The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

The Russian-Ukrainian relations in the financial sphere in the period of Ivan Samoylovich's getmanstvo (1672-1687)



seriya History. Political science. Economy. Computer science. 2010. No. 13 (84). Release 15

UDC 941471.047

The RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN RELATIONS IN the FINANCIAL SPHERE DURING GETMANSTVA IVAN SAMOYLOVICH (1672-1687) PERIOD

Moscow pedagogical state university

Ampere-second. DIAMONDS

e-mail: almazov_bld@mail.ru

In article the Russian-Ukrainian relations in the financial sphere in the period of Ivan Samoylovich's getmanstvo are considered (1672-1687). The author comes to a conclusion that during the specified period the adjustment of an effective tax system of the Zaporizhia army began. Besides, as maintaining in Left-bank Ukraine Czechs who were minted in Russia is noted in article, prepared inclusion of this territory in a zone of circulation of ruble. This subject is relevant in respect of the modern relations with Ukraine as the relations in the financial sphere in the period of Ivan Samoylovich's getmanstvo represent an example of competent national policy of Moscow and the weighed hetman's position in the relations with the Russian tsars.

The subject of the Russian-Ukrainian relations in the financial sphere includes questions of the budget of Left-bank Ukraine and taxes, income from which came both to royal treasury, and to army belongings, about other sources of replenishment of the budget of the Zaporizhia army and also about stamping of a coin. This subject belongs to problems of the Russian-Ukrainian relations and also a role of the personality in the history. It was not a subject of special consideration, however certain authors concerned its some aspects at a research of questions of economic life of Ukraine in the second half of the 17th century 1 Nevertheless, almost the role of the hetman stated above in the financial relations between Russia and Left-bank Ukraine during the specified period is not studied today.

After making decision on reunion of Ukraine with Russia on Territorial cathedral of 1653 and Pereyaslavsky Rada of 1654 there was a question of need of payment by Ukrainians of taxes in royal treasury. However the Ukrainian side resisted attempts of Moscow to solve this problem. So, in 1666-1667 in Left-bank Ukraine the census of the podatny population which only peasants and petty bourgeoises as Cossacks were not obliged to pay taxes as bore military service treated was conducted. The census led to a revolt under the leadership of the hetman I.M. Bryukhovetsky in 1668

During the considered period the Russian-Ukrainian relations were governed by Glukhovsky contractual Articles (1669) along with added them is later Konotop (1672) and Pereyaslavsky (1674) articles. They were approved on general childbirth, and then the tsar favored them the Zaporizhia army. Glukhovsky articles provided payment by petty bourgeoises and peasants of a tax on a salary to Cossacks of Left-bank Ukraine. The number of the last was limited to the register in 30 tysyach2. However this paragraph of contractual articles during the specified period was not executed, and nasele1 See, for example: Borisenko V.Y. Sots_alno-ekonom_chny L_voberezhno's rozvitok ї Ukra§ni in drug_y polovin_ the XVII station Ki§v, 1986; Dyadichenko V.A. Narisi susp_lno-pol_tichny I will suit L_voberezhno ї to Ukra§ni k_ntsya with XVII - to an ear of the XVIII station Ki§v, 1959; Ogloblin O. Getman Mazepa that yogi Dob. New York; Ki§v; Lv_v; Paris; Toronto, 2001; M.E. Slabchenko. The organization of economy of Ukraine from Hmelnishchina before world war. T. III, IV. Odessa, 1923-1925.

2 Bantysh-Kamensky D.N. Sources of Little Russian history. Part 1. M, 1858. Page 218-219.

ny Left-bank Ukraine did not pay any taxes and taxes in royal kaznu3. On the other hand, Moscow was forced to spend the considerable sums of money for keeping of military of garrisons in five cities of Left-bank Ukraine (Kiev, Chernihiv, Nezhin, Pereyaslav, Oster) 4. It was in many respects connected with the fact that the population of Left-bank Ukraine, agrees to the Russian-Ukrainian articles, not obliged to bear duties according to food contents Russian garnizonov5.

