Pavel B. Lukin Assemblies and Councils in Medieval Novgorod and Western

How did Medieval Novgorod differ politically from other Old Russian states? In a number of ways, of course, and experts may argue over which of them was the most important. One particularly striking feature of Novgorod’s political system was the extent to which collectivity played a role—and although collective political institutions did exist in other Russian states during certain historical periods, they never attained the same significance as in northwestern Rus’ (in Novgorod and in its “little brother,” Pskov). It is impossible to give an account of Novgorod’s history without discussing the veche and the Masters’ Council. And yet no other feature of Novgorod's political system has caused so much historiographical controversy as the veche and the Masters’ Council. However, some questions have recently been answered, due largely to a more complete study of Russian sources, as well as a consideration of the 13th-15th century Hanseatic documents in Latin and —which, until now, have not been used much at all in socio-political research on Novgorod. First of all, was the Novgorod veche actually a political institution? Was it a governmental authority at all? Or (as some historians have it) did the veche simply refer to a sector of the population getting together actively? Was the veche merely a word for “the tumult of the crowd”? German merchants reported to Reval in 1407 that during business deals, “they [Russians] composed a deed in the veche [in deme dinge] and sealed it together.”1 A document from 1441 shows that the top officials of the Novgorod Republic—the governor [posadnik] and the captain [tysyatskii]—both participated in the veche.2 A 1406 source states that the veche had decided to send its “great ambassadors” to the decorated authorities.3 It is indisputable that a council at which official documents are sealed, a council at which significant political decisions are made, and a council involving senior officials is both a political institution and a governmental authority.

1 Hansisches Urkundenbuch (далее – HUB). Leipzig, 1899. Bd. V. S. 415. 2 Liv-, Est- und Curländisches Urkundenbuch (далее – LECUB). Riga; Moskau, 1889. Bd. IX. S. 511. 3 HUB. Bd. V. S. 413. In fact, the veche was the highest of Novgorod’s governmental’s authorities, which is apparent from its superior position in relation to individual officials. In December 1406, the captain [tysyatskii] announced to Novgorod merchants that, on the topic of their business, “he himself would not speak on behalf of Novgorod the Great; only the will of God and of Novgorod the Great could do this” (it wer Godes wille und Grote Nougarden...).4 The veche (“ding”) is not formally mentioned, but there is mention of a political entity that makes decisions at the veche: “Novgorod the Great.” This is not the only piece of evidence that the veche was held in higher political regard than even the highest individual officials: the same 1406 source shows that German merchants turned to the captain [tysyatkii] for resolution on another contentious issue. He replied that he could not answer them before he “consulted with the general veche of Novgorod the Great” (myt Groten Naugarden in deme ghemeynen dinge).5 Both Russian and Hanseatic sources indicate that the veche was open to all full citizens regardless of social status. In particular, a Hanseatic document from 1425 confirms that members of the veche stood6, and Russian materials show that the composition of the veche included all the categories of free Novgorod citizenry (in the 13th century: “higher” [vyachshii] and “lower” [men’shii] citizens, in the 14th-15th centuries: Boyars, zhity, merchants, blacks). The theory that the veche consisted narrowly and purely of Boyars has not been confirmed. By the most modest estimate of its area, the veche square could accommodate at least 3,000 people (its exact location is unknown, and all archeological attempts to discover it have been unsuccessful). At that point the Boyars occupied a position of undisputed leadership in Novgorod society, including in the veche. In 1337, German ambassadors were invited to come to the veche—to come to “the wise ones” (vor de wisesten in dat dinc).7 “The wise ones” (de wisesten) was the epithet used at the German congregation to denote the chief elder's four experienced advisers, who assisted him with administration and ajudication.8 And this was the word that the Germans used to designate certain members of the Novgorod elite—that is, the Boyars. The importance of the Novgorod Boyars was so well known to Novgorod's foreign connections that

