1. Akty istoricheskie, 5 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1841-42), vol. 1, no. 136.

2. For the texts of the surviving treaties see Dukhovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikikh i udel'nykh kniasei XIV-XVI w., ed. L. V. Cherepnin and S. V. Bakhrushin (Moscow and Leningrad, 1950); hereafter cited as DDG.

3. See, for example, DDG, nos. 2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18.

4. See, for example, ibid., nos. 24, 30, 35, 36, 38, 45.

5. The general clause in question, which appears in the first surviving text of ca. 1350—51 and is reproduced regularly thereafter in the subsequent documents, takes essentially the following form: “A kto budet mne drug, to i tobe drug. A kto budet mne nedrug, to i tobe nedrug.” See texts in DDG, passim; see also Sergeevich, V. I., Lektsii i issledovaniia po drevnei istorii russkago prava (St. Petersburg, 1883), pp. 282–83.Google Scholar

6. See Cherepnin, L. V., Russkie feodal'nye arkhivy XIV-XV vekov, 2 vols. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1948–51), 1: 34.Google Scholar

7. See DDG, nos. 5, 11, 24, 30, 34, 40, 59, 63, 66, 76. These treaties date from 1367 through 1483.

8. Ibid., nos. 9, 10, 13, 15, 19, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 45, 47, 52, 56, 58, 69, 70, 72, 73, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 90, 101. These documents date from 1375 through 1531. It should be kept in mind, however, that some of the apparent “one-sidedness” of these documents may be a result of omissions, scribal errors in copying, or abbreviated texts of agreements,

9. Ibid., no. 76. The enemies mentioned here are the Starodub princes, sons of Ivan Andreevich of Mozhaisk, a prince who had fled to Lithuania in 14S4; the grandsons of Dmitrii Shemiaka, whose son had fled to Lithuania; and Ivan Vasilievich, son of Vasilii Iaroslavich of Serpukhov, who had also gone to Lithuania. See Ekzempliarsky, A. V., Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia severnoi rusi v tatarskii period, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1889–91), 2: 326–27Google Scholar. See also DDG, no. 78, a treaty of 1483 in which the prince of Vereia and Beloozero agreed to notify the grand prince of anyone at all who came to him with any messages, and to send that person to Moscow.

10. Vasilii Mikhailovich, son of Prince Mikhail Andreevich of Vereia, had married the niece of Sophia Paleologus, who gave land to her relative as a dowry. Overjoyed at the birth of his grandson Dmitrii, Ivan III wished to reward his daughter-in-law with the land in question, and at the end of 1483 took back the dowry of Prince Vasilii's wife. Vasilii and his wife fled to Lithuania in 1484. After their flight, because of his son's offense, Prince Mikhail Andreevich of Vereia was deprived of his patrimony, Iaroslavets, Beloozero, and Vereia. Ivan III subsequently returned the land to him “for life,” on the basis of a new agreement whereby the land would pass to Ivan at Mikhail's death. Mikhail Andreevich died in 148S. See Ekzempliarsky, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 1: 247–l48 and 2: 336.

11. DDG, no. 79.

12. Ibid., no. 81.

13. See texts in DDG, passim. For a discussion of the problem of oaths and their violation in medieval Russian history see Dewey, H. W. and Kleimola, A. M., “Promise and Perfidy in Old Russian Cross-Kissing,” Canadian Slavic Studies, 3, no. 2 (Fall 1968): 327–41.Google Scholar

14. See Ekzempliarsky, Velikie i udel'nye knias'ia, 1: 149-80.

15. Clauses from the interprincely treaties—though not a promise to report disloyal acts, but merely a vow not to commit them—also appear in the “general service oaths” taken by the servitors of the grand prince. The oldest such oath known to us dates from the first half of the fifteenth century. This document contains the oath taken by an offending servitor who had been pardoned, but S. B. Veselovsky suggests that if we eliminate the suretyship of the metropolitan and bishops, it “gives the formula of the usual oath of a servitor to the grand prince.” In his opinion it was an ancient formulation of the obligations of a member of the prince's retinue (druzhinnik), repeated according to tradition. See Veselovsky, S. B., Issledovaniia po istorii oprichniny (Moscow, 1963), pp. 99–100 Google Scholar (the text of the document is in note 2 on these pages).

16. See Sobranie gosudarstvennykh gramot i dogovorov, 5 vols. (Moscow, 1813-94), vol. 1, nos. 103, 145, 146, 163, 167, 168, 169; hereafter cited as SGGD.