Further it should be taken into account sources of replenishment of the budget of Left-bank Ukraine. In the first years of a getmanstvo of Ivan Samoylovich, annual collecting from separate categories of the population, such as millers or holders vinokuren6 was the main revenue as the hetman wrote the Kiev colonel sent in August, 1676 to Moscow to the instruction K. Solonin. Besides, the Zaporizhia army gained income from duties which merchants paid at fairs. In 1678 Moscow permitted to I. Samoylovich to take from the Russian merchants the same duties, as well as with uk-rainskikh7. One more source of income of belongings of the Zaporizhia army - the seized property of convicts. So, the means received from seizure of property of the being nonfeminine archpriest Simeon Adamovich and the Starodub colonel Pyotr Roslavts and their relatives accused of a coup attempt in Left-bank Ukraine in 1676 rodstvennikov8 went for the maintenance of hired regiments. Confiscation of property after 1681 relied also for attempt of resettlement from Left-bank Ukraine on the right bank Dnepra9.

However almost total absence of direct taxes generated an acute shortage of means in belongings of the Zaporizhia army. So, in 1677 Ivan Samoylovich asked the Russian tsar to send to Baturin money as in army belongings there were no funds for the maintenance of hired regiments, the help to Right-bank Ukraine, an award for capture of languages, the maintenance of the "-place tovaristvo" which arrived to it on a congress, regimentals and a grain salary for Zaporozhya10.

Thus, there was no opportunity to improve a situation with budget revenues of Left-bank Ukraine without adjustment of an effective tax system. The hetman Ivan Samoylovich chose a way of introduction of payoffs ("аренд" or "оренд"). In January, 1678 the hetman versatile person entered wine, "tyutyunny" (tobacco) and degtevy monopolies. From now on without the permission of the authorities of Left-bank Ukraine it was forbidden to make and sell these tovary11. In a leaf to the Russian tsars from 1 on July (10), 1684 the hetman I.S. Samoylovich justified introduction "аренд" with a lack of funds for keeping of hired army ("okhotnitsky" regiments). The last was required in the conditions of the Russo-Turkish war of 1677-1681 Besides, the head of the Zaporizhia army noted that when at the foreman's congress in Baturin the question of payoffs was considered, many stood up for direct taxation. However the otkupny system, according to Ivan Samoylovich, was less burdensome for Cossacks, peasants and petty bourgeoises as the main weight of payments laid down on owners of shinok and vinoku3 V.A. Artamonov. Invasion of the Swedish army to Hetmanate in 1708 and Mazepa//V.A. Artamonov, Firemen K.A., I.V. Kurukin. Invasion of the Swedish army to Hetmanate in 1708 and Mazepa. Images and tragedy by the hetman Mazepa. SPb., 2008. Page 10.

4 Bantysh-Kamensky D.N. Decree. soch. Page 217-218.
5 In the same place. Page 218.
6 The Russian state archive of ancient acts (further - RGADA). T. 229. Little Russian order. Op. 1. Unit hr. 107. L. 161-164.
7 M.E. Slabchenko. Decree. soch. T. III. Odessa, 1923. Page 8.
8 The acts relating to the history of the Southern and Western Russia, collected and issued by Arkheograficheskoyu komissiyeyu (further - AYuZR). T. XIII. SPb., 1884. No. 28. Stb. 118-125.
9 Wolf Karachevsky V.V. Fight of Poland against the Cossacks in the second half of XVII and the beginning of HUS of a century. Kiev, 1899. Page 244.
10 M.E. Slabchenko. Decree. soch. T. IV. Odessa, 1925. Page 238.
11 AYuZR. T. XIII. SPb., 1884. No. 107. Stb. 467.

Series History. Political science. Economy. Computer science. 2010. No. 13 (84). Release 15

Wren, tobacco manufactories and other predprinimateley12.

