Printer Friendly

Secular power and the archbishops of Novgorod before the Muscovite conquest.

Novgorod the Great was one of medieval Europe's preeminent cities. It stood apart from the other cities and towns of medieval Rus' because of its "special political order and the de facto autonomy of its church administration." (1) Instead of a local princely dynasty establishing itself, Novgorod had a veche with a rather raucous and obstreperous political milieu. The city's storied wealth from the fur trade meant that the most powerful princes of Rus' vied for control of it, but none was able to establish hereditary title or control over the city. Instead, the nominal prince of Novgorod--beginning in the 13th century he was almost always the prince of Vladimir--was usually off at the Horde or in his home city (usually Tver' or Moscow). In his absence, an aristocracy drawn from the most powerful local clans monopolized the elective offices of posadnik (mayor) and tysiatskii ("thousandman"), (2) sharing power with the veche, if not controlling it. (3)

Ecclesiastically, too, Novgorod differed from the other episcopal sees of Rus'. Beginning in 1156, its archbishop was frequently chosen locally, often by the drawing of lots, and not appointed by the metropolitans or grand princes as were the other bishops of Rus'. (4) From the office's elevation to the archiepiscopal dignity in 1165, (5) Novgorod's was almost the only archbishop in the Russian Church until the late 4th century, when the bishops of Rostov and Suzdal were elevated to archiepiscopal dignity as well. (6) Some scholars have argued that the title of archbishop made Novgorod autocephalous from Kiev, (7) but Iaroslav Shchapov rejects this contention:
   The title was well known in the Christian Church, being granted to
   those episcopal sees which by virtue of historical conditions or
   some special relationship with the Patriarchate were not subordinate
   to the geographically closest metropolitan and came directly under
   the hand of the patriarch. The enumeration of 12th-century
   archbishoprics lists 40 to 50 sees that possessed this advantage.
   But neither these nor later enumerations listed Novgorod as an
   archbishopric because the only Rus' archbishopric was merely
   titular, an honorary archbishopric, whose relationship with superior
   centers did not relieve it of subordination to Kiev. (8)


Indeed, the Novgorodian archbishops' presence in synodal documents (appearing immediately after the metropolitan), their consecration by the metropolitan, and other evidence clearly indicate their continued subordination to the metropolitans in Kiev, Vladimir, or Moscow. (9) In addition to their honored place within the Russian Church, the archbishops stood among the secular rulers of Novgorod the Great and wielded civil or secular powers not normally seen among the Orthodox episcopate. Indeed, their powers domestically, their often antagonistic relationship with Moscow's grand princes and metropolitans, and their role in Novgorod's foreign relations have led a number of scholars to argue that they were the real power in Novgorod. A number of general studies of Russian history have seized on the archbishops' economic, social, cultural, and political powers to argue that the archbishops were in some ways like the prince-bishops of the West. Thus, in his lectures on Russian history, Vasilii Kliuchevskii argued that the archbishop was "the permanent president [postoiannyi predsedatel'] of the Sovet gospod," (10) or Council of Lords, which Henrik Birnbaum defined as "a delegated and executive organ of the veche." (11) The council acted as an executive committee (or Politburo if you will) of the veche and carried out the day-to-day duties of the government when the veche was not convened, and it usually met in the archbishop's chambers and later the Palace of Facets. (12) Indeed, Kliuchevskii contended that the archbishop, "by presiding over the Council of Lords ... came to occupy first place in the secular hierarchy of the city." (13) George P. Fedotov echoed Kliuchevskii and wrote that the archbishop was "the president of the Council of Masters" (i.e., the Sovet gospod), explaining: "In effect, he was the one who was 'president' of the republic, to draw a modern analogy.... The archbishop stood above parties and expressed the unity of the republic." (14) Edward Sokol referred to the "all-powerful archbishop, the nominal head of state," (15) while Birnbaum argued that in "presiding over the Council of Lords," the archbishop "may be considered the republic's formal head of the state," although he admitted that the posadniki and tysiatskie were really "the two most influential officials in Novgorod the Great." (16)

These modern terms--"head of state" or "president of the republic"--are, however, awkward and anachronistic. The prince of Novgorod was always the real head of state, even after his direct power declined in the city from the first quarter of the 14th century onward and he became an absentee sovereign. (17) It is true that Ghillbert de Lannoy, a Westerner who visited Novgorod in the summer of 1415, concluded that the archbishop was the real power in the city; he wrote that "there is a bishop here who is like their sovereign," (18) adding that the city boasted 350 churches and "a castle situated on the bank of the aforementioned river [the Volkhov], and in it stands the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom, which they revere, and their aforementioned bishop lives there." (19) But during his nine-day visit to the city, Lannoy met other town officials (seigneurs, or "lords"), the tysiatskii (whom he called dux), and the posadnik (bourchgrave). He pointed out that each day he was in the city, the archbishop (it would have been Archbishop Ioann II (20) or Simeon at this time) "sent more than 30 men to me with bread, meat, fish, hay, oats, beer, and mead," while the tysiatskii and posadnik honored Lannoy with "the strangest and most remarkable banquet I have ever seen." (21) Important though Lannoy's insights are as a primary source, it is difficult to say how much his experiences in the West, where Catholic bishops were often secular princes in charge of cities and entire districts, colored his understanding of the archbishop of Novgorod. A fuller look at the evidence that the chronicles and other sources provide does not allow us to single out the archbishops as superior to the rest of the Novgorodian aristocracy or to determine particular spheres of authority, roles (such as that of "head of state"), or limits placed on individual offices (the archbishop, posadnik, or tysiatskii) within this collective leadership.

In fact, Novgorodian sources tend to suggest that sovereignty was seen to reside not in the prince, the archbishop, or the collective boiarstvo, but in the more abstract "Lord Novgorod the Great," (22) and that the posadniki, tysiatskie, and other members of the boiarstvo (as well as the archbishops) acted as a collective in formulating and executing policies. Although the archbishops had more secular power than other Orthodox bishops, their participation in government as ambassadors, signatories of treaties, and in other capacities may well have been intended to protect their own interests, especially the landholdings and influence of the House of Holy Wisdom, as the archiepiscopal administration was known. Thus, they were not acting in any official capacity as "head of state," as "president of the republic," or even as a more abstract figurehead who stood above the political fray, although I readily admit that the archbishops' interests often coincided with Novgorodian state interests.

The evidence, furthermore, shows that the archbishops' secular or civil powers were not exercised consistently over the entire period of Novgorodian independence (traditionally 1136-1478) but arose mainly after the first third of the 14th century, at about the same time that Moscow began encroaching on Novgorodian lands and threatening the livelihood of the Novgorodian boyars and the archiepiscopal administration. Even as their secular activities grew, the archbishops nevertheless almost always acted in collaboration with the broader boiarstvo, and almost never unilaterally. In the very few cases where the archbishops wielded sole secular power, they did so reluctantly and only after all alternatives had been exhausted, perhaps in part because it was not seen as their proper role. This reluctance can be seen in the case of Archbishop Vasilii Kalika's (r. 1330-52) rebuilding of the fortress at Orekhov, as well as Archbishop Feofil's (r. 1470-80) actions at the very end of Novgorodian independence. Feofil, in particular, did act alone--without the cooperation of the Novgorodian boyars--but he did so under a very specific set of circumstances.

Before discussing the particular secular activities of the Novgorodian archbishops, however, it is important to point out the significant differences between Western and Eastern bishops and to show that Orthodox bishops did not normally wield secular powers. Thus the archbishops in Novgorod were unique among the bishops of the Orthodox world and not just within Rus', even if they were not formally heads of the Novgorodian republic. Although they stood apart from Orthodox prelates, they never attained the level of secular power of the Catholic bishops to their west.

The Secular Activities of the Episcopate in Western and Eastern Christendom

The episcopate in the Western Church came to differ markedly from that of the Eastern Church long before the Great Schism of 1054. With different views of leadership, the churches developed quite different cultures and worldviews; these differences went far beyond the debates over papal supremacy versus episcopal collegiality or the Filioque. In the West, the Church stepped in to take up secular powers following the fall of the Western Roman empire in the late fifth century. Over the course of the early medieval period (the so-called "Dark Ages"), as West European civilization rebuilt itself on the ruins of Roman civilization, emergent secular rulers such as the Frankish kings used bishops and other ecclesiastics to carry out administrative functions. Clergymen were not only seen as sacerdotal figures who were assumed to be more trustworthy--hence they could prove their innocence by compurgation rather than trial by ordeal or combat--but were also among the only literate people in a largely illiterate society. (23) This use of churchmen by the secular rulers continued throughout the medieval period. Although St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan from 370 to 397, wrote in the waning years of the Western Roman empire that "palaces belong to the emperor, churches to the priesthood," the line demarcating the secular and the ecclesiastical had been blurred even by then (Ambrose exercised considerable power in his city), and was never really clarified in the medieval period. (24)

In addition to exercising secular jurisdiction, Catholic prelates often became military men, another aspect of the office entirely unseen in the Orthodox world. They accompanied troops on campaigns and raised and led troops in battle. (25) O. M. Dalton noted that during the time of Archbishop Gregory of Tours (ca. 538-94), "the sees of France were filled by roistering captains whose knowledge of religion and the duties of their station was in inverse proportion to their knowledge of horses and dogs." (26) Gregory himself recognized this and wrote in his History of the Franks of two brothers, both bishops (Salonius of Ebrun and Sagitarrius of Gap), who engaged in "physical assaults, murders, adultery, and every crime in the calendar." (27) They sent mobs to attack another bishop "with swords and arrows" (28) and fought against the Lombards in 574; "instead of seeking protection in the heavenly Cross, they were armed with the helmet and the breastplate of this secular world and, what is worse, they are said to have killed many men with their own hands." (29) Gregory found this unseemly, but it was not uncommon in his day, and it continued throughout the Middle Ages. Holy Roman emperors made the German bishops and abbots princes of the empire (Reichsfursten), (30) and this was the cause of much conflict during the Investiture Controversy of the 11th and 12th centuries. (31) With the Viking and Magyar invasions of the ninth and tenth centuries, the need for armed local authorities to protect the empire led to an increase in the number of warrior-bishops, and they did not diminish when the Northmen and Hungarians settled down. A number of archbishops and bishops fought the Vikings, (32) and German prelates led armies into Italy in the 12th century to shore up imperial power there. (33) Archbishop Christian of Mainz (d. 1183) killed 9 opponents in the Lombard War and knocked out the teeth of 30 more. (34) In England, Odo of Bayeux (William the Conqueror's half-brother) took part in the Battle of Hastings, and several later archbishops of York became famous warriors. (35) Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury murdered at the altar in 1170, led 700 soldiers in battle in France while still a deacon and offered to lead the storming party against King Louis at Toulouse, but King Henry declined the offer. Beckett took three other strongholds thought impregnable before returning to England. (36) In France, Abbot Henry, later archbishop of Narbonne, led armies against the Albigensian heretics. (37) The Hungarian archbishops Hugolin (Ugolin, or Ugrin Csak) of Kolocza (Kalocsa-Bacs) and Matthias of Gran (Esztergom) and three bishops died leading troops against the Mongols at Sajo River (Mohi) in 1241. (38) During the Avignon Papacy, Alvarez Carillo Gil Cardinal de Albornoz, the archbishop of Toledo who had previously fought the Moors in Spain, was named papal legate and led an army into the Papal States in (1354) and in nine years restored papal authority there. (39) In 1377, Cardinal Robert of Geneva (later Antipope Clement VII, r. 1378-94) led troops against Cesena while a papal legate; on the city's surrender, he massacred 4,000 people despite having sworn on his galero to spare them. (40) Several popes, including John XXII (r. 1316-34) and Julius II (r. 503-15), led troops in battle. (41) In Scandinavia, Absalon, bishop of Roskilde (r. 1158-1201) and archbishop of Lund (r. 1177-1201), oversaw the fortifications of Copenhagen in 1167, warred against the Wends, and won a naval battle against Prince Bogislaw of Pomerania in 1187. (42) Archbishop Anders Sunesen of Lund (r. 1201-23, d. 1228) and Bishop Theoderik of Estonia (r. 1211-19) accompanied King Valdemar II of Denmark (r. 1202-41) on crusade into Estonia in 1219 and fought at the Battle of Lyndanisse near Tallinn (Revel, Kolyvan). (43)

Novgorod came into contact with Catholic warrior-bishops here, in Estonia, Livonia, and northwestern Rus'. Chroniclers noted that several arrived in Livonia or landed along the southern Gulf of Finland on the border with Novgorod in the 12th and 13th centuries. In 1198, Bishop Berthold of Uexkull died in battle with local tribes; (44) his successor, Bishop Albert (r. 1199-1229), entered Livonia at the head of an army. (45) In 1240, Albert's brother, Bishop Hermann of Dorpat (r. 1224-48) (Derpt, Iur'ev, modern Tartu, Estonia), campaigned with the Teutonic Knights against Izborsk, the fortress guarding the western approaches to Pskov, (46) and a bishop attended a Swedish prince and his troops up the Neva and took part in the battle where Aleksandr Iaroslavich (grand prince, r. 1246-63) earned his sobriquet. (47) Two years later, Hermann sent troops to fight Aleksandr at the Battle on the Ice. (48) German bishops were also with the master and commander of the Teutonic Knights encamped below Izborsk in 1368. (49)

The practice of bishops wielding secular power in the medieval Latin West--including leading troops and fighting themselves--was, hence, an all too common practice. In the East, on the other hand, Orthodox prelates held more secular power or influence than they do now, but they never exercised military command, ruled principalities, or held noble titles. They held landed estates (as did Western bishops) that gave them legal and economic control over the peasants on those estates and conferred economic independence; they (or judges they supervised) adjudicated cases in ecclesiastical courts, which had jurisdiction over "churchmen," a term that included not only priests, monks, and nuns but also priests' families and other people not considered in this day and age to be members of the clergy (such as those who baked the Eucharistic bread or members of the choir). They also oversaw cases involving inheritance and family law, which today are handled by civil courts and indicate the archbishops' greater influence over everyday life than is now the case. The Orthodox episcopate, however, never attained or even grasped at the level of secular power wielded by bishops in the West.