17. Ibid., no. 14S.

18. Ibid, no. 168.

19. Ibid., no. 149. See also nos. 152, 153, 154, 157, 159, 162, 165, 172, 177, 182, 189.

20. Ibid., no. 162.

21. Ibid., no. 172.

22. Ibid., no. 165.

23. Ibid., nos. 145, 149, 152, 153, 154, 157, 159, 162, 165, 172, 177, 182, 189.

24. Ibid., nos. 152, 153, 154, 157, 159, 165, 172.

25. Ibid., nos. 145, 152, 153, 154, 157, 159, 172. Tatar princes also promised to report whatever they heard or received from their brother the tsar, the tsarevichi, or anyone else (ibid., vol. 2, nos. 26 and 27).

26. Ibid., vol. 1, no. 165.

27. Ibid., nos. US, 152, 154, 157, 159, 165, 172.

28. Ibid., no. 152. Belsky came from a prominent West Russian princely family, and his father had entered Muscovite service from Lithuania in 1482. The pledge may have been required to ensure faithful service, or in connection with the retreat of troops under his command from the Oka in 1521, which enabled the Tatars to reach Moscow and for which he was blamed. In any event, this apparently had no effect on his career, since he became a boyar in 1530. Belsky died in 1551. See Zimin, A. A., “Sostav boiarskoi dumy v XV-XVI vekakh,” Arkheograficheskii eshegodnik za 1957 god, ed. Tikhomirov, M. N. (Moscow, 1958), p. 52.Google Scholar

29. SGGD, vol. 1, no. 153. Ivan Fedorovich Belsky is mentioned among the boyars in 1534 (Zimin, “Sostav boiarskoi dumy,” p. 54). A leading protagonist in the power struggles following the death of Elena Glinskaia, he was killed by the Shuisky faction in 1542. See Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, vol. 13, pt. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1904), p. 141. The principle at work here suggests krugovaia poruka—that form of collective suretyship in which the members of a group are made responsible for the performance of duties by the others. Although the term is not used and no surety bonds for the brothers have survived, the net result was the same. For a discussion of the career of Prince Semen Belsky, the third brother, who went over to Lithuania in 1534, see Backus, Oswald P., “Treason as a Concept and Defections from Moscow to Lithuania in the Sixteenth Century,” Forschungen zur osteuropdischen Geschichte, 15 (1970): 119–44.Google Scholar

30. SGGD, vol. 1, no. 157. According to the army register of 1528, Prince Mikhail Ivanovich (Zaslavsky) Mstislavsky had supplied a large contingent of the Lithuanian cavalry. See Vernadsky, George, Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age (New Haven and London, 1959), pp. 189–90Google Scholar. His son Fedor had entered Muscovite service only in 1526 (Zimin, “Sostav boiarskoi dumy,” p. 55).

31. Syn boiarskii (p1. deti boiarskie) refers to the lesser gentry in the Muscovite state, who provided the majority of the tsar's military servitors in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. See Dictionary of Russian Historical Terms from the Eleventh Century to 1917, comp. Sergei G. Pushkarev, ed. George Vernadsky and Ralph T. Fisher, Jr. (New Haven and London, 1970), p. 11. According to Richard Hellie, “The term literally means “boyar children, ’ which may mean either that initially they were the sons of boyars, or, more likely, simply the retainers of boyars. By the mid-sixteenth century, at the latest, the term had neither of these meanings, rather signifying simply landholding members (pomeshchiki) of the cavalry. In the sixteenth century deti boiarskie were recruited from all social milieus, including cossacks, peasants, and even slaves. This avenue of social mobility was closed at the beginning of the seventeenth century as the rank became hereditary.” Hellie, Richard, ed. and trans., Readings for Introduction to Russian Civilisation (Chicago, 1967), pp. 217–18.Google Scholar

32. SGGD, vol. 1, no. 163.

33. Ibid., nos. 168 and 169.

34. Ibid.

35. Ibid., nos. 103, 145, 146, 149, 152, 154, 157, 159, 162, 165, 168, 172, 177, 182, 189, 196, 201.

36. Punishment could include confiscation of property and death.

37. SGGD, vol. 1, nos. 104, 155, 156, 166, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 184, 185, 186, 190, 191, 194, 195, 197, 198. For an analysis of an early instance of the use of a surety bond to ensure political loyalty (concerning Prince Danilo Kholmsky) see Gustave Alef, “Das Erloschen des Abzugsrechts der Moskauer Bojaren,” Forschungen sur osteuropaischen Geschichte, 10 (1965): 38-41.

38. SGGD, vol. 1, no. 196.

39. In fact, from 1571 until his downfall in 1584 he was the senior member (Pervoso vetnik) of the Boyar Duma. See Vernadsky, George, The Tsardom of Moscow, 2 vols. (New Haven and London, 1969), 1: 155, 174, 184, 188.Google Scholar

40. Zimin, A. A., Oprichnina Ivana Groznogo (Moscow, 1964), pp. 463–64.Google Scholar

41. SGGD, vol. 1, no. 197.

42. Ibid., no. 198. In these subsurety arrangements the names are usually given three times: first, in the list of men acting as sureties; second, in the statement giving the amount each was to pay; and, frequently, a third time “on the back of the document,” in a note stating that the sureties had appeared before the grand prince's officials to secure the release of the principal. Some of the sureties (those who were literate) then signed the document. In the multiple listing process, probably as a result of scribal errors, names may change (e.g., Sulemin/Sulmenov, no. 181; Zlobin/Zabelin, no. 191; Fedor Vnukov syn Volkov became Fedor Volkov syn Vnukov, no. 198) or be omitted entirely in one or two of the listings (e.g., Grigorei Koltovskoy, no. 176; Golianishchov, omitted from the fee list, no. 191). But, what is more important, despite any omissions, changes, or additions in any of the lists of names, the money comes out even. 43. See Veselovsky, Issledovaniia, p. 123.

44. Shakhmatov, M. V., Kompetentsiia ispolnitel'noi vlasti y Moskovskoi Rust, 2 vols. (Prague, 1936–37), 1: 42, 66, and 2: 13, 21, 66.Google Scholar

45. Zimin, Oprichnina, pp. 267-84. The letters have been published in Poslaniia Ivana Groznogo, ed. Likhachev, D. S. and Lur'e, la. S. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1951), pp. 241 Google Scholar

74. It has been suggested that Belsky and Vorotynsky, joined by Vladimir Staritsky, used the occasion to make accusations against Fedorov, attempting to direct any suspicion away from themselves (Zimin, Oprichnina, pp. 273-74). Sadikov believes that Fedorov was the head of the conspiracy against Ivan IV. See Sadikov, P. A., Ocherki po istorii oprichniny (Moscow and Leningrad, 1950), pp. 29–32 Google Scholar. Previous surety bonds securing Vorotynsky's loyalty provide a link joining the four who informed the tsar: both Belsky and Mstislavsky were named as guarantors for him in 1563 (SGGD, vol. 1, no. 173), and Fedorov acted as a surety in 1566 (no. 190). Belsky himself had been placed on surety bond (10, 000 rubles) in 1562, after an attempted flight to Lithuania, with a total of 125 sureties and subsureties (nos. 175, 176); he had also given a loyalty oath (no. 177). Archival listings record two other related documents, an oath given by Belsky himself to his sureties and an oath administered to his servitors (Veselovsky, Issledovaniia, p. 123; also Zimin, Oprichnina, pp. 91-92). The families of these men were also related by ties of marriage. Ivan Dmitrievich Belsky married Maria Vasilievna Shuiskaia. Her mother, the widow of Vasilii Vasilievich Shuisky, was the first wife of Fedor Mikhailovich Mstislavsky, father of Ivan Fedorovich Mstislavsky. Fedor Mikhailovich's second wife was a niece of Prince Mikhail Ivanovich Vorotynsky. Ivan Dmitrievich Belsky was also related to the Cheliadnin family. His father Dmitrii Fedorovich married Marfa, sister of Ivan Ivanovich Cheliadnin. Agrafena, sister of Ivan Fedorovich Ovchina Obolensky, to whom Vasilii III had entrusted the upbringing of his young son Ivan IV, had married a Cheliadnin, and her niece Maria Vasilievna, last representative of the family line, married her distant relative Ivan Petrovich Fedorov. See Veselovsky, Issledovaniia, pp. 128-29.

46. Vernadsky, Tsardom. 1: 114. 47. Roginsky, M. G., “Poslanie Ioganna Taube i Elerta Kruze,” Russkii istoricheskii shurnal, vol. 8 (Petrograd, 1922), p. 35.Google Scholar

48. Akty, sobrannye v bibliotekakh i arkhivakh Rossiiskoi imperii arkheograficheskoiu ekspeditsieiu Imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1836), vol. 2, no. 10; hereafter cited as AAE. The document has numerous references to poison, sorcery, and “gatherings and conspiracies” (skop i sagovor).

