“完全服从的义务”:沙皇俄国的主体性法律

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
Sean Pollock
{"title":"“完全服从的义务”:沙皇俄国的主体性法律","authors":"Sean Pollock","doi":"10.1353/kri.2023.a910978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"The Duty of Perfect Obedience\"The Laws of Subjecthood in Tsarist Russia Sean Pollock (bio) Sometime between 1666 and 1667, Grigorii Kotoshikhin, a former long-serving undersecretary (pod´iachii) in Muscovy's Ambassadorial Chancellery, Swedish spy and defector, composed what the historian Marshall Poe has characterized as \"a tell-all description of Russian politics.\"1 The Swedes, having accepted Kotoshikhin into state service and granted him a salary in 1666, commissioned him to write a book focused on Muscovite statecraft, \"to describe,\" in Kotoshikhin's words, \"the whole Muscovite state.\"2 To explain how the Muscovite state worked, Kotoshikhin organized the book around questions and answers, many of which throw light on a neglected dimension of Russian state formation—namely, the political subjectification of the country's population, or what Russian law beginning in the second half of the 17th century referred to as poddanstvo. Question: Why does the Muscovite tsar write to Christian states using his full long title, [including] after \"ruler [of all the northern lands]\": \"sovereign of the Iberian lands of the Kartlian and Georgian tsars, and [End Page 753] of the Kabardinian lands of the Circassian and Mountain princes, and heir through his fathers and forefathers, and sovereign and possessor, of many eastern and western and northern realms and lands\"; whereas to the Mohammedan states he does not write these titles? What is the reason for this? Answer: The Iberian, Kartlian, and Georgian states are under the authority of the Persian shah and [owe him] the greatest obedience; and the tsar writes to other [Christian] states [using these titles] in order to glorify himself, without good reason; and in those [Caucasian] states it is the custom, when writing to the tsar, to humble oneself and to exalt him, and to call oneself his slave, just as in other states it is the custom, when one lord writes to another, to refer to oneself as his obedient servant. But [the Muscovites] interpret their humble language as if it were really true that they are [permanent] subjects (vechnye poddannye); but this is not true…. As for the Circassian and Mountain princes of the Kabardinian land, they are indeed his subjects (pod ego poddanstvom), but it is awkward for [the tsar] to use these titles in writing to the Shah of Persia without the others. And if he used all those titles with which he writes to the Christian states, all the Mohammedan states would make war on him on this account. And if the Shah of Persia learned truly about the sovereigns from those realms who address [the tsar] as his slaves, he would order them and their realms to be devastated and utterly ruined. And for this reason those titles are not used in writing to Mohammedan sovereigns.3 Clearly, much was at stake in claiming Caucasian peoples as Muscovite subjects: the power and prestige of Muscovy's ruler; the quality of relations with its Christian and Muslim rivals; and the political status of its diverse peoples—indeed, their very lives and livelihoods.4 As a former Russian diplomat, Kotoshikhin was ideally positioned to understand the ins and outs of Russian subjecthood, a central though underexamined institution of tsarist governance.5 Since Kotoshikhin's time, the institution of Russian subjecthood has remained central to state-sponsored accounts of Russian state formation. Some three centuries later, for example, Soviet historians set out to [End Page 754] provide the country with a \"new imperial history\" avant la lettre, using Kotoshikhin's account and other evidence from the tsarist period to justify historically the incorporation of diverse peoples on territory claimed by the Russian (and by extension the Soviet) state.6 More recently, having outlived the state