The limited secularization in the East is explained by the fact that the Eastern Roman empire saw no decline in secular power in the fifth century as had occurred in the Western empire. Although Byzantine power waxed and waned throughout the medieval period before it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, the imperial administration remained intact until the end. Imperial officials and bureaucrats continued to administer to the secular needs of the empire over the course of the millennium. Hence, bishops or other churchmen were never needed as secular or military lords in the East and this function was seen as not only unnecessary but also inappropriate and unbecoming to a cleric. (50) This is readily apparent in Byzantine and Eastern writing. Anna Comnena, the daughter of the Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus (r. 1081-1118), derided a Western priest for engaging in combat himself: "We are bidden by canon law and the teachings of the Gospel, 'Touch not, grumble not, attack not--For thou art consecrated.' But the Latin barbarian will at the same time handle sacred objects, fasten his shield to his left arm, and grasp a spear in his right. He will communicate the Body and Blood of the Deity, and meanwhile gaze on bloodshed and become himself 'a man of blood.'" (51)

As the Byzantines spread Christianity beyond the old borders of the Eastern Roman empire, the much more limited role of the bishop (limited to the religious sphere) spread with other Byzantine traditions and doctrines into Rus'. Thus, even as Novgorod saw Western bishops leading troops and overseeing duchies just over the border in Estonia, Livonia, or Swedish Finland, they never accepted this as an appropriate role for their own bishops and archbishops. Furthermore, there are instances where hierarchs of the Russian Church made clear that a martial life was unbecoming to a cleric. Thus Metropolitan Kiprian (r. c. 1375-1406), a Bulgarian monk from Mount Athos who was made head of the Russian Church by the patriarch of Constantinople in 1375, wrote to St. Sergei of Radonezh and Hegumen Fedor of the Simonovskii Monastery: "I am coming, bringing peace and blessing as once Joseph was sent by his father to his brothers. Whatever some say about me, I am a bishop, and not a military man." (52)

The accepted sphere of episcopal activity in the East was, therefore, more limited than in the West. Nevertheless, here, too, the archbishop of Novgorod was different. He held more power than his fellow Orthodox bishops, though he never achieved the level of the Western episcopate either. With this in mind, let us, then, turn and look more closely at the powers and secular activities particular to the archbishops of Novgorod.

The Secular Activities of the Archbishops of Novgorod

As Novgorod's princely office declined in power beginning in the 12th century, its archbishops grew in power, as did other local officials (the posadniki and tysiatskie), and apparently came to share political power with the local elites, especially after the reign of Archbishop Vasilii Kalika. Scholars have long recognized the archbishops' secular roles, although several scholars may be exteme in calling the archbishops secular officials or even heads of state. Aleksandr Nikitskii, in his Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode (The Internal History of the Church in Novgorod the Great), wrote that as princely power declined in Novgorod in the 13th century, the archbishops became one of the main powers in town: "the Vladyka [archbishop] was in Novgorod not only the head of the religious establishment but also an important force in public life." He went on to write that the archbishops became the "executive organ" (ispolnitel'nyi organ) of the city, and the "singular authoritative actor in society." The archbishop was "one of the most important people on the Council [of Lords]," and Nikitskii argued that this was in keeping with episcopal roles dating back to the time of Justinian (d. 565), when bishops took part in city administrations. The archbishop was also "one of the most powerful landowners in Novgorod the Great," whose enormous treasury, stored in the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom, served as the city treasury. (53) Nikitskii also wrote that the archbishops became so powerful that the veche tried to limit their secular powers. By the late 15th century, the ecclesiastical courts were subject to civil oversight, even though the archbishop's courts still heard cases that elsewhere would have been handled in the secular courts. (54) This view of the archbishop as a secular official has often been taken up by later scholars. Valentin Ianin asserted that the archbishops exercised state power, especially in a judicial capacity, through their namestniki, whose seals begin appearing in archaeological layers dating to the late 13th century. (55) The archbishop's namestnik, for example, ran the city of Ladoga under Archbishop Kliment (r. 1276-99) and the archbishop's seal was used in place of the prince's in Pskov. (56) Ianin also argued:
   Among the elected offices of Novgorod, the first place was held by
   the Novgorodian bishop. He was custodian of the Novgorodian state
   treasury and owner of extensive state lands, the primary part of
   which had been confiscated from lands owned by the prince, attached
   to the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom. To him belonged the right of the
   church courts and control over the merchant scales. Together with
   the boyar upper class, he took part in the foreign policy of the
   republic and in his court were compiled the Novgorodian chronicles.
   The Novgorodian bishop ... having received in 1165 the status of
   archbishop, presided over the "Council of Lords," the governmental
   organ of the boyar oligarchs. The political role of the archbishop
   was determined, first and foremost, on the basis of his being the
   greatest of the Novgorodian feudal [lords]. (57)


Joel Raba's assertions were not as strong as those of Ianin, but he argued that the office of archbishop was "the sole well-developed and stable Novgorodian institution," contending that the long tenures of the archbishops made their position more stable than those of the posadniki and tysiatskie, who were elected annually. (58) Since a number of archbishops served for two or almost three decades, the archiepiscopal office, rather than the secular political offices, came to represent consistent Novgorodian state interests. (59) This claim, however, is called into question by Ianin's study of the posadniki, which demonstrated that though elected annually, individual posadniki often held office for a decade or more and passed their position on to their sons or other close relatives. Thus the posadnichestvo was dominated by clans, and those clans or families could also represent Novgorod's long-term state interests. (60)

Aleksandr Khoroshev, in his Tserkov' v sotsial'no-politicheskoi sisteme Novgorodskoi feodal'noi respubliki (The Church in the Socio-Political System of Novgorod's Feudal Republic), likewise counted the archbishops among the city's ruling elite and considered them influential leaders of the anti-Moscow faction, but he did not single them out as the head of the republic, instead seeing them as part of a ruling collective. In fact, he argued that the archiepiscopal administration was essentially indistinguishable from the republican administration: the treasury of Holy Wisdom was the Novgorodian state treasury and "there was no difference between Holy Wisdom and Novgorod." (61)

Gail Lenhoff and Janet Martin, in their article on "Marfa Boretskaia, Posadnitsa of Novgorod," did not go as far as some of the earlier scholars, but did enumerate some of the specific powers of the archbishop, similar to those mentioned earlier by Ianin:
   The Novgorod eparchy was extremely wealthy, and the archbishop of
   Novgorod, the most senior of all other bishops, subordinate only to
   the metropolitans in Moscow, enjoyed the kind of wide-ranging
   political power usually accorded to appanage princes. He
   commissioned boyars and deti boiarskie to perform services for him,
   employed secular and clerical service personnel to oversee
   substantial income-generating properties, collected fees for
   services and judgments, and maintained his own troops. All
   substantive Novgorodian acts and treaties were blessed by the
   archbishop and stamped with his seal. He assumed responsibility for
   external policy negotiations with other princes as well, ratifying
   treaties, formulating petitions, and, as necessary, heading
   diplomatic delegations. (62)


Although their article's focus was on Marfa Boretskaia, the late 15th-century wife of a posadnik who, through legends and tales, took on the aura of the matriarch of the anti-Muscovite faction in the city, Lenhoff and Martin argued that the "Slovesa izbranna," the late 15th-century tract that laid out the original black image of Marfa as a traitor and heretic, was probably written in Archbishop Feofil's scriptorium to exonerate the archbishop and keep him from suffering the grand prince's wrath by putting the blame on Marfa. (63) Thus the article touches on our topic of the archbishops and their secular powers, particularly the case of Feofil, as well as on the legend of Marfa Boretskaia. (64)

In his discussion of canon law, George Weickhardt was less expansive in his discussion of archiepiscopal power than many earlier scholars, but he noted that the archbishops were "probably involved in judging many purely secular disputes," a role not seen among other Orthodox prelates. The archbishops appeared in documents involving land transactions and their seals are found on numerous deeds between laymen. He added: "from this evidence Ianin concluded that the archbishop's court was well established in secular matters by the mid-fourteenth century. Whether this evidence indicates that he acted as a judge or merely as a registry of deeds is not clear." Weickhardt also observed that the Novgorodian Judicial Charter listed the archbishop among the members of the referral (doklad) court, along with a boyar and a member of the zhitye liudi from each end of the city. (65) These cases were heard in the archbishop's chamber. (66)

The Pskov Judicial Charter mentioned other secular or civic roles played by the Church in that city. (67) The charter declared that litigants summoned to court were to "come to the church in the local district for the reading of the summons." If they hid or failed to appear, the bailiff (pozvonik) was to read the summons before the priest of that church. (68) The charter also notes that the Trinity Cathedral, the main church in Pskov, served as the archives for the city (the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom played a similar role in Novgorod) (69) and that the archbishop's seal could take the place of the prince's seal if the latter were absent from the city. (70)

In addition to their judicial functions, the archbishops of Novgorod also monitored standards for weights and measures in the city market and presumably earned fees for their use. (71) They oversaw a considerable administration that supervised large landholdings. (72) The Statutory Charter of Prince Sviatoslav Ol'govich gave districts on the Vel' or Vel'ia River where it emptied into the Vaga River to the archbishops; (73) according to Janet Martin, these districts were "a main segment of one of the main trade routes crossing Novgorod's northern possessions." (74) The archbishops and other ecclesiastical institutions participated in Novgorod's fur trade, at least indirectly, "by safeguarding, and perhaps exacting tolls on, fur traffic passing through their possessions on Novgorod's trade routes, as well as by accumulating luxury fur through their rents and selling it." (75) They grew rich on the fur trade and took interest in administering the lands through which it ran. With this wealth, they patronized the construction of probably a third of all the churches built in Novgorod before 478, and several archbishops patronized building projects of a decidedly secular nature. A number of them oversaw construction of the Detinets walls and of non-ecclesiastical buildings within the Detinets. This, however, was the archbishop's own compound, in which stood his palace and cathedral. It would only be natural for him to keep up the fortress and the buildings within it. Beginning in Vasilii Kalika's archiepiscopate, however, the archbishops began to patronize civil construction projects beyond the Detinets. (76) In 335, Vasilii paid for the construction of a wall around the Market Side of the city, in conjunction with the posadnik and tysiatskii. (77) In 337, he had the bridge over the Volkhov River rebuilt. (78) In 35 , he also oversaw the rebuilding of the fortress of Orekhov, which defended the northern approaches to Novgorod and which Swedish crusaders under King Magnus Eriksson of Norway and Sweden had destroyed. (79) Vasilii's successors, Archbishops Aleksei (r. 359-88) and Ioann II (r. 388- 4 5), also paid for fortifications around the city during their incumbencies. (80)

Novgorod's archbishops also carried out embassies on behalf of the city, dating back at least to the reign of Archbishop Nifont (r. 30-56) and continuing up to the Muscovite conquest in 478, but episcopal or ecclesiastical embassies to make peace or ransom prisoners were common practices in both Eastern and Western Christendom and not unique to Novgorod's archbishops. Iaroslav Shchapov explained the use of churchmen as emissaries: "It was traditional for the highest members of the church organization to act in the capacity of envoys, negotiators, and representatives of a prince or city," (81) adding that "the use of metropolitans and bishops in the capacity of ambassadors is found repeatedly in the political history of the early Russian principalities." (82) Domestically, they also sought to bring peace during disturbances. (83)

More uniquely, the Novgorodian archbishops were also treaty signatories, beginning in the reign of Archbishop Dalmat (r. 49-74); they were often listed first in treaties and their seals were affixed to them. They were, likewise, often addressed first by the patriarch or metropolitan, the grand prince or other Russian princes, the Pskovians or the Germans, or other foreign powers during political negotiations. (84) Of the 0 treaties and charters in the Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova (Documents of Novgorod the Great and Pskov) (excluding the Pskovian and personal charters), the archbishops appeared in 54. (85) All but 5 of these 101 are from after 1262. (The five preceding Dalmat's reign date to the mid- or late 12th century). (86) Of these 96 charters and treaties from Dalmat's reign or after, the archbishops do not appear in 34 (i.e., about a third). The reason for their lack of participation before the 60s is unclear, nor is it clear why they appear in some charters after 1262 but not others. Their appearance after 1262 may be an indication of the growing power or influence of the archiepiscopal office, or it may simply be due to the paucity of extant sources before the mid-13th century. (87)

In addition to their absence from charters prior to the 1260s, there are other indicators suggesting the archbishops were less active or less powerful prior to the late 13th or even the mid- 4th century. Indeed, there is a decline in archiepiscopal activity in the early 13th century, even before the Mongol Invasion (1237-40). In certain spheres, it picks up in the 13th century (as in the case of the charters), but in other areas it did not increase until the 1330s or later. Thus the Novgorodian First Chronicle and other sources make almost no references to any personal contact between the archbishops of Novgorod and the metropolitans in Kiev, Vladimir, or Moscow (beyond the archbishops' consecrations by them) between the first half of the th and the first quarter of the 4th century. (88) There are several instances of archiepiscopal visitations to Pskov and other cities in the Novgorodian eparchy listed in the chronicle for the th century, but none between 1198 and 1333. (89) There is also a decline in church patronage (i.e., the building, rebuilding, or decoration of churches) by the archbishops throughout the 13th century: the chronicle notes that Archbishop Antonii, on taking office in 1211, turned his predecessor's palace into the Church of St. Anthony and built the church in the St. Barbara Monastery in 8. They also note the construction of the Chapel of St. Theodore over one of the Detinets gates leading north into the Nerev End in 1233, although it is not clear that this was an archiepiscopal construction. (90) In 1261, Dalmat had the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom covered in lead. (91) There are no indications of other episcopal or archiepiscopal church patronag1e between 99, when Bishop Marturii had the "Vladyka's Church" in Russa painted, and 96, when Archbishop Kliment had the Chapel of the Resurrection built over the Detinets gates. (92) That none was built after 1240 is easily explained by the Mongol invasion, which ruined Rus' and led to socio-economic and political upheaval even in Novgorod, which was not destroyed. (93) The earlier decline in the archbishops' activities, even before the Mongols arrived in Rus', is in large part because of the conflict over the archiepiscopal throne between 1210 and 1229, in which the throne switched hands five times (in 1211, 1219, 1223, 1225, and 1228) among three men (Archbishops Mitrofan, Antonii, and Arsenii); the resulting instability and lack of real leadership in the Novgorodian Church meant that no churches were planned or built in the eparchy during those two decades. There is also no indication in the chronicles that the archbishops consecrated any churches between 1211 and 1294. (94) There are no letters to or from the patriarch or the metropolitan, or to or from other bishops, between the archiepiscopates of Nifont (d. 1156) and Vasilii Kalika (consecrated 1331). (95) Interestingly too, the use of lots in archiepiscopal elections, which occurred in 1192 and 1229, did not happen again until 1359. (96)

Taken together, the evidence suggests an archiepiscopal office that grew in power up to the mid- th century (especially under Nifont and Il'ia), fell into decline in the second quarter of the 13th century (in some measure because of the Mongol invasion), and then grew again in power and influence only in the second quarter of the 14th century (particularly with the archiepiscopate of Vasilii Kalika). The archbishops held considerable ecclesiastical powers but also gained significant secular powers, although these latter powers never came close to those held by the powerful Catholic bishops to Novgorod's west.

The Archbishops' Reluctant Assumption of Secular Power

As the archbishops of Novgorod grew in power, they took on functions in the city that were rarely seen by other Russian churchmen. Apparently, they shared secular power with the posadniki and tysiatskie of Novgorod, rather than wielding it themselves. When they did insert themselves into politics, it was often for ecclesiastical reasons (to defend the Church's land or the administrative interests of the archbishops) or for religious reasons (to defend Orthodoxy, especially along the religious frontier). Hence Archbishop Vasilii Kalika sent his nephew as part of an embassy to negotiate a treaty with King Magnus Eriksson in 1339, to save the Orthodox converts among the Karelians. The Novgorodian First Chronicle tells us that the treaty provided for the execution of (pagan) Karelians if they escaped from Swedish Finland into the Novgorodian land or from Novgorodian territory into Swedish Finland: "If ours escape to you, slay or hang them; if yours to us, we will do the same to them; that they make no treachery between us." But a proviso in the treaty protected the Karelian converts to Orthodoxy: "But these we will not deliver, [those] who have been baptized into our faith; there are but few of them; the rest have all died by the wrath of God." (97) This proviso was most likely inserted into the treaty by the archbishop's nephew; indeed, it was probably the reason his uncle sent him as a treaty delegate in the first place. The archbishop's involvement in the treaty was of a religious nature, then, and not as Novgorod's "head of state."