4 HUB. Bd. V. S. 394. 5 HUB. Bd. V. S. 364. 6 LECUB. Riga; Moskau, 1881. Bd. VII. S. 221. 7 LECUB. Bd. VI. Sp. 113. 8 Gurland M. Der St. Peterhof zu Nowgorod (1361-1494). Innere Hofverhältnisse. Inaugural- Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde genehmigt von der Philosophischen Fakultät der Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen. Göttingen, 1913. S. 19. often messages would come addressed solely to them, rather than to the whole of Novgorod the Great. Lord Heinrich von Plauen of the Teutonic Order, for instance, wrote to “the respected father [ie, the archbishop. – PL] beloved lords, and our select, beloved friends, and all the Boyars of Novgorod the Great” (gemeynen beyaren czu Grote Naugarden).9 On the other hand, the German documents (which entirely affirm the unanimous evidence from the Russian sources) give no grounds to suggest the rural population’s involvement in the Novgorod veche. Indeed, specific descriptions of the veche assembly, which contain a number of messages from German merchants, seem to exclude it entirely. In 1425, German merchants complained that during one conflict the citizens of Novgorod “conducted one or two veche every day for five full days... and sometimes stood well into the afternoon, and then resorted to the courtyards, as if they wanted to boil some of us, and roast the rest.”10 If veche assemblies were held every day for five days at a time, always in the mornings, and if up to two assemblies could be held a day, then the people who participated in them must not have lived very far away from the usual veche venue: the Yaroslav courtyard on the marketplace side. This is located in the very center of Novgorod, and the inhabitants of surrounding villages simply could not have made it to the center every morning. But these same Russian sources assure us that the villagers were not simply forgotten: they did not have the same social rights as the townsfolk. According to the Novgorod Treatment of the Church Articles of Yaroslav the Wise (first half of the 15th century), an assaulted townswoman received a significantly larger compensation a village woman was entitled to for the same offense.11 In 1534, a few decades after the Russian state annexed Novgorod, the Moscow officials enforced “everyone’s involvement to help maintain the city” and made this known to the townsfolk. The indignant chronicler noted that this had “not happened since the time of the old great princes: the city was established by Novgorod rural districts [volost’], whereas the townspeople acted as warrant-officers.”12 This means that during the time of Novgorod’s independence, the construction and repair of the city had been the responsibility of the village, rural [volostnoi] folk, while the Novgorod townsfolk had merely supervised the work. So “Lord Novgorod the Great” in fact resembled other medieval republics, where the city center acted as the collective feudal lord to the slave peripheries.

9 HUB. Bd. V. S. 542-543. 10 LECUB. Bd. VII. S. 221. 11 Древнерусские княжеские уставы XIV-XV вв. М., 1976. С. 96. 12 ПСРЛ. М., 2004. Т. XLIII. Новгородская летопись по списку П.П. Дубровского. С. 234. There was also another collective body in Novgorod, of much narrower composition than the veche. Historians call it the “Masters’ Council,” but sources do not name it directly— and indeed, in recent years there has been a tendency to deny its existence. In fact, this council is not even mentioned in Russian sources, and the 1292 Hanseatic document on the assemblies between the citizens of Novgorod and the prince and his people also omit any mention of it. However, the Hanseatic documents of the 14th-15th centuries do refer to the Novgorod “masters” (“de heren” in the original), and the two missives from the mayor and council of Lübeck to Novgorod in 1448-1449 already explicitly mention the Novgorod “council” (rad). The Russian name for this collective body is unknown, but it is possible that the Low German de heren is a reflection of the Russian gospodá (Eng. “lord” or “master”) (an analogous collective body with the same name existed in Pskov). At the beginning of the 15th century, the Novgorod council was comprised of the governor [posadnik], captain [tysyatskii], and five Konchansky elders. By the 1440s, its composition was more extensive and included other governors [posadniki] and captains [tysyatskie]. The relationship between the veche and the “masters” was unclear. Formally, the veche took presidence over the council. A missive from German merchants to Reval on May 28th, 1409, desribes the Novgorod embassy to Sweden. Upon having returned, the ambassadors were to “report before the masters” (vor den heren), but their final account was given at the veche: “at the general veche (in dem ghemenen dinghe) such a report was given…”13 The actual relationship between the two bodies was more complex. The “masters” would often discuss an issue beforehand, “preparing” it for the veche, occasionally even vetoing the veche’s decision. The 1412 Hanseatic document explicitly protests that the Novgorod “masters” hid their missives and “did not present them to be known by the Russian merchants and the community” (ie, the veche) (deme Russchen copmanne unde der gemeenheit).14 When did the Novgorod collective political institutions emerge? Record of the “masters” first appears only after the post-Mongol period, but the first mention of the Novgorod veche goes back to 1015 (as for earlier, one can only cautiously assume that Novgorod citizens participated somewhat in their political life). It is hard to say exactly when the veche took on the features of a political institution: it was certainly an extended process, but the concept of Novgorod as a

