Crucifixion Eclipse The Large Gizāh  Pyramid : Nostradamus’ Birthdate at Central Axis of Giza Pyramid :

Russia -- Seventeenth Century Overview


  Welcome, Guest                        Michael Report  

[Contact, Search] World History - Yahoo! - Help

 : H O M E :  

 

 

 I N D E XBook of Life  Index  directory B I B L E Apocalypse Book of Revelationsdirectory W E B S> Internets  directory J O U R N A L  > Journal Directory directory G A L L E R Y >photo gallerydirectory W M D  > XLXXII  ARMAGEDON  directory G A M M A > gamma index 

Privacy  [Public]  


Russian History

Russian General Overview of Seventeenth Century [RU06]

By Michael Johnathan McDonald

RUS 17th  CENTURY

Russian was not modern bureaucracy, the service was to the severing the tsar ( the king), not the state-like in the west. But this would change at the close of the century and the pubic body of the office of the ruler will become more like the west.

Do not pick a date in the 17th century as a turning point ; the whole 17th century is a turning point? Professor J. Kollman: There were continuity and changes going back and forth.

Rus (Russian) Background

PART I

pomest'e (or pomestie) system: Service tenure land given by the central authorities to servitors in return for service to the state. It was conditional, an economic base for the aristocracy,  and tied all strata of servitors in varying degrees to the sovereign. It could be revoked if the service tenure landholder (pomeshchik) failed to render service. Increasingly, from the fifteenth to the sixteenth centuries, it replaced or operated alongside the patrimonial land (votchina) owned outright by its lord who could will it to descendants without approval.[1] Begun toward end of fifteenth century, becoming widespread after the annexation of Novgorod, Ivan III confiscated Novgorod boyar’s votchiny and extensive church landholdings.  By the time of Ivan IV onward (decree 10/3/1550), deti boiarskie made up the majority responsible for rendering military service to the sovereign.  It contributed to a single integrated army for a newly unified Russian state. It acted like a system of rewarding a noble’s work for a state with land. As it grew, it played a major factor in the seventeenth century diminishing differences between landlords and service class gentry as the Ulozhenie code indicated. Peter I’s reforms founded a permanent army and a civil service and this system was no longer needed.

 

Mestnichestvo: system of places, was part of the honor and shame society and ceremonial role-playing that determined the relative standing of each prince, boyar and upper servitor in the Muscovite system: record keeping determined an importance of whom had served where, and when in wars.   Restricted during regimental service in 1550s (decree 10/3/1550), during campaigns against Kazan and Astrakhan with the objective of improving discipline,[2] this system in general lasted until 1682. The Tsar was constrained by custom to observe this hierarchy when appointing military commanders, administrators and other officials. In social relevance this system created lawsuits, and disagreements among its members. This led to clans in the sixteenth century onward keeping extensive genealogy books, therefore becoming part of the evidence in the litigations. Another weakness was a rigidity of assignments in military commands which kept the best men from filling those positions. This ultimately led to poor performance on the battlefield.  On the other hand, mestnichestvo may have helped knit together a large, widely dispersed servitor elite.

 

Boyar Duma: Boyars developed in the eleventh century in Kievan Rus’ and wielded considerable power through their military and support of the Kievan princes. They received extensive grants of land and, as members of the Boyars' Duma (by Muscovite times, in the sixteenth century, there were four ranks of Duma status, and boyars were at the top) they represented more than mere councilors to the grand prince/tsar.  The boyar elite, closely intermarried with each other's clans and with the royal family, constituted the government in Muscovy (15th-17th cc.). They formed concentric circles of power around the grand prince/tsar, and their objective was to position themselves to be within the “bright eyes” of the grand prince/tsar. Some historians have downgraded them to dependent status under the grand princes/tsars, but collectively they were co-rulers and usually met daily in a small room with the grand prince/tsar to manage the realm.

 

zemskie sobory, a.k.a. Assemblies of the Land, are difficult to explain. They arose in the mid-sixteenth century and Muscovite sources reveal little of their true nature. There were no records of meetings, only passing reference in the chronicles. Foreigners noted that these gatherings sometimes consisted of as many as 300-600 members and included many different types of people. The agenda of a meeting was typically set in advance and had no institutional permanence or defined authority. They typically met to decide only one issue: ‘shall we go to war,’ ‘shall we increase the tax,’ ‘who shall we elect?’ Not really a formal institution, it met only sporadically and estimates vary widely, from a half dozen times to scores of times.  Some historians have seen them as proto-democracies, but; they were not truly representative. Merchants apparently gained in numbers in seventeenth century meetings of the zemskie sober.  Unanimity was always the goal either perceived or forced as an ideology: a theoretical union of Church/tsar/people all coming in union – the coming together of the forces of Rus’ to make this wise decision.

 

St. Sergii (Sergius) of Radonezh (1321?-1392): A Russian Saint, the moral head of the Russian church, and founder of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery north of Moscow, and was a leading participant of the monastic revival in the Muscovite period. Born in Rostov to a boyar family, his family moved to Radonezh northeast of Moscow. Sergii tried to become a hermit, but instead found his calling at the monastery of the Epiphany in Moscow where he joined Metropolitan Aleksii helping re-identify the Russian church with the grand princes of Moscow who were consolidating Muscovy during the later stages of the Russo-Mongol-Tatar period. Sergii became abbot and confessor to boyars and the grand prince, but refused the position of metropolitan. Instead he became a moral leader of the Russian church. Having less official business to attend too, he founded the Trinity Monastery forty-five miles northeast of Moscow at what came to be known as Sergiev Posad (Zagorsk in Soviet times). It became a model for many other Muscovite monasteries and in some sense the most important religious center in Russian history. The Monastery became an important Russian pilgrimage destination and a flourishing spiritual and cultural center. Sergii’s influence of the Muscovite period can be traced back to his life’s model represented in the Domostroi, a mid-sixteenth century book on rules for Russian households.

 

PART II

 

Oprichnina was a seven-year period in which Ivan IV divided up the land (1565-72) into two main parts, formed a personal court, separate administration, a personal army, and conducted a notorious “reign of terror” designed to purge his enemies – but ended up affecting everyone in Muscovy. This represented something dramatically different and was not a reform. Some historians have discerned a purpose in the Oprichnina period that it was directed against the old boyars, or the Church, or Novgorod.  Russian historian Richard Hellie in the introduction to the English translation of Russian historian S. F. Platonov’s (1860-1933) book on Ivan IV, entitled Ivan the Terrible, described Russian historian S.M. Soloviev’s view of the Oprichnina period as Ivan IV struggling “to strengthen the new middle service class at the expense of the old boyar class.”[3] Richard Hellie in the same introduction explained his interpretation for the views of the best known nineteenth-century Russian historian, Vasily O. Kliuchevsky (1841-1911): “the Oprichnina was directed against men, not against the prevailing system, and consequently it was politically aimless.”[4]  It is hard to make sense of this chaotic period, when so many suffered, not just one group. Ivan’s psychological and physical problems might have been part of the cause. It was more likely a dramatic need of the tsar to escape from rulership, for which there was no precedence (although he apparently tried to abdicate). The social, political, and economic results were a genuine disaster. Ivan may have killed his son Ivan Ivanovich, leaving a feeble-minded son Feodor on the throne that died childless -- leading to a dynastic crisis which ultimately led to the unfortunate events of the Time of Troubles.

 

The Dmitriis were a phenomenon of pretenderism during the Time of Troubles which arose after the childless tsar Feodor (d. January 7, 1598), of the Moscow line of Riurikovichi, died leaving a dynastic vacuum. Opposition to the election of Boris Godunov led to a general discontent possibly over Godunov's Tatar heritage. The very moment of Godunov's election, he was accused of having ordered the murder of Prince Dimitrii Ivanovich (d.1591, Ivan IV's son of his seventh wife; could not rule according to Orthodoxy). Investigation headed by Shuiskiis, claimed the boy was murdered and Ivan's widow blamed Godunov. Quickly buried and forgotten, Godunov's enemies created a self-styled Uglich prince "Tsarevich Dimitrii" and circulated pamphlets in 1600 of rumors of his survival. Three false-Dmitriis arose, two of them gaining significant power. The first false Dmitrii, generally associated with the runaway monk Grishka Otrep'ev, appeared in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1603. He gained support, notably from Ivan Isayevich Bolotnikov, and was crowned in July, 1605; a year later he was murdered in the Kremlin.   A second false-Dimitrii appeared 1607 at Starodub, garnered a massive force, won the allegiance of Yaroslavl and other cities, and raised Philaret Romanov to rank of patriarch but was later killed by a Tatar in 1610. In 1611 in the town of Ivangorod, another proclaimed himself Dmitrii and had partial influence for one year before he was captured and killed. These claims to the throne produced armies acting in the names of these Dmitriis, wreaking havoc throughout the Muscovite state. Ivan Timofeev (?-1631), a secretary in the Great Russian Chancery, author of a Journal (Vremennik) that is an important primary source for the history of Russia during the Time of Troubles, said, “the country was bound to suffer when ruled by pretenders, of whom Boris Godunov was the first.”[5] The phenomenon of pretenderism showed how conservative and inflexible the Moscow political system was:  the only legitimate ruler was a son of the previous tsar.

 

The Time of Troubles (l598 or l604 to l613 or 1618) marked a period of turbulence beginning with a dynastic crisis and ending with the establishment of the Romanov Dynasty (1613-1917), and the expelling of the foreign occupation. One of the unfortunate events of the dynastic crisis was the phenomenon of pretenderism. In part this led to foreign invasions, mainly Sweden and Poland, promoting potential rulers and occupying Russia, including Poland's occupation of the Kremlin. The period can be said to have ended with the Treaty of Stolbovo in 1617, and finally in 1619 with the Peace of Deulino. However, the treaties heavily favored the foreigners. This demonstrated an apparent need for military innovations, mainly from the adoption of western technology that would follow under a policy of Tsar Alekseii Mikhailovich. The Time of Troubles was probably not a turning point in Russian history, but it opened windows to international changes, and stimulated changes that shaped Muscovy in the seventeenth century into something different.

 

Siberia: In the eleventh century, the people of the Grand Principality of Novgorod had known the northern region of the western part of Siberia. During the consolidation of the Muscovy in the fifteenth century, periodic campaigns undertaken into Siberia established diplomatic relations between Ibak, the Khan of Tiumen and the Russian government. Developing over the sixteenth century, several Yugorian tribes began to pay tribute to the Russians in the lower courses of the Ob River.  The last quarter of the sixteenth century Russia consolidated relations with the Khanate of Siberia.  Conditions were right for the Russian state to consider the possibility of acquiring Siberia.[6] The conquest of Siberia was an economic and not a religious undertaking. Much of the attraction came from discoveries of mineral deposits and a wide range of animals that could meet a Muscovite foreign demand for exotic furs. Siberia represented the rise of the Stroganov clan -- a merchant family who obtained holdings in the wild upper Kama region, where they maintained a garrison and imported colonists, to protect their new mining operations. During the seventeenth century the Muscovite central authority began to subjugate Siberian natives for their interests in the international fur trade. Despite central authorities allowing certain rights to newly incorporated people, natives often were economic slaves. Part of the reason was the Muscovite government’s lack of oversight which allowed lawlessness to go unchecked. However, native’s rights did eventually improve over time as the central authority sought to win the favor of the wealthy and influential natives.  Siberia's significance brought Russia new responsibilities of having an Empire.

 

Simon Ushakov (1626-86): A celebrated Russian master of art and craftsmanship who headed up the Tsar’s painters in Moscow, and helped to developed in Russia an appreciation of a western artistic style in the seventeenth century.  His life represented a man exploring many avenues of artistic expression. To name a few, he designed maps, painted frescos, icons, and banners and worked on artifacts. Also, his ‘pictures on paper’ are the earliest Russian prints which show an understanding of the western techniques of copper-plate engraving.[7] His interpretation of painting in the western style did not reflect the contemporary Baroque art of Italy or France, but a sixteenth century archaic style of Flanders, Germany and Holland. His celebrated images of the Vernicle (c. 1660)[8] reflected this style of painting which demonstrated Ushakov’s understanding of the use of light and shade. However, his mastery can also be demonstrated when he reproduced the original technique of the Vladimir, Mother of God, icon, in his version. He was promoted to be the head of the icon-painting studio at the age of twenty-two in the royal Armory with the title of ‘Tsar’s Icon-Painter.’ There he helped develop a monumental style exploring, perspective, landscapes and anatomy.  This school was located in Moscow and allowed Ushakov to execute or supervised numerous projects of repainting frescos in the Kremlin. He also helped to pioneer Russian commercialization of art. The Tsar’s school employed many Ukrainian and Belorussian artists. One example was a division of labor to speed up the production process. Ushakov specialized in “face painting.” He would apply his expertise after the icon assistant completed the figure and landscape. Like the Stroganovs' art school, he began to sign his work, ending the anonymous medieval practice and moving toward secular professional artistry which arose in the eighteenth century. He did not lead a secular art movement, but he was a vital step in that direction.

 

PART III

                         

1649 Ulozhenie: was a set of regulations or a code of law promulgated by the central authorities of the Muscovite state. It lasted nearly two centuries in its original form, and in a lesser sense, until 1917. Approximately 1,200 copies of the Ulozhenie were printed. It was brought about by a need for controlling social problems after Russia witnessed riots in Moscow and a dozen towns in June of 1648. Its 25 chapters are subdivided into 967 articles. Most of the articles were borrowed from foreign sources and have there origins in Byzantine law via the Kormchaia kniga, and may be traced to the Lithuanian Statue of 1588. Roughly one-twentieth of the articles can be traced to the Sudebnik of 1550.[9] One of the major effects of the code was that it fully established serfdom by tying the peasants and their progeny permanently to the land.  Serfs were defined as anyone who tilled the soil. The code did recognize the serfs as legal subjects; however, increasingly for over a century, they were bought, sold, and traded by landlords as virtual slaves.

 

Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681) was the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. In Russian Orthodox practices religious figures acted in political matters. Nikon performed baptism on notable figures as Sophia Alekseevna and conducted religious functions for the most important political figures of his day.  In political matters, he gained Aleksii Mikhailovich’s confidence and ruled with the boyar Duma while the Tsar was out on campaign. As a talented and notably influential figure, Aleksii bestowed upon him the title of “Great Sovereign.” Nikon is most remembered for his ecclesiastical reforms which lead to his downfall and to the Great Schism. Nikon’s life represents an ambitious figure caught between two competing ideas. The incorporation of the left-bank Ukraine brought to Muscovy new people exposed to western thought.  Secular ideas had entered the Muscovite social sphere and Nikon received pressure from Orthodox traditionalists to react.  His early decisions garnered the support of the Zealots of Piety by burning art-works of western style and restricting alcohol vending locations and banning consumption during certain times.  Other reforms included the return to the canonical five domes over a church, disallowing the construction of tent-like churches. Later in Nikon’s career the churchmen from Ukraine, schooled in classical Greek and Latin, pointed out discrepancies in Muscovite church books and called for a fundamental need for unifying ecclesiastical matters. Nikon recognized the Ukrainian churchmen’s call for ecumenical reforms. The Most significant of these ecumenical reforms were fundamental to Nikon.  Bibles and service books, which centuries before had been translated from Greek into old Slavonic, had become corrupted over time.  In effort to bring the Russian Church into conformity with the Greek Church, Nikon consulted many Greek and Ukrainian churchmen. Although this had been discussed prior to Nikon, the patriarch decreed changes to make Muscovite service books conform to Greek and Ukrainian texts and rituals.  One of the changes included the Greek three-fingered sign of the cross. Russians had learned to make the sign with two fingers.  The implication that generations of Russians may have gone to Hell by crossing themselves incorrectly was disturbing to believers. Orthodox scholars could not debate with the Ukrainian churchmen, due to a lack of a classical Greco-Latin education. They remained confused and became reactionary.   Nikon's reforms angered the Zealots, who believed the Time of Troubles were a result of Russia moving away from the "true Orthodox Faith." The 1654 plague in Moscow was blamed on Nikon's reforms by the Old Believers. As a reaction to the accusation, Nikon blamed the Ulozhenie code. Charges of crassness and ambition led to his downfall. Some charged him with ambitions to become co-ruler. This concerned Aleksii who sympathized with the Old Believers. Nikon was defrocked in 1666, but his reforms were upheld.  Anyone who was against the reforms was condemned. This led to a split in the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

Sofiia (Sophia) Alekseevna (1657-1704), Regent of Russia from 1682 to 1689 and half-sister of Peter the Great, she was the fourth daughter of Tsar Aleksii Mikhailovich with his wife Mariia Miloslavskaia. Part of her significance in history comes from the story of her half-brother’s untraditional upbringing. Tsar Alekseii married a second time to Natal’ia Naryshkina. After Feodor III died, disputes between the Miloslavskii and Naryshkin clans paved the way for two potential heirs. Sophiia -- daughter of Aleksei's first wife, Mariia Miloslavskaia -- became the regent (reg. 1682-1689) of the two young boys, Ivan , whose mother was Mariia, and Peter, whose mother was Natal'ia Naryshkina. As woman, Sophia could not rule directly, because of the tradition that a son of the tsar was the only legitimate ruler.  Sophia had no incentive to marry and have children, because her children could not occupy the throne.  For his protection during tensions between the Miloslavskie and Naryshkiny, Natal'ia Naryshkina moved Peter away from the court. Subsequently this allowed Peter to grow up away from the tradition of Russian rulers.  Peter grew up in the company of foreigners which influenced him for the rest of his life.

 

Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, a.k.a. St. Basil's, Moscow, was commissioned by Ivan IV and was constructed between the years 1555-60.  It is located on the southern side of Red Square. The materials used were stone, masonry and wood. The centrally planned Cathedral symbolized a central state. The central church is an octagonal tower surrounded by four large octagonal chapels, and four smaller polygonal chapels. It combined both Italian and Russian architecture. Barma and Posnik, the two Russian architects who erected the cathedral, were not blinded by Ivan. It has been said this myth was popularized by eighteenth century travelers as a way to account for its fantastic appearance. Some have described it as a fabulously flowing fruit basket.  Ivan had it built in commemoration of the conquest of Kazan. It exemplified a continuing Muscovite tradition of dynastic rulers to create great works of architecture.

 

Church of the Ascension, Kolomenskoe was possible built during the years from 1530 to 1532. It was a dynastic estate and was one of the earliest votive churches. Presumably it was built by Vasily III as a thank-offering for the birth of his son Ivan. The material used was brick, with white stone trim. It was built on a sloping hillside providing a picturesque view. The plan was axially symmetrical in both directions, yet it had three unequal galleries which avoided a true balanced look.  This church was without precedence and as a vanguard and harbinger of what was to come in Muscovite architecture, it can be said St. Basil was one example of an outgrowth of this design.

 

PART IV

 

Nemetskaia Sloboda was an enclosed district in Moscow during 17th and 18th centuries where western Europeans were required to live at night while in the day they worked in the district or out side of it. Beginning in the reign of Tsar Aleksii, the Muscovite central authority hired Germans, Swedes, Dutchmen, Englishmen and other foreigners who provided expertise in cannon making, iron works, and an arrangement of technical skills. After the Time of Troubles, Russians fearing similar circumstances of foreign invasions and occupations searched out Europeans with expertise mainly in military technology. This could explain a 1665 census that revealed the majority of settlements belonged to foreign military advisors. Over time the district also included a variety of industry and contributed to an economic viability for Russia. The district solved the problem of Russia’s lack of scientific and technological knowledge, mainly due to a non-existent educational system. The district also acted as barrier to keep out foreign culture. The gates were shut at night in fear of cross-cultural contamination. However, Russian nobles often ventured secretly to the forbidden district at night to catch a glimpse of European culture. The stage was now set for a figure to emerge of the likes of Peter the Great.

 

Table of Ranks: In 1722, Peter I created a “classification” of orders known as Tables of Ranks. This was part of Peter’s reforms of state service dependent on merit.  It ended an already declining mestnichestvo systemprecedence that was determined by birth, declining by the later decades of the seventeenth century. It was divided into three main and lateral classes: military, naval, and civil services; and contained 14 hierarchical ranks. This reform ensured the service to the Emperor, a weakening of the boyar’s power, and provided an orderly advancement to all echelons of society. However, the majority of the Russian population never emerged from serfdom and poverty. Modified by Catherine I, this ranking system lasted in various forms until 1917. This essentially made up the Russian privilege class -- the upper 5-10% of Russians, living and speaking a different lifestyle and languages.

 

Catherin I (1684-1727) was the Empress of Russia from 1726 to 1727.  Second wife of Emperor Peter the Great, she became the first woman to rule Imperial Russia. Her intent to pass the crown to her daughter Anna, and her heirs, eventually led to a legal measure allowing women to dominate the Russian throne for most of the century. During her brief rule she made some important decisions. She joined the Union of Vienna, thereby upsetting the balance of power in the Baltic, in support for her son-in-law’s interests against England.  She sought to improve the condition of the simple people by lowering taxes.  She established the Russian Academy of Sciences, continuing the work of her husband. However, during her rule, the central authority established the Supreme Privy Council in February of 1726 as a body of advisors for Catherine. After Peter II's death in 1730, the Privy Council, dominated by conservative forces, monopolized power and raised the Privy Council to the supreme authority in the land. This act by conservative forces abolished the supreme governing power of the Twelve Colleges and made it dependant on the Supreme Privy Council. This set the stage for the ascension of Anna who could be easily manipulated by the conservative boyar clans that returned the central authority and supreme power of government back to Moscow.  The most inspiring aspect of the story of Catherin I’s life was her rise to power.  Peter I’s first wife was arranged by his mother, but he was not in love. Peter in search for a companion to calm his rages and sooth his troubled spirit found a servant girl Martha, Catherin's name at the time, in 1705. He took her from her lover Aleksandr Menshikov, and the couple bore two daughters, Anna (b. 1708), and Elizabeth (b. 1709). Avoiding church authority for many years, Martha eventually converted to Orthodoxy, took the Christian name Catherine, and married Peter in 1712. Their love became the model for Russia. They became almost inseparable; Peter took her to parades, banquettes, firework displays and out on campaigns. This love brought in new ideas of parental guidance and divorce became more difficult to attain. Toward the end of her husband’s life, a dynastic crisis loomed. Catherine failed to produce a male heir which was the job of the tsar’s wife. Peter’s son, Aleksei Petrovich, was not like his father and was refused succession by him. Peter ended primogeniture (1722) allowing an Emperor to appoint an heir; he died without making a decision. However, he had confided to close associates of his desire to have his wife take his place. This left Catherine in a position to rule. The decision came from her supporters after the Emperor’s death who knew of Peter's desires to have her enthroned.

 

The Great Northern War (1700–21) was a military conflict in which the Northern Union, an alliance of Russia, Denmark, and Poland-Saxony, challenged the supremacy of Sweden for control over the Baltic region. Participation of Sweden in the Thirty Years’ War had strengthened their position in the Baltic region. They controlled territories that extended from Finland to northern Germany, including former Russian lands Ingermanland and Karelia. The war was declared in January of 1700 by Augustus II of Saxony, and then Denmark and Russia followed his example and declared war on Sweden within a year (Poland would later join the war).  The Alliance’s main opponent was Charles XII who turned out to be a military genius. Russia suffered a massive defeat by Sweden at Narva in 1700. Sweden decided not to further pursue Russia but instead to turn its focus on Augustus II and his forces. Peter I quickly reorganize the military and begin building a navy fleet for the Baltic Sea. By 1702 the Russians began to take land and fortresses on the upper Neva River. In 1703 the Russians captured the key fortress Nienchanz and in May founded St Petersburg. Peter I then built the fortress Peter and Paul on the Neva delta for the defense of the new city. By 1708 Sweden had defeated Russia’s allies and invaded the Russian state. A victory for Russia at Poltava on June 27 (July 8) brought a pause in the war in 1709. Russia, Denmark, Prussia used this time to reform the Northern Union against Sweden (after a withdrawing of the alliance because of Augustus II’s renouncement of the Polish crown in 1706).  This shifted the conflict of the Baltic region to northern Prussia -- this allowed Peter I to build St. Petersburg and the navy on Swedish territory without constant military threats. For the next ten years Peter would advance his Russian forces into the Baltic region and begin dominating Sweden for Russian interests. Sweden capitulated to Russia the newly gained lands including St. Petersburg with the signing of the Nystadt Treaty on August 30, 1721. The Russians acquired Livonia, Estonia, Ingermanland, part of Karelia, and certain islands. Russia retuned the bulk of Finland and paid two million rix-dollars to Sweden to conclude the treaty. The Senate bestowed upon Peter the titles of “Great,” “Father of the Fatherland,” and “Emperor.” In this manner Russia formally became an Empire.[10]

 

Twelve Colleges, ordered by Peter I in 1718, built on the island of Vasilievsky, was to house the twelve government bodies with the Senate as the supreme body under the authority of the Tsar. Its main purpose was to replace the overlapping Pritkazy (administration offices) in effort to simplify and modernize Russian administration.  Its core idea was to take away power from any one individual official. This way, Peter thought, it would bring good order and a just government. Construction begun in 1722 and was completed in 1742. It contained 12 individual buildings set side by side spanning 440 yards.  Peter envisioned the Colleges as the main government headquarters of Russia. But for a lack of legal and constitutional framework it never developed into its original purpose. This could be explained for the lack of purpose to continue Peter’s reforms after he died, and the return of conservative forces controlling the Russian central authority.   


[1] Platonov, S. F., Ivan the Terrible, trans. & ed., Joseph L. Wieczynski (Gulf Breeze, Florida: Academic International Press, 1974), 51.

[2] Ibid, 57.

[3] Platonov, S. F., Ivan the Terrible, trans. & ed., Joseph L. Wieczynski (Gulf Breeze, Florida: Academic International Press, 1974), xv.

[4] Ibid, xx.

[5] Hugh F. Graham in Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski, vol., 40 (Gulf Breeze, Florida: Academic International Press, 1982), pp. 63-66.

[6] M.M. Gromyko in Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski, vol., ? (Gulf Breeze, Florida: Academic International Press, 1982), 66.

[7] Hamilton, George H., The Art and Architecture of Russia, 3rd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 251.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Hellie, Richard, in Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski, vol., 40 (Gulf Breeze, Florida: Academic International Press, 1982), 194.

[10] Riasanovsky, Nicholas V & Mark D. Steinberg, History of Russia, vol. I., 7th ed. (Oxford: Oxford Unity Press, 2005), 208.

 

I. 17th-century Muscovite culture: sources of change
Muscovy’s “Time of Troubles” and its legacies
Cathedral Square, Kremlin, Coronation of Mikhail Romanov; Ham. 169
Foreigners’ district (Nemetskaia sloboda, or German Suburb); Ham. 180
Ukrainian Baroque architecture
Holy Sophia Cathedral, Kiev; Ham. 4
cf. Novodevichii Convent, Moscow
II. The new architecture
Church of the Nativity of the Virgin in Putinki, Moscow; Ham. 146-147
Patriarch Nikon’s reaction: “correcting” Muscovite architecture
cf. Nikon’s church in the Monastery of New Jerusalem, Istra; Ham. 155-156 Church of the Trinity and the Georgian Mother of God; Ham. 148
“Moscow Baroque” style; Nikitniki family
Nikon’s Church of the 12 Apostles, Kremlin; Ham. 154
oil ptg.: Nikon w/Ukrainian advisors
wooden palace of Aleksei Mikhailovich, Kolomenskoe; Ham. 175-177
Church of the Trinity at Ostankino, Moscow; Ham. 149
Church of the Resurrection, Kadashi, Moscow
Church of Elijah the Prophet, Iaroslavl’
Church of St. John Chrysostom and bell tower at Korovniki, laroslavi’; Ham. 150
Church of St. John Baptist in Tolchkovo, Iaroslavl’; Ham. 151
Borisoglebsk Monastery (near Rostov Velikii); Ham. 153
cf. Rostov Metropolia
Church of St. Nicholas in Khamovniki, Moscow
Church of the Intercession (or Protection, Pokrov) in Fili, Moscow; Ham. 159-160
Church of the Virgin of the Sign in Dubrovitsy; Ham. 161-162
III. The new art
Old Testament Trinity
Rublev, early 15th c.; Ham. 77
Simon Ushakov, 1671 (see similar Ham. 189)
chiarascuro (lit., light/dark: 3-dimensional modeling of flesh)
metal icon covers
(rizy, vestments)
Our Lady of Vladimir (or the Vladimir Mother of God)
early 12th
C.; Ham. 54
w/tree of Muscovite state, by Simon Ushakov, 1668 an Old Testament scene: Elisha and the Shunammite woman, 2 Kings 4
Piscator Bible engraving, 1674; Ham. 190
fresco, 1680-81, Church of Elijah the Prophet, laroslavi’; Ham. 191
misc. examples, cf. early w/
17th c.
perspective; chiaroscuro
Lord’s Prayer, late
17th c.; Ham. 186
Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich (father of Peter I the Great)
Peter Alekseevich Peter I the Great

Patriarch Nikon

(mid-17th  century:) Nikon wanted to become a co-ruler, but he came from a peasant background, and his behavior was crass. Possibly this was do to the hard edge of the peasant upbringing, and the aristocracy did not favor having a peasant telling them he wanted to become co-sovereign like Michael Romanov’s father was allowed too – which was only an anomaly, not a standard. Understandably, Nikon pushed Rus’ reforms, and he paid the price, but after his demise, the Rus’ leadership understood most of his suggestions as sound in social and political principle – thus they followed them. Nikon’s life signified a man contending with outside political influences at the center of Muscovy and traditional backlashes—contending cultures and the push to unite vast cultures and peoples. 

Zagorsk, Cathedral of the Dormition in the trinity-Sergius Monastery, 1559-85. This represented and symbolized Nikon’s insistence of Orthodox style. Dormitions were usually monastic or cathedral structures. Cube churches were also a reflection of the reforms of Nikon ( Ham. 181).

Patriarch Nikon, (1605-1681) was the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. He lived in a crucial time during the incorporation of Ukraine into the Muscovy, premonition of the apocalypse year, 1666 and the 1654 plague which hit Moscow.   Initially his favor with Tsar Aleksie allowed him to govern in his absence, Nikon received the title Great Sovereign. He built his palace next to the Dormition Cathedral -- Nikon wanted to become co-sovereign like Michael Romanov’s father, but he was from peasant stock. He was ambitious. His reforms first garnered the support of the Zealots, by burning art-works of western style, and restricting alcohol locations and banning consumption during certain times. Then came a drastic change. He disallowed tent-like Cathedrals.  Bibles and service books were initially translated from Greek into old Slavonic but had become corrupted over time.  In effort to bring the Russian Church into conformity of the Greek Church, Nikon consulted many Greek prelates. Although this had been discuss prior, Nikon's action set about to finally conform rituals to the custom of Constantinople and the books to the Greek originals. One of the changes included the Greek three fingers sign of the cross. The Russians learned to make the sign with two fingers. This demonstrated that Russian ancestors were tricked and now were viewed damned to Hell. His reforms angered the Zealots who believed the Time of Troubles were a result of Russia moving away from the "true Orthodox Faith." The 1654 plague in Moscow was blamed on Nikon's reforms by the Old Believers. Orthodox scholars who didn't know Greek remained confused over the subjects in the reforms. The Ambitious metropolitan fell out of favor with the Tsar and was defrocked in 1666, but his reforms were upheld and anyone who were against them were condemned, like Avvakum and the Old Believers. These circumstances led to the Great Schism.

Avvakum

He fell out of favor with the Tsar,

His severity gained him powerful enemies, including the Tsar himself when he didn't support the tsar's pro-Muscovite candidate for the Metropolitan of Kiev. He gained further enmity with the Zealots when Nikon consulted Greek prelates and found out the Muscovite service-books were incorrect. His reforms angered the Zealots who believed the Time of Troubles were a result of Russia moving away from the "true Orthodox Faith."

Russians had learned to make the sign of the cross with two fingers instead of three, as the Greeks did. This resulted in reforms. Some of the reforms were drastic including the changing of the sign of the cross, and he was blamed by the Old Believers for his reforms. This brought for political and religious reasons the Russian Church back into conformity of the Greek Church.