Archbishop Vasilii's rebuilding of the fortress of Orekhov was also carried out in collaboration with the civil authorities, and for religious reasons rather than reasons of state. It was also undertaken quite reluctantly. Indeed, the Novgorodian First Chronicle indicates that Vasilii was sent only after Novgorod had called on Grand Prince Simeon (r. 1341-52) and a Lithuanian service prince, Narimont, to defend Novgorod. Narimont never came; he had even withdrawn his son, Aleksandr, from the several fortified cities he held north of Novgorod during earlier Swedish attacks in 1338. Grand Prince Simeon sent his brother, Ivan, who made it to Novgorod but never went north to Orekhov. Simeon himself set out for Novgorod but turned back before reaching the city. (98) The whole Orekhov episode suggests that the archbishop was sent only because the alternatives--Grand Prince Simeon and Prince Narimont--had failed. There is no indication that Vasilii personally oversaw the military or engineering aspects of the construction, although the chronicles do mention that he went to Orekhov and did not merely patronize the venture from Novgorod; it was perhaps his wealth that was needed more than his personal presence or political power. But there is a religious aspect as well: the fortress defended Novgorodian trade routes to the Baltic, but it also served to defend the Orthodox city of Novgorod from Swedish crusaders; this second reason perhaps best explains why the archbishop oversaw its rebuilding.

Vasilii's successor, Archbishop Ioann II (r. 1388-1415), showed more aggressive tendencies, but his behavior also serves to illustrate the cooperation between the archbishop and the secular or civil authorities in Novgorod and the archbishops' religious rather than state interests. In 1389, the monk Efrem founded the Valamo Monastery on Holy Island in Lake Ladoga, and around 1395, monks from the Valamo Monastery under Arsenii Konevskii founded the Konevskii Monastery on Konevets Island. (99) The Tale of the Valamo Monastery explains this second founding, relating that monks under Efrem, spurred by God to leave Novgorod and save the souls of the "devil-inspired Karelians [who] lived on the island continuing their pagan sorcery," raised a cross, founded a monastery on a small rock outcrop just east of Valamo Island, built a church dedicated to the Transfiguration there, and planted orchards on adjacent islands to provide sustenance for the monks. (100) However, "the Chud living on the big island became powerfully angry at the holy monks, besetting them in accord with the demons with witchcraft and doing them much harm." (101) The author of the tale contends that Efrem's monastic foundation and what followed his departure from Lake Ladoga were holy endeavors for the glorification of God. But what really followed after Efrem's departure seems more like a brutal land grab than a real effort at evangelization. The tale then tells us that "the glorious hieromonk the wise Sergei" (Valaamskii) remained, and everyone saw "God's assistance in the plenitude of goodness" in the monk. But Sergei was "no longer finding any room due to the confined space" on the small rock outcrop. Casting his eyes over to Valamo Island, he devised a plan to take the island from the "demon-worshiping" Karelians "who lived there from the beginning."

Sergei went to Novgorod and appealed to Archbishop Ioann II for support in building a monastery and for "the enlightenment of the Chud lost in darkness" on Valamo. The archbishop enthusiastically supported the endeavor and sent word to the "posadniki and tysiatskie and the leaders of the city," calling on them to assist in the project. This suggests that he could not (or at least chose not to) act unilaterally but rather petitioned the civil authorities to use their power to effect the changes he and Sergei wanted. The Novgorodian authorities sent "envoys" (poslanniki--apparently, troops) with written orders, as did Archbishop Ioann, who himself issued orders handing over Valamo to Sergei and the monastery. The author related, rather matter-of-factly, "the people living there were expelled." Ioann backed up his orders with "much gold and what was needed for monastic construction," and the Novgorodian authorities did likewise. Sergei sailed back to Valamo with the "Novgorodian envoys sent by the archbishop" and the charter granting the monastery ownership of the island. Upon arrival at Valamo, the posadniki "started expelling the people from the island." The Karelians put up a fierce fight, which the author of the tale attributed to the Karelians' demons. It is unclear how many were killed in the conquest of Valamo; the tale merely relates that "many of the pagan sorcerers were destroyed and they [the Novgorodians] defeated them and killed many of them by the hand of the Almighty Christ and God and thus the envoys soon drove them from the island." John Lind described this episode as "a virtual Russian counter-crusade against the Karelians," caused by Novgorodian paranoia in the aftermath of the Swedish crusades earlier in the 4th century (the same that led Archbishop Vasilii to rebuild Orekhov). Left alone, the Karelians might have been forcibly converted to Catholicism and served as a fifth column against Novgorodian and Orthodox interests in the region. (102)

The tale is of questionable historic value, since its goal is to glorify the monastery and its founders, not necessarily to tell the historic truth. It was also written more than a century after the events depicted, and therefore may be embellished or altered in other ways. (103) This being said, I see no reason to doubt that Ioann II, Hegumen Sergei, and the Novgorodians perpetrated real violence against the Karelians, especially if this account was written by the Novgorodian archiepiscopal administration in the 1550s. It seems unlikely that a bookman would cut out of whole cloth a tale showing the archbishop, the Novgorodian posadniki, and the monks attacking the Karelians rather than creating a story in which the archbishop and the hegumen show perfect Christian love and Orthodox humility and, through prayers and miracles, convert the Karelians peacefully. (104) It is possible that the post-1478 Muscovite administration in Novgorod wanted to soil the reputations of an earlier independent (and anti-Muscovite) archbishop and the posadnichestvo from the time before the Muscovite conquest. But the writer seems to agree with Ioann II and the posadniki, not to oppose them. They are depicted driving out the pagan, satanic enemy, and that, in the view of the author, is for the good.

For our purposes, though, Ioann's behavior in working with "the posadniki and tysiatskie and the leaders of the city" to drive out (and kill off) the Karelians suggests a general trend of archiepiscopal reticence to act alone while demonstrating that they acted for ecclesiastical rather than state interests. Ioann's actions, along with Vasilii Kalika's earlier and more merciful treatment of the Karelians in 1339 and his rebuilding of the fortress of Orekhov in 1352, show that the archbishops encouraged or appealed to the civil authorities to support causes, often religious causes, that the archbishops championed, such as Vasilii's effort to protect Karelian converts to Orthodoxy and his rebuilding of Orekhov, or Ioann's later effort to attack the pagan Karelians to help the Valamo Monastery. All served to defend Orthodoxy from Swedish crusaders or paganism. The archbishops worked with the civil authorities to promote their policies: Vasilii sent his nephew as part of the treaty delegation; Ioann's charters provided the legal or religious justification for certain undertakings (or gave grants of lands to the monasteries at the expense of the Karelians); both men spent their energy and money to assist these undertakings. When all else failed, they went personally to carry out secular activities, such as rebuilding Orekhov.

Archbishop Feofil and the Fall of Novgorod

Archbishop Feofil's behavior during the conquest of Novgorod (1477-78) is another case that reveals the collaborative nature of the Novgorodian government and the reluctance of the archbishops to wield secular power unilaterally. Feofil did indeed come to wield considerable influence and power in Novgorod in the waning days of the city's independence, and I would argue that at the very end he was essentially Novgorod's "head of state." He did this, however, because of the extraordinary series of events that unfolded in the late 1470s leading to the destruction of Novgorod's political system, and his actions throughout much of the 1470s could more easily be explained by the archbishop's own religious and administrative interests than his concern for broader Novgorodian state interests. In early 1478, it was he who handed over power to the grand prince and ended Novgorod's independence. This, however, was not the normal behavior of Novgorod's archbishops; rather, the rest of the collective leadership, the posadniki and tysiatskie, had been arrested and could no longer act with him. Thus he was left to act alone.

Indeed, several accounts suggest that Archbishop Feofil opposed the dominant anti-Muscovite policies of the Novgorodians in 1471 and wanted to return to his monastery and live quietly, but that Novgorod would not allow that. (105) Lenhoff and Martin point out that such behavior may be a topos of Orthodox humility, since the archbishop-elect typically refused the office thrice before finally accepting it, as a humble Christian should. (106) But it may also show that his behavior was not that of a man wielding power freely and firmly but rather that of a reluctant man struggling through difficult events. (107) I would again suggest that his actions may not have been carried out in the interests of the city-state, or in a formal or official capacity as a representative of state power, but rather to protect the archiepiscopal administration, archiepiscopal landholdings, and the relative independence of the Novgorodian Church.

Novgorod and Moscow had been in conflict for more than a century over the lands north and east of Novgorod. As Moscow grew in power, it had an impact not only on the Novgorodian republic but also on individual landowners in the region, including the archbishops. In 1385, Archbishop Aleksei ceded control of the Vychegda Perm' region to the newly created bishopric of Perm', and the tribute from that region ceased flowing to Novgorod and went instead to Moscow. In 397, Grand Prince Vasilii I (r. 1389-1425) sent his governors into the Northern Dvina Land and took direct control of the city of Ustiug. These were important fur-harvesting regions that had long paid tribute to Novgorod, and around Easter 1398, with the blessing of Archbishop Ioann II, Novgorodian posadniki and boyars led armies northward to take back these lands and regain the tribute from them. (108) These vast forests to the north and east of Novgorod were where much of its fur came from--so much fur was harvested there, in fact, that medieval accounts tell of fur-bearing animals raining from the skies. (109) Their loss meant economic, political, and cultural decline for Novgorod the Great but also for the archiepiscopal administration and the boyar clans that relied on these lands (and the furs harvested from them) for their livelihood. (110) Without them, the archbishops would find it much more difficult, if not impossible, to pay their judges, namestniki, druzhina, and other officials and staff attached to the House of Holy Wisdom or to patronize church construction, icon-painting, chronicle-writing, and other activities they had patronized for centuries. The boyar clans, too, would lose cultural, economic, and political power and influence as the wealth they once drew from these northern lands went instead to the grand prince and his Muscovite boyars. Hence, Novgorod fought hard to hold on to these lands, and the conflict between Moscow and Novgorod ebbed and flowed over the 15th century, with raiders sanctioned by Moscow fought off by war bands drawn up by the Novgorodian boyars. (111) But Novgorod suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Vasilii II in 1456 and signed a humiliating peace at Iazhelbitsii that required Novgorodian boyars to cede land grants from the princes of Rostov and Beloozero to the grand prince. (112) After 1456, the grand princes acquired Vologda and regions around the Pinega, Mezen', Dvina, and Vaga rivers. (113) Novgorod responded by seizing some grand princely lands in these regions in 1471, (114) which was part of the reason for Ivan III's (r. 1462-1505) first campaign against the city that year.

The archbishops' need to hold on to these lands and the incomes derived from them may better explain their actions to keep Novgorod independent of the Muscovite grand princes than does the argument that they carried out secular powers in the city or spoke on behalf of Novgorodian state interests. Their participation in embassies throughout the 1470s and earlier, their support of anti-Muscovite policies, and their blessing of military campaigns against the grand princes were all in defense of their own interests and in the interests of the House of Holy Wisdom that, like the boyar clans, had lost income from lands in the Far North seized by the grand princes. The archbishops were probably less concerned about abstractions like "Lord Novgorod the Great" or "state interests," although the fate of the archbishops was inextricably tied to the fate of the city-state itself; they were more interested in the threat to their livelihood and the freedom of the Novgorodian Church posed by the grand princes' encroachments.

The Novgorodian Fourth Chronicle adds another element to Feofil's actions, telling us that he ordered that the cavalry be withheld from the Battle of Shelon' River that the Novgorodians fought against Muscovite Grand Prince Ivan III and his allies in 1471. (115) Feofil's power to withhold the cavalry might suggest that he was in command of the army, again suggesting that he held formal secular power in the Novgorodian civil administration. However, John Fennell pointed out that Feofil did not withhold the cavalry completely, but rather "the archbishop had given express orders that only the troops of Pskov were to be attacked, and not those of the grand prince." 6 Indeed, the most recent edition of the Novgorodian Fourth Chronicle (published in 2000) makes clear that Feofil's orders were to his own troops, that is, cavalrymen levied from villages owned by the archbishop. Hence the chronicle states: "The Vladyka's Banner [vladychn' stiag'] did not want to attack [oudaritisia] the prince's forces, saying 'The Vladyka told us not to be led into the grand prince's hands, but the Vladyka sent us against the Pskovians.'" (117)

Liudmila Danilova's study of the pistsovye knigi (the land cadastres compiled for the grand princes, reporting on the economic capabilities of their newly acquired Novgorodian lands) helps explain why Feofil may have had a say in how the cavalry was used. The cadastres list both old receipts (from before 1478), and new receipts (from after 1478) and show that the archbishops were the wealthiest landowners in the Novgorodian land. The new receipts show them holding 2,132 towns and villages, 6,292 courtyards (houses, dvory), 8,201 peasants, and 6,880 7/12 obzhi of land. (118) The old receipts list only 2,731 obzhi. Many of these holdings from the old receipts were in the Derevskaia and Bezhetskaia piatiny (Fifths), the southern part of the Novgorodian land and the most fertile, grain-growing region of all the piatiny. In addition to the cadastres, the Novgorodian First Chronicle indicates that the towns of the Molviatitsy region were "the Vladyka's towns." (119) The pistsovye knigi reveal that the stable boys in the village of Markovo on the Volkhov River (in that region) owed service to the archbishop; herds of horses grazed near the village, and the villagers had to provide 700 bales of hay for their fodder. Danilova saw this as indicative of the archbishops' participation in trade, since the horses carried trade goods to market. (120) The hay and other fodder would have fed the archbishop's horses and those of the archiepiscopal administration during travels throughout the Novgorodian land, to Pskov, and to Moscow. It also fed cavalry mounts for the Novgorodian army beyond those of the Vladyka's own banner. (121) For this reason, Feofil's influence over the army may have reached beyond his own levy, since he raised and fed the Novgorodian cavalry horses. Thus his personal involvement (and the involvement of other archbishops) explains this action, too. There is no need to find a formal role in the civil administration to explain it.

Religion also played a role in Novgorod's downfall, so the archbishops would naturally have made an effort to save Lord Novgorod the Great. Fear that Novgorod was going to have Archbishop-elect Feofil consecrated by Metropolitan Grigorii of Kiev, Lithuania, and Lower Russia (r. 1458-72), and not by Metropolitan Filipp I (r. 1464-73) in Moscow--and that once Feofil had been consecrated, Novgorod would accept the king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania as its sovereign and thereby abandon Orthodoxy and "go over to the Latins" (122)--was another cause, and the major one given in the Muscovite sources for Grand Prince Ivan's attack on Novgorod. (123) Pope Pius II (r. 1458-64) had placed Metropolitan Grigorii in Kiev in 1458, (124) but Metropolitan Grigorii had been received back into the Orthodox Church and recognized as the legitimate metropolitan of Kiev by Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople (r. 1466-71, 1489-91) in 1470. (125) Despite Grigorii's Orthodox credentials, the grand prince and the metropolitan in Moscow distrusted the sincerity of his conversion, and Novgorod's potential defection to the Catholic Church was thus apparently very real to them. (126) With no clear line between religion and politics, the archbishop held a key position in society and politics as well as the Church, and Feofil's actions throughout his archiepiscopate had a broader impact on the city and its relations with Moscow without his being the head of the republic, symbolically or otherwise.

In 1471, Novgorod did turn to Casimir IV, the king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania (r. 1440-92, king from 1447), for protection. But the Novgorodians did not want to convert to Catholicism. In a draft treaty that would have made Casimir their prince, Novgorod sought Casimir's political protection but also expressly sought to defend the Orthodox faith and the rights of the Novgorodian Church. (127) One provision of the treaty demanded that Casimir's namestnik in Novgorod be of the Orthodox faith, (128) and added: "you, illustrious King, shall not take our Greek Orthodox faith away from us, and we shall appoint our Vladyka [archbishop] of our free will, whomever it pleases us, Novgorod the Great, in our Orthodox Christianity. And you, illustrious King, shall not erect Roman [Catholic] churches in Novgorod the Great, nor in the dependent towns of Novgorod, nor in all the Novgorodian land." (129) The draft treaty shows, then, that Novgorod preferred the (Catholic) grand duke of Lithuania rather than the (Orthodox) grand prince of Moscow for political reasons, not religious ones. In 1471, the Novgorodians hoped to find a prince who would protect them from Moscow but leave their local autonomy intact; they in no way wished to defect from Orthodoxy to Catholicism as Ivan and the Filipp claimed (and perhaps truly feared). In spite of this, their actions touched off Ivan's first assault on Novgorod in 1471, and continued Muscovite and Novgorodian mutual distrust led to his second and final assault on the city in 1478. (130)

After defeating the Novgorodians at Shelon' River in 1471, Ivan III ordered the arrest and execution of a number of Novgorodian boyars. (131) There were also lawsuits filed by Muscovite boyars for lands in the north then held by Novgorodian boyars, indicating that Moscow was continuing to take over Novgorodian fur-harvesting lands. (132) Lenhoff and Martin add, "The arrival of the prince's officials [i.e., after 1471] threatened an erosion of the archbishop's authority and augured the confiscation of church lands." (133) Ivan's continued action against the Novgorodians did not bode well for the Novgorodian leadership. He ordered further arrests of boyars when he visited Novgorod in 1475. (134) There was, then, always the threat that he might seize more land or make more arrests, and even Feofil himself was not safe.

It is not clear why Ivan did not move against the archbishop in 1471 or 1475 rather than waiting until 1480. There are indications in the Sofia Second Chronicle that Feofil aroused Ivan's anger in 1471 for his support of anti-Muscovite families among the Novgorodian boiarstvo. (135) Clearly, then, the grand prince had no personal love for Feofil and could have justified moving against Feofil at any time in an effort to save Novgorod from Latinism or for treason against the grand prince (a new charge leveled against the appanage principalities by the grand prince in the 5th century). But Lenhoff and Martin note, "Ivan initially kept the peace and made concessions," (136) although the Voskresenskaia Chronicle claims, "when the grand prince captured Novgorod the first time, he took from its bishop [and] from all the monasteries half their districts and villages." (137) If it is true that Ivan confiscated church land in 1471 (most scholars consider the ecclesiastical land confiscations to date to the second assault in 1478), then there would have been the threat throughout the 1470s that there could be more ecclesiastical land confiscations, adding to Feofil's fear and distrust of Moscow. In any event, the grand prince did not replace Feofil in 1471, and this was not out of any respect for the moral and religious authority of the archbishop and the Church. His move against the Church in 1478 and his arrest of Feofil two years later prove that.

The final act, in 1477-78, was touched off when, according to the Moscow Chronicle Collection of the End of the 15th Century and several other chronicles, "Feofil, archbishop of Novgorod, and all Novgorod sent their envoys," (138) the podvoiskii Nazar and Zakharii Ovin, d'iak (secretary) of the Novgorodian veche, to Ivan. The chronicle relates that the two addressed the grand prince as Gosudar' (Sovereign), rather than the usual Gospodin ("Lord," a title of honor but not necessarily indicting political subservience). Thus it appeared to the Muscovites that Novgorod acknowledged the grand prince's sovereignty over them. (139) The episode sounds suspiciously like incidents from more recent times when agents provocateurs or fifth-columnists in the Baltic states or Eastern Europe "invited" the Soviets to protect or stabilize their country. Whether Ivan engineered the incident or whether a pro-Muscovite faction within the city was behind the embassy is unclear; however, the chronicles then relate that Ivan sent three envoys "to the archbishop [Vladyka] and all Novgorod the Great" on 24 April 1477 for clarification, asking, "what manner of government does our patrimony, Novgorod the Great, want?" (140) That is, did the Novgorodians accept Ivan's direct rule, rather than the more nominal sovereignty he had exercised for years? According to the Muscovite chronicler, the Novgorodians "lied and said, 'we did not send them,' " and in so doing they broke the oath that the two men had made on behalf of the city. (141) In fact, a riot broke out at the veche, and the Novgorodians killed Zakharii and several other supporters of the grand prince. In the presence of the grand prince's envoys, the Novgorodians then rashly said they would call on the king of Poland to be their lord. (142) Novgorod's alleged broken oath, and the threat to defect to the king of Poland with the implication of going over to his Catholic faith, led to Ivan's conquest of the city.

It is interesting that the Muscovite envoys were sent "to the Vladyka and all Novgorod." Again, this might suggest that Feofil ran the city or spoke for its state interests. The chronicles go on to describe the Novgorodian embassy as carried out "in the name of the archbishop of Novgorod, Feofil, and in the name of Novgorod the Great," (143) to obtain a promise of safe conduct for the archbishop and the posadniki. However, both these incidents indicate that the archbishop was not acting alone but was addressed along with other city officials. Likewise, the archbishop's interests would have been in saving his lands from further losses to Moscow, and he knew that as the grand prince drew closer to the city, his lands (and not just Novgorodian state interests) were at stake. He may also have been sent because of the moral authority of the Church, and because churchmen had been ambassadors for centuries. If Ivan and Filipp truly feared Novgorod's religious defection to Catholicism, it would have only been natural that they address him and that he take part in embassies. Therefore, Feofil is not addressed as head of state as much as he is given the position of honor and addressed as the head of the Church in Novgorod.

It is worth noting that in the several embassies that took place in late (1477) and early (1478), the archbishop was almost always sent with posadniki and tysiatskie, and hardly ever alone. Indeed, his predecessors going back to Nifont had also gone on embassies accompanied by the city's secular authorities and almost never by themselves. (144) This had been the practice throughout Novgorod's independence, and Feofil was no different. Several chronicles note that on 23 November 1477, Feofil was just one of 11 emissaries who petitioned the grand prince for leniency. He accompanied five posadniki and four zhitye liudi (members of the middle class) as well as one merchant. Furthermore, he seems to have represented the Novgorodian Church, not the city as a political entity, addressing the grand prince on behalf of "your prayerful bishop, as well as the archimandrites, hegumens, and all the priests of the seven cathedrals of Novgorod." The posadniki and the zhitye liudi then addressed the grand prince on behalf of "all Novgorod." That is, Feofil spoke for the Novgorodian Church while the strictly secular political officials, the posadniki and the representatives of the zhitye liudi, spoke on behalf of the city as a whole. After the grand prince entered the city, the archbishop again petitioned him on behalf of the churchmen, asking him to "be merciful toward the Christians, toward your patrimony." (145) This petition suggests that Feofil was acting as a churchman looking out for the flock entrusted to his care, not as a head of state, president, or other political official looking out for his state or his political power.

As Grand Prince Ivan III approached and then entered Novgorod in early 1478, the Novgorodians sent emissaries with repeated appeals for mercy or for clarification of his intentions. His responses show that the grand prince recognized Feofil among the city's leadership, but again, probably as Novgorod's spiritual father rather than its political head. This strange interaction between a lord (the grand prince) and his subjects, however, ultimately gives an ambiguous view of the Novgorodian archbishop's political status. After subjugating Novgorod, the grand prince addressed Feofil, demanding that "you yourselves, the archbishop, and our entire patrimony, Novgorod the Great, accept your guilt before us." Ivan again singled out the archbishop when he responded to a petition, saying "you, archbishop, and our patrimony, Great Novgorod, petition us." Such remarks, in which the archbishop is singled out as a representative of Novgorod (the posadniki and tysiatskie are not mentioned), might suggest that Ivan saw Feofil as the sole representative or ruler of Novgorod. But if the grand prince was concerned about Novgorod "going Latin" and saw the Novgorodians as oath-breakers, it would be only natural that he address the archbishop who was failing to save his flock from heresy and who had allowed the Novgorodians to kiss the cross (the method by which oaths were sealed in Rus' at the time) and then break their promise. There is no need to assume that the archbishop was the preeminent civil official in order to explain his role in the embassies or why he was addressed first by the grand prince's representatives.

Ivan III's other remarks also serve to explain his understanding of the role played by the archbishop in Novgorod's constitution. When the Novgorodians petitioned the grand prince to explain the form of government he wanted in Novgorod, he replied: "there will be no veche bell in our patrimony of Novgorod. There will be no posadniki and we will conduct our own government." (146) He saw the veche and the posadniki as the government of Novgorod and that they needed to be removed for him to rule his patrimony as he saw fit. The archbishop is not mentioned and was presumably not viewed as a member of the government of Novgorod. Furthermore, the grand prince could replace the archbishop with a more acceptable candidate, as he did two years later, and thus could control the Church in ways he could not control the Novgorodian government if the posadnichestvo and the veche were left in power.

The Moscow Chronicle Collection of the End of the Fifteenth Century and the Sofia Second Chronicle report that on 6 January 1478, the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, the archbishop went out to Paozero to the grand prince. That day, Ivan confiscated half of the volosti held by the archbishop "and all the Torzhok volosti, archiepiscopal [vladychnye], monastic, and boyar" and the six largest monasteries in Novgorod. (147) He sent the archbishop and other emissaries back to Novgorod to draw up a list for 7 January, and ultimately confiscated ten of the archbishop's volosti and pogosti and 1,807 obzhi of land of the six largest monasteries. (148) Archbishop Feofil was arrested only on 19 January 1480, when the archiepiscopal treasury was confiscated along with "the majority of his gold and silver and plate (vessels)." (149) Ivan sent the archbishop off to the Monastery of the Miracle (Chudov Monastery) in the Moscow Kremlin, where Feofil was forced to resign his office and where he died. (150) The grand prince's apparent oversight in not mentioning the archbishop among the real political powers in independent Novgorod or his lack of action against him in 1471 were not actions taken out of respect for the Church. He certainly moved against it in the years after taking the city, reducing it to a branch of the Muscovite Church whose head was then appointed by the grand prince or the metropolitan. Ivan's failure to mention the archbishop when he demanded the destruction of Novgorod's traditional political institutions indicates that he did not recognize the archbishop as the preeminent political figure or civil authority of Novgorod. But Feofil's removal, and the secularization of church lands, indicated that Ivan had other reasons to move against the archbishop and show that the archbishops' fear of the grand princes had been well founded. The archbishops feared losing lands to the grand princes going back into the 1300s, and because they ultimately could not stop the grand princes, they lost their once-great position as the head of a largely autonomous church in Novgorod.

Despite the fact that the archbishop was not seen as an important member of Novgorod's secular political elite, the chronicle shows that before Feofil's removal, he had become the only local political figure of any importance left in the city by the end of Novgorodian independence. On 15 January 1478, Grand Prince Ivan III issued a charter to Novgorod setting out the form of government there would be in Novgorod from that time on (i.e., direct rule from Moscow). Feofil's central role is indicated in that his d'iak drew up the document and the archbishop, who had petitioned on behalf of the Novgorodians for such a charter, signed the document "with his own hand" and then affixed his seal to it, along with the seals of each end of the city. (151) Feofil acted alone, without the cooperation of any of the posadniki or tysiatskie. That is, the aristocracy apparently had given way to unitary "rule" by the archbishop. But by then, all Feofil was doing was handing over power to the grand prince. He may indeed have signed and sealed the charter without consultation with the traditional aristocracy of the city, but he did so because there were no longer any posadniki or tysiatskie or other civil officials with any authority following the grand prince's entry into the city two days earlier and his declaration that the veche and the posadnichestvo were at an end. (152) The Novgorodian Second Chronicle, therefore, was accurate in stating that "Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evich came to Novgorod in force and stayed on the Paozer'e by the Trinity [Monastery] [na Pazeri u Troitskogo]. (153) And Vladyka Feofil of Novgorod paid homage to him and called him sovereign." (154) That Feofil alone called him sovereign is a telling point: for a brief moment the archbishop of Novgorod stood alone and spoke for Novgorod without consultation with the other members of the aristocracy, but by that point it was an unenviable position.

Conclusion

The archbishops of Novgorod were indeed important political actors in their city. They carried out embassies, oversaw judicial personnel, adjudicated court cases not normally heard by the ecclesiastical courts, patronized secular construction projects, oversaw the fur trade that ran through their lands, and raised cavalry horses for the Novgorodian army. But the archbishops' behavior throughout the period of Novgorodian independence also suggests considerable reluctance on their part to act on their own in purely civil matters. It is unclear whether this was out of fear that the archbishop was overstepping his bounds as a churchman, because there was an unwritten agreement among the city elite, or there was a sense that the government should act after attaining a consensus. Moreover, many of these secular activities can be explained as the archbishops' own interests in preserving their administration; their religious, political, cultural, and economic influence; and the landed estates that were the basis of their vast wealth and paid for everything else they did. Vasilii Kalika rebuilt the fortress at Orekhov, but only after the Novgorodians had unsuccessfully appealed to several princes for help. He also did so to protect Orthodox Novgorod and the Orthodox Karelians from Swedish crusaders and to protect Novgorod's trade routes to the Baltic. Ioann II worked with the boyars in a crusade against the Karelians, but his primary interest was to spread Christianity or the power of the Church in the region, not a concern for Novgorod's state interests. Feofil also acted as he did throughout the 1470s to protect archiepiscopal lands and powers from further encroachment by the grand princes. He acted alone only at the very end of Novgorod's independent existence, and then only to hand over power to Grand Prince Ivan III. In almost all other instances, the archbishops of Novgorod acted in concert with the posadniki and tysiatskie in governing the city, as Ioann II did when he appealed to the civil authorities to send troops to drive out the Karelians from Valamo Island. Where the archbishops' authority ended and the civil authorities' began is difficult to determine. Therefore, to suggest clear-cut powers or to call one or another of them the "president of the republic" inaccurately portrays Novgorod's rather complex and uncertain political system. The archbishops of Novgorod worked with the civil authorities, and often for their own reasons, not to advance the interests of the Novgorodian state per se.

(1) S. F. Platonov, Smutnoe vremia (Prague: Legiografia, 1924; repr. The Hague: Europe Printing, 1965), 21; N. L. Podvigina, Ocherki sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Novgoroda Velikogo v XII-XIII vv. (Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1976), 3.

(2) The tysiatskii was originally commander of the town militia but gradually developed into a government official who oversaw, among other things, the commercial courts. On the hereditary nature of the posadnichestvo, see V. L. Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1962).

(3) On Novgorod's government, see A. V. Artsikovskii, "K istorii Novgoroda," Istoricheskie zapiski (1938): 108-31; V. N. Bernadskii, Novgorod i novgorodskaia zemlia v XV veke (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1961), 479-85; Carsten Goehrke, "Einwohnerzahl und Bevolkerungsdichte altrussischer Stadte--methodische Moglichkeiten und vorlaufige Ergebnisse," Forschungen zur osteuropaischen Geschichte (1973): 25-53; Goehrke, "Gross-Novgorod und Pskov/Pleskau," in Handbuch der Geschichte Russlands, ed. Manfred Hellmann, Klaus Zernack, and Gottfried Schramm (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1976-80), 431-83; I. Ia. Froianov and A. Iu. Dvornichenko, Goroda-gosudarstva drevnei Rusi (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1988); Froianov, Kievskaia Rus': Ocherki sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi istorii (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1974); Froianov, Kievskaia Rus': Ocherki sotsial'no-politicheskoi istorii (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1980), 218-22; Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki; Ianin, "Problemy sotsial'noi organizatsii novgorodskoi respubliki," Istoriia SSSR, no. (1970): 44-54; Ianin and M. Kh. Aleshkovskii, "Proiskhozhdenie Novgoroda: K postanovke problemy," Istoriia SSSR, no. 2 (1971): 32-61; S. V. Iushkov, Obshchestvenno-politicheskii stroi i pravo Kievskogo gosudarstva (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo iuridicheskoi literatury, 1949), 360; V. O. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia, 8 vols. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1957), 2: 66-76; Lawrence N. Langer, "The Posadnichestvo of Pskov: Some Aspects of urban Administration in Medieval Russia," Slavic Review 43, 1 (1984): 46-62; Jorg Leuschner, Nowgorod: Untersuchungen zu einigen Fragen seiner Verfassungs- und Bevolkerungsstruktur (Berlin: Osteuropastudien der Hochschulen des Landes Hessen, 1980); Michael C. Paul, "The Iaroslavichi and the Novgorodian Veche 1230-1270: A Case Study on Princely Relations with the Veche," Russian History/Histoire russe 31, 1-2 (2004): 39-59, esp. 41; Podvigina, Ocherki, 101-22; S. M. Solov'ev, Ob otnosheniiakh Novgoroda k velikim kniaz'iam: Istoricheskoe issledovanie (Moscow: universitetskaia tipografiia, 1846); M. N. Tikhomirov, Drevnerusskie goroda, 2nd ed. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1956), 187; Zernack, Die burgstadtischen Volksversammlungen bei den Ost- und Westslawen: Zur verfassungsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Veee (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967); and Zernack, "Furst und Volk in der ostslavischen Fruhzeit," Forschungen zur osteuropaischen Geschichte 18 (1973): 15.

(4) On episcopal elections in Novgorod, see Michael C. Paul, "Episcopal Election in Novgorod, Russia, 1156-1478," Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 72, 2 (2003): 251-75; and Ia. N. Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov' drevnei Rusi X-XIII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1989), 64.

(5) Nifont (r. 1130-56) held the title of archbishop, but it was apparently personal to him and did not extend to the office. See the antimens (altar cloth) with Nifont's title in V. L. Ianin, Aktovye pechati drevnei Rusi X-XV vv., 2 vols. (Moscow: Nauka, 1970), 1: 56; Karl Onasch, Gross-Nowgorod: Aufstieg und Niedergang einer russischen Stadtrepublik (Vienna: Anton Schroll und Co., 1969), 26; A. S. Khoroshev, Tserkov' v sotsial'no-politicheskoi sisteme Novgorodskoi feodal'noi respubliki (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1989), 30-31; B. A. Rybakov, Russkie datirovannye nadpisi XI-XIV vv. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1964), no. 25, plate 42; and Platon Sokolov, Russkii arkhierei iz Vizantii, i pravo ego naznacheniia do nachala XV veka (Kiev: I. I. Chokolov, 1913), 327. Two seals of Nifont also have the inscription of archbishop. See Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 63. The Novgorodian First Chronicle refers to Luka Zhidiata (r. 1035-60), Nikita (r. 1096-1108), and Ioann Pop'ianin (r. 1110-36) as archbishops as well, although there is no sphragistic evidence supporting their use of the title. These are probably later interpolations; the term is not used consistently in the early parts of the chronicles. For example, several Novgorodian prelates are simply referred to as bishops, while others are called archbishops well before 1165. Fedor (r. 1069-77) is referred to as bishop in 1071, when he is threatened by a sorcerer, but as archbishop at his death in 1077. See A. N. Nasonov, Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis': Starshego i mladshego izvodov (hereafter NPL) (Moscow: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, Vostochnaia literatura, nauka, 1846-1995), 196, 201. The 14th-century First Sofia Chronicle tends to refer to all the Novgorodian prelates before 1165 or after as archbishop. See, for example, Sofiiskaia pervaia letopis': Starshego izvoda, in Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (hereafter PSRL), 6 (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury, 2000), cols. 105, 183, 184, 204. The L'vov Chronicle also refers to prelates outside of Novgorod, such as Arsenii of Tver', who died 15 August 1391, as archbishops, although this, too, is probably an interpolation. See L'vovskaia letopis', in PSRL, 20 (St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1910), 210. Arsenii is listed as only a bishop in Taiisia's Lives of Saints: Taisiia, Zhitiia sviatykh: 1,000 let russkoi sviatosti, 2 vols. (Jordansville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1983), 1: 141-42. Makarii lists him as a bishop as well and gives his tenure from 24 July 1390 to his death on March 1409: Makarii [Bulgakov, metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna], Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 5 vols. (St. Petersburg: R. Golike, 1877-89; repr. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Spaso-preobrazhenskogo Valaamskogo monastyria, 1995-97), 3: 649. See also Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 62-66.

(6) In 1382, Dionisii was created archbishop of Suzdal' and served there two years until he was raised to the dignity of metropolitan of all Rus' (although Kiprian was considered the rightful metropolitan) in 1384. See Makarii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 3: 643. Feodor was created archbishop of Rostov in 390. He died in office on 28 November 1394. Twenty-one archbishops of Rostov followed, until Archbishop Varlaam was elevated to the rank of metropolitan in May 1589 (ibid., 4, pt. 2: 357). On Rostov and Suzdal', see E. E. Golubinskii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 2 vols. in 4 parts (Moscow: n.p., 1901-17; repr. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Spaso-preobrazhenskogo Valaamskogo monastyria, 1995), 2, pt. 1: 251. Based on historical sources and archeological evidence, there was, for a brief time, an archbishop in Rostov in the mid-12th century and another at Tmutarakan' in the 11th or 12th century. See the seal of the archbishop of Rostov, dated c. 1160 in V. L. Ianin and P. G. Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati drevnei Rusi X-XV vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1998), 2: 299, 666, 679; 3: 29-36, picture 62a. On the archbishop in Tmutarakan', see Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series graeca (Turnholti [Belgium]: Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1965-), 119, col. 885; Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 11; and George Vernadsky, "The Status of the Russian Church during the First Half-Century following Vladimir's Conversion," Slavonic Yearbook 1 (1941): 294-314.

(7) Golubinskii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 1, pt. 1: 286; Khoroshev, Tserkov', 30. George Vernadsky argued that there were two types of archbishops in the Orthodox world: the first (the majority) being directly answerable to the patriarch, and the second being essentially autocephalous. See George Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947, 1976), 67; and Emil Hermann, chap. on the secular clergy, in The Cambridge Medieval History: The Byzantine Empire, 4, pt. 2: Government, Church, and Civilization, ed. Joan Hussey (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1967), 110. Ianin argued that the inscription on the seal of Bishop Ioann Pop'ianin (r. 1110-30) showed that Novgorod was autonomous from Constantinople and Kiev even prior to 1165. See V. L. Ianin, "Pechat' novgorodskogo episkopa Ioanna Pop'ianina," Vospomogatel'nye istoricheskie distsipliny 9 (1978): 47-56; and Khoroshev, Tserkov', 26.

(8) Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 62; cf. 68-69.

(9) On Novgorod's relationship with the metropolitans and the rest of the Russian Church, see Golubinskii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 1, pt. 1: 310, 443-44; A. V. Kartashev, Ocherki po istorii russkoi tserkvi, 2 vols. (Paris: YMCA Press, 1959; repr. Moscow: Nauka, 1991), 1: 185; Khoroshev, Tserkov', 20, 23-33; Gail Lenhoff and Janet Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia, Posadnitsa of Novgorod: A Reconsideration of Her Legend and Her Life," Slavic Review 59, 2 (2000): 343-68; Makarii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 2: 290-92; Paul, "Episcopal Election in Novgorod," 266-71; and A. E. Presniakov, Obrazovanie Velikorusskogo gosudarstva (Moscow: Bogorodskii pechatnik, 1998), 242-56. The archbishop of Novgorod is listed immediately after the metropolitan in the documents of the Synod of Vladimir in 1274; see V. N. Beneshevich, ed., Sbornik pamiatnikov po istorii tserkovnogo prava: Preimushchestvenno russkoi tserkvi do epokhi Petra Velikogo, 2 vols. (Petrograd: Kul'tura i znanie, 1914), 2: 1. Patriarch Nil (Neilos Kerameus, r. 1379-88) of Constantinople's 1382 decree elevating Dionisii of Suzdal' to archiepiscopal status states that the archbishop of Novgorod was first in rank after the metropolitan, and that the archbishop of Suzdal' was second in rank, after the Novgorodian prelate: Akty istoricheskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheograficheskoiu komissieiu (hereafter AI), 5 vols. (St. Petersburg: Ekspeditsiia zagotovleniia gosudarstvennykh bumag, 1841-42), 1: 47 (no. 251).

(10) V. O. Kliuchevskii, Russkaia istoriia: Polnyi kurs lektsii, 3 vols. (Moscow: Mysl', 1995), 1: 392; Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia, 2: 77-73.

(11) Henrik Birnbaum, Lord Novgorod the Great: Essays on the History and Culture of a Medieval City (Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1981), 86; cf. Paul, "Episcopal Election in Novgorod," 253.

(12) Kliuchevskii, Russkaia istoriia, 1: 391-92; Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia, 2: 72.

(13) Kliuchevskii, Russkaia istoriia, 1: 392 (ital. mine); see also ibid., 1: 381; Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia, 2: 72; cf. Birnbaum, Lord Novgorod the Great, 87; and George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich, Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age (New Haven, CT: Yale university Press, 1959), 38.

(14) George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard university Press, 1966), 2: 191.

(15) Edward Sokol, "Veche," in The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. Joseph L. Wieczynski (Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press, 1979), 4: 241.

(16) Birnbaum, Lord Novgorod the Great, 95. On the Council of Lords or Sovet gospod, see Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 232-73; V. O. Kliuchevskii, Boiarskaia Duma drevnei Rusi: Dobrye liudi drevnei Rusi (Moscow: Ladomir, 1994), 172-206; Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia, 2: 68-69; A. I. Nikitskii, "Ocherki iz zhizni Velikogo Novgoroda, I: Pravitel'stvennyi sovet," Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia 145 (1869): 294-309; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, 98, 197-201; S. F. Platonov, Polnyi kurs lektsii po russkoi istorii (St. Petersburg: Krystall, 1997), 135-44, esp. 137; Knud Rasmussen, "'300 zolotykh pouasov' drevnego Novgoroda," Scando-Slavica 35 (1979): 93-103; Rasmussen, "Velikij Novgorod i moderne sovjetsk historiography," Svantevit 2, 2(1977): 65-70. For an argument against the existence of the council, see Jonas Granberg, "The Sovet Gospod of Novgorod, in Russian and German Sources," Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 47, 3 (1999): 396-401, esp. 401.

(17) By that time, almost all the princes of Novgorod were grand princes in Moscow. By the late 14th and early 15th centuries, they saw Novgorod (or at least claimed it) as their "patrimony" and were represented there by a namestnik (lieutenant), since they infrequently came to the city themselves.

(18) Charles Potvin and J. C. Mouzeau, eds., Oeuvres de Ghillbert de Lannoy (Louvain: P. et J. Lefever, 1878), 33. The Russian translation uses the word nachal'nik, "leader": G. E. Kochin, Pamiatniki istorii Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe izdatel'stvo, Leningradskoe otdelenie, 1935), 69.

(19) Potvin and Mouzeau, Oeuvres de Ghillbert de Lannoy, 33; Kochin, Pamiatniki istorii Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, 69.

(20) Bishop Ioann Pop'ianin was bishop from 1110 to 1130. Archbishop Il'ia (r. 1165-86) is often called by the name he held at his death, Ioann, especially in a number of tales and legends. See, for example, "Povest' o postroenii Blagoveshchenskogo monastyria v Novgorode," in Pamiatniki starinnoi russkoi literatury, ed. Grigorii Kushelev-Bezborodko and N. I. Kostomarov, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg: P. A. Kulish, 1860-61), 1: 255-56; "Povest' o Blagoveshchenskoi tserkvi," in Pamiatniki literatury drevnei Rusi XIV-seredina XV veka (hereafter PLDR), ed. L. A. Dmitriev and D. S. Likhachev (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1981), 464-67; "Povest' o pobede novgorodtsev nad suzdal'tsami," in Pamiatniki starinnoi russkoi literatury, 1: 241-42; "Skazanie o bitve novgorodtsev s suzdal'tsami," in PLDR, 448-53; "Povest' o puteshestvii Ioanna Novgorodskogo," in Pamiatniki starinnoi russkoi literatury, 1: 245-48; "Povest' o puteshestvii Ioanna Novgorodskogo na bese," in PLDR, 454-63; "Povest' o Shchile Posadnike Novgorodskom," in Pamiatniki starinnoi russkoi literatury, 1: 21-26, and in I. P. Eremin, "Iz istorii starinnoi russkoi povesti: Povest' o posadnike Shchile," Trudy Komissii po drevnerusskoi literature 1 (1932): 122-51. Ioann Pop'ianin would be Ioann I by my reckoning, and Il'ia is not considered to have been "Ioann," since that was the name he assumed when he entered the schema, the strictest form of monasticism, not the one he used as archbishop. Hence the Ioann who began his episcopate in 1388 is Ioann II, rather than Ioann III. On Il'ia's name and background, see Taisiia, Zhitiia sviatykh, 2: 145.

(21) Potvin and Mouzeau, Oeuvres de Ghillbert de Lannoy, 34; Vernadsky and Fisher, A Source Book for Russian History, 1: 75-76; Kochin, Pamiatniki istorii Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, 69-70.

