Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:07:18.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Did Russians Mean When They Called Themselves “Slaves of the Tsar”?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Marshall Poe
Marshall Poe*
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Germans criticize the fact that here people of all ranks call themselves the “sovereign's slaves.” But they do not consider that among diem people call themselves “vassals,” and this word is not Latin, but German, and means “orphan,” and so all Germans once called themselves in their language. Similarly, the tide “knecht” was once dignified, and even today Scotsmen call their dignified cavaliers “knechts,” diat is, “slaves.“

—Iurii Krizhanich, Politika, 1663-66

The analysis of ritual plays an important role in efforts to reconstruct medieval mentalities. Often mute and always cryptic, medieval cultures rarely provide historians widi the rich programmatic texts that facilitate the study of political ideas. In response to this relative dearth of treatises and manifestoes, scholars have turned to various forms of symbolic behavior for clues concerning the character of the medieval mind. Students of Muscovy are certainly no exception. Recognizing that Old Russia was particularly “silent” (as George Florovsky put it), historians of late have turned their attention to the iconography of Russian life in an attempt to divine the nature of Muscovite ideology, and particularly political ideology.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , Fall 1998 , pp. 585 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The author would like to thank the participants in the Historians' Seminar at the Davis Center for Russian Studies, Harvard University, for their aid. The judicious comments of two anonymous readers at Slavic Review also greatly improved this essay. All errors are my own. Epigraph: Iurii Krizhanich, Politika, trans. Aleksandr L. Gol'dberg (Moscow, 1965), 545-46.

1. Florovsky, George, “The Problem of Old Russian Culture,” Slavic Reuiew 21, no. 1 (March 1962): 1–15.Google Scholar

2. Certainly there are older studies, for example, Ostrogorsky, Georg, “Zum Stratordienst des Herrschers in der Byzantinisch-Slavischen Welt,” Seminarium Kondakovianum 7 (1935): 187–204 Google Scholar. Nonetheless, the bulk of studies using ritual as evidence of political ideology have been written in the last two decades, most by American scholars. See, for example, Croskey, Robert M., “The Diplomatic Forms of Ivan Ill's Relationship widi the Crimean Khan?,” Slavic Review 42, no. 2 (Summer 1984): 257–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crummey, Robert O., “Court Spectacles in Seventeenth Century Russia,” in Waugh, Daniel Clarke, ed., Essays in Honor of A. A. Zimin (Columbus, 1985), 130–58Google Scholar; Kollmann, Nancy Shields, “Ritual and Social Drama at the Muscovite Court,” Slavic Review 45, no. 3 (Fall 1986): 486–502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaiser, Daniel, “Symbol and Ritual in the Marriages of Ivan IV,” Russian History/Histoire Russe 14 (1987): 247–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Iuzefovich, Leonid A., Kak v posol'skikh obychaiakh vedetsia (Moscow, 1988)Google Scholar; Bushkovitch, Paul, “The Epiphany Ceremony of the Russian Court in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries” Russian Review 49 (1990): 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, David, “Creating Legitimacy: Ritual, Ideology, and Power in Sixteeth–Century Russia,” Russian History/Histoire Russe 21 (1994): 289–315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flier, Michael, “Breaking the Code: The Image of the Tsar in the Muscovite Palm Sunday Ritual,” in Flier, Michael S. and Rowland, Daniel, eds., Medieval Russian Culture (Berkeley, 1994), 2: 213–42.Google Scholar

3. Two exceptions are Dewey, Horace and Kleimola, Ann, “Promise and Perfidy in Old Russian Cross Kissing,” Canadian–American Slavic Studies 3 (1968): 327–41Google Scholar, and Kleimola, Dewey and, “Coercion by Righter ('Pravezh’) in Old Russian Administration,” Canadian–American Slavic Studies 9 (1975): 156–67.Google Scholar

4. The terms tsar’ and velikii kniaz’ (grand prince) have been excluded from consideration because they were traditional designations for political rulers in the east Slavic world. Unlike gosudar', they denoted only those holding political power and could not be used sensibly in any other context.