He served in the place of Tsar Aleksei when the ruler was out on campaign and the tsar bestowed upon his the title of Great Sovereign.  He had his palace built next to the Dormition Cathedral in the Greek style. Nikon wanted to become co-sovereign like Michael Romanov’s father. However, He was of peasant stock which led to a contention within the traditional power circles. Nikon ruled in a crucial period. After the incorporation of Ukraine into the Muscovy, political and religious reasons brought the Russian Church into conformity of the Greek Church. Many of the measures taken by Nikon, were initially supported by the Zealots (Avvakum), but ultimately led to the Great Schism as pressures grew around him. His lasting measures can be seen in the three-five dome codes of cathedrals. 

Russian Religious Changes

THE "CHURCH SCHISM”

Remains a issue today in Russia

Many layers, many outcomes, strands, and depends what you look at. Separate stories.

 

THE SCHISM OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH,
AND CULTURAL CHANGE IN THE 17TH CENTURY


I. Reform in Orthodoxy in seventeenth-century Ukraine

Lviv (=L’vov=L’wow=Lemberg) and Kyiv

1.        Reacting to Catholicism and Protestantism

2.        Mohyla Academy in Kyiv

3.        Union of Brest, 1596: Greek Rite Catholics, or Uniates

4.        Khmelnytski Rebellion, 1648

5.        Muscovy absorbs left bank (Dnepr River) Ukraine ( brings in Greco-scholars who tell Rus officials that their bibles and religious books need up to date editing, this creates confusion, and overturns traditions interpretations that create social backlashes, as well as shock to past discrepancy interpretations. Nikon played a main role in the reform, his efforts led to his downfall but his ideas were finally, later that is, accepted.

6.        II. Post-T of T developments

7.        reaction to T of T

8.        Fedor Romanov > Patriarch Filaret, de facto ruler with son Mikhail Fedorovich Zealots of Piety: including Ivan Neronov, Ivan Nasedka, and Archpriest Avvakum state infringes on church autonomy

9.       III. Complexity of Schism

10.     State pressure on church re: revenues and land

11.     1649 Law Code; Ministry for Monasteries (abolished 1677)

12.     Schism complex (like Oprichnina, Time of Troubles (T of T))

13.     conflict within the church re: content and pace of change

14.     conflict between changing official church and populace

15.     conflict between patriarch and tsar over authority and power

16.     social unrest intertwined with the Schism

17.     IV. Conflict within the church; Patriarch Nikon (in office 1652-58/1667)

18.     Nikon’s reforms and the new books

19.     influence of Ukrainian clerics

20.     3-fingered sign of the cross; triple alleluia

21.     Nikon forces immediate adoption of new service books, alienating many “Schismatics” = Raskol’niki (splitters, dividers -- cf. Raskol’nikov, the protaganist in Doesteovsky’s “Crime and Punishment,” who splits the head of the old lady pawn broker).

22.     “Old Believers,” or “Old Ritualists” = Staroobriadtsy

23.     V. Conflict between Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich

24.     Nikon’s resignation and arguments re: church power

25.     Nikon’s arguments re: “two swords” and “sun and moon” (Catholic sources)

26.     VI. Internal opposition in the church: e.g., Archpriest Avvakum was advocating against Nikon’s reforms and support for the newly adopted Ukrainian scholars—the revision of the interpretations of older Rus’ religious books. Many people associated with Orthodox Russian Church affiliations were confused about the re interpretations and thought that they may go to Hell because of past interpretations were evidently incorrect. It was a battle over updating the translation of old Rus religious books which help split the Rus’ lands –pitting groups against each other.

27.     Reaction against foreign influences, a result of the Dynastic troubles and in conjunction to religious struggles.

28.     VII. The Schism as mass movement

29.     frontier areas, resistance to central authority, fringe social groups

30.     local spirit of independence, esp. far north (Solovetskii Monastery), steppe, and Siberia issues of power and authority, not only religious differences

31.     some rebels = criminals -- example, seizure of monastery in Karelia by Vtorogo family

32.     VIII. The cultural system of the Old Belief

33.     genuine religious communal movement

34.     preach life of prayer, self-discipline, moderation, good works as a community

35.    IX. Conclusions

36.     Weakness of government control over the empire. Simply the expanse into Siberia and the west had thinned out the very small ruling bodies of Rus’ officials. Influence and opportunity by foreigners lay at an advantage.  Raw materials toward the Ural Mountains may have been coveted by the foreign rulers. Controlling Rus’ therefore, could be seen as a vital economic hegemonic global position – at least in wishful night dreams of many of ambitious princes and rulers.

37.    Split in church: parallels with Protestant Reformation. This cannot be underestimated at the significance.

38.     Russian Orthodox Church similar to Roman Catholic Church: intervene in society, affirm and enforce authority of official church, special power of priests and bishops, church as sole repository of Gods faith

39.     Old Believers as “Protestants’: reject authority of official church, priests, and bishops;

40.     focus on bringing individual believer in closer contact with God, less emphasis on

41.     ritual and charismatic authority of the priest

42.     if church is split, what happens to idea of symphony of church and state?

43.     groundwork laid for idea of secular ruler independent of church support: Peter the Great

44.     Cultural Change in 17th c.

45.     I. Literature in late 17th century

46.     medieval Russian literature: didactic, absolute, uncritical, anonymous, ecclesiastical. non-secular

47.     A new “model of communication” in literature: Ivan IV did away with the only printing press Muscovy came to own. In the seventeenth century, slowly the use of communication was connected to printing presses – but this was not wide spread as in the west, more controlled and paper and paper-supplies connection to production of reading functions were expensive still. There were no cheap sources of paper industry that Rus could rely on for a steady flow of reading materials. Yet, efforts and costs of production were made at this time by certain wealthy groups and individuals – such as was the case in the west in the first centuries of the printing press and book productions.  

48.     New humanistic sensibility: Letter and literacy among a few highly educated help formulate spoken and written symbols of new understandings of the world around them.  It is a myth that the west at this time was highly educated. In the U.S.A. during the formations of cities, most citizens spoke their languages well, but were illiterate and relied on signs, symbols, and artwork to relate to what area of the city, the business of patronism, and societal necessities to social organization. Rus’ people were also mostly illiterate counterparts of the west. Issues in Russian historiography to why that Russia lay behind the west in industrialization have been condensed to an issue of social-mass-education; I do not hold this view. Most westerners of the industrial societies did not read and write well or at all. It will not be until the eighteenth century that education is taken up on a global scale to its benefits for social modernity.

49.     poetry: secular literacy and the “Printing Office (Pechatnyi Dvor) poets” (1630s-50s) Kotoshikhin

50.     Vita: St. Juliana Lazarevskaia (Osorina) (ca. 1620s-30s)

51.     “everywoman” as saint.  

52.     autobiography: “Life of Archpriest Avvakum by Himself’ (1670s)

53.     in defense of Old Belief; vernacular language; everyday life

54.     a picaresque tale: “Frol Skobeev. the Rogue” (1680s-90s)

55.     purely secular literature, for entertainment; no moral lesson

56.     II. Changes in political culture

57.     public vs. private spheres

58.     more secular definition of politics

59.     new groups seeking political voice (e.g., bureaucrats)

60.     transition from theocratic concept of state to secular, this-worldly

61.     Semyon Polotskii (1629-1680)

62.     more utilitarian role for ruler; rule of law, for the good of society less patrimonial attitude towards political leaders

63.     a new individualism

64.     furnishings, wardrobe, imported finery, “lifestyle”

65.     panegyrics and portraits

66.     humanism, book collecting, foreign languages

67.     Vasilii Vasil’evich Golitsyn: 216 books, half of them secular -- in Dutch, Latin, Polish, German, Slavic

68.     Sil’vestr Medvedev: 651 books, 133 of them secular

69.     secular and pietistic literature for private consumption

70.     1680s: Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy

71.     emergence of new arena for “politics”

72.     new, secular image-making by rulers: commemorative medals, coins, portraits, panegyrics

73.     politics no longer God- and salvation oriented: now a public sphere, engaged in by individuals with differing viewpoints, focused on public and state welfare

74.     Next: art and architecture: the 16th-c. “synthesis” shattered

 

THE "CHURCH SCHISM”

Remains a issue today in Russia

Many layers, many outcomes, strands, and depends what you look at. Separate stories.

 17th century changes, beginning with the Church schism, background, Ukraine & L’viv (Russian L’vov, German L’wow. Part of Lithuania, and undergone a different life than Kiev, exposed to Parliamentary institutions, democracy rites, noble rights, and different economic experience, Poland landholders, and in the 17th  cent. The religious circumstances was Ukraine, shifted first to Protestantism, then to Catholicism. New clerics were brought to Moscow. In 1596 Greek Right Catholics, recognize the Pope as the Uniates church from the Union of Brest, 1596.

Many Ukrainian Orthodox people reject the Union to Catholic. 1620s, breakdown, so who to control and who to flirt with? Turkey, Russia, Europeans all want to influence. This turns up to be Monuments for Russia, and opens up a new culture to a whole new view ( This was like a reformation movement period, but was not like in the west).Fedor Romonov, the father, forced to Tonsure by Boris Godunov, to embarrassed him, placed in a Poland prison, Romonov then came back to support his son, who started the Romanov dynasty, and his son named him to a high clerical position. His new name was Patriarch Filaret. This dynasty solved continual fragmentation and disorganization, it was back-room affair and was not a real popular vote, although the sources tend to paint history in this manner. As a result, a certain stability was established which was the main principle behind the assertion of a new dynasty.

1620-30s Zealots of Piety: ( Small group; core group 6-10 people)Including Ivan Neronov, Ivan Nesedka, and Atchbishop Avvakum, these people were convinced that sense the ToT the Russians lands had been vexed with foreign culture. So they thought a program to purify them. Process: Don’t know Latin or Greek, but went about revising texts, liturgy and publishing books on their views. Zealots found a champion in Patriarch Nikon. So now a movement to find people that could read and write ( Ukrainian Clerics) Greek and Latin to correct the books, and they were sophisticated, even to the extent to argue against both Catholicism, and Protestantism. This leads to an influx to a foreign Orthodox text.1589, The Patriarch was created, so the old office of Archbishop of Novgorod became Patriarch (Metropolitan?) of Novgorod. Law codes of 1649, tried to take away church lands and turn them over to trade corporations. It was called Ministry for Monasteries ( abolished in 1677). The fiscal rights of abolishing the Patriarch Rights and put a layman over the same jurisdiction. So the church was being challenged over their monopoly.

The schismatics were the Old Believers. Three general Things to consider

1)     Conflict in the church officialdom over the church change

Patriarch Nikon, ruled 1652-56 (ruled sometime afterward) short and tumultuous reign, his background was a peasant, and this was a reason he had trouble getting along with the tsar and the higher-born. It was the pesant background, a backlash, of no respect from the high-born.

Got the Tsar to lower the sales of liquored, and this was revenue the gov.

Nikon decreed that church tops not be crowned by tents, but 3-4-5 crowns.

He got the German Solobada to be isolated, and insisted the ritual of thc church be changed and be insink with the Ukrainian Orthodox church. He wanted to standardized the Orthodox church, but so many diversities? He leaned on Ukrainian advisors, because he didn’t read Latin or Greek, and they knew things he didn’t. So how to make choices. Nikon, asked them was ancient rituals, and the recounted Ukrainian practices, so this of course, was different with tradition of the Russian ritual practices. Does this cause problems? Sure. One difference:   was how to abbreviate and spell Jesus’ name. Nikon, Ordered older books to be burned, although Russians refused. Changes to go quickly, new prays, new bowing techniques, minor word changes, and so Russian ritual and reform was quick and wide with people understanding little of what was going on. Remember most were not literate so they couldn’t read articles and argues significances of historical things.

8 pages, folio, 8 pages, folio ( This is the four folded on two sides and not bound together text books. These were called folios. 16 pages were two folios.

The familiar prayer sounded strange, people found this really hard to follow. These things sounded strange to the ears.

1650s, new catalyst, a new service book.

The categorical nature of his rule by decree, go Nikon, alienated the previous tsar.

Now Nikon developing an increasing bureaucratic church, and the state was going bureaucratic and people couldn’t understand bureaucratic things or comprehend.

Nikon, called himself called himself “ The Great Sovering” only for the tsar, and only Filaret was only allowed to use.

Nikon Fled Moscow: 1658, He fled, and apparently he calculated his desertions to flee post would make Tsar Alexei  acknowledge to carry out his reforms. Didn’t happen. Church council, charges “Tsar disobedience>So Nikon fired back with the two sword theory: The two swords, Church and State, and Sun and the Moon, and Sun is the Church and Moon is the state. The moon gets the reflections of the Sun. The Church is superior to the Church. 1198 Innocent III, letter referees to the Sun and Moon, and even before Innocent in the 11th century these analogies were read to him by the Ukrainian clerics. This is where he got this analogy. OK, the crown wins and this council, the Church didn’t have power, and the Patriarch put down, but as things go, ironically, his proposals are approved and pushed hard by the government. His reforms were needed, but his irascible character was a challenge to the tsar himself. The tsar needed the glory and not the Patriarch. So intellect loses to the passions of the throne. This was 1677 reforms if you cannot do what the tsar said for reforming the books and rituals as Nikon suggested you were executed by the government. So this was big problem. It wasn’t only Nikon who now forced this issues of reform, but it was Tsar Aleksei now the irascible. There probably an ongoing fear of disobedience to the central gov, so cracking downs were looked on by the state as justification.

Many in the church that didn’t agree with Aleksei’s reforms or Nikon, the person who first thrust the concerns on the state, didn’t want cow-towing to foreign translations, they were executed and were called the Old Believers, the ones that followed them.

First resisters were called Schematics  ( Splinters), Old Believers, or Old Ritualizes. One U.C. Riverside, argue that there were more than one schism, but many, people differed on many reforms, why? Russian were never properly Christianized, and people were set in their ways, and many developed into quasi-heretical communities in religions interpretation, and many communities didn’t listen to the Patriarch office, and they didn’t just say OK all adapt. Small hermitages and monasteries were challenged up north, a place far away from the central. Large Monasteries up north were ruled by strong Abbots. Many criminals jumped on the bandwagon because it was seen as state verses state (tradition) church, and mean anarchy, an excuse for them to act out their angst.  So Old Belief was to hold on to old power, it was the essence of the cause. This is opposite of the reformation in Europe people that were not the church but who wanted to change the church. Here the church wants to change, and the state, but the peasants and people resisted. The similarities only rest on the reform ritual parts and the knowledge of using scholars to read to the Russian clergy who couldn’t read Latin and Greek and therefore could not read the real Bibles – such was in Europe as well. But after this the similarities differed considerably.

People burring, executed and these incidence show us that there were histories of people rebelling against the government. Like local Mafia leaders, when the social instability arise over a fight between the church and state, the crime organizations, that is the small mafia-like families jumped on the bandwagon to exploit social discontent. Many of the Don cossacks arise against the central authorities, so they jump in on the social discontent continuity. And excuse for local power centers to show opposition to the state. So this remains a part of the disputes and lasts to the present days in the memories. Social killings and regional persecutions erupted not directly connected to the central government but the local strongmen as cited above. All these uprising showed the weakness of government control over the empire. While the central government was just about to take control, the schism erupts and fragments it, and the schism shows how far reaching their new people had different religious beliefs within their new empire.

Orthodox lost many rituals and people that promoted the traditional Orthodox, like collective community rituals and many prayers. The Old Believers and spoke out on their traditional moderation views and not extremism as the new system. This was opposite to the roles of the Protestant and Catholics. The new Orthodox system was a complicated system, such as was blamed on the Catholic Church by the Protestants who wanted to simplify things and communalize people.

Stalin, forcible rule was the only way to keep the Soviet Union together. Where are the origins of this thought? Here the central governments were using force to unify the people. There was a vision of this monolithic state.

Model of ritualism of church, downs plays the role of the church, bring the individual to the grown by getting the person closer to the books, an individualism, this was the individualism of Russia, and now the NEW Orthodox Church was all the non-individualism with much rituals seen today in the likeness of the complexities of the Catholic Church’s programs.

Some old believers, the priestess group, still in existence today. The Old believer communities were the ones that kept the Russian history alive, because they still practiced their old Russia religion.

No Symphony of Church and State as they are forced to change?

This is a plurality and begins and lays the ground for conceding the ruler to allow the ruler to style himself as a secular tsar, and the not a religious tsar. So how does this change help the Russians to modernize? Over the last 15 years, some reexaminations have been great.

Section 63, “Provisions of Russian Protectorate over Ukraine in 1654,” pp. 442- 450: Zaporozhie Host have come under the protection our exalted sovereign arm (448) The Charter of the Zaporozhie Host, April 6, 1654 Ukrainian Cossacks, who were the leaders of the Zaporozhie Host, signed an agreement which temporarily formed the basis of Ukrainian-Russian relations. (442) Peace and reconciliation. Ukr. Natives will get high-offices. One theme was enserfment of Polish peasants had begun by the Polish nobility, this led to flights of the peasantry and a crackdown. Where did they go? Zaporozhian Sich, established by the Dnieper Cossacks.  Theses also contained an element of fights over the western and Eastern Church doctrines were concerns for the powerful and wealthy. The peasants were more and more forced to choose. Kievan memory of Orthodoxy will play a role. Provisions not to go to the Sultan or Polish leaders and maintain relations demands of the Russians. (449) Swear allegiance. The Charter of the Zaporozhie Host, April 6, 1654: Introduced a measure not to violate the previous rights of the high-clergy, which was important because they had a different interpretation of the rituals of Christianity than in Russia. Also guarantees that lands of the inhabitants ( Kozak Estates, 449) keep their rights and to their inheritors. This was a protectorate treaty, where cooperation was the key to its success. Russia will appoint officials, and collect monies |Here Aleksei is called “ great sovereign.” (449) : Did the Ukrainians receive the freedoms promised in the Pereyaslav treaty? 1654 Russian Tsar Aleksei (1645-’72) singed an agreement which temporarily formed the basis of Ukrainian-Russian relations with the leaders of Zaporoshie Host. Russia inherited a rich vital area. scholarship of Ukrainian, new leaders, new administrations thoughts were brought into the sphere of Russia. Russia formed resolutions for protections of Ukraine from Poland and local threats. Russian gets the Left-Bank Ukraine. In 1648, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky led a large Cossack uprisings against king John II Casimir: results, partition of Ukraine between Poland and Russia. Russian gets the Left-Bank Ukraine. Catholicism/Protestantism and Orthodoxy.

“A Biography of Boyarina Morozova,” in Basil Dmytryshyn, ed., Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 850-1700, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991, pp. 489-497 : Theme: pressures for change vs. continuity; protests against Rel. changes, human treatment,  new ( three-bar-cross) some of her patrimonies were taken from her. She was of the Old Believers? ( see top of page 490). Arresting then torturing people for refusing to cross themselves in the new fashion is hard to believe (see 494). Making an example for reform - dissenters or a hit piece on Russian leaders shown as inhuman tyrants? (496-8) torture episodes. If someone believes this then the Tsar and his ruling religious men were evil and sinister people. The text doesn’t mention Feodosii [name after conversion to a monk]  was a threat to the state by being an inciter for an opposition movement against the tsar? This story sounds reminiscent of the black-legends (Spanish Inquisition stories by northerners ( Dutch, English, German)? – gov. forcing people to follow a strict religious code by intimidation, to take their wealth, and the entire government is concerned only in trying to make people submit to religious rituals for profit). Notice the many passages where the tsar and his men take days and days out of their busy lives to address this minor aversion to one of Nikon’s reforms for one then three persons? Sig: Basic point was a rise in secular writings, (See Kiaser 205) some by anonymous persons. This was more likely a government protest piece similar to autonomous authors (mostly anonymous; some not)  of the 17th century Spain?  

Literacy changes

The writer is a conduit for God’s truth, and few people could read in Muscovite chronicles. Saint’s vita would be read to the congregation, Icon were to teach the people about life and saints, and by the 17th century a little changes start to begin with a few secular writings, and only a little percentage were truly were literate: Mid-to-Late 17th century, 1-2% (Gary Marker) were truly literate, but many people had a pre-literate knowledge, to write names and possibly know the alphabet. By end of century, there were two new printing offices. One was the tsar and the other in Ukraine.  The later came secular books out, and the primers and literary teach books were beginning to start a production.

One person (maybe more) models of Vita to teach people which were secular, and contemplations on the times. “ Today there can mot be anymore saints because the church has gone astray.”  Individuals were described in the round, not all good, but not all bad. Books like this talked about everyday subjects, and even had criticisms. But this was suppressed by the tsars, not published into the 19th century. The Picaresque  book(s) comes out, this is to entertain. Secular poetry…Politics began to be implied a wider process, a talk about critical culture widens as in a European sense. People started to talk politics in a new objective way.

17th century in general: See transitions: One sees public and private spheres, not all theocratic, self conscious definition beginning to emerge from the state. The state is here and now, not in the hereafter. Still a God appointed Tsar, but do not have to obey him in such words.

Does a new Law come into play over the Tsar’s office of decree?

 [The Tale of] Frol Skobeev, the Rogue,” in Serge A. Zenkovsky, ed. and transi., Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales, 2nd ed., New York: E.P. Dutton, pp. 474-486 Theme: Social mobility/story-telling. Contrast:  station ( Domain) in life was important in honor of the community: Here it breaks down to semblance of acceptance: possibly a rare case, none the less. Relevance: drastic change in life and mentality in the 17th century. Story: man falls for girl, then schemes, then Frol forced her against her will: raped? (477) She later started to care for him. “Never…regain my chastity.” (478). Skobeev was a poor nobleman (job: litigation solicitation) , and was not wealthy enough to offer his hand. She gave him money, but father found time to offer her daughter to  nobles in Moscow. He mortgage house to raise money to go to Moscow attempt to marry the women he loves: Coach episode funny, lovers secretly marry; He marries upwards: to a new domain?  father tells the tsar he cannot find her, tsar orders the missing daughter made public, upon death if someone is holding her hostage. It was tradition for the family to be involved in marriage of their daughter. This caused conflict with tradition? Lovchikov intervenes as promised. Send icon as blessing (this was a marriage tradition, see marriage/gifts Diss. 5) but here was for her heath? Frol and Annushka obviously do not care about their different ‘ domains.’ She being from a wealthier family and he quite poor, but still a noble. Bitter satire, picaresque-like theme comes in to play as someone can say he did all this scheming for access to Annushka’s parents money (secular writing/ As well as the comic-like satire) . Could be like a picaresque novel, absent of the boy-meets disaster upon disaster themes? Did Frol find happiness?  

"""""At last the matter was submitted to an ecumenical council, or the nearest approach to it attainable in the circumstances, which opened its sessions on the November 18, 1666 in the presence of the tsar.

On the 12th of December the council pronounced Nikon guilty of reviling the tsar and the whole Muscovite Church, of deposing Paul, bishop of Kolomna, contrary to the canons, and of beating and torturing his dependants. His sentence was deprivation of all his sacerdotal functions; henceforth he was to be known simply as the monk Nikon. The same day he was put into a sledge and sent as a prisoner to the far northern Ferapontov monastery. Yet the very council which had deposed him confirmed all his reforms and anathematized all who should refuse to accept them, like protopope Avvakum. Nikon survived the tsar (with whom something of the old intimacy was resumed in 1671) five years and was allowed to return to Moscow, expiring on his way thither, after crossing the Kotorosl River in Yaroslavl, the August 17, 1681."""""WIKI

The Zealots of Piety (Russian: Кружок ревнителей благочестия) was a circle of ecclesiastical and secular individuals beginning in the late 1630s in Russia, which gathered around Stefan Vonifatiyev, the confessor of tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. The impetus to the group's formation was the Times of Trouble. The members believed the massacres and conflagrations of the time to be the manifestation of a wrathful God, angry with the Russian people's lack of "religiosity." In response, the group called for the rebirth of the Russian Orthodox faith, and a renewal of the religious piety of the masses.

The Zealots of Piety included Fyodor Rtishchev, Archmandrite Nikon of the Novospassky Monastery (future Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia), Abbot Ivan Neronov of the Kazan Cathedral, archpriests Avvakum, Loggin, Lazar, and Daniil. The members of the Zealots of Piety wanted to enhance the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church and increase its influence upon the people. Among other goals of the circle were the struggle against the shortcomings and vices of the clergy, revival of church sermons and other means for influencing the masses. They also aimed to assist the needy and weak in Russian society, protecting them from social injustice, and to spread the Gospel to the Russian people, making faith more integral in daily life. The Zealots of Piety soon became the actual rulers of the Russian Orthodox Church, thanks to the support from the tsar, who had paid much attention to the advice of his confessor. After Nikon had been elected patriarch in 1652, the groups turned against their former member, protesting several of his reforms. Over time, the group began to dissolve, as many of its members became active figures in the Raskol movement.

In 1564 Nikon explained his liturgical changes…and he was Still trusted by the Tsar, Nikon….Nikon wanted to become co-sovereign like Michael Romanov’s father.His legislations angered the Zelots. He promoted legislation to restrict the sale of alcohol to one government location in each town and on Sunday during Lent and major fasts to ban the sale of alcohol. 1654 plague in Moscow was blamed on Nikon's reforms by the Old Believers. Nikon blamed the plague on the ecclesiastical intrusions of the 1645 Ulozhenie code.

(Which is it two of three is the change)

  1. Local icons had their fingers changed, so the hands are stubs, or cannot discern the fingers. Imagine that your ancestors got into heaven with certain numbers of  fingers ( when crossing themselves)  and foreigners come in a say change fingers – your old way is from the devil, you need to use this many?  This implies your ancestors are in hell. So the schism had real ramifications.

  2. Over time the Old believers got in trouble over political stuff, and the rituals were not the issue. (like not paying taxes… etc…) The Old Believers became accepted members and never died off, so there was this sense of this violence. And in Oregon and Alaska have Old Believers in The United States. Persecutions, Picks up under Peter when they resist conscription, and tax reforms.  

  3. Class systems in Russia are like stones, unmovable.              

  4. Rows of the iconostasis called chiny, is like your caste in Russian system,  and you are born into it and you die into it. Social mobility is for those rare occasions -- people – very talented and noticed could be promoted, by a patron, or the state --  and or beautiful women or men, according to desire of a wealthy bachelor – all of this is in theory.

  5. No middle class in Russia, it was a system in Russia where the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer in 17th century, In Europe, the middle class was forming, but in Russia it was never there. Short growing season, soil is bad, boggy weather, and forestry of the land, The land is not that productive, so the agrarian people of the land do not have much economic power.

  6. Virgins in 17th century called ‘ in tact’ the sources.

  7. (Social changes beginning in the mid-sixteenth century)

  8. The individual is called upon to become the scholar, and individual is called upon to become one with god, he or she doesn’t need the priest. How is collectivity contrasted with individuality?  How did the posad escape the hearth tax, they just build add-ons to their peasant houses and said they didn’t have to pay taxes, and their families and relatives would live basically under the same roof. This would end when Peter issues the head-tax. Peter goads them to the soul tax, a poll-tax-like in South of the United States and, Dūsha, in Russia, a head-tax.    

  9. People: Lived in hamlets, 3-4, and villages and the two banded together in communes,

  10. Peasants were free in the 15th century. Over time the peasants became tied to the land.

  11. Everything, in kind ( barter system) in cash, no money at this time. “Payment in Kind.

  12. Dues an obligations, peasants owes pay taxes, tribute to the Khan, maybe corn to local governor general who fed off the local population, and the postal system, upkeep of the militia and transportation system, there was no case. And some peasants could band together and pay in a lump some. Corvée work. Later part of 16th century an economic crises, increase the tax burden, rose steadily in the 16th century.  

  13. Barshchina labor services. “Payment in kind.” Why a payment in kind? there always was a lack of money in Moscow.

  14. Plots were decreasing, government giving out lands.

  15. Rare uprisings. Option was flight.

  16. Kama River by Urals, and to the southern boarder, Volga and to the White Sea, north of Moscow. 83% of settlements were disserted.

  17. 1580s, low level economic stabilities, then again problems began again at the Time of Troubles, the dynastic troubles.     

Voluntary Slavery:

10% of population sold themselves into a contract like slavery. No taxation or military service if one becomes a legal slave, just work for your owner.

Military slaves: get out of service by declaring bankruptcy.

Cannot support the poor, this state was poor, not a subsistence state, like socialism. In this kinship based society, slavery was the few safty nets for someone at the bottom.

How did the government react to the economic crisis?

State took steps to secure peasants to the land. The state didn’t have money to pay military servitors.

1580, peasants couldn’t switch landlords, the law codes, “forbidden Years” originally temporary, but permanent  and in 1601-2 people fled in famine, state could not stop them. Less enserfment the more away from the center of the state.

Plight of the peasant is not a pretty picture.

Times of Troubles, gives us an insight to the ideological structures of power.

Nationalism: Was there a nationalism? Probably not, and even though some Russian historians thought so. At times people came together to fight an enemy, but after this they had gone back to their diverse attitudes. There are no terms for nationalism in Russia, there is a sense of collective accountability toward their Christian past and the struggles of managing foreigners from within and interventions as with the T of T. The 17th century brought in large numbers of new languages and people together, yet it is not a multiculturalism foundation inside a conceptual model of nationalism – usually referred in Russian historiography as Russification. I have argued that during the period of Ivan, a certain type of nationalistic spirit rose, first with Ivan IV’s ancestors and his Muscovite dynastic heritage and a sense of Russia as a unity to overthrow Mohammad’s, in the east, was an imperialistic measure that was part of a national understanding of “us” verses “them.” Many Russian historians do not take this view citing that Muslims fought on both sides of the battle-lines, but this is spurious at best. Most history of both west and east have foreigners not affiliated to its religion or nationalism fighting on both sides of the battle-lines – mainly for economic and political interests – but not social and cultural. The synthesis and unification of Rus, by the Muscovite dynasties up until Ivan was simply a unity of Orthodox Christian Rus heritage that sought to unify all the princes they could to force a type of nationalistic spirit which determines not institutions, which are actually applied to civilization and “states” but to common heritage of culture that is aptly nationalistic. Most fitful of non-understanding of nationalism is that “nations” must be ethnically pure – this is not or ever was the case in history. Most historians rely on French agency, the French Revolution to form their understanding of what is a nation – yet this does little to understanding a nation—in that a nation was a prime understanding during the 30 Years’ War in the west during the second half of the war period. Rus, as nation, was trying to understand its boarders, just as western Europe during the 30 Years’ War and this describes groups unifying in a nationalistic understanding. A nation does not need a standing army, or mass-institutions, or defined boarders, or a constitution. These are myths by historians that have not understood the relation of common unity to symbols and heritages perpetuate the myth of what are nations. Like the Nation of Islam, or the Raider Nation ( Foofball Team in the U.S.A, Oakland, CA.) are simply nations predicated on ideals of tradition. For Rus, the Grand Princes of Moscow wanted to unify the peripheries to that of Muscovite-Orthodox-heritage of Kievan Rus’: that is determinable for a nation.

Origins of a Russian national consciousness according to Platonov: “ Platonov, a zemskie sabor, was a nationalism, but it was premature to say this was a national consciousness was acting. It did meet regularly for a few centuries. There were moments, against common enemies, but the sense of self, who are we fighting for, a term of the nation, 16ht century Europe Poles and Swedes talked about “a whole of the government and government as constituent parts.” It is hard to understand the representation of the peopled called to Moscow to come to a zemskie sober, a event that didn't happen periodically, but rarely. In the 16th century it possibly met three times, the most conservative estimate and liberally possibly seven times, but these were more rubber stamp meetings where the decisions of the Oligarchy had already made up their minds, and told the representatives, " well this is what is going to happen."

In Russia:  “not so much as unified terms, but in diversity.” Every towns and cities had their own allegiances, so not concept of unified state mentality. So Platonov was optimistic in this regard.