49. The okol'nichie held second place in the hierarchy of the Muscovite service aristocracy, ranking immediately below the boyars.

50. The dumnye dvoriane were members of the dvoriane (court servitors) class who had been appointed members of the Boyar Duma, in which they ranked third after the boyars and okol'nichie. For brief definitions of the various ranks in the Muscovite service aristocracy see Hellie, Readings for Introduction to Russian Civilisation, pp. 216-17.

51. SGGD, vol. 2, no. 85.

52. Ibid., no. 91.

53. Ibid., no. 143.

54. Ibid., no. 145. A letter sent by Vasilii to Perm Velikaia, announcing his accession to the throne, had two oaths appended: one his own to the Russian people, and the other the formula circulated by the boyars (AAE, vol. 2, no. 44).

55. SGGD, vol. 2, no. 225 (also published in AAE, vol. 2, no. 170).

56. Zemskii sovet or sovet vseia zemli is the term used in seventeenth-century documents for the land or national assembly. The name Zemsky Sobor “is merely a convenient invention by later historians“; see Keep, J. L. H., “The Decline of the Zemsky Sobor,” Slavonic and East European Review, 36, no. 86 (December 1957): 102.Google Scholar

57. SGGD, vol. 3, no. 5. The oath taken by residents of Beloozero in 1613 included somewhat different arrangements for handing over suspected traitors. If they heard from anyone about an evil deed or intention or correspondence (ssylka) with a foreign realm, they were not to conceal such a person, but to seize him and bring him to the boyars and military governors and officials in the towns, and, in the townships and villages, to the district elders and “best men.” If it was beyond their strength to seize him, they were to inform the same officials against such a person, reporting such evil intentions and correspondence in truth, and they were not to make false accusations against anyone from enmity, nor cover anyone out of friendship. Specific clauses forbade communication with Marina Mniszek and her allies. A very general provision toward the end of the oath covers any “evil acts,” including attempted poisoning, any plots whatsoever, or any dealings with foreign or internal enemies—all such matters were to be reported faithfully to the government officials. See Dopolneniia k aktatn istoricheskim, 12 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1846-75), vol. 2, no. 1.

58. SGGD, vol. 3, no. 123. These provisions were repeated in an oath sworn by soldiers in 1649 (Dopolneniia k aktam istoricheskim, vol. 3, no. 65).

59. Dopolneniia k aktam istoricheskim, vol. 2, no. 44.

60. Stol'niki were members of the fourth court rank—a term corresponding to “pantler” (panetier). Eck, Alexandre, Le moyenge russe (Paris, 1933), p. 582.Google Scholar

61. Striapchie were members of the fifth court rank—a term corresponding to “varlet.” Ibid., p. 582.

62. Akty moskovskago gosudarstva, ed. Popov, N. A., 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1890-1901), vol. 1, no. 198 Google Scholar; hereafter cited as AMG.

63. Ibid., no. 469.

64. Oath of 1632 (ibid., no. 470). They even agreed to petition the sovereign before writing to friends and relatives in foreign lands. It should be pointed out that these people swore upon the Gospel, after the Western manner, rather than kissing the cross.

65. Kuznetsov, I. P., Istoricheskie akty XVII stoletiia, 2 vols. (Tomsk, 1890–97), vol. 1, no. 1 Google Scholar. Altyn and his Horde swore after the Moslem custom, “daiu shert',” rather than the Russian “tseluiu krest.“

66. SGGD, vol. 3, no. 131. In 1651 the princes of the Nogai Horde agreed to report all differences that arose among them to the sovereign and his officials in the kingdom of Astrakhan, and to await the tsar's decree in the matter (ibid., no. 145). They promised to report any betrayal which they knew about to the Astrakhan officials either in writing, by going themselves and conferring with them about the sovereign's matters, or by notifying them through their own trusted men. They agreed to hand over any documents or messengers from the Turks, from Azov, or from any other Tatar group, urging them to break faith with the tsar and undertake something to his detriment. The messengers and documents were to be sent to the tsar's officials in Astrakhan or in the other towns, whichever was closer. We also find the promises to report any conspiracies or other evil intentions which they knew or heard about, to apprehend and turn in the culprits or notify officials about them if unable to catch them, to report any correspondence in matters against the terms of the oath, and to refrain from false accusations against enemies or protection of friends, in an oath to be administered in 1652 to new members of the petty gentry in various towns and newly baptized Tatars. See AMG, vol. 2, no. 497.

