38 koniushennye poshliny, a fee to be paid when horses were bought and soldd^ The administration of justice was divided among many prikazy, and one can say without exaggeration that almost each chancellery had some form of judicial responsibility. However, two prikazy were exclusively charged with judicial functions, namely the Vladimirskii sudnyi prikaz and the Moskovskii sudnyi prikaz. The first of these was responsible for settling cases between members of the upper service classes (the dumnye and moskovskie chiny), while the second was charged with cases involving all other categories of the service nobility.^^ This brief survey of the prikaz system shows that the seventeenthcentury Russian central administration was characterized by clearly functional divisions of responsibility, a fact which in turn reflected the feudal structure of Muscovite society. It happened, of course, that several chancelleries were united under a single leadership from time to time, but such joinings together of various prikazy can hardly be characterized as attempts to systematize administrative functions, since they were not permanent. Instead, the fact that several chancelleries were at times united was sometimes explained by the fact that a politically influential individual was able to consolidate his power in the administrative apparatus, as well. This was the case, for example, with I. D. Miloslavskii (father-in-law of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich), who controlled six prikazy for some time.^* The internal organizational structure was largely the same in all the chancelleries. At the head of the prikaz there was usually a sud’ia, or judge, who was a member of one of the highest castes in the Muscovite service hierarchy. It could happen, however, that the leadership was held by a so-called d'iak, who did not hold a place in the Duma. There was a close personal relationship between the Duma and the prikaz administration, however, and it was even strengthened over the course of the seventeenth century. In 1686—87, seventeen boiare and okol’nichie stood at the head of eighty percent of the prikazy (39 of 49), for which reason it is possible to speak, as does Peter B. Brown, of a “chancellery upper service class symbiosis” during the second half of the seventeenth century.^^ The magnates in the Duma thus had control of the major portion of the prikaz administration, the activities of which were therefore largely kept '* Ihid., 140—141. >5 Ibid., 137—138. '* V. O. Kliuchevskii, Boiarskaia Duma drevnei Rusi (Moscow, 1882), 410—411. Peter B. Brown, “Early Modern Russian Bureaucracy: The Evolution of the Chancellery System from Ivan III to Peter the Great,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago, 1978), 517—518. For a survey of the judges in the prikazy, sec S. K. Bogoiavlenskii, Prikaznye sud’i XVII v. (Moscow & Leningrad 1946).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=