Italian communes and Russian city-states: features of political structure and patterns of republicanism evolution.

Berkutov Stepan Maksimovich Postgraduate student; Institute of Russian History; Russian Academy of Sciences 63 Admiral Lazarev str., room 3, sq. 62, Moscow, 117041, Russia berkstep@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The phenomena of republicanism and democracy in the Middle Ages were known to be rare. However, there were happy exceptions. The most striking of them are the city—states of northern Italy and the Novgorod Republic. How similar were they and how did they differ? What can a comparison of the political structure of such culturally and geographically distant but close-knit states give us? The answers to these questions will help in understanding such an interesting global phenomenon as republicanism and democracy.

The topic of comparing the Novgorod Republic with the Italian city-states has a rich but relatively young historiography. While pre-revolutionary authors mostly drew attention to the similarity with the ancient Greek polis ^{[34, p. 82; 35, p. 19. 36, p. 162; 37, p. 161; 38, p. 325]}, the topic of comparison with Italian urban communes found its ideological embodiment in the post-war USSR, when The concept of the formation approach was finally established, and within its framework, Soviet historians began to look for parallels to the Novgorod political system in Western European feudal societies, which, in their opinion, were in the same socio-economic formation ^{[39, p. 100-102]}.

One of the first to notice the similarity was M. N. Tikhomirov, who believed that in the 12th century in Russia there was a large-scale struggle of citizens for their privileges, which, despite its weak reflection in the sources, resembled the struggle of "citizens of Western Europe for the formation of urban communes." At the same time, the communal system was established only in Novgorod, Pskov and Novgorod "and even then in a very peculiar form" ^{[1, p. 186]}. B.A. Rybakov considered Florence to be the closest analogy to the Novgorod state system due to the internal struggle of the "feudal parties" and then "poor citizens with moneylenders and patricians" ^{[32, p. 546]}.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the topic became especially popular, and special articles and sections in monographs began to be devoted to it. So O.V. Martyshin, in his book "Free Novgorod", noted the significant similarity of Novgorod with the Italian republics, which consisted in the presence of an extensive subordinate district. The author saw the differences in the fact that the struggle of the burghers with the aristocratic element, observed in Italy, was allegedly not typical for Novogorod. While in Italy the people fought against the aristocracy, in Novgorod the "masses of the people" allegedly "followed their boyars against strangers" - a fact that contradicts many chronicles that have come down to us. Having correctly pointed out the existence of a "cycle of political forms", namely, the alternation of aristocracy, democracy, tyranny, and finally monarchy, O.V. Martyshin was mistaken when he considered that there had never been any alternation of political regimes in Novgorod, but its entire political structure remained unchanged ^{[4, pp. 53-57]}.

V.L. Yanin believed that there was a "collegial body" in Novgorod that had parallels with the Venetian Senate, which was justified through the similarity of the same plot of Novgorod and Venetian coins ^{[2, pp. 388-389; 3, pp. 353-354.]}.

L. Steindorff, having set the task of determining whether Novgorod was a commune, comes to an unequivocally negative answer. Novgorod, in his opinion, was not a commune, since, unlike the Italian communes, it did not have: 1) the name, 2) the council, 3) special city law, 4) the difference between citizens and residents ^{[5, p.239]}. L. Steindorff's conclusions are very interesting, but the fact that Novgorod was not an Italian commune is quite obvious. More relevant is the question of how Novgorod resembled the Italian commune and how it differed from it.

A.A. Vovin devoted an entire chapter of his monograph "The Urban Commune of Medieval Pskov of the 14th - early 16th century" to comparing Pskov and Novgorod with the city–states of Italy. In his opinion, the Italian city-states have passed the stages of the "first" and "second commune". At the stage of the "first commune", the people's assembly was strong, at the second, the people's assembly faded into the background and power in the city ended up in the hands of a narrow oligarchic council. Pskov has been at the stage of the "first commune" throughout its history, since the oligarchic council has not developed in it throughout all the centuries of its existence, and power belonged exclusively to the People's Assembly. Therefore, according to the researcher, Pskov is correctly considered a "weak commune" ^{[6, pp. 368-385]}. The premise regarding Pskov is correct: indeed, the city has been ruled throughout history by the People's Assembly, the Pskov Assembly. The premise regarding the Italian communes is false, which predetermined the fallacy of the whole concept. There has never been a "first" or "second" commune in Italy. The first stage of the development of Italian communes is called the stage of the consular commune, "commune consulare". Already at this stage, the National Assembly played almost no role. All power functions were performed by consuls. At the second stage of the podestate commune, the "commune podestarile", power passed to an invited podesta official and a council of local representatives elected on the same principle as the consuls. At the third stage, the "comuna popolare", power passed to the councils, elected by representatives of the people. At no stage was the city ruled by an oligarchy, and at no stage was it ruled by a people's assembly. Pskov cannot be called a "weak commune" because at no historical stage of its existence has it gone through the stages of evolution peculiar exclusively to Italian communes.