5. Fasmer, Maks, Etimologicheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka, 4 vols. (Moscow, 1987), 1: 446.Google Scholar

6. Avanesov, Rubin I., ed., Slovar'drevnerusskogo iazyka (XI-XIV w.) (Moscow, 1988–)Google Scholar (hereafterSDRIa XI-XIV), 2: 366; Barkhudarov, Stepan G. et al., eds., Slovar'russkogo iazyka XI-XVII w., 17 vols, to date (Moscow, 1975-)Google Scholar (hereafter, SRIa XI-XVII), 4: 100; Sreznevskii, Izmail I., Materialy dlia slovaria drevne–russkogo iazyka, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1958)Google Scholar (hereafter Sreznevskii), 1: 563.

7. SDRIa XI-XIV, 2: 373; SRIa XI-XVII, 4: 100; Sreznevskii, 1: 563.

8. See the many references to gospodar’ and gosudar’ in the indexes and legal texts in Kaiser, Daniel H., trans, and ed., The Laws of Rus': Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries (Salt Lake City, 1992)Google Scholar; Grekov, Boris D., ed., Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov (Moscow and Leningrad, 1952)Google Scholar; and Hellie, Richard, trans, and ed., The Muscovite Law Code (Ulozhenie) of 1649 (Irvine, 1988).Google Scholar

9. SRIa XI-XVII, 4: 100; Sreznevskii, 1: 563; Stökl, Gunter, “Die Begriffe Reich, Herrschaft und Staat bei den orthodoxen Slawen,” Saeculum 5 (1954): 115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Szeftel, Marc, “The Tide of the Muscovite Monarch up to the End of the Seventeenth Century,” Canadian–American Slavic Studies 13 (1979): 62 Google Scholar; Alef, Gustav, “The Political Significance of the Inscriptions on Muscovite Coinage in the Reign of Vasili II,” Speculum 34 (1959): 11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alef, , “The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy,” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 39 (1986): 77 Google Scholar; Croskey, Robert M., Muscovite Diplomatic Practice in the Reign of Ivan III (New York, 1987), 214.Google Scholar

10. Szeftel, “The Tide of the Muscovite Monarch,” 64; Stökl, “Die Begriffe Reich,” 115.

11. Sreznevskii, 1: 571; Stökl, “Die Begriffe Reich,” 114; Szeftel, “The Tide of the Muscovite Monarch,” 63; Raba, Joel, “The Authority of the Muscovite Ruler at the Dawn of the Modern Era,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 24 (1976): 322.Google Scholar

12. Karpov, Gennadii F., ed., “Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh snoshenii Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Krimskoiu i Nagaiskoiu ordami i s Turtsiei,” Sbornik imperatorskago russkago istoricheskago obshchestva 41 (1885)Google Scholar (hereafter “PDS (Crimea) “).

13. “PDS (Crimea),” no. 1: 3.

14. Ibid., no. 10: 41.

15. Ibid., no. 23: 81.

16. Ibid., no. 29: 110, no. 31: 118, no. 33: 133, no. 35: 148, and so on.

17. See the documents in Lev V. Cherepnin, ed., Akty sotsial'no–ekonomicheskoi istorii severo–vostochnoi Rusi kontsa XIV–nachala XVI v., 3 vols. (Moscow, 1952–64) (hereafter ASEI). Also see the numerous references in Kochin, Georgii E., Materialy dlia terminologicheskogo slovaria Drevnei Rossii (Moscow, 1937), 69.Google Scholar

18. Tikhomirov, Mikhail N., “Prikaznoe deloproizvodstvo v XVII v.,” in Tikhomirov, , Rossiiskoe gosudarstvo XV-XVII vekov (Moscow, 1973), 364–65Google Scholar (otpiski) and 369 (chelobitnye).

