36 to receive. The Pomestnyi prikaz, which kept a record of the service nobility’s ownership of land and peasants, the so-called pistsovye knigi, also served as an important judicial forum with jurisdiction over all disagreements concerning the nobility’s possession of estates.® As long as the core of the army organization remained the cavalry, made up of noblemen who were supported primarily by means of the service estates, the Razriadnyi and Pomestnyi prikazy occupied leading positions in the central administration of the realm. As the role of standing regiments of soldiers paid in cash and in grain became Increasingly dominant, the importance of these two chancelleries diminished in comparison with that of other administrative organs.^® A number of prikazy had jurisdictions limited to specific localities. Here one must mention first and foremost the so-called chetverti, which were primarily charged with fiscal duties, but which also had judlcial responsibilities within their respective regions. Each chetverP was known by the name of its area of jurisdiction, and we thus find such titles as the Vladimirskaia, Galitskaia, Kostromskaia, Novgorodskaia, and Ustiuzhskaia chetverti. None of these chancelleries had geographically contiguous areas of administration; instead, their local jurisdictions overlapped, which further complicated the situation. However, the centrally situated cities usually belonged to the Vladimirskaia, Galitskaia, and Kostromskaia chetverti, while the Novgorodskaia and Ustiuzhskaia chetverti had jurisdiction over the outlying areas. Another prikaz with a geographically limited administrative area was the Kazanskii dvorets, which had been created in the sixteenth century to administer the territories in the East—Kazan’, Astrakhan’, and Sibir’— that had been incorporated into the Russian realm. Siberia received its own chancellery, the Sibirskii prikaz, in 1634.^^ Thus there was no uniformfiscal administration, and almost every prikaz had some tax or fee to collect and administer. It was especially in view of the diffuse nature of this fiscal administration that the prikazy were to prove ineffective when it came to meeting the needs of systematic and regular financial planning which followed in the wake of the changes in the organization of the army. Cash payments to regiments of troops, a practice that had become increasingly common in Russian military under- * N. V. Ustiugov, “Evoliutsiia prikaznogo stroia russkogo gosudarstva v XVIII v.," in N. M. Druzhinin et al., eds., Absoliutizm v Rossii (XVII—XVIII v.). Sbornik state: k 70-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia i 40-letiiit nauchnoi i pedagogicheskoi deiatel'nosti B. B. Kafengauza (Moscow, 1964), 136—137. Hellie, 229. '* Ustiugov (1964), 138—139, and S. B. Veselovskii, “Prikaznyi stroi upravlcniia moskovskogo gosudarstva,” in M. V. Dovnar-Zapol’skii, ed., Sbornik "Russkaia istoriia V ocherkakh i stat'iakh" (3 v., Kiev, 19??—1912), III, 188.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=