Russian History: A Very Short Introduction полностью

How did the state raise the resources required for such heavy military commitments? Most of it came in the form of personal service, through the pomeshchiki (service estate-holders) reporting with their equipment and retainers. Gradually, taxes came to be levied in a similar way: pomeshchiki and the holders of votchiny paid the treasury and exacted services from their dependent rural population. Obviously, without reliable peasant input, the service class could not make their contribution to the state’s resources, financial and military. The answer was to enserf the peasants. Already by the late 15th century, they were forbidden to quit their lords’ estates except around St George’s Day (26 November), when harvesting and autumn sowing were complete. During the late 16th and early 17th centuries, when peasant flight increased, this brief loophole was first suspended, then closed altogether. The boundaries of serfdom were finally drawn tight in the Law Code of 1649, which gave the state unlimited powers to track down and reclaim fugitive peasants. Significantly, the Code did not use the words ‘serf’ or ‘serfdom’: it merely defined the penalties to be imposed on peasants who fled and on those who harboured them. Nowhere was it stipulated who might become a serf and how he/she might be treated. Serfdom was thus not defined by law but by the evolving practice of personal domination, backed by the state.

Most studies of Russia, rightly, have a lot to say about the central state, yet no less important were local communities. The immense mobilization effort would not have been achieved if they had not been able to deliver. They were organized on the principle of ‘joint responsibility’ (krugovaia poruka). All the inhabitants of a rural or urban settlement were jointly responsible for the payment of taxes, the provision of army recruits, the discharge of labour duties, and the maintenance of peace through the apprehension of troublemakers and criminals. If one household failed in its duties, the other households had to make up the shortfall. Such joint responsibility was common in medieval Europe and Asia, when rulers lacked the administrative apparatus to carry out what we would regard as normal state functions. (In England, the equivalent system was known as ‘francpledge’.) The duties of local communities, the service estate, and the laws governing them were set out in the Law Code of 1550.

The ruler who bore the main burden of making this system work was Ivan IV (r. 1533–84 – the ‘Terrible’). He aimed to demonstrate beyond doubt that he was undisputed ruler of Rus, that the princes and boyars were his subjects, not partners or even subordinate allies. He insisted on adopting the title of Tsar, the Russian equivalent of Caesar, translatable here as ‘sovereign’, that is, no longer owing tribute to any earthly ruler. He made some effort to give his authority a broader backing by convening occasional gatherings of representatives of local elites to consult on major issues of policy. Historians have called these gatherings zemskie sobory (assemblies of the land), though contemporaries did not use the term. They were not convened regularly, nor was there an established electoral procedure for them. They were occasions, not institutions.

Ivan also intended to establish once and for all that the crown would be hereditary in his family. When in 1553 he fell ill, he required his boyars to take an oath to his son, Dmitry. Many of them were reluctant, and he interpreted their hesitation as treason. He also tended to regard military defeat as evidence of treason among the commanders.

Not altogether without reason. The Lithuanian kingdom, which had competing claims to the lands of Rus, offered its aristocracy higher status and a more effective role in governance. Rus boyars and princes enjoyed a traditional right to choose their own master, and it was always tempting to exercise it and defect to Lithuania. To deter them, Ivan imposed a system of mutual surety on them: if they defected, their extended families or their bail-holders would have to pay large penalties or suffer worse punishment. Failure to give warning of an impending defection was considered an offence, and so the system encouraged denunciations.

In December 1564, Ivan decided to confront ‘treason’ with an act of theatre. He suddenly withdrew from his court and set out with his family, the state treasury, and several beloved icons for a favourite residence outside Moscow. From there, he sent a missive to the boyars and church leaders accusing them of obstructing his efforts to uncover and root out treason. He demanded the right to proceed against traitors as he saw fit. He also sent a letter to the people of Moscow informing them of his accusations and reassuring them that they had not incurred his wrath. The people sent a petition begging him to return,