Encyclopedia of Russian History

by James Millar

  Regular commercial contacts between the neighboring coastal regions, with Vard?hus as the main center, were well established by the late seventeenth century, driven primarily by Russians. Russian flour, cloth, hides, and tallow became important products for the northern Norwegian economy. By the 1760s, Russian vessels made annual trips to the Finnmark and Troms coasts, and Russian fishing in northern Norwegian waters was common. This was countenanced with some limitations by the Danish government because of its good relations with Russia. Norwegians are known to have settled in northern Russia starting in the

  1067

  NOVGOROD, ARCHBISHOP OF

  eighteenth century. The interaction between Norwegians and Russians produced a unique local pidgin language known as russenorsk, “Russian Norwegian.” The regime of open borders continued until an 1826 treaty delineated the frontier and granted two-thirds of the shared territory to Russia.

  Trade in northern Norway was gradually liberalized in 1789 as part of a plan to stimulate the region’s economic development. New port towns were built and direct Russian trade with Norwegian fishermen was formally authorized. Most remaining restrictions were eliminated in 1839, and regular steamship traffic between northern Russia and Finnmark began during the 1870s. Up to 350 Russian ships visited northern Norway each year during the course of the eighteenth century. Attempts to control Russian trade and fishing in Norway became more serious during the period when Norway was under Swedish rule. All foreign fishing was formally banned in 1913.

  Political relations became more tense during the nineteenth century because of Russian concern about perceived Norwegian expansionism in the Arctic. In contrast, the Norwegian administration in the United Kingdom of Sweden-Norway often found itself moderating the growing Swedish Russopho-bia. However, its pragmatism was repeatedly tempered by fears that Russia might be eyeing some of the ice-free harbors of Finnmark. The accelerating Russian settlement on the Kola Peninsula and the steady stream of immigrants to northern Norway from Russian-controlled Finland heightened the sense of alarm during the second half of the nineteenth century. The Norwegian popular mood began to favor a more nationalistic policy in the north. Systematic Norwegianization was seen as a way to effectively control the ethnically mixed territory. Russia was perceived negatively because of its authoritarianism even though it was the only great power lending active support to Norwegian independence in 1905, albeit clearly with a view to weakening Sweden. Newly independent Norway unsuccessfully sought to regain control of the Russian borderlands at the Versailles Conference.

  The October Revolution led to a freeze in Russian-Norwegian relations, with devastating consequence to some northern Norweigian communities, as well as a geographic separation when Finland gained control of the Pechenga-Petsamo region. Although the Finnish threat in some ways replaced the weakened Bolshevik regime as a source of concern, diplomatic relations between Norway and the Soviet state were not established until 1924. The Norwegian government actively sought to curb the activities of leftist pro-Soviet organizations and reinforced the garrisons in northern Norway. During World War II the Norwegian government-in-exile was very worried about Soviet territorial ambitions in northern Norway. Its fears seemed confirmed when the Red Army temporarily occupied eastern Finnmark in 1944. The Soviets also claimed some of the Norwegian-controlled northern Atlantic islands (Bear Isle, Spitsbergen).

  Norwegian Russophobia and a sense of vulnerability after the German occupation led to a strong cross-party consensus in favor of NATO membership in 1949. Although it continued to distrust the Soviets, the Oslo government adopted a pragmatic stance, de-emphasizing the defense of Finnmark and prohibiting the stationing of foreign troops and nuclear weapons in the country. Intergovernmental relations remained formal, and most Norwegian-Russian interaction was localized to the northern border regions. Perestroika and the collapse of the Soviet Union did a great deal to restore the historically close ties between northern Russia and Finnmark, and during the early twenty-first century there are many lively economic, political, and cultural ties. See also: COLD WAR; FINLAND; SWEDEN, RELATIONS WITH; VIKINGS

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Kirby, David. (1990). Northern Europe in the Early Modern Period: The Baltic World, 1492-1772. London: Longman. Kirby, David. (1995). The Baltic World, 1772-1993: Europe’s Northern Periphery in an Age of Change. London: Longman. Larsen, Karen. (1948). A History of Norway. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Libaek, Ivar. (1991). History of Norway: From the Ice Age to the Oil Age. Oslo: Grondahl and Son.

