Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 1.pdf/47

 relationships of the petty principalities and how the relationships of these to the grand prince could be formulated from the outlook of constitutional law. Had the minor princes a sense of association; did this sentiment arise out of racial or out of family considerations; what were the motives of union? It is asserted that the territories became united upon a federative basis. As far, however, as I am able to judge, no constitutionally organised federation ever existed. The sense of racial kinship was not strong enough. The princes regarded themselves as independent, but the general danger and the common need led from time to time to a loose unification based upon treaties.

Nor can it be said that the relationship of the grand prince to the minor princes was analogous to European feudalism; even the relationship of the princes to the boyars was not feudal.

The Tatar yoke (the phrase has become current) is still frequently invoked as an explanation, and was unquestionably a co-operative factor, although to a less notable extent than many historians assume. It is asserted that in face of the khans the minor princes were all reduced to an equally low level, and that this contributed to unification. We are told that the military importance of the princes was increased by the struggle with the Tatars, the boyars and the věče (folkmote) being correspondingly weakened, and the way being thus paved for a centralising absolutism. The khan is supposed to have allotted the title of grand prince to whomsoever he pleased (in actual fact this title was assumed by many of the minor princes), until it ultimately remained with the Moscow ruler. It is further contended that the Russians learned much from the Tatars in respect alike of military and administrative matters, and that the "soft" Russian character was "hardened" by Tatar influence—an explanation that overlooks the question why centralisation was effected by Moscow in especial.

Indubitably the Tatar supremacy exerted a notable influence, but this influence was not decisive in the spheres of politics, administration, or civilisation. There is no direction in which Tatar rule can be said to have initiated a new epoch. It was impossible that the influence of the Tatars could be profound, for the Russian states or peoples were at this time widely separated, and the northern territories, that of Novgorod for instance, were almost untouched by the Tatars. In respect