P.V. Lukin posed the question "is it possible to comprehend the political system of Veliky Novgorod in a pan-European context and, specifically, as a variant of the European communal (republican) urban system?" ^{[7, p. 14]}. He concludes that this comparison is "not useless" because it will help "to see in a new way those phenomena and processes that either have not been given enough attention, ... or they have received, ..., a misinterpretation." The difference between Venice and Novgorod was that Novgorod was more democratic than Venice. ^{[7, pp.242-243]}.

All previous historiography, therefore, generally refrained from specifically considering the Italian city-states and comparing them with the political structure of Novgorod. These conclusions were often speculative and rarely based on specific historical Italian material. The exception is the work of P.V. Lukin, who for the first time used significant Italian historiography and sources. However, his conclusions concerned only one Italian state - Venice – while the other hundreds of communes were ignored. This article aims to find out what the political structure of other Italian city-states was, how their political evolution took place, and how close their political structure was to the structure and evolution of the power of Veliky Novgorod. The extreme interest of modern historiography in this issue and the accumulated discussion make the topic especially relevant. To accomplish this task, it seems necessary to use the method of broad historical comparison, that is, to draw parallels not with one commune in northern Italy, but with many at once within the framework of a representative sample and using generalizing works by Italian historians. Only such a broad view will help to see the big picture and prepare the ground for creating a classification of the types of the medieval republican system. The most representative sources for this task are the Novgorod chronicles, the Italian annals, and the chronicles of various city-states.

Italian historiography generally agrees that the political system of the communes has gone through several stages:

1) The Consular commune (con. XI – con. XII century.);

2) Podesta commune (con. XII – c. XIII c.);

3) People's Commune (series XIII – series XIV century.).

The structure of power in each of them was different, but what was common was the presence of a certain collective of citizens, who elected their representatives through elections, who, in turn, ruled the republic.

At the first stage (the end of the 11th — the second half of the 12th century), consuls were such representatives. Their elections were held most often once a year, sometimes once every 6 months or once every 4-6 years. The short term of government was offset by the possibility of multiple re-election. For example, Caffaro, the author of the Genoese Annals, was consul 7 times: in 1122, 1125, 1127, 1141, 1144, 1146, 1149 years ^{[8, c. 17, 22, 23, 30, 32, 33, 36]}. The number of consuls was not fixed. So, in 1130, 23 consuls were elected in Milan, in 1138 — 4, in 1140 — 8, etc. In some cities, consuls were divided into "consules de communi", dealing with political issues, and "consules de placitis", responsible for the court ^{[9, p. 33]}. It is quite difficult to understand how the election procedure was carried out, because it is hidden under vague chronicle phrases such as "In... anno fuerunt consules...". Most of the available evidence does not go into the details of the election procedure, but the available sources suggest that the consuls were elected one way or another by the citizens' assembly. For example, in Genoa, consuls were elected "jointly at a meeting" ^{[10, p. 351]}, in Venice, the "people" elected the doge "in the square" ^{[11, p.. 58, 60, 62, 63]}. There have also been indirect elections, such as in Pistoia, where citizens shouted names. five electors, who in turn took an oath to choose men as consuls who met the interests of the people of Pistoia ^{[9, p. 34-35]}.

Once elected, consuls were given absolute authority over the city and its armed forces. For example, the Genoese consuls were in charge of matters of war and peace ^{[8, p. 23, 42, 61]}, led the troops ^{[8, c. 10-13, 22, 26, 27, 33, 34]}, they negotiated with other states, sent and received embassies, and generally oversaw all foreign relations ^{[8, c. 29, 31-33, 38-39, 42-44, 46, 48-51, 60-63, 65, 66, 157]}, they managed finances ^{[8, c. 30, 38, 41, 60]}, construction ^{[8, p. 48, 62-63]}, was managed by the district ^{[8, p. 30, 40-41, 157]}, were in charge of the court ^{[8, p. 74]}.

The same pattern was observed in most consular communes ^{[9, p. 34]}. In Venice, where there were no consuls, the doge had similar authority. He decided whether to start a war or make peace ^{[12, p. 2-16; 13, p. 90; 14, p. 55-57]}, led the troops ^{[12, p. 56, 58, 61, 62; 14, p. 14, 18.]}, was in charge of foreign policy ^{[12, p. 56, 61; 11, c. 4, 10, 16, 18, 20, 24-26, 28, 34-36, 40, 44]}, finance ^{[12, p. 59]}, district administration ^{[12, p. 60-62.; 11, p. 18.]}.