in which it was forged, the Soviet myth of the voluntary incorporation of non-Russian peoples into the Russian Empire has been pressed into service by the Russian ruling elite. In 2006, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin issued edicts marking the 450th anniversary of the \"voluntary incorporation\" into Russia of present-day Adygeia, Karachaevo-Cherkessiia, and Kabardino-Balkariia. In 2007, Putin traveled to Bashkortostan to celebrate the 450th anniversary of its incorporation, and while in the republic's capital, Ufa, laid flowers at...","PeriodicalId":45639,"journal":{"name":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"The Duty of Perfect Obedience\\\": The Laws of Subjecthood in Tsarist Russia\",\"authors\":\"Sean Pollock\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/kri.2023.a910978\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\\"The Duty of Perfect Obedience\\\"The Laws of Subjecthood in Tsarist Russia Sean Pollock (bio) Sometime between 1666 and 1667, Grigorii Kotoshikhin, a former long-serving undersecretary (pod´iachii) in Muscovy's Ambassadorial Chancellery, Swedish spy and defector, composed what the historian Marshall Poe has characterized as \\\"a tell-all description of Russian politics.\\\"1 The Swedes, having accepted Kotoshikhin into state service and granted him a salary in 1666, commissioned him to write a book focused on Muscovite statecraft, \\\"to describe,\\\" in Kotoshikhin's words, \\\"the whole Muscovite state.\\\"2 To explain how the Muscovite state worked, Kotoshikhin organized the book around questions and answers, many of which throw light on a neglected dimension of Russian state formation—namely, the political subjectification of the country's population, or what Russian law beginning in the second half of the 17th century referred to as poddanstvo. Question: Why does the Muscovite tsar write to Christian states using his full long title, [including] after \\\"ruler [of all the northern lands]\\\": \\\"sovereign of the Iberian lands of the Kartlian and Georgian tsars, and [End Page 753] of the Kabardinian lands of the Circassian and Mountain princes, and heir through his fathers and forefathers, and sovereign and possessor, of many eastern and western and northern realms and lands\\\"; whereas to the Mohammedan states he does not write these titles? What is the reason for this? Answer: The Iberian, Kartlian, and Georgian states are under the authority of the Persian shah and [owe him] the greatest obedience; and the tsar writes to other [Christian] states [using these titles] in order to glorify himself, without good reason; and in those [Caucasian] states it is the custom, when writing to the tsar, to humble oneself and to exalt him, and to call oneself his slave, just as in other states it is the custom, when one lord writes to another, to refer to oneself as his obedient servant. But [the Muscovites] interpret their humble language as if it were really true that they are [permanent] subjects (vechnye poddannye); but this is not true…. As for the Circassian and Mountain princes of the Kabardinian land, they are indeed his subjects (pod ego poddanstvom), but it is awkward for [the tsar] to use these titles in writing to the Shah of Persia without the others. And if he used all those titles with which he writes to the Christian states, all the Mohammedan states would make war on him on this account. And if the Shah of Persia learned truly about the sovereigns from those realms who address [the tsar] as his slaves, he would order them and their realms to be devastated and utterly ruined. And for this reason those titles are not used in writing to Mohammedan sovereigns.3 Clearly, much was at stake in claiming Caucasian peoples as Muscovite subjects: the power and prestige of Muscovy's ruler; the quality of relations with its Christian and Muslim rivals; and the political status of its diverse peoples—indeed, their very lives and livelihoods.4 As a former Russian diplomat, Kotoshikhin