No argument on popular sovereignty, or Monarchy, or formalizing the zemskie sabor as a representative institution, so the Time of Troubles was not a great turning point. It did shape the seventeenth century to something dramatically different. Some Histories claim the Ivan IV was a turning point in Russia history, Platonov destroyed feudal state and weakened the church, and Pluchevskii ( J. K likes)  a social economic historian, he called the Time of Troubles a turning point. ( Kollman doesn’t agree). Times of Troubles opens windows to international changes, and shape the 17th into something different.17th century, Russia expands and incorporates many peoples, ethno-linguistic groups. No Ocean separating these people to all these different people.

Dying languages, 14 chulym’s alive today, so not on lists. Out in Siberia.

Russia was slowly Aggrandizement of land | New experiment in how to rule them?

*          Creeping expansion in the south and Siberia.

*          Muscovite state, Christianity remained a minor goal, as is evidence today.

*          Never a cash form of government, so how to make payments? Furs,

*          Artic tundra to the north, coniferous forest, not good for farming, cold, different tribes, no one languages among people, nomad peoples following reindeer herds, remnants of the Golden Horde, Sunni/Islamic.

*          Late sixteenth century, Muscovy started the imperialism of the east. The expansion to the south and east.

*          Mining of silver.

*          Follow the plow and fur travel.

*          It was not a policy of the state, the state power followed the travelers, and not an imperial ways, but soon they learned the economic treasures.

*          “I found silver , we could mine, sent troops so the natives don’t rob us.” State: “ Ok, sounds good, money for us? Employer - traveler: “ Yes! Business deal.”

*          1660, 1/3 of all revenue: Siberian commodities the government total take in of state revenue.

*          Russians give taxes to State, and the colonizers tax the natives.

*          Some Russian historians say not a violent expansion, no conscious imperial burden. There was no discourse of empire (Really? J.K)

*          Economic penetration (JK)

*          Political elites co-opted to make the new people pay taxes.

*          Colonial offices were created, do not want direct traditional offices over there.

*          No Russification of culture, religion, or language until late 18th and early 19th century when Religion gets a little tenser.

*          Significance to Russia Empire: great wealth to Ural silver mines, Farm produce from Ukraine, furs in Siberia/steppe. Taxes.
Ukraine area where the Cossacks flourished and U: Krai, (ne) means the borderlands. The Cossacks would flee there to escape government from all countries in the area. Form these lands that the major peasant’s uprisings occur.

*          Served historically as a frontier, a place to get away, to run away from government societies, very much like people in Alaska, appreciate being far away.

*          Western frontiers, and lawlessness, like the western frontier communities.

*          Stroganov 26-27th century, such a powerful merchant family, anyone makes a discovery of a salt mine, they jump in and take (or gold/silver). Rich merchant families that make loans to the government.

*          Political elite do not let people leave feudalism like the west, there was no strong state and representation.

*          No serfdom in the frontier.

·          Some slavophiles, romanticize, get rid of western influence and will go back to morality, lets go to Siberia the real Russia. But Russia was never part of Russia. How can one go back to something that was conquered?

·          17th century summary: arguments:

·          A stagnates fragmented state then into an all controlling service state.

·          Muscovy a time of dynamic change and social mobility.

·          TWO MAIN THINGS 17th CENTURY

·          Significance, besides the Times of Troubles, the new responsibilities of having an Empire.

·          New ideas, and administrator ideas,

·          Ukraine, Siberia…

·          New west engineers, Scottish, German, Dutch, Swedes...

Russian Rulers

GOVERNANCE AND EMPIRE
UNDER THE EARLY ROMANOVS


I. Peasant economy


  1. Slash/bum; two field; three field; economic rationality; dues and services
    obrok payment in cash or kind; barshchina = payment in labor
    After about 1500: elimination in Center of most free communes
    landlords’ authority
    Economic crisis
    Peasant response: flight
    Peasant response: slavery, voluntary and native, as a safety net
    vyt = mansus, minumum peasant plot to support a family (from the 1 570s most holdings fell to 1/2 to 1/8 of a
    kabala - slave contract
    kholop - slave

The Peasants Plight in Russia

1649 Ulozhenie: was a set of regulations or a code of law promulgated by the central authorities of the Muscovite state. It lasted nearly two centuries in its original form, and in a lesser sense, until 1917. Approximately 1,200 copies of the Ulozhenie were printed. It was brought about by a need for controlling social problems after Russia witnessed riots in Moscow and a dozen towns in June of 1648. Its 25 chapters are subdivided into 967 articles. Most of the articles were borrowed from foreign sources and have there origins in Byzantine law via the Kormchaia kniga, and may be traced to the Lithuanian Statue of 1588. Roughly one-twentieth of the articles can be traced to the Sudebnik of 1550.[1] One of the major effects of the code was that it fully established serfdom by tying the peasants and their progeny permanently to the land.  Serfs were defined as anyone who tilled the soil. The code did recognize the serfs as legal subjects; however, increasingly for over a century, they were bought, sold, and traded by landlords as virtual slaves.

1. Hellie, Richard, in Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski, vol., 40 (Gulf Breeze, Florida: Academic International Press, 1982), 194. In January 1649 its official approval came about by signatory in a zemskie sober.

Russian Slaves and Serfs

Richard Hellie, “ Enserfment in Muscovite Russia,” in Cracraft, Major Problems, pp. 46-58: Most important reason: The privilege class had honor addiction. They needed to feel superior in the social scene, and increasingly in the 17th century a population explosion threatened their old tight-knitted psychological privileged community.

Enserfment in Russia developed in three or four stages. During the quarter-century long civil war in the reign of Vasily II (1425-1462) selected monasteries which had grown into large economic enterprises need much manpower were granted the right by the state power to curtail the movement of their peasants to the period around St. George’s Day ( November 26): political concession in a period of labor disruption for services rendered by a particular monastery. “ It was done to gain monastery support.” The civil war began because no principle existed to decide who should be [ grand] prince, whether accession was lateral or vertical. In the past the khan had resolved such issues, but this was no longer realistic with the Tatar hegemony in its decline. The contesting sides could only fight it out. In the process Vasily II’s side gave away some peasant freedom to gain support. For reasons difficult to determine, this curtailment was applied to all peasants by the law code (Sudebnik) of 1497. After 1497 most peasants could move at only one time a year, upon payment of a small fee to the landlord. This by no means enserfed the peasants, who seem not to have protested against the minor restriction”( 46-47):  how do we know when so many scholars claim the chronicles didn’t report the truth and for the fact that only a small amount of records have come down to us from these periods? Before the Times of Troubles, there seem no recorded peasant outbreaks?

During the 1570s and 1580s, the  instability resulted from the decisions of Ivan IV’s retirement and creation of the Oprichnina and military reversals with the Livonian war. Many peasants were forced to migrate with certain nobility to the south and south/east and were not allowed to leave, while others remained free, and some fled and became unknown. There seems to be no evidence in the records of the enforcement of this policy.

The war caused a state problem to get more men into the military service. This meant taking them off the land and putting them into battle. A land shortage now was tied to an absence  of people being able to cultivate the land. Since many people were forced into military service naturally a forced labor service accompanied the military policy. This policy freed up people and solved the agricultural concerns for the state.

In 1581 in some areas there was a temporary measure to forbid peasants to move at all. This was called the “forbidden years.” In 1592 ( or 1539) Boris Godunov, seeking support of the influential for his bid for the throne, “promulgated a decree forbidding all peasants to move until further notice.” (47). In part this was a continual process of an economic solution.  The power of the state saw the state’s financial instability by way of peasant freedom. In the 1500s, peasants had been free to move about as they wished. Peasants that did move preferred to move to large estates and to the great boyars and the monasteries for better working conditions.

Muscovy ruled by intimate family relations, and the rulers were mostly related in someway to court heritage. Only a few outsiders were allowed into the outer circles of the power of government. Decisions came from the top and the peasants had little to say about it.

“The Times of Troubles had little influence on the enserfment…the confusion created peasant flight, and in 1613 The Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery and another wealthy monastery brought back the issue of the serfs, using legal means to recover now-called “fugitives.” (48) The Smolensk War (1613-1634) created a need for more taxes and peasants were the base of the Muscovy tax revenue. “Higher taxes at the center, combined with the possibility of lower rents and even complete freedom of the frontier, stimulated southward migration.” (48) The government secured the southern lands, but peasants were not settling on government lands. This deprived the army of manpower to garrison the frontiers. They didn’t have money to pay for peasants to settle in the right places. The magnates didn’t allow the government to wait for the recovery of fugitive peasants. In stead the magnates valued the migration of the peasants to their estates. During in the 1620s, the tax need created a phenomenon of peasant to slavery. Peasants could sell themselves into slavery for a period of time, from one to ten years, and even a lifetime, in which they would pay-off their debts. But with increasing demands and payments by the landlords the peasants found it impossible to pay-off their debts and became virtual slaves.

During  The Smolensk War period the Muscovite state increasingly became militaristic in western ways. This period saw a gun-powder revolution, and a decrease in the bow and arrow and uselessness for traditional cavalry --  peasants in the military used handguns with much more fatal accuracy.  Mjm -Military service was the only way for the peasants to increase their lot. They fled their servicemen landlords and migrated “to join the forces on the Belgorod cherta [line], which was contributing to the obsolescence of the old cavalry against the Tatars.” (49).

Since there were no middle-calls institutions, that is to say, on a wide-scale such as European-like guilds, and a middle class merchant class, the problems of a population explosion added too a groups with no technical skill, all of which complicated the social solutions.

Peasants have guns. Landlords do not like that.

Any social movement became more complicated. During the seventeenth century more people were brought into the Muscovy sphere which created nervousness of the privileged class. The Pomeshchik [ service landholder] refused to go to war without a dire need communicated by the government, and they were the traditional cavalry class. The privilege class asked the government to send peasants into the military instead of them. “For the psychology security the servicemen needed to have the peasant beneath him and, if possible, under his control.” (49) “When the peasants fled, the servicemen lost not only financial support, but also the presence of degraded people under his authority who reminded him daily that he was superior. “ (49).

Bibliography:

·          Richard Hellie, “Enserfment in Muscovite Russia,” in Cracraft, Major Problems, pp. 46- 58.

·          “Enserfing the Russian Peasantry: The Ulozhenie (Chapter 11) of 1649),” in Cracrafi,  Major Problems, pp. 5 8-67

The origins of social stratification

Ruling groups exploit peasants, according to R.E.F. Smith and Rodney Hilton: Serfdom developed in Russian beginning in the 16th century and early 17th century and lasted to 1861. Large number of peasants lived on Church lands, state lands, and the tsar’s family  ( and court) lands.  Landlords exploited the peasants. The state obliged all peasants to pay taxes and sent recruits to the army. Difference in peasants from serfs:  Serfs (seigniorial peasants)  were a type of peasants who were bound to a specific landlord were subject to his jurisdiction and laws. Their families passed their servile status to their children. They often went into debt and couldn’t emerge from this. Peasants that were not serfs, free tenant farmers and they lasted until the mid-sixteenth century; they had the right to move around and could find new owners. This law became coded in 1497 and 1550, but it was limited to two weeks a year at the end of an agricultural season, and sometimes special holidays. In 1649, this changed and peasants were no longer allowed to change owners. They became permanently liable to be returned if they fled under the law code Sobornoe ulozhenie.  By the eighteenth century the serfs were allowed to move and were deemed domestic serfs, and they were purchased as property by different landowners. The distinction between serf and slave was serfs were considered to be citizens of the Russian state and the slaves were considered owned by private individuals as personal property (67): Did this really matter in significance? Slavery in Russia had a long history until 1723. Why change, slaves could not be charge taxes? In 1679, agricultural slaves became liable to household tax. By 1723, all slaves were added to a poll tax census making slaves liable to taxes (98): Did this make them peasants? Yes, no longer was the term slave used? Serfs and slaves is a sketchy differentiation?

Sixteen Century Origins Peasants

Once Russia began to imperialize the issue were not land but the control over the peasants to till the soil. The fights of the rich against the poor caused the poor to become indebted to the rich and the rich said now I own you, even with a ideology that the state owned the peasants.  Klyuchevskii, writing in 1880, he argued that landlords deliberately played this role of enserfer, and took advantage of the peasant’s indebtedness. If a peasant was given a tool to use, he or she was charge, and so forth with commodities, food and privileges. Usually the landlord would lend it as money, to make it look as cash was owed. Where would the serf ever get cash? Once the debt became too large, the peasant was stuck into becoming a virtual slave, but just calling it legally a serf by the ruling and rich government. 18802 documents found suggest the pesansts’ right of movement was temporarily prohibited in some areas starting in the 1580s. This was called the “ forbidden years.” But V.I. Korestkii came across references in texts of court cases on birch bark to a decree of 1592/93 banning peasant movement altogether. Law code of 1550 had allowed the peasants to move once a year as suggested above. By 1649 peasants did not have this option any longer. What was the justification for the government?

According to this interpretation, the Russian state took a series of steps to

bind peasants to the land at times of crisis in order to ensure the loyalty of the

gentry cavalrymen(pomeshchiki,)who made up the backbone of the Russian

army in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Since the state lacked

the money to pay the cavalrymen, it gave them tracts of land in return for

service. They held the land on condition that they continued to serve. From

1556,moreover, boyars (aristocrats), who had previously held their extensive

estates in unconditional, hereditary tenure, also held their lands on condition

that they served the state. It was straightforward for the state to pay its servitors

with land, since it was plentiful in Russia; the scarce resource was labour. As

the gentry's grants of land were worthless without people to cultivate them,

the state enacted a series of measures to bind peasants to their land. (Moon 68)

 

It had been argued that the forest land, in the north, was difficult to harvest, and the military needed support, so the peasants were moved to these lands. Why not allowing them to move around? So that peasants could not form unions with other peasants in other lands to try to unify and rebel: This was the same policy for serf times in Europe’s serf age?  

Some wealthy landowners kidnapped peasants as the need to service land became an issue. Others offered peasants incentives, such as less required duties.

 

By the early eighteenth century, the measures binding peasants to the land

had led to the division of the Russian peasantry into categories according to

the owners of the land they lived on. The main categories were: seigniorial

(pomeshchich'i) peasants, or 'serfs', who lived on the estates of nobles; state

(kazennye, gosudarstvennye) peasants, whose land was state property; church

(tserkovnye, ekonomicheskie) peasants, who lived on lands belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church; and the smaller numbers whose landowners were

members of the tsar's family, known as court (dvortsovye) peasants until 1797,

and thereafter as appanage (udel'nye) peasants. (Moon 69)

 

While western Europe was abolishing serfdom, the rise in the eastern parts of Europe were rising. Serfdom also developed on the right-bank of the Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania and the Baltic provinces of Estonia, Livonia and Kurland, which were annexed by Russia in the eighteenth century. Landlords held their estates as demesne for their own production. The serfs cultivated the rest of the land for themselves. Originally, most of the labor of the demesne was carried out by slaves. Even as early as the sixteenth century, handcrafts made by peasants were owned for dispersal by landlords: Are not these virtual slaves? Labor service were more common in the fertile black earth provinces, where agriculture was the main economic activity (Moon 70-1). V.I. Semevskii form the “General Land Survey” cited 74 per cent of peasants in the fertile black area were serfs who worked labor services and 26 percent paid dues. In the less fertile forest-heartland, crafts were more identifiable services.  Serfs had to perform labor services or pay dues: Labor services were identified in a variety of services, where due paying serfs sold what was made or cultivated in a free-market. They had to pay dues to the landlord.  Most dues were services to the landlord, but over time and increasingly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries landlords demanded to be paid in cash. By the 1850s, serfs were doing both, a “mixed obligation.” (Moon 71)  Obrok (pay dues) or Barshchina (Labor service): In the empires western borderlands ( especially Ukraine, Belorussia and Lithuania) performed labour services. (Moon 71)  Nineteenth century seigniorial pesansts’ labor was higher still. (72) 1760s General Land Survey cited a norm of 1.5 desyatiny in the Central Black Earth region, by mid-nineteenth century is went up to 2 desyatiny, meaning from three days work to one quarter of the landlords demanding four days work of free labor. Many peasants were compelled to work harder due to the task system. Instead of being told to work on the demesne so many days a week, peasants were assigned additional work. Some landlords forced their serfs to work five to six days a week on their demesne. Working so many days depended on the landlord and sometimes locations. South-eastern landlords allowed serfs to work only two days a week. The system known as the mesyachina, was rare, in the mid-nineteenth century. The peasants ran plantations lines, in return for monthly rations. Other system were distillation, manufacture work, food processing, produce potash, cloth and other goods for sale. In the late eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, at least one third of the serfs had their labor services taken away from them by their landlords in favor of paying cash to the landlord. Now Obrok, had differentiating levels ( rates) in nominal monetary terms, which also increased over time.  Tsar’s frequently devalued currency to pay for their wars, and this became periods of depreciation and inflation. Landlords needed cash more and more.

 

Dues(obrok): levels

The average level of obrok rates, in nominal monetary terms, also increased

over time. Before assessing the actual hnpact of cash obrok,however, it is

necessary to consider changes in the real value of the rouble as a result of

depreciation and inflation. Tsars frequently debased the currency to pay for

their wars. Among the most expensive were the Thirteen Years' War with

Poland (1654-67), the Great Northern War with Sweden (1700-21), and the

Seven Years' War (1756-62). At various times, silver coins were replaced

by copper, and the metal content reduced. In 1769,during the Russo-Turkish

War (1768-74), paper roubles (assignats) were issued in tandem with silver

roubles. They held their value until the 17905,but fell sharply as more were

issued to pay for Russia's involvement in the wars with France. By 1800the

paper money was worth around two-thirds of its nominal value and, by the

end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815,less than a quarter. In 1839-41 the currency

was stabilized. The exchange rate was set at 1 paper rouble to 0.286

silver roubles (3.5 paper roubles =1 silver rouble). The stable currency did

not survive the expense of the Crimean War (1853-56), and the new paper

'credit roubles' lost some of their value. The depreciation of the rouble gave

unscrupulous landowners and traders opportunities to deceive peasants into

paying more. For much of the early nineteenth century, the 'popular rate' was

1 paper rouble to 0.25 silver roubles: a bad deal for peasants paying in silver

For dues or goods priced in paper. The purchasing power of the rouble also

fell as a result of inflation. Boris Mironov traced changes in average grain

prices in the Russian Empire between the mid-sixteenth and early twentieth

centuries. Although there were significant regional and short-term variations,

he showed that there were periods of inflation in the mid-seventeenth and the

third quarter of the nineteenth centuries. The most striking trend, however, was

a 'price revolution' over the eighteenth century, when grain prices increased

sixfold, measured in grams of silver, and elevenfold in nominal terms. (Moon 74)

 

Much study in currency rates and  obrok rates by historian, especially Russian to determine how hard serfs had to endure struggles to survive? Russians are very sensitive about this issue. Their conclusion was obrok rates varied from region to region. And yet, obrok rates are not accurate guides to actual levels of exploitation. There was a difference between what landlords [officially ] demanded and what they received. ( Moon 76) Some peasants could not pay in full because they were poor. Sometimes harvest failures as in 1822 caused payment difficulties. With the exception between the begging and end of Peter The Great’s reign, obrok rates did rise consistently. Generally in the last century landlords  extracted from one-third of the peasants’ income in dues.

Domestic Serfs, on the seigniorial estates, a proportion of the peasants were domestic serfs (dvorovye lyudi). If a large estate, the domestic serfs paid the field serfs taxes. The domestic serfs saw this as an added weight of the many problems already encountered in their lives. Domestic serfs provided the services of the later slaves abolished in 1732. The conversion of field serfs to domestic serfs created difficulties for the communities of serfs and their households. Peasants on state domains originally had “mixed obligations” but Peter the Great replaced them with obrok, in cash payments, but were a little lower than prior rates. It was raised again in 1798, but the obrok became more complicated in levels depending on prosperity, but still this was subject to the ability to pay. Still between 1723 to 1861, state peasants’ dues were lower than seigniorial obrok. Peter’s measures were predicated on a need for peasants to build the new capital of St. Petersburg. Peter used forced peasant labor, for example, to pay for his navy projects and extended this to all forced labor industry: can some see the potential for justification of communism’s forced industrialization plan in the 20th century? Russia was predisposed to this exploitation, so why change?   Between 1721 to 1762, merchants were allowed to purchase peasants. I contend these are domestic slaves and peasants are too nice of a term here? In a radical measure, Peter secularized the church and the peasants in 1672. this meant that all the peasants’ obligations to their former ecclesiastical landowners were commuted ot a flat-rate obrok of 1 rouble per male soul, to be paid to the state.” (Moon 79) Here Peter was in need for cash? Catherin the Great (r. 1762-98) cancelled this decree in 1768. Court peasants renamed appanage (udel’nye) peasants in 1797, were treated differently. The church and court peasants dues were below the others so this was an policy to increase the dues. Flat rate was caused by a suspicion that peasants were not reporting their true incomes, or were hiding their money, claiming they couldn’t pay. If a flat-rate, this meant that everyone had to pay? This was achieved by levying the tax on households instead of individuals: So one person in that house had to work hard for the others if they didn’t produce? In addition, the treasury needed more money, so the rulers imposed additional taxes for specific purposes. Peter the Great had to finance his wars and pay for the huge army and navy. He also resorted to extraordinary taxes, most famously, his ‘beard tax.’ Peasants were not liable to be tax on their beards if they stayed in their villages, but on entering and leaving a town, for example to go to a market, they had to pay a kopek for the privilege of being unshaven.  (Moon 80). Poll taxes were in effect in some areas or some levels of the population and was long lasting measure. Historians have long maintained, however, that the poll tax greatly intensified the load of direct taxes on the peasantry. Some historians have tried to revise the three-times increase by arguing inflationary costs and other communal household flat-rate payments. It is hard to contend when the house pays the taxes instead of census for each individual? Possibly a sign that the poll tax increased everyone’s tax burdens is when Peter’s widow and successor Catherin I (r.1725-27) came to power, she reduced the poll tax slightly to 70 kopeks per male soul in 1725.  (Moon 82)

 

What did many serfs do under Peter’s reign? Most became servicemen in Peter’s military state. In 1699, on the eve of the Great Northern War, he introduced military service for life. Many of the earlier recruits were slaves, but the brunt of conscription came to be borne by the peasantry. (Moon 83) Conscription was a drain on the peasantry and one needs to attend the services? Most peasants never returned to their serf estates, as the Crimea War, The Napoleonic War, and other military service needed their call. After the end of lifetime service in 1793, retired soldiers were legally classified as ‘raznochintsy’ ( ‘ people of various ranks’) Some soldiers did go back to peasantry. Internal passports, a 1719 introduction by Peter the Great kept track of the people liable to conscription, and after 1724, the poll tax. Peasants and townspeople were not allowed to leave their places of residence, as recorded in the tax census, without a passport of other papers. (Moon 84) 1694 law code and this passport law made the peasants bound to land twice over; and this was complicated by fugitive laws.   This was a further boundary between the privileged elite and the tax-paying population, mostly peasants. The state sold Tax rights to tax farmers, similarly to the system in the Ottoman Empire.  Tax farmers could give money to communities or peasants on an estate, and the peasants would estimate a future sum to pay back. It was like a credit system and was introduced as a measure to secure normal living standards for peasants in cases of years of drought or hard times. Tax farmers paid a fixed income to the state and kept the profits. They had the power to set the rates for peasants on future commodities.  This could and did make entire communities accountable for taxes and usually caused an entire community to go into further debt. These also coincided with monopolies, which raised domestic commodities for peasants. Drink tax farmers were set up as well.   The liquor tax farmer paid a set tax to the state and loaned money to the peasants to purchase liquor and for a future increased cost. The credit system could be seen as positive or negative. The peasants were aware of the state exploitation because the state understood these ramifications: But the state just needed their money? Also peasants had to open up their houses to Russian military servitors for several months a year: does this mean they had to feed more heads? Peasants were also obliged for upkeep of their parish churches and local surroundings. There were consistent disputes of the payments between peasants and clergy. (Moon 86) All these measures increased the burdens and hardships on the peasants in the first-half of the nineteenth century.

 

Exploitation was the highest in the central regions which were the heartland of serfdom and state control. It is possible to conclude that overall levels of exploitation reached a plateau under Peter the Great and the middle decades of the eighteenth century. This was the period when the Russian Empire consolidated its position as a major European power, with its large and expensive armed forces, which were manned and paid for mostly by the peasants. (Moon 88) The elite who did business with the peasants in general paid less for the product than the average merchant.  But a few laws protected the peasants from giving all their subsistence and productive capacity away to the elite. One can only work the peasant to exhaustion daily. After that, the person dies? Another so-called protection of the elite were allowances to not to have to produce the “full” amount when a bad crop season was blamed on nature. In this way the elite were benevolent creatures. These protections were in the form of an ideology of “ Little Father.” The tsar treated his serfs as his children and he was the paternal father.   He fashioned an illusion that he cared for his children, who he new were exploited to the limit. The empresses of the eighteenth century used the maternal imagery. (Moon 89). Also the elite showed protection by not constantly treating the peasants with cruelty: just during their bad days?

 

There were also landless labor peasants called bobyli, who owed a little light obligations t their landlords.  One can understand pretty people would eventually rise in their stations regardless of birth and good looks no mater what century or land, was always a certain vehicle for advancement.  These often explain peasant exceptions to the rule. Other exceptions could be a valued peasant who is extraordinary in skill and wit who befriends landlords or the elite and are lifted out of their misery.

 

From the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century until the reforms of 1860s, the vast majority of Russian peasants had access to land to cultivate. (Moon 93)In Ukraine, and other parts of Europe laborers wandered: Is this an argument that serfdom is preferred over freedom?  Tsars did give out rations during the bad harvest years and reduced taxes in those years. Some rich landlords also were benevolent. But if not the state guided the landlords to be less severe during the hardship years. You did not want your workforce to die-off? The state tried to place the burden of this benevolence on the rich magnates who had to be repeatedly told to loosen up overbearing measures against the peasants. In 1822 and 1834 the state forced the landowners to share responsibilities for famine relief.  (Moon 95)

David Moon, “The Russian Peasantry: 1600-1930, The World The Peasants Made” (London: Longman, date): Ch. 3 Exploitation:

  1. II. Long-term significance of the “Smuta
    “national consciousness”? the vocabulary of political representation
    phenomenon of pretenderism (samosvanchestvo)
    historical tuming points -- Ivan? Smuta?
    III. The problem of empire in early modem conditions
    heritage of multi-ethnic composition
    North: East Slays, Karelians, Finns, Komi-Zyriane, Nentsy, Komi-Permians Steppe frontier: Finno Ugric and Tatars
    IV. The example of Kazan’, 1552+

VII. Benefits and challenges of empire


Siberia on the Russian mind: Slavophiles, Solzhenitsyn
VIII. The vision of “absolutism’ (well-ordered police state, Reichstaat, national monarchies, etc.)
stimulated in W. Europe by military reform, taxes to pay for military reform, recruitment of lower classes into army, dynamic public opinion (printing, Reformation, social mobility, secular political philosophy
ruler = first servant of the state.

V. Expansion to Siberia

  1. Climate, geography, peoples
  2. Motivations for Muscovite expansion: economic (Yennak)
  3. “Benign” but corrupt, centralized administration (iasak, or yasak)
  4. VI. Principles of Muscovite colonial policy
  5. Motivations and “imperial vision”
  6. Diverse, often indirect, means of conquest
  7. Tolerance of local status quo
  8. Selective coercion
  9. Little Russification or Russian in-migration
  10. These principles change starting in late eighteenth century

Siberian Frontier: (Movie) Dersu Uzala, was filmed out in Siberia, a story of late 19th and early 20th century are sent out to Siberia to map it, and they are city folk of Moscow and the are helpless, and Dersu makes a living collecting fur, and the short of it is city folk hire of Mongol as a guide, and it like Crocodile Dundee, so the city guys cannot survive, and the point is they are sophisticated and the primitive guy is the survival guy who helps them survive in Siberia. The Russia city people sent out to Map Siberia. (Goldy/Nanai).

Slaves do not pay taxes, but they were no more than 6% of the population ( See Hallie)

Valerie Kivelson, map making in Russia, University of Michigan, tells a lot of information on Russia.

Where was the Money?

The Conquest and Subjugation of Siberia

Siberia: In the eleventh century, the people of the Grand Principality of Novgorod had known the northern region of the western part of Siberia. During the consolidation of the Muscovy in the fifteenth century, periodic campaigns undertaken into Siberia established diplomatic relations between Ibak, the Khan of Tiumen and the Russian government. Developing over the sixteenth century, several Yugorian tribes began to pay tribute to the Russians in the lower courses of the Ob River.  The last quarter of the sixteenth century Russia consolidated relations with the Khanate of Siberia.  Conditions were right for the Russian state to consider the possibility of acquiring Siberia.[1] The conquest of Siberia was an economic and not a religious undertaking. Much of the attraction came from discoveries of mineral deposits and a wide range of animals that could meet a Muscovite foreign demand for exotic furs. Siberia represented the rise of the Stroganov clan -- a merchant family who obtained holdings in the wild upper Kama region, where they maintained a garrison and imported colonists, to protect their new mining operations. During the seventeenth century the Muscovite central authority began to subjugate Siberian natives for their interests in the international fur trade. Despite central authorities allowing certain rights to newly incorporated people, natives often were economic slaves. Part of the reason was the Muscovite government’s lack of oversight which allowed lawlessness to go unchecked. However, native’s rights did eventually improve over time as the central authority sought to win the favor of the wealthy and influential natives.  Siberia's significance brought Russia new responsibilities of having an (unofficial) Empire.

1. M.M. Gromyko in Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski, vol., ? (Gulf Breeze, Florida: Academic International Press, 1982), 66.

17th century, Russia expands and incorporates many peoples, ethno-linguistic groups. No Ocean separating these people to all these different people.

Fallout: Dying languages, 14 chulym’s alive today, so not on lists. Out in Siberia.

Russia was slowly Aggrandizement of land | New experiment in how to rule them?

*          Creeping expansion in the south and Siberia.

*          Muscovite state, Christianity remained a minor goal, as is evidence today.

*          Never a cash form of government, so how to make payments? Furs,

*          Artic tundra to the north, coniferous forest, not good for farming, cold, different tribes, no one languages among people, nomad peoples following reindeer herds, remnants of the Golden Horde, Sunni/Islamic.

*          Late sixteenth century, Muscovy started the imperialism of the east. The expansion to the south and east.

*          Mining of silver.

*          Follow the plow and fur travel.

*          It was not a policy of the state, the state power followed the travelers, and not an imperial ways, but soon they learned the economic treasures.

*          “I found silver , we could mine, sent troops so the natives don’t rob us.” State: “ Ok, sounds good, money for us? Employer - traveler: “ Yes! Business deal.”

*          1660, 1/3 of all revenue: Siberian commodities the government total take in of state revenue.

*          Russians give taxes to State, and the colonizers tax the natives.

*          Some Russian historians say not a violent expansion, no conscious imperial burden. There was no discourse of empire (Really? J.K)

*          Economic penetration (JK)

*          Political elites co-opted to make the new people pay taxes.

*          Colonial offices were created, do not want direct traditional offices over there.

*          No Russification of culture, religion, or language until late 18th and early 19th century when Religion gets a little tenser.

*          Significance to Russia Empire: great wealth to Ural silver mines, Farm produce from Ukraine, furs in Siberia/steppe. Taxes.
Ukraine area where the Cossacks flourished and U: Krai, (ne) means the borderlands. The Cossacks would flee there to escape government from all countries in the area. Form these lands that the major peasant’s uprisings occur.

*          Served historically as a  frontier, a place to get away, to run away from government societies, very much like people in Alaska, appreciate being far away.

*          Western frontiers, and lawlessness, like the western frontier communities.

*          Stroganov 26-27th century, such a powerful merchant family, anyone makes a discovery of a salt mine, they jump in and take (or gold/silver). Rich merchant families that make loans to the government.

*          Political elite do not let people leave feudalism like the west; there was no strong state and representation. Yet, to understand this, political elite were not unified, a vast land area signified difficulties in cross-communication and unification.