19. Diakonov, Mikhail, Ocherki obshchestvennago i gosudarstvennago stroia drevnei Rusi, 3d ed. (St. Petersburg, 1910), 421 Google Scholar. Also see Alef, “The Political Significance of the Inscriptions,” 13; Raba, “The Authority of the Muscovite Ruler,” 322; Pipes, Richard, Russia under the Old Regime (New York, 1974), 21, 78 Google Scholar; and Crummey, Robert O., The Formation of Muscovy, 1304–1613 (London, 1987), 77.Google Scholar

20. On zemlia, see Sreznevskii, 1: 972–76 and SRIa XI-XVII, 5: 376–77. On kniazhenie, see Sreznevskii, 1: 1397–98 and SRIa XI-XVII, 7: 204–5. On gospodarstvo, see SRIa XI-XVII, 4: 100.

21. For examples in Muscovite law, see the many references to gosudar’ in Kaiser, trans, and ed., The Laws of Rus', and Grekov, ed., Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov.

22. For example, Ivan III called the grand principality his otchina in his testament and willed it to his oldest son, Vasilii. See Howes, Robert Craig, ed. and trans, The Testaments of the Grand Princes of Moscow (Ithaca, 1967), 143 Google Scholar. On the early meaning of votchina to designate “allodial estate,” see the many references in Kaiser, trans, and ed., The Laws ofRus'and Grekov, ed., Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov. Also see Sreznevskii, 1: 308 and SRIa XI-XVII, 3: 74.

23. For examples in Muscovite law, see the references to votchinnik in Kaiser, trans, and ed., The Laws of Rus'; Grekov, ed., Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov; and Hellie, trans, and ed., The Muscovite Law Code.On early uses of votchinnik, see SRIa XI-XVII, 3: 75.

24. Stökl, “Die Begriffe Reich,” 114–15; Croskey, Muscovite Diplomatic Practice, 214.

25. Sreznevskii, 1: 571–72, and SRIa XI-XVII, 4: 109.

26. Szeftel, “The Title of the Muscovite Monarch,” 63. See “Despotes,” in Aleksandr P. Kazhdan, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1991), 1: 614.

27. See Alef, “The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy,” 77.

28. “PDS (Crimea),” no. 35: 148.

29. SRIa XI-XVII, 4: 107–108; Sreznevskii, 1: 571.

30. SRIa XI-XVII, 1: 188; Sreznevskii, 3: 1488; Volkov, Sviatoslav S., “Iz istorii russkoi leksiki, II: Chelobitnaia,” in Volkov, Sviatoslav S., ed., Russkaia istoricheskaia leksikologiia i leksikografiia(Leningrad, 1972), 48 Google Scholar; Volkov, , Leksika russkikh chelobitnykh XVII veka: Formuliar, traditsionnye etiketnye i stilevye sredstva (Leningrad, 1974), 36 Google Scholar; Dewey, Horace, “Russia's Debt to the Mongols in Suretyship and Collective Responsibility,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 30 (1980): 268.Google Scholar

31. Sreznevskii, 3: 1490; Volkov, “Iz istorii russkoi leksiki,” 49.

32. Golden, Peter B., “Turkic Calques in Medieval Eastern Slavic,” Journal of Turkish Studies 8 (1984): 109–10Google Scholar. Also see Ostrowski, Donald, “The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political Institutions,” Slavic Review 49, no. 4 (Winter 1990): 534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the use of bit’ chelom in Mongol Turkic diplomatics, see Usmanov, Mirkasym A., Zhalovannye akty dzhuchieva ulusa XIV–XVI w. (Kazan’ 1979), 194–95.Google Scholar

33. Sreznevskii, 3: 1490; SRIa XI–XVII, 1: 188.

34. Usmanov, Zhalovannye akty, 196; Croskey, “The Diplomatic Forms,” 257–59; Croskey, Muscovite Diplomatic Practice, 117.

35. “PDS (Crimea),” no. 23: 81.

36. ASEI3: no. 5 (1391), no. 6 (1392 or 1404), no. 7 (1397).

37. ASEI3: no. 18 (1474), no. 37 (1451–61), no. 38 (1453–54), no. 109 (1487), and so on. Also see the numerous citations in Kochin, Materialy dlia terminologicheskogo slovaria, 28.

38. On prositi, see Sreznevskii, 2: 1567–68, and SRIa XI-XVII, 20: 217–18. On moliti, see Sreznevskii, 2: 167–68, and SRIa XI-XVII, 9: 246. On poklonitisia, see Sreznevskii, 2: 1107–108, and SRIa XI-XVII, 16: 159–60.