13 HUB. Bd. V. S. 464. 14 HUB. Bd. V. S. 556-557. particular Russian state, where ruling princes did not enjoy the same power they had in other states, existed already in the pre-Mongol period. Pre-Mongol chronicles (and not only Novgorod chronicles) increasingly either refer directly to the Novgorod veche as a congregation of citizens making political decisions or else provide descriptions that suggest such meetings. And collective political activity in Novgorod is also confirmed independently of Old Russian written sources: a 1292 Hanseatic document refers to a decision made at a Novgorod congregation (Nogardenses convenerant). 15 However, the question of the origin of these collective bodies remains. The “republican” political institutions of western European cities were significantly influenced by ancient municipal tradition (ie, Italian city-states) or “German law” (the cities of northern and central Europe). However, there were certain European centers in which collective political institutions emerged independently. The socio-political systems of these Western Pomeranian “republics”— and , as well as some smaller cities—are known thanks to three biographies of Bishop from the 1140s (written by Ebon, Herbordus, and an anonymous Prüfening Abbey monk). Let’s consider two examples. Otto and his companions began their 1124 missionary travels in a small Pomeranian town, . According to Ebon, the people of Pyrzyce were reluctant at first to give in to Otto’s sermons, and would not accept the new faith without the decision of their “principals and elders” (sine primatum et maiorum suorum consilio).16 And indeed, according to Herbordus, the decision came. After some thought, the Pyrzyce maiores came upon a “good solution”: “At first they confirmed it amongst themselves in a conclave, then again amongst the ambassadors and the Pavlikie (representatives of the Polish Prince Boleslaw III Krivousty – PL.), then again—for more strength—at a still larger meeting, and finally they came to the people.” Herbordus’s witness, a monk from the Benedictine monastery in Michelsberg, was genuinely astonished to see “with what sudden, eager unanimity this whole crowd of people, immediately upon hearing the decision made by their principals, agreed to it.”17 It is difficult to say whether Pyrzyce had political authorities like a people’s assembly or a council of the nobility, but it is clear that the agents of political decision were the people (populus) and the nobility (maiores, primates). The relationship between them was

15 LECUB. Reval, 1853. Bd. I. Sp. 682-685. 16 Ebonis Vita S. Ottonis episcopi Babenbergensis / Rec. et ann. J. Wikarjak et K. Liman. Warszawa, 1969. (MPH. Series Nova. T. VII. Fasc. 2) (далее: Ebo). II. 5. S. 64. 17 Herbordus. II. 14. S. 86. identical to the Novgorod system: the superior power formally belonged to the “people,” but the nobility prepared the decisions beforehand and largely predetermined them. More information is available on the people’s assembly in Szczecin. The issue of conversion to Christianity was raised at a meeting of Szczecin pagans (pagani), to which “countless plebes of towns and villages” were invited (de rure ac de villis plebem innumeram). The decision to convert was made only after a lengthy discussion.18 Herbordus uses the Latin word contio to name this congregation, and notes that it was attended by the populus and the nobility alike (habita concione, ubi coram populo et principibus verba… recitata est).19 The most vivid description of the people’s assembly in Szczecin is from Bishop Otto’s 1128 mission. The bishop had come back a second time to proselytize to this city, which in his absence had fallen back on its old pagan ways. The assembly was held in the market square, which was located on a kind of gradual incline: “great pyramids [piramides magne] were enclosed by high walls, in pagan fashion,”20 or, according to another testimony, “wooden steps [gradus lignei] from which heralds and officials would often give speeches to the people.”21 In the Latin documents, the assembly participants are called “a large crowd of people,”22 and were, “according to custom,” armed with spears.23 All three hagiographers unanimously state that a pagan priest spoke at the assembly [ydolorum pontifex, sacerdos], encouraging his people to deal harshly with Otto, but was forced to withdraw from the assembly after a dramatic conflict. The issue was decisively resolved two weeks later at another assembly, which took place on Triglav Hill in the center of the city—the residence of Western Pomeranian Prince Vartislav. This assembly had a different name: the generale colloquium (Ebon) or the consilium maiorum (Herbordus), and its participants are characterized differently: “the principals of the city and the rest of the crowd” (principes civitatis cum reliqua multitudine),24 “the principals and the priests and the seniors” (principes cum sacerdotibus natuque maioribus),25 “the older and wiser people”

18 VP. II. 10. S. 41. 19 Herbordus. II. 30. S. 120. 20 Ebo. III. 15. S. 122. 21 Herbordus. III. 17. S. 179. 22 VP. III. 8. S. 66. 23 VP. III. 8. S. 67; Ebo. III. 16. S. 122; Herbordus. III. 18. S. 180. 24 VP. III. 10. S. 68. 25 Ebo. III. 16. S. 124. (maiores natu et sapienciores).26 Although we can assume that this was not an assembly exclusively for the nobility (based on the Prüfening monk’s references to “the rest of the crowd”), it was clearly dominated by high Szczecin society: the secular elite and (according to Ebon) pagan priests. One of the participants is named: Vyshak, “an extremely rich and powerful man,” who was able to equip the Danish offensive with a fleet of six ships.27 The decision was finally confirmed again at a wide assembly (concio universa).28 The chief pagan priest who had earlier opposed Otto was expelled by the citizens (ab ipsis civibus).29 These descriptions warrant comparison with the descriptions of Novgorod politics mentioned above. Naturally we cannot simply fill the gaps in our knowledge of the Novgorod veche with information about , but based on an analysis of the similarities and differences between the two systems (and differences are just as important and useful as similarities), we may come to conclusions about the conditions in which “republican” political institutions arise and the paths along which they develop, beyond the obvious influences from more advanced civilizations. Even the details correspond in certain ways. The story of the 1128 people’s assembly in Szczecin bears specific resemblance to the proceedings of the First Chronicle in 1071, in which a sorcerer appeared in Novgorod and “rose before Novgorod” during the reign of Gleb Svyatoslavich.30 He blasphemed the Christian faith, addressing himself to the “people” and “enticing” many of them. According to the chronicler, “all went to his belief” and demanded the death of the Bishop of Novgorod. The latter took up a cross, donned the bishop’s robes, and called upon the people of Novgorod to choose whom they wished to follow. The attendees divided themselves “in half”: the prince and his armed forces [druzhina] “stood by the bishop, but the folk all went to the sorcerer.” The incident was resolved when Prince Gleb simply killed the sorcerer with an axe, and “the folk scattered.” The two situations are quite similar, but there are notable differences. The assembly in Szczecin (which was still “officially” pagan at that point) was recognized as legitimate not only by the participants, but even by representatives of the Christian faction. The Novgorod incident

26 Herbordus. III. 20. S. 182. 27 VP. III. 10. S. 68-69; Ebo. III. 2. S. 94-95. 28 VP. III. 10. S. 70. 29 Herbordus. III. 20. S. 183. 30 ПСРЛ. М., 1997. Т. I. Лаврентьевская летопись. Стб. 180-181. almost certainly took place at an assembly (where else could priests of competing faiths speak openly, and where else could people divide themselves into two parties?), but the chronicler does not name the veche. For him, the gathering is nothing more than a “revolt.” And this is hardly a coincidence: in 1097, the same chronicler uses the term veche to refer to an assembly in Volhynia, in south-western Rus’. The chronicler was clearly disclined to legitimize this gathering of Novgorod citizens, and chose to use the distinctly negative “revolt” rather than the fairly neutral “veche.” The scorn of the chronicler (who was most likely a Kiev Caves monk) for the Novgorod incident is correlated directly to its pagan undertones. The large role played by a sorcerer distinguishes the Novgorod incident from the events in Volhynia—and this element was certainly significant for the monk-chronicler. There were also significant differences between the constituents of the two assemblies. The rural population was allowed to participate in the Szczecin assembly (although perhaps this was only occasional: the extent to which the citizens who expelled the pagan priest in 1128 were participants in the assembly itself is unknown). There is no evidence of the villagers participating in the Novgorod veche. The only exception seems to be one variant of the Norse tale of Olaf Tryggvason, according to which “all people of the surrounding villages” (af allum nalaegiom herõum) took part in the ting under “King Valdimarra”—ie, Vladimir Svyatoslavich the Great, future Christianizer of Rus’.31 First of all, the historical information in this tale is of dubious credibility: the tale itself dates from the 12th century, that is, more than two centuries later than the events depicted in it, and the tale’s Novgorod ting more closely resembles Norwegian and Icelandic tings than it does the veche assemblies of later Russian cities. Secondly, even if we assume that the tale does reflect some Russian realities, these are the realities of a very early period. Even the 1071 “revolt” was said to take place “in the city,” rather than in the entire Novgorod district. Assemblies in Western Pomerania were led by the local nobility, whereas in Novgorod in 1071 the upper class consisted of Prince Gleb and his service class—that is, his armed forces [druzhina]. Novgorod citizens could—and most likely did—comprise Gleb’s armed forces [druzhina], but in political and legal terms, this was “external power” in relation to Novgorod proper. The analogous “external power” in relation to Szczecin—that is, Prince Vartislav and his people—did not have the authority to simply expel the troublemaking priest