*          No serfdom on the frontier.

 

Some slavophiles, romanticize, get rid of western influence and will go back to morality, lets go to  Siberia the real Russia. But Russia was never part of Russia. How can one go back to something that was conquered?

1.        17th century summary: arguments:

·         A stagnates fragmented state then into an all controlling service state.

·         Muscovy a time of dynamic change and social mobility.

 

TWO MAIN THINGS IN 17th CENTURY

New ideas, and administrator ideas,

Another sig, besides the Times of Troubles, the new responsibilities of having an unofficial Empire.

Ukraine, Siberia…

 

New west engineers, Scottish, German, Dutch, Swedes

Significance: Russian imperializes lands using ‘some’ similar tactics of economic overlordship as the Mongol-Tatars previously in the 13-14th centuries. They leave native cultures in tact, coerce other tribes by psychological ‘divide and conquer’ tactics with a formula of allying with a “ best man” and create a vast fur trade network, fortresses, outposts/blockhouses, and eventually colonization. Security: Forts and blockhouses set up scattered over a vast territory were referred too as Ostrogs. There were no citadels, and were mainly protected by a stockade and towers. Building needed to begin in spring, after the rivers thawed, and finished before winter. Ostrogs were the mechanics to maintaining Russian control out in the far-off lands.  Small Ostrogs were called ostrozheks. Motive was an international need for fur, including Europeans’ who preferred it. This was economic in concept. How or why were they conquered? “The Siberian natives, politically disunited, backward, and unfamiliar with firearms, were invariably defeated whenever they dared offer open resistance to the military organization and superior military equipment of the Russians.” (Lantzeff 87).  Application of "Divide et empera."- Once an ostrog was established, the immediate problem of providing for the safety of theRussian expeditionary force was solved, and the local voevodas could proceed with subduing the natives within the vicinity of the ostrog and imposing upon them delivery of the iasak (fur tribute). (Lantzeff 89): Divide and conquer were also tactics employed by the Mongol- Tatars, but this did not mean their policy was adopted. This tactic is as old and the first book on war in China. These concepts could be liked to family disputes from all generations and areas of the world.   When the troops secured the fort, they looked to who was the leader of the local region, and if there were local fighting clans. They would place the focus of the bad guy onto one of the tribes’ and play-off the other by supporting a “best man.” This only worked insomuch as the clans remained divided, which was a problem for this region in the 16-17th centuries. In no circumstance, even with firepower, could this have taken place in the 13th century, as the steppe and eastern region clans, tribes and forces were united with big armies under powerful and charismatic leaders. The “best man” “was a great administrative convenience:’”

The government sought especially to win the favor of the wealthy

and influential natives. This policy was pursued from the very

beginning of the Siberian occupation. Captured members of the

native nobility were treated with consideration and sometimes

released in the hope that they would bring their relatives and

supporters to the Russian side." (Lantzeff 92):

Like the Tartar’s giving the iarlyk to the princes in Russia which took the place of the Baskaki in the 14th century, here we see a similar tactic employed. This doesn’t mean that this concept was transferred. This only shows universal tactics employed by imperializing nations/states.

The good will and support of the native chiefs was a weighty factor in the country, where the natives greatly outnumbered their conquerors." To win them over to the Russian side, special methods were used. Whenever a new voevoda was appointed, one of the first things he had to do was to invite the native chiefs and the "best men" from the surrounding territory to the ostrog, and to meet them in an impressive fashion, appealing to the natives' psychology. A solemn "reception" was held, with the voevoda and the serving men garbed in gala "colored dress." The chiefs passed between the ranks of serving men standing in military formation, while cannon and muskets were discharged in salute. Then the voevoda delivered a speech, emphasizing the power and benevolence of the government, enumerating the injustices from which the natives suffered, and promising, in the future, new favors and the elimination of evil practices. The procedure ended with a feast, where the natives were given an opportunity to gorge themselves with food and drink. Strong drinks were especially popular, and a petition has been preserve in which the natives complained that they were served beer instead of strong liquor. Similar feasts were held on the occasions when the chiefs arrived in town with the iasak from their volosts and were rewarded with various gifts in the form of cloth, metal tools, and brightly colored beads. (Lantzeff 93):

GOVERNMENT POLICIES TOWARD THE NATIVES IN GENERAL

Oaths of-loyalty and hostages

The key to understanding why the Russian didn’t kill many or most of the natives was exactly the same reason the Mongol- Tartar’s have said not to kill all the people they conquered. They needed them alive to work for their economic motives.

Whenever expeditions sent against the natives succeeded in their purpose, either by persuasion or by, force, the natives had to take a solemn oath of loyalty to the Russian tsar and pledge faithful fulfillment of their duties. Appeal was made to the local 'superstitions, and the supernatural agencies operating in a given tribe were invoked to bring a terrible fate and destruction upon those who broke the oath." After some experience with the natives, the Russians learned to investigate carefully whether or not the oath was a "straight" one, because the natives, counting on Russian ignorance of the local beliefs, might stage a "fake" oath which they did not consider efficacious. Another method of assuring the obedience of the natives, much more certain than by demanding the oath of loyalty, was the practice of taking hostages. The intimidated natives of the newly conquered territories were forced to hand over to the Russians their chiefs and other influential "best men."" In the subdued territories some of the chiefs who brought furs were detained at the ostrog by the Russians. The more important the hostage and the more numerous the tribe he represented, the greater was the guarantee  that the natives would fulfill their obligations. Usually the Russians kept one or two hostages from every volost. At intervals ranging from one month to a year the hostages were exchanged for new ones." When the natives came again with furs, hostages were shown to them to dispel any doubts as to their fate. The voevodas were instructed to keep hostages well guarded under lock, sometimes in irons, in order to prevent their flight or rescue by their kinsmen. Apart from these precautions, the prisoners were supposed to be well treated and fed at the government's expense. This is hardly necessary to add that the local officials often took very poor care of their charges. The hostages received bread only when they were displayed to their kinsmen. Dog food and carrion flesh were likely to be included in their diet, and there are records to show that sometimes they were starved to death." (Lantzeff 96-7).

Another assurance to obedience was taking hostages, and leaving them at the Ostrogs, months at a time or up to a year, until the amount of fur was gathered and presented as tribute; then new hostages would rotate. This was a medieval practice in most economic overlord cases, including the same ethnicities enacting this ‘time’ hostage program in their own systems. This was widespread, but not universal. “The [Russian] institution was officially abolished hi 1769." [ The Tokagowa is one example of political systems that used this practice on their own people in the 17-19th centuries, albeit for different motives, still economically based, part of the sankin kotai]  (Lantzeff 97) The natives not only provided the gathering of the fur ( usually sable) but they also were redirected into other duties, such as feeding the Russians be agriculture, transportation services, and some high native officials were used to collect ‘travel taxes’ from foreign and Russian merchants traveling east and west. Some natives who couldn’t work were allowed an excuse. The most desired native was the loyal, intelligent and physically fit male natives that could be transferred to the Russian army, and some so capable became generals. Baptized natives were seen as a financial loss. They received rights as a Russian citizen. The only reason for a possible encouragement for spreading Christianity was so the soldiers could have female companionship. Otherwise, they left the tribes to their convictions. The factor of Christianity led to an attitude toward slavery when slaves were transferred to Russia from Siberia. “The Muscovite tried to suppress the acquisition of natives as kholops ( serfs or slaves) in Siberia, or their transportation to Russia. In 1599 vigorous instructions were sent to Siberia, commanding that all captured Tatars, Ostiaks, and Voguls be set free.” (Lantzeff 102). Traffic in natives was strictly forbidden and an offender could face the death penalty. Those already exported to Russia were returned to their homes. Very tricky backroom dealings in regards to slavery existed out in the field. If a native was baptized they could be slaves, so forceful baptism was an issue. The government tried to stop this in 1625, 1631-1641 but the Russian service people were too far out in the wilderness to care. This policy of slavery was a deep rooted issue away from the central government. Does this mean the central government really cared about all the ‘fur’ money coming in from Siberia?

As things progressed, certain civilities developed. “the Clemency and kindness” policy. It would be hard to very difficult to force the natives to work night-and-day because they would commit communal suicide, which happened sometimes. When the natives found no escape routs or hope, they turned to killing themselves. ( this happened in America as well with the natives when being conquered). One must remember Siberia is possibly the coldest inhabited region on earth. Sometimes temperatures drop to over 60 below zero. Over time the natives could petition the Russian government, get special days-off, and have more rights. Quotas were dripped to two sables a day. Also they were allowed juridical apparatus for a price which was exploited by Russians who charged for court duties for hearing and deciding domestic disputes. Also murder from one member of a tribe or clan to another was also a court issue. Certain veovodas did not exhibit this kindness and made life impossible for the natives. Some of the records show that Russians destroyed personal property when the quotas were not met. Did the government put pressure on these veovodas to produce economic results?

Were there rebellions, or attempts to overthrow the Russian Yoke? Yes, many times, and a few serious attempts. He factor was forming clan unity which was usually the problem in serious attempts. From the onset of the conquests to the east, the natives fought back, the ones that could did valiantly. Forms of protests were no paying the iasak, fleeing and migrating away from the ostrogs, and petitioning Moscow.

The flight of the natives from Russian rule, especially of tribes living along the southern frontier, was a source of worry to the central government. Once the natives crossed the border and united ,with the hostile Kirghiz, Kalmucks, or Mongols they were irretrievably lost as suppliers of iasak for the treasury. Accordingly, the local officials were instructed to pursue the fugitives. When, for instance, in 1616,some Tatars fled from Tiumen, a posse was organized by the voevodas and when the runaways were overtaken, a battle took place in which several Tatars were killed. Some saved themselves by flight, but nine families were brought back.  (Lantzeff 110).

 In 1612, after the natives heard there was no Tsar they tried to rebel by forming an alliance of Voguls, Tatars, and Ostiaks. The alliance was successful in taking Pelym, and tried to ally forces again, but this was the most successful operation in the first half of the seventeenth century. In 1662-1663, natives of western Siberia, including Tatars, Voguls, Bashkirs, and Ostiaks tried again to organize. They would skirmish and kill iasak collectors, and the promyshlenniks as well as rob them to gain their merchandize. In the 1640s, the Tungus and Iakuts began killing the merchants and collectors and rebellions were seen in Tungus on Enisei in 1627-1628. rebellions began with them in 1595 and again in 1607.  Tatars of Kuznetsk made trouble in 1630. In 1635 the Buriats stormed the ostrog of Bratsk and massacred its entire garrison. Throughout the seventeenth center many attempts to end the Russian Yoke occurred with many clans and many regions. “ The policy of the Muscovite government toward the Siberian natives was determined by its interests in Siberian fur.” (Lantzeff 114). Summery:

In dealing with the natives, the government tried to make alliance with their uppere1ass ; even hostile chiefs were well treated  and allowed to keep their hold over their subjects, thus becoming  a part of the administration. On certain occasions the native chiefs were entertained by feasts and were given presents. Stubborn  enemies of the Russia however, were severely dealt with. As a sign of their submission, the native had to take an oath of allegiance and had to deliver hostages. Once they were subdued Russia was not interested in their Russification… nor did the government desire the extermination of the natives, indeed it exhibited a degree of anxiety over their welfare [ to make money] (Lantzeff 114).

In response to oppression, the natives tried to protest to Moscow, to refuse the delivery of the iasak, to move to other lands, and, finally, to oppose the Russians with arms. Continual murders of the iasak collectors and attacks upon shipments of furs and food seriously hampered the collection of furs, and required constant military vigilance, while some of the administration. (Lantzeff 115)

George V. Lantzeff, “Siberia in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of the Colonial Administration” ( Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 1943).

Basil Dmytryshyn, ed., Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 850-1700, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991, Section 53, “Russian Conquest and Exploitation of Siberia,” pp. 342-355 Theme: the government wanted to send special forces to suppress the people, because the frontier explores and workers needed to co-habituate with the local populations. Therefore special army forces were sent to subjugate tribes. Certain Russian troops specialized in making the natives conform to the Tsar’s wishes/ government. It was not the government trade-workers or explores’ job to take matters into their own hands if leaders of any of the tribes stated they would no-longer conform to their agreements. There were reasons why according the government.  That said, surveillance & communication ran the mechanics of conquest by the Russian government. Between 1580-1650s, the Russians took control of all northern Asia form the Urals to the Pacific. The conquest of this vast territory, rich in resources and inhabited by primitive tribes, transformed the hitherto East, European, Orthodox, Slavic Muscovite state into a huge multinational and multicultural Eurasian Russian colonial empire. (342). Russians derived four basic benefits from their new territory. The extracted great wealth form the collection of tribute imposed on native inhabitant. They utilized it as a place to exile malcontents. They made it a base from which to launch new conquests. And they took advantage of its location to establish contacts with China and Japan and North America: This comes later than the 17th century?

A Report of Voevoda of Tobolsk , to the Voevoda of Pelym, Concerning Unrest Amoung the Natives, June 21, 1606. One of the mechanics of conquest was letter writing. It was needed to communicate between the government and between government officials. Here, 300 hundred insurgents in Pelym did not want to pay the tribute. Two main leaders, one named Lavkai and the other Botogo, but also others; Native leader’s subordinates were called by the Russian government ulus subjects.  Here this letter details the procedures for submission possibly constructed originally by the Russian government. (1) after find out who is the leader, make them take an oath of allegiance to the Tsar of Russia; (2) take hostages so they will return and do the government’s bidding; (3) threaten punishment, if they or the ulus steal, thieve, or do bad. Punishment can be in the form of physical, or material, that is destroying their lives. There was also non-iasak people called by the government transmontane: They had to be “pacified by military means”?(348) If they submit, they can, of course, live like they used too, but recognize they are (orphans) under the protectorship of the Russian state: now becoming an proto-Empire? The goal first was to get cheap or free labor from the eastern nomadic who knew how to hunt and supply the Russians with various pelts, furs and animal skins for a very lucrative western and south/eastern trade ( mainly western Europe). However, in the steppe, the government understood that sable and other large animals did not exist, so they tell the Russian trade-workers to find other things of value to possess. The government also doesn’t want freebooter and even explores not sanctioned to retrieve the iasak. Measure are ordered for surveillance and a head person for this region was a man named Erofei, “personally entrusted with the government assignment” (349). One of the reasons for an oversight was not to allow fear into the subjugated peoples. That is to say, that only certain people can subjugate them and they are protected with assurance by these appointees and veovoda. The idea ( see Lantzeff) was not to kill the people or make it so hard that they would flee, or in this case, they would unite and try to attack an ostrogs. Penalty for people not entrusted with collecting the iasak was severe. Erofei has many duties, one is to keep tribal warring factions to a minimum, so not to interrupt the natives duties. Also, to keep an eye out for opportunists who could pose as official iasak collectors. If he found some, he was not to take issue but to contact Moscow or by way of a government officials who would take measures to send the special forces. How could this happen? Servitors were also sent out into the frontier to build communities, mainly to build fort-like structures as an outpost for travelers, explores and possibly in the future for colonization. They could if they desired take advantage being so far away from Moscow to become imposters and collect free furs. They could also try to subjugate tribes themselves. This was a concern from Moscow. If over suppression happened did the subjugated have any recourse?

Like Native Americans, Siberia had Natives in which Russians tried to win their loyalty

Three Petitions to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich from Iakut Natives Protesting Inequitable and Ruinous Iasak Impositions, 1659-1664: This petition was sent one tribe to  a Bordonsk volost. Apparently. The complaint,   due to deaths in the family, or fathers that were killed, the sons had to make up for the amount of furs they would had to pay. Why, they were registered in am accounting book, like a census.  Does this mean the iasak collectors were making undo demands? Some natives could not pay their allotment of pelts per year, and they would petition the tsar (government) which was their rite. The complained this was an extra iasak payment when a family member or registered tribute payer had died between the years of the annual census-registration. In this case, the natives had to sell their meat (cows) to make up the extra funds to pay the iasak. If the natives couldn’t make the full payments, a new current assessment was drawn up, which mean they had to pay extra the next year. I’m not sure if the “past arrears” are for payments when the voevoda knew of the dead brothers and fathers or not. If they did this was surely an extra burden on the already subjugated people (351). The complaints seem to indicate dire circumstances, of the people dying off: did this really happen? Did they pay the voevoda and diaks called a pominiki as well as the iasak to the government? Was this double dipping in a lawless frontier? In another petition by the same tribe, the complaint is that the iasak collectors demanded “money (for us.”) (352). The issue was this certain group didn’t know how or wanted to hunt foxes, and the iasak collectors demanded one ruble, possibly the amount of the fox pelt in exchange for not presenting it. The tribe does say that they looked everywhere for these foxes but couldn’t find them. Taking advantage was a possibility, and when someone was so far away. But surveillance works both ways, and these petitions describe a surveillance by  tribes to inform Moscow of the  Russian workers demands possibly out of control on an already subjugated people: What did the Moscow government do? Here extinction of the group if this is kept a policy is noted at the end of the petition.  

Torture was used on Serfs for Disloyalty. A Southern European Inquisition model also imposed torture methods, so the Russians are not the only ones in history using unhuman rights.

Instructions from Veovoda of Iakust, Golenishchev-Kutuzov, to Prison Officials about Procedures for Guarding Prisoners, June 3, 1663.  Regulation and security issues about prisoners on the frontier: One interesting aspect, no prisoner is allowed writing materials of any king, unless they secretly get a message out. A petition can be written, but only in the presence of an official. The Sentence Imposed by the Voevoda of Iakitsk, Petr Zinovev, on the Participants in a Cossack Rebellion, July 14, 1690. Not this writing is over 80 years after the subjugation of the eastern natives had begun. Here torture was used by the Voevoda of Iakitsk to get information from the people about a conspiracy to rebel. The writing states that torture was “done in accordance with the instructions of the Great Sovereigns [ The government], the articles of the Sobornoe Ulozhenie [1649 Code of Laws]: Torture was used on children-serfs who refused to acknowledge their heritable serf family after they had run away?   This was part of the threatening portion of the retrieval of peasants debate? The accused Filip Shcherbakov and Ivan Palamoshnoi confessed under torture that they plotted to pillage gunpowder and shot in Iakutsk Petr Petrovich Zinovev; also the townsmen were accused of thievery from merchants peaceful traveling through the area: These were booty raids?  Petr Petrovich Zinovev excecuted a boiarskii, a desiatnik, others and some Cossacks that had allegedly taken part in the conspiracy: Remember they are supposed to inform Moscow first and not take action until allowed? Is written correspondence appears as a communiqué after following orders ( “in accordance with the ukaz”  and listing the people’s judgments? Some were exiled. What was the ukaz, a procedure law?

The Oath of Allegiance with Russian Administered to Bratsk Native leaders, 1642-1645: Theme oath taking a ritual and importance:   A Native named Bului of the Bratsk tribe swears his allegiance to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and Aleksei Mikhailovich, and this also is good for his brother and tribesmen – to be loyal, eternal servitude and with no malice or treason – against Russians living near the realm “ people in the Verkholensk ostrozhek, or against agricultural settlers, in any place where the Sovereign’s servitors and Russians may be working. Also his oak pledges no war against or  killing of Russians. This oath is also a measure to get a local leader to operate as a government facilitator to bring in more natives into the Tsar’s service.  This pledge also binds him to be a protector of the iasak collectors so when they come into the realm they are not harmed by vigilantly natives. ( For more see why this was done see Lantzeff and the dangers involved) Instructions from the Voevoda of Iakutsk, Frantsbekov, to the Explorer Khabarov, Regarding His Expedition into the Land of the Daurs, 1649-1651: Theme: the frontier is dangerous. “In accordance with the Sovereign’s ukaz” (347) this was an order from the government? An expedition was sent to support voeoda & stolnik Petr Petrovich Golovin, and the pismennaia golova Enalei Bakhteiarov – seventy servitors went to assist  to subdue two princes, Lavkai and Botogo but they got lost.  Apparently they were not familiar with routs or the land: This understandable as Siberia is vast. So they ask for more supplies to get the job done. This order is for Erofei to collect volunteers servitors and promyshlenniki to explore and to do the government’s financial work. This writ then suggests a duel objective to “ collect iasak and explore new territories.” (347) they will follow the rivers Olekma and Tugur to the portage or the Shilka: There they will see if it advantageous to build a ostrozhek, then built it, and protect in for future attacks ( subduing missions) – against these two princes. In this document it is stressed not to kill the people, because the people make the government money, but to adhere to and anticipate dangerous conditions out on the frontier. After subduing, make them take the steps of oath and describe to them the allegiance procedures.

A Petition from the Merchant Guselnikov to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Protesting Excessive Regulations of the Fur Trade in Siberia, 1639.

This petition protests certain voevodas who restrict this merchants movements and demand taxes, custom duties, transit fees and other things. He cites that this is contrary to the ukaz. I guess this is the Siberian statutes of conduct?  These problesm have an affect on their job performance” supposedly merchants are allowed certain liberties or are doing the Sovereign’s work too? 

 In ‘ another case’ to make up the dead families obligations of iasak, this supposedly moral group had to become immoral to pay the iasak. Another tribe apparently stole some their livestock, and the what remained they had to sell to another tribe to gather  funds for their share of iasak to be paid on the appointed time. Then, later they had no livestock and had to go steal it from another tribe to make enough funds to pay the tribute collectors.

Bibliography:

Basil Dmytryshyn, ed., Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 850-1700, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991, Section 53, “Russian Conquest and Exploitation of Siberia,” pp. 342-355.

George Vjatcheslau Lantzeff, Siberia in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of the  Colonial Administration, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1943, pp. 87-115

IX. Arenas of change in Muscovy

2.        military reform ( how can we be self sustaining?)

3.        foreign technical specialists

4.        bureaucratization -- growth of prikazy (ministries)

5.        transformation of size and role of Boyar Duma

6.        estrangement of most Duma members from real power

7.        lese majeste -- slovo I delo (word and deed -- offenses against the tsar)

8.        1649 Ulozhenie (Law Code)

9.        law as a tool of social engineering

10.     enserfment and the gentry elite

11.     exceptions to serfdom: Far North, Siberia

12.     eliminate tax-free urban districts (slobody)

13.     ban minstrels, discourage holy fools

14.     service tenure estate pomest’e; gentry service estate holder pomeshchik the “noble official”: a new social elite

15.     16 13-1645, ca. 300 men of duma rank: boyar, dvroianin, okol’nichii, dumnyl d’iak

16.     1/5 military, 1/5 administrative; 3/5 alternated between military and admin. a working service elite

17.     social unrest

18.     1648 riots in Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov (over taxes and corruption)

19.     I 650s/60s “copper coins” riots

20.     1670-71, Stenka Razin --protested enserfment, taxes, govt. authority

X. Summary

  1. government has absolutist aspirations, but not the means to implement
  2. little literacy and publishing
  3. society simple, no middle class, no legal political elite with group rights
  4. Russia not wealthy, cash poor
  5. enserfment a drag on the economy
  6. continued traditional political concepts: “symphony of church and state” and tsar as “God’s vicegerent on earth”

What is going on in Europe at this time?

Beginning of Absolutism, police state, and a pan-european, gunpodower revolution(s)( china had invented Gun Powder long ago, but now it was passed on to the west.), new military tactics. More dynamic public opinion, social mobility, secular philosophy, a state as an entity, the state owes the people the good. The Ruler is the first servant of the state, people serve the state, the collective good. Peter the great was the first to articulate this thought. Very western concept.

Russia: Gentry cavalry become obsolete, enserf, tax, military servitors. Military reforms, beginnings of the creation of a standing army, and this continuity of the old boyar families, seeking to restore the 16th gov standards. Tsar Michael, the gov, advisor research the wedding rites of Ivan IV, there not looking toward Europe. A reviving of the 16th century, infantry, improve muskets and cannon, builds arms factories. So developed the foreigner districts: shops, pluralistic, culturing diverse, printing press, night-life,

Prikazy: gov. workers – at ministries. 2000 scribes and clerks working in the Kremlin. Work more than one job, so have more than one title in history books.  Dramatic political changes in the elite in the 17t centuryMichael Romonov wasn't concerned with change but with continuity, and this was representative in establishing traditional rule, something that brought the state some sense of stability after all the chaos of the Time of Troubles. Under his son Aleksei, things began to change.

*          16th : 10-30 boyars

*          1620s 40s boyar families

*          1680s 144 boyar families, no longer a personal elite, but a continued to have concentric circles.

Tsar’s no Free Speech:

Dignity of the Tsar, federal crimes, “Word and Deed” violate the honor of the tsar it is a grave criminal offence. No free speech, do not tell a bad joke, then go to jail. It was a federal offence.

Taxes:

Tax free settlements, slaves an issue, they do not pay taxes.

We need more money. More rich boyar families to live high-on the hog, we need your help peasant sucker.

Ulozhenie Law Code 1649

*          Landholders, must convert to Orthodoxy in Russia, or don’t hold land.

*          Everyone must observe church fasts, almost half of the colander years ( did they really observe this?)

*          No working on Sunday or go to jail?

*          No shooting firearms in the house.

*          Sumptuary laws, or called Blur Law, to control public behavior or public morality. The arena of public space.

*          Wandering Minstrels, were increasingly outlawed, cannot tax them unless they are tied to a land.

Military and the Serfs:

Never had enough land (Good farming lands) to give to military servitors so they had to tie down the peasants to serve on estate to serve the military servitors as payment because the government didn’t have cash to pay the servitors so the peasants get squeezed. Everyone wins but the peasants. Diversifying the careers because must keep the peasant on the down-lo. Military servitors, worked more than one job, they could be tax collectors and soldiers. This was all the way to the top. Royal of cavalry elite mentality lasted to the onset of the typewriter and machine guns, the Russian was not modern bureaucracy, the service was to the severing the tsar ( the king), not the state like the west. Hard to define: 17th century, the state was trying to flex its muscles, but the people were resisting. After Times of Troubles. 1620s: influx of technicians, cannon makers, infantry trainers. First thing on everyone’s mind was getting military technology so they would not have this to happen again? It was hard to adopt technology but not the society that created that technology. This was a factor that later on Peter the Great will deal with in forcing the Russians to borrow both technology and culture.

Duma (pl. pronounced phonetically: Doom - yee)

*          Riots, and uprising tell us Muscovite weaknesses to control their boarders.

*          Further one gets away from the center, the less laws do the things.

*          Absolutist aspirations, but didn’t have the apparatus to run an absolute state. Truisms, relies on Byzantine, King and Church rule as one, Tsar is the representative of God. No change into Peter the Great and Catherin the Great.

*          No literacy, very little publishing, no policies, no wide literate, no public taking about political ideas,

*          No middle class, peasants enserfed, no professional class, a European thing.

*          Rich and Poor classes.

*          Resourced poor, not much cash around, not able to pay salaries, but they could steal money from them like Ivan IV.

*          Enserf, works but in not an efficient source of one’s peasants.

Criticism here for Ivan IV’s possible autocracy, an absolutism was never a tradition.

RealPolitik: Frederick of Prussia, post- Machiavellian, dominance is everything, God is downplayed,

:  THE "17th CENTURY

Changes

Times of Troubles and it legacies

  1. Contrasts of the 17th century: On hand the Monarchy and western innovation.
  2. 1680 Petitions cannot use the words with God and Tsar together any longer.
  3. Move away from the private Tsar, the patrimony tsar, the father tsar and into the public body, the public office of the tsar, something Ed. Keenan spoke about. Ed’ point is that Ivan IV had no public body, public office of the ruler, everything was personal, the boyars and the tsar met everyday in a small room to make decisions, to order the decisions and run the lands.
  4. Nikon Church architecture reforms, domes should be crowned and round, no more crude tents on God’ churches.
  5. 1680-90s do not prostrate on ground to the tsar any longer, the foreigners had laughed.
  6. Public sphere, manipulating the public, social welfare to get support by the people.
  7. Theater performance with stringed instruments in the Kremlin, something the church had frowned upon, now took place.
  8. Sophia. Had Plays in Kremlin, secular entertainments, Sophia even was said to write plays. The church had not allowed this previously.
  9. Move to the secular, new attitude rulers and politics, manipulated, 1660s commemorative coins to show his achievements, regent Sophia manipulated polices shamelessly.
  10. Increasing empire size: new languages and people.
  11. Foreigners living in districts:

Art: 17th Century

Baroque: A symmetrical, playfulness in floor plan and decorativeness. Nikon objected to this. Tremendous Irony, when he order a great church had constructed the largest tent structure in Moscow. It was attempt to copy the Holy Sepulture in Jerusalem, but it was not close.

Chapter 16, “Seventeenth-Century Architecture: The ‘Moscow Baroque’,” pp. 209-225. Theme: Baroque brings new knowledge to architecture. Baroque did not disappear from Moscow when Peter turned toward western influence (224) Ivan Petrovich Zarudny: Moscow, Church of the Archangel Gabriel (‘Menshikov Tower’), 1701-7; Peter’s life long friend/advisor Prince Danilovich Menshikov ( Architect Ukrianian, Ivan Petrovich Zarudny – octagons rising from superimposed cubes: Motive tower above all: symbolic of the stature of Moscow? Baroque irregular plan appear in Moscow more frequently in the 17th cent. (209) Was this because churches were built often along busy –narrow streets?  How does Baroque exaggerate motion and impart a clear interpreted detail to produce drama, tension, exuberance, and grandeur? “Uneven alignment of five spires”, “Cupolas of different sizes,” “lack of correspondence…,”(209) exmp. Georgian Virgin (1628-53 built by Grigory Nikitnikov, wealthy Yaroslavl merchant, represented Baroque style. Attitudes for Brick, a major source of decoration: dif. Colors, plays of light and shade over all surfaces. (211). St. Basil, exmp. Decorative surface; 16-17th cent. Yaroslavl became -- Important shipping port at White Sea, Yaroslavl each year saw companies of English, French, and Dutuch merchants on their way to the capital. (212): merchants have wealth, they want to display their wealth to have people remember them? -- therefore – “companies vied with each other to erect sumptuous churches from 1620s onward – some 40 plus stone churches were built. (213) Sig: these were larger and more contemporary than many buildings in Moscow? “The canonical five domes”(214): this was part of Nikon’s reforms? “renounce the pyramidal or tent roof and return to the ancient Byzantine form“ (216). Didn’t care to follow the pyramidal tent roof restrictions?.” (214)  : especially in the northern areas? -- wooden church replications of Moscow stone churches? Sturdy proportions of the thick walls and towers - -Kremlin in Rostov,  1 ½ cent. After towers and Kremlin walls – no “marked Italian design.” (215): If the Italian design was followed it would have been the Russian architects who worked under many Italian architects at Moscow? Ivan III ( See Ivan III’s two western missions to Venice to find Italian builders). Dutch/Yaroslavl- colored tiles?

Monastery of the New Jerusalem at Istra n/w of Moscow: Nikon’s great church? Was this part of his joint “sovereign” rule theory? Peter the Great will separate church and state/ secularizing government? Baroque: A symmetrical, playfulness in floor plan and decorativeness. Nikon objected to this. Tremendous irony, when he orders his great church he had constructed the largest tent structure in Moscow. It was attempt to copy the Holy Sepulture in Jerusalem, but it was not close.  Ukraine with Great Russia in 1667 (216) bring knowledge of the European Baroque, and w/ ideas: So the ToT can be seen not as a turning point, but 1667 can? “Patriarch’s Position as actual if not titular leader of the entire Orthodox community To prove this Nikon decided to rival the Patriarch of Jerusalem by building a replica of the must holy shrine of Christendom, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.”: This church objective was to revise the Greek spirit of the earliest Russian architecture? After Nikon’s exile, 1666, the Tsar summoned the builders to Moscow to the government service? Moscow Baroque: St. Nicholas of the Great Cross ( Merchant, 1680-8)(p. 219) Verticalism, not new, but expressed in late 17th, cent in Moscow: What does a height of a building say about it’s peoples? Canonical cubes architecture. Bartolommeo Rastrelli ( Rococo style), Peter’s uncle, Prince Lev Kirillovich Naryshkin built intercession of the Virgin at Fili, formally a village in west Moscow. “Naryshkin Baroque” describes the late- late 17th century style ( Illustrated fundamental simplicity in church planning); Fili, five rounded side arms, central square receded, we seen this in wooden churches, the centralized the ( recalls something of the 20 log church plan), stair cases recall the ascension, more or less Russian in forms, but Baroque and western in ornamentation. Gracefulness of Fili. Rustification of facades in the Kremlin were imitated in paint in other Russian cities. ( bricks with different colors, in patterns, as if one looks up close, but from afar, it looks rustificated. (when paint fades, you re-new-it). Molding bricks to make puzzle construction to dazzle the eyes: Detail in the 17th century, there was a new taste for detail, as with icon but also in exterior work; Sculptured molded brick, make molds, and puzzle-together the brick, so if one get ups close. One can see the brick detail, a very sculptural over all effect. Appearance matters: And some had paint to liven up the façade, become quite decorative, emphasizing the structure as decorative itself. Stucco and white wash over the brick structure. Brick, embroidery patterns, and brick decorative: molds for the brick, blue prints and plans, and like a puzzle put it together. We are seeing an ornamenting; we didn’t see in the 15th century Muscovy synthesis? Why is Yaroslavl important? Yaroslavl, a wealthy Volga trade city in the 17th century, merchants vied with each other to construct the better churches, and so competition created beautiful structures, and they could employ teams to do frescos in churches, and blue color was one of the teams that left an impression in the frescos scenes. Then fresco painters decorate the insides of the church to the wishes of their patrons? How does this downplay the derogatory comments in history? claims: art in declines, seeking detail for its own sake, a mediocre artists , but we must accept artists were just responding to the wealthy patrons desires, they had to paint what they were asked too, to get paid.  Diversity of styles: Some Baroque structures would have Moorish structural themes as well. Relevance:  So the older Russian system is contrasted with the western newer system of building, and Peter sees a difference when he is growing up? What does he say about Russian traditional system? (see 222); New Latin-cross became fashionable is St. Petersburg ( Middle years of 18th cent.) Mesnshikov, last Moscow Baroque Church. (224) Will concentrate on Neva next?

Chapter 18, “The Beginning of Modern Painting: Moscow, 1550-1700,” pp. 241-257: 17th century introduction. Chiaroscuro, introduced by way of Ukraine, and naturalism. Musculature, depth ( Legitimate Perspective,? No but trying, so close it is depth, none- the-less).   1680s, icons in the boarder scenes, stand out in the environments, and fine details, and silver frames, and icons were surrounded by frames – when does an icon become a picture? Introduction of Russia themes, like telling a story of a particular Russian Icon, where it was , or went, when and how it used, etc…What does Rublev think of this art? Lost was the literal angelical character of Rublev’s figures. The Dominant Strogonov art patronage , c. 1650s, were followers of the Dionisy. Also , new naturalism growing and chiaroscuro. 3 things: Metropolitan Philip opposed the brutality of Ivan IV 1568, Michael Romanov made his father patriarch in 1620 – co-tsar, Aleksei Mikhailovich, Nikon Patriarch had to submit to his rule: this was the last conflict between the Church and temporal power? Aleksei was caught between the old and new (254) and he accepted both; Michael couldn’t, he needed to establish continuity between his rule and the Rurikvichi. The Raskol, really changed things and the church never recovered the full co-rulership with the oligarchy in power?  Wealthy, and possibly autonomous, because of their financial support to the gov during the Times of Troubles, the Stogonov family had two sons that collected and painted art. They had started a school, and were significant patrons of art projects for Russia. In the Mid- sixteenth ( 17th ?) century their appeared two types of works of Art: Public, that is the propaganda of the state, and private, that is expression. During Aleksei’s reign, he have had his own portrait done, was a search for a new meaning and expression. The Stroganov’s art productions reflected the Tsar as head of the Church: Not a co-ruler or partner?  Small private Icons, produced at their schools, utilized miniature techniques, and icon began to be individually signed. This pronounced authentic patronage; miniature Icon, were tended for individual use; 12-16 inches high, personal use, and large scale icons, and mass productions, they Stroganov became to be known, get their names in the public, and mass production helped them have a chain, monopoly in personal icons. Ways to get rich. Plane background, detailed in figuring, these were beginning to be works of art, and humanists creations of the figures, some figures have some doubts, no confident. The Novgorod figures of early times were confident (Stroganov had come from Novgorod in the beginning) – things are changing now? Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich summoned artists from all around to Moscow ( Forced or/and voluntary?): this was an extension/reintroducement of Muscovy synthesis? Summery of Stroganov school and patronage: Old traditional techniques were destroyed (256): How could Rublev adjust? Archbishop Avvakum attacked westernizing painters (253): this needs clarification: He attacks representations of red-haired, fat Jesus – more Baroque style? Also sensuality: attacks ‘like this’ against the Medici in Italy were quite common, as they secretly collected and displayed in their palaces sensual (biblical) artistic and secular art works. Moscow, The Tsar’s Workshop: St. Alexy, Metropolitan of Moscow: 1640: the oriental landscape, clearly in the background? Prokopy Chirin ( mixed, old+new) worked from 1620-1642. Simon Ushakov, new style Flanders (251). Oriental landscape demonstrated that Russia was opening up to the world, at least little by little? Books, cloth, and tapestries all imported from ( all over the world) from the east. So this reflected into art too; from Persia, Italy and Spain also Russia  imported stuff-- remember they do caviar business with these states.  Ushakov, used chiaroscuro: shades of light and grey to represent a three- dimensional form on a two dimensional surface. Previously to get this three dimensional effect, added was some metal overlays to developed the three dimensional illusion. Vladimir, Mother of God, the famous icon, Ishakov redoes it, but restrains the chiaroscuro to try to get representation close to original. Icons were referenced as written in Russia not painted: That means when they speak about them, they say it was ‘written’ and do not say it was painted. “ It was written by this ‘ painter’ or this ‘painter’. We see signing of known artists of their times; was this a class to get more work by public exposure? Summery: Greater attention to detail also meant an explosion of boarderscenes, and now a Russian theme instead of a church theme was added. Ambitious Ukrainians took up residence in the Moscow places, and painted icons in the Tsar’s icon schools. They brought western techniques.

1.        Some Baroque structures would have Moorish windows and entries.

2.        Nikon had himself and his clerics painted in oil;

3.        Brick, embroidery patterns, brick decorative: molds for the brick, blue prints and plans, and like a puzzle put it together. What we are see an ornateness we didn’t see in the 15ht century Muscovy synthesis.

4.        Yaroslavl, wealthy Volga trade city in the 17thcentury, merchants vied with each other to construct the better churches, and so competition created beautiful structures, and they could employ teams to do frescos in churches, and blue color was one of the teams that left an impression in the frescos scenes.

5.        Yaroslavl, Church of the Prophet of Elijah, tent shape, a deliberate a symmetrical , not  a bi-lateral and side chapel. Brick structure

6.        And some had paint to liven up the façade, become quite decorative, emphasizing the structure as decorative itself.

7.        Stucco and white wash over the brick structure. Then fresco painters decorate the insides o the church.

8.        Detail in the 17th century, there was a new taste for detail, and icon was a composite of miniatures, a narrative.

9.        Sculptured molded brick, make molds, and puzzle-together the brick, so if one get ups close. One can see the brick detail, a very sculptural over all effect.

10.     Russtification of facades in the Kremlin were imitated in paint in other Russian cities. ( bricks with different colors, in patters if one looks up close, but from afar looks rustificated. ( when paint fades, you re-new-it)

11.     (ICONS IN CHURCHES) Monologies, a monthly reading, one for each month around the walls, this was to teach and to learn.

12.     17th century, building to show off one’s wealth and power in cites across Russia.

13.     Fili, Peter’s uncle financed, five rounded side arms, central square receded, we seen this in wooden churches, the centralized the ( recalls something of the 20 log church plan), stair cases recall the ascension, more or less Russian in forms, but Baroque and western in ornamentation. Gracefulness of Fili,

14.     17th Century introduction. Chiaroscuro, introduced by way of Ukraine, and naturalism.

15.     Musculature, depth ( Legitimate Perspective,? No but trying, so close it is depth, none- the-less)  

16.     1680s, icons in the boarder scenes, stand out in the environments, and fine details, and silver frames, and icons were surrounded by frames – when does an icom become a picture?

17.     Introduction of Russia themes, like telling a story of a particular Russian Icon, where it was , or went, when and how it used, etc…

18.     Stroganov Art School, grew rich in 16-17th century -- the mines in the Urals, and a miniature Icon, were tended for individual use 12-16 inches high, personal use, and large scale icons, and mass productions, they Stroganov became to be known, get their names in the public, and mass production helped them have a chain, monopoly in personal icons. Ways to get rich. Plane background, detailed in figuring, these were beginning to be works of art, and humanists creations of the figures, some figures have some doubts, no confident. The Novgorod figures of early times were confident ( Stroganov had come from Novgorod in the beginning)

19.     We see signing of known artists of their times; was this a class to get more work by public exposure?

20.     Greater attention to detail also meant an explosion of boarderscenes, and now a Russian theme instead of a church theme was added.

21.     Ambitious Ukrainians took up residence in the Moscow places, and painted icons in the Tsar’s icon schools.

22.     Derogatory theme?, art in declines, seeking detail for its own sake, a mediocre artists , but were must accept artists were just responding to the wealthy patrons desires, they had to paint what they were asked to get paid.

23.     Oriental scenes ( background in landscapes) , books, cloth, and tapestries all imported from ( all over the world) from the east. So this comes into art too. From Persia, Italy and Spain also Russia  imported stuff. Remember they do caviar business with these people.  

24.     Ushakov, used chiaroscuro. Shades of light and grey to represent a three- dimensional form on a two dimensional surface.

25.     Add the metal overlays was to developed the three dimensional illusion.

26.     Vladimir, Mother of God, the famous icon, Ishakov redoes it, but restrains the chiaroscuro to try to get representation of original close.

27.     Icons were referenced as written in Russia not painted: That means when they speak about them, they say it was ‘ written’ and do not say it was painted. “ It was written by this ‘ painter’ or this ‘ painter.’

28.     Oil painting Tsar, Aleksei,

29.     Most important thing to remember in Russian HIstoyr is Peter’s father married again, and his second wife was the mother of Peter the Great.

30.     Peter is the son of his father’s second wife: Most important to say in THiS  Russia history class 

31.     The relatives do not take kindly to the Tsar’s relatives, that is his second wife, or Peter’s mother’s family, and head roles during Ivan IV, so to escape this political climate, the Kremlin was not a safe place so they moved Peter, had a little interest in preserving Muscovite interest, he didn’t see the past and traditions, he was not there to see this tradition when he was young. 

32.     During Ivan IV’s minority head rolled in the Kremlin, and the competing families due to Peter’s father second marriage this brought concern of having a young boy in an environment that could have the same consequences as Ivan IV’s boyar wars.

Reinterpreting:

200-300 burial pits, famine [bubos], plague, 1550/52 wide-spread epidemic: periodic through 1560s, connected to economic crisis, compounded by Livonian War c. 1558, growth of taxes, social reorganization-land reforms, geopolitical crisis, southern threats, and western threats.(166) Livonian war, no decline in central regions: Wait till 1571? General crisis: 1570s-1590s, May 1571, Tatars burn many cites including Moscow, records lost in great fire: the Kremlin wasn’t burnt? Did this begin the great migrations? Where was the Tsar supposedly the great defender? 1573, Murom, 83% all household in Moscow districts were vacated. One means many homes were burnt to the ground and part of the 100,000 taken-off as slaves were among people living in these districts? Two problems: Northwest/ Novgorod & Pskov depopulations ( various reasons), main, persecuted by Oprichniki and Ivan IV, although, Pskov was only sacked, no wide-persecutions. Moscow central:   looked for work, many lost homes in great fire, so left southward to look for new masters, work, or wanderers.  Lower Volga, a desired region? Bread prices rose, no cultivation because no homes for the people, and policies for some  of forced migration. Rapid colonization of Volga River basin, also Kama river basin. 1570-‘90s, ecological cataclysms, famine, epidemics, Livonian war, sharp increase in exploitation of the peasants and tax growth contribute to Moscow’s instability. Sever (pages 172-187)famines in 1601-03. People sell themselves into slavery, prior, preferred: service contract slave, but it led to permanent slavery, possibly why, landlord’s interest rates (loan money, then slavery): no central gov. oversight? Or they liked this? N. Kollman, social mobility, marriage. People can move up by marrying upwards. Grigorii Kotoshikin, c. 1630, defected to Sweden 1664, wrote on Muscovite marriage-politics. Book successful, he executed for domestic crime. If women had land so why not marry them? Brides dowry, generally, icons, clothes, dowry slaves, sometimes land, and most of all rank. (177) Marriage a family affaire, marriage contracts, pledge contracts, financial implications if break it 1000-10,000 rubles: that seems high? To get out, petition the patriarch. Marriage ceremonial, bread-trays, riding horses in summer, sleds in winter, ritual: only the well off can afford? Life of Luliania Osorian 1630: Known as Tale of Luliania Lazareva, one of the first biographies, written by son. Trend, growing literature, saintly secular: not spiritual, focus on service to the poor, individuals count in people’s lives. Like a saint’s life, deny self, but focus on the ordinary. This contrasts the supernatural idealism of the middle ages?  Orthodoxy long rule: do not humanize subjects in art(istic) endeavors? Poetry individualism, did Sweden & Poland’s invasions have anything to do with this? Growing literature in individualism; Gary Marker: 3-10 % rudimentary literacy, 1-2% higher literacy. Popular culture existed in mainly oral forms? Little survived uncorrupted to us?  Life or ordinary art (197) Simon Ushakov, “ Tree of the Russian State,” 1668, Semen Spridonov, “Mircile Worker with Scenes from His life,” baroque ornament of Icon, Boris Gudonov; Portriat of V. G. Liutkin, from E,S. Ovchinnikova, real men, humanistic. These represent idealism destroyed in art works. Church remained in idealized forms? Secular work accompanied by new soul (ideas?)(202) Typical person, with average personality. Iuliania “not a remarkable person.” Because she had serfs? Theme idealization away from the church and into secular things, family, society, domestic service. Democrat Literature 17th century.

Muscovite Thought and Literature:

“Chancellor Language,” based upon Muscovite idiom, official documents. Gradually popular language into literature in place of bookish Slavonic – Russian (187) Ukraine joined the scene with a leading role in revival of literacy: What revival, not indicated from whence. ? Roles of literacy, the Domostroi, “ House Manager” attributed to Sylvester 1556, sixty-three didactic chapters: patriarchal, piety, severity, ritualism, muscovite society.

ART: Khoromy, mansion of the rules. St. Basil built by two architects from Pskov, Barma and Posnik. Golden gate arouse in the first half of the seventeenth century (190). 1670-90 the towers in the Kremlin got roofs. Second half of the seventeenth a Baroque style enter Muscovy through Ukraine. Naryshkin,  Boyar clan supported this. Art schools: Stroganov School 1580-1630, a tsar’s icon/painting school, Procopius Chirin, Tsar Michael Romanov’s favorite icon painter who came from the Stroganov school. The tsar’s art school developed the monumental style, a reflection of western knowledge with the headman master Simon Ushakov, who showed Byzantine and western elements. Stroganov school represented the use of rich colors, bright backgrounds, minute details, like gold contours. Patronage Oruzheinaia Patata and Bogdan Khitrovo, early 16th cent. (191): built studios and shops for artists. 1650s, Frescos flourished, center in Iaroslavl, and spread to Volga; mainly Church of the Prophet Elijah, painted by Gurii Nikitin.

Education: Literacy debated in Russian historiography. Kiev in Ukraine was a more open society to the west who was going through a renaissance of learning: what about Novgorod? Or saint Sergius Monastery?  Peter Moglia founded an academy in 1631. (192) 1648 Boyar Theodore Rtishchev built a monastery for leading Slavonic, Latin, Greek, rhetoric and philosophy. 1666 Simeon Polotsh established a school and offered Greek, in conjunction with a printing office. Sylvester Medvedev complied the first bibliography. Western influence: the only way to learn was from the heretics? Sir John Merrick helped to negotiate the treaty of Stolbovo between Russia and Sweden: Was he there to interpret, translate, a formulate script for the Russian officials? 18,000 estimated foreigners live in Muscovy, also in Archangel and commercial centers. Andrew Vinius, a Dutchment, organized industrial processing of iron ore and built the first modern iron works in Muscovy. Slowly Russia turned to the west. 1664 Postal service appeared, based on the western model ( Not the Mongol-Tatar model!). Tsar Theodore proposed Euoprean manners, but some radicals were against this. Russians mainly wanted western technology but not the western culture? Gregory Kotushikin, first Russian Freethinker: “ Russian Muscovite pride, deceit, isolation and ignorance.” 

Democratic Literature. The tale about Ersha Ershovich, “the Tale about Shemiak’s Justice,” A Primer about the Naked and Poor man, […] “ Misery --  Luckless plight.” Were representing a view to a simplify of a person, a breakdown of idealization of the Middle Ages. The literature circulated among the common people, among crafts-people, petty traders, lower clergy, and even among peasants: at least if someone read these works to them, because on a small percent were literate is showed a breaking away from idealization of a person and toward everyday individualism? “The Human is not idealized.” (203): Democratic literature opposed to feudal class? Not sure what the meaning is here. A Vvakum wrote about human feelings. This was not found in Russian official chronicles. A new type of professional writer. (205) What professional writing groups? These new formulations were nothing of borrowing from texts – they show originality. Interests in autobiographies: Only if the populace could read and write? There are no dates of locals here in the book? Gary marker: Literary Rates & Texts in Muscovy. Foreign accounts such as Giles Fletcher describes the clergy literacy a little less than adequate? Marker doesn’t like to use foreign accounts (206) they paint a negative picture of Muscovy literacy. Aleksei I. Sobolevskii ( Late 19th-early 20th century,  Russian language and literature) concluded literacy defined as the ability to sign one’s name (206). Illustation page 207: the Letter ‘N’ from 1693 primer: alphabet is a start? East Bank of Ukrain ( Dnieper divide) had a printing press, as well as two in Muscovy ( Moscow). 1650s Ukraine becomes the dominate eastern Slavic publishing house – Slavic—reading population. 1651 Begins printing of Literacy instructions: printing press was destroyed earlier in Muscovy, many factors and arguments to the possibly evils? “ Surviving library invatories reinforce the idea that monastic and ecclesiastic libraries tended to keep individual copies of describe printing of breviaries and psalters in their permanent collections. (209) This doesn’t mean schools and students were a wide spread phenomenon? 1651-1707 – Primers averaged in the date press---runs comes to 6167 average, not close to the need for making a state literate, but a start? Yet, the availability in the east Slavic world (211) explains the difference. Everyday Life in Muscovy 213-222: 16th century an opening of trade with Dutch and English brings in contact with foreigners. (213) Andrei II’ich Bezobrazov (b. 1621) held various positions, by 1641/8 had become a stol’nik , third highest rank in Muscovite service society. 1690, veteran, executed, political intrigue. This is about a women’s role in her husband’s financial affairs. Also shows that a low percentage was literate. She is articulate and she shores up some unleft business for him. Muscovite Diet: this piece demonstrates literacy as well, and is all about the Muscovite Diet. Rich merchants -- live in costly palaces, live large, and Russians in general live meagerly – spend little on homes and have no wealth. Servants eat: Sometimes pork and chicken mostly, groats, beets, cabbages, cucumbers, fresh and slated fish. Moscow: thrifty with salt—so fish smell, but they like it? (216). By Moscow has excellent pastures (made over the centuries?) where lamb, veal, pork are for the wealthy, the poor spend a little on meat. They eat a lot of fish. Commoners eat mainly fish, pastries (filled with fish?) and vegetables: vegetables are good for one?  Fast days: important to the people. There are many fast days, many feast days. Pirog: pastries eaten before Lent, on Butterweek (217) it is like a pie, or more exact a fritter. Filled with minced fish/meat and onion and is baked with butter – everyone treats a guest to these?  Ikra: roe of large fish, mostly stergen or whitefish. Let is sit eight days, salt and pepper it, then chop onions, better to pour lemon juice all over it. Where does this come? From the Volga where it is salted ( Preserved?) near Astrakhan, then transported by carts? Fill barrels, some exported to Italy, where it is a delicacy, called Caviaro. Hangover remedy: cold baked lamb, cut into cubes, mixed with peppers and cucumbers – vinegar and cucumber juice. Kremlin likes according to foreigners accounts: Generally prepare food with garlic and onions. The Grand Prince’s palace in the Kremlin gives-of this odor offensive to us Germans. (217) Common drinks, Kvas, weak beer or small beer, others: mead and vodka. Every dinner must begin with vodka: not everyone is a drinker, this must have been a general statement from some specific observations? Magnates offer guest Spanish, Rhenish and French wines, various kings of mead and double vodka – they have good beer. Cellers with no roofs, ice with layers to keep things cool in the summertime. Importation of wine by way of the ports of Archangel. Many Russians prefer Vodka, do not like wine as well as the Germans: This can be explained as a predisposition, at the understanding grapes do not grow well in frigid and cool climates, so drinking potato- alcohol became a habit, and some habits become preferable? Sexuality in Muscovy: Eve Levin: courts records only evidence: hearsay not good evidence. 17th century court cases, although restricted by cannon and secular laws.(218) Compensation, must find the accused attackers, burden of proof was on the accused: What about the witness issues of proof? Rape treated as a serious offence: but why the short sentences? One case Tanka Ivanova doch’zybora [ 1695] accused three people in changing testimony -  finally admitted truth, she slept willingly with one of them. She was trying to cover up an unwanted pregnancy: this is the issue for the social sciences? How did Russia treat unwanted pregnancies?  Maybe for revenge is another issue in history? She was flogged for her perjury. What happens if one is convicted? (1) A fine and compensation for the victim;  (2) corporal punishment; (3) long prison terms were not usually handed out: This is because prisons cost a lot of resources, or money to run? (4) Prisoners usually placed on parole, and watched and often not allowed to leave locality; (5) Relatives swear poruka ( surety) for him guarantee his future conduct: this means the families becomes responsible in a community sense: This is not a western individual accountability system of thought? (6) Forbidden to marry without court consent;(7) Not allowed to leave the city. What were the courts reveling to us? Rapists are dangerous, must keep an eye on them. Drinking was involved – how much the church asked? Orthodox Church railed against intoxication as a leading cause for intensifying factor in the rape crime: What has changed in ecclesiastical thought? If the women was raped and also consumed alcohol prior she had to share in the responsibility of her victimization. According to a 1650s case, the three accused of beating the women and raping her conflicted their stories and the court could not decide so they all paid some sort of punishment. All got hot-irons, but under torture also more people were reveled. The beaten women had died , but pointed out an attacker right before she passed away – this was a serious crime. Sketchy testimony until under torture the truth came out, and the three received 10 months of imprisonment. They were soldiers, so letting them out was a factor, because solders were in need always. This case shows a high level of tolerance for violence against women. (220) Russian sources confirm that husbands beat their wives, and daughters: no limits on violence? Yes, the Domestroi, the 16th century manual on housekeeping issued a rule not to use wooden or iron ‘rods’ on wife, or beat them about the face. “ beat them in private, for a ‘great offence’ such as disobedience: this has  similar terminology to the law in the Qu’ran on wife beating? But there is no comparison? Husbands did not have to show a cause for beating a wife. She could protest in it was “evil” or endangered her life. How women fought back, run the husband’s finances into the ground: same tactics used as in Classical Greece? Honor is an issue here. It doesn’t look good to become poor, if one doesn’t have too?   If the husband had to sell himself into slavery the women could seek a divorce.  Also if he was an alcoholic were grounds for a divorce. What does this mean? Wife beating or adultery were not grounds for divorce. Another option was the women could flee: but where would she go? More specific: In Slavic society ‘ rank mattered.’ Women of lower rank had lesser rights?

Riasanovsky (161-195) Michel Fedorovich, Michael Romanov, elected (16yld) as a minor: because he was not part of the political sides of the conflicts of the Times of Troubles. When took over: financial collapse, treasury depleted, social rebellions, and state collapse complete. They had to bring back a sense of normalcy? Bring back tradition? At election, remained at war with Poland , Sweden. Michael asked the zemskie sabor to stay and help him rule? “Pltonov and other have pointed to the  naturalness of this alliance of the “stable” classes of the Muscovite society with the monarchy which they had established.”(161) MR  Worked with the Boyar Duma; Saltykov employed, relatives on mother’s side. Michael’s father Metropolitan Philaret, returned from imprisonment in Poland, was made patriarch, became the most important man in the state. How to stop the Sweden part of the war:  20,000 rubles (per annum?) truce of Deulino of 1618, why Wladyslav failed to take Moscow, 1617-8. 1641 Ottomans came to dislodge Don Cossacks taking of Azov fortress by the sea, failed in siege. But under threats of repeated future attempts, Michael called for abandonment of Azov. Result: financial stability was now harder to maintain than security. Military and payments to foreign political systems take a lot of money? Attempts at new revenue: collection of arrears, new taxes, and loans, successive loans of three, sixteen, and forty thousand rubles from the Stroganovs. 1614 extraordinary levy of “the fifth money”, towns/countryside. Two occasions, “the tenth money”, but at the end of Michael’s reign financial situation remained desperate. Michael d. 1645 at the age of 48. .  Reign Alexis and Theodore: Aleksei Known as Tishaishii, “the Quietest One”, had outbursts of anger and general impulsiveness: Liked, reconstruction of the tsar’s charter. “A kind man” – Kliuchevsky. Aleksei long reign (1645-76) He saw rebellions in Novgorod and Pskov: So same problems with Ivan IV’s reign? Did these cities really not want to be a part of the Russian state? 1656, debasing silver with copper (164). Razin, a Don cossacks, freebooter, was successful in Persian raids, went up and down the Volga claiming people are liberated from Russia. From forest lands to steppes he gained emissaries who all wanted to overthrow the establishment. 1671, he was captured and turned over to Muscovite authorities. Astrakhan several months surrendered. Suppression of rebellions continue. Extension of Muscovy- Ukraine incorporated 1654. Poland Catholic overlords faced-off with Orthodox Ukrainian people, and result sided with Russia.(165) Orthodox people not favorably to Russian union, majority only bishops. Orthodox magnates helped the wealthy Orthodox Church of the people: this was a wealthy person’s decision. 1650s, Sech-Sich in Ukraine, an island in the Dnieper beyond the cataracts. A raiding post, especially against Crimean Tartars . Cossacks developed a peculiar style: military and democratic. (166) . Government, general gathering of Cossack peoples. Cossack retained contacts with Ukrainians, both ethically and religiously. 1624-38 Cossack & peasant  rebellions. Ukraine’s other option: The Ottomans? Deals: Russia gave Ukraine “some” autonomy in return for loyalty. Poland wars ended with Treaty of Andrusovo, 1667, Dnieper became the boundary. Kiev, Smolensk stayed with Russia. Ottomans/Poland, allegiances with these and Russia were Ukraine’s Times of Troubles, called “the Ruin.” Muscovite hold on left-bank of Ukraine  led to an increase in importance over time. (167)Also Aleksei’s reign included ecclesiastical reforms under Patriarch Nikon and a major split in the Russian Orthodox Church.  Nikon, claimed the church was superior, a Catholic ideology – “not” an Orthodox ideology: Gov and Church together reign as equals, in theory? He charged with papism, exhaled.  Muscovite Russia: Economics, Society, Instatutions: What form of representation of the zemskie sobory? Marxist school of historians “ The agrarian order and rural economy again serve as a key to the understanding of all economic and social relationships within the feudal economy and society of the Moscow state during the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries” – Laishchenko: feudal is a difficult term to proscribe, differing systems throughout the world?  Rye, wheat, oats, barley and millet the basic crops. Wooden and iron plows, oxen/horses provided draft power and manure served as fertilizer. Russia exports: raw material: this indicates no industrialization usually? Barshchina/corvée, quitrent/obrock, contracts 1-10 years. See Moon. St. Georges Day, can move only if not in debt. What is different? Russia serfdom coincided not with feudalism but with centralized government. Feudal is also hard to define, differing concepts. Tokugawa, cent. Gov, but feudal too. Mestnichestvo described as a system of state appointments (family ranks). Began formally in 1475 when boyars were entered into a genealogy book. Times of troubles, central gov. declined and zemskie sobor rose, evidence in the so-called election: what is really a back-room deal to elect Michael R.? prikasy- singular prikaz, 17th cent., central administrations: Foreign policy affairs, mutual supervision affairs, “overlapping” other offices: was this a bureaucracy?  Eastward expansion: 1610-40, estimate military moved 300 miles eastward southern steppes; also east to Siberia. 1639 Ivan Moskvitianin, head of small group reach Pacific. Semen Dezhnev, sailed 5 boats up Kolyma river – northeastern tip of Siberia. 17th century explorations of Kamchatka peninsula 1696 onward. Settlemtns of Nerchinsk in 1689 established a boundary between China and Russia, in Amur area. Siberian was highly profitable for the Muscovy state. (178). Lantzeff - Siberia and Church reform seen as “enlightened.” (180) : how so? Summery: great people mobilizing: Yes, but historiography gave to much class distinction to this 16-17th period? Muscovy Russia:  religion and Culture: Catholicism and Orthodoxy were really opponents- bitterly? Simon Digby To Sir John Coke: description on meeting the Grand Prince: 20-30 “great princes,” possibly means boyars and others?  Visitors notice:  grey beards silent person(s), colorful & rich costumes, lavish banquets, tremendous drinking, foreign emissaries, silver plates. Some Russian historians and Slavophiles, Russia was relative isolated than Kiev:  positive view? Peculiar and Parochial culture cited? Simple explanation, Muscovy role quickly from appanage Russia to Russian Empire. Religion and Church: The Schism: Organization of spiritual life: Church was central, soon not; textual problems, Tsar Michael’s investigation, Tsar Aleksei witnessed a religious and moral revival. When Nikon made public the textual corrections, he was turned against by celebrated Archpriest Avvakum, or Habakkuk. 1653 accused him of hearsay (183). Ritual in new collating and correction? People were set in their ways? Sing of the Cross, three fingers instead of two? To settle this dispute, and others over textual corrections Church council in 1666 and another, attended by patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, representing Constantinople and Jerusalem continued to 1667, in Moscow. Disposed Nikon, but considered his reforms. Ultimatum given. No dogmatic or doctrinal differences were involved; it was an issue to obey ecclesiastic officials. Emendations not liked by Old Ritualists, Believers: Now persecution of Old Believers (Apocalyptic views) -saw church reform the end of the world and Nikon as the antichrist. 1672-1691 estimated 20,000 Old B. burned themselves alive, 37 in known communal conflagrations. bespopovtsy vs popovtsy.  But Old Belief survived. Soon Old Believers had no priests (popovtsy) or liturgy or most sacraments.  This was opposite of the Reformation? “Well-Established” Peasants and merchants were the Old Believers, accord. to Shchapov. Fighting against the gentry domination: So this is not class warfare?  Another interp. Muscovite Old and Great Russians and New Ukrainian and White Russians. It is true that many ethnicities had entered Russian sphere since the 16th century? Argument: Nikon refused to allow local practices to remain. I can see why this would be a problem? Significance: schism allowed Peter the great more power in dealing with a weakened church(s)? Muscovite: Thought and Literature.

Provisions of Russian Protectorate over Ukraine in 1654: One theme was enserfment of Polish peasants had begun by the Polish nobility, this led to flights of the peasantry and a crackdown. Where did they go? Zaporozhian Sich, established by the Dnieper Cossacks.  Theses also contained an element of fights over the western and Eastern Church doctrines were concerns for the powerful and wealthy. The peasants were more and more forced to choose. Kievan memory of Orthodoxy will play a role. Provisions not to go to the Sultan or Polish leaders and maintain relations demands of the Russians. (449) Swear allegiance. The Charter of the Zaporozhie Host, April 6, 1654: Introduced a measure not to violate the previous rights of the high-clergy, which was important because they had a different interpretation of the rituals of Christianity than in Russia. Also guarantees that lands of the inhabitants ( Kozak Estates, 449) keep their rights and to their inheritors. This was a protectorate treaty, where cooperation was the key to its success. Russia will appoint officials, and collect monies for the protection: This was a standard practice to leave things basically alone but to implement economic measures to pay for supporting troops and defenses? Here Aleksei is called “ great sovereign.” (449) : Did the Ukrainians receive the freedoms promised in the Pereyaslav treaty?

