What is a ‘Complaint’ in Russia: Origins of the Concept

Complaint is the nearest English equivalent to the Russian word zhaloba.

Contemporary dictionaries define it as a “statement that a situation is unsatisfactory or unacceptable, an expression of dissatisfaction” (Oxford Dictionary).³ This translation conveys the meaning of the contemporary practice quite accurately, but further linguistic and socio-historical analysis of the Russian word zhaloba helps much better to explain the phenomenon, and to show the limits of the translation.

Zhaloba is a pan-Slavonic word introduced into use in the thirteenth century (Semionov 2003). Originally the word meant a cry, sorrow, or grief. Medieval notions of the Slavonic word are similar to the Old French complainte (twelfth century) (Online Etymology Dictionary),⁴ which has an almost identical

3 Oxford Dictionary. “Complaint.” Retrieved on June 30, 2019 (https://en.oxforddictionaries.

com/definition/complaint).

4 Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved on June 30, 2019 (http://www.etymonline.

com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=complaint).

meaning as zhaloba. More detailed analyses of the origins and development of the notion gives some thought-provoking results.

The first systematic commentary on the origin, meanings, and use of the term is contained in the dictionary of Vladimir Dal’ (1863–1866), according to which the word zhaloba comes from the Slavic verb zhalet’ (to pity). The word zhalet’ in Russian has a meaning akin to that of the verb “to sympathize”

(sostradat’) (Dal’ 1996[1863]:525). A characteristic feature of this word is the variety of transmitted meanings, and the wide range of relationships, to which it may be applied. According to Dal’ the verb zhalet’ has a set of modifications (zhalit’, zhalkovat’) which define an emotional state, or compassion, that can be experienced in relation to another human, but not only a human. The practice of use suggests that most likely the words originally defined relationships and phenomena of private life, emphasizing their object-subject character. This is also indicated by the use of the adjective zhalkii (pitiful), which is allowed in two senses: “valuable, worthy of compassion,” and the opposite: “worthless, contemptuous, bad” (Dal’ 1996[1863]:525).

In both cases, the characteristics are dependent on the subject, i.e. the object acquires the corresponding qualities only in the presence of a subject who is capable of having feelings towards him or her. This interpretation is supported by another lexeme derived from the word zhalet’: zhalobit’, razzhalobit’ (to inspire pity), which reproduces similar subject-object interdependence. This lexeme also opens up another group of meanings: to beg, to moan, to whine (klianchit’, kaniuchit’, plakat’sia) (Dal’ 1996 [1863]:525), meaning emotional manipulation in order to get something that belongs to someone else. At the same time, the main instrument and basis of the request is to stimulate a feeling of pity in the person who owns it. The lexeme zhalovat’ (to favor) is also akin to the word “to complain.” This is an old Russian word, meaning literally “to give something out of love without a legal reason”

(Vasmer 1967). Max Vasmer, the author of the dictionary, suggests semantic relatedness between the terms “a complaint” and “alms.” The latter refers to the Christian practice of voluntary giving.

The meaning of the complaint as an official appeal can already be found in the 1863 dictionary by Dal’, which comments on the complaint as an instrument of expression of displeasure (Dal’ 1996[1863]:526). Interestingly,

among the options of interpretation offered by Dal’, there is also the verb iskat’ (to seek), obviously akin to the contemporary Russian legal notion of isk (a lawsuit), which nowadays means an official claim in a judicial (civil, arbitral) proceeding (Sukharev 2007).

Analysis of the different meanings of complaint that predominantly existed in the nineteenth century manifests an implicit scheme of subject-object relations, which is applicable to the sphere of private life and to the public, official sphere. Relations arising between the subject and the object of a complaint imply an asymmetry of statuses in favor of the subject. The pattern of subject-object relations arising through a complaint shows the deep connection of this form of restoration of justice to the context of the hierarchical, estate patriarchal society that existed in imperial Russia. A complaint as an official appeal for help arises in the context of dependence and power, as a tool of compensation of a status of a complainant, wherein official legal grounds for compensation do not play a decisive role. The scale and the form of assistance depend on the subjective decision of the addressee.

This, however, does not mean that grounds regulating the relevant relations of pleading are totally absent.

According to historical documents, the official complaint was by the fourteenth century regulated by a hard protocol. The bureaucratic form of the complaint in Russia was called chelobitnaia. This word comes from the old Russian chelobit’e, which is composed of two roots: chelo (a forehead), and bit’

(to beat). The phrase “to beat with the forehead” refers to the low bow one makes to the addressee of the application. The word itself evokes once again the inequality between the addressee and the author of the application. Until the beginning of the eighteenth century the term chelobitnaia was used as a collective label for all types of official applications to the authorities: requests, complaints, and denunciations.

Chelobitnaia suggested a certain scheme for the compilation of a text, and a procedure for filing to the appropriate authority. During the sixteenth century, the chelobitnaia acquired a three-part structure, including an introduction (or a title), main part, and conclusion. Overwhelmingly, illiterate people had to turn to scribes, who were able to put their chelobitnaias into writing. The structure and content of the text were directly dependent on

the competence of the mediator. The introductory part of the text and its conclusion are, as a rule, clichéd. The rest of the text looks like a voluntary retelling of events, which acquires a plot, and is illustrated with colorful characteristics of the persons in the story. A standard introduction to the chelobitnaia is usually the following: “A serf beats with his forehead to his Tsar and Grand Duke of All Russia Ivan Vasilyevich.” The conclusions of the chelobitnaias are also standardized: “Sovereign, have mercy, give your favor,”

or “Tsar, the Sovereign, have mercy” (Volkov 1974:26–27).

In imperial Russia, chelobitnaias were used as a tool for protection of interests by representatives of different groups of society, both the oppressed and the dominant. Specification of addressees and reasons for complaint were approximate and often ignored. Sviatoslav Volkov, author of the book Vocabulary of Russian Chelobitnaia of the Seventeenth Century, emphasizes that the range of problems presented in chelobitnaias was extremely wide.

For example, appeals could contain requests for admission to service, for exemption from service due to old age or mutilation, for official relocation, for transfer of an estate to a son or another relative, for assistance, for subsidizing of money for a funeral, etc.

Contrary to popular opinion, chelobitnaias could be submitted not only to the tsar, but also to central and local governmental institutions, landowners, church hierarchs, and others. Even if the tsar was not an immediate addressee of the chelobitnaia, the standardized phrases were still inserted into the text.

Applications could be filed by individuals or by groups of people. A statement of claim to a court was also called a chelobitnaia (Sukharev 2007).

Linguistic-epistemological analysis of the concept of the complaint allows us to make several important conclusions.

1. Multiple ways of understanding and using the notion of “complaint”

have been preserved from the pre-revolutionary period. Among these are complaint as a form of expression of everyday discontent, complaint as an official appeal to the authorities, and complaint as a form of appeal to court. Despite the change of epochs, the concept retains a plurality of meanings.

2. Complaint as an official appeal to the authorities is traditional in Russian society, rooted in history, and appeared long before the judiciary as a

legitimate form of request for justice. For many centuries, it has been performing the function of a legitimate form of solving diverse problems, operating out of judiciary.

3. The practice of complaint sets a pattern of subject-object relations between author and addressee, and reflects the dominant model of power and status relations in Russian society. This pattern contains a set of rules for addressing the authorities that is reflected in the structure and language of the complaint.

4. Like any form of direct communication, a complaint contains a strong emotional component.

2.2 How to Recognize a Complaint among Other Genres of