31 Saga Óláfs Tryggvasonar af Oddr Snorrason munk / udg. af Finnur Jónsson. København, 1932. Kap. 8. S. 27. himself, and although he did have certain appointed positions within the city (it was no accident that his court was present), he was forced to act as if from behind the scenes. All this suggests that although the political and legal systems of Novgorod and the cities of Western Pomerania had much in common—which seems to be due to their similar geographical, economic, and cultural backgrounds, rather than to external influences and interactions, the scale and significance of which remain a contentious issue—a single “Slavic” civic law did not exist. These Western Pomeranian centers seem to have emerged gradually from local “tribal” communities: historically, Pyrzyce has been associated with the (cf. the “”), Wolin with the Velunzani, and Szczecin either with the “Szczeciani” (written source unknown) or with the .32 The origins of the Western Pomeranian dynasty of princes—of which the first was Vartislav—is not known precisely, but its local roots must be considered (there is, however, a theory that this dynasty may be an offshoot of the Polish Piast dynasty).33 The origins and ancient history of Novgorod present an extremely complex problem, but thanks to recent archeological research, we know that Novgorod did not exist in its current location before the 10th century. It is very likely that Novgorod was never a “tribal” center, but emerged instead as a center of princely rule.34 The princes who ruled in Novgorod had no direct relationship to their local surroundings, and the first princes to settle in northwestern Rus’ were generally of Varangian origin. The Varangians apparently comprised a considerable part of the nobility.35 Perhaps we should look to Novgorod’s rural districts [volosti] in order to find its political and legal roots. Nevertheless, the main population of Novgorod was comprised of local residents, whose values were traditional and archaic—including in the realms of politics and law. In Novgorod, where the prince’s power was relatively weak, these values were conducive to the “reconstruction” of certain elements of traditional political culture—in new, urban conditions, and in an entirely new form—the veche assemblies. Thus the Novgorod veche did not “grow” from Slovenian assemblies or any other “tribe,” but did relate to them in terms of certain elements of traditional political culture—namely, the very idea that people can solve important

32 Piskorski J.M. Pomorze plemienne. Historia-Archeologia-Językoznawstwo. Poznań; Szczecin, 2002. S. 84-99. 33 Piskorski J.M. Pomorze plemienne. S. 61-73. 34 Горский А.А. Русь: От славянского Расселения… C. 92. 35 Гиппиус А.А. Скандинавский след в истории новгородского боярства (в развитие гипотезы А.А. Молчанова о происхождении боярского рода Гюрятиничей-Роговичей) // Slavica Helsingensia. 27. problems at assemblies (another instance is the long history of certain archaic forms of punishment in Novgorod, such as pillaging). More recently, in the 12th or 13th-15th centuries, these political traditions were gradually institutionalized in the name of traditional national authorities: the city’s veche assemblies and the governing council of “masters.” It is possible that Western Pomerania could have developed “republics” along the same general direction, but their “natural” development was interrupted in the middle of the 12th-13th centuries. It seems to me that we can understand the similarities between the politics of northwestern Russian cities and Western Pomeranian cities through a consideration not of ethnic affinity or migration, but of geographic, economic, cultural, social, and political conditions: the importance of foreign trade, the relatively early urbanization, the lack of a strong princely rule (Szczecin and Wolin, although formally included in Vartislav’s 1120s Western Pomeranian principality, in fact enjoyed almost complete autonomy; while Novgorod never formed a prince dynasty: the prince gradually became a republican magistrate). These similar conditions apparently led to the emergence of powerful urban centers that dominated their peripheries, as well as the appearance of similar institutions: the general assembly (veche), which became a fixture both in Western Pomeranian cities and in Novgorod, and the council of the nobility, about whose earlier incarnations in Novgorod we can only speculate.