 1654 Russian Tsar Aleksei (1645-’72) singed an agreement which temporarily formed the basis of Ukrainian-Russian relations with the leaders of Zaporoshie Host. On significance is Russia shored up a stronghold form strengthening position of Poland and the Ottoman Empire ( Who played off the Crimea state). Also Russia inherited a rich vital area for farming, and trade access with new peoples and new economies. In addition, inadvertently scholarship of Ukrainian led to the great schism that changed Russians religious practices till this day. Includable, new leaders, new administrations thoughts were brought into the sphere of Russia. Russia formed resolutions for protections of Ukraine from Poland and local threats. In Church matters:

In 1648, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky led a large Cossack uprisings against the Commonwealth and the Polish king John II Casimir: results, partition of Ukraine between Poland and Russia. Russian gets the Left-Bank Ukraine. Why problems with Poland and Some Ukrainian’s? Catholicism/Protestantism and Orthodoxy created a real issue with the wealthy—traditionalists, and clergy: Were the people really that motivated, or were economic circumstances due to demands on choice of church affiliation an issue here? 

Ukraine was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: united the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, 1569 Union of Lublin. A significant part of Ukrainian territory became into the sphere of Poland after this Union. Cultural pressure saw the upper class converted to Catholicism. Many traditional Orthodox families had cohabitated in this region for a long time with Catholics, but Poland applied pressure to the upper classes to convert to Catholicism.

Rinehart and Winston, 1991, Section 53, “Russian Conquest and Exploitation of Siberia,”

Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 850-1700,. ed., Basil Dmytryshyn, 3d., ed. (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc,  )

Russian Conquest and Exploitation of Serbia: Between 1580-1650s, the Russians took control of all northern Asia form the Urals to the Pacific. The conquest of this vast territory, rich in resources and inhabited by primitive tribes, transformed the hitherto East, European, Orthodox, Slavic Muscovite state into a huge multinational and multicultural Eurasian Russian colonial empire. (342). Russians derived four basic benefits from their new territory. The extracted great wealth form the collection of tribute imposed on native inhabitant. They utilized it as a place to exile malcontents. They made it a base from which to launch new conquests. And they took advantage of its location to establish contacts with China and Japan and North America: This comes later than the 17th Century?

A Report from the Veovoda of Tobolsk, to the Voevoda of Pelym, Concerning Unrest Among the Natives, June 32, 1606: Pelym insecurity and uprisings. “A Biography of Boyarina Morozova,” in Basil Dmytryshyn, ed., Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 850-1700, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991, pp. 489-497 : Theme: pressures for change vs. continuity; protests against Rel. changes, human treatment,  new ( three-bar-cross) some of her patrimonies were taken from her. She was of the Old Believers? ( see top of page 490). Arresting then torturing people for refusing to cross themselves in the new fashion is hard to believe (see 494). Making an example for reform - dissenters or a hit piece on Russian leaders shown as inhuman tyrants? (496-8) torture episodes. If someone believes this then the Tsar and his ruling religious men were evil and sinister people. The text doesn’t mention Feodosii [name after conversion to a monk]  was a threat to the state by being an inciter for an opposition movement against the tsar? This story sounds reminiscent of the black-legends (Spanish Inquisition stories by northerners ( Dutch, English, German)? – gov. forcing people to follow a strict religious code by intimidation, to take their wealth, and the entire government is concerned only in trying to make people submit to religious rituals for profit). Notice the many passages where the tsar and his men take days and days out of their busy lives to address this minor aversion to one of Nikon’s reforms for one then three persons? Sig: Basic point was a rise in secular writings, (See Kiaser 205) some by anonymous persons. This was more likely a government protest piece similar to autonomous authors (mostly anonymous; some not)  of the 17th century Spain?   [The Tale of] Frol Skobeev, the Rogue,” in Serge A. Zenkovsky, ed. and transi., Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales, 2nd ed., New York: E.P. Dutton, pp. 474-486 Theme: Social mobility/story-telling. Contrast:  station ( Domain) in life was important in honor of the community: Here it breaks down to semblance of acceptance: possibly a rare case, none the less. Relevance: drastic change in life and mentality in the 17th century. Story: man falls for girl, then schemes, then Frol forced her against her will: raped? (477) She later started to care for him. “Never…regain my chastity.” (478). Skobeev was a poor nobleman (job: litigation solicitation) , and was not wealthy enough to offer his hand. She gave him money, but father found time to offer her daughter to  nobles in Moscow. He mortgage house to raise money to go to Moscow attempt to marry the women he loves: Coach episode funny, lovers secretly marry; He marries upwards: to a new domain?  father tells the tsar he cannot find her, tsar orders the missing daughter made public, upon death if someone is holding her hostage. It was tradition for the family to be involved in marriage of their daughter. This caused conflict with tradition? Lovchikov intervenes as promised. Send icon as blessing (this was a marriage tradition, see marriage/gifts Diss. 5) but here was for her heath? Frol and Annushka obviously do not care about their different ‘ domains.’ She being from a wealthier family and he quite poor, but still a noble. Bitter satire, picaresque-like theme comes in to play as someone can say he did all this scheming for access to Annushka’s parents money (secular writing/ As well as the comic-like satire) . Could be like a picaresque novel, absent of the boy-meets disaster upon disaster themes? Did Frol find happiness?  Chapter 16, “Seventeenth-Century Architecture: The ‘Moscow Baroque’,” pp. 209-225. Theme: Baroque brings new knowledge to architecture. Baroque did not disappear from Moscow when Peter turned toward western influence (224) Ivan Petrovich Zarudny: Moscow, Church of the Archangel Gabriel (‘Menshikov Tower’), 1701-7; Peter’s life long friend/advisor Prince Danilovich Menshikov ( Architect Ukrianian, Ivan Petrovich Zarudny – octagons rising from superimposed cubes: Motive tower above all: symbolic of the stature of Moscow? Baroque irregular plan appear in Moscow more frequently in the 17th cent. (209) Was this because churches were built often along busy –narrow streets?  How does Baroque exaggerate motion and impart a clear interpreted detail to produce drama, tension, exuberance, and grandeur? “Uneven alignment of five spires”, “Cupolas of different sizes,” “lack of correspondence…,”(209) exmp. Georgian Virgin (1628-53 built by Grigory Nikitnikov, wealthy Yaroslavl merchant, represented Baroque style. Attitudes for Brick, a major source of decoration: dif. Colors, plays of light and shade over all surfaces. (211). St. Basil, exmp. Decorative surface; 16-17th cent. Yaroslavl became -- Important shipping port at White Sea, Yaroslavl each year saw companies of English, French, and Dutuch merchants on their way to the capital. (212): merchants have wealth, they want to display their wealth to have people remember them? -- therefore – “companies vied with each other to erect sumptuous churches from 1620s onward – some 40 plus stone churches were built. (213) Sig: these were larger and more contemporary than many buildings in Moscow? “The canonical five domes”(214): this was part of Nikon’s reforms? “renounce the pyramidal or tent roof and return to the ancient Byzantine form“ (216). Didn’t care to follow the pyramidal tent roof restrictions?.” (214)  : especially in the northern areas? -- wooden church replications of Moscow stone churches? Sturdy proportions of the thick walls and towers - -Kremlin in Rostov,  1 ½ cent. After towers and Kremlin walls – no “marked Italian design.” (215): If the Italian design was followed it would have been the Russian architects who worked under many Italian architects at Moscow? Ivan III ( See Ivan III’s two western missions to Venice to find Italian builders). Dutch/Yaroslavl- colored tiles?

Monastery of the New Jerusalem at Istra n/w of Moscow: Nikon’s great church? Was this part of his joint “sovereign” rule theory? Peter the Great will separate church and state/ secularizing government? Baroque: A symmetrical, playfulness in floor plan and decorativeness. Nikon objected to this. Tremendous irony, when he orders his great church he had constructed the largest tent structure in Moscow. It was attempt to copy the Holy Sepulture in Jerusalem, but it was not close.  Ukraine with Great Russia in 1667 (216) bring knowledge of the European Baroque, and w/ ideas: So the ToT can be seen not as a turning point, but 1667 can? “Patriarch’s Position as actual if not titular leader of the entire Orthodox community To prove this Nikon decided to rival the Patriarch of Jerusalem by building a replica of the must holy shrine of Christendom, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.”: This church objective was to revise the Greek spirit of the earliest Russian architecture? After Nikon’s exile, 1666, the Tsar summoned the builders to Moscow to the government service? Moscow Baroque: St. Nicholas of the Great Cross ( Merchant, 1680-8)(p. 219) Verticalism, not new, but expressed in late 17th, cent in Moscow: What does a height of a building say about it’s peoples? Canonical cubes architecture. Bartolommeo Rastrelli ( Rococo style), Peter’s uncle, Prince Lev Kirillovich Naryshkin built intercession of the Virgin at Fili, formally a village in west Moscow. “Naryshkin Baroque” describes the late- late 17th century style ( Illustrated fundamental simplicity in church planning); Fili, five rounded side arms, central square receded, we seen this in wooden churches, the centralized the ( recalls something of the 20 log church plan), stair cases recall the ascension, more or less Russian in forms, but Baroque and western in ornamentation. Gracefulness of Fili. Rustification of facades in the Kremlin were imitated in paint in other Russian cities. ( bricks with different colors, in patterns, as if one looks up close, but from afar, it looks rustificated. (when paint fades, you re-new-it). Molding bricks to make puzzle construction to dazzle the eyes: Detail in the 17th century, there was a new taste for detail, as with icon but also in exterior work; Sculptured molded brick, make molds, and puzzle-together the brick, so if one get ups close. One can see the brick detail, a very sculptural over all effect. Appearance matters: And some had paint to liven up the façade, become quite decorative, emphasizing the structure as decorative itself. Stucco and white wash over the brick structure. Brick, embroidery patterns, and brick decorative: molds for the brick, blue prints and plans, and like a puzzle put it together. We are seeing an ornamenting; we didn’t see in the 15th century Muscovy synthesis? Why is Yaroslavl important? Yaroslavl, a wealthy Volga trade city in the 17th century, merchants vied with each other to construct the better churches, and so competition created beautiful structures, and they could employ teams to do frescos in churches, and blue color was one of the teams that left an impression in the frescos scenes. Then fresco painters decorate the insides of the church to the wishes of their patrons? How does this downplay the derogatory comments in history? claims: art in declines, seeking detail for its own sake, a mediocre artists , but we must accept artists were just responding to the wealthy patrons desires, they had to paint what they were asked too, to get paid.  Diversity of styles: Some Baroque structures would have Moorish structural themes as well. Relevance:  So the older Russian system is contrasted with the western newer system of building, and Peter sees a difference when he is growing up? What does he say about Russian traditional system? (see 222); New Latin-cross became fashionable is St. Petersburg ( Middle years of 18th cent.) Mesnshikov, last Moscow Baroque Church. (224) Will concentrate on Neva next? Chapter 18, “The Beginning of Modern Painting: Moscow, 1550-1700,” pp. 241-257: 17th century introduction. Chiaroscuro, introduced by way of Ukraine, and naturalism. Musculature, depth ( Legitimate Perspective,? No but trying, so close it is depth, none- the-less).   1680s, icons in the boarder scenes, stand out in the environments, and fine details, and silver frames, and icons were surrounded by frames – when does an icon become a picture? Introduction of Russia themes, like telling a story of a particular Russian Icon, where it was , or went, when and how it used, etc…What does Rublev think of this art? Lost was the literal angelical character of Rublev’s figures. The Dominant Strogonov art patronage , c. 1650s, were followers of the Dionisy. Also , new naturalism growing and chiaroscuro. 3 things: Metropolitan Philip opposed the brutality of Ivan IV 1568, Michael Romanov made his father patriarch in 1620 – co-tsar, Aleksei Mikhailovich, Nikon Patriarch had to submit to his rule: this was the last conflict between the Church and temporal power? Aleksei was caught between the old and new (254) and he accepted both; Michael couldn’t, he needed to establish continuity between his rule and the Rurikvichi. The Raskol, really changed things and the church never recovered the full co-rulership with the oligarchy in power?  Wealthy, and possibly autonomous, because of their financial support to the gov during the Times of Troubles, the Stogonov family had two sons that collected and painted art. They had started a school, and were significant patrons of art projects for Russia. In the Mid- sixteenth ( 17th ?) century their appeared two types of works of Art: Public, that is the propaganda of the state, and private, that is expression. During Aleksei’s reign, he have had his own portrait done, was a search for a new meaning and expression. The Stroganov’s art productions reflected the Tsar as head of the Church: Not a co-ruler or partner?  Small private Icons, produced at their schools, utilized miniature techniques, and icon began to be individually signed. This pronounced authentic patronage; miniature Icon, were tended for individual use; 12-16 inches high, personal use, and large scale icons, and mass productions, they Stroganov became to be known, get their names in the public, and mass production helped them have a chain, monopoly in personal icons. Ways to get rich. Plane background, detailed in figuring, these were beginning to be works of art, and humanists creations of the figures, some figures have some doubts, no confident. The Novgorod figures of early times were confident (Stroganov had come from Novgorod in the beginning) – things are changing now? Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich summoned artists from all around to Moscow ( Forced or/and voluntary?): this was an extension/reintroducement of Muscovy synthesis? Summery of Stroganov school and patronage: Old traditional techniques were destroyed (256): How could Rublev adjust? Archbishop Avvakum attacked westernizing painters (253): this needs clarification: He attacks representations of red-haired, fat Jesus – more Baroque style? Also sensuality: attacks ‘like this’ against the Medici in Italy were quite common, as they secretly collected and displayed in their palaces sensual (biblical) artistic and secular art works. Moscow, The Tsar’s Workshop: St. Alexy, Metropolitan of Moscow: 1640: the oriental landscape, clearly in the background? Prokopy Chirin ( mixed, old+new) worked from 1620-1642. Simon Ushakov, new style Flanders (251). Oriental landscape demonstrated that Russia was opening up to the world, at least little by little? Books, cloth, and tapestries all imported from ( all over the world) from the east. So this reflected into art too; from Persia, Italy and Spain also Russia  imported stuff-- remember they do caviar business with these states.  Ushakov, used chiaroscuro: shades of light and grey to represent a three- dimensional form on a two dimensional surface. Previously to get this three dimensional effect, added was some metal overlays to developed the three dimensional illusion. Vladimir, Mother of God, the famous icon, Ishakov redoes it, but restrains the chiaroscuro to try to get representation close to original. Icons were referenced as written in Russia not painted: That means when they speak about them, they say it was ‘written’ and do not say it was painted. “ It was written by this ‘ painter’ or this ‘painter’. We see signing of known artists of their times; was this a class to get more work by public exposure? Summery: Greater attention to detail also meant an explosion of boarderscenes, and now a Russian theme instead of a church theme was added. Ambitious Ukrainians took up residence in the Moscow places, and painted icons in the Tsar’s icon schools. They brought western techniques. Richard Hellie, “ Enserfment in Muscovite Russia,” in Cracraft, Major Problems, pp. 46-58: Most important reason: The privilege class had honor addiction – caste mattered. They needed to feel superior in the social scene, and increasingly in the 17th century changing demographics threatened their old tight-knitted psychological privileged community. Magnates and (noble ) Service class promoted their class as the privileged and the peasants as the “real” servitors – military, tax, agriculture and laborer. From 1620s, onward, distinction the peasants and the old rank-and-file cavalrymen collided. Pesants could form and army with guns, and so the older establishment could therefore just be government workers and landlords of a new class, the majority, of peasant economic and military backbone.  1640s-50s. Peasants migrated to rich estates, get bonded, lose freedom. Owning slaves meant for the magnates and nobility a type of honor badge, a distinction in “status –elevator in Russian social edifice.”(48) The reason for Russia’s perceived backwardness by western progressives  can be found in Article 11 of the 1649 Ulozhenie Law Code, not abolished until 1861. rationalism explains a problem with the Army and serfdom: the rationalisms: (A) Low-level agriculture;(B) shortage of people;(C) constant land expansion; (D) Constant need for funds; (E)non-rational:  lazy magnates who want to party (see reinterpreting on their wealthy lifestyle). Hellie, “one ultimate cause, not enough people” (57). Ideology of serfdom by privilege class: peasants provide the crucial services to run the state, and the privilege class parties, less work, more wealth, better living. Hellie’s summery: “… the enserfment of the peasantry was a governmental reaction to labor dislocation at times of crisis and a second-order consequence of technological change. The catalysts, or immediate causes, of this development were the civil war of the fifteenth century [peasants were free in 1500s?], Ivan IV’s Oprichnina and Livonian War [This was the migration and re-ordering of lands and peasant populations, pomest’e system?], the dynastic crisis  after the death of Ivan IV, [ What, he means his son doesn’t he?], the Smolensk War, and the civil disorders of 1648: result, caused rigidification and severe stratification of Russian society.  Simplistic view: Service-class gov. workers, ruling body and church= players/managers| peasants, serfs and slaves= workers all aspects for the state. General relevance, it was in the “interests of the magnates”, all internal and external that kept serfdom alive (some rare occasions).(57). How did the peasants fight back? For what we know, probably not even close to the whole story, Stenka Razin, created the most alarm for the Russian privileged, seen in the Razin Rebellion (1667-71, nonpayment of Cossack, and famine the spark ( not the raskol?)), 1648 civil disorders, dealing with military issues, and military men going back to the countryside with “no technical competence” (50), the Ulozhenie “ served as a watershed,” prohibited the peasants permanently from moving, with various articles in the law for ownership, retrieval and penalties for runaways, like Article 22, a children runway serfs, denying their heritage, ‘ will’ be tortured; 1653, Hellie sights zemskie sober dissolution as a key understanding the government did not need peripheral representation: this is wrong? The government did want they wanted, not listened to people? Is he trying to link Kiev with Rus(sia)? 1680s-90s Charles XI of Sweded confiscated many estates for the crown; V.V. Golitsyn, who ran Russia at this time, contemplated emulation, but not realized until Peter The Great, who deposed him. A fixed tax on peasants to create a standing army also meant the government didn’t care if they had moved from estate to estate, because they took census’ and no matter where they were they would get their money ( ref. 53). Significance: Russia tried to expand and their was little literacy, therefore no large bureaucracy could be established, no technical institutions for the populations, control of the little finances into a small number of hands --  the old establishment was content on keeping their status. Hellie’s cite of other’s significance: “ the Personalities of the leaders of Muscovy helped explain why serfdom flourished after 1649. Most of them were weak, venal individuals incapable of understanding what would really be in Russia’s best interest; or else they were strong-minded men concerned with issues other than serfdom…”(56): See Avvakum’s ‘ Describes His Struggles…’quote about the ‘40’ clergy and court persons, saying that Holy Men (of old/ Saints)  “ were stupid,” and didn’t know anything: That showed arrogance of the privilege if we trust his account here?   “…the mutual interests of the magnates and the gentry [nobility]  in the maintenance of serfdom developed to such an extent that the autocracy felt serfdom to be [ the] “twin pillar” [ along with the nobility itself] upon which the whole political and social structure was based.” (56) Enserfment in Russia developed in three or four states. During the quarter-century long civil war in the reign of Vasily II (1425-1462) selected monasteries which had grown into large economic enterprises need much manpower were granted the right by the state power to curtail the movement of their peasants to the period around St. George’s Day ( November 26): political concession in a period of labor disruption for services rendered by a particular monastery. “ It was done to gain monastery support.” The civil war began because no principle existed to decide who should be [ grand] prince, whether accession was lateral or vertical. In the past the khan had resolved such issues, but this was no longer realistic with the Tatar hegemony in its decline. The contesting sides could only fight it out. In the process Vasily II’s side gave away some peasant freedom to gain support. For reasons difficult to determine, this curtailment was applied to all peasants by the law code (Sudebnik) of 1497. After 1497 most peasants could move at only one time a year, upon payment of a small fee to the landlord. This by no means enserfed the peasants, who seem not to have protested against the minor restriction”( 46-47):  how do we know when so many scholars claim the chronicles didn’t report the truth and for the fact that only a small amount of records have come down to us from these periods? Before the Times of Troubles, there seem no recorded peasant outbreaks? During the 1570s and 1580s, the  instability resulted from the decisions of Ivan IV’s retirement and creation of the Oprichnina and military reversals with the Livonian war. Many peasants were forced to migrate with certain nobility to the south and south/east and were not allowed to leave, while others remained free, and some fled and became unknown. There seems to be no evidence in the records of the enforcement of this policy. The war caused a state problem to get more men into the military service. This meant taking them off the land and putting them into battle. A land shortage now was tied to an absence  of people being able to cultivate the land. Since many people were forced into military service naturally a forced labor service accompanied the military policy. This policy freed up people and solved the agricultural concerns for the state.  In 1581 in some areas there was a temporary measure to forbid peasants to move at all. This was called the “forbidden years.” In 1592 ( or 1539) Boris Godunov, seeking support of the influential for his bid for the throne, “promulgated a decree forbidding all peasants to move until further notice.” (47). In part this was a continual process of an economic solution.  The power of the state saw the state’s financial instability by way of peasant freedom. In the 1500s, peasants had been free to move about as they wished. Peasants that did move preferred to move to large estates and to the great boyars and the monasteries for better working conditions. Muscovy ruled by intimate family relations, and the rulers were mostly related in someway to court heritage. Only a few outsiders were allowed into the outer circles of the power of government. Decisions came from the top and the peasants had little to say about it. “The Times of Troubles had little influence on the enserfment…the confusion created peasant flight, and in 1613 The Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery and another wealthy monastery brought back the issue of the serfs, using legal means to recover now-called “fugitives.” (48) The Smolensk War (1613-1634) created a need for more taxes and peasants were the base of the Muscovy tax revenue. “Higher taxes at the center, combined with the possibility of lower rents and even complete freedom of the frontier, stimulated southward migration.” (48) The government secured the southern lands, but peasants were not settling on government lands. This deprived the army of manpower to garrison the frontiers. They didn’t have money to pay for peasants to settle in the right places. The magnates didn’t allow the government to wait for the recovery of fugitive peasants. In stead the magnates valued the migration of the peasants to their estates. During in the 1620s, the tax need created a phenomenon of peasant to slavery. Peasants could sell themselves into slavery for a period of time, from one to ten years, and even a lifetime, in which they would pay-off their debts. But with increasing demands and payments by the landlords the peasants found it impossible to pay-off their debts and became virtual slaves. During  The Smolensk War period the Muscovite state increasingly became militaristic in western ways. This period saw a gun-powder revolution, and a decrease in the bow and arrow and uselessness for traditional cavalry --  peasants in the military used handguns with much more fatal accuracy.  Mjm -Military service was the only way for the peasants to increase their lot. They fled their servicemen landlords and migrated “to join the forces on the Belgorod cherta [line], which was contributing to the obsolescence of the old cavalry against the Tatars.” (49) Since there were no middle-calls institutions, that is to say, on a wide-scale such as European-like guilds, and a middle class merchant class, the problems of a population explosion added too a groups with no technical skill, all of which complicated the social solutions. Peasants have guns, but there were not enough, even to think about it,  to overthrow the government? Any social movement became more complicated. During the seventeenth century more people were brought into the Muscovy sphere which created nervousness of the privileged class. The Pomeshchik [ service landholder] refused to go to war without a dire need communicated by the government, and they were the traditional cavalry class. The privilege class asked the government to send peasants into the military instead of them. “For the psychology security the servicemen needed to have the peasant beneath him and, if possible, under his control.” (49) “When the peasants fled, the servicemen lost not only financial support, but also the presence of degraded people under his authority who reminded him daily that he was superior. “ (49).“Enserfing the Russian Peasantry: The Ulozhenie (Chapter 11) of 1649),” in Cracrafi, Major Problems, pp. 5 8-67:  Various codes and laws of enserfment. Vary minute in detail, most of the laws are focused on the privilege class’ ownership and distribution rights. Fugitive slave recovery, court disputes over land with peasants, landless peasants, flight, migration, denial, torture, punishment for all ranks economic;  criminal codes, codes for all ranks of people, the prohibition of all movement and freedom of the serfs, and various trial regulations: How was this law seen by the Germans in the German districts?   Torture article here referenced in other section of these notes. Archpriest Avvakum Describes His Struggle for the Lord, ca. 1673,” in Cracraft, Major Problems, pp. 59-60 & 67-78:  From the Tsar, to people in Moscow, land of Dauriia, Lake Bakil, from parts of Siberia, people knew the Archprist. His writings were like a journal, or possibly compiled later to look like one. He preached Old Traditional ( after reforms of 1667) Orthodoxy, speaks of Feodosia Prokopevna Morozova, and Princes Evdokiia Prokopovna, as his spiritual daughters? Were these the same persons in “A Biography of Boyarina Morozova,”? Was the autonomous letters by him about their ordeal? Note the theme of “ two finger to three finger dispute” and his own downfall and banishment? Seems similar, no? Speaking in the Moscow section for his life, he was loved by the court and tsar, was confessor, respected, then placed in a printing house to correct books, and told to keep quite. He was a main figure in the movement of the Old Belivers. He wrote a letter to the tsar, didn’t send it, to persuade him  to go back to the Old Tradition ( This after Nikon’s reforms were approved?). He couldn’t hold his beliefs in, thought that new people coming in from Ukraine were usurping the older generations of Russian people that served their lives for the Church. He started talking again. The Tsar and court/clergy try to reform him many times, sometimes having him stay at the Pafnutev Monastery. His convictions gave him strength, and he was a proud person who couldn’t change in his ways. The Tsar’s wife was sympathetic for him. Fedor, a holy fool, also throws ‘ innovated’ books into the fire, lives with Avvakum – he is burnt to death: Did ascetics become a target? The great scene (76) he is fighting in a court chamber with about 40 people trying to get him to conform too the new system, he makes some great writing showing contrast to the times and their mentality ( that is if we can believe him). “By grace we have autocracy” : (76) He means here, and the preceding lines,  that Church and state ruled together in the past, something that he sees is vanishing now) next: the Russians and patriarchs argue back on the issue of the preceding Church: “They were stupid, our Russian saints had no understanding! They weren’t learned people – why believe them? They couldn’t even read of write!”: Terminology: OK if they couldn’t read or write then how did the chronicles come about? Who wrote them? Not the tsars or boyars? Maybe Avvakum meant to write that they couldn’t read Greek and Latin for the original versions of the bible, needless to say having access to them with the isolation ideology? J. Michael Hittle “The Service City: State and Townsmen in Russia, 1600-1800” (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979): Growth: c. 1500s 96 cities, c. 1600s 170 cities, c. 1650s 226 cities in Russia. Primary growth attributed to expansion of lands. Boarder pushed to the Black Sea.1680s, concentrated cites in crescent beginning lower Dnieper River basin and adjacent upper Donets basin, running through the Oka region and on along the upper Volga area. Importance stressed on waterways and communication routs (roads). In the Pomore, the north, cities were few and far between. The size of Russia had profound impact in communication, movement and development. 17th century, two  state functions: Military-administrative, and commercial-administrative. Some combined, but most have fortresses, called detenets,  at the central focus of the city: This was like serf-lands castle structures in Europe; each city were self sufficient with agriculture and serfs ( the is peasants tied to a land). What was different form Europe? military servitors, majority of the population, were also bound by grant-ship of cities, not ownership: servitors in cities differed to region: ( P.P. Smirnov: south, 85.3 %, west, 71.2 %, east 87.3%). Servitors served not only military duty but government services.  Also churches & possibly one Cathedral if a major city to serve the needs of Orthodoxy.   Why military cities? Memory and concern for Poland and Sweden’s role during the Times of Troubles? In the south, the core of Military defense systems comprised of the Belgorodskaia cherta, a string of twenty-nine fortress-cities and defense-works, which ran from Akhtyrka on the river Vorskla to Tambov.  This was mainly set up as a defense of the Crimea threat and their overlords the Ottomans? Most of these towns established in two waves: first between 1636 and 1648, second between 1648 and 1654: However this was attentively argued during the reign of Ivan IV? Platonov cites the government’s discussion for the colonizing of the “ Wild Field” ( section between steppe and forest) and to later on established forts? Kremlin was different, it had residential areas outside the Kremlin’s walls. Courts and state post service: dvoriane and deti boiarskie, scattered through the towns, constituted only a fraction of the population: Townsmen were poor traders and crafts men in a generally poor country? (45). In most instances the posadskie liudi dominated economics(45): ( but cannot be described as wealthy? (41)) of the towns in which they lived, but it was a precarious dominance? Vulnerable to competition form without the posad and forever threatened by a plethora of constraints, regulations, and prohibitions imposed by the state: I argue that goods coming in to the country and goods going out were not sufficient for a elaborate modern state? Rural self sufficiency ruled the non-trade, by factors of great distances, lack of elaborate transportation institution, and dominated by votchina and pomest’e properties. The lack of a large population and a wide geographical landscape, coupled with no western and limited eastern trade made Russia into a non-voluntary isolationist country – mainly be the restriction to major waterways, including access to the Baltic sea, something that will come during Peter The Great’s reign? (ref. 42). “ Russia was not able to participate significantly in that great area of commerce” (42). Liashchenko: votchina based largely on peasant labor, was a powerful influence on the city industry at the end of the seventeenth century remained limited; Heavy industry’ of the seventeenth century arose and developed in the nucleus of votchina economy and to a much lesser degree – in city industry. (40). Later will come merchant capital for new funds into Russia. Peter’s wars will open up many new avenues for business, exchange, trade, mercantile opportunities?   Bulk of servitors fell into the category of sluzhilye liudi po priboru – contract servitors. Contract Servitors “often” didn’t get paid or were promised tax privileges and salary while the government reneged on both privileges: an example, fortifying the south boarders as a migration and job procurement policy. Only when foreign military threats appeared did the government show up with money. To off-set the lack of a steady income, hand-work became a lifestyle. Trade and craft  activities would became a urban tradition in an absent of bona fide trade merchants ( these were evident in Commercial-Administrations). Also rural agriculture activities accompanied the independent crafts and trade activities mostly when connected to a military-administration city or a church-administration city.  13th–14-15th Century word, found in chronicles, Posad, meant the area of a city between the walls of the Kremlin, and the outerwalls: Then general usage? (26). Urban residence: Posadskie chernye liudi, literally, “taxable people of the posad,” constituted the most numerous group? Tiaglo: state impositions that fell onto the peoples of the posad| townspeople were the largest tax contributors. Three Ranks/levels called extremes: being careful not to tempt a reader into Marx ideas of classes? Posad levels: the lower level were called the bobyli  ( called here extreme(s), because no one wants to denote differentiation of a class system at a peasant level so people who study Marx do not place his haphazard ideas into a class struggle)  These were men of few means| the third level of regular posad dwellers by the nature of their tax obligation. Whereas the regular posad dweller bore taiglo, the bobyli paid the state an obrok. This arrangement indicates that the boblyi were not considered economically sturdy enough to bear the higher burdens of taiglo. Upper level made it possible for a posad to join three privileged corporations – the gosti, the gostinaia sotnia, and the sukhonnaia sotnia. These members had state privileges. The gotsi, the most prestigious, the gotsi received tax exemptions ( emancipation from tiaglo); trading ( serfs were tied to the land);up to 1666, to obtain hereditary landed property (votchina); subordination of administrative purposes directly to the Bureau of the Great Treasury; the right to store wine at home; and the exemption from the payment of numerous customs and tariff duties. (28) Next level was the Moscow members called the gostinaia sotnia and sukhonnaia sotnia, or “hundreds.” They formed privileged corporations, though much larger than that of the gosti. In 1649, the combined membership of both hundreds totaled 274 persons… own business establishments, agents of the tsar - collection of taxes and custom duties. gotsi and hundreders referred to themselves as slaves ( kholopy): (The same in Islam,  in theory, everyone under the ruler is a slave. This was such a practice in the Ottoman empire as respect? Changing, State suburbs did not remain separate, privileged sanctuaries for long. Only exception was Moscow’s suburbs. Ivan centralized economics for his Oprichnina after 1564-5? Taxable property ( chernye sloboda). Time of Troubles the urban districts around Moscow were destroyed and the people dispersed.  Michael Romanov was content to allow foreigners to settle in whatever part of the city they wished. Thus, in 1652, Alexsei yielded to the heartfelt pleas of his countrymen and created a new foreign suburb – the Novoinozemskaia Sloboda, or Novaia Nemetskaia Sloboda as it was known in popular parlance. (31) They were under watch by the government prikazy. The foreign suburbs were managed by the foreigners:Property Relations in the City: Russian property relations were different from European property relations: at this time, in the early European middle ages the comparative is roughly the same? votchina, before  The pomest’e system. There was no private property meaning ownership? Land was divided up into four separate categories of land grantship: The first two had tax exemptions:  most prominent was the  communal grant possessions, here Contract servitor(s); second, the personal grant possessions, pomest’e,  subject for specific use, The next two categories paid taxes: conditional landholding by the posad commune (posadskii mir) of the taxable (chernye);. The fourth category was the conditional urban landholding, purpose of establishing some kind of business activity. The votchiniki, were powerful private properties, both secular and clerical. The clerical private properties belonged to the church. The secular private properties ( cities called goroda) belonged to influential commercial families and manufacturer posady. George V. Lantzeff, “Siberia in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of the Colonial Administration” ( Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 1943). Significance: Russian imperializes lands using ‘some’ similar tactics of economic overlordship as the Mongol-Tatars previously in the 13-14th centuries. They leave native cultures in tact, coerce other tribes by psychological ‘divide and conquer’ tactics with a formula of allying with a “ best man” and create a vast fur trade network, fortresses, outposts/blockhouses, and eventually colonization. Security: Forts and blockhouses ,scattered called Ostrogs. mainly  a stockade and towers. Building needed to begin in spring, after the rivers thawed, and finished before winter. Ostrogs were the mechanics to maintaining Russian control out in the far-off lands.  Small Ostrogs were called ostrozheks. Motive was an international need for fur, including Europeans’ who preferred it? This was economic in concept. How or why were they conquered? Natives politically disunited, backward, and unfamiliar with firearms, (87).  Application of "Divide et empera."- Once an ostrog was established, delivery of the iasak (fur tribute). (89): Divide and conquer were also tactics employed by the Mongol- Tatars, but this did not mean their policy was adopted?  The government sought especially to win the favor of the wealthy and influential natives. (92): Like the Tartar’s giving the iarlyk to the princes in Russia which took the place of the Baskaki in the 14th century? Voevoda first thing after Ostrog built, and subdued, invite “best Man” have a party, dress up, “A solemn "reception" | rewarded with various gifts (93). The key to understanding why the Russian didn’t kill many or most of the natives was exactly the same reason the Mongol- Tartar’s have said not to kill all the people they conquered. They needed them alive to work for their economic motives? Assuring the obedience of the natives  - Oaths of-loyalty and hostages: Usually the Russians kept one or two hostages from every volost. At intervals ranging from one month to a year the hostages were exchanged for new ones." (96-7) the prisoners were supposed to be well treated and fed at the government's expense. (96-7): Hardly happened? Too far from Moscow, same happened in America with Spanish. Charles II orderd specific instruction, hardly anyone adhered too it. Hostage programs abolished 1769. Slaves returned to their homes, both from Russia proper and Siberia. Christianity uproar? The natives not only provided the gathering of the fur ( usually sable) but they also were redirected into other duties. Christianity led to an attitude toward slavery. In 1599 vigorous instructions were sent to Siberia, commanding that all captured Tatars, Ostiaks, and Voguls be set free.” (102), death penalty: who was put to death?  The government tried to stop this in 1625, 1631-1641 but the Russian service people were too far out in the wilderness to care. Does this mean the central government really cared about all the ‘fur’ money coming in from Siberia? As things progressed, certain civilities developed. “the Clemency and kindness” policy. Why? commit communal suicide, flee, Russian lost potential free workers? Quotas were dripped to two sables a day. Also they were allowed juridical apparatus: But exploited with charges and fees?  Certain veovodas did not exhibit this kindness and made life impossible for the natives. Some of the records show that Russians destroyed personal property. attempts to overthrow the Russian Yoke began immediately? Yes, many times, and a few serious attempts. factor was forming clan unity which was usually the problem in serious attempts. Forms of protests were no paying the iasak, fleeing and migrating away from the ostrogs, and petitioning Moscow. (105- 110) In 1612, no Tsar, alliance of Voguls, Tatars, and Ostiaks. The alliance was successful in taking Pelym, most successful operation| In 1662-1663, Tatars, Voguls, Bashkirs, and Ostiaks tried again to organize. They would skirmish and kill iasak collectors, and the promyshlenniks as well as rob them to gain their merchandize. In the 1640s, the Tungus and Iakuts began killing the merchants and collectors and rebellions were seen in Tungus on Enisei in 1627-1628. rebellions began with them in 1595, 1607.  Tatars of Kuznetsk made trouble in 1630. In 1635 the Buriats stormed the ostrog of Bratsk and massacred its entire garrison. Throughout the seventeenth center many attempts to end the Russian Yoke occurred with many clans and many regions. “ The policy of the Muscovite government toward the Siberian natives was determined by its interests in Siberian fur.” (Lantzeff 114). Summery: subdued Russia was not interested in their Russification. required constant military vigilance.David Moon, The Russian Peasantry, 1600-1930: The World the Peasants Made, London & New York: Longman, 1999, pp. 66-106 Ch. 3 Exploitation: Ruling groups exploit peasants, according to R.E.F. Smith and Rodney Hilton: Serfdom developed in Russian beginning in the 16th century and early 17th century and lasted to 1861. Large number of peasants lived on Church lands, state lands, and the tsar’s family  ( and court) lands.  Landlords exploited the peasants. The state obliged all peasants to pay taxes and sent recruits to the army. Difference in peasants from serfs:  Serfs (seigniorial peasants)  were a type of peasants who were bound to a specific landlord were subject to his jurisdiction and laws. Their families passed their servile status to their children. They often went into debt and couldn’t emerge from this. Peasants that were not serfs, free tenant farmers and they lasted until the mid-sixteenth century; they  had the right to move around and could find new owners. This law became coded in 1497 and 1550, but it was limited to two weeks a year at the end of an agricultural season, and sometimes special holidays. In 1649, this changed and peasants were no longer allowed to change owners. They became permanently liable to be returned if they fled under the law code Sobornoe ulozhenie.  By the eighteenth century the serfs were allowed to move and were deemed domestic serfs, and they were purchased as property by different landowners. The distinction between serf and slave was serfs were considered to be citizens of the Russian state and the slaves were considered owned by private individuals as personal property (67): Did this really matter in significance? Slavery in Russia had a long history until 1723. Why change, slaves could not be charged taxes? In 1679, agricultural slaves became liable to household tax. By 1723, all slaves were added to a poll tax census making slaves liable to taxes (98): Did this make them peasants? Yes, no longer was the term slave used? Serfs and slaves is a sketchy differentiation? Sixteen Century Origins. Once Russia began to imperialize the issue were not land but the control over the peasants to till the soil. The fights of the rich against the poor caused the poor to become indebted to the rich and the rich said now I own you, even with a ideology that the state owned the peasants.  Klyuchevskii, writing in 1880, he argued that landlords deliberately played this role of enserfer, and took advantage of the peasant’s indebtedness. If a peasant was given a tool to use, he or she was charge, and so forth with commodities, food and privileges? 1882 documents found suggest the peasants’ right of movement was temporarily prohibited in some areas starting in the 1580s. This was called the “ forbidden years.” But V.I. Korestkii, birch bark to a decree of 1592/93 banning peasant movement altogether. Law code of 1550, move once a year--1649 peasants did not have this option . According to this interpretation, the Russian state took a series of steps to bind peasants to the land at times of crisis in order to ensure the loyalty of the gentry cavalrymen(pomeshchiki,) As the gentry's grants of land were worthless without people to cultivate them, the state enacted a series of measures to bind peasants to their land. (Moon 68)Different methods: Some wealthy landowners kidnapped peasants as the need to service land became an issue. Others offered peasants incentives, such as less required duties? Why not allowing them to move around? So that peasants could not form unions with other peasants? Some wealthy landowners kidnapped peasants as the need to service land became an issue. Others offered peasants incentives, such as less required duties. By the early eighteenth century, Russian peasantry into categories according to land they lived on. The main categories were: seigniorial (pomeshchich'i) peasants, or 'serfs', who lived on the estates of nobles; state (kazennye, gosudarstvennye) peasants, whose land was state property; church (tserkovnye, ekonomicheskie) peasants, who lived on lands belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church; and the smaller numbers whose landowners were members of the tsar's family, known as court (dvortsovye) peasants until 1797,