What was the role of the national Assembly, which elected consuls? His role was, in fact, limited only to the acclamation of decisions taken by the consuls ^{[15, pp. 49-50]}. The rare references to the national assembly that are available in the sources are usually of the same type. The consuls had to confirm their decision at a national assembly, by ringing a bell or in some other way, the people were called together, the decision was read out to them, the people shouted "Fiat! Fiat!" ^{[16, p. 61]} and dispersed. Sometimes people gathered to tell him some good news. In this case, the latter expressed glee.

The passive role of the National Assembly was also evident in 1161 in Pisa, when Count Hildebrand's vassals captured several Pisan grain ships. The "Consuls and the whole people" on this occasion "plunged into great sadness," which Consul Kochche decided to quench by "destroying and devastating" the count's land, for which he ordered to assemble a huge army of "horse, foot and archers," as well as "galleys with archers, hand trebuchets and stone throwers." Naturally, Count Hildebrantz soon appeared in Pisa, where, at a popular meeting ("public parlamento"), he addressed the Pisans with an exculpatory speech and an oath of allegiance to the Pisan people, after which the consuls concluded peace with him and conducted an investiture ceremony. All of the count's subjects also swore allegiance, and all fortresses on his land were destroyed ^{[17, p. 21, 25]}. In this case, as can be seen, the consul gave the order to go on a campaign, the consul also made peace, the people were only a silent witness to everything. Nevertheless, there have been cases of purely popular initiatives. For example, in 1162, the Pisans destroyed the Genoese quarter in Constantinople, looted goods, and killed many merchants. Those who managed to escape, returning to Genoa, described the incident in vivid colors. The Genoese immediately equipped 12 galleys, "without the order of the consuls," who came to their senses only after some time and took the "matter" into their own hands ^{[8, p. 68-69]}.

The National Assembly itself was not "popular" in the modern sense of the word. At this stage, representatives of the founding families of the communes, landowners, merchants and wealthy artisans had political rights, i.e. the right to participate in the national assembly. It was attended by both representatives of the aristocratic and non-aristocratic elements. However, this "non-aristocratic element" of occupation sometimes differed little from the aristocratic one: it also consisted of landowners engaged in trade, usury, and handicraft production. The stereotype that townspeople were merchants, unlike aristocratic knights, comes from the 19th century, and is currently being rethought in historical science ^{[16, p. 165]}. The difference between the "people", "commoners" ("populorum", "popolani") and the aristocracy at this stage was sometimes only in the absence of titles, i.e. belonging to this class ^{[16, p. 182-183]}.

Despite the wealth of the non-aristocratic element, the noble ("milites"), who made up at best 10% of the city's population, most often dominated its political life ^{[18, p. 3-4]}. Nevertheless, it happened that consuls were elected from non-noble ones. For example, Otto of Fraser said that consuls came from three classes of society: "capitanei, valvassores, populi" ^{[9, pp. 33-34]}.

The political law of the Middle Ages is the right of the strong. The princes and rulers of the Middle Ages themselves led their armies against their enemies and often died in battle. The People's Assembly, which was a commune, simultaneously formed its army ^{[18, p. 9]}. Armed people are always tempted to use these weapons against their enemies, and where are they easier to find, if not in their own city? Therefore, inner-city life was not stable. There was a constant armed struggle between influential families and clans to elect the "right" consuls. Street fighting required street fortifications. For the convenience of shelling neighboring streets, homeowners built tall towers (whose height gave them an advantage not only over neighboring streets, but also over smaller towers), which grew at such a rate that consuls had to introduce special statutes limiting their height. Stone-throwing guns were used to storm the towers ^{[16, p. 175-178]}. The consular power, strong and unquestioning, always disappeared somewhere during the intra-magnate showdowns. For example, in Genoa, one of the powerful aristocrats, Orlando Avvocato, agreed to stop fratricidal squabbles only after he was "begged in tears" at parliament by "the archbishop, the clergy, the consuls and the whole people", and only "touched by pleas and tears" he agreed and vowed to preserve peace ^{[19, p. 41]}.

Constant conflicts within the commune demanded solutions. And it was found. Here is what the author of the Genoese Annals of 1190 wrote about this: "due to the mutual hatred of many husbands who really wanted to hold the position of consuls of the commune, civil strife, malicious conspiracies and factions seized the city. This prompted the wise men and councilors of the city (i.e., the Council — S.B.) to meet and decide that the consulate of the commune should end next year, and almost all of them agreed that the city needed a podesta" ^{[16, p. 66]}. Thus began the second stage, the stage of the podestar commune (the end of the XII — middle of the XIII centuries) ^{[15, p. 61]}. Podesta (from Latin. potestas — power) He was an invited official from another land, who was very often a major feudal lord (in 1169, the podesta of Verona was Count San Bonifacio, and almost all the podestas of Mantua were magnates from the city district). Podesta was elected for a year or six months, and gradually completely replaced the consuls. His position began to be introduced in various cities from the second half of the 12th century, until by the first decade of the 13th century, the podesta's authority in the Northern Italian communes became the rule rather than the exception ^{[16, p. 68]}.

But how can you entrust all the power over the city to a stranger, almost a foreigner? A way out of this situation was found. Podesta was placed under the full control of the council, a body that had emerged since the second half of the 12th century and marked the largest transformation in the history of medieval republicanism. Now the representatives of the commune with absolute power were not consuls, but members of the council. The Council was divided into Large and Small. The size of the Small Council varied from several dozen to several hundred, and the Large Council from several hundred to several thousand, which could already correspond to the entire civil collective of the commune, but this rarely happened ^{[18, pp. 67-73]}. Council members were elected in the same way as consuls, by district or by society, depending on the political structure of each individual commune. With the establishment of the council's power, the socio–political situation has not changed globally, power has remained in the hands of the knight class, the milites. Therefore, the first documented elections to the council of the commune, which took place in 1164 in Pisa, gave power to the "senators", i.e. representatives of the aristocratic families of the city, and 24 candidates, 6 elected from each of the 4 districts of the city ^{[9, p. 35; 15, p. 50]}.

The available data on the Council of Milan in the 13th century paint a similar picture: half of the council consisted of "valvassores" and "capitanei", i.e. the aristocracy, and the other half of representatives of the urban organizations "della Motta" and "della Credenza di Sant'Ambrogio", which, in turn, consisted of milites (knights), merchants and rich artisans ^{[18, p. 26]}. It turns out that the Council consisted of more than half of hereditary landowners. The situation of other communes was not much different. In Venice, in turn, the consilio became a purely oligarchic institution, without any election procedures by the national Assembly ^{[9, pp. 76-78]}.

As the 12th century was the time of the absolute power of the consuls, so the 13th century was the era of the Council. He, along with Podesta, dealt with all political issues. A typical case occurred in Orvieto. In 1232, the papal legate visited this small commune in order to encourage its inhabitants to make peace with hostile Siena. The discussion of the issue in the council did not lead to the result desired by the curia. Then the ambassador seized on the form of the papal message — it was written in it that it was addressed to "podesta, the council and all the people of Orvieto." "Why not read the message in front of all the people of Orvieto, in the square? He will decide what to do." The expectation was that the national assembly, which also consisted of ordinary people who revered the authority of the Pope, would make the decision necessary for the throne. However, podesta gave this answer: "This is not necessary, because the assembled council, consisting of large and small assemblies, represents the interests of the entire people; all representatives of artisans and heads of various districts governing the city are present here; everything they decide is considered approved and valid: everything you tell us, you tell the whole people, and everything we We are responding to you on this matter, we are responding on behalf of the entire nation." The entire assembly confirmed Podesta's words ^{[18, pp. 33-34]}.

As mentioned above, the majority in the council of the commune belonged to the aristocratic element, while the people, being a minority, could not significantly influence the policy of the republic. However, gradually the people became more numerous, richer and more influential, they could no longer put up with their violated role and began to gain political rights for themselves. Very often, the "conquest" took the form of a real revolution. In Bologna in 1228, a representative of an old noble family engaged in trade and therefore close in position to the Popolans, together with a group of his supporters, came to Podesta with a proposal to hold a meeting of the grand council to discuss some handicraft issues. Podesta refused. In response, a major uprising began, during which "the treasury was devastated, benches in the courtroom were overturned, codes of statutes and registers of sentences were torn up or burned." The result was the appearance of representatives from the craft guilds of the city in the Council ^{[16, p. 182-183]}. Bologna was followed by other communes. For example, the people of Modena received their representation in the council in 1229, and in Prato in 1246 ^{[18, pp. 35-36]}.

But the structure of the council, which included representatives of both the aristocracy and the people, did not exist everywhere. Somewhere, the people "got carried away" and destroyed the aristocracy "as a class." So, in Piacenza in 1250, the people, dissatisfied with Podesta's policy, gathered and elected a famous man, Umberto del Iniquita, as podesta, despite the fact that the current podesta remained in office. Thus, paradoxically, two podests existed in the city for several months: one, the "podesta del comune", that is, the representative of the entire commune in the aristocratic sense of the word "whole", and the second, the "podesta del popolo", representing the interests of the "rebellious" people, respectively. After some time, new elections were held in the city, and Lanfranco Grimaldi became the head of the "whole" commune. He tried to eliminate the situation of dual power, for which he convened the council of the commune. The Council refused to support him in this matter. Then Lanfranco rode a horse through the city, calling for help from the people. But the people did not understand him, and he did not return to the Podesta's palace, but immediately drove away from the city. The Council decided to elect in his place Umberto del Iniquita, the leader of the people and the people's podesta, who became the leader of the commune. All the old knight families left the city, leaving it completely at the mercy of the people ^{[18, pp. 55-57]}.