At the same time opponents of introduction of an otkupny system fairly pointed that they of "rent" were forbidden by conditions yu-go the paragraph of the Konotop Russian-Ukrainian Articles (1672) 13. In the leaf which was already mentioned above to the Russian sovereigns Ivan Samoylovich answered it that introduction "аренд" was earlier confirmed with the royal decree. Existence of payoffs in the period of Bogdan Khmelnytsky's getmanstvo (1648-1657) though the last did not need to contain hired voysko14 was one more argument of the hetman. It is also worth adding that "rent" applied, except already mentioned B. Khmelnytsky, hetmen I.M. Bryukhovetsky (1663-1668) and P.D. Doroshenko (1665-1676) 15. Were not a payoff and especially Ukrainian phenomenon: they affected some goods in other Russia and also in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where they were called "monopolies". So, for example, the diet of Grand Duchy of Lithuania established 1678 in Paragraph No. 13 of the constitution tobacco "monopoly" 16.

The essence of the arend system was that, as a rule, rich tenants paid in hetman belongings for all year ahead some sum of money, as a rule, in day of a holiday of Easter at once. For it owners of a payoff, and it could be not only rich merchants, but also less wealthy petty bourgeoises who developed money, acquired practically monopoly of trade in gorilka. Other population was allowed to sell no more than 100 quarts of gorilka a year. Were similarly organized "rent" on tobacco and dyogot17. The hetman versatile person from 1 on March (11), 1686 the population of Left-bank Ukraine was allowed to cook 1 quart of gorilka and beer. On holidays there were no restrictions on production of alcoholic beverages in house conditions. Especially the ban on sale of gorilka by Cossacks who on the class status did not pay any taxes made a reservation. The same versatile person it was forbidden to sell gorilka, tar and tobacco without the knowledge of special representatives lyudey18. It is about so-called "dozorets" who got out to a certain term from the most dear army companions for supervision of compliance with the law on questions otkupov19.

Usually on a payoff gave the most profitable goods. So, gorilka, tar and tobacco were the most important export goods of Left-bank Ukraine. Thus, the arend system brought to army belongings high income. The last statement can be illustrated with an example from already mentioned station wagon hetman I.S. Samoylovich from 1 on March (11), 1686 in which the payoff on gorilka in only one Lubensky regiment was defined in 17 thousand zloties (more than 3 thousand Russian rubles of that time) 20 whereas a year before it was defined in 7010 zlotykh21. Such significant growth was connected with the fact that in 1686 the "Everlasting peace" with Poland providing the entry of Russia into the military alliance against the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean khanate that in 1687 led to the 1st Crimean campaign was made. On conducting military operations considerable means especially as the hetman went hiking with army which was as much as possible on number for Left-bank Ukraine in the second half of the 17th century - 50 thousand a forehead -

12 Additions to acts historical, collected and published by the Arkheografichesky commission were required (further - DAI). T. XI. SPb., 1869. No. 54 (II). Page 167.
13 Bantysh-Kamensky D.N. Decree. soch. Page 246-247.
14 DAI. T. XI. SPb., 1869. No. 54 (II). Page 168.
15 M.E. Slabchenko. Decree. soch. T. IV. Odessa, 1925. Page 207.
16 Volumina legum. Przedruk zbioru praw staraniem XX. Pijarow w Warszawie, od roku 1732 do 1782, wydanego. T. V. Petersburg, 1860. S. 209.
17 N.I. Ruin//Ruin's Kostomarov. Mazepa. Mazepintsa. Historical monographs and researches. M, 1995. Page 399.
18 The acts relating to the history of the Western Russia, collected and issued by Arkheograficheskoyu komissiyeyu (further - AZR). T. V. SPb, 1853. No. 158. Page 189-190.
19 M.E. Slabchenko. Decree. soch. T. IV. Odessa, 1925. Page 207.
20 AZR. T. V. SPb, 1853. No. 158. Page 189-190.
21 N.I. Kostomarov. Decree. soch. Page 399.

vek22. Income from the system of payoffs depended on size and population of a regiment. For example, in the Priluksky regiment "rent" on gorilka annually brought 900 rubley23. _ On average on regiments it yielded revenue in 10 thousand zlotykh24.

It is also worth noting that for prevention of giving of income from the arend system by representatives Ukrainian foremen Moscow controlled receiving and expenditure of these means. So, the document under the name "Scores to Arrival and an Expense of the Different Sums, Sent by the Hetman Ivan Samoylovich" of September 28 (on October 8), 1678 was the report which the hetman sent to Little Russian prikaz25.

