[100] The assembly of 1503 is described by at least seven different sources, some Josephite, others Non-Acquirer. Naturally, they contradict one another. In regard to one of them, investigators hold diametrically opposed opinions: A. A. Zimin ("O po- liticheskoi doktrine Iosifa Volotskogo") assumes that this document is of Non-Acquirer origin, and Lur'e (p. 414), and G. N. Moiseeva
[101] Pavlov, p. 46.
[102] Cited in ibid., p. 46.
[103] Cited in Pavlov, p. 71.
[105] S. M. Kashtanov, "Ogranichenie feodal'nogo immuniteta pravitel'stvom russ- kogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva," pp. 270-71.
[106] Iu. K. Begunov, "Sekuliarizatsiia v Evrope i Sobor 1503 v Rossii," p. 47.
[108] A. A. Zimin, "O politicheskoi doktrine Iosifa Volotskogo," p. 175.
[109] Malinin, p. 128.
[112] The author of the classical work on the history of Russian law, V. I. Sergeevich, holds precisely this point of view on Article 98. "In order to add new provisions to the law code," he writes, "a verdict by all the boyars is required. This is undoubtedly a limitation of the tsar's power, and a novelty; the tsar is only the chairman of the College of Boyars, and cannot issue new laws without its agreement" (
[113] V. O. Kliuchevskii,
[114] Ibid., p. 44.