  JARMO T. KOTILAINE

  NOVGOROD, ARCHBISHOP OF

  The archbishop was the highest ecclesiastical office and symbolic head of the city-Lord Novgorod the Great. The chronicles refer to him as vladyka, a term meaning “lord,” or “ruler,” reflecting his duties as the representative of the city. He resided within the

  1068

  NOVGOROD JUDICIAL CHARTER

  city’s fortress (detinets), met with Western ambassadors and Russian princes, mediated disputes in the city, and officiated in the city’s main Cathedral of St. Sophia.

  The Novgorodian office of bishop traditionally dates to the reign of Vladimir, who brought in Ioakim of Cherson in 989, but there is little firm evidence of its existence until the mid-1030s, when Luka Zhidyata served. The bishop received tithes from fines and wergild payments, but from the late 1130s onward a fixed income from the prince’s treasury was set. Landholding, however, constituted the basis of the church’s wealth, and by the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Novgorodian Church was the largest landholder, employing religious and secular workers and even hiring soldiers.

  Following Novgorod’s independence from Kiev in 1136, the first election of the bishop occurred in 1156 when the “people of the entire town,” perhaps in a meeting of an assembly (veche), chose Arkady. However, the ability of Novgorod to select its own archbishop did not make the Church independent of the metropolitan, who still confirmed candidates. After Arkady’s death in 1163, Ilya was appointed (not elected) first archbishop of Novgorod in 1165. The next election of an archbishop occurred in 1186 when townsmen, prince, hegumens, and priests selected Gavriil, Ilya’s brother. After 1186 it became customary for the townspeople, prince, and clergy to elect their archbishops in a veche, but it is not clear whether all free Novgorodians participated. When there was no clear candidate the city utilized lots (for example, in 1229 and 1359): Three names were placed on the altar of St. Sophia and one would be chosen.

  Sometime during the thirteenth century the archbishop came to preside over the Council of Lords (Sovet gospod), the highest executive and judicial body. It consisted of some fifty to sixty members, including the sitting lord mayor and chiliarch (commander of troops), former lord mayors, and current mayors of the five boroughs. The meetings took place within the archbishop’s quarters, and later in the archbishop’s Palace of Facets, constructed in 1433. The Novgorodian Judicial Charter notes that referral hearings convened in the archbishop’s quarters.

  The archbishop did not directly control the city’s monasteries, which fell under the jurisdiction of one of the five district hegumens (heads of monasteries). The monasteries were ultimately under the jurisdiction of the archimandrite, who also was chosen by the veche.

  Moscow conquered Novgorod in 1478, and two years later Grand Prince Ivan III arrested and imprisoned Archbishop Theophilus. Ivan forced Theophilus to resign and replaced him with Gen-nadius in 1484, bringing the archbishopric more firmly under the metropolitan of Moscow. In 1489 Ivan confiscated most of the archbishop’s estates and half the lands of the six wealthiest monasteries. These lands became the basis of Moscow’s system of military service landholdings (pomeste). See also: BIRCHBARK CHARTERS; CATHEDRAL OF ST. SOPHIA, NOVGOROD; NOVGOROD JUDICIAL CHARTER; NOVGOROD THE GREAT; POSADNIK; PRIMARY CHRONICLE; RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH; VECHE.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Birnbaum, Henrik. (1981). Lord Novgorod the Great. Columbus, OH: Slavica.