The system of payoffs caused discontent of the population of Left-bank Ukraine, especially "rent" on gorilka. It is connected with the fact that trade in gorilka before introduction of payoffs was a possibility of receiving good income for many peasants, petty bourgeoises and Cossacks. Besides, as the author of "Chronicle Samovidtsa" noted, residents of Left-bank Ukraine by the time of system recovery "аренд" in 1678 were already in time from them otvyknut26. Besides, Glukhovsky contractual articles forbade the Ukrainian merchants to trade freely in Russia outside Left-bank Ukraine in gorilka and tabakom27. Merchants did not reconcile to loss of income and were engaged in smuggling specified tovarov28. On the other hand, Moscow bought gorilka at Ukrainians wholesale, and the amount of "wine" which will be bought, was reported through royal ukazy29 in advance. In 1684 I. Samoylovich, contrary to the described order, allowed merchants to bring from the Starodub regiment gorilka on the kruzhechny yard in Moscow, and only then he asked the royal decree on given voprosu30. Nevertheless, such situation could satisfy only large merchants 31 and owners of distilling productions among which was itself getman32.

After I. Samoylovich's discharge from a getmanstvo in July, 1687 in the territory of the Zaporizhia army revolts and disorders under the slogan of cancellation of a system otkupov33 took place. It was as a result decided to cancel "rent". However in 1689 the new hetman I.S. Mazepa asked for permission to return to the system of payoffs from Moscow, reasoning expediency of such step, in particular, with the fact that this form of taxation showed the efficiency in the period of a getmanstvo And. Samoylovicha34.

Now it is necessary to tell several words about stamping of a coin for Left-bank Ukraine. After reunion of Ukraine with Russia the Zaporizhia army continued to use the Polish coin. It was in many respects connected with features of the Russian monetary system: coins of 1 kopek which not always were udobny35 were generally used. Hetman of Right-bank Ukraine

22 S.M. Istoriya's nightingales of Russia since the most ancient times//Compositions. Prince 7. T. XIII. M, 1991. Page 373.
23 M.E. Slabchenko. Decree. soch. T. IV. Odessa, 1925. Page 208.
24 V.A. Dyadichenko. Decree. soch. Page 85.
25 RGADA. T. 124. Little Russian affairs. Op. 3. Unit hr. 349. L. 1-15.
26 L_topis Samovidtsya. Ki§v, 1971. Page 128.
27 Bantysh-Kamensky D.N. Decree. soch. Page 226-227.
28 RGADA. T. 124. Little Russian affairs. Op. 3. Unit hr. 273. L. 1-2.
29 RGADA. T. 229. Little Russian order. Op. 1. Unit hr. 176. L. 1.
30 In the same place. L. 2.
31 RGADA. T. 229. Little Russian order. Op. 1. Unit hr. 92. L. 150-151.
32 RGADA. T. 229. Little Russian order. Op. 1. Unit hr. 119. L. 480-496, 526-529. See also: I.I. Borisenko. Decree. soch. Page 156.
33 O. Ogloblin. Decree. soch. Page 138.
34 T.G. Tairova-Yakovlev. To a question of domestic policy of Ivan Mazepa//Getman _van Mazepa: to postat, otochennya, an era. 3b_rnik naukovy prats. Ki§v, 2008. Page 76.
35 Kotlyar M.F. Groshovy ob_g to L_voberezhn_y Ukra§n_ in drug_y polovin_ persh_y polovin_ the article / / Ukra§nsky the _storichny magazine. 1971. No. 4. Page 59.

History series. Political science. Economy. Computer science. 2010. No. 13 (84). The release 15

began to print

of P.D. Doroshenko (1665-1676) who was an opponent of Russia own thalers, Czechs and Leahy. During the considered period residents of Left-bank Ukraine began to use these coins. With it the hetman I. Samoylovich who from 14 to the tsar Alexey Mikhaylovich expressed on January (24), 1674 concern in the sheet on it povodu36 could not be reconciled.