The wisdom of the Piacenza aristocracy's behavior becomes clear when you look at what happened to their classmates who chose to stay in a city taken over by the people. In "folk" cities, discriminatory laws were often introduced against the patrician elite, who had previously called the people "dogs and donkeys" ^{[19, p. 63]}, putting former aristocrats on the rights of the "deprived". So, in Parma, the crimes of the nobility against the people were punished in double, triple and even quadruple sizes. A noble was subject to punishment, even if there was no evidence against him, but only "rumors and rumor" (si sola voxet fama fuerit contra talem magnate). According to the statutes of Modena, the oath of a noble had no legal force. In Florence in 1281 and in Bologna in 1288, lists of magnates were drawn up who had to deposit 1,000 and 2,000 lire each as a pledge of good behavior in the future. In Florence, if a noble killed a representative of the people, the ganfaloniere, an official judge, was obliged to ensure that the noble's house was destroyed by the national infantry, the property was confiscated, and he himself was sentenced to death. The people of Parma were particularly uncompromising towards class enemies, who fined even representatives of the people who did not support the right to punish the tycoon who insulted Popolan ^{[16, p. 193-194]}.

Of course, the aristocrats resisted the establishment of a popular regime with all their might. It happened that the knights of different communes helped each other to suppress popular movements in neighboring communes, thus providing "fraternal assistance" to their classmates ^{[16, p. 187]}. So, in 1142, the Faventines came to the aid of the Cesena knights, who were besieged by the people in the town of Detince. The national infantry was defeated, and the aristocratic regime was restored ^{[20, pp. 32-33]}.

This was how popular regimes were established, marking a new stage in the history of medieval Italian republicanism — the people's commune (late 13th century — early 14th century). Its political structure generally copied the structure of the podestar commune, with the difference that representatives of the "people's party" now prevailed among the electors and the elected. The aristocracy rarely completely lost its representation in the city council, more often there was a pattern when it simply remained in the minority. A typical case is in Treviso, where in 1259 the council consisted of 100 milites and 200 populares ^{[18, p. 63]}.

This state of affairs persisted in most communes until the beginning of a new stage in their development — the signoria. The signoria was an Italian form of tyranny, when communal authorities, in compliance with all republican legality, elected one person to rule, giving him authoritarian powers. The organs of the commune, the council and the national Assembly, were not liquidated, but were subordinate to the signor. Such a ruler could come from both popular and aristocratic backgrounds. Gradually, the power of the signore acquired more and more the features of a monarchy, until, finally, all communal authorities completely outlived themselves, and the signoria was reborn into a principate — an absolute monarchy of modern times. This put an end to the unique phenomenon of republicanism in most of the lands of Northern Italy ^{[21, pp. 296-301]}.

The Novgorod political system went through two stages of evolution, which smoothly flowed into one another. The first stage lasted from the beginning of Novgorod's independence in 1136 to the first half of the 14th century, the second — from the first half of the 14th century. until the complete incorporation of the republic into the Muscovite state in 1478.

At the first stage, political power was in the hands of the Novgorod prince. The events of one term of the reign of the Novgorod prince Mstislav Mstislavich (Udatny) (1210-1215) are well suited to illustrate the nature of princely power. While in office, he "went ... to Chud, the recommended Territory, and Novgorod" ^{[22, p. 52]}, ordered "fortresses to be erected" ^{[23, p. 52]}, collected tribute from the subject peoples, in 1214, the conquered Chud "bowed down" to him and paid tribute, two thirds which the prince gave to the Novgorodians, a third to his "nobles", ruled the Novgorod district, his tasks included "overseeing the volost" ^{[22, p. 52]}, conducting international negotiations ^{[22, p. 54-55]}. The key role of princely power in Novgorod at this stage is also confirmed by archaeological data. Thus, "about 400 seals of the princely circle are opposed by 14 episcopal bulls and about a dozen problematic posadnik seals..." ^{[23, p. 128]}.

