In the seventeenth century, the competence of the council, as well as its exact composition and mode of operation, remained undefined - there was no constitution or even coherent (and inscribed) custom detailing who was (or should be) on it, or what it was to do (other than deliberate with the tsar). Kotoshikhin thoroughly describes general congresses of council members in which affairs were discussed and legislation was considered, affirmed and sent to the chancelleries for promulgation.[28] He tells us that 'although [Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich] used the title "autocrat", [he] could do nothing without the boyars' council'.[29] His son, in contrast, did quite a bit without their council. He favoured smaller groups of familiars (the blizhnie liudi) over the mass of courtiers who were coming to occupy the duma ranks.[30] By the second half of the century, the number of men who held these ranks was in all probability too large for all of them to serve as councillors, and there is no evidence that they did so. The duma ranks, as we have said, had turned into a source of patronage for weakmonarchs and thus the councillors - at least most of them - were deprived of their council.
The history of the zemskii sobor is just as controversial and murky.[31] The phrase itself was coined by the radical Slavophile Konstantin Aksakov around 1850.[32] It is found in no Muscovite source. Nineteenth-century Russian historians of a liberal bent tried their best to make out of the thin evidence a 'proto-parliamentary' body that - but for the unbridled power of self-seeking tsars and boyars - might have led Russia to enlightened liberal democracy. More sober historians, focusing on the evidence rather than projecting their fantasies on bygone eras, contradicted this rosy interpretation. The battle continues.
What can be said with confidence is this.[33] Some sort of popular assembly was first called by Ivan IV and, thereafter, occasionally by his successors. The regime of Michael Romanov-weakand attemptingto establishits legitimacy- seemed particularly fond of them (he was 'elected' by one), though his father was not. Though the assemblies (usually called sobory) could be assigned very specific tasks -for example, ratification ofthe Ulozhenie of 1649 (called 'Sobornoe' because it was affirmed by a sobor) - they were generally organised by the government to take stock of opinion on affairs domestic and international.
The composition of the assemblies was never set, though they appear to have had two salient characteristics-they were elite (almost entirely composed of high-born military servitors) and they were ad hoc (the government often simply gathered servitors and clerics already in Moscow). Some were large - several hundred delegates; others were small - several dozen delegates. The assemblies were not regularly conferred according to any schedule. Rather, they seem to have been called in moments of doubt or crisis. Delegates almost always supported the government; there was no forceful 'debate' as far as we know. Their exact competence - like the royal council - was never defined in law or custom, though they were consulted on a wide range of affairs. As we can see in Figure 19.6, some acclaimed tsars, others declared war, while others still adopted legislation.[34]
Delegates were called as a matter of service obligation (and sometimes viewed said service as onerous), not as a matter of 'right'. Neither in years
| Year | Primary activity |
| 1613 | Chose Michael as tsar |
| 1614 | Advised on stopping movements of Zarutskii and the cossacks |
| 1616 | Discussed conditions of peace with Sweden and a monetary levy |
| 1617 | Advised on a monetary levy |
| 1619 | Advised on raising of Filaret to the patriarchal throne |
| 1621 | Advised on war with Poland |
| 1622 | Advised on war with Poland |
| 1632 | Advised on the collection of money for the Polish campaign |
| 1634 | Advised on the collection of money and on the Polish campaign |
| 1637 | Advised on an invasion of the Crimean Khan Sefat Girey and the |
| collection of money | |
| 1639 | Advised on response to Crimean treatment of two Muscovite envoys |
| 1642 | Recommended support of Don cossacks in relation to the taking of |
| Azov | |
| 1645 | Chose Alexis as tsar |
| 1648 | Advised the composition of a new law code |
| 1648-9 | Approved the new law code |
| 1650 | Advised on the movement of people into Pskov |
| 1651 | Advised on Russo-Polish relations and Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi |
| 1653 | Advised on war with Poland and support of Zaporozhian cossacks |
| 1681-2 | Advised on military, financial and land reforms |
| 1682 | Chose Peter as tsar (27 April); chose Peter and Ivan as co-tsars (May) |
| 1683-4 | Advised on peace with Poland |
| Figure 19.6. Seventeenth-century 'Assemblies of the Land' and their activities | |
without assemblies, nor in the year they were extinguished finally, was there any protest or even mention of them in Muscovite sources. Foreigners, who were often careful observers of Russian politics, very rarely note them and when they do attribute little importance to them.66
Concluding remarks
In the end, the seventeenth-century Muscovite state proved to be quite robust. Even after it was almost totally taken apart in the maelstrom of the Time of Troubles, the triptych tsar-court-prikazy re-emerged rapidly and in full form. The ruling class wasted no time or effort on costly government experimentation in 1613. It simply picked itself up and got down to business. And its business was rule, plain and simple. For the tsar, his court and the men of offices, the
66 Poe, A People Born to Slavery', pp. 66-7.
entire point ofthe state was to rule over others and live off them. Never was this point seriously questioned. One must admire the single-minded purpose this sort of concentration bespeaks. While other early modern states (whatever their form) might pursue any number of goals - fostering science, patronising the arts, educating the public, spreading the Good Word-the Muscovite elite focused nearly all its energy in ruling others or conquering others so that they might rule them. Domination was their raison d'etre.
31
On the historiography of the
32
K. S. Aksakov,
33
The following is drawn from: Ellerd Hulbert, 'Sixteenth-Century Russian Assemblies of the Land: Their Composition, Organization, and Competence', unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1970; Hans-Joachim Torke,