39. Cherniavsky, Michael, “Khan or Basileus?: An Aspect of Russian Mediaeval Political Thought,” in Cherniavsky, Michael, ed., The Structure of Russian History (New York, 1970), 65–79.Google Scholar

40. Usmanov, Zhalovannye akty, 196; Croskey, “The Diplomatic Forms,” 257–59; Croskey, Muscovite Diplomatic Practice, 117.

41. Fasmer, Elimologicheskii slovar’ Russkogo iazyka, 1: 446.

42. Sreznevskii, 3: 1384.

43. See the many references in Kaiser, trans, and ed., The Laws of Rus'; Grekov, ed., Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov; and Hellie, trans, and ed., The Muscovite Law Code.

44. Alef, “The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy,” 75.

45. “PDS (Crimea),” no. 23: 81.

46. Ibid., 73. Also see Jaroslaw Pelenski, “State and Society in Muscovite Russia and the Mongol–Turkic System in the Sixteenth Century,” Forschungen zur osleuropäischen Geschichte27 (1980): 167; Pelenski, , “Muscovite Russia and Poland Lithuania, 1450–1600,” in Pelenski, Jaroslaw, ed., State and Society in Europe from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century (Warsaw, 1985), 118 Google Scholar; and Keep, John L. H., Soldiers of the Tsar: Army and Society in Russia, 1462–1874 (Oxford, 1985), 3.Google Scholar

47. Alef, “The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy,” 75.

48. “Kul,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, new ed. (Leiden, 1954– ), 5: 359, and “Ghulam,” inEncyclopedia of Islam, 2: 1079–91.

49. Alef, “The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy,” 89; Ostrowski, “The Mongol Origins,” 537n52.

50. Cherepnin, Lev V., ed., Dukhovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikikh i udel'nykh kniazei XIV-XVI w. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1950), nos. 1, 3, 4.Google Scholar

51. Aleksandr P. Kazhdan, “The Concept of Freedom (eleutheria) and Slavery (douleia) in Byzantium,” in La notion de liberie au Moyen age (Paris, 1985), 219.

52. “Doulos,” in Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 1: 659. Also see Kazhdan, “The Concept of Freedom,” 219–20; and Helga Köpstein, Zur Sklaverei im ausgehenden Byzanz: Phihlogisch–historische Untersuchunge (Berlin, 1966), 33.

53. Kazhdan, “The Concept of Freedom,” 219–20; Köpstein, Zur Sklaverei im atisgehenden Byzanz, 33.

54. Herberstein, Sigmund von, Notes upon Russia [1517–49], trans. Major, R. H., 2 vols. (London, 1851–52; reprint, New York, 1963?), 1: 32.Google Scholar

55. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 1: 95. Major rendered servos as “serf,” although “slave” would seem to be a more accurate translation. For the original, see Herberstein, Sigmund von, Rerum moscoviticarum commentarii (Vienna, 1549; reprint, Frankfurt am Main, 1964), 49.Google Scholar

56. Baron, Samuel H., “Herberstein's Image of Russia and Its Transmission through Later Writers,” in Baron, , Explorations in Muscovite History (Hampshire, Eng., 1991)Google Scholar, essay 13; Marshall T. Poe, “'Russian Despotism': The Origins and Dissemination of an Early Modern Commonplace” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1993).

57. Giles Fletcher, Of the Russe Commonwealth [1591], in Berry, Lloyd E., ed., The English Works of Giles Fletcher, the Elder (Madison, 1964), 199.Google Scholar

58. Olearius, Adam, The Travels of Olearius in Seventeenth Century Russia [1656], trans, and ed. Baron, Samuel H. (Stanford, 1967), 173.Google Scholar

59. Montesquieu, , The Spirit of the Laws, trans, and eds. Cohler, Ann M., Miller, Basica Carolyn, and Stone, Harold Samuel (Cambridge, Eng., 1989)Google Scholar, bks. 2 and 3.

60. Ibid., pp. 10, 22, 26, and 28.

61. Olearius, The Travels, 173, where Aristotle's concept of despotism is applied to Muscovy. For a general treatment, see Poe, “'Russian Despotism, '” 393–447.

62. Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, pp. 60, 62, 92, 111, 137, 147, 154, 216, 221, 233, 251, 279, 280, 287, 315, 316, 416, 417, and 517.

63. Dodds, Muriel, Les récits de voyages: Sources de L'Esprit des lois de Montesquieu (Paris, 1929).Google Scholar

64. Perry, John, The State of Russia under the Present Czar (London, 1716), 236–37.Google Scholar

65. Venturi, Franco, “Was Russia a Feudal Country? An Eighteenth–Century Debate,” in Venturi, , Studies in Free Russia, trans. Walsby, Fausta Segre (Chicago, 1982), 1–25 Google Scholar; Wolff, Larry, Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization and the Mind of the Enlightenment (Stanford, 1994), 53, 62–63, 82, 85–86, 231, and 267.Google Scholar

66. Black, Jeremy L., “The ‘State School’ Interpretation of Russian History: A Re–Appraisal of Its Genetic Origins,” Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 21 (1973): 510.Google Scholar

67. Chicherin, Boris N., Opyty po istorii russkogo prava (Moscow, 1858), 9.Google Scholar

68. Ibid., 365–75.

69. Chicherin, Boris N., O narodnom predstavitel'stve, 2d ed. (Moscow, 1899), 531.Google Scholar

70. Kliuchevskii, Vasilii O., Istoriia soslovii v Rossii, in Sochineniia v deviati tomakh (Moscow, 1987), 6: 307 Google Scholar; Presniakov, Aleksandr E., Moskovskoe tsarstvo (Petrograd, 1918), 44.Google Scholar

71. Cherniavsky, “Khan or Basileus?” 73; Zimin, Aleksandr A., Rossiia na poroge novogo vremeni(Moscow, 1972), 64, 402–4Google Scholar; Kleimola, Ann, “Up through Servitude: The Changing Condition of the Muscovite Elite in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Russian History/Histoire Russe 6 (1979): 223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pelenski, “Muscovite Russia and Poland Lithuania,” 98; Pelenski, “State and Society in Muscovite Russia,” 156–67; Crummey, Robert O., Aristocrats and Servitors: The Boyar Elite in Russia, 1613–1689 (Princeton, 1983), 169 Google Scholar; Keep, Soldiers of the Tsar, 3; Alef, “The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy,” 75–77; Crummey, The Formation of Muscovy, 77; Ostrowski, “The Mongol Origins,” 537; Richard S. Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy, vol. 1, From Peter the Great to the Death of Nicholas I (Princeton, 1995), 34; Laferriere, Daniel Rancour, The Slave Soul of Russia: Moral Masochism and the Cult of Suffering (New York, 1995), 11.Google Scholar

72. Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime, 21.

73. Kollmann, “Ritual and Social Drama,” 498.

74. Dewey, Horace and Kleimola, Ann, “The Petition (chelobitnaia) as an Old Russian Literary Genre,” Slavonic and East European Journal 14 (1970): 284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Rancour–Laferriere, The Slave Soul of Russia, 12.

75. Dewey, “Russia's Debt to the Mongols,” 267. Also see Rancour–Laferriere, The Slave Soul of Russia, 12, and Hingley, Robert, The Rtissian Mind (New York, 1977), 194.Google Scholar

76. Cherniavsky, “Khan or Basileus?” 73.

77. Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime, 180.

78. See the references to gosudar’ in Kaiser, trans, and ed., The Laws of Rus', and Grekov, ed., Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov.

79. On Muscovite slavery, see Hellie, Richard, Slavery in Russia, 1450–1725 (Chicago, 1982)Google Scholar. For the use of kholop in legal contexts, see the references to the term in Kaiser, trans, and ed., The Laws of Rus'; Grekov, ed., Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov; and Hellie, trans, and ed., The Muscovite Law Code.