However, all these important political actions were carried out exclusively under the full political control of the Novgorodians. Any campaign or political event was not an order from the prince, but only a suggestion. In 1214, Mstislav invited the Novgorodians to go with him on a campaign against Chernigov, and the Novgorodians, gathered at the veche, responded: "Kamo, princess, you will disgrace yourself, there we will turn our heads." Russian Russians look loyal at first, and it could have been observed in any other Russian land (although there was no need to "invite" subjects to a campaign in any Russian land, it was enough just to order). Nevertheless, the Novgorodians soon showed their essence. In Smolensk, they became interested in clarifying relations with the local population and "did not mess with the prince." Mstislav called the Novgorodians to a veche and tried to persuade them to continue the expedition and, having been refused, continued his journey only with his nobles. Then, however, the Novgorodians changed their minds, gathered for a veche, and after the mayor's phrase — "For, brothers, our grandfathers and fathers suffered for the Russian land, so, brother, and we will see our prince" — they went to catch up with their ruler. The expedition ended successfully, all the cities were taken, and the Novgorodians returned home "storovi" ^{[22, p. 53]}.

At a later time, this position of princely power was reinforced by contracts concluded at the time of the vocation. According to them, the Novgorod prince could not 1) "lend", i.e., issue "letters" for land ownership; 2) take away property "without guilt"; 3) the Novgorod land was obliged to "keep the men of Novgorod", instead of direct "holding" the prince received from the Novgorodians a "gift" — a salary in the form of tribute from some Novgorod territories ^{[24, p. 293-294, 296]}; 4) neither the prince, nor his princess, nor his boyars and nobles could own villages in the Novgorod land ^{[25, p. 9-13]}.

What was not part of the prince's prerogative remained under the jurisdiction of local officials — the posadnik and Tysyatsky. The mechanism of election and dismissal followed the same principle as the princely one. The main function of the posadnik was, apparently, the taxation of the population of the Novgorod land. So, in 1209, the Novgorodians gathered a veche for the posadnik Dmitr "and his brother" for "commanding them to take silver and gold to Novgorod, and brothers in the parish of chickens, according to the merchant wild, and carts, and all evil." The yards of the brothers Dmitr and Miroshka were looted and burned, their villages and servants were sold, and the money was divided among the townspeople for three hryvnias each (for comparison: three hryvnias according to Russian Truth was a fine for stealing a sea boat) ^{[26, p. 113]}, wealth was plundered without taking into account, from which "many get rich" ^{[22, p. 51]}.

Any decision of the prince was made only with the consent of the Novgorodians, under their control, at their will, and could be canceled at any time, even during its execution. The Novgorodians controlled not only the political power of the prince, but also his term of office and his elections. The prince was called up from another Russian land (Kiev, Chernigov, Smolensk, Suzdal), depending on the orientation of the Novgorodians' foreign policy at the moment. The prince's term in power depended on the mood of the Novgorodians, and it changed quickly. Most often, the prince ruled for 1-2 years (sometimes less), only the most conjunctural lasted longer (the record holder among them was the aforementioned Mstislav Mstislavich, who ruled Novgorod for seven years in one term) ^{[27, pp. 941-942]}. The Novgorodians sometimes pointed out the reason for the prince's exile, sometimes only the phrase "you don't like us" was enough. It often happened that the prince himself left the reign. This weakness and dependence of the princely power largely led to the transformation of the political structure of Novgorod at the second stage of its development.

From the middle of the 13th century, the situation began to change. The Novgorodians stopped choosing which kingdom their next prince would come from. By default, the Grand Duke of Vladimir became the Supreme suzerain of Novgorod, who began to keep his governors in the city. The principle of "freedom in princes" has ceased to apply ^{[28, pp. 50-52]}.

However, the governor's power became even more limited. The functions of executive power, which had previously been in the hands of the prince, passed to local Novgorod officials: construction — to the archbishop, tribute collection and court — to the posadniks, military command — to the voivodes appointed by the Novgorodians at the veche immediately before the campaign. As before, all these positions were controlled by the Novgorodians, displaced by their will, and new ones were elected.

It was the Novgorodians at the veche who were the real political power at all stages of the independent existence of Novgorod. They made all the most important decisions: on the outbreak of hostilities and the dispatch of military contingents ^{[22, p. 96-97, 352, 402-403; 29, p. 210]} (the chronicle contains two news when military contingents were sent without the consent of the Novgorodians ^{[22, p. 355, 391]}); they sent and received embassies as in other lands of Russia ^{[22, c. 96-97, 99, 352, 353, 376]}, the same applies to other countries ^{[22, c. 98, 349-350, 359-360, 393, 404, 418, 419, 421, 422, 425; 30, c. 214]}; ruled by subordinates territories ^{[22, p. 97, 379-381]}. They also fully controlled the activities of Novgorod officials during the performance of their duties.

What was the internal balance of forces in the Novgorod political body among its constituent citizens? Almost all references to the internal life of the state describe intra-urban conflicts, which until the first half of the 13th century were mostly classless. Various Novgorod ends (districts) and groups fought with each other, "in armor and armor," most often on the issue of supporting one or another prince, but sometimes simply for personal reasons ^{[22, p. 258-259]}. Since the first half of the 13th century, the situation has changed radically: conflicts have occurred between the two estates of the republic — the boyars, also called "vyatshie people", and the people, also known as "black" or "lesser" people or "simple children".

It is in the references to inner–city conflicts that the class–class essence of the Novgorod statehood of the XIII-XV centuries becomes clear. At the same time, the leading role in domestic political processes since that time has been played not by the boyars, but by the Novgorod "rabble". She changed governments: in 1228, the "simple child" deprived the entire leadership of the Novgorod republic of its posts. First, she drove the archbishop out of the city, then went from the veche "in arms" and looted the house of Tysyatsky "and other boyars," after which it was the turn of the prince and the governor: both were driven away, and their supporters were taxed with additional taxes. In 1338, a "simple child" arrested Archimandrite Esif, the second clergyman after the Archbishop of Novgorod and at the same time the abbot of the largest landowner of Novgorod land, the Yuriev Monastery ^{[30, pp. 272-273]}.

The issue of war and peace and the dispatch of military contingents depended on the lowest stratum of citizens. In 1340, the Novotorzhtsy asked for help against the Moscow Prince Semyon (Simeon Ivanovich (1340-1353). The Novgorodians agreed, sending the "voivodes from the regiment", who, having come to Torzhok, "captured" all the princely governors, which, of course, meant war with the Moscow prince. And for this, one detachment of Novgorodians would not have been enough, so the Novorzhtsy sent a new embassy to Novgorod, with a request from the entire Novgorod army: "that the Novgorodians should mount their horses." But "black" people "don't want that." The war could not take place at the request of the "rabble" ^{[22, pp. 352-353]}.

The "lesser" people conducted the most important negotiations. So, in 1255 they negotiated with Alexander Nevsky, who marched on Novgorod with his army. During the "meeting" of the prince, the "older people", who formed the cavalry, and the "smaller ones", who represented the infantry, lined up at different entrances to the city separately from each other. Negotiations were conducted only by the "lesser ones", and the "lesser ones" at that time conspired against the "lesser ones" in order to "defeat" them and "introduce the prince at their own will." But the aristocracy's coup failed. The power remained with the "lesser ones", and the prince was introduced at their will ^{[30, p. 307-308]}.

The "rabble" controlled the activities of the boyars and posadniks. No boyar, even the richest and most influential, was safe if he did something wrong to the common people. So, in 1344, "black" people accused the boyars of murdering Luke Varfalomeev. Knowing what might await them, the people accused of murdering "Andreshko and Fyodor Danilov" at the assembly on Yaroslav's Courtyard had to flee Novgorod. Two separate meetings were convened on Yaroslav's Courtyard and on the Sofia side, the city was divided into two parts, but the conflict was soon resolved ^{[22, pp. 355-356]}.

Another example of the people's court occurred in 1418, when one of the townspeople named Stepanko dragged boyar Danil Ivanovich to a veche, for unknown transgressions of which the Novgorodians beat and threw him off the bridge to Volkhov. However, the boyar could not stand the insult: after swimming to the shore and gathering his "servants", he grabbed Stepan and tortured him. After hearing about this, the people armed themselves and "in armor with a banner" went to Daniil Ivanovich, plundered his house, and at the same time there were "many others", namely, the whole "bank on Yaneva Street". Stepanko was returned, but the people, who had gone into a frenzy, were difficult to stop, the enraged "drunken" mass "still looting boyar houses." The monastery of St. Nicholas, which had a "Boyar's granary", and Ludogosha Street did not survive. The nobility, naturally, tried to resist, but stopped the people's army only on Prusskaya Street, after which the "rabble" returned to their side ^{[22, p. 409]}.

The most impressive force of the people was organized in the Slavonian end, which twice went one-on-one against the boyars of the Sofia side. But due to the fact that only one end spoke without the support of the other end of the people's, Trade side - Plotnitsky — both speeches ended not in victory, as was most often the case in the case of a joint popular force, but only in a compromise. Instead of the old posadniks, who did not suit the Slavs, new ones were chosen that suited both sides of the conflict. In 1359, representatives of the Slavonian end came to the citywide assembly armed to the teeth, "beat up" many boyars, took away the "posadnichestvo" from the current magistrate and gave the position to their candidate. The bridge was dismantled again, and two halves of the city were under siege. During the sit-in, the Sofians plundered the villages of the Slavs. The confrontation lasted for some time until both sides reconciled ^{[22, p. 366]}. This is the first evidence of the defeat of the "black" people. It can hardly be considered that the defeat is unequivocal, but the Slavs, representatives of the "national" end, ended up "in the red". Nevertheless, they did not calm down and opposed the Sofia side for the second time in 1384, supporting Prince Patriki Narimantovich. Two more meetings, armed themselves again, and swept the bridge again. However, this time there was no bloodshed and a compromise was reached that satisfied both sides of the conflict ^{[22, p. 379]}.

Only once do sources mention the punitive action of the boyars against the people. This mention is already contained in the Sofia Chronicle and refers to the episodes of the annexation of Novgorod to Moscow. The Novgorod sedate posadnik, along with the boyars, "ran over" Slavkova and Mikitina streets (both in the Slavensky end), killed many people and looted property worth 1,000 rubles. To which the representatives of these two streets beat the Grand Duke of Moscow with their foreheads. At the same time, the boyars made a similar complaint. They accused the headman of Fedorovskaya Street (at the Plotnitsky end) for the fact that his street people looted the boyar manor for 500 rubles. It is extremely significant that Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of Moscow did not respond in any way to the requests of the boyars, but the prince took an active part in the fate of the injured representatives of the people, shackling and sending the offenders of the inhabitants of the "people's" streets to Moscow ^{[31, p. 305-306]}.

Thus, the internal structure of the state was common in all the cases considered. There was a certain community of citizens who had political rights, they elected officials who governed the city. The difference between the Italian city-states and Veliky Novgorod was that Italy was ruled by magistrates elected by a collective of citizens, whereas in Russia the civil collective itself more often ruled, and magistrates performed less important state functions. Other numerous differences are secondary and relate to such external features as the number of magistrates, their terms of service, their origin (external or from the urban environment), etc.

The most surprising common feature concerns not only the foundations of the republican system (the civic collective and the magistrates elected by it), but also its evolution. Both the Italian republics and Veliky Novgorod went through the same stages of political and social evolution. All of them began their history under the rule of monarchs and their governors, then, after the start of the liberation movement, communes were established in Italy, and the principle of freedom among princes prevailed in Novgorod. The established republic was in all cases aristocratic in nature, in Italy at that time the nobles ruled, and in Novgorod — the boyars. Such an aristocratic republic did not exist for long, in Italy from the end of the XI century. to the second half of the XII – the first half of the XIII century. in Novgorod — until the beginning of the XIII century. At the end of the stage of the aristocratic republic, a new process of liberation began, this time not from the viceroys of the grand duke or the emperor, but from their own aristocrats. This process took place according to all the "rules" of the Middle Ages, with bloody struggles, arson, real battles and sieges of fortresses. As a result of this struggle, in most republics, the people, who had previously been limited or completely deprived of their rights, entered the political arena and began to influence the life of the city. Technically, this process was also similar. The people in both Russia and Italy created their own authorities, which copied the authorities of the aristocracy, but now had an exclusively popular character. So, in Italy, the people created people's councils in parallel with the existing aristocratic councils, while in Novgorod the people convened their own people's assembly, separate from the boyar one, on the Trading Side, on Yaroslav's Courtyard. Further, the fate of the newly formed people's authorities varied depending on the historical situation of each individual city: somewhere there was a "counter-revolution", the aristocrats suppressed the popular movement, destroyed the people's councils and brought the people to submission; somewhere the people's councils received the same rights as the municipal councils and formed joint aristocratic-people's councils. In such councils, the situation varied from commune to commune: some were dominated by aristocrats, some by the people. And finally, the third option is the complete victory of the people, the destruction of the aristocratic councils, the expulsion of the nobility from the city and the establishment of a purely popular commune. The ideal example of the first variant of an aristocratic city-republic was Venice, where the people did not even have time to organize their authorities, the aristocracy firmly seized power and held it firmly in its hands until the republic was liquidated. Most Italian communes followed the path of combining the power of the aristocracy and the people. Communes such as Florence, Piacenza, and Parma followed the third path, the complete destruction of the aristocracy as a class.

Within the framework of this classification, Novgorod belonged to the second, transitional type. Here, as in most Italian city-states, two social groups - the people and the aristocracy - shared power, and neither force was able, in the end, to gain the upper hand. That is why Veliky Novgorod is correctly considered to belong to the type of national aristocratic republic widespread in medieval Italy.

The article is published in its final version as approved following the last positive peer review recommending acceptance for publication. It incorporates revisions made by the author in response to prior negative peer review reports that did not recommend publication. All peer review reports, including initial negative reviews, are published in open access alongside the article. All versions of the author’s revisions are archived in the publisher’s repository and may be made available upon reasonable request in accordance with Elsevier’s editorial policies and applicable data availability requirements.
Read all reviews on this article