34 Muscovite Roots, 1462-1689
vidual's worth. This flexibility was beneficial in so far as it gave servitors an
incentive to do their duty and better them~elves.
As to the nature of these duties our sources are largely silent. Service on the
frontier had a seasonal character. The 1571 statute laid down that c.avalrymPn
;hould serve in rotation for three-month terms, from I April to I July and
from I July to I October or 'the great snows', whichever came first.^76 In 1578
I. A. Tyutchev left Ryl'sk on Easter Day, 8 April, for a ten-day patrol to the
Donets with 93 men; on 13 June he was replaced by I. Semichev of Bryansk
Nith 78 men, who in turn gave way on 21 August to A. Panyukin with a party
Jf similar size; what they actually did we are not told.^77 A routine order of
1624 lists the men from various 'towns' who were to make up each of two
;hifts; those who lived far from the border were to serve in the spring, those
·rom the vicinity in the autumn; however, the final stand-down order was not
ssued until 7 December.^78 They were ordered to keep good watch 'lest [Tatar)
"'arriors approach our borders and do damage without [intelligence] informa-
ion [being provided)'. If the enemy did appear, the second-shift men were told
.imply to call back the men from the first shift-although it would clearly take
veeks for them to reassemble, by which time the Tatar raiders would have long
.ince returned home and disposed of their loot. At other times a more activist
.trategy was indicated, but one gets little sense from the documents of provin-
:ial gentrymen carrying out their tasks with zeal. They were obsessive peti-
ioners: for leave, discharge, transfer, promotion, or extra compensation; and
hey seem to have tried whenever possible to pass on their obligations to their
lependants or substitutes.
The authorities prescribed severe penalties for dereliction of duty: fines,
eatings, imprisonment, confiscation of property, and even death.^79 But these
hreats lacked credibility. Gentry cavalrymen were under oath 'to serve the
)overeign loyally and wish him well in everything, without any deceit'^80 -a
romise that many failed to live up to. There were at least two good reasons
'or this. One was sheer poverty, at least among deti boyarskiye on the border;
mother was the pettifogging (and inefficient)^81 regimentation they had to
:ndure from functionaries of the Razryad.
(^76) AMC i. 1-2, 19, 22. (^7) ' Bdyayev, 0.Horozhevoy ... sluzhbe, p. 28.
78 AMG i. 175, 177; d'. i. 194 (1627), ii. 328 (1648). In 16.12 a four-month term was specified:
•id., i. 322.
79 AMG i. 99. !02 (1615), 117, 119 (1618), 148 (1622), 179 (1625), 233, 264 (1629).
80 AMG i. 198 (1627).
81 Plavsic, 'Seventeenth-Century Chanceries', ~eeks to revi;e the common assessment of the
rikaz officials' skill>. Their problems were compounded b) vast distances, excessive central-
.ation of decision-making. lack of proper record-keeping procedures, inadequate knowledge of
rithmetic (Arabic numerals were introduced 10 Russia by Peter I). and the complexities of con-
'mporary orthography and grammar. In the cin.:umstam:e' it is indeed commendable that the
:!ministration was no! even more chaotic. Nor ..:an one agree with the assertion by a recent student
f the ranking system that 'before Peter'' day ... what \upcrvisory institutions there were excr-
sed minimal control' over noblemen's service (Bennett, 'Evolution', p. 13). Precisely the reverse
the case-although whether the controb were effective is another mailer.