  LAWRENCE N. LANGER<
br />
  NOVGOROD JUDICIAL CHARTER

  The Novgorod Judicial Charter exists in a sixteenth-century fragment but was likely first compiled around 1471. By then Novgorod faced a growing military threat from Moscow. In 1456 Moscow imposed the Treaty of Yazhelbitsy, which limited Novgorod’s independence in foreign policy, forced the city to cede important territories, and imposed a heavy indemnity payment. Novgorod retained its internal administrative structure, but the city became torn politically between pro-Lithuanian and pro-Muscovite factions. Moscow decisively defeated Novgorod at the Shelon River and imposed a huge indemnity of sixteen thousand rubles. Grand Prince Ivan III received Novgorodian delegations at the mouth of the Shelon and concluded a peace based on the earlier Yazhelbitsy Treaty. The Charter was probably drawn up at this time or soon thereafter, as it reflects Novgorod’s administrative structure and liberties before Ivan’s arrests of some leading Novgorodians in late 1475 and 1476, and his annexation of the city in 1478.

  The Charter records that the archbishop, leading political officers, and urban free population (mayors [posadniki], chiliarchs [tysyatski], boyars,

  1069

  NOVGOROD THE GREAT

  well-to-do or ranking men [zhiti lyudi], merchants, and taxable population) from all five boroughs, who, having met in Yaroslav’s court in an assembly (veche), and having conferred with Grand Prince Ivan III and his son, agreed to the provisions of the Charter. The incomplete Charter abruptly ends in the midst of Article 42. Much of the Charter concerns the prerogatives of the city’s judicial system. Significantly, the first four articles asserted the rights of the courts of the archbishop, mayor, and chiliarch. The archbishop conducts his court according to the canons of the Church, and the chil-iarch retains the independence of his court. The mayor, however, must conduct his judicial proceedings with that of the grand prince’s lieutenant (namestnik). Although this appears as a limitation of the mayor’s prerogatives, it likely reflects longstanding practice, as the text notes that they are to direct the court jointly in accordance with traditional custom. On the other hand, Article 5 affirmed the prohibition against removing the mayor, chiliarch, lieutenant of the archbishop, and all their judges from their courts. The grand prince’s lieutenants and judges (tyuny, who were probably slaves) retained a customary right of review.

  Heavy fines were exacted according to status for slandering or intimidating the mayor, chiliarch, any of the other judges, or the decisions of trial by combat (the latter a common feature of the Pskov Judicial Charter). Boyars paid fifty rubles, the well-to-do (non-aristocratic wealthy merchants and landowners) twenty rubles, and the remaining free urban population (molodshi, or young ones) ten rubles to the grand prince and Novgorod. These were all prohibitive fines designed to preserve the integrity of the courts. Cases were to be tried and completed within a month, but land disputes could take up to two months; the Charter also stipulated the fees the courts and their officials received.

  Court procedures required the two litigants (or their representatives) and no others to confront one another and conduct their cases. Participants including all judges had to kiss the cross, attesting to their truthfulness and Christian faith. Failure to kiss the cross resulted in the loss of the case. Sons could kiss the cross on behalf of their widowed mothers; if a son refused, then the widow could kiss the cross in her home in the presence of the bailiffs. Character witnesses could be called, but the Pskov populace and slaves could not serve as character witness, although a slave could testify against another slave. Litigants were normally given two weeks to rebut witnesses. Boyars and the wealthy conducted referral hearings within the archbishop’s residence, which meant that they were probably under the jurisdiction of the Council of Lords. The Charter carefully regulated procedures concerning postponements.

  Of particular interest are the Charter’s references to the administrative subdivisions of the city. Each borough, street, hundred, or row could send two people to a court or investigation. Unfortunately, the Charter does not clarify the social composition or administrative responsibilities of the urban divisions, which have been the subject of much historical debate. Novgorod consisted of five boroughs, which were divided into hundreds, streets, and rows. The boroughs were under the jurisdiction of boyars, and the hundreds were originally administered by a complex arrangement of princely and urban officials that, by the late twelfth century, was dominated by the city’s boyars. The streets and rows may have reflected the interests or administration of the general population of lesser merchants and craftsmen. See also: NOVGOROD THE GREAT; PSKOV JUDICIAL CHARTER; SUDEBNIK OF 1497

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Kaiser, Daniel, tr. and ed. (1992). The Laws of Russia, Series 1, Vol. 1: The Laws of Rus’, Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries. Salt Lake City, UT: Charles Schlacks, Jr. Vernadsky, George. (1969). Medieval Russian Laws. New York: Norton.

  LAWRENCE N. LANGER

  NOVGOROD THE GREAT

  Novgorod the Great was a city-state located in northwestern Russia, existing from the mid-tenth century to its annexation by Muscovy in 1478.

  Although Novgorod was named in the Lau-rentian redaction of the Primary Chronicle as the political seat occupied by Ryurik in 862, archaeological evidence indicates that the city was founded in the mid-tenth century. Located on the Volkhov River near its origins at Lake Ilmen, the city quickly emerged as a leading commercial center. Shortly after Prince Vladimir adopted Christianity for Kievan Rus, Novgorod became the seat of a bishopric and became a major ecclesiastic and cultural center. Its political institutions represented an alternative to

  1070

  NOVGOROD THE GREAT

  the strong princely regime developing in northeastern Russia. At the peak of its power, Novgorod controlled lands stretching from the Baltic Sea to the White Sea and the northern Urals Mountains, but it was subjugated by Muscovy in 1478.

  POLITICAL ORGANIZATION AND HISTORY

  As Kievan Rus formed, Novgorod emerged as the second most important city of that state. Kiev’s princes appointed their sons or other close associates to govern Novgorod. Thus, when Svyatoslav died in 972, his son Vladimir was serving as prince in Novgorod. Similarly, when Vladimir died in 1015, his son Yaroslav was ruling Novgorod. Both Svyatoslav and Vladimir were able to use troops from Novgorod and Scandinavia to secure their own positions as princes of Kiev. Although it has been argued that Prince Yaroslav of Kiev intended Novgorod to become the hereditary seat of his son Vladimir, most scholars concur that Novgorod continued to be ruled by appointees of the Kievan princes. This arrangement distinguished Novgorod from the other major towns of Kievan Rus, towns which, during the eleventh century, became patrimonies of different branches of the Rurikid dynasty.

  In 1136 the Novgorodians asserted their right to name their own prince. For the next century they selected princes from the Rurikid dynastic lines that ruled in Chernigov, Smolensk, and Vladimir-Suzdal and that competed for power in Kievan Rus. Novgorod’s affiliation with a particular dynastic branch frequently gave its princes advantages over their competitors. Novgorod consequently also became an object of contention among the rival dynastic branches, which sought to influence Novgorod’s choice of prince through political, economic, and military pressure. In 1148-1149 and again in 1169 Novgorod clashed violently with Suzdalia, which was able to block supplies, including food, to the city. By the second quarter of the thirteenth century, princes from Vladimir-Suzdal had gained dominance in Novgorod.

  In the absence of a single branch of the dynasty permanently ruling the city and its associated lands, Novgorod developed a political system that was unique within the lands of Rus. Princes exercised considerable authority and were responsible for defending the city. But they were obliged to reside outside the city and to govern in conjunction with the city’s administrators, its mayor (posad-nik) and militia commander (tysyatsky), who were elected from Novgorod’s wealthy, landowning elite, known as the Novgorodian boyars. In addition, the city irregularly convened a town assembly, or veche. The bisho
ps of Novgorod, elevated to archbishops in 1165 and regarded as significant unifying influences in the city, also participated in the city’s administration, its diplomatic affairs, its economic activities, and its judicial system. The functions of these offices and institutions and division of authority among them remain imperfectly understood; scholars have therefore characterized Novgorod variously as a republic with its popular town assembly and as an oligarchy politically dominated by a few boyar families.

  The Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus in the period from 1238 to 1240 did not reach Novgorod. But in 1259, the Mongols accompanied by Prince Alexander Nevsky (r. 1252-1263), who had led the defense of Novgorod from the Swedes at the Neva River in 1240 and from the Teutonic Knights at Lake Peipus in 1242, forced Novgorod to submit to a census and pay tribute. Novgorod continued to recognize the grand princes of Vladimir, all of whom were also princes of Moscow after the mid-fourteenth century, as its own.