and thereafter as appanage (udel'nye) peasants. (Moon 69) Serfdom also developed on the right-bank of the Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania and the Baltic provinces of Estonia, Livonia and Kurland, which were annexed by Russia in the eighteenth century. Landlords held their estates as demesne for their own production. Labor service were more common in the fertile black, main economic activity (Moon 70-1). V.I. Semevskii form the “General Land Survey” cited 74 per cent of peasants in the fertile black area were serfs who worked labor services and  26 per cent paid dues. By the 1850s, serfs were doing both, a “mixed obligation.” (Moon 71)  Obrok (pay dues) or Barshchina (Labor service): In the empires western borderlands ( especially Ukraine, Belorussia and Lithuania) performed labour services. (Moon 71)  Nineteenth century seigniorial pesansts’ labor was higher still. (72) 1760s General Land Survey cited a norm of 1.5 desyatiny in the Central Black Earth region;The system known as the mesyachina, was rare, in the mid-nineteenth century. Now Obrok, had differentiating levels ( rates) in nominal monetary terms, which also increased over time.  Tsar’s frequently devalued currency to pay for their wars, and this became periods of depreciation and inflation. Landlords needed cash more and more. Dues(obrok): levels Impact on cash in wars, devaluation ( see 74) There was a difference between what landlords [ officially ] demanded and what they received. ( Moon 76)…end of Peter The Great’s reign, obrok rates did rise consistently. Generally in the last century landlords  extracted from one-third of the peasants’ income in dues. a proportion of the peasants were domestic serfs (dvorovye lyudi); obrok became more complicated in levels depending on prosperity, but still this was subject to the ability to pay; Peter secularized the church and the peasants in 1672. this meant that all the peasants’ obligations to their former ecclesiastical landowners were commuted to a flat-rate obrok of 1 rouble per male soul, to be paid to the state.” (Moon 79) Here Peter was in need for cash? Catherin the Great (r. 1762-98) cancelled this decree in 1768. Court peasants renamed appanage (udel’nye) peasants in 1797, were treated differently; privilege of being unshaven.  (Moon 80). Ways to gain cash?  Poll taxes were in effect in some areas or some levels of the population and was long lasting measure. What did many serfs do under Peter’s reign? Most became servicemen in Peter’s military state; retired soldiers were legally classified as ‘raznochintsy.’ Peasants were also obliged for upkeep of their parish churches and local surroundings. (Moon 86) All these measures increased the burdens 19th cent. Exploitation was the highest in the central regions; the Russian Empire consolidated its position as a major European power, with its large and expensive armed forces, which were manned and paid for mostly by the peasants. (Moon 88) Dues(obrok): levels ideology of “ Little Father.” The tsar treated his serfs as his children and he was the paternal father.   There were also landless labor peasants called bobyli, 1860s, the vast majority of Russian peasants had access to land to cultivate. (Moon 93)In Ukraine, and other parts of Europe laborers wandered: Is this an argument that serfdom is preferred over freedom?  Tsars did give out rations during the bad harvest years and reduced taxes in those years. Some rich landlords also were benevolent. But if not the state guided the landlords to be less severe during the hardship years. You did not want your workforce to die-off? The state tried to place the burden of this benevolence on the rich magnates who had to be repeatedly told to loosen up overbearing measures against the peasants. Welfare thought: In 1822 and 1834 the state forced the landowners to share responsibilities for famine relief.  (Moon 95)"Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings", 860-1860s. ed. Daniel H. Kiaser Gary Marker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). 200-300 burial pits, famine [bubos], plague, 1550/52 wide-spread epidemic: periodic through 1560s, connected to economic crisis, compounded by Livonian War c. 1558, growth of taxes, social reorganization-land reforms, geopolitical crisis, southern threats, and western threats.(166) Livonian war, no decline in central regions: Wait till 1571? General crisis: 1570s-1590s, May 1571, Tatars burn many cites including Moscow, records lost in great fire: the Kremlin wasn’t burnt? Did this begin the great migrations? Where was the Tsar supposedly the great defender? 1573, Murom, 83% all household in Moscow districts were vacated. One means many homes were burnt to the ground and part of the 100,000 taken-off as slaves were among people living in these districts? Two problems: Northwest/ Novgorod & Pskov depopulations ( various reasons), main, persecuted by Oprichniki and Ivan IV, although, Pskov was only sacked, no wide-persecutions. Moscow central:   looked for work, many lost homes in great fire, so left southward to look for new masters, work, or wanderers.  Lower Volga, a desired region? Bread prices rose, no cultivation because no homes for the people, and policies for some  of forced migration. Rapid colonization of Volga River basin, also Kama river basin. 1570-‘90s, ecological cataclysms, famine, epidemics, Livonian war, sharp increase in exploitation of the peasants and tax growth contribute to Moscow’s instability. Sever (pages 172-187)famines in 1601-03. People sell themselves into slavery, prior, preferred: service contract slave, but it led to permanent slavery, possibly why, landlord’s interest rates(loan money, then slavery): no central gov. oversight? Or they liked this? N. Kollman, social mobility, marriage. People can move up by marrying upwards. Grigorii Kotoshikin, c. 1630, defected to Sweden 1664, wrote on Muscovite marriage-politics. Book successful, he executed for domestic crime. If women had land so why not marry them? Brides dowry, generally, icons, clothes, dowry slaves, sometimes land, and most of all rank. (177) Marriage a family affaire, marriage contracts, pledge contracts, financial implications if break it 1000-10,000 rubles: that seems high? To get out, petition the patriarch. Marriage ceremonial, bread-trays, riding horses in summer, sleds in winter, ritual: only the well off can afford? Life of Luliania Osorian 1630: Known as Tale of Luliania Lazareva, one of the first biographies, written by son. Trend, growing literature, saintly secular: not spiritual, focus on service to the poor, individuals count in people’s lives. Like a saint’s life, deny self, but focus on the ordinary. This contrasts the supernatural idealism of the middle ages?  Orthodoxy long rule: do not humanize subjects in art(istic) endeavors? Poetry individualism, did Sweden & Poland’s invasions have anything to do with this? Growing literature in individualism; Gary Marker: 3-10 % rudimentary literacy, 1-2% higher literacy. Popular culture existed in mainly oral forms? Little survived uncorrupted to us?  Life or ordinary art (197) Simon Ushakov, “ Tree of the Russian State,” 1668, Semen Spridonov, “Mircile Worker with Scenes from His life,” baroque ornament of Icon, Boris Gudonov; Portriat of V. G. Liutkin, from E,S. Ovchinnikova, real men, humanistic. These represent idealism destroyed in art works. Church remained in idealized forms? Secular work accompanied by new soul (ideas?)(202) Typical person, with average personality. Iuliania “not a remarkable person.” Because she had serfs? Theme idealization away from the church and into secular things, family, society, domestic service. Democrat Literature 17th cent. Muscovite Thought and Literature: “Chancellor Language,” based upon Muscovite idiom, official documents. Gradually popular language into literature in place of bookish Slavonic – Russian (187) Ukraine joined the scene with a leading role in revival of literacy: What revival, not indicated from whence. ? Roles of literacy, the Domostroi, “ House Manager” attributed to Sylvester 1556, sixty-three didactic chapters: patriarchal, piety, severity, ritualism, muscovite society. St. Basil built by two architects from Pskov, Second half of the seventeenth a Baroque style enter Muscovy through Ukraine. Naryshkin,  Boyar clan supported this. Art schools: Stroganov School 1580-1630, a tsar’s icon/painting school, Procopius Chirin, Tsar Michael Romanov’s favorite icon painter who came from the Stroganov school. The tsar’s art school developed the monumental style, a reflection of western knowledge with the headman master Simon Ushakov, who showed Byzantine and western elements. Stroganov school represented the use of rich colors, bright backgrounds, minute details, like gold contours. Patronage Oruzheinaia Patata and Bogdan Khitrovo, early 16th cent. (191): built studios and shops for artists. 1650s, Frescos flourished, center in Iaroslavl, and spread to Volga; mainly Church of the Prophet Elijah, painted by Gurii Nikitin. Education: Literacy debated in Russian historiography. Kiev in Ukraine was a more open society to the west who was going through a renaissance of learning: what about Novgorod? Or saint Sergius Monastery?  Peter Moglia founded an academy in 1631. (192) 1648 Boyar Theodore Rtishchev built a monastery for leading Slavonic, Latin, Greek, rhetoric and philosophy. 1666 Simeon Polotsh established a school and offered Greek, in conjunction with a printing office. Sylvester Medvedev first bibliography. Western influence: Andrew Vinius, a Dutchment, built the first modern iron works;1664 Postal service: Not the Mongol-Tatar model? Tsar Theodore proposed Euoprean manners, Gregory Kotushikin, first Russian Freethinker: “ Russian Muscovite pride, deceit, isolation and ignorance.”  Democratic Literature. The tale about Ersha Ershovich, “the Tale about Shemiak’s Justice,” A Primer about the Naked and Poor man, […] “ Misery --  Luckless plight.” Were representing a view to a simplify of a person, a breakdown of idealization of the Middle Ages. The literature circulated among the common people, among crafts-people, petty traders, lower clergy, and even among peasants: at least if someone read these works to them, because on a small percent were literate is showed a breaking away from idealization of a person and toward everyday individualism? “The Human is not idealized.” (203): Democratic literature opposed to feudal class? Not sure what the meaning is here. A Vvakum wrote about human feelings. This was not found in Russian official chronicles. A new type of professional writer. (205) What professional writing groups? These new formulations were nothing of borrowing from texts – they show originality. Interests in autobiographies: Only if the populace could read and write? There are no dates of locals here in the book? Gary marker: Literary Rates & Texts in Muscovy. Foreign accounts such as Giles Fletcher describes the clergy literacy a little less than adequate? Marker doesn’t like to use foreign accounts (206) they paint a negative picture of Muscovy literacy. Aleksei I. Sobolevskii ( Late 19th-early 20th century,  Russian language and literature) concluded literacy defined as the ability to sign one’s name (206). Illustation page 207: the Letter ‘N’ from 1693 primer: alphabet is a start? East Bank of Ukrain ( Dnieper divide) had a printing press, as well as two in Muscovy ( Moscow). 1650s Ukraine becomes the dominate eastern Slavic publishing house – Slavic—reading population. 1651 Begins printing of Literacy instructions: printing press was destroyed earlier in Muscovy, many factors and arguments to the possibly evils? “ Surviving library invatories reinforce the idea that monastic and ecclesiastic libraries tended to keep individual copies of describe printing of breviaries and psalters in their permanent collections. (209) This doesn’t mean schools and students were a wide spread phenomenon? 1651-1707 – Primers averaged in the date press---runs comes to 6167 average, not close to the need for making a state literate, but a start? Yet, the availability in the east Slavic world (211) explains the difference. Everyday Life in Muscovy 213-222: 16th century an opening of trade with Dutch and English brings in contact with foreigners. (213) Andrei II’ich Bezobrazov (b. 1621) held various positions, by 1641/8 had become a stol’nik , third highest rank in Muscovite service society. 1690, veteran, executed, political intrigue. This is about a women’s role in her husband’s financial affairs. Also shows that a low percentage was literate. She is articulate and she shores up some unleft business for him. Muscovite Diet: this piece demonstrates literacy as well, and is all about the Muscovite Diet. Rich merchants -- live in costly palaces, live large, and Russians in general live meagerly –Fast days: important to the people. Pirog: pastries eaten before Lent, on Butterweek (217) it is like a pie, or more exact a fritter. Ikra: roe of large fish, Where does this come? From the Volga where it is salted ( Preserved?) near Astrakhan, then transported by carts? Fill barrels, some exported to Italy, where it is a delicacy, called Caviaro. Hangover remedy: cold baked lamb, Garilc and onions, odor offensive to us Germans. (217) Common drinks, Kvas, weak beer or small beer, others: mead and vodka. Every dinner must begin with vodka: Importation of wine by way of the ports of Archangel. Sexuality in Muscovy: Eve Levin: courts records only evidence: hearsay not good evidence. 17th century court cases, although restricted by cannon and secular laws.(218) Compensation, must find the accused attackers, burden of proof was on the accused: What about the witness issues of proof? Rape treated as a serious offence: but why the short sentences? One case Tanka Ivanova doch’zybora [1695] accused three people in changing testimony -  finally admitted truth, she slept willingly with one of them. She was trying to cover up an unwanted pregnancy: this is the issue for the social sciences? How did Russia treat unwanted pregnancies?  Maybe for revenge is another issue in history? She was flogged for her perjury. What happens if one is convicted? (1) A fine and compensation for the victim;  (2) corporal punishment; (3) long prison terms were not usually handed out: This is because prisons cost a lot of resources, or money to run? (4) Prisoners usually placed on parole, and watched and often not allowed to leave locality; (5) Relatives swear poruka ( surety) for him guarantee his future conduct: this means the families becomes responsible in a community sense: This is not a western individual accountability system of thought? (6) Forbidden to marry without court consent;(7) Not allowed to leave the city. What were the courts reveling to us? Rapists are dangerous, must keep an eye on them. Drinking was involved – how much the church asked? Orthodox Church railed against intoxication as a leading cause for intensifying factor in the rape crime: What has changed in ecclesiastical thought? If the women was raped and also consumed alcohol prior she had to share in the responsibility of her victimization. According to a 1650s case, the three accused of beating the women and raping her conflicted their stories and the court could not decide so they all paid some sort of punishment. All got hot-irons, but under torture also more people were reveled. The beaten women had died , but pointed out an attacker right before she passed away – this was a serious crime. Sketchy testimony until under torture the truth came out, and the three received 10 months of imprisonment. They were soldiers, so letting them out was a factor, because solders were in need always. This case shows a high level of tolerance for violence against women. (220) Russian sources confirm that husbands beat their wives, and daughters: no limits on violence? Yes, the Domestroi, the 16th century manual on housekeeping issued a rule not to use wooden or iron ‘rods’ on wife, or beat them about the face. “ beat them in private, for a ‘great offence’ such as disobedience: this has  similar terminology to the law in the Qu’ran on wife beating? But there is no comparison? Husbands did not have to show a cause for beating a wife. She could protest in it was “evil” or endangered her life. How women fought back, run the husband’s finances into the ground: same tactics used as in Classical Greece? Honor is an issue here. It doesn’t look good to become poor, if one doesn’t have too?   If the husband had to sell himself into slavery the women could seek a divorce.  Also if he was an alcoholic were grounds for a divorce. What does this mean? Wife beating or adultery were not grounds for divorce. Another option was the women could flee: but where would she go? More specific: In Slavic society ‘ rank mattered.’ Women of lower rank had lesser rights? Riasanovsky & Steinberg, History of Russia, vol. I, pp. 161-195. Michel Fedorovich, Michael Romanov, elected (16yld) as a minor: because he was not part of the political sides of the conflicts of the Times of Troubles. When took over: financial collapse, treasury depleted, social rebellions, and state collapse complete. They had to bring back a sense of normalcy? Bring back tradition? At election, remained at war with Poland , Sweden. Michael asked the zemskie sabor to stay and help him rule? “Pltonov and other have pointed to the  naturalness of this alliance of the “stable” classes of the Muscovite society with the monarchy which they had established.”(161) MR  Worked with the Boyar Duma; Saltykov employed, relatives on mother’s side. Michael’s father Metropolitan Philaret, returned from imprisonment in Poland, was made patriarch, became the most important man in the state. How to stop the Sweden part of the war:  20,000 rubles (per annum?) truce of Deulino of 1618, why Wladyslav failed to take Moscow, 1617-8. 1641 Ottomans came to dislodge Don Cossacks taking of Azov fortress by the sea, failed in siege. But under threats of repeated future attempts, Michael called for abandonment of Azov. Result: financial stability was now harder to maintain than security. Military and payments to foreign political systems take a lot of money? Attempts at new revenue: collection of arrears, new taxes, and loans, successive loans of three, sixteen, and forty thousand rubles from the Stroganovs. 1614 extraordinary levy of “the fifth money”, towns/countryside. Two occasions, “the tenth money”, but at the end of Michael’s reign financial situation remained desperate. Michael d. 1645 at the age of 48. .  Reign Alexis and Theodore: Aleksei Known as Tishaishii, “the Quietest One”, had outbursts of anger and general impulsiveness: Liked, reconstruction of the tsar’s charter. “A kind man” – Kliuchevsky. Aleksei long reign (1645-76) He saw rebellions in Novgorod and Pskov: So same problems with Ivan IV’s reign? Did these cities really not want to be a part of the Russian state? 1656, debasing silver with copper (164). Razin, a Don cossacks, freebooter, was successful in Persian raids, went up and down the Volga claiming people are liberated from Russia. From forest lands to steppes he gained emissaries who all wanted to overthrow the establishment. 1671, he was captured and turned over to Muscovite authorities. Astrakhan several months surrendered. Suppression of rebellions continue. Extension of Muscovy- Ukraine incorporated 1654. Poland Catholic overlords faced-off with Orthodox Ukrainian people, and result sided with Russia.(165) Orthodox people not favorably to Russian union, majority only bishops. Orthodox magnates helped the wealthy Orthodox Church of the people: this was a wealthy person’s decision. 1650s, Sech-Sich in Ukraine, an island in the Dnieper beyond the cataracts. A raiding post, especially against Crimean Tartars . Cossacks developed a peculiar style: military and democratic. (166) . Government, general gathering of Cossack peoples. Cossack retained contacts with Ukrainians, both ethically and religiously. 1624-38 Cossack & peasant  rebellions. Ukraine’s other option: The Ottomans? Deals: Russia gave Ukraine “some” autonomy in return for loyalty. Poland wars ended with Treaty of Andrusovo, 1667, Dnieper became the boundary. Kiev, Smolensk stayed with Russia. Ottomans/Poland, allegiances with these and Russia were Ukraine’s Times of Troubles, called “the Ruin.” Muscovite hold on left-bank of Ukraine  led to an increase in importance over time. (167)Also Aleksei’s reign included ecclesiastical reforms under Patriarch Nikon and a major split in the Russian Orthodox Church.  Nikon, claimed the church was superior, a Catholic ideology – “not” an Orthodox ideology: Gov and Church together reign as equals, in theory? He charged with papism, exhaled.  Muscovite Russia: Economics, Society, Institutions: What form of representation of the zemskie sobory? Marxist school of historians “ The agrarian order and rural economy again serve as a key to the understanding of all economic and social relationships within the feudal economy and society of the Moscow state during the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries” – Laishchenko: feudal is a difficult term to proscribe, differing systems throughout the world?  Rye, wheat, oats, barley and millet the basic crops. Wooden and iron plows, oxen/horses provided draft power and manure served as fertilizer. Russia exports: raw material: this indicates no industrialization usually? Barshchina/corvée, quitrent/obrock, contracts 1-10 years. See Moon. St. Georges Day, can move only if not in debt. What is different? Russia serfdom coincided not with feudalism but with centralized government. Feudal is also hard to define, differing concepts. Tokugawa, cent. Gov, but feudal too. Mestnichestvo described as a system of state appointments (family ranks). Began formally in 1475 when boyars were entered into a genealogy book. Times of troubles, central gov. declined and zemskie sobor rose, evidence in the so-called election: what is really a back-room deal to elect Michael R.? prikasy- singular prikaz, 17th cent., central administrations: Foreign policy affairs, mutual supervision affairs, “overlapping” other offices: was this a bureaucracy?  Eastward expansion: 1610-40, estimate military moved 300 miles eastward southern steppes; also east to Siberia. 1639 Ivan Moskvitianin, head of small group reach Pacific. Semen Dezhnev, sailed 5 boats up Kolyma river – northeastern tip of Siberia. 17th century explorations of Kamchatka peninsula 1696 onward. Settlemtns of Nerchinsk in 1689 established a boundary between China and Russia, in Amur area. Siberian was highly profitable for the Muscovy state. (178). Lantzeff - Siberia and Church reform seen as “enlightened.” (180) : how so? Summery: great people mobilizing: Yes, but historiography gave to much class distinction to this 16-17th period? Muscovy Russia:  religion and Culture: Catholicism and Orthodoxy were really opponents- bitterly? Simon Digby To Sir John Coke: description on meeting the Grand Prince: 20-30 “great princes,” possibly means boyars and others?  Visitors notice:  grey beards silent person(s), colorful & rich costumes, lavish banquets, tremendous drinking, foreign emissaries, silver plates. Some Russian historians and Slavophiles, Russia was relative isolated than Kiev:  positive view? Peculiar and Parochial culture cited? Simple explanation, Muscovy role quickly from appanage Russia to Russian Empire. Religion and Church: The Schism: Organization of spiritual life: Church was central, soon not; textual problems, Tsar Michael’s investigation, Tsar Aleksei witnessed a religious and moral revival. When Nikon made public the textual corrections, he was turned against by celebrated Archpriest Avvakum, or Habakkuk. 1653 accused him of hearsay (183). Ritual in new collating and correction? People were set in their ways? Sing of the Cross, three fingers instead of two? To settle this dispute, and others over textual corrections Church council in 1666 and another, attended by patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, representing Constantinople and Jerusalem continued to 1667, in Moscow. Disposed Nikon, but considered his reforms. Ultimatum given. No dogmatic or doctrinal differences were involved; it was an issue to obey ecclesiastic officials. Emendations not liked by Old Ritualists, Believers: Now persecution of Old Believers (Apocalyptic views) -saw church reform the end of the world and Nikon as the antichrist. 1672-1691 estimated 20,000 Old B. burned themselves alive, 37 in known communal conflagrations. bespopovtsy vs popovtsy.  But Old Belief survived. Soon Old Believers had no priests (popovtsy) or liturgy or most sacraments.  This was opposite of the Reformation? “Well-Established” Peasants and merchants were the Old Believers, accord. to Shchapov. Fighting against the gentry domination: So this is not class warfare?  Another interp. Muscovite Old and Great Russians and New Ukrainian and White Russians. It is true that many ethnicities had entered Russian sphere since the 16th century? Argument: Nikon refused to allow local practices to remain. I can see why this would be a problem? Significance: schism allowed Peter the great more power in dealing with a weakened church(s)? Basil Dmytryshyn, ed., Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 850-1700, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991, Section 53, “Russian Conquest and Exploitation of Siberia,” pp. 342-355 Theme: the government wanted to send special forces to suppress the people, because the frontier explores and workers needed to co-habituate with the local populations. Therefore special army forces were sent to subjugate tribes. Certain Russian troops specialized in making the natives conform to the Tsar’s wishes/ government. It was not the government trade-workers or explores’ job to take matters into their own hands if leaders of any of the tribes stated they would no-longer conform to their agreements. There were reasons why according the government.  That said, surveillance & communication ran the mechanics of conquest by the Russian government. Between 1580-1650s, the Russians took control of all northern Asia form the Urals to the Pacific. The conquest of this vast territory, rich in resources and inhabited by primitive tribes, transformed the hitherto East, European, Orthodox, Slavic Muscovite state into a huge multinational and multicultural Eurasian Russian colonial empire. (342). Russians derived four basic benefits from their new territory. The extracted great wealth form the collection of tribute imposed on native inhabitant. They utilized it as a place to exile malcontents. They made it a base from which to launch new conquests. And they took advantage of its location to establish contacts with China and Japan and North America: This comes later than the 17th century? A Report of Voevoda of Tobolsk , to the Voevoda of Pelym, Concerning Unrest Amoung the Natives, June 21, 1606. One of the mechanics of conquest was letter writing. It was needed to communicate between the government and between government officials. Here, 300 hundred insurgents in Pelym did not want to pay the tribute. Two main leaders, one named Lavkai and the other Botogo, but also others; Native leader’s subordinates were called by the Russian government ulus subjects.  Here this letter details the procedures for submission possibly constructed originally by the Russian government. (1) after find out who is the leader, make them take an oath of allegiance to the Tsar of Russia; (2) take hostages so they will return and do the government’s bidding; (3) threaten punishment, if they or the ulus steal, thieve, or do bad. Punishment can be in the form of physical, or material, that is destroying their lives. There was also non-iasak people called by the government transmontane: They had to be “pacified by military means”?(348) If they submit, they can, of course, live like they used too, but recognize they are (orphans) under the protectorship of the Russian state: now becoming an proto-Empire? The goal first was to get cheap or free labor from the eastern nomadic who knew how to hunt and supply the Russians with various pelts, furs and animal skins for a very lucrative western and south/eastern trade ( mainly western Europe). However, in the steppe, the government understood that sable and other large animals did not exist, so they tell the Russian trade-workers to find other things of value to possess. The government also doesn’t want freebooter and even explores not sanctioned to retrieve the iasak. Measure are ordered for surveillance and a head person for this region was a man named Erofei, “personally entrusted with the government assignment” (349). One of the reasons for an oversight was not to allow fear into the subjugated peoples. That is to say, that only certain people can subjugate them and they are protected with assurance by these appointees and veovoda. The idea ( see Lantzeff) was not to kill the people or make it so hard that they would flee, or in this case, they would unite and try to attack an ostrogs. Penalty for people not entrusted with collecting the iasak was severe. Erofei has many duties, one is to keep tribal warring factions to a minimum, so not to interrupt the natives duties. Also, to keep an eye out for opportunists who could pose as official iasak collectors. If he found some, he was not to take issue but to contact Moscow or by way of a government officials who would take measures to send the special forces. How could this happen? Servitors were also sent out into the frontier to build communities, mainly to build fort-like structures as an outpost for travelers, explores and possibly in the future for colonization. They could if they desired take advantage being so far away from Moscow to become imposters and collect free furs. They could also try to subjugate tribes themselves. This was a concern from Moscow. If over suppression happened did the subjugated have any recourse? Three Petitions to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich from Iakut Natives Protesting Inequitable and Ruinous Iasak Impositions, 1659-1664: This petition was sent one tribe to  a Bordonsk volost. Apparently. The complaint,   due to deaths in the family, or fathers that were killed, the sons had to make up for the amount of furs they would had to pay. Why, they were registered in am accounting book, like a census.  Does this mean the iasak collectors were making undo demands? Some natives could not pay their allotment of pelts per year, and they would petition the tsar (government) which was their rite. The complained this was an extra iasak payment when a family member or registered tribute payer had died between the years of the annual census-registration. In this case, the natives had to sell their meat (cows) to make up the extra funds to pay the iasak. If the natives couldn’t make the full payments, a new current assessment was drawn up, which mean they had to pay extra the next year. I’m not sure if the “past arrears” are for payments when the voevoda knew of the dead brothers and fathers or not. If they did this was surely an extra burden on the already subjugated people (351). The complaints seem to indicate dire circumstances, of the people dying off: did this really happen? Did they pay the voevoda and diaks called a pominiki as well as the iasak to the government? Was this double dipping in a lawless frontier? In another petition by the same tribe, the complaint is that the iasak collectors demanded “money (for us.”) (352). The issue was this certain group didn’t know how or wanted to hunt foxes, and the iasak collectors demanded one ruble, possibly the amount of the fox pelt in exchange for not presenting it. The tribe does say that they looked everywhere for these foxes but couldn’t find them. Taking advantage was a possibility, and when someone was so far away. But surveillance works both ways, and these petitions describe a surveillance by  tribes to inform Moscow of the  Russian workers demands possibly out of control on an already subjugated people: What did the Moscow government do? Here extinction of the group if this is kept a policy is noted at the end of the petition.  Instructions from Veovoda of Iakust, Golenishchev-Kutuzov, to Prison Officials about Procedures for Guarding Prisoners, June 3, 1663.  Regulation and security issues about prisoners on the frontier: One interesting aspect, no prisoner is allowed writing materials of any king, unless they secretly get a message out. A petition can be written, but only in the presence of an official. The Sentence Imposed by the Voevoda of Iakitsk, Petr Zinovev, on the Participants in a Cossack Rebellion, July 14, 1690. Not this writing is over 80 years after the subjugation of the eastern natives had begun. Here torture was used by the Voevoda of Iakitsk to get information from the people about a conspiracy to rebel. The writing states that torture was “done in accordance with the instructions of the Great Sovereigns [ The government], the articles of the Sobornoe Ulozhenie [1649 Code of Laws]: Torture was used on children-serfs who refused to acknowledge their heritable serf family after they had run away?   This was part of the threatening portion of the retrieval of peasants debate? The accused Filip Shcherbakov and Ivan Palamoshnoi confessed under torture that they plotted to pillage gunpowder and shot in Iakutsk Petr Petrovich Zinovev; also the townsmen were accused of thievery from merchants peaceful traveling through the area: These were booty raids?  Petr Petrovich Zinovev excecuted a boiarskii, a desiatnik, others and some Cossacks that had allegedly taken part in the conspiracy: Remember they are supposed to inform Moscow first and not take action until allowed? Is written correspondence appears as a communiqué after following orders ( “in accordance with the ukaz”  and listing the people’s judgments? Some were exiled. What was the ukaz, a procedure law? The Oath of Allegiance with Russian Administered to Bratsk Native leaders, 1642-1645: Theme oath taking a ritual and importance:   A Native named Bului of the Bratsk tribe swears his allegiance to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich and Aleksei Mikhailovich, and this also is good for his brother and tribesmen – to be loyal, eternal servitude and with no malice or treason – against Russians living near the realm “ people in the Verkholensk ostrozhek, or against agricultural settlers, in any place where the Sovereign’s servitors and Russians may be working. Also his oak pledges no war against or  killing of Russians. This oath is also a measure to get a local leader to operate as a government facilitator to bring in more natives into the Tsar’s service.  This pledge also binds him to be a protector of the iasak collectors so when they come into the realm they are not harmed by vigilantly natives. ( For more see why this was done see Lantzeff and the dangers involved) Instructions from the Voevoda of Iakutsk, Frantsbekov, to the Explorer Khabarov, Regarding His Expedition into the Land of the Daurs, 1649-1651: Theme: the frontier is dangerous. “In accordance with the Sovereign’s ukaz” (347) this was an order from the government? An expedition was sent to support voeoda & stolnik Petr Petrovich Golovin, and the pismennaia golova Enalei Bakhteiarov – seventy servitors went to assist  to subdue two princes, Lavkai and Botogo but they got lost.  Apparently they were not familiar with routs or the land: This understandable as Siberia is vast. So they ask for more supplies to get the job done. This order is for Erofei to collect volunteers servitors and promyshlenniki to explore and to do the government’s financial work. This writ then suggests a duel objective to “ collect iasak and explore new territories.” (347) they will follow the rivers Olekma and Tugur to the portage or the Shilka: There they will see if it advantageous to build a ostrozhek, then built it, and protect in for future attacks ( subduing missions) – against these two princes. In this document it is stressed not to kill the people, because the people make the government money, but to adhere to and anticipate dangerous conditions out on the frontier. After subduing, make them take the steps of oath and describe to them the allegiance procedures. A Petition from the Merchant Guselnikov to Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich Protesting Excessive Regulations of the Fur Trade in Siberia, 1639. This petition protests certain voevodas who restrict this merchants movements and demand taxes, custom duties, transit fees and other things. He cites that this is contrary to the ukaz. I guess this is the Siberian statutes of conduct?  These problesm have an affect on their job performance” supposedly merchants are allowed certain liberties or are doing the Sovereign’s work too?  Section 63, “Provisions of Russian Protectorate over Ukraine in 1654,” pp. 442- 450: Zaporozhie Host have come under the protection our exalted sovereign arm (448) The Charter of the Zaporozhie Host, April 6, 1654 Ukrainian Cossacks, who were the leaders of the Zaporozhie Host, signed an agreement which temporarily formed the basis of Ukrainian-Russian relations. (442) Peace and reconciliation. Ukr. Natives will get high-offices. One theme was enserfment of Polish peasants had begun by the Polish nobility, this led to flights of the peasantry and a crackdown. Where did they go? Zaporozhian Sich, established by the Dnieper Cossacks.  Theses also contained an element of fights over the western and Eastern Church doctrines were concerns for the powerful and wealthy. The peasants were more and more forced to choose. Kievan memory of Orthodoxy will play a role. Provisions not to go to the Sultan or Polish leaders and maintain relations demands of the Russians. (449) Swear allegiance. The Charter of the Zaporozhie Host, April 6, 1654: Introduced a measure not to violate the previous rights of the high-clergy, which was important because they had a different interpretation of the rituals of Christianity than in Russia. Also guarantees that lands of the inhabitants ( Kozak Estates, 449) keep their rights and to their inheritors. This was a protectorate treaty, where cooperation was the key to its success. Russia will appoint officials, and collect monies |Here Aleksei is called “ great sovereign.” (449) : Did the Ukrainians receive the freedoms promised in the Pereyaslav treaty? 1654 Russian Tsar Aleksei (1645-’72) singed an agreement which temporarily formed the basis of Ukrainian-Russian relations with the leaders of Zaporoshie Host. Russia inherited a rich vital area. scholarship of Ukrainian, new leaders, new administrations thoughts were brought into the sphere of Russia. Russia formed resolutions for protections of Ukraine from Poland and local threats. Russian gets the Left-Bank Ukraine. In 1648, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky led a large Cossack uprisings against king John II Casimir: results, partition of Ukraine between Poland and Russia. Russian gets the Left-Bank Ukraine. Catholicism/Protestantism and Orthodoxy. Benjamin Phillip Uroff, transi., “Grigorii Karpovich Kotoshikhin on Russia in the Reign of Alexis Mikhailovich: An Annotated Translation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1970, pp. 163-179 & 230-238 Theme: No absolutism shown by the delegation of duty of various departments with sub-departments. Tsar does not make all the decisions, no autocrat micromanaging indicated in text. Emerging institutions. General Significance: A delegation of finances, organization of revenue, organization of people in various state apparatus - - beginnings of institutions ( not extremely elaborate)  and employments overseen departments of state called chancelleries, which have sub-divisions. Chancellery for Privy Affairs: administer varied public and private affairs; Surveillance of ambassadors and veovody, inform them to the tsar; also in charge of grenade works and manufacturing and military equipment, purchase, salaries, and tsar’s gifts to dignitaries and leaders of foreign states. Sub-departments: Poteshnyi dvor: hunting court, raise various birds for gifts. The Ambassadorial Chancellery: headed by a Duma secretary, jurisdiction over relations all neighboring states; employ translators, work all day, everyday through the years, keep them working on various material, cannot take material home for preservation concerns. Economic Relevance: translators are paid significantly more than soldiers and most military rank-and-file. This indicated their importance. Local Moscow jurisdiction over visiting and living foreigners, jurisdiction over collections of certain towns form custom duties and taverns, and various expenditures. Importance significance: The apparatus to raise funds for “ ransoming prisoner who are in the Crimea and Turkey [ Ottoman Empire] “ (166), and the chancellery collets money form the entire Muscovite state – from the tsra’s crown and black volosti and from the peasants and bobyli on pomest’ia and votchiny—each year --- being written in the Ulozhenie; “including in-depth military salaries. Duties include salary for translators ( Foreigner ) and soldiers can have more than one job: multitasking, service foreigners in food service and translation. Human abduction funds: About 150,000 rubles of the ransom money is collected each year, and is not used for any expenditure other than ransoming.” (167) This shows us the human abduction for ransom by surrounding states was a important factor the economics of the Russian state. This chancellery extended its influence too the Don Cossacks, and over the baptized and un baptized Tatars who in the past years had taken prisoners from the tsardoms of Kazan’ and Astrakhan’ and Siberia and Kasimov, and given votchiny and pomest’ia in the districts around Moscow; also Greek ecclesiastics and Greek merchants. The Razriad Chancellery:  headed by an okol’nichii and a Duma secretary a two secretaries: jurisdiction over various military matters, construction an repair of fortresses, and their weapons and serving men; likewise it has jurisdiction over boyars and okol’nichie and Duma men and closest men and stol’niki and striapchie and Moscow dvoriane and secretaries  and zhil’tsy and provincial dvoriane and deti boairskie and Cossacks and musketeers, in all matters relating to their service. (168). Various directives, delegating missions, logistics and judicial matters concerning honor appointments and disputes. Also collection from certain small towns and from court fees: this if for operational costs? The Cancerlley of the Great Palace: headed by a boyar [ with a title of ] majordomo [dvoretskii], and an okol’nichii, and a Duma man… jurisdiction over Liquor, Provisions, Bread, and Granary courts and their servitors; jurisdiction over more than 40 towns and collection of taxes from the posad men, and yearly revenue from fire houses, waterworks, and windmills and fisheries, whether farmed out of collected. Famed out is where the government bids out to individuals to act as an their own agent who pays the government a direct yearly sum, and the agent collects the taxes made in a deal directly with the service-branches by loans, agreements and obligations; farmed out tolls collected include fords [ perevos] and bridges [ mostovshchina]’ and eighth slobody in Moscow and their trading men and artisans. Corvée work, under the auspices of work for the tsar,  is also indicated for various needs for trades to operate from construction to transportation; a collection in monetary revenue as well as other taxes; posad, volosti and slobody; stamp tax, charge for seal, and other documents which are sent by men to various rank to towns and crown villages and volosti, in the same manner as the Chancellery for Seals – a unicorn engraved on that seal. Ice farmed out, from Moskva and Iauza rivers in winter and the washing of clothes though holes in the ice; Various revenues from all above for operating costs. Maintenance for churches, the government pays for poor people’s burials,  workers in this department have more than one duty, another indication of multitasking jobs. Tsar journeys to give out (coins are wrapped in paper) alms. The Musketeers Chancellery: headed by a boyar and two secretaries: in charge of prikazy or musketeers in Moscow and the provinces. It collects wages to pay the musketeers. General jurisdiction, all forms of military organization, delegation of troop groups and rank-and-files, included salaries for lieutenants, and deductions on monetary wages from pomest’is or votchiny, including the number of heads to serve from the peasantry. Musketters also have duel responsibilities such as firemen, for example fires in Moscow, and also in large towns prikazy are placed. Chancellery of Kazan’ Palace: headed by a boyar and a Duma secretary and two secretaries. Jurisdiciton over Kazan’ and Astrakhan’ and the towns on the lower and middle Volga [ belonging ] to them. Voevody report their orders to the Chancellery. Monatary levies are collected annully from the Volga towns which are close to Moscow. Posad, clerical and farmed-out customs houses and traverns – close to 30,000 rubles each year. Soldiers serving in far off posts in the east receive subsistence payments  [ kormovye liudi] and those who pay iasak, and for operating shipyards and for various expenses. Jurisdiction over frontiers and defenses with Turkey  [ Ottman Empire] and Persia; Caviar the main economic gain for Moscow, controlled as well as the salt mines, an important commodity. Dependant towns [ prigorodki] ; jurisdiction over Nogai and Tatar horse industry - - 30-50,000 annual horses gathered and presented to the tsar’s officers for sale and resale in Moscow each year; important industry for military circumstances. Tsar get first choice each year, the rank-and-file, then resale – markups and profit. This is a sub-department called the Stables Chancellery: Siberian Chancellery: headed by the same boyar who heads up Kazan’ Palace, with two secretaries. Jurisdiction over the stardom of Siberia. There are over 40 large and medium-sized towns, not counting the dependant towns. Chief city is called Tobol’sk, and it a prison/exile destination for various people who are charged with offenses. Main trade, various furs, and one of the largest revenue operations for the Russians at this time --  600,000 rules each year is estimated. No hunting close to Moscow at this time as a depopulation of animals was noticed, and the laws were strict with penalties. Restrictions due to government control in Siberia on free hunting, except for subsistence for the frontiersmen; this law was to forbid the illegal selling and underground fur trade. The Pomest’e Chancellery: headed by an okol’nichii and a Duma secretary and two secretaries. Jurisdiction over all landed estates. Estate sale taxes, property taxes, all part of yearly revenue that was not great. The accounting of sales, inheritances, and general registrations. Ancient rank and honor rituals are very much a part of official correspondence with this department. Regulation of princely titles, for example. Petitionary departments;  sub-departments and registration of peasantry, levels, and orphans [ siroty ref. peasantry’ name sometimes in petitions ( see 235)] and all matters of the people. “However, on various matters the tsar does seek the advice and counsel of these boyars and Duma men and ordinary men whom he likes and favors. But his father, Tsar Michael Fedorovich of blessed memory, although he used the title “autocracy., “ could not nothing without the boyar’s counsel.”Chapter VIII: Theme & subject: Titles are labels of unreality used as promotional devices not based in reality: Not Sultuans of the Ottoman Empire began their title trend usually attributed to Mehmed II with official correspondence claiming titles for everything lasting often two pages or longer. By the Time of Sulëyman “The Magnificent” his title page(s) reached sometimes four pages; but did he in reality function as every claimed title symbolized? No! It would be impossible. Titles were used in the Ottoman Empire to impress foreigners, and this is why they were used in letter writing and official correspondence to dignitaries and usually when they knew the letters would be presented to foreign leaders: This case in point can also apply to Russian titles effecting the same impressionship onto their official correspondence. This was not a regional phenomenon, and at certain points in Italian history, Dukes and other so-called leaders in the late middle ages and Italian renaissance along with the Pope also made horrendous title claims.   “Alexis Mikhailovch, autocrat of all Great and Little” (232): “stol’niki and dvoriane serve as voevody together with secretaries, or undersecretaries in place of secretaries…” More evidence of duel responsibilities: what this because of a shortage of capable people or short on cash (or both)? (232) Question:  why is the title “autocrat used? Whole section on how titles in official and legal paperwork (documents)  are not representative of reality of Tsar’s ways. To make the foreigners believe the tsar was in control? 

Questions:

1)     Why were Russian Painters barred from going to foreign countries to learn new techniques?  Was it fear on the influence of the Latin Church? ( ref.  Ham. 255) Was it decreed? Is so When?

2)     The Times of Troubles cannot be seen as a turning point in Russian history because Michael Romanov looked to consolidate a continuity with new regime and old Rurik dynasty rule; but the raskol, induction of the Ukraine east bank, and the church reforms of 1667 can be said to be a turning point in Russia?

3)     J. Michael Hittle “The Service City: State and Townsmen in Russia, 1600-1800” Tells us that -- The number of posad were “ a small number of souls, two hundred thousand at the most in a country so several million, concentrated in the cities of central and northern Russia.” (ref.44) These persons bore the brunt of the tax system. This is very small considering what complex tax systems are needed to run a state. Will Peter The Great make an effort and consider the necessities of an elaborate tax system and how to implement it for a greater benefit of government? 

Kaiser & Marker, Reinterpreting Russian History,

"Reinterpreting Russian History: Readings", 860-1860s. ed. Daniel H. Kiaser Gary Marker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).

Riasanovsky & Steinberg, History of Russia, vol. I, pp. 161-195.

Bibliography:

“A Biography of Boyarina Morozova,” in Basil Dmytryshyn, ed., Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 850-1700, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1991, pp. 489-497.

Benjamin Phillip Uroff, transi., “Grigorii Karpovich Kotoshikhin on Russia in the Reign  of Alexis Mikhailovich: An Annotated Translation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia  University, 1970, pp. 163-179 & 230-238.

Rinehart and Winston, 1991, Section 53, “Russian Conquest and Exploitation of Siberia,”  pp. 342-355, and Section 63, “Provisions of Russian Protectorate over Ukraine in 1654,” pp. 442- 450. 

Russia City and Towns

J. Michael Hittle “The Service City: State and Townsmen in Russia, 1600-1800” ( Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979): c. 1500s 96 cities, c. 1600s 170 cities, c. 1650s 226 cities in Russia. Primary growth attributed to expansion of lands. Boarder pushed to the Black Sea.1680s, concentrated cites in crescent beginning lower Dnieper River basin and adjacent upper Donets basin, running through the Oka region and on along the upper Volga area. Importance stressed on waterways and communication routs (roads). In the Pomore, the north, cities were few and far between. The size of Russia had profound impact in communication, movement and development. 17th century, two  state functions can describe cites: Military-administrative, and commercial-administrative. Some combined, but most have fortresses, called detenets,  at the central focus of the city: This was like serf-lands castle structures in Europe; each city were self sufficient with agriculture and serfs ( the is peasants tied to a land). What was different form Europe? military servitors, majority of the population, were also bound by grant-ship of cities, not ownership: servitors in cities differed to region: ( P.P. Smirnov: south, 85.3 %, west, 71.2 %, east 87.3%). Servitors served not only military duty but government services.  Also churches & possibly one Cathedral if a major city to serve the needs of Orthodoxy.   Why military cities? Memory and concern for Poland and Sweden’s role during the Times of Troubles? In the south, the core of Military defense systems comprised of the Belgorodskaia cherta, a string of twenty-nine fortress-cities and defense-works, which ran from Akhtyrka on the river Vorskla to Tambov.  This was mainly set up as a defense of the Crimea threat and their overlords the Ottomans? Most of these towns established in two waves: first between 1636 and 1648, second between 1648 and 1654: However this was attentively argued during the reign of Ivan IV? Platonov cites the government’s discussion for the colonizing of the “ Wild Field” ( section between steppe and forest) and to later on established forts? Kremlin was different, it had residential areas outside the Kremlin’s walls.

Courts and state post service: dvoriane and deti boiarskie, scattered through the towns, constituted only a fraction of the population. Bulk of servitors fell into the category of sluzhilye liudi po priboru – contract servitors. Contract Servitors “often” didn’t get paid or were promised tax privileges and salary while the government reneged on both privileges: an example, fortifying the south boarders as a migration and job procurement policy. Only when foreign military threats appeared did the government show up with money. To off-set the lack of a steady income, hand-work became a lifestyle. Trade and craft  activities would became a urban tradition in an absent of bona fide trade merchants ( these were evident in Commercial-Administrations). Also rural agriculture activities accompanied the independent crafts and trade activities mostly when connected to a military-administration city or a church-administration city. 

13th -14-15th century word, found in chronicles, Posad, meant the area of a city between the walls of the Kremlin, and the outerwalls: trade, crafts, through agriculturalists, state servitors, and other segments of the population could be found within its confines (26).

Urban residence: Posadskie chernye liudi, literally, “taxable people of the posad,” constituted the most numerous group of permanent urban residence.

Tiaglo: state impositions that fell onto the peoples of the posad population: payment of direct taxes in money or in kind to the central government. This came to be the townspeople were the largest tax contributors of cashflow for the Russian state.

Three Ranks/levels called extremes (being careful not to tempt a reader into Marx ideas of classes)

Posad had levels: the lower level were called the bobyli  ( called here extreme(s), because no one wants to denote differentiation of a class system at a peasant level so people who study Marx do not place his haphazard ideas into a class struggle)  These were men of few means who worked manual labor jobs, menial tasks, and were like yard-workers for more well-to-do posads. The could be distinguished from the third level of regular posad dwellers by the nature of their tax obligation. Whereas the regular posad dweller bore taiglo, the bobyli paid the state an obrok. This arrangement indicates that the boblyi were not considered economically sturdy enough to bear the higher burdens of taiglo. Upper level made it possible for a posad to join three privileged corporations – the gosti, the gostinaia sotnia, and the sukhonnaia sotnia. These members had state privileges. The gotsi, the most prestigious, consisted of a handful of wealth merchants appointed by government. Thirteen members in the late seventeenth century there numbers never exceeded twenty-to-thirty men. They acted both as advisors to the tsar and as administrators of important financial and commercial undertakings. (28) Gotsi administered state monopolies, the custom collections, and the farming of ligour revenue collection; they managed the fishing and salt making establishments of the state, purchased goods for the tsar, and operated his sable-hunting enterprise. They also assisted the tsar with matters of foreign trade and in domestic economic activities. In return, the gotsi received tax exemptions ( emancipation from tiaglo); free passage abroad for the purpose of trading ( serfs were tied to the land), the right up to 1666, to obtain hereditary landed property (votchina); subordination of administrative purposes directly to the Bureau of the Great Treasury; the right to store wine at home; and the exemption from the payment of numerous customs and tariff duties. (28)

Next level was the Moscow members called the gostinaia sotnia and sukhonnaia sotnia, or “hundreds.” They formed privileged corporations, though much larger than that of the gosti. In 1649, the combined membership of both hundreds totaled 274 persons. In addition to maintaining their own business establishments, they  served as agents of the tsar, assisting primarily in the collection of taxes and custom duties. Their privileges , less than those of the gotsi but still substantial, included emancipation from state responsibilities and exclusion  from jurisdiction of local government authorities.

Bogoslovskii notes that in addressing state authorities the gotsi and hundreders referred to themselves as slaves ( kholopy): (The same in Islam,  in theory, everyone under the ruler is a slave. This was such a practice in the Ottoman empire as respect)

1550s???? mid sixteenth century, 29) Changing, State suburbs did not remain separate, privileged sanctuaries for long. Only exception was Moscow’s suburbs. Ivan centralized economics for his Oprichnina after 1564-5?

Taxable property ( chernye sloboda)

Time of Troubles the urban districts around Moscow were destroyed and the people dispersed.

Michael Romanov was content to allow foreigners to settle in whatever part of the city they wished, but pressure mounted to reestablish the foreign suburb. The church, fearing the insidious doctrines of Protestantism and Catholicism, pleaded that the infidels be isolated, less contact with them taint the purity of the Muscovite’s faith. The posad people of the city also objected to the pressure of foreigners in their midst, claiming that business practices of the wily Europeans worked great hardship upon them. Thus, in 1652, Alexsei yielded to the heartfelt pleas of his countrymen and created a new foreign suburb – the Novoinozemskaia Sloboda, or Novaia Nemetskaia Sloboda as it was known in popular parlance. (31) Isolated, the citizens still fell under Russian jurisdiction ( law and administration). The German suburb, were locked up at night, and in the morning the citizenry ventured out.  They were under watch by the government prikazy. The foreign suburbs were managed by the foreigners, and as a consequence they had autonomy: these conflicted with regulations that pertained to the Russians? The Russians became curious, especially the elite? What did they do at night? What was their culture? 

Property Relations in the City: Russian property relations were different from European property relations [ at this time, in the early European middle ages the comparative is roughtly the same].

(re)Patrionomy was the right of the grand princes, starting with Ivan III.  The Same was with the Lords in middle ages. In Russia this is called a votchina, a hereditary land given by the grand prince. In theory and practice all the lands were the grand prince’s votchina. The same as the European lords in the early middle ages. The Aristocracy was a later development and this is being compared at this time between Russia and Europe. I contend that the aristocracy was similar to the princes of Russia that owned their own land and had their own armies, only a king was a possible authority over them, and he would take his army and subdue an aristocrat’s forces if both were in competition.  The pomest’e system begun under Ivan IV was similar to the early Europeans’ ages when knights had to make yearly services to the lord in military service. They could only hold land as long as they complied with the lord’s wishes for any services. The same can be said during and after the mid-sixteenth century in Russia.  Russia developed this stage much later than Europe. In Russia, land for peasants was also conditional, though the absence of any formal charter or grant made it seem less obvious. (34) Before the princes took control, and while still under Mongol overlordship, the peasants that migrated up north, and who tilled the land, believed the regions they settled in  were their property. Going forward to the sixteenth century, the urban districts, and the urban citizens there did not exist and special forms of urban property. There was no private property meaning ownership. Land was divided up into four separate categories of land grantship: The first two had tax exemptions:  most prominent was the  communal grant possessions, here Contract servitors held their settlements collectively; second, the personal grant possessions, pomest’e,  subject for specific use, like courts and administration. The nest two categories paid taxes: Third was conditional landholding and was a collective possession by the posad commune (posadskii mir) of the taxable (chernye) land on which its members lived. Posad land varied to local and was intermixed among the lands. Peasants had to attend to government officials and needed to live close by. These posad were the majority of the members that eventually became ensurfed. The fourth category was the conditional urban landholding, and was a personal grant possession for the purpose of establishing some kind of business activity – manufacturing, trading, or even the holding of a fair. Properties given out for such use went to the people of all ranks, with the exception of servitors of high rank, who easily subverted the prohibition b using straws[men]. With these possession came a duty to pay taxes. In legal terms the tsar retained formal title under the four categories.

There are instances in the sixteenth and seventeenth century of certain lands with privileges, these were to the Church.  The Church and the government ruled in tandem, at least by legal theory. There was no separation of church and state, but their was special privileges seen as the same as the tsar who owned no votchina, but owned everything in theory. The votchiniki, were powerful private properties, both secular and clerical. The clerical private properties belonged to the church. The secular private properties ( cities called goroda) belonged to influential commercial families and manufacturer posady. These are exceptions, not the norm. These were a handful of secular magnates, who possessed fortified cities. Gradually, the private cities dwindled, as the central government’s military might strengthened. Eventually they were incorporated into the tsar’s sphere. There was no difference to what happened in Europe as secular and clerical powerful families were eventually drawn into the spear of the kings. This had the same consequences, that the king’s armies became stronger as they centralized, and drew in supporters, by force , coercion, or diplomacy.(stopped at 38).

Work Cited and Readings:

References to "Ham." = George H. Hamilton, The Art and Architecture of Russia, 3rd, "integrated" edition, illustration numbers

Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. & Mark D. Steinberg, History of Russia, vol. I. ed. 7th, (Oxford: Oxford Unity Press, 2005).

Bibliography:

David Mackenzie & Michael W. Curran, “A History of Russia, the Soviet Union and Beyond,” 6th ed. (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993).

Nicholas V. Riasanovsky & Mark D. Steinberg, “History of Russia,” vol. I.,  7th ed. (Oxford: Oxford Unity Press, 2005).

Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetzkoy,  “The Legacy of Genghis Khan and Other Essays on Russia’s Identity” , ed. Anatoly Liberman, trans. Kenneth Brostrom ( Ann Arbor : Michigan Slavic Publications, 1991).

Further Reading:

Lots of interesting studies of 17th-c. Russian culture and the Schism, including:
William E. Brown, A History of Seventeenth-Century Russian Literature, 1980.
Paul Bushkovitch, Religion and Society in Russia. The Sixteenth cd Seventeenth Centuries (1992).
Robert 0. Crummey, The Old Believers and the World ofAntichrist (1970).
Michael Cherniavsky, “The Old Believers and the New Religion,” in Cherniavsky, ed., The Structure of Russian History (1970), pp. 140-88.
Robert 0. Crummey, “The Spirituality of the Vyg Fathers,” in G. A. Hosking, ed., Church, Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine (1991).
Robert 0. Crummey, “Old Belief as Popular Religion,” Slavic Review 52, no. 4 (1993):
700-12.
Laura Engelstein, Castration and the Heavenly Kingdom. A Russian Folktale (1999).
Paul Meyendorff, Russia, Ritual, and Reform: The Liturgical RelOrms of Nikon in the 17th Century, Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991
Georg Michels, At War with the Church. Religious Dissent in Seventeenlh-Centuiy Russia (1999).
Roy Robson, Old Believers in Modern Russia, (1995)

*Michael Johnathan McDonald, University of California, Berkeley, Spring 2007.

Copyright © 2007 MichaelReport.com, Michael Johnathan McDonald Bookoflife.com All Rights reserved. 

 


Copyright © 1999 - 2013 Michael Johnathan McDonald