1 on July (11), 1675 the hetman I.S. Samoylovich sent articles, one of which was devoted to stamping of money for Left-bank Ukraine, to Moscow. For release of coins mints in Putivla and Sevske37 were organized. However the task was also in making new means of payment worthy trust of the population. Ivan Samoylovich suggested to release Czechs and Leahy for circulation not only in Left-bank Ukraine, but in all Rossii38. The offer of the hetman was rejected, and new coins were in use only in Left-bank Ukraine. Nevertheless, concerning release of Poles and Czechs Moscow consulted also further on the hetman. So, in the same 1675 Ivan Samoylovich went to the Belgorod voivode G.G. Romodanovsky for discussion of a question of whether has to be on a brand of coins Russian gerb39. The meeting about stamping of coins in Putivla between the hetman and the same boyar took place in December, 1677 g40.

In 1686 the question of stamping of Czechs for Left-bank Ukraine, at last, was solved: the release of coins in 1.5 Polish pennies (Czechs) in Sevsk began. Externally they corresponded to the Polish samples, however the Polish coat of arms was replaced rossiyskim41. At the same time the Czechs printed in Sevsk began to melt not from pure silver which shortage was sharply felt in Russia in the 17th century, and from alloy of silver and copper, and in coins 3 quarters sostava42 were last. Naturally, the population of Left-bank Ukraine had no trust to sevsky Czechs that was especially sharply shown during the 1st Crimean campaign (1687) when cases of refusal of reception of the specified coins appeared. For such refusal relied mortal kazn43. Nevertheless, according to numismatics, in September, 1687 the sevsky Czechs ceased chekanit44.

Summing up the result of all aforesaid, it should be noted that in the period of Ivan Samoylovich's getmanstvo the adjustment of an effective tax system of the Zaporizhia army began. Introduction in Left-bank Ukraine of Czechs who were minted in Russia prepared inclusion of this territory in a zone of circulation of ruble. Thus, Ivan Samoylovich's activity promoted strengthening of ties between the Ukrainian and Russian people within the uniform state and also to formation of the Ukrainian statehood as a part of Russia. This subject is relevant in respect of the modern relations with Ukraine as the relations in the financial sphere in the period of Ivan Samoylovich's getmanstvo represent an example of competent national policy of Moscow and the weighed hetman's position in the relations with the Russian tsars. As the proof of the specified thesis serves that Left-bank Ukraine had the considered time without shocks and also it was succeeded to avoid the serious Russian-Ukrainian conflicts in the sphere of finance.

36 RGADA. T. 229. Little Russian order. Op. 1. Unit hr. 95. L. 71-73.
37 M.E. Slabchenko. Decree. soch. T. III. Odessa, 1923. Page 9.
38 AYuZR. T. XII. SPb., 1882. No. 50. Stb. 156.
39 In the same place. No. 66. Stb. 192-195.
40 In the same place. T. XIII. SPb., 1884. No. 98. Stb. 422-423.
41 V.A. Shugayevsky. A coin and the monetary account in Left-bank Ukraine in the 17th century. Chern_g_v, 1918. Page 10.
42 RGADA. T. 229. Little Russian order. Op. 1. Unit hr. 186. L. 36-40 about.
43 O. Ogloblin. Decree. soch. Page 83.
44 V.A. Shugayevsky. Decree. soch. Page 10.

RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN FINANCIAL RELATIONS IN THE PERIOD OF HETMANSHIP OF IVAN SAMOYLOVICH 11672-1687)

A.S. ALMAZOV

Moscow State Pedagogical University

e-mail: almazov_bld@mail.ru

In this article, Russian-Ukrainian financial relations in the period of hetmanship of Ivan Samoylovich (1672-1687) are analyzed. The author concludes, that it was the beginning of organization of the effective tax system of the Zaporozhian Reinforcement in this period. It is also argued, that introduction of chehs in the Left-Bank Ukraine, which were coined in Russia, prepared this territory for inclusion into the ruble’s zone. This theme gained urgency in connection with current relations with Ukraine, because the financial relations in the period of Ivan Samoylovich’s hetmanship showed the example of Moscow’s reasonable national policy and balanced position of hetman in his relations with the Russian tsars.

Diane Perez
Other scientific works: