“In the Quest for the Key Democratic Institution of Medieval Russia: Was the Veche an Institution that Represented Novgorod as a City and a Republic?”. Heft 1 of the Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteurop
Olga Sevastyanova independent.academia.edu
“In the Quest for the Key Democratic Institution of Medieval Russia: Was the Veche an Institution that Represented Novgorod as a City and a Republic?”. Heft 1 of the Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 58 (2010): 1–23.
Veche’s justice, Old Russian popular assembly, dates to the primitive society, when people were punishing those, who felled into error in collective. We have no any exact wittings about the Veche’s justice of the 9th – 10th centuries, more than likely it was connected with the escalation of the prince’s power, that did not admit any concurrence from the popular assembly, because the justice of veche – is the political justice. At the end of the 11th century one can find thirst mentions of the appearance of conception, that could be described as the “Veche’s justice”, when Kiev people should have expressed their opinion, concerning the steps of those princes, whose lands were in dependence of Kiev. But one can say nothing about the set justice. People’s justice develops mainly in the 12th – thirst third of the 13th century and it should be mainly associated with the strengthening of the communities against the prince’s power. Veche’s justice was natural for all Old Russian lands. It scoped all the men who marketed collective. The punishing of the guilty persons was accompanied with confusions, but in any way it was not ‘mob rule’. Traditional leaders effected on the public sentiments. Sometimes one could find part’s hearings, and accused person was cleared of criminal charge. The punishment took time after the veche’s judgement. Frequently method of punishment was selected relating to the crime. Anyway, generally one could not fix any judicial examination, because all the crimes of the accused people were known. Veche’s justice did not institutialised in the Veche’s judgment, one can speak only about the elements of the institutionalization. Incidents of the prince’s expulsion could be described in the context of veche’s justice.

An historian of early Russian history faces many methodological problems, not the least of which is the paucity of sources for the Kievan and Mongol periods. Because of the dearth of material, historians of the medieval Russian town, such as M. N. Tikhomirov and A. M. Sakharov, have generally presented a static conceptualization of urban society, thereby obscuring the dynamic processes and nuances of historical development. Despite the many studies of Novgorod, one can fairly state that historians have often described fourteenth and fifteenth-century Novgorod as though it were virtually unchanged since 1136, when the town declared its independence from Kiev. While recognizing the importance of the Sovet gospod (Council of Lords) and posadnik (mayor), some historians have nevertheless insisted that the veche (assembly) was the sovereign body of the republic. Its meetings were open to the town&#39;s citizens, and though the veche at times degenerated into brawls, no prince or posadnik...

An analysis of Czech historiography shows that the study of Novgorod's history in different periods of the development of the Czech state was uneven because, to a large extent, the research interest was influenced by socio-political events in the Czech Republic and attitudes in society. Despite traditional relations with the Slavic states and long diplomatic ties, the first scientific works on the history of Russia appeared in Czech historiography only in the second half of the 19th century. In addition to past political events, limited access to scientific literature and the lack of translations of historical sources influenced the problems of research, as well as the sometimes-distorted interpretation of Novgorod's history. In this connection, the author presented a detailed review of Czech historiography dedicated to the history of Veliky Novgorod, highlighting the most promising vectors for Czech science at present. The issues of the source base of Czech historians about the problems of Veliky Novgorod and its changes in the period from the 19th century to the present day were also studied. Further research was also connected with the thematic differentiation of Czech Novgorod studies, which developed from a general synthesis of the history of Russia to specialized articles. Analysing the subject of study of Czech historians, studies about the political relations of Novgorod, diplomacy, and some hints about researching the social structure can be pointed out. Despite the not very strong reflection of Novgorod's history in the works of Czech historians, this topic represents a promising way since many historical parallels between Novgorod and the Czech Republic can be found.

This article explores legislative and administrative practices that were meant to create a basis for the Russian estate system. These practices emerged as part of a larger effort to create a “well-ordered police state,” while estates were simultaneously considered – in the spirit of the 18th century Enlightenment – important in preventing despotism. In the Russian context, this meant overcoming fluid borders between different social groups as well as inconsistencies in correlation between estate status and economic role. It also meant accommodating serfdom. Beginning in 1775, Catherine II’s government attempted to make rules that made the urban estate more flexible and nuanced. At the same time, decrees providing for new rules to regulate the influx of the peasants into the cities were aimed at improving “the quality” of this immigration, setting up property or fiscal qualifications. In accordance with agro-centric, physiocratic ideas, the acceptance of peasants into the city or town estate (meshchane) was viewed as endangering the fiscal health of the state. Thus, the social structure of empire was programmed to prevent the upward social mobility of peasants, while at the same guaranteeing that “meshchane” would not slip down the social ladder (though, indeed, upward social mobility was also made difficult for them). Peasants were only allowed into the merchants’ estate, not that of “meshchane.” The latter estate, despite its supposedly urban character, remained identical with the peasantry in terms of its fiscal (and often economic) role.