“No grease, no go.” “A dry spoon shatters the mouth.” Do these Russian proverbs seem to refer to bribes? Not exactly; in fact, they refer to the culture of gifts to civil servants in Russia. It dates back to ancient times and these offerings had their own gradation. “Gift”, “feeding”, “honoring”, “tribute”, “excess” and “bribe” were all different things for Russians. How did they differ from each other and where did the violation of the law begin? Let’s look into it.
To serve the prince means to serve God. So, from ancient times, Russians were convinced that there was no power not stemming from God. The retainers (called druzhina in Russia, roughly translated as ‘circle of friends’) served the prince with pride, ready to give their lives for him and he, in return, treated them as his children, providing them with food, clothes and housing. In short, he gave them everything. Except money.
Service and honor
Sputnik
Work (работа; ‘rabota’ in Russian) for money, unlike serving one’s master or sovereign, was considered degrading, writes historian Olga Kosheleva. The word ‘work’ itself in Russian comes from the word ‘slave’ and has a pejorative connotation. Those who were called ‘working people’ (работные люди, ‘rabotnye lyudi’) were only people from the lower strata of society or people in need of getting out of some debt.
A nobleman received his ‘stipend’ (жалование; zhalovanie – something that is being given) from the prince, ‘honors’ (material gifts) from the local people and, apparently, got some moral satisfaction from his service – because the Russian Orthodox ideology likened any service to the prince or a sovereign to the service that was performed in the name of the Lord.
Sometimes, a prince could also be really generous in his stipends for service. He could give his closest servants an expensive shuba (‘fur coat’), a horse, a heavy weapon or a barrel of wine. These gifts strengthened the bond between the lord and his servants, because they were a symbol of the involvement of a servant in the government, explains Kosheleva. The most valuable gifts could be entire villages or towns. It is one thing when the prince gives his servant a village – then he can simply receive income from it without doing anything. But it is another thing when the prince sends his subordinate to the region where he went to be fed.
READ MORE: The weirdest food Russian peasants ate
Sergei Ivanov
The system of ‘feedings’ (кормление, ‘kormlenie’) was the system of supporting the local administration by the means of the local population. The officials that were sent from Moscow lived at the expense of the local population, but were, at the same time, obliged to administer the local courts and carry out the functions of government – to proclaim the sovereign’s decrees, to make decisions in case of disasters and to keep general order. For this, three times a year, the officials took from the population some bread, meat, cheese, oats and hay for horses, among other things. In addition, the officials collected taxes: court taxes, customs’ taxes, taxes for the maintenance of trade, wholesale supplies and others. Most of that money went to Moscow, but a serious chunk remained in the region, often in the pockets of the local administrator. This was, of course, very un-rational, government-wise.
But what, then, was considered a real bribe, if ‘honors’ and ‘feedings’ from the locals weren’t ones?
Honors, tributes, promises & bribes
Sergei Ivanov
Ivan the Terrible replaced ‘feedings’ with the system of ‘voevodstva’ (voevodships, from воевода, voevoda – ‘war leader’ in Russian), partly because the former officials simply robbed the population with their ‘feedings’. The ‘voevodas’ and the ‘streltsy’ (tsar’s guard regiments) were now paid honoraries, but not regularly and not in equal installments. So, it was not easy to get rid of the heritage of tributes and ‘feedings’. From the 16th century, Russian state institutions continued to operate on the basis of 'honors' (почести, pochesti).
Russian civil servants worked tirelessly, almost constantly. Writer of the Petrine times, Ivan Pososhkov compared their work with the monastic obedience. “[Only] go home at night. Come to the chancellery before the others do, and go out last. <…> And always live in the office,” Pososhkov wrote in his letter to a young civil servant. And such officials were fed by the offerings of petitioners, the very “honors”.
In the 16th-17th centuries, it was not always money. Expensive fish, caviar, expensive honey, skins of rare animals, valuable clothes. If the honors were accepted, then the affair would probably move on. And, if an official refused to accept the honor, it meant failure. At the same time, the laws did not punish officials for accepting ‘honors’.
Problems arose only for bribe-takers – those who took not only the compulsory ‘honor’, but also took excessive ‘tributes’ (мзда, ‘mzda’ – ‘pay’ in Russian) for just doing their work!
It was also forbidden to take the money promised not only for consideration of a case, but for its certain solution in favor of the bribe-giver – ‘promises’ (посулы, ‘posuls’ in Russian). This was already considered a ‘bribe’, because only ‘honors’ were acceptable, tributes and ‘promises’ were not.
Why was the crusade against corruption unsuccessful?
Nikolai Nevrev
However – surprise, surprise – corruption in pre-Petrine Russia was not eradicated. The people believed that “a tribute’s not a bribe” and “every labor deserves a tribute”. That is why the petitioners continued to carry food and money to institutions, in order not to be hung out to dry, so to speak. There were not enough officials in the country and there were always a lot of cases to consider. And how could one come to solve a problem with empty hands? Others would surely bring something!
Peter the Great is considered the most important Russian fighter against corruption. He was the one who introduced state positions of fiscals and prosecutors. On December 24, 1714, Peter issued a decree ‘On the Prohibition and Punishment of Bribes’.
“Since extortions have multiplied,” Peter wrote, “all ranks are forbidden to take any bribes from the state and the people <…> except their salaries.” The punishment for violation of this decree was corporal, up to and including death.
Did the decree help? Of course not. Historian Dmitry Serov notes that only a small number of cases initiated by the fiscal officers of Peter the Great (vested with special powers to investigate cases of corruption), ended in court sentences. The emperor himself knew that his right hand man, His Highness Prince Menshikov, was the Empire’s first embezzler. But what could the emperor really do about it? Alexander Menshikov held all the machinery of the state service in his hands. Without his subjects, even the Russian tsar was helpless.
After Peter’s death, his laws of corruption were no longer enforced. On May 23, 1726, Catherine I issued a decree ‘On granting the collegiate ranks a salary…’, which actually allowed taking ‘honors’ (not bribes!), although within reasonable limits. Salaries were allowed only to officials of colleges (ministries) and clerks without rank were to… right, to receive something from the petitioners. Only without “excessive bribes”, the sovereign mercifully said.
READ MORE: Why were Russians always in debt?
Historian Elena Korchmina described the case from 1764, when a voevoda, Collegiate Assessor Vasily Kozlov precisely formulated the problem of the Russian fight against corruption. "There was no way for me to stop these bribes (of the officials subordinate to him) because the government did not pay for their labor.” And, if voevoda Kozlov himself would indicate how much exactly the officials were to take from the petitioners, then he would have been punished for self-arbitrariness. After all, no “allowed amounts” were specified in the empire’s laws.
Pavel Fedotov
This whole shaky system continued to exist in the 18th and 19th centuries. The essence and results of the fight against corruption did not change. The Russians continued to perceive the ‘honors’ as something natural and they, it must be admitted, had their arguments.
Alexander Pushkin’s contemporary, writer and informant of the tsarist security Faddei Bulgarin (1789–1859) wrote: “The difference was in the actions. Some [civil servants] demanded bribes from poor people and ruined a just case if they were not paid. Others just did their duty, but if someone gave an ‘honor’ for the case – they did not refuse.” Well, how not to flatter a good-wishing clerk, especially if he decided to look closely into your case?