80. See, for example, Jacob Reutenfels, “Skazanie sviadeishemu gertsogu toskanskomu Koz'me Tret'emu o Moskovii [1671],” Chteniia v Imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom universitete (hereafeter ChOIDR) (1905), bk. 3: 86: “When the tsar goes past, then all bow to him, falling down and touching their heads to the very ground: in their language this is called bit’ chelom.” For other examples in which ritual prostration is identified as bit’ chelom, see Daniel Printz von Buchau, “Nachalo i Vozvyshenie Moskovii [1578],” ChOIDR (1876), bk. 3: 53; Aleppo, Paul of, The Travels of Macarius Patriarch of Antioch, Written by his Attendant Archdeacon, Paul of Aleppo, in Arabic [1653], trans. Belfour, Francis C., 2 vols. (London, 1829–36), 1: 263 Google Scholar; and Augustin Meyerberg, “Puteshestvie v Moskoviiu Barona Avgustina Maierberga [1661],” trans. A. N. Shemiakin and intro. O. M. Podoiskii, ChOIDR (1873), bk. 4: 65.

81. Kollmann, “Ritual and Social Drama,” 493; Kollmann, , “Concepts of Society and Social Identity in Early Modern Russia,” in Baron, Samuel H. and Kollmann, Nancy Shields, eds., Religion and Culture inEarly Modern Russia and Ukraine (DeKalb, 1997), 34—51 Google Scholar.

82. Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime, 127.

83. For many examples, see Kotkov, Sergei I., ed., Pamiatniki delovoi pis'mennosti XVII veka: Vladimirskii krai (Moscow, 1984), 149–220.Google Scholar

84. Ibid., 249. Also see the numerous examples in Kotkov, Sergei I., ed., Gramotki XVII–nachala XVIII v. (Moscow, 1969)Google Scholar. The editors of SRIa XI-XVII, 4: 109 note this usage.

85. See Hellie, trans, and ed., The Muscovite Law Code, chap. 10, art. 134 and many others. On this usage, see Sergeevich, Vladimir I., Drevnosti russkago prava, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1903–09), 1: 437 Google Scholar, and SRIa XI–XVII, 1: 308.

86. Margeret, Jacques, The Russian Empire and the Grand Duchy of Muscovy [1607], trans, and ed. Dunning, Chester S. L. (Pittsburgh, 1983), 33 Google Scholar. The French mercenary was not quite correct: many foreigners reported kissing the tsar's hand, but, they wrote, this rite was reserved almost exclusively for the grand prince and was only performed during audiences.

87. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 2: 125. For similar treatments of this hierarchy of bows, see Raffaelle Barberino, “Puteshestvie v Moskoviiu Rafaelia Berberini [1565],” ed. and trans. Vasilii I. Liubich–Romanovich, Syn otechestva, 1842, no. 7: 12; Printz, “Nachalo i Vozvyshenie Moskovii,” 53; Margeret, The Russian Empire, 33; and Augustin Meyerberg, Al'bom Meierberga: Vidy i bytovyia kartiny Rossii XVII veka [1661], ed. Friedrich von Adelung and A. M. Loviagin (St. Petersburg, 1903), 148–49 and fig. 84.

88. Olearius, The Travels, 220.

89. Volkov, Lehsika russkikh chelobitnykh XVII veka, 36.

90. Kotkov, Pamiatniki delovoi pis'mennosti, 249.

91. Shmidt, Segurt O., “Chelobitnyi prikaz v seredine XVI stoletiia,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR Seriia istorii i filosofii 8, no. 5 (1950): 445–58.Google Scholar

92. Sudebnik of 1550, arts. 7, 8, 24, 70, 72, 78, 79, 85, and 100 in Grekov, ed., Sudebniki XV-XVI vekov.

93. Volkov, “Iz istorii russkoi leksiki,” 53 and 57.

94. Kotkov, Pamiatniki delovoi pis'mennosti XVII veka, 149–220.

95. Kotoshikhin, Grigorii, O Rossii v tsarstvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha, ed. Pennington, Ann E. (Oxford, 1980)Google Scholar, fols.186–88; Meyerberg, Al'bom Meierberga, 148–49 and fig. 84.

