CHAPTER 3 THE RUSSIAN STATE OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

We cannot understand the constitutional and socio-political system of Hetman Ukraine, and its development if we ignore the fact that the Ukrainian state was a vassal of Russia and that its dependence on Russia increased each year.

The Russian (or Muscovite) state of the seventeenth century was a society of hereditary classes. Its socio-political relations — the centralization of government, the division of society into here­ditary social groups and the enserfed peasantry as a lower social group — were quite similar to those in most other European so­cieties of that time. But in the general frame of this type of social relations very important variations were possible. The Russian feudalism of the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, in common with feudalism in other countries, was characterized by the utmost di­vision of governmental powers. But here it had special character­istics. In each Russian principality the power of local princes clearly prevailed over other organs of government. Russian counterparts of the noisy popular assemblies of Great Novgorod and Belorussian feudal principalities and the influential noble Boiar Council of Ukrainian lands played a secondary role. Their importance dimi­nished, and meetings were infrequent. In the unification of sections of Russia into a centralized national organization the strength of the monarchs, untypical of feudalism, played a significant role.

The further development of this Russian state soon led to the establishment of the absolute power of the Russian monarch. It should be mentioned that from the middle of the sixteenth century this monarch, whose previous title was ’’the great (or grand) prince,” assumed the title of the Tsar, which was derived from the Latin Caesar.

Not all the tsars, however, were able to exercise this absolute power. Fedor Ivanovich (the last tsar of the Riurik dynasty) and Michael Fedorovich and Alexis Mikhailovich (the first tsars of the Romanov dynasty) were not able to play this role. They were assis­ted by the Boiarskaia Duma (Coimcil of Boyars, privy council), a standing organ of central govenment. As in other countries this organ developed in the preceeding period from the council of feudal ba­rons and higher officials of the realm. In the seventeenth century it was transformed into an upper parliamentary chamber; it con­sisted of the statesmen who were appointed by the Tsar, mostly from the upper layer of the Russian nobility. The jurisdiction and authority of the Council of Boyars parallelled that of the Tsar. Its meetings were regular; quite often they were presided over by the Tsar himself. The standard formula of Russian legislation, ’’The Gosudar (sovereign) has commanded and the boyars have resolved” shows the role and influence of this institution.

During the sessions of the Zemskii Sobor (Assembly of the Land, the states-general) the Council of the Boyars assumed the functions of an upper chamber of a parliamentary deliberative organization. The Zemskii Sobor in the Russian state of the sixteenth and seven­teenth centuries was a representative assembly of the hereditary classes which from time to time was convoked for the discussion and solution of the most important problems of government — the problems of war and peace, the imposition of taxes and current legislation. It differed somewhat from the similar representative bodies of other realms.

Whereas the differences of the Zemskii Sobor and the Council of Boyars from the similar organ of other countries of that time were not very significant, the Russian prikazy (governmental agen­cies) were very important and specialized organs of central go­vernment. They were the organs of administration and justice as well as the agencies for the management of governmental estates and enterprises. There were about fifty or sixty such agencies, (with changing names, some short-lived) usually headed by a member of the Council of Boyars. He was assisted by two or more d’iaki (secre­taries). The clerical work was performed by the great number of pod’iachie (clerk-secretaries).

Students of the Muscovite governmental system have stressed the lack of a clear-cut delimitation, and the often overlapping func­tions among the prikazy, and also their notorious red tape. Now it is clear that the lack of delimitation of functions can be explained by the origin of these agencies. Most of them were established without any forethought, as a result of reforms carried out by rulers for various reasons and at different times. The lack of delimitation was certainly a deficiency. But a far more important feature was the complete control by the prikazy over the whole population, which made it possible to direct all the human and material resour­ces toward the attainment of the Russian state’s aims and objectives.