was ideally positioned to understand the ins and outs of Russian subjecthood, a central though underexamined institution of tsarist governance.5 Since Kotoshikhin's time, the institution of Russian subjecthood has remained central to state-sponsored accounts of Russian state formation. Some three centuries later, for example, Soviet historians set out to [End Page 754] provide the country with a \\\"new imperial history\\\" avant la lettre, using Kotoshikhin's account and other evidence from the tsarist period to justify historically the incorporation of diverse peoples on territory claimed by the Russian (and by extension the Soviet) state.6 More recently, having outlived the state in which it was forged, the Soviet myth of the voluntary incorporation of non-Russian peoples into the Russian Empire has been pressed into service by the Russian ruling elite. In 2006, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin issued edicts marking the 450th anniversary of the \\\"voluntary incorporation\\\" into Russia of present-day Adygeia, Karachaevo-Cherkessiia, and Kabardino-Balkariia. In 2007, Putin traveled to Bashkortostan to celebrate the 450th anniversary of its incorporation, and while in the republic's capital, Ufa, laid flowers at...\",\"PeriodicalId\":45639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.a910978\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KRITIKA-EXPLORATIONS IN RUSSIAN AND EURASIAN HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2023.a910978","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在1666年到1667年之间的某个时候,曾长期担任莫斯科大使总督府副部长(pod´iachii)的瑞典间谍和叛逃者格里高利·柯敏欣(Grigorii Kotoshikhin)撰写了历史学家马歇尔·坡(Marshall Poe)所说的“对俄罗斯政治的全面描述”。1666年,瑞典人接受科敏利欣为国家服务,并给他发了薪水,委托他写一本关于莫斯科政治的书,用科敏利欣的话来说,“来描述整个莫斯科国家”。为了解释莫斯科国家是如何运作的,Kotoshikhin围绕问题和答案组织了这本书,其中许多问题揭示了俄罗斯国家形成的一个被忽视的方面,即国家人口的政治主体化,或者始于17世纪下半叶的俄罗斯法律所称的poddanstvo。问题:为什么莫斯科沙皇在给基督教国家写信时使用他的全称,(包括)在“(所有北方土地)的统治者”之后:“卡特利亚和格鲁吉亚沙皇的伊比利亚土地的君主,切尔克斯和山地王子的卡巴尔底土地的君主,通过他的父辈和祖先继承的君主,以及许多东部、西部和北部地区和土地的君主和所有者”;而对于伊斯兰国家,他并没有写这些标题?这是什么原因呢?回答:伊比利亚、卡特利亚和格鲁吉亚都在波斯国王的权威之下,(欠他)最大的服从;沙皇写信给其他[基督教]国家[使用这些头衔]为了荣耀自己,没有充分的理由;在那些(高加索)国家里,给沙皇写信时,习惯上要卑躬屈膝,尊称自己为他的奴隶,就像在其他国家里,一个领主给另一个领主写信时,习惯上要称自己为他顺从的仆人一样。但是(莫斯科人)把他们谦卑的语言解释为他们是(永久的)臣民(vechnye poddannye);但这不是真的....至于卡巴尔地的切尔克斯和山地王子,他们确实是他的臣民(pod ego poddanstvom),但(沙皇)在给波斯国王写信时使用这些头衔而不使用其他头衔是很尴尬的。如果他在给基督教国家写信时使用了这些头衔,那么所有的伊斯兰教国家都会因此对他发动战争。如果波斯国王从那些把沙皇当作奴隶的国家中真正了解到君主,他会下令摧毁他们和他们的王国,彻底毁灭。由于这个原因,这些头衔在写给伊斯兰君主的信中并不使用显然,宣称高加索人是莫斯科的臣民是很危险的:莫斯科统治者的权力和声望;与基督教和穆斯林对手的关系质量;以及不同民族的政治地位——事实上,他们的生活和生计作为一名前俄罗斯外交官,Kotoshikhin处于了解俄罗斯主体性来龙去脉的理想位置,主体性是沙皇统治的一个核心但未被充分研究的制度自Kotoshikhin时代以来,俄罗斯的主体制度一直是国家支持的俄罗斯国家形成的核心。例如,大约三个世纪后,苏联历史学家开始为这个国家提供一份“新帝国史”的先驱者信,使用Kotoshikhin的叙述和其他来自沙皇时期的证据,从历史上证明不同民族在俄罗斯(以及扩展到苏联)国家声称的领土上的合并最近,苏联神话中非俄罗斯民族自愿并入俄罗斯帝国的说法,已经超越了它赖以形成的国家的存在,被俄罗斯的统治精英们利用起来。2006年,俄罗斯联邦总统弗拉基米尔·普京发布法令,纪念今天的Adygeia、Karachaevo-Cherkessiia和Kabardino-Balkariia“自愿并入”俄罗斯450周年。2007年,普京前往巴什科尔托斯坦庆祝其成立450周年,并在共和国首都乌法献花…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"The Duty of Perfect Obedience": The Laws of Subjecthood in Tsarist Russia
"The Duty of Perfect Obedience"The Laws of Subjecthood in Tsarist Russia Sean Pollock (bio) Sometime between 1666 and 1667, Grigorii Kotoshikhin, a former long-serving undersecretary (pod´iachii) in Muscovy's Ambassadorial Chancellery, Swedish spy and defector, composed what the historian Marshall Poe has characterized as "a tell-all description of Russian politics."1 The Swedes, having accepted Kotoshikhin into state service and granted him a salary in 1666, commissioned him to write a book focused on Muscovite statecraft, "to describe," in Kotoshikhin's words, "the whole Muscovite state."2 To explain how the Muscovite state worked, Kotoshikhin organized the book around questions and answers, many of which throw light on a neglected dimension of Russian state formation—namely, the political subjectification of the country's population, or what Russian law beginning in the second half of the 17th century referred to as poddanstvo. Question: Why does the Muscovite