42 Muscovite Roots, 1462-1689
Herberstein wrote that the Grand Prince fixed annual payments for all ser-
vitors when they were mustered, unless they were well endowed with land; but
later sixteenth-century observers were under the impression that no grants
were made in cash.^26 Neither view was quite cnrri>ct. Su('h grants were e:-:cep-
tional, and in the main were made to individuals who had performed exploits
of unusual merit. Moreover, payment depended on the current state of the
treasury and the official estimate of the momentary usefulness of each par-
ticular group of servitors. Prior to 1576 the gentry of Putivl' and Ryazan· -key
sectors of the troubled southern front-were said to have been paid only every
other year, except for the poorest who got nothing; they were accordingly
divided into five classes (stat '1) and awarded sums ranging from 7 (5 for
novices) to 12 roubles.27 At Kolomna the following year dvorovye got between
10 and 14 roubles and gorodovye 6 to 14; and one year later at Pereyaslavr -
Zalessky (north-east of Moscow and so further from the front) the rate was
only 5 to 7 roubles, with nothing at all for novices.^28 Boris Godunov, in an
obvious bid for gentry favour, ordered a general increase in the rates (and also
reduced the amount of duties specified in the 1556 code); but by 1606, as a
result of the crisis, the cash rate had fallen to 6-8 roubles.^29 Later virtually
each district had its own varying compensation scales, which were established
at each verstan 'ye by the central officials in agreement with the local assessors.
The rates tended to vary over the years,^30 but in interpreting this fact one has
first to appreciate that they were fictions (frequent in Russian political and
administrative history) and· that, although evetyone recognized this to be so,
they continued to be taken seriously. Allocation to a specific class carried an
equally specific, but temporary, entitlement (oklad), measured in cash, land,
or both; and both the classes and the compensation scales were fixed afresh at
each version 'ye. Entitlements were seen as desirable norms or 'targets', as we
would say today, or else as limits that should not be exceeded, rather than as
definite commitments by the authorities that these figures would be met. Their
object was to provide an incentive, or (take a more cynical view) to conceal the
government's miserliness behind a false mask of boundless monarchical
generosity.
The land entitlements for the men of Putivl' and Ryazan' just mentioned
ranged from JOO to 300 quarters (cheti, chetverti); high-ranking courtiers
might be awarded as much as 1,500 quarters. These were not precise measures
of land-which in the absense of a proper land survey would have been impos-
sible to allocate-but vaguely determined areas of 'good' soil, which were sup-
posed to be complemented by equal portions of average-quality and poor soil:
this was the normal way land was divided up among householders in a peasant
2° Von Herberslein, Mosnniu, p. IOI; Kappeler, Ivon Gro4nyj, p. 206.
2' AMG i. 16.
2~ Swrozhev, 'Desyalni', pp. 2-42; AMG i. 33.
24 Brix, GeKhichte, pp. 144-5: Hcllic, Enserfment, p. 48.
.in Hellie, £11serf111e111, p. 'o7: 1d., 'Mu,.:, Prov. Elite', p. 58.