The Origins of Autocracy

Bakhrushin revised this list in 1954, identifying the "Chosen Rada" with the "Close Duma" of the tsar ("Izbrannaia Rada Ivana Groznogo"). I. I. Smirnov threw doubt on the existence of the "Chosen Rada" as an institution and identified this term with the "political friends" of Kurbskii—that is, with those whom he considered the boyar party (Ocherhi politicheskoi istorii russkogo gosudarstva 30—50kh gg. XVI veka).

Finally, in 1969, the American historian A. Grobovsky, in a brilliant and detailed critical analysis, showed the unfounded nature of all these hypotheses (The "Chosen Council" of Ivan IV: A Reinterpretation).

Most Soviet historians continue to employ this debatable term. Nev­ertheless, the following facts seem indisputable: (1) throughout the 1550s, the country was ruled by a government at the head of which stood Adashev and Sil'vestr; (2) Kurbskii was in sympathy with this government and reflected its viewpoint; (3) in addi­tion to Kurbskii's testimony, the existence of this government is confirmed by its acts, which are considered in this chapter. Following S. V. Bakhrushin and S. O. Shmidt, I use the term "Government of Compromise." make a fortune—not so much from "maintenance," which was lim­ited from above, as from malfeasance in judicial and administrative functions. Civil cases in the uezd

were usually won by those who could offer the largest bribe. The most unscrupulous of the vicegerents be­haved even worse—for example, throwing a corpse into the court­yard of a rich peasant and then later ruining him with court costs. A few fabricated cases yielded them more income than their official maintenance allowance. The victims of such extortion, of course, were those who had something which could be taken away, the "best people" of the Russian countryside, its maturing proto-bourgeoisie, particularly since the legal competence of these vicegerents included surveillance of local trade and tariff rules. Naturally, the peasants did not keep silent. Hardly had the vicegerents "left with the mainte­nance" (that is, returned to home base with what they had collected) than they were followed to Moscow by swarms of complainants. The Moscow courts were crammed with suits against the collectors. Since the time of Ivan III, the government had tried to ensure redress by requiring the participation in court proceedings of elected "jurors," but this was apparently not much help. In any case, as the chronicle tells us: "Many cities and volosts

were laid waste by the vicegerents . . . who had for many years despised the fear of God and the enactments of the sovereign and performed many evil deeds there; they were not pastors and teachers . . . but persecutors and sowers of ruin."⁷