
In Poland, the clergy property got into the treasury of the Russian empire in 1864 – that was rather late. In England and France, secularization of national education passed in 1880 - even later. But it is all - not that. Secularization must be closely be connected with the tithe redemption, and this period of 1848-1849 is not noted for secularization acts.
How did it occur in practice? The Church’s vassals redeemed their pieces of land, and banks, accepting payments, simply transferred the required some of money to the Church - minus the commission fee. Actually, here is all scheme. A question, what all these serious money sums (the third of all property) were spent on, is better to be put in front of conspirologists.

ECONOMY AND LAW LINK
The scheme shows the acts legally destroying the feudal norms and notes about stock exchanges, trading fixed capital, and correlation here is very rigid.


Stock exchanges worked in earlier times, - it was required sell the property confiscated by the inquisition from adherents of a different faith and heretics, but also in this case alienation of fixed capital was often conjugated with legal destruction of the community which had got into trouble.


THE INNOVATIVE SCHEME OF INQUISITION
From the very beginning, the Inquisition contradicted the usual patrimonial right as it applied innovative law norms to the matrilinial society. There was a certain person under charge, and this person could not pay off with the penalty, which was pinned on all community.
Legally it is possible only in the direct link with liquidation of feudalism and introduction of bourgeois rights, which calls into question the dating of the inquisition actions. I have no ideas about dating at present.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
Here we have the Great Social Revolution, officially happened in 1768-1883, (mainly in 1848-1849), and this revolution is seriously underestimated, thus, all necessary facts are available, and these facts are strictly official.

LIST OF MAIN TEXTS
24. Chronological shifts: Catherine's shift and 59-year-old one. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/03/chronological-shifts-catherines-shift.html
25. The Roman numeration - a key to the chronology secret. https://chispa1707.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-roman-numeration-key-to-chronology.html
27. Lacuna
28. Lacuna
.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)