(22) See, for example, the preamble to the "Novgorodskaia sudnaia gramota," in V. L. Ianin, ed., Zakonodatel'stvo drevnei Rusi, vol. 1 of Rossiiskoe zakonodatel'stvo X-XX vekov, ed. O. I. Chistiakov, 8 vols. (Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literatura, 1984), 304; A. A. Zimin, Pamiatniki prava feodal'no-razdroblennoi Rusi XII-XV vv., vol. 2 of Pamiatniki russkogo prava (hereafter PRP), ed. L. V. Cherepnin and S. V. Iushkov, 8 vols. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo iuridicheskoi literatury, 1952-61), 212; S. N. Valk, ed., Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova (hereafter GVNP) (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1949), no. 68, 113-14; no. 75, 126-27. For an Old Church Slavic text with English translation on the facing page, see Daniel H. Kaiser, trans. and ed., The Laws of Rus', Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries (Salt Lake City: Charles Schlacks, Jr., 1992), 80.

(23) For example, a bishop's word, like the king's, was incontrovertible, according to article 16 of the Dooms of Wihtred of Kent (r. 690-725); a priest or other cleric could clear himself by swearing an oath before the altar (articles 18 and 19); see David C. Douglas, gen. ed., Dorothy Whitelock, ed., English Historical Documents, 12 vols. (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1955), 1: 363.

(24) Ambrose, "Epistle XX," in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 10: Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1896; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 425.

(25) For a fuller list of warrior-bishops, see Friedrich von Hurter, Geschichte Papst Innocenz des Dritten und Seiner Zeitgenossen, 3rd ed., 4 vols. (Hamburg: Bey Friedrich Perthes, 1841-44), 292; and Edgar Nathaniel Johnson, The Secular Activities of the German Episcopate 919-1024 (Chicago: university of Chicago Libraries; repr. Lincoln: university of Nebraska Studies, vols. 30-31, 1930-31), 206-22.

(26) Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, ed. O. M. Dalton, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), 1: 291; Johnson, Secular Activities of the German Episcopate, 12.

(27) Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, trans. Lewis Thorpe (London: Penguin, 1974), book 5, sect. 20: 285.

(28) Ibid.

(29) Ibid., book 4, sect. 42: 237.

(30) Many bishops in the West had risen through the ranks of the royal or imperial administrations and continued to serve the king or emperor after their consecration as bishops: the bishops of the Holy Roman empire were Reichsfursten, while the bishops and mitered abbots of England sat in parliament as "Lords Spiritual." Such close ties to the emperor, king, or prince were not necessarily the case with bishops in the East. On the empire, see Johnson, Secular Activities of the German Episcopate; Benjamin Arnold, Princes and Territory in Medieval Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1991), 77-87; and Hans-Joachim Behr, Franz von Waldeck: Furstbischof zu Munster und Osnabruck, Administrator zu Minden (1491-1553). Sein Leben in seiner Zeit (Munster: Aschendorff, 1996-98). On England, see Kathleen Edwards, "The Political Importance of the English Bishops during the Reign of Edward II," English Historical Review 59, 235 (1944): 311-47, esp. 312; C. R. Cheney, From Becket to Langton: English Church Government 1170-1213 (Manchester: Manchester university Press, 1956); W. A. Pantin, English Church Government in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1955); and Glynne Jarratt, The Life of Walter Skirlaw: Medieval Diplomat and Prince Bishop of Durham (Beverley: Highgate, 2004).

(31) On the Investiture Controversy and the prince-bishops of the empire, see Uta-Renate Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988). Prince-bishops continued to hold secular power into early modern or modern times. With the Protestant Reformation, several converted to Lutheranism, renounced the episcopal office, and became lay princes and "administered the episcopal office" but were not really bishops anymore (as in Bremen), or their sees were secularized and the office abolished (as in Riga).

(32) Siegfried Hirsch, Hermann Pabst, and Harry Bresslau, eds., Jahrbucher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II, 3 vols. (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1862-75), 1: 49.

(33) Charles Oman, The History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (New York: Burt Franklin, 1969), 1: 446.

(34) David S. Schaff, The Middle Ages from Gregory VII, 1049 to Boniface VIII, 1294, vol. 5 of Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1907), 797-98.

(35) Schaff, Middle Ages, 798.

(36) Ibid., 127.

(37) Ibid., 798.

(38) Richard A. Gabriel, The Mongols: The Battle of Sajo River (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1992), 41; Gabriel, Subotai the Valiant (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 122-24; David Morgan, The Mongols (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 38-39; J. J. Saunders, The History of the Mongol Conquests (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971), 86; R. A. Skelton, Thomas E. Marston, and George D. Painter, The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), 82-83.

(39) Juan Gines de Sepulveda, Historia de los hechos del Cardenal Gil de Albornoz, Spanish and Latin; text of the Liber gestorum Aegidii Albornotii (Pozoblanco: Excmo. Ayuntamiento de Pozoblanco, 2002), 54-73. See also Hermann Joseph Wurm, Cardinal Albornoz, der zweite Begrunder des Kirchenstaates (Paderborn: Junfermann [A. Pape], 1892).

(40) John Leader-Temple and Giuseppe Marcotti, Sir John Hawkwood (L'Acuto): The Story of a Condottiere (London: T. F. Unwin, 889), 1119-22.

(41) Schaff, Middle Ages, 797; Christine Shaw, Julius II: The Warrior Pope (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993).

(42) Schaff, Middle Ages, 798; Karsten Friis-Jensen and Inge Skovgaard-Petersen, Archbishop Absalon of Lund and His World (Roskilde: Roskilde museums forlag, 000).

(43) Torben K. Nielsen, "The Missionary Man: Archbishop Anders Sunesen and the Baltic Crusade, 1206-21," in Crusade and Conversion on the Baltic Frontier, 1150-1500, ed. Alan V. Murray (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2001), 95-117.

(44) Henricus Lettus (Heinrich von Lettland), Chronicon Livoniae/Livlandische Chronik, vols., ed. A. Bauer and L. Arbusow (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1959), 2, sect. 6: 14-15; Leo Meyer, ed., Livlandische Reimchronik (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1876), (line 502); Jerry C. Smith and William L. urban, trans. and eds., The Livonian Rhymed Chronicle (Bloomington: Indiana university Press, 1977), 8-9; Schaff, The Middle Ages, 432. The See of Uexkull was transferred to Riga in 1200.

(45) Schaff, The Middle Ages, 432.

(46) Henricus Lettus, Chronicon Livoniae, 2, sect. 6: 29-30, 31; Meyer, ed., Livlandische Reimchronik, 48-49 (lines 065-98); 5 (line 2229).

(47) NPL, 77.

(48) Henricus Lettus, Chronicon Livoniae, 2, sect. 6: 29-30, 31; Meyer, ed., Livlandische Reimchronik, 48-49 (lines 065-98); 52 (line 9).

(49) NPL, 370.

(50) Following the Turkish conquest, Orthodox prelates in the Ottoman empire acted as representatives of the Greek nation (ethnarchs) before the sultan, but that is outside the period and beyond the scope of this article.

(51) Anna Comnena, The Alexiad of Anna Comnena, trans. E. R. A. Sewter (London: Penguin, 1969), bk. 10, sect. 8: 317; Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XIIth Centuries (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1955), 83, 105; Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A Political History, 2nd ed. (London: Longman, 1985, 1997), 166. Sewter notes the correct form of Colossians 2:21 ("Touch not, taste not, handle not").

(52) Pravoslavnyi sobesednik (1860): 84-85; John Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A Study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1981), 209, 292; G. M. Prokhorov, Povest' o Mitiae: Rus' i Vizantiia v epokhu kulikovskoi bitvy (Leningrad: Nauka, 1978), 195 (ital. mine). A later metropolitan, Photius (r. 1414-31), did serve on the regency council for Grand Prince Vasilii II (r. 1425-62), who was ten at the time of his father's death. Photius served on the council from 1425 to his death in 1431, but this was an exceptional circumstance, and he never carried out military activities or held other secular powers himself. See Janet Martin, Medieval Russia, 1980-1584 (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1995), 239; and Presniakov, Obrazovanie Velikorusskogo gosudarstva, 264.

(53) A. I. Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode (St. Petersburg: V. S. Valashev, 1879), 37, 41, 42, 45, 46, 50, 51-52. Nikitskii also noted another source of income for the archbishops: they charged fees for every antimens, the altar cloth required in every Orthodox church for the Divine Liturgy to be held (ibid., 74-75). Cf. AI, 1: 17 (no. 8).

(54) Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode, 61, 62.

(55) Ianin, Aktovye pechati, 2: 61-67; cf. Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 72.

(56) V. L. Ianin, "Vyzlye pechati Pskova," Sovetskaia arkheologiia, no. 3 (1960): 252-56; Ianin, Aktovye pechati, 2: 60.

(57) Ocherki istorii SSSR: Period feodalizma, IX-XV vv., pt. 1 (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1953), 351, cited in Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 110 (ital. mine).

(58) Joel Raba, "Church and Foreign Policy in the Fifteenth-Century Novgorodian State," Canadian-American Slavic Studies 13, 1-2 (1979): 52. See also his other articles on Novgorod: "The Fate of the Novgorodian Republic," Slavonic and East European Review 45, 105 (1967): 307-23; and "Evfimij II., Erzbischof von Gross-Nowgorod und Pskov: Ein Kirchenfurst als Leiter einer weltlichen Republik," Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 25, 2 (1977): 161-73.

(59) The first Novgorodian bishop, Ioakim Korsunianin, was bishop from 989 to 1030, or 41 years, the longest single reign. Archbishops Aleksei (r. 1359-88) and Evfimii II (r. 1429-58) each sat 29 years. Archbishop Ioann II sat 27 years (1388-1415), Archbishop Nifont sat 26 years (1130-56); Bishop Luka Zhidiata (r. 1035-60), Archbishop Dalmat (r. 1249-64), and Archbishop Kliment (r. 1264-89) each sat 25 years. The mean incumbency was 31 years (31 bishops and archbishops in the 480 years from the establishment of the eparchy in 989 to 1480, when Feofil was arrested). The median, however, is only 12 years. Furthermore, several episcopates were broken into two tenures; particularly those of Mitrofan, Antonii, and Arkadii between 1211 and 1229. Each served, was replaced, and returned to the archiepiscopal throne. Archbishop Moisei also served twice, from 1325 to 1330 and again after the death of Archbishop Vasilii Kalika, from 1352 to 1359.

(60) Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki.

(61) Khoroshev, Tserkov', 36, 147, 150.

(62) Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 360.

(63) The exact date of the manuscript is uncertain. Lenhoff and Martin give several possible dates between 1471 and Feofil's arrest in 1480. See Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 366-67; and Bernadskii, Novgorod, 318.

(64) Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 343-68.

(65) George G. Weickhardt, "The Canon Law of Rus', 1100-1551," Russian History/Histoire russe 28, 1-4 (2001): 411-46, here 421; Ianin, Aktovye pechati, 2: 59-60. See also Khoroshev, Tserkov', 121-39. For more on the archbishops' judicial functions, see Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode, 47.

(66) "Novgorodskaia sudnaia gramota," article 26, in Zakonodatel'stvo drevnei Rusi, ed. Ianin, 306; Kaiser, The Laws of Rus', 82; PRP, 2: 215.

(67) The archbishops of Novgorod also oversaw Pskov, and purposefully called themselves "the archbishop of Novgorod the Great and Pskov" beginning about 1400; the archbishop's authority was admittedly limited in Novgorod's "Younger Brother," often to visitations every few years. In, fact, in 1437, Metropolitan Isidor (r. 1436-41) briefly stripped the archbishop of control of Pskov, giving it instead to a local archimandrite. The Novgorodian First Chronicle says that Isidor "appointed Archimandrite Gelasi as their vladyka and gave him the vladyka's [i.e., the archbishop's] jurisdiction and all the taxes" (NPL, 419). Oskar Halecki argues that control over the church in Pskov was returned to the archbishop upon Isidor's return from the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1441 in his From Florence to Brest 1439-1596, 1st ed. (Rome: Sacrum Poloniae Millennium, 1958, publ. Fordham university Press; 2nd ed. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1968), 62.

(68) B. D. Grekov, ed., "Pskovskaia sudnaia gramota," Istoricheskie zapiski 6 (1940): 240 (article 25); Ianin, Zakonodatel'stvo drevnei Rusi, 334; Kaiser, Laws of Rus', 91; PRP, 2: 25.

(69) Grekov, "Pskovskaia sudnaia gramota," 238-39, 244-45, 249 (articles 14, 50, and 82); Ianin, Zakondatel'stvo drevnei Rusi, 333, 336, 339; Kaiser, Laws of Rus', 89, 95, 101; PRP, 2: 287-88, 293, 296-97.

(70) "If the prince will not affix his seal, then [obtain] the seal at [the Pskov archives at] the Holy Trinity Cathedral. There is no irregularity in this [procedure]." See Grekov, "Pskovskaia sudnaia gramota," 249 (article 82); Ianin, Zakondatel'stvo drevnei Rusi, 339; Kaiser, Laws of Rus', 100; Daniel H. Kaiser, The Growth of the Law in Medieval Russia (Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 1980), 161; and PRP, 2: 296-97. It is assumed that the seal obtained at the Trinity Cathedral was the archbishop's seal, although it is not specified in the charter.

(71) Article 15 of the "Ustav kniazia Vladimira Sviatoslavicha, Sinodal'naia redaktsiia" declared that "From of old it was established and entrusted to the holy bishops to supervise all town and trade scales, weights and dry measures; from of old it was established by God [that] the bishop is to supervise [these scales and measures] without trickery, neither diminishing nor increasing [the weights and measures], [since] he is to give his accounting for all [these things] on the Day of Judgment, just as [he will] for men's souls." See Beneshevich, Sbornik pamiatnikov po istorii tserkovnogo prava, 1: 67; Ianin, Zakonodatel'stvo drevnei Rusi, 149; Kaiser, The Laws of Rus', 44; Ia. N. Shchapov, Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy XI-XVI vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), 63; Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 91; and article 6 of the Tolstoy List, PRP, 1: 242 (article 11 in the Synodal Redaction, 245-6). The Statute of the Novgorod Prince Vsevolod gave the archbishop of Novgorod in particular control over weights and measures; see "Statute of the Novgorod Prince Vsevolod [1135-37] on Church Courts, [Church] People, and Trade Measures," article 4, in Zakonodatel'stvo drevnei Rusi, ed. Ianin, 251; Kaiser, The Laws of Rus', 59-60; AI, 1: 3; Janet Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness: The Fur Trade and Its Significance for Medieval Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 1985), 50; A. I. Nikitskii, Istoriia ekonomicheskogo byta velikogo Novgoroda (Moscow: universitetskaia tipografiia, 1983), 19-20; and PRP, 2: 162-63.

(72) The Statutory Charter of the Novgorod Prince Sviatoslav Ol'govich provided the Novgorodian archbishop with incomes from bloodwite payments in the Onega lands and incomes of 37 sorochki (a sorochka or sorok was a bundle of 40 luxury furs, i.e., sables and martens), or 1,500 luxury furs per year from 24 districts, as well as payments from the salt trade and monetary payments of 36 grivny and 20 kuny. (A kuna was equal to 1/50 of a grivna kun. A grivna kun was about 1/15 of a Novgorodian ruble.) See "The Statutory Charter of the Novgorod Prince Sviatoslav Ol'govich," articles 3, 4, 6, and 7, in Zakonodatel'stvo drevnei Rusi, ed. Ianin, 224-25; Kaiser, The Laws of Rus', 57; and PRP, 2: 117-18; cf. Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 54-55. It is unclear whether these charters were ever enforced, since both princes were driven from the city (in 1136 and 1138, respectively). Much of the scholarship on archiepiscopal landholdings or incomes deals with the period after 1478. Indeed, there is little primary source material on landholdings prior to 1478 (beyond these charters), and what is available is incomplete. The Pistsovye knigi were compiled only after the Muscovite conquest and do not cover all the Novgorodian land but are one of the only sources available. For the Pistsovye knigi, see K. V. Baranov, ed., Pistsovye knigi Novgorodskoi zemli (Moscow: Drevlekhranilishche, Arkheograficheskii tsentr, 1999); P. L. Gusev, ed., Pistsovaia kniga Velikogo Novgoroda, 1583-84 gg. (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Glavnogo upravleniia udelov, 1908); P. I. Savvaitov, A. Timofeev, and S. K. Bogoiavlenskii, eds., Novgorodskie pistsovye knigi, 6 vols. (St. Petersburg: Senatskaia tipografiia, 1859-1910; vols. 1-3. repr. The Hague: Mouton, 1969); Pistsovye knigi Obonezhskoi piatiny 1496 i 1563 gg. (Leningrad: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1930). For analysis of the archiepiscopal landholdings, see L. V. Danilova, Ocherki po istorii zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva v Novgorodskoi zemle v XV-XVI vv. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1955); B. D. Grekov, Novgorodskii dom sviatoi Sofii: Opyt izucheniia organizatsii i vnutrennikh otnoshenii krupnoi tserkovnoi votchiny, pt. (St. Petersburg: M. Aleksandrov, 1914), repr. Grekov, Izbrannye trudy, 4 vols. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1960), 4: 7-436; Grekov, "Ocherki po istorii khoziaistva Novgorodskogo Sofiiskogo doma," repr. Izbrannye trudy, 3: 40-191; A. M. Gnevushev, Ocherki ekonomicheskoi i sotsial'noi zhizni sel'skogo naseleniia Novgorodskoi oblasti posle prisoedineniia Novgoroda k Moskve (Kiev: Tipografiia Imperatorskogo universiteta sviatogo Vladimira, 1915); Khoroshev, Tserkov' v sotsial'no-politicheskoi sisteme Novgorodskoi feodal'noi respubliki, 121-39; and A. L. Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia severo-zapada Rossii, vtoraia polovina XV-XVI v. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971), esp. 274-75.

(73) "The Statutory Charter of the Novgorod Prince Sviatoslav Ol'govich," article 4, in Zakonodatel'stvo drevnei Rusi, ed. Ianin, 225; Kaiser, The Laws of Rus', 57-58; PRP, 2: 117; Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 54-55.

(74) L. A. Zarubin, "Vazhskaia Zemlia v XIV-XV vv.," Istoriia SSSR, no. 1 (1970): 184; Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 78-80.

(75) Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 80.

(76) Ioakim (Korsunianin), the first Novgorodian bishop, built the first Cathedral of Holy Wisdom soon after his arrival in the city in the late tenth century; and his successors built numerous churches both in Novgorod and in several towns in the Novgorodian land, including Ladoga and Russa. Indeed, church construction was one of their major activities. See Bernadskii, Novgorod, 26.

(77) NPL, 346. The Older Redaction notes only that Vasilii "built a fortress in stone in two years" (NPL, 99-100). Bernadskii notes the Detinets (or "Kremlin," as he calls it) was built in stone in 1331, the first year of Vasilii's archiepiscopate (Novgorod, 25).

(78) NPL, 349.

(79) Ibid., 100.

(80) Ibid., 379.

(81) Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 179.

(82) Ibid., 180; cf. NPL, 29; Suzdal'skaia letopis' po Lavrent'evskomu spisku, cols. 425, 435, 455, and Prodolzhenie Suzdal'skoi letopisi po Akademicheskomu spisku, col. 606, which together make up PSRL, (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Vostochnoi literatury, 1962).

(83) NPL, 355-56; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 32.

(84) The archbishop is frequently mentioned first in the treaties found in the Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova. In addition, he was also addressed first by the representatives of Ivan the Great in 1477 and 1478 and hosted visiting foreigners, including Ghillbert de Lannoy; see Potvin and Mouzeau, eds., Oeuvres de Ghillbert de Lannoy, 33; and Kochin, Pamiatniki istorii Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, 69. A Pskovian embassy to Novgorod in 1408 appealed to him to ask the Novgorodian secular officials to make peace with Pskov.

(85) GVNP, 9-156 (nos. 1-101).

(86) Only one of the five documents from before Dalmat's reign refers to the archbishop. This is a land grant made by Prince Iziaslav Mstislavich (with Nifont's blessing) to the Panteleimon Monastery between 1146 and 1155 (GVNP, 141 [no. 82]).

(87) The only other churchman named in a Russian treaty is Lavrentii, the namestnik (vicar) of the bishop of Smolensk, who was a witness to a 1284 commercial treaty between Riga and Smolensk, but the bishop of Smolensk is not considered to have held secular power in that city; see T. A. Sumnikova and V. V. Lopatev, eds., Smolenskie gramoty XIII-XIV vv. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1963), 66; and Shchapov, Gosudarstvo i tserkov', 70.

(88) That being said, Archbishop Dalmat did attend the Council of Vladimir in 1274; Beneshevich, Sbornik pamiatnikov po istorii tserkovnogo prava, 2: 1. Other than that, Vasilii Kalika, after his consecration, visited Metropolitan Feognost (r. 1327 or 1328-53) in Volynia in 1334 and again in Moscow in 346, where he received a polystaurion or cross-covered vestment, a special honor for Orthodox ecclesiastics (NPL, 346, 358).

(89) The last visit to Pskov was in 1188, by Archbishop Grigorii (Gavriil). Bishop Marturii consecrated a church in Russa in 1198 (NPL, 39, 43-44, 237). The next archiepiscopal visit mentioned in the chronicles was when Vasilii Kalika visited Pskov in 1333; visits were more frequent after that. The chronicle mentions that the archbishop had not visited there in seven years, indicating that there had been visits earlier that were not recorded (NPL, 345). In 1329, Grand Prince Ivan Kalita (r. 1325-41) raised an army and marched on Pskov; Metropolitan Feognost and Archbishop Moisei threatened Pskov with excommunication if it did not drive out Grand Prince Aleksandr Mikhailovich (grand prince of Vladimir, r. 1326-27), who had led an uprising against the Mongols in Tver' two years earlier. Aleksandr fled to Lithuania and the metropolitan and Moisei then blessed the city, but Moisei did not personally visit the city, as they met the Pskovian posadnik, Ivan Solog, at Opoki, outside Novgorod; see A. N. Nasonov, ed., Pskovskie letopisi, 2 vols. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1941-55; vol. repr. Dusseldorf: Slavica Reprints, 1967), 1: 17; 2: 23.

(90) NPL, 72, 282. Since the Detinets was the archiepiscopal compound, it seems likely that this was an archiepiscopal construction.

(91) NPL, 83, 311.

(92) In fact, only five projects were patronized by the archbishops between the episcopate of Marturii (r. 1192-99) and the first tenure of Moisei (r. 1325-30, 1352-59). There are several non-archiepiscopal constructions during the 1199-1296 period; 4 churches were built, rebuilt, or decorated between 1199 and 1238; then there is a lack of church construction until 1261. In 1262, the Church of St. Vasilii was built by a monk named Vasilii. Even some of these construction projects, though, seem plagued with problems. In 1211, the Church of the Forty Saints was rebuilt, but the interior was not painted until 1227 (NPL, 52, 249-50; 65, 270).

(93) The Mongols turned away 100 versts from the city; see NPL, 76, 289. On the economic impact, see Charles J. Halperin, Russia and the Golden Horde: The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History (Bloomington: Indiana university Press, 1985), 75-86; David B. Miller, "Monumental Building as an Indicator of Economic Trends in Northern Rus' in the Late Kievan and Mongol Periods: 1138-1462," American Historical Review 94, 2 (1989): 360-90; Miller, "Monumental Building and Its Patrons as Indicators of Economic and Political Trends in Rus', 900-1262," Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 38, 3 (1990): 321-55.

(94) Michael C. Paul, "'A Man Chosen by God': The Office of Archbishop in Novgorod Russia 1165-1478" (Ph.D. diss., university of Miami, 2003), 88, 243.

(95) The only homily of a Novgorodian prelate is one by Luka Zhidiata in the mid-11th century; see S. Bugoslavskii, ed., "Pouchenie episkopa Luki Zhidiaty po rukopsiam XV-XVII vv.," Izvestiia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi akademii nauk 18, 2 (1913): 194-237; and A. I. Ponamarev, ed., Pamiatniki drevnerusskoi tserkovno-uchitel'noi literatury, 1st ed. (St. Petersburg: S. Dobrodeev, 1894), 14-16. For an English translation, see Francis J. Thomson, "On Translating Slavonic Texts into a Modern Language: Some Critical Remarks on a New English Translation of Early East Slav Sermons, Together with a Translation of Luke of Novgorod's Homily to the Brethren," Slavica gandensia 19 (1992): 205-17. Nifont also left a series of answers to monks and priests known as the Voproshanie Kirika or "Questions of Kirik": see Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka (hereafter RIB), 39 vols. (St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo Arkheograficheskoi komissii, 1872-1927), 6: cols. 21-62; John L. I. Fennell, History of the Russian Church to 1448 (London: Longman, 1995), 74. Il'ia sent a letter to the bishop of Belogorod listing instructions for the white clergy. He also left rules for the monastic clergy known as the Pravila Chernorizetsem. Filaret (Dmitrii Grigor'evich Gumilevskii), Russkie sviatye, chtimye vseiu tserkov'iu ili mestno: Sentiabr', oktiabr', noiabr', dekabr' (Chernigov: Tipografiia Il'inskogo monastyria, 1865), 21-24; K. F. Kalaidovich, ed., Pamiatniki rossiiskoi slovesnosti: XII v. (Moscow: Semen Selivanovskii, 1821), 223-24; P. I. Tikhomirov, Kafedra novgorodskikh sviatitelei so vremeni pokoreniia Novgoroda Moskovskoi derzhave v 1478 godu do konchiny poslednego mitropolita Novgorodskogo Iova v 1716 godu, vols. in 3 books (Novgorod: Gubernskoe pravlenie, I. I. Ignatovskii, 1891-1900), 1: 95-97. Archbishop Vasilii Kalika sent a letter to Bishop Efrem of Tver', but scholars do not agree on what it says. Some see it as heretical, while others see it as espousing Hesychasm, the most important form of Orthodox mysticism. The letter can be found in Sof. I (PSRL, 6), cols. 422-28; and PLDR, 1: 42-9, 531-34. For analysis of the letter, see A. I. Klibanov, Reformatsionnye dvizheniia v Rossii v XIV-pervoi polovine XVI vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1960), 138-49; and A. Ia. Gurevich, "Zapadnoevropeiskie videniia posustoronnego mira i 'realizm' srednikh vekov," in Trudy po znakovym sistemam, 8: K 70-letiiu akademika D. S. Likhacheva (Tartu, Estonia: n. p., 1977), 3-27. On Hesychasm, see Paul Bushkovitch, "The Limits of Hesychasm: Some Notes on Monastic Spirituality in Russia, 1350-1500," Forschungen zur osteuropaischen Geschichte 38 (1986): 97-105; and John Meyendorff, Byzantine Hesychasm: Historical, Theological, and Social Problems. Collected Studies (London: Variorum Reprints, 1974). These are the only extant homilies or instructional writings of the Novgorodian bishops and archbishops before the Muscovite conquest. In addition, Archbishop Antonii left a famous description of Constantinople written a few years before its sack in 1204 and before he was elevated to the archbishopric: Antonii (Archbishop of Novgorod) (Dobrynia Iadreikovich), "Kniga Palomnik: Skazanie mest sviatykh vo Tsaregrade," Pravoslavnyi palestinskii sbornik 17, pt. 3 (St. Petersburg: Izdanie Imperatorskogo pravoslavnogo palestinskogo obshchestva, V. Kirshbaum, 1899); Antonii, Puteshestvie novgorodskogo arkhiepiskopa Antoniia v Tsargrad v kontse 12-go stoletiia, ed. Pavel Savvaitov (St. Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo Arkheograficheskoi komissii, 1872).

(96) Paul, "Episcopal Election in Novgorod," 259, 262.

(97) NPL, 350; John H. Lind, "Consequences of the Baltic Crusades in Target Areas: The Case of Karelia," in Crusade and Conversion on the Baltic Frontier 1150-1550, ed. Alan V. Murray (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2001), 145; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 31 (Bernadskii does not cite the clause protecting the Karelian Orthodox Christians).

(98) NPL, 349, 360.

(99) Amvrosii (Ornatskii, Archbishop of Penza and Saratov), Istoriia Rossiiskoi ierarkhii, 7 vols. (Moscow: Sinodal'naia tipografiia, 1807-15), 3: 480; Novgorodskaia tretiaia letopis' (hereafter NIII) (PSRL, 3) (St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1841), 233; Aleksandr Musin, Khristianizatsiia Novgorodskoi zemli v IX-XIV vekakh: Pogrebal'nyi obriad i khristianskie drevnosti (St. Petersburg: RAN IIMK, 2002), 109. Lind dates the founding to 1393: "Consequences of the Baltic Crusades," 148; N. A. Okhotina-Lind, Skazanie o Valaamskom monastyre (St. Petersburg: Glagol, 1996), 23.

(100) Okhotina-Lind, Skazanie o Valaamskom monastyre, 166-69; English translation in Natalia Okhotina, "The Tale of the Valamo Monastery," Ortodoksia 42 (1993): 124-35.

(101) The Chud are normally identified as the Estonians--indeed, the lake between Russia and Estonia is known today as Chudskoe ozero--but Janet Martin notes that the term was a generic one the Russians used to refer to the people of Finnic stock living to the north of them, even those living in the Zavoloch'e and Karelia (Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 54).

(102) Okhotina-Lind, Skazanie o Valaamskom monastyre, 162-69; Lind, "Consequences of the Baltic Crusades," 148-49.

(103) Lind dates the manuscript to 1556-58, a century and a half after the monastery's founding, and attributes it to the Novgorodian archiepiscopal administration, not to the monks of the monastery: John Lind, "Fortaelling om Valamoklosteret: En nufunden kilde til klosterets aeldste historie," Historisk Tidskrift for Finland (199): 1-30; cited in Okhotina-Lind, Skazanie o Valaamskom monastyre, 21-23, 30, esp. 23 and 30; John H. Lind, "Sources and Pseudo Sources on the Founding of the Valamo Monastery," Scandinavian Journal of History 11, 2 (1986): 115-33.

(104) NPL, 402, 404. The Novgorodian First Chronicle provides other indications of Ioann II's willingness to bless other violent endeavors: in 1413, he patronized the construction of the Church of the Feast of St. Gabriel along with the voevody who had attacked and burned the suburbs of Vyborg on the Feast of St. Gabriel, 26 March 1412. The church, therefore, commemorated a violent attack on the Swedes living to the north and demonstrates the archbishop's willingness to lend his name (and his money) to the endeavor, suggesting a willingness to use force against religious enemies.

(105) Sof. I (PSRL, 6), 6; Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 359; Presniakov, Obrazovanie Velikorusskogo gosudarstva, 296.

(106) Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 359. I have not found evidence in the sources of a tradition of refusing office three times, although there are indications of other archbishops reluctantly taking office, such as Evfimii II's life, which suggests he also reluctantly took office: Sluzhba i zhitie izhe so sviatykh ottsa nashego Evfimiia arkhiepiskopa novgorodskogo chudotvortsa (St. Petersburg: Kronshtadtskii maiak, Otechestvennaia tipografiia, 1907), 27.

(107) The Sofia Second (Sof. II) Chronicle, written in the 6th century after the fall of Novgorod and thought to depict the Muscovite perspective, depicts Feofil rather differently, as energetically negotiating with Ivan III in defense of Novgorod, so much so that the grand prince grew angry. The Voskresenskaia [Resurrection (Vosk.)] Chronicle, also a 16th-century compilation (1542-44), says that Feofil did not wish to be under the grand prince but under the king of Poland, since after Ivan III defeated Novgorod in 1471, he took half the archiepiscopal and monastic land: Sof. II (PSRL, 6) (St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1853), 191-92; Vosk. (PSRL, 8) (St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1859), 204; Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 359. On dating the chronicles, see I. S. Lur'e, Dve istorii Rusi XV veka: Rannie i pozdnie, nezavisimye i ofitsial'nye letopisi ob obrazovanii Moskovskogo gosudarstva (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1994), 13-20; A. G. Bobrov, Novgorodskie letopisi XV veka (St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2000).

(108) Martin, Medieval Russia, 226; cf. "The Statutory Charter of Grand Prince Vasilii Dmitrievich to the Dvina Land 1397/98," in PRP, 3: 162-66; NPL, 391-93.

(109) Ipat'evskaia letopis' (Hypatian Chronicle) (PSRL, 2) (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury, 1998), col. 277, sub annum 1114. More practically, Marco Polo wrote of "great quantities of costly furs ... such numbers of these furs that it is truly marvelous," and that Russia "produces precious furs--sable, ermine, vair, ercolin, and foxes in abundance, the best and the most beautiful in the world"; see Marco Polo, The Travels (London: Penguin Classics, 1958), 331-32.

(110) On the importance of the fur trade and these particular regions to Novgorod, see Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 61-85, 151-63, esp. 80.

(111) On the Novgorod-Moscow rivalry over the fur-trapping lands north of Moscow and Novgorod, see V. L. Ianin, "Bor'ba Novgoroda i Moskvy za Dvinskie zemli v 50-70-kh godakh XV v.," Istoricheskie zapiski 108 (1982): 189-214; Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 354; and Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 130-40.

(112) GVNP, no. 23, p. 42; Akty, sobrannye v bibliotekakh i arkhivakh Rossiiskoi imperii arkheograficheskoiu ekspeditsieiu Imperatorskoi akademii nauk (hereafter AAE), 4 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia II Otedeleniia Sobstvennoi Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva kantseliarii, 1836), 1: 43-44; Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 138.

(113) Akty sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi istorii severno-vostochnoi Rusi (hereafter ASEI), 3 vols. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1952-64), 3: 14-16, 30-31; AAE, 1: 73-74, no. 94; Ianin, "Bor'ba Novgoroda i Moskvy," 197-98; Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 38-39; A. L. Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia severo-zapada Rossii, 3 vols. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971-78), 1: 282-83.

(114) AAE, 1: 74-75 (no. 94); ASEI, 3: 33-34 (no. 15); Ianin, "Bor'ba Novgoroda i Moskvy," 197-98; Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 138.

(115) Novgorodskaia chetvertaia letopis' (hereafter NIV) (PSRL, 4) (Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury, 2000), 446; Vernadsky and Karpovich, Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age, 52.

(116) John L. I. Fennell, Ivan the Great of Moscow (London: Macmillan, 1961), 43.

(117) NIV (2000 ed.) (PSRL, 4), 446. The earlier edition of the Novgorodian Fourth Chronicle does not quote the Archbishop's Banner or give a reason why they were not to attack the grand prince's troops but merely relates that Feofil withheld the cavalry without further clarification: NIV (PSRL, 4) (St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1848), 127-28.

(118) Danilova, Ocherki, 46-47. Andrei Gnevushev lists only 5,257 obzhi among the archbishops' landholdings, but his analysis did not cover all the pistsovye knigi (Ocherki, 348). For further discussion of the land confiscations, see Grekov, Novgorodskii dom Sviatoi Sofii, 189; and Khoroshev, Tserkov', 149, 153, 193. An obzha (pl. obzhi) is a unit of 13 to 15 acres.

(119) NPL, 396; Danilova, Ocherki, 150.

(120) Danilova, Ocherki, 154.

(121) The archbishops also had their own druzhina or mounted retinue; see Grekov, "Ocherki po istorii khoziaistva Novgorodskogo Sofiiskogo doma," 61.

(122) AI, 1: 512-14 (no. 280), 517-18 (no. 281), and 518-19 (no. 282); Sof. I (PSRL, 6), 4, 7-8; Halecki, From Florence to Brest, 85-97; Golubinskii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 2, pt. 1: 533-34; Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 346-47, 361. In 1392, Novgorodian envoys to Constantinople had threatened to defect to the Catholic Church if the patriarch did not give them freedom from the metropolitan of Kiev's jurisdiction. Memory of this perhaps added to Moscow's fears. See Franz Ritter von Miklosich and Joseph Muller, eds., Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana (Vienna: Carolus Gerold, 1860-90), 2: 178; NIV (PSRL, 4), 99; Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode, 113-14; and Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 361.

(123) Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 343.

(124) Some sources say Patriarch Gregory III Mammas of Constantinople consecrated Grigorii as metropolitan of Kiev in Rome in 1458. Mammas was a supporter of the union of Florence and left Constantinople in 1450. Most Orthodox lists of patriarchs give his incumbency as 1443-50; others say 1445-51. He went to Rome and was considered the (Latin) patriarch of Constantinople until his death in 1459; Erich Trapp, ed., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, 12 vols. (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976-96), 2: 569 (no. 4951). I am grateful to Georgi R. Parpulov for his insights regarding Mammas.

(125) Presniakov called Grigorii "a Uniate and follower of Isidor" but admits that Grigorii was confirmed in his office by the Orthodox Patriarch Dionisius of Constantinople. Moscow protested Dionisius's actions. See Presniakov, Obrazovanie Velikorusskogo gosudarstva, 296; RIB, 6, cols. 689-94 (no. 94); cols. 721-32 (no. 102); no. 100; Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode, 121-23. Grand Prince Ivan III referred to Grigorii as a "disciple of Isidor" in a letter sent to Archbishop Iona c. 1465-70; see AI, 1: 507 (no. 275); AAE, 1: 58-60 (no. 80).

(126) Moskovskii letopisnyi svod kontsa XV veka (hereafter Mosk.) (PSRL, 25) (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1949), 310.

(127) GVNP, 130-32 (no. 77).

(128) Ibid., 130.

(129) Ibid., 132; cf. Halecki, From Florence to Brest, 85-97; Golubinskii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 2, pt. 1: 533-34; and Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 346-47, 361.

(130) The last treaty of Evfimii II's archiepiscopate, the Peace of Iazhelbitsii, was signed at the end of February 1456, a little over two years before his death. He blessed the treaty but does not appear to have taken part in negotiations, as he is not mentioned among the delegates at Iazhelbitsii listed in the treaty; see GVNP, 39-44 (nos. 22-24). The last churches built under his patronage were finished in 1455, and his other activities drop off after 1456, indicating perhaps that he was old or ill; he had been in office 27 years by the time of Iazhelbitsii. Archbishop Iona (r. 1458-70) was seen as pro-Muscovite, and after his death the pro-Lithuanian faction placed Feofil on the archiepiscopal throne. Iona's tenure after 1458 may explain why Novgorod did not turn to Poland-Lithuania before 1471.

(131) Sof. II (PSRL, 6), 193; Mosk. (PSRL, 25), 289-90; Vosk. (PSRL, 8), 166; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 296; V. L. Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina: Istoriko-genealogicheskoe issledovanie (Moscow: Nauka, 1981), 53; Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki, 314-15; Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 355.

(132) AAE, 1: 73-74 (no. 94); ASEI, 3: 32-33 (no. 16); Ianin, "Bor'ba Novgoroda i Moskvy," 200-2; Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 139; Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia severozapada Rossii, 1: 283.

(133) Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 363.

(134) Sof. I (PSRL, 6), 8, Sof. II (PSRL, 6) 203-4; NIV (PSRL, 4), 449; Mosk. (PSRL, 25), 306, 308; Bernadskii, Novgorod, 296, 313, Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, 53; Ianin, Novgorodskie akty XII-XV vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1991), 73; Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 355-56.

(135) Sof. II (PSRL, 6), 191-92; Tipografskaia letopis', 188; Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 359. The Sofia Second Chronicle was compiled in 1518 and is thought to convey the grand-princely perspective: Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 345 n. 8; Lur'e, Dve istorii Rusi, 19.

(136) Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 359.

(137) Vosk. (PSRL, 8), 204; Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 359. Lur'e, Dve istorii Rusi, 20; A. Pavlov, Istoricheskii ocherk sekuliarizatsii tserkovnykh zemel' v Rossii, part (Odessa: Ul'rikh i Shul'tse, 1871), 34. "The hatred [neliub'e] of the Novgorodian archbishops [vladyki] toward the Muscovite state" was given as the cause (in the Voskresenskaia Chronicle) for these confiscations. See Vosk. (PSRL 6), 204; Pavlov, Istoricheskii ocherk sekuliarizatsii tserkovnykh zemel', 34; Khoroshev, Tserkov', 149; and Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode, 127 n. 1.

(138) Mosk. (PSRL, 25), 309; Sokrashennyi letopisnyi svod 1495 goda (PSRL, 27) (Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1962), 280.

(139) NIV (PSRL, 6), 209; Presniakov, Obrazovanie Velikorusskogo gosudarstva, 300.

(140) The chronicler noted: "this had never happened before, not since our land came into being. None of the grand princes was called Gosudar', but always Gospodin" (Mosk. [PSRL, 25], 309).

(141) Ibid., 309.

(142) Ibid., 310.

(143) Ibid., 309, 311, 312.

(144) NPL, 23-24, 208, 211, 28, 214, 29, 216, 341, 82; 415; NIV (PSRL, 4), 153, 502; Sok. (PSRL, 27), 280; Mosk. (PSRL, 25), 311.

(145) Mosk. (PSRL, 25), 312-14.

(146) Ibid., 321, 318 (ital. mine).

(147) Mosk. (PSRL, 25), 319; Sof. II (PSRL 6), 216; Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode, 125-26 n. 1.

(148) Sof. II. (PSRL, 6), 216-17; Pavlov, Istoricheskii ocherk sekuliarizatsii tserkovnykh zemel', 33. Aleksandr Shapiro calculated that the archbishops of Novgorod in fact lost 79 percent of their lands in the confiscations of the late 15th and early 6th centuries (Agrarnaia istoriia severo-zapada Rossii, vtoraia polovina XV-XVI v.).

(149) Vosk. (PSRL, 8), 204; Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode, 128 n. 2; Khoroshev, Tserkov', 195. The treasury was returned by Grand Prince Vasilii III at the beginning of Archbishop Makarii's tenure in 1526. See Otryvok russkoi letopisi (PSRL, 6) (St. Petersburg: Eduard Prats, 1853), 286; and Tikhomirov, Kafedra novgorodskikh sviatitelei, 2, pt. 1: 103.

(150) Feofil's resignation charter is usually dated to 1482 or 1483, with the editors of AI dating it to 1479: Sof. I (PSRL, 6), 19; Sof. II (PSRL, 6), 235; Mosk. (PSRL, 25), 330; Simonovskaia letopis' (PSRL, 18) (St. Petersburg: M. Aleksandrov, 1913), 266; AI, 1: 476 (no. 378); A. I. Pliguzov, G. V. Semenchenko, and L. F. Kuz'mina, eds., Russkii feodal'nyi arkhiv XIV-pervoi treti XVI veka, 4 vols. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1988), 2: 252-53 (no. 77). Stroev, in his listing of Russian hierarchs, gave the date of Feofil's death as 26 November 1482, as does Metropolitan Makarii in his history of the Russian Church, although the Sofia Second Chronicle gives his resignation under the year 1483 and the Ioasafovskaia letopis' says Feofil died after six and a half years of incarceration (c. mid-1486). The Novgorodian Second Chronicle says that he sat six years before the fall of Novgorod and three years after and died in the Chudov Monastery after three years. Novgorodskaia vtoraia letopis' (hereafter NII) (PSRL, 13) (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 200. See also Nikitskii, Ocherk vnutrennei istorii tserkvi v Velikom Novgorode, 127; P. M. Stroev, Spiski ierarkhov i nastoiatelei monastyrei rossiiskoi tserkvi (St. Petersburg: V. S. Balashev, 1877), col. 34; Makarii, Istoriia russkoi tserkvi, 4: 353-54; A. A. Zimin and S. A. Levina, eds., Ioasafovskaia letopis' (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1957), 119; Fennell, Ivan the Great of Moscow, 55-57; Lenhoff and Martin, "Marfa Boretskaia," 367; Paul, "Episcopal Election in Novgorod," 274.

(151) Mosk. (PSRL, 25), 320.

(152) Grand Prince Ivan III had been prince of Novgorod since 1462, as his ancestors had been for more than a century before that. Thus he was not conquering Novgorod so much as introducing his direct rule in the city.

(153) "Grand Prince Ivan arrived below the city, having come across the ice of Lake Il'men ... and stayed by the Troitskii [Monastery] on the Paozer'e in the village of Loshinskoe." See Mosk. (PSRL, 25), 315; and Bernadskii, Novgorod, 300-1.

(154) NII (PSRL, 13), 172.

c/o International Relations Administration

Department of Inter-University Collaboration

St. Petersburg State University

7-9 Universitetskaia naberezhnaia

St. Petersburg 99034

Russian Federation

mcpaul1998@yahoo.com
COPYRIGHT 2007 Slavica Publishers, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Paul, Michael C.
Publication:Kritika
Geographic Code:4E
Date:Mar 22, 2007
Words:20513
Previous Article:Citing the archival revolution.
Next Article:Transgressive sanctity: the abrek in Chechen culture.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters