1 The holdings of TsGADA are listed in Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi drevnikh aktov: Putevoditel', Part I, ed. S. K. Bogoiavlenskii (Moscow, 1946); Part II, ed. A. I. Iakovlev (1947); see subject index under “dozornye,” “pistsovye,” and “perepisnye knigi“; also see Putevoditel’ po arkhivu leningradskogo otdeleniia Instituta istorii, ed. A. I. Andreev et al. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1958), esp. pp. 124-71 (“Fondy monastyrei“) and pp. 187-251 (“Pomestno- votchinnye fondy“), and Akademiia nauk SSSR, Biblioteka, Istoricheskie sborniki XVXVII w.: Opisanie rukopisnogo otdela Biblioteki Akademii nauk, III, Part 2 (Moscow and Leningrad, 1965), 282 ff. The most complete list of published sixteenth- and seventeenth- century cadastral and census records and related secondary works is found in Voznesenskii, S. V., Materialy dlia bibliografii po istorii narodov SSSR XVI-XVII w. (Leningrad, 1933 Google Scholar; AN SSSR, “Trudy istoriko-arkheograficheskogo instituta,” Vypusk 4), pp. 19-23, 190-96. Best secondary works are Veselovskii, S. B., Soshnoe pis'mo: Issledovanie po istorii kadastra i pososhnogo oblozhenii Moskovskogo gosudarstva (2 vols.; Moscow, 1915-16)Google Scholar; Got'e, Iu. V., Zamoskovnyi krai v XVII v. (Moscow, 1906)Google Scholar; Rozhkov, N. A., Sel'skoe khoziaistvo moskovskoi Rusi v XVI veke (Moscow, 1899)Google Scholar; Smirnov, P. P., Goroda moskovskogo gosudarstva v pervoi polovine XVII v., Vol. I, Vypusk 1-2 (Kiev, 1917-19)Google Scholar, esp. Vypusk 2: Kolichestvo i dvizhenie naseleniia. The first two are standard works on Muscovite cadasters and censuses, the latter three contain considerable tabulated information from the original records, and all have useful bibliographical references to the statistical material.

2 Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (PSRL), I, Vypusk 2 (Leningrad, 1927), 474-75, and Vypusk 3 (Leningrad, 1928), 524; V, Vypusk 1 (Leningrad, 1925), 231; X (St. Petersburg, 1885), 141; XXV (Moscow and Leningrad, 1949), 142-43; XXVIII (Moscow and Leningrad, 1963), 58, 217; Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov, ed. A. N. Nasonov (Moscow and Leningrad, 1950), p. 298; Nasonov, A. N., Mongoly i Rus’ (Moscow and Leningrad, 1940), pp. 11–17 (text and notes)Google Scholar; Grekov, B. D. and Iakubovskii, A. Iu., Zolotaia orda i ee padenie (Moscow and Leningrad, 1950), pp. 218–22 Google Scholar; George, Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia (New Haven, 1953), pp. 150, 172.Google Scholar

3 According to the monk Grigor of Akanc', who witnessed the Mongol enumeration in Armenia (ca. 1254), the Tatars “took a census of the eastern country for taxes. From this time on they were wont to tax according to the number of heads of the people, as many as were inscribed on the books” (“History of the Nation of the Archers [The Mongols],” text ed. with English translation by R. P. Blake and R. N. Frye, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, XII, Nos. 3-4 [Dec. 1949]. 325).

4 PSRL, I, Vypusk 2, 475.

5 For fiscal and administrative practices associated with the Mongol censuses see H. F., Schurmann, “Mongolian Tributary Practices of the Thirteenth Century” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, XIX, Nos. 3-4 (Dec. 1956), 304–89Google Scholar; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 150-51, 172, 211-24; B., Spuler, Die goldene Horde (2d ed.; Wiesbaden, 1965), pp. 332–38.Google Scholar

6 Tatishchev, Istoriia rossiiskaia, V (Moscow and Leningrad, 1965), 51.

7 Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 229.

8 PSRL, I, Vypusk 1 (Leningrad, 1926), 17, 19, 82.

9 Tatishchev, V, 51.

10 In a Novgorod charter (ca. 1437 or 1456-62) concerning assessment of the chernyi bor (the grand prince's tax) in Torzhok, a grivna from each sokha was considered the going rate (“po novoi“): 1 sokha was equivalent to each of the following: 2 mounted men plus an extra side horse, tanner's vat, fishing seine, shop, plow, smithy, or 4 men without mounts; 2 sokhi consisted of a fishing boat or salt vat (used to boil salt from brine). Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, ed. S. N. Valk (Moscow and Leningrad, 1949), No. 21, p. 39. See also L. V. Cherepnin and B. D. Grekov, Akty sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi istorii severo-vostochnoi Rusi kontsa XIV—nachala XVI v. (3 vols.; Moscow, 1952-64), I, 143 (Doc. 200); II, 165 (Doc. 250); III, 38 (Doc. 22), and 150 (Doc. 114).

11 PSRL, XXV, 319-20; Dal, V. I., Tolkovyi slovar (Moscow, 1903), IV, 422 Google Scholar; Chechulin, N. D., Nachalo v Rossii perepisei i khod ikh do kontsa XVI veka (St. Petersburg, 1889), pp. 8–9 Google Scholar; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 229-30.

12 K. A. Nevolin, O piatinakh i pogostakh novgorodskihh v XVI veke (St. Petersburg, 1853), “Prilozhenie I,” p. 7 (census clerk's introduction to the cadaster of Vod’ piatina): 13 Knigi Votskie piatiny … v nikh pisany prigorody i volosti i riady i pogosty i sela i derevni Velikogo Kniazia i za boiary i za detmi boiarskimi i za sluzhylymi liudmi za pomestshchyki i svoezemtsovy i kupettskie derevni i vladychni i monastyrskie derevni v sokhi po Novgorodtskomu. A v sokhe po tri obzhy.“

13 Ibid., p. 13.

14 K. V. Bazilevich, “Novgorodskie pomeshchiki iz posluzhil'tsev v kontse XV veka,“ Istoricheskie zapiski, XIV (1945), 65. G. E. Kochin, Sel'skoe khoziaistvo na Rusi kontsa XIII —nachala XVI v. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1965), mentions the “1460s-70s” as dates for the “old registers” (p. 175); however, in another place he mentions the “1470s” (p. 176), and in still another the “1470s-80s” (p. 183). Most of the earliest extant Novgorod cadasters were published by the Arkheograficheskaia komissiia under the general title Novgorodskie pistsovye knigi (6 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1859-1910) and index volume (Petrograd, 1916).

15 Bernadskii, V. N., Novgorod i novgorodskaia zemlia v XV veke (Moscow and Leningrad, 1961), pp. 323–24 Google Scholar; Veselovskii, S. B., Feodal'noe zemlevladenie v severo-vostochnoi Rusi (Moscow and Leningrad, 1947), p. Leningrad Google Scholar; G., Vernadsky, Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age (New Haven, 1959), p. 115.Google Scholar

16 Pistsovye knigi moskovskogo gosudarstva, ed. N. V. Kalachov, Part I (St. Petersburg, 1872, 1877), Section (Otdel) 2, pp. 1073-1260. The two volumes of this collection (Sec. 1 [St. Petersburg, 1872], 924 pp.; and Sec. 2, 1595 pp.) and the six-volume Novgorod collection mentioned in note 14 above are probably the best known published cadasters.

17 The foregoing nine sections ibid., Sec. 1, pp. 1073-95.

18 Ibid., p. 1096. Of this list, everything but the first item (“civ. Ivana Brattsova“) is missing. Whether the gap represents more than this one list is not known.

19 Ibid., pp. 1096-97.

20 Ibid., pp. 1097-1260.

21 Ibid., pp. 1259-60.

22 P. N. Miliukov, “Knigi pistsovye i perepisnye,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ (St. Petersburg: Brokgauz-Efron, 1890-1907), XV, 457-59.

23 1. I. Smirnov, Ocherki politicheskoi istorii russkogo gosudarstva 30-50kh godov XVI veka (Moscow and Leningrad, 1958), p. 432.

24 These figures of extant records and the administrative regions involved are by no means exhaustive; they represent a compilation of citations in a number of articles and monographs, particularly Nevolin, O piatinakh, pp. n-26; Got'e, Zamoskovnyi krai v XVII v., pp. 9-72; Rozhkov, pp. 500-507.

25 Materialy dlia istorii stoglavogo sobora, ed. I. N. Zhdanov (St. Petersburg, 1904), p.186. In conjunction with the cadaster of the 1550s a new unit of assessment, the bol'shaia moskovskaia (great Moscow) sokha, was introduced in order to standardize assessment of direct taxation. In cities, houses were classified according to their condition or to the owners’ ability to pay; the bol'shaia sokha was then equated with a certain number of houses in each category, e.g., 40 best (luchshie), 80 medium (srednie), 160 minor (molodshie), 320 dilapidated (okhudalye) houses, and 960 huts (izbushki). However, there was considerable variation between cities; in one the sokha may have represented only 13 and in another as many as 80 of the best houses, and so on. In the rural sector the new sokha was determined by the amount and quality of arable and class of owner. On pomest'ia and votchiny, one sokha equaled 800 good, 1000 medium, 1200 poor, or 1300 very poor chetverti (1 chetvert’ = 1.35 acres) of arable in one field (i.e., in one field out of three fields; only one third of the total arable of each estate was usually recorded in the cadastral records, and assessment of taxes was based on that amount of arable. Of course, most pomest'ia and votchiny were much smaller than the several hundred chetverti which constituted the great Moscow sokha and were therefore assessed according to a fraction, often a very small fraction, of one sokha). On crown, church, and monastery holdings there were 600, 700-750, 800-900, or 900 such chetverti to the sokha; on state lands (chernye volosti), 500, 600, 700(?), 8oo(?) chetverti. Thus, the bol'shaia sokha represented between 33 and 63 percent more land, or less tax per unit of land on service estates than on crown, church, and state holdings. See Kliuchevskii, V. O., “Terminologiia russkoi istorii,” in Sochineniia, VI: Spetsial'nye kursy (Moscow, 1959), 202–3 Google Scholar; Pamiatniki russkogo prava (PRP), IV (Moscow, 1952), 595; I. I. Smirnov, p. 424; Lappo-Danilevskii, A. S., Organizatsiia priamogo oblozheniia v moskovshom gosudarstve (St. Petersburg, 1890), pp. 225–40, 520–22 Google Scholar.

26 PRP, IV, 586, 600-601; A. A. Zimin, Reformy Ivana Groznogo (Moscow, i960), pp. 438-39. A decree of 1555 or 1556 required each votchinnik or pomeshchik to provide, in addition to himself, a fully armed mounted solider from among his own men for every 100 chetverti (in one field) of good land on his estate. According to Zimin, this decree and the cadastral surveys of the 1550s made military conscription a closely regulated system for the first time.

27 Khrestomatiia po istorii SSSR XVI-XVII w., ed. A. A. Zimin (Moscow, 1962), pp. 151, 154, 201-5; PRP, IV, 526-29, 558-60.

28 Rozhkov, pp. 402-3.

29 PRP, IV, 539-40, 563-604; Khrestomatiia, ed. Zimin, introductory comments by V. I. Koretskii and documents, pp. 199-201, 205-9.

30 Got'e, pp. 15, 72.

31 V. A. Plandovskii, Narodnaia perepis’ (St. Petersburg, 1898), pp. 197-98.

32 PRP, V, 431-34, 441»∼44» 483∼84> 492∼93.

33 V. O. Kliuchevskii, Kurs russkoi istorii, III (Moscow, 1937), 243-45; Lappo-Danilevskii, p. 188 n.

34 Kliuchevskii, Kurs, III, 244.

35 B. D. Grekov, Krest'iane na Rusi (2 vols.; Moscow, 1952-54), II, 185-209.

36 Ibid., 207-8.

37 Got'e, tables, pp. 215-21.

38 Ibid., p. 263. The nine uezdy are: Borovsk, Vereia, Dmitrov, Zvenigorod, Zubtsov, Lukh, Staritsa, Shuia, lur'ev-Pol'skii. Note the addition errors in columns 2 and 3 (occupants of households in the 1620s and households in 1678 respectively). The corrected total (18,113) for household occupants in the 1620s changes the 1.75 figure (col. 7) for average number of occupants per household to 2.0.

39 Ibid., tables, pp. 137, 226-28, 263, 264; P. P. Smirnov, Goroda moskovskogo gosudarstva v pervoi polovine XVII v., I, Vypusk 2, 120-29.

40 Got'e, pp. 464-87; P. P. Smirnov, I, Vypusk 2, 120-29; M. M. Bogoslovskii, “Zemskoe samoupravlenie na russkom severe v XVII v.,” pp. 64-69 (“Prilozheniia“), in Chteniia v Imperatorskom Obshchestve istorii i drevnostei rossiskikh pri Moskovskom universitete, Vol. CCXXXII, No. 1 (1909).

41 Got'e, pp. 215-21.

42 The clerk's instructions for the census (1646) of part of Moscow Uezd briefly states the grievances set forward in the petitions of the provincial service gentry (V. V. Mavrodin, Materialy po istorii krest'ian v Rossii XI-XVII w. [Leningrad, 1958], pp. 127-33).

43 Ibid., p. 130.

44 PRP, VI, 165-66.

45 P. N. Miliukov Gosudarstvennoe khoziaistvo Rossii v pervoi chetverti XVIII stoletiia i reforma Petra Velikogo (St. Petersburg, 1892), pp. 84-91. Though the order for the 1678 census is lost, its dates are noted in subsequent laws, e.g., in Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii (PSZ), Series I (St. Petersburg, 1830), II, 235, 282, 718, 744.

46 Got'e, pp. 29-30; Lappo-Danilevskii, pp. 181-82, 240-41.

47 Miliukov, Gosudarstvennoe khoziaistvo, pp. 8, 85. 48Got'e, pp. 30-31.

49 Miliukov, Gosudarstvennoe khoziaistvo, pp. 638-40.

50 V. M. Kabuzan, Narodonaselenie Rossii v XVIII—pervoi polovine XIX v. (Moscow, 1963). P. 49.

51 Kliuchevskii, Kurs, III, 249.s

52 Miliukov, Gosudarstvennoe khoziaistvo, p. 642.

53 Ibid., pp.270-72.

54 Ibid., pp. 638-39.

55 Got'e, pp. 114-22. …

56 For the actual taking of the census see ibid., pp. 79-83; Plandovskii, pp. 199-208; Lappo-Danilevskii, pp. 193-213. For examples of the clerk's. official instructions see PSZ, Series I, Vol. II, pp. 348-55, 522-34, 590-617, 752-59.

57 Various estimates of Russia's population in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are given in A. I. Kopanev, “Naselenie russkogo gosudarstva v XVI v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski, LXIV (1959), 233-34.

58 A brief general discussion of the statistical and historical value, uses, and limitations of early census records is in A. P. Usher, “The History of Population and Settlement in Eurasia,” in Demographic Analysis, ed. J. J. Spengler and O. D. Duncan (Glencoe, 111., 1956), pp. 3-25.

59 Obozrenie istoriko-geograficheskikh materialov XVII i nachala XVIII w. zakliuchaiushchikhsia v knigakh razriadnogo prikaza, ed. N. N. Ogloblin (Moscow, 1884), pp. 1-3.

60 A. G. Man'kov, “Khoziaistvennye knigi monastyrskikh votchin XVI veka kak istochnik po istorii krest'ian,” Problemy istochnikovedeniia, IV (1955), 286-306.

61 Materialy dlia istorii, arkheologii i statistiki goroda Moskvy, ed. I. E. Zabelin, Part II (Moscow, 1891), pp. 4-6, 373 ff.

62 Ibid., pp. 1-2.