96. Mordukhovich, Lev M., “Iz rukopisnogo nasledstva Iu. Krizhanicha,” Istoricheskii arkhiv, 1958, no. 1: 185.Google Scholar

97. Mordukhovich, , “Iurii Krizhanich o ‘rabstve, '” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 33 (1979): 142–55.Google Scholar

98. Mordukhovich, “Iz rukopisnogo nasledstva Iu. Krizhanicha,” 185.

99. Many examples are reprinted in Kotkov, Pamiatniki delovoi pis'mennosti XVII veka; Kotkov, Gramolki XVII–nachala XVIII veka; and Iakovlev, Aleksei I., ed., Akty khoziaistva boiarina B. I. Morozov, 2 vols. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1940–45).Google Scholar

100. Krizhanich, Politika, 603.

101. Krizhanich mentioned that Europeans singled out the use of “the sovereign's slaves” for particular censure. Ibid., 546–47.

102. The idea that Muscovite courtiers were in essence co–conspirators in a kind of political charade is developed at some length by Keenan, Edward, “Muscovite Political Folkways,” Russian Review 45 (1986): 115–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kollmann, Nancy S., Kinship and Politics: The Making of the Muscovite Political System, 1345–1547 (Stanford, 1987), 146–51.Google Scholar

103. Olearius, The Travels, 147.

104. Chancellor, Richard, “The Booke of the Great and Mighty Emperor of Russia, the Duke of Moscovia, and of the Dominions, Orders, and Commodities Thereunto Belonging: drawen by Richard Chancelour [1553],” in Hakluyt, Richard, ed., The Principal navigations, voyages, traffiques and discoveries of the English Nation, 12 vols. (Glasgow, 1903–05; reprint, New York, 1969), 2: 232.Google Scholar

105. Guagnini, Alessandro, “Omnium regionum Moschoviae descriptio [1578],” in Starczewski, Wojciech, ed., Historiae Ruthenicae scriptores exteri saeculi XVI, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1841–42), 1: 24.Google Scholar

106. Printz, “Nachalo i Vozvyshenie Moskovii,” bk. 3: 29–30.

107. Possevino, Antonio, The Moscovia of Antonio Possevino, S.J. [1586], trans. Graham, Hugh F. (Pittsburgh, 1977), 11.Google Scholar

108. Olearius, The Travels, 174; also see 147.

109. Meyerberg, “Puteshestvie v Moskoviiu,” bk. 4: 116–17; Reutenfels, “Skazanie,” kn. 3: 101; and Korb, Johann Georg, Diary of an Austrian Secretary of Legation at the Court of Czar Peter the Great [1700], trans, and ed. MacDonnell, Count, 2 vols. (London, 1863; reprint, London, 1968), 2: 155.Google Scholar

110. On the custom of “borrowing” in European Moscovitica, see Leitsch, Walter, “Herberstein's Impact on the Reports about Muscovy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Some Observations on the Technique of Borrowing,” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 24 (1978): 163–77Google Scholar; Baron, “Herberstein's Image of Russia and Its Transmission “; Poe, “'Russian Despotism.' “

111. On Muscovite property law, see Weickhardt, George G., “Due Process and Equal Justice in Muscovite Law,” Russian Review 51 (1992): 463–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Weickhardt, , “The Pre-Petrine Law of Property,” Slavic Review 52, no. 4 (Winter 1993): 663–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should be noted that Weickhardt's survey is based entirely on Russian statutes diat may riot have been followed in practice. Moreover, the statutes certainly did not reflect what might be called the everyday “edios” or “spirit” of Russian property relations, somediing that is perhaps better registered in the popular proverbs about the tsar's power recorded by European visitors.

112. On ranked lists, see Poe, Marshall, “Elite Service Registry in Muscovy,” Russian History/Histoire Russe 21 (1994): 251–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the maintenance of status, see Kallmann, , “Honor and Dishonor in Early Modern Russia,” Forschungen zur osleuropäischen Geschichte 46 (1992): 131–46.Google Scholar

113. Margeret, The Russian Empire, 28.

114. See Hellie, Slavery in Russia, 20 and 490–95.

115. Ibid., 591 and 612.

116. Ibid., 352–53, 417, 603, 690–91.

117. Margeret, The Russian Empire, 32.

118. Ibid., 32.

119. Maskiewicz, Samuel, “Dnevnik Maskevicha [1611],” in Ustrialov, Nikolai G., ed. and trans, Skazaniia sovremennikov o Dmitrii Samozvantse, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1859), 2: 52–53.Google Scholar

120. Paul of Aleppo, The Travels, 1: 274 and 1: 286.

121. Olearius, The Travels, 14.

122. Aleppo, The Travels, 1: 399; Olearius, The Travels, 169, 220; Meyerberg, “Puteshestvie v Moskoviiu,” 84; Reutenfels, “Skazanie,” 152–53; Bernard Tanner, “Opisanie puteshestviia pol'skogo posol'stva v Moskvu v 1678 g.,” ChOIDR (1891), bk. 3: 101; Neuville, , A Curious and New Account of Muscovy in the Year 1689, ed. and intro. Hughes, Lindsey, trans. Cutshall, J. A. (London, 1994), 58.Google Scholar

123. Meyerberg, “Puteshestvie v Moskoviiu,” 171–72.

124. Hellie, Slavery in Russia, 126–29.

125. Kolesov, Vladimir V., ed. Domostroi (Moscow, 1990), chap. 28.Google Scholar

126. The obligations of the tsar to protect his subjects, both spiritually and physically, have been widely discussed in recent works on Muscovite political thought. See, for example, Rowland, Daniel, “The Problem of Advice in Muscovite Tales about the Time of Troubles,” Russian History 6 (1979): 271–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rowland, Daniel, “Did Muscovite Literary Ideology Place Any Limits on the Power of the Tsar?” Russian Review 49 (1990): 125–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kivelson, Valerie A., “The Devil Stole His Mind: The Tsar and the 1648 Moscow Uprising,” American Historical Review 98 (1993): 733–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

127. See, for example, Metropolitan Makarii's benediction performed at Ivan IV's coronation on 16 January 1547, where Makarii counsels Ivan to preserve the realm and keep his flock unharmed. Elpidifor V. Barsov, ed. “Drevne–russkie pamiatniki sviashchennogo venchaniia tsarei na tsarstvo,” ChOIDR 124 (1883), bk. 1: 58. Makarii borrowed this admonition from the sixuVcentury Byzantine Deacon Agapetus's benediction to Emperor Justinian. For an analysis, see Miller, “The Coronation of Ivan IV,” 559–74. On the origin of the text in Agapetus, see Shevchenko, Ihor, “A Neglected Byzantine Source of Muscovite Political Ideology,” Harvard Slavic Studies 2 (1954): 141–79Google Scholar. For a similar statement, again borrowed from Agapetus, see Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (St. Petersburg, 1846– ), vol. 21, chap. 2 (Stepennaia kniga), 609–11.

128. For a similar argument, see Kivelson, Valerie A., “Merciful Father, Impersonal State: Russian Autocracy in Comparative Perspective,” Modern Asian Studies 31 (1997): 652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

129. George Weickhardt has argued that Muscovites (particularly the framers of theUlozhenie of 1649, Kotoshikhin, Simeon Polotskoi, and Krizhanich) believed that “the ruler and the laws derived their legitimacy from a contract or from popular consent.” He even sees similarities between these “Russian” ideas and the thought of John Locke. See Weickhardt, George G., “Political Thought in Seventeenth–Century Russia,” Russian History/Histoire Russe 21 (1994): 337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Leaving aside the question whether Kotoshikhin, Simeon, and Krizhanich could be considered representative of Muscovite political thought, it seems that Weickhardt's thesis overreaches the evidence. There was certainly some sense in which all Muscovites believed the ruler was beholden to the people. But to speak of a “contract” is to ignore the informal framework of Muscovite political culture and, more importandy, the indisputable fact that no Muscovite ever composed a contractarian political philosophy that explicitly bound the activities of the tsar to the will of the people.

130. Kollmann, “Ritual and Social Drama,” 493, and Kollmann, “Concepts of Society and Social Identity,” 34–51.