67. AMG, vol. 2, nos. 246 and 247.

68. Ibid., no. 248. For an account of the administration of the oath in Odoev, including the one administered to Tatars, see no. 252.

69. Ibid., no. 249. Another of the tsar's agents reported that he was unable to visit the remaining cities on his list to administer the oath, since illness had overtaken him on the road and he was lying near death; the concluding notes record the measures taken for completion of the oath-giving procedure by one of his relatives (ibid., no. 254).

70. During the oath-taking ceremony, the man giving his pledge had to pronounce each word distinctly, not omitting a single one, and then kiss the cross (Veselovsky, Issledovaniio, p. 99).

71. AMG, vol. 2, no. 2S0.

72. Korensky's testimony comprises a long recital of his misfortunes, his being deprived illegally, he claimed, of his property, his wanderings in an attempt to escape those who wanted to murder him, and his struggles to regain his land through petitions to the authorities. The remarks at the end of the record indicate that on July 1, 1621, the sovereign ordered, after discussing the problem with the boyars, that the muzhik be tortured for spying. There is no record of his testimony under torture; it was finally decreed that for his treason he be sent to Siberia. See AMG, vol. 1, no. 137.

73. Ibid., no. 139.

74. Ibid., no. 152.

75. Ibid., vol. 2, no. 560. Another investigation arose from a drunken servant's declaration that his master had said that Tsar Aleksei had become tsar not through their choice. The master was exonerated after questioning. On December 18, 1645, the sovereign decreed that the lying servant be beaten, and that the master, if he had not already done so, be brought to the cross to take the oath of allegiance (ibid., no. 264). As a final illustration, there is the case of the Pskov resident Grishka Triasisolomin, who had been accused of using unseemly words (nepristoinyia rechi) about the wife of Aleksei Mikhailovich, and had confessed under torture. He was to be punished by having his tongue cut out, after which he and his family were to be sent to Novgorod under guard. See AAE, vol. 4, no. 50.

76. For a discussion of the institution of collective responsibility in medieval Russia see Dewey, H. W. and Kleimola, A. M., “Suretyship and Collective Responsibility in pre-Petrine Russia,” Jahrbiicher fitr Geschichte Ostewropas, n.s., 18, no. 3 (September 1970): 337–54.Google Scholar

77. Kotoshikhin, G., O Rossii v tsarstvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha, 4th ed. (St Petersburg, 1906), p. 1906 Google Scholar; Nikonov, S. P., Poruchitel'stvo v ego istoricheskom razvitii po russkomu pravu (St. Petersburg, 1895), pp. 34–39Google Scholar; Shakhmatov, Kompetentsiia, 1: 21, 42-44, 2: 3-4.

78. Sobornoe ulozhenie, chap. 2, art. 18. For texts of the Ulozhenie see Tikhomirov, M. N. and Epifanov, P. P., eds., Sobornoe ulozhenie 1649 goda (Moscow, 1961)Google Scholar, and Pamiatniki russkogo prava, vol. 6: Sobornoe ulozhenie tsaria Alekseia Mikhailovicha 1649 goda, ed. K. A. Sofronenko (Moscow, 1957). Such responsibility was later extended to cover not only crimes against the state but all other varieties as well (Patniatniki russkogo prava, vol. 6, p. 35).

79. Sobomoe ulozhenie, chap. 2, art. 19. These provisions were reflected, for example, in the procedure used when a new recruit entered the ranks of Cossacks serving the Muscovite tsar. In one instance a baptized Kalmyk had petitioned Aleksei Mikhailovich in 166S, asking to enter his service and declaring that other members of his family were already performing military duties in Tomsk. The tsar ordered that he be allowed to join the ranks in Tomsk. He was to take the oath, and at the same time a surety bond was to be written for him, guaranteeing faithful service and no dealings with traitors. The guarantors, his uncles and brothers serving in Tomsk, were to be ordered to watch him carefully, so that he would not betray the ruler or depart without their knowledge. If his guarantors heard of any disloyal acts, they were to inform against him. For such service they would receive rewards, and the traitor would be executed. If, on the other hand, they possessed such information and did not report it and he betrayed his oath and left without knowledge, and it was revealed that they had known and not told, then their reward would be death. See Kuznetsov, Istoricheskie akty, vol. 1, no. 9.