The population of the seventeenth century Russian state was divided into large hereditary social classes but there were still some remnants of the numerous lesser groups of the feudal period. Some of them existed as the subdivisions of the principal classes, others preserved their separate although precarious positions. The con­solidation of feudal social groups was most complete in their upper layer. It is well-known that Russian feudalism was a less developed socio-political system in comparison with its West European counter­parts, especially in regard to the position of local feudal rulers and great landowners. The feudal group of Russian princes and boyars was similar to the group of West European dukes, counts and ba­rons but it was more dependent on the central government (Grand Duke, later Tsar) than it was in Western Europe. As in Western Europe, the destruction of the feudal social organization was con­nected with the struggle of this upper group against the rising power of central government, which tried to eliminate feudal di­visions in the governmental system. In the middle of the sixteenth century, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, this struggle led to the elimination of a great number of princes and boyars. Con­sequently, the remaining princes and boyars after Ivan the Ter­rible’s period lost their status as a separate privileged social group and their titles were preserved for the persons of noble origin who were members of the Council of Boyars. Those who did not serve in this institution joined the large new hereditary class of the dvorianstvo (gentry or lower nobility). They preserved their titles but lost their special privileges.

The dvoriane, the new hereditary class of the Russian nobility, became the upper social group. This class preserved some of its subdivisions of the proceeding period. The Muscovite dvoriane were its upper layer; many descendants of the princes and boyars joined this group. Droviane gorodovye (the urban or town dvoriane) had a lower position. At the bottom were uezdnye dvoriane (the county dvoriane). Each dvorianin possessed a landed estate granted to him under the condition of his service to the realm. The estates were distributed by the Tsar’s Pomestnyi Prikaz (the landed estate agency) which, through the local administrative organs, strictly and con­sistently controlled each dvorianin’s service and distributed the lan­ded estates according to the extent and significance of his service. The dvorianin was only a sort of conditional owner of an estate and had to perform constant and sometimes difficult commissions and assignments for the realm. In case of unsatisfactory service he could be severely punished. Russian historiography was right when it talked about ’’the enserfment of all the classes of Russian society” in the seventeenth century.

StreVtsy (riflemen), pushkari (artillerymen), reitary (cavalry­men), and some other similar groups were the categories of popu­lation who did not succeed in joining the ranks of the dvorianstvo. During the seventeenth century we see the decline in their number and gradual abolition of most of these groups. The largest group, the StreVtsy, was wiped out by Peter I after their unsuccessful revolt against him.

The Russian townspeople (posadskie liudi) were also divided into several subdivisions. The Russian towns were not strong and powerful commercial and industrial centers as were the cities of Western Europe, which later on became embryos of the new social order.

The Russian peasantry was enserfed in the late sixteenth and the early seventeenth century. There were also preserved some ele­ments of slavery — the categories of the kholopy (slaves) and kabaV- nye Iiudi (persons in temporary bondage till the payments of their debts). The difficult situation of the peasantry and slaves led to their frequent escapes abroad. In these cases the Russian government tried to catch them and force them to return. Demands to force the escaped Russian serfs and peasants to return to their country were included in several of the Hetman Articles — the Ukrainian treaties with the Russian realm. Quite often the peasants and slaves were able to escape to the unpopulated areas of the Russian borderlands which were not controlled by the Muscovite government. In the Don and Ural (Yaik) Valleys the refugees established the Don and Yaik Cossack organizations similar to those of the Ukrainian south. For­mally they were dependent on Russia but in fact they enjoyed wide-ranging self-government.

In general seventeenth century Russia was a strong monarchy and was composed of several hereditary classes (estates). The ”en- serfment” of all the classes of society was its distinctive feature. The strictly centralized apparatus of the prikazy made possible rigid control of material and human resources and, with great success, used them for the achievement of the Russian state’s aims and ob­jectives. First it achieved the complete unification of the Russian people in a strong state. After that it proceeded to conquer and annex the lands of neighbouring peoples. The incorporation of its south western neighbour — Ukraine, also started in the seventeenth century but was completed much later at the end of the eighteenth century. ö