tsar write to Christian states using his full long title, [including] after "ruler [of all the northern lands]": "sovereign of the Iberian lands of the Kartlian and Georgian tsars, and [End Page 753] of the Kabardinian lands of the Circassian and Mountain princes, and heir through his fathers and forefathers, and sovereign and possessor, of many eastern and western and northern realms and lands"; whereas to the Mohammedan states he does not write these titles? What is the reason for this? Answer: The Iberian, Kartlian, and Georgian states are under the authority of the Persian shah and [owe him] the greatest obedience; and the tsar writes to other [Christian] states [using these titles] in order to glorify himself, without good reason; and in those [Caucasian] states it is the custom, when writing to the tsar, to humble oneself and to exalt him, and to call oneself his slave, just as in other states it is the custom, when one lord writes to another, to refer to oneself as his obedient servant. But [the Muscovites] interpret their humble language as if it were really true that they are [permanent] subjects (vechnye poddannye); but this is not true…. As for the Circassian and Mountain princes of the Kabardinian land, they are indeed his subjects (pod ego poddanstvom), but it is awkward for [the tsar] to use these titles in writing to the Shah of Persia without the others. And if he used all those titles with which he writes to the Christian states, all the Mohammedan states would make war on him on this account. And if the Shah of Persia learned truly about the sovereigns from those realms who address [the tsar] as his slaves, he would order them and their realms to be devastated and utterly ruined. And for this reason those titles are not used in writing to Mohammedan sovereigns.3 Clearly, much was at stake in claiming Caucasian peoples as Muscovite subjects: the power and prestige of Muscovy's ruler; the quality of relations with its Christian and Muslim rivals; and the political status of its diverse peoples—indeed, their very lives and livelihoods.4 As a former Russian diplomat, Kotoshikhin was ideally positioned to understand the ins and outs of Russian subjecthood, a central though underexamined institution of tsarist governance.5 Since Kotoshikhin's time, the institution of Russian subjecthood has remained central to state-sponsored accounts of Russian state formation. Some three centuries later, for example, Soviet historians set out to [End Page 754] provide the country with a "new imperial history" avant la lettre, using Kotoshikhin's account and other evidence from the tsarist period to justify historically the incorporation of diverse peoples on territory claimed by the Russian (and by extension the Soviet) state.6 More recently, having outlived the state in which it was forged, the Soviet myth of the voluntary incorporation of non-Russian peoples into the Russian Empire has been pressed into service by the Russian ruling elite. In 2006, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin issued edicts marking the 450th anniversary of the "voluntary incorporation" into Russia of present-day Adygeia, Karachaevo-Cherkessiia, and Kabardino-Balkariia. In 2007, Putin traveled to Bashkortostan to celebrate the 450th anniversary of its incorporation, and while in the republic's capital, Ufa, laid flowers at...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: A leading journal of Russian and Eurasian history and culture, Kritika is dedicated to internationalizing the field and making it relevant to a broad interdisciplinary audience. The journal regularly publishes forums, discussions, and special issues; it regularly translates important works by Russian and European scholars into English; and it publishes in every issue in-depth, lengthy review articles, review essays, and reviews of Russian, Eurasian, and European works that are rarely, if ever, reviewed in North American Russian studies journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信