\r. E could correspond to its name, then KHUP in,
in any case; lost this _ this _means in two respects: the territorial character of the regional Cheti’ was limited to theological> /,
“(more precisely: classy, classy), which gave it the character of an ‘institution
:) A. Gradoveyuy. Public classes in Rosai before Peter 1. Journal.
Min. Nar. Enlightenment 1868, part cxxxx, pp. 91-98.
in a similar way, _Financial institution. This value is smoothed more days with the department. urgent nature; not all of the population of a given region, but only one part of it, tax-paying, not service-oriented people were subject to its judicial and financial jurisdiction respect. This. ‘the attitude entailed a new change; Honor
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
tax class in this area, was appointed ®chief former-
It is a territorial affair, which at first determined the predilections of the administration of the regional Cheti, especially since this significantly managed to weaken under the influence of class restrictions. It was then that the jurisdiction of the city (with the district) began to be determined not only by its belonging to the izzet region, but also by the size and properties of the income received from it, then perhaps not the main task of the Chety
7 became about the collection of taxes - which... upon receipt. to his_ In Honor,
administrative. character“ In a word, ` ‚regional
“became the treasury from which the aveo drew funds to cover important government expenses... However, the territorial character of the regional Chety could not be completely smoothed out until the very end of their existence.”
The author's final conclusion is this: In the 17th century. The honor “was a central regional institution, which, as a tax and tribute, paid the tax population, a certain number of towns and villages, partly connected ‘within the boundaries of the same region’ 1).
The theory is of regional origin of the Cheteys, as well as the theory identifying them with the orders of the Ambassadorial, Discharge, Pomfstny,
Kazan Palace, also to a significant extent E. not - and on Fletcher’s evidence, which was precisely attributed to Ivan Sh”
and Grozny, divided by Lenle Rossi into thirds (Ivan Sh) and quarters (Grozny). But this ‘decree of Fletcher has already been disputed by Mr. Dmitr1ev?).
It is a great temptation to study the relatives of the indicated. The direction was also represented by the very names of the Quarters (for example, Vladimirskaya, Galitskaya, Kostroma, Ustyug, Nizhny Novgorod). Is it true,
:) A. Lappo-Danilevejuy. Organizing. Direct Oblozhev v. Moscow States p. 453; 454, 461. 2) 9. Dmitrev. History of Judicial Inetansh, p. 195.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
-_ And
Gradovsyu i’Lappo-Danilevsky when studying the Quarters in the 17th century.
They noted the uncertainty of their borders, cities and counties in these Quarters did not lie as a continuous territorial district, & ‚5 but were drawn to be added to the Quarters from different ends of the Moscow state, but this observation did not stop them, however, 7 m ‘assuming’ for the initial period of the existence of the Quarters of theirs (No. 74 in accordance with previous historical data ‹ and ".
And in general there is no possibility of establishing a connection between the courts of the principalities and the Chetgverts transferred to Moscow, this is best shown by Mr. Lokhvitsky, to whose theory we are moving on.
y Sh, Theory of Lokhvitsky. - Quarters - tax districts.