Veliky Novgorod, medieval Italian city-states, and ancient Greek city-states: common patterns in the evolution of republican governance and the question of the polis

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

Comparison of Veliky Novgorod with the ancient Greek polis was a common occurrence in pre-revolutionary historiography. Even the first Russian historian N.M. Karamzin argued that Veliky Novgorod was most similar to the ancient Greek democracies, whose "people's rule" was extremely similar to the power structure of the Novgorod Republic. In his opinion, the Veche "ruled as an assembly of the Athenian people," and the model of the Novgorod political system should be sought not "in the rule of the free German cities," but "in the primitive composition of all the national Powers, from Athens and Sparta to Unterwalden or Glaris." Novgorod reminded him of the "deep antiquity of nations", when states were still democratic and the people who elected their representatives retained power over them, the right to trial and the possibility of executing unsuccessful leaders ^[1]. Another classic of Russian historiography, N.I. Kostomarov, also reasonably considered Novgorod to be close to the "ancient Greek republics" much more than to the medieval "German cities" of its day ^[2]. A.I. Nikitsky argued that the confusion of concepts of city and state, characteristic of the "Russian peoples", did not belong exclusively to ancient Russian life, and it is equally well known in antiquity: "in the history of Rome and especially Greece, Athens." The historian believed that the ends were "nothing more" than ancient Greek tribes and philae ^[3]. Russian Russian free cities are generally compared with various republican and democratic policies, including the "Hellenic urban communities of the 7th and 6th centuries BC" ^[4]. A.I. Nikitsky was supported by the famous classic of Russian antiquity N.I. Kareev, who believed that Russian history could provide "some material for comparative and typological study ^[5].

In the post-revolutionary period, the Marxist approach did not imply parallels between medieval and ancient societies, which were considered to be at different stages of formational development. Interest in the exotic topic of comparing the Novgorod Republic with the ancient Greek polis therefore completely disappeared for almost the entire Soviet era. Its revival was connected with the search for new ideological orientations in the 80s of the XX century. This topic has loudly entered modern historiography together with the work of I.Ya. Froyanov and A.Yu. Dvornichenko "Cities of the State of Ancient Russia", the authors of which believed that all ancient Russian cities (including Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl and Smolensk) were republics like the ancient Greek polis. Arbitrarily "picking out" cases of participation of the peasant or rural population in the political process, the authors proclaimed them features of the democratic structure of society. Such arguments were supported by dubious parallels between Solon and Vladimir Monomakh, who were both allegedly chosen to suppress "rebellion and panic in people." Such arguments are not supported by the evidence of ancient Greek sources, or even by references to the most basic ancient literature ^{[6, pp. 265-268]}. That is why the authors missed the important facts of Solon's establishment of laws that gave significant power to the people and prepared the triumph of the democratic system ^{[7, p. 37]}, while Vladimir Monomakh was an absolute monarch who inherited power to his descendants, just as it was in the modern states of the Middle East and Western Europe.

Another "analogy" was drawn with similar, as it seemed to the authors, "forms of foreign policy life": "in ancient Greece, more powerful cities subjugated smaller cities. We see the same thing in Russia..." How the fact that strong states subordinate weak states indicates the commonality of their political structure is a rhetorical question. The next "similarity" identified by the authors concerned the fact of their conquest by other states (!) ^{[6, pp. 366-267]}, an argument similar in logical inconsistency to the previous one. In the end, the authors cite frankly unfounded statements that the veche in these "city-states" "towered over the princely power" ^{[6, pp. 366-267]}. The moments of the Veche's rise can indeed be considered in some events of the history of the Kievan land. For the first time, the veche was mentioned there in connection with the events of 1068, when, against the background of the invasion of the Polovtsians, the population of Kiev rebelled, overthrew Prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich and installed Vseslav Bryachislavich (the Magician) as king. Another event took place in 1113 and was connected with the coming to power of Vladimir Monomakh. After the death of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, the people of Kiev "devoured" and sent to Vladimir with an invitation to him to reign in Kiev. Vladimir refused, so the Kiyans went to "rob the Jews." The threat of a riot spreading to "Yatrov and the boyars" forced Vladimir to agree to become Prince of Kiev. The last evidence of the Kievan veche dates back to 1146-1147, when the rebellious Kievans overthrew a prince from the Olgovich dynasty, plundered the estates of his boyars and invited Izyaslav Mstislavich to reign ^{[8, p. 156-162, 275, 347-360.]}. As can be seen, the Kievan veche, unlike Novgorod, Pskov or even Polotsk, was a rare phenomenon, which was more an element of the uprising than a political institution governing the state^[1].

The roots of the Froyanov-Dvornichenko concept lie in an old historiographical phenomenon, in which a historian tends to whitewash the history of his own people, to see in it personally desirable phenomena. Many would like to see their ancestors free and democratic, rather than subjects of an absolute monarch, as was the case in most cases^[2].

The Froyanov-Dvornichenko concept has been actively refuted by A.A. Vovin, who defends the position of unacceptability of comparing the Novgorod and Pskov republics with the ancient polis. The reasons, in his opinion, are as follows:

Firstly, "the ancient polis was not the economic center of the district, but only its political and sacred dominant." Trade and handicrafts were allegedly dispersed in rural areas. The city of Ancient Russia, on the contrary, was the center of handicrafts and trade, a place of production of handicrafts, while the ancient polis was only a place of consumption. To substantiate these statements, the author refers to P. Jones' book “Italian city-states”, the page is not specified ^{[10, pp. 251-252.]}. The author of these lines, who is familiar with P. Jones' book, can claim that neither about the ancient polis nor about ancient Russian cities in it is neither The fact that Athens was the largest trade and craft center of ancient Greece, and not just a "political and sacred dominant", is well known^[3].

Another argument of I.Ya. Froyanov, which A.A. Vovin exposes, concerns the composition of the national assembly: the ancient Russian city, like the ancient polis, allegedly were politically open: both townspeople and rural residents participated in the veche meetings. A.A. Vovin rightly disagrees with this statement and, referring to P.V. Lukina, argues that the villagers did not participate in the Old Russian veche ^{[10, pp. 252-253.]}. The fact of the absence of district residents at veche meetings is indisputable and firmly established in modern historical science. Based on arguments similar to the reference to P. Jones, the author concludes that Pskov (and, by analogy, Novgorod) was not an ancient polis and that "typological research" should continue to be carried out in the cities of medieval Europe ^{[10, p. 263.]}.

Thus, there is a contradiction between the classics of Russian historiography, who considered the Novgorod Republic to be most similar to the ancient Greek city-state and typologically different from the medieval "German cities", and the modern historiographical opinion presented by A.A. Vovin, who categorically rejects the search for any analogies to the Pskov and Novgorod state structures in Ancient Greece and asserts the acceptability of comparison. with the urban republics of the Italian Middle Ages ^{[10, pp. 314-360.]}.

This article will examine two interesting aspects of the existence of republican institutions in Ancient Russia and medieval Western Europe (using the example of Northern Italian city-states).^[4] and in the ancient polis, which make it possible to consider such a comparison not only acceptable, but necessary and fruitful, as well as to draw some conclusions regarding the typological community of Veliky Novgorod, the Italian city-states and the ancient Greek polis. To accomplish this task, it seems necessary to trace the evolution of the state system of the above-mentioned policies, for which the method of comparative analysis will be used. The sources, in this case, should be the Novgorod chronicles, Italian medieval annals and chronicles, the works of ancient Greek authors, including such world-famous ones as Thucydides and Aristotle. The relevance of the topic is due to a significant research interest in related topics, namely the comparison of Novgorod with Italian city-states ^{[11; 12; 13; 14, pp. 353-354; 15; 10, pp. 368-385; 16]}.

At the turn of the XI – XII centuries, in the north-east of Europe, the Ancient Russian state was disintegrating. In its place, numerous independent land states were formed, each with its own princely line ^[17]. One of the notable exceptions was Veliky Novgorod, where the monarchical model of government did not take shape. In 1136, Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, who ruled the city, was expelled from the city, as a result of which the Novgorod Republic was formed, where power belonged to a collective of citizens gathered at a council –14, pp. 55-56]. Throughout the 12th century, the veche ruled the city and a vast district independently and through magistrates elected by him: the prince, who performed the most important military function for the Middle Ages; the posadnik, who was in charge of the court together with the prince and tax collection separately from him; the archbishop and later Tysyatsky. The most important magistrate was the prince, who exercised military command. However, his power was not absolute: any decision of the prince could be challenged and not accepted by the army, which constituted the civilian collective of Novgorodians. At that time, the posadnik was elected from among the powerful Novgorod boyars of the three ends of the Sofia side of Novgorod ^{[18, pp. 166-174]}, where the Novgorod veche was then meeting.

Novgorod was divided into two sides – Sofia, which was the base of boyar aristocratic groups, and Trade (the first name: "Trading floor"), inhabited by artisans and merchants^[5]. Since all the main magistrates were elected from boyars, merchants and artisans, called "lesser", "black people", "people", "merchant class", "common child", were politically disadvantaged, which, in the end, caused the struggle of the Novgorod "people"^[6] for expansion their political rights. The first episodes of it date back to the middle of the XII century, when the "trading floor", in defiance of the boyars, "in arms" for Prince Mstislav Yurievich, whom he pleased. This first manifestation of the political will of the Novgorod people was suppressed at that time, and the princely position was occupied by representatives of the Rostislavich line pleasing to the boyars ^{[21, p. 30]}. After this incident, the popular struggle subsided for a long time, until in 1228, "the devil ... raised up a great sedition ... a simple child." During this "sedition", all the magistrates were removed from office: the prince, the posadnik, Tysyatsky and the archbishop, the houses of many of their supporters were looted, and a tax was imposed on those who escaped such a fate, which went to the construction of the bridge ^{[21, p. 67-68]}. Since then, the "simple child", and in later accounts the "people", has become the main political force of the Novgorod Republic, relegating the once all-powerful boyars to the background. The "rabble" conducted coups ^{[21, p. 307-308]}, changed governments ^{[19, p. 355-356]}, and resolved issues of war and peace ^{[19, p. 352-253]}. In inner-city conflicts, the "Trading Floor" almost always won. In the second half of the 14th century, the power of the people decreased, conflicts were initiated mainly by one Slavonian end, from which they often ended in a "draw" ^{[19, p. 366, 379]}. By the end of Novgorod's independence, there was a certain parity, and even punitive Boyar raids on the Trading side ^{[20, p. 305-306]}. Thus, the Novgorod statehood evolved from a monarchical form of government, through the boyar republic, into the People's Boyar republic, where power was divided between the rabble and the boyars, at the end of its history showing a tendency to increase the strength of the boyars, which led to an equalization of forces between the two sides of the city.

In almost the same chronological framework of the XII – XIV centuries, in Northern Italy, after the protracted crisis of the Dark Ages, a time of rapid economic development came: cities were growing, and the empire that ruled them was declining ^[22]. The so–called communal movement begins: the cities of northern Italy, one by one, are freed from the power of the dukes and counts - viceroys of the "Roman" emperor and form independent urban republics. Power in them originally belonged to the urban aristocracy – the richest citizens – who inherited wealth and political influence. The aristocrats, called nobles, knights, magnates, senators, etc. in Italy, depending on the source (nobiles, milites, magnates, senatores, capitanei, valvassores), elected consuls from among their number – the rulers of the state. The consul ruled from six months to six years. The number of consuls also varied from two to twenty-four ^{[23, p. 33]}. Absolute power was concentrated in the hands of the elected consuls, and various patrician groups competed for this position. At the turn of the 12th –13th centuries, the confrontation between the factions of magnates became especially fierce, so citizens decided to replace the consuls with an invited ruler, usually a feudal lord called podesta, who was supposed to resolve conflicts between inner-city factions. To control the invited ruler, a Council was elected, which consisted of all the same representatives of noble families ^{[24, p. 66]}. The consular republic evolved into a subordinate republic without fundamentally changing the balance of power: the same narrow oligarchy of the richest citizens remained in power ^{[24, p. 61, 182-183; 25, p. 3-4]}. However, in the first half of the 13th century the situation changed. The so-called popular movement begins: a fierce struggle of merchants, artisans and citizens in general for political rights against the ruling aristocracy in the city. In the course of this often armed struggle, which sometimes takes on the character of real revolutions, the people are "emancipated" and gain the right to elect their representatives to the Council ^{[24, p. 182-183; 25, p. 35-36]}. The nature of the struggle was different everywhere, so the result was different. For the most part, the people, in the course of protests, riots and moderate struggle, forced the aristocracy to make concessions, and the Council ceased to be purely aristocratic, half or more of its seats began to be occupied by representatives of merchants and guilds. In other cases, the struggle became more violent and often took on the character of a civil war. In this case, the class that won the struggle retained political power. In Parma, Modena, Florence and Bologna, as a result of popular "revolutions", the aristocracy was completely deprived of political power, and discriminatory laws were introduced against the knight class itself ^[7]: double and triple fines for crimes, monetary guarantees of "good behavior". The feudal lord's word in court ceased to have legal force, and any dispute between a noble and a representative of the people was automatically won by a representative of the "rabble" ^{[26; 24 p. 193-194]}. From one city, the Piacenese, the aristocrats were even expelled. In other cities, such as Cesena, local feudal lords were helped by knights from the neighboring, also aristocratic city of Faenza. As a result of the short war, the popular movement was suppressed, and the aristocratic regime was restored ^[27]. In most cases, as can be seen, a popular commune was established, the comuna popolare, which existed on average until the middle of the 14th century.

Surprisingly, the ancient Greek polis, which existed fifteen hundred years before the events described, underwent a rather similar political and social evolution to the medieval urban republics. Initially, Hellas was ruled by kings ^{[28, pp. 12-13]}, who possessed great power. They were descended from the gods. Most of them, such as Agamemnon, Minelaus, Achilles and Odysseus, were descended from Zeus, Ajax from Apollo, Nestor and Alkinos from Poseidon. The tsars possessed supreme political, judicial and military power, which they inherited ^{[29, pp. 51-53]}. However, this alignment of political forces did not survive the so-called "archaic revolution." At the beginning of the Archaic era (VIII-VII centuries BC), the Eupatrides or "the best" (ἄριστοι) almost everywhere removed Basileoi from power and oligarchic republics took the place of the early monarchies of the Homeric era. The aristocracy held absolute power in the early polis: all the highest power institutions – councils and magistrates – were staffed exclusively by aristocrats and aristocrats. They had the highest judicial authority, occupied a leading position in the army, were the largest landowners, were the most educated, and even outwardly differed from the mass of the demos. At the same time, the National Assembly had so few powers and met so irregularly that there was no need to talk about its political role at that time ^{[30, pp. 73-78; 32; 29, pp. 98-108.]}. This state of affairs fully corresponds to the era of the consular commune, whose power structure was described above.

The situation begins to change from about the middle of the Archaic era (around the sixth century BC). Greek cities begin to move colonies, mainly to agricultural regions. The influx of cheap grain provided an opportunity to engage in handicrafts and trade in the metropolis. In the past, exclusively agricultural policies began to become large (at that time) producers of more valuable goods: Corinth – ceramics and perfumes, Megara – fabrics, Euboea – metal products ^[32]. The consequences of such colossal economic changes were not long in coming: the social structure of Greek society had changed. Many representatives of the demos became rich, and political ambitions inevitably grew behind the wealth. One of the ways to satisfy them was marriage with representatives of the nobility ^{[30, p. 81]}, the other was political struggle. Initially, demos participated in the confrontations of various aristocratic groups, who were happy to use the masses to achieve their political goals. Often, as it was in Megara, demos came to power as a result of a bloody struggle, somewhere, as it was in Athens, the emancipation of the people took place gradually, and according to a "peaceful scenario": as a result of the participation of demos in the struggle of various aristocratic groups. In order to attract the people to their side, the aristocrats made more and more concessions to them, until they were completely emancipated ^{[30, pp. 82-84]}.

One of the first episodes of such a process was the events of the end of the sixth century BC, when Demos and Eupatrides jointly elected Solon archon and "entrusted him with the establishment of the state" ^{[33, p. 33]}. Solon stopped selling into slavery for debts and removed debt stones, and the Athenians who were sold into slavery were returned to their homeland. The so-called censorship was introduced. Previously, only Eupatrids, that is, the nobility, had political rights and were inherited. Now all the people were divided into four property classes. The right to be elected archons was given to the first two, the richest, those who could afford to keep a warhorse and richer. The third class consisted of well–to-do peasants, and the fourth class consisted of the poor and the have-nots, called fetuses. The archons were elected by the people's assembly, the eclessia, in which all four classes of Athenian citizens could now participate ^[34].

Solon's reforms, which did not satisfy either the Eupatrids, who were dissatisfied with the granting of political rights to the people, or the poor, who wanted to divide the land holdings of the aristocrats, provoked a new turmoil, which became the next stage in the establishment of a democratic system. Three groups were fighting for power: the Pedii, the paralia, and the Diacrii. As a result of a long struggle, the latter won, and their leader, Pisistratus, became a tyrant, a person with unlimited authoritarian power. Pisistratus and his sons ruled for half a century and pursued a generally pro-Peasant policy. After the overthrow of tyranny, two parties began to fight for power: the aristocrats and the people, led by Cleisthenes, who, according to Aristotle, promised the people absolute power ^{[33, p. 33-48]}. Demos won, and a democratic system was established in Athens. From now on, power belonged to the People's Assembly, which was dominated by the Thetes, the poorest part of the Attic citizenship ^[35].

However, the complete victory of the common people over the noble ones, as it happened in Athens, is an almost exceptional event in Hellas. The understanding of the atypical nature of the Athenian political system relative to other poleis of Ancient Greece is generally accepted in modern antiquarian literature ^{[30, p. 36]}. It was also noted by contemporary authors. For example, the Pseudo-Xenophon, an opponent of democracy, wrote: "Athenians in all respects prefer the simple and poor and Democrats in general over the noble ones" ^{[33, p. 91]}, they support the common people in other states, and "the noble ones are deprived of civic honor, their property is taken away, they are expelled from their possessions and killed." In court, "Athenians always judge in favor of the people, not the noble ones" ^{[33, p. 93]}.

The examples given reveal a clear pattern: all of the listed polities began their history as monarchies that evolved into aristocracies and then into democracies (with that caveat. That Novgorod or Italian "democracy" would have been an oligarchy from the point of view of the ancient Greeks, since the participation of the "people" in political life was limited to the city walls, and the peasants were not represented in the government. Nevertheless, the participation of "the people" in the government: merchants and artisans, the Italian "populo" and Russian "black people" allows us to consider the established regimes, although limited, but nevertheless democracy or regimes moving towards democracy). The transition between each stage is gradual and varies in speed. The transition from aristocracy to democracy in Athens took two hundred years; in Italy, the struggle of the people against the nobles lasted on average about half a century. The transition from one stage to another may not take place. Venice remained an oligarchic (i.e. aristocratic) republic for six hundred years, while in Novgorod the struggle against the boyars lasted for almost three centuries, and by the time it was absorbed by the Moscow state it had not ended. The situation of being in this transitional stage for a long time, as shown above, is extremely typical for Italy.

The understanding of such an amazing commonality of the evolution of various and often unrelated states appeared in ancient times. In the second century BC, Polybius formulated the theory of Anacyclosis, according to which the political evolution of the state unfolds as follows: people originally lived in a primitive herd, like animals. Then, as with all animals, the strongest and bravest became the leader. This is how despotism appeared: the power of the strong. Since the ruler was an elected one, he was respected and, as a sign of reverence for him, was allowed to transfer power by inheritance. That's how the tsarist government appeared. The first tsars were modest, they thought about the people, but gradually the descendants became more arrogant and selfish, and the monarchy turned into tyranny. The best and noblest people rebelled against the tyrant, establishing their own power: the aristocracy. Over time, their descendants degenerated, the aristocracy turned into an oligarchy and was overthrown by the common people. The first generation of the people valued freedom, democracy flourished, but the process of degeneration also concerns this historical stage. Demagogues appear, troubles and civil wars begin, a new despot appears in the midst of general chaos and the circle repeats itself. "This is the order of nature," Polybius said ^{[36, pp. 10-12]}.

The theory of anacyclosis did not belong exclusively to Polybius, the fundamental knowledge about the political evolution of society was the common property of the ancient scientific world: in total, three types of government were already distinguished in the modern Polybius classification: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy ^{[36, p. 9-10; 37]}.

Machiavelli significantly supplemented the theory of anacyclosis, adding important details to it: "this is the circle along which the evolution of the system of any republic moves, but they rarely go through it several times, since it is very rare for a republic to live so long. Almost always, a republic is conquered by a neighboring state before this circle passes. However, if you remove the factor of conquest, it will forever rotate in this circle" ^{[38, pp. 90-95]}. Machiavelli also recognizes three types of government "il Principato, li Ottimati, ed il Governo Popolare". Similarly to ancient authors, Machiavelli also considered the state of Sparta to be strong, and the Athenian state to be the weakest, precisely because power there was given to the common people, which predetermined its short existence ^{[38, p. 94-95]}.

If we remove the entire psychological part of Polybius' theory - the idea that forms of government change due to the moral decadence of subsequent generations - and also take into account Machiavelli's amendments, then the pattern of republican evolution for these specific examples will take on the correct and appropriate form of objective reality. Monarchy is replaced by aristocracy, and aristocracy by democracy. The state can remain indefinitely at any of these stages, as well as in transition from one to another. As can be seen from all of the above, the Italian medieval republics and Veliky Novgorod, which existed much later, many centuries after the death of Polybius, who formulated the theory of anacyclosis, underwent an evolution similar to the ancient polis.

However, the striking commonality of evolution is not the only feature that unites the ancient polis and Veliky Novgorod. Another feature concerns the very concept of a policy. Polis, according to ancient ideas, is not just a city, and not even just a city-state: This is primarily a collective of citizens: adult men who have political rights and constitute the army of the state. This characteristic of the polis is found in Aristotle, Plato, Thucydides, and any other ancient author ^{[33, pp. 93-94]}. Thucydides, for example, put the following words into the mouth of the commander Nikias, motivating the Athenians to fight: "if you look at yourself when you walk in battle formation in armor, then you will not have to fear too much for your fate. Think about it: wherever you camp, you will immediately form a city (polis) there. ... After all, a city (polis) is people, not walls or empty ships" ^{[28, pp. 465-466]}. The polis was not just a state, but an urban civil community, and in antiquity it was understood precisely as a collection of its citizens ^{[30, p. 38]}.

The concept of "Novgorod" is characterized in a similar way in the sources. The word "Novgorod" naturally had two meanings. The first, as a toponym, and the second, as a collective of citizens, is "Mr. Veliky Novgorod." This is, for example, a typical interpretation of this concept in a Novgorod document: "a sedate posadnik, all the old posadniks, a sedate Tysyatsky and all the old Tysyatsky, and boyars, and everyday people, and merchants, and black people, and the whole of Veliky Novgorod" ^[39]. Modern historical science has established that ancient Russian sources called Novgorod or Veliky Novgorod the Novgorod "political collective", "Veliky Novgorod" in this sense included the politically full-fledged population of the Novgorod land, i.e. free Novgorod citizens of different status ..." ^[40]. The evidence of ancient Russian sources is confirmed by Western sources. In the direct speech of the Novgorodians from the message of the Hanseatic Office to Riga in 1331, we find the following phrases: "Veliky Novgorod is angry with you" and "Veliky Novgorod has pity on you" ^[41]. The participants of the veche, which means that representatives of the civil collective and the army were free residents of Novgorod, including "black people." The Veche was an organ of direct democracy ^[42], as well as the police assembly, the ecclesia.

It can be fairly noted that in ancient Athens, unlike Novgorod, peasants also participated in the national assembly: a fact that has no analogy in Novgorod history. Despite the correctness of this statement, one cannot forget that Athens was an exception in the ancient Greek world ^{[30, p.36]}. Most of the polis had an elite power structure, in which the peasantry was politically completely disenfranchised. A typical example is the polis of Gortyna, on the island of Crete, from which an interesting code known as the "Gortyna Laws" has come down to us. Based on them, the majority of the population of the polis was the peasantry, owned by citizens who were politically full members of the polis. This peasantry, called voikey, at the same time had private property, which they could pass on by inheritance. Voikey himself could be sold and bought by the owner-citizen ^[43].

Thus, Veliky Novgorod represented a typical case of a polis in the understanding of the ancient Greeks. He had a similar power structure: he was a collective of citizens who directly controlled the state, at the same time being the army of the republic. It differed from the modern Italian city-states in the nature of governance, "direct democracy", whereas the former were characterized by "representative democracy": the civil collective of the Italian city communes ruled through their representatives – consuls, podesta and councils. At the same time, a more or less clearly defined type of evolution from monarchy through aristocracy to democracy is much more typical for Italian city-states. Pure aristocracy in Novgorod can be traced rather poorly. The main thing that unites Novgorod and the Italian cities of the state and distinguishes them from the ancient Greek democratic polis is the limitation of "democracy" by city walls: merchants and artisans participated in government, but not peasants, as in the same Athens.

There is an interesting intersection of different types of government and society. From the point of view of the type of political structure, Novgorod is much closer to the polis than to the Italian city–state: in both cases, direct government is practiced through the national assembly (ecclesia or veche), while in Italy, power functions are carried out through magistrates - podesta and councils. At the same time, in socio-political terms, Novgorod is more like an Italian city-state: at the "national" stage of its development, merchants and artisans were allowed to rule, and the rural population was excluded.

^[1] Thanks to Elena Anatolyevna Tyanina for this thought and for pointing out the evidence of the sources.

^[2] This phenomenon is very common in world historiography. For example, an African author claims that his small kingdoms in Uganda were democracies because the chief listened to the elders of his clan when making political decisions, who in turn allegedly consulted with the common population. And this is despite the fact that the leader inherited power, and his governors sat in the villages subordinate to him ^[9].

^[3] Delphi was the "sacred dominant" in ancient Greece.

^[4] A review of the Italian medieval city-states is necessary to determine whether the features of the Novgorod polity are its exclusive characteristic or a general medieval phenomenon.

^[5] The grounds for considering the Trading side as "folk", i.e. inhabited by artisans and merchants, are contained in all references to class-class conflicts in the Novgorod Republic. In 1255, during the conflict between the lesser people and Alexander Nevsky, a chronicler belonging to the lesser group called the Trading Side "ours" ^{[19, p. 308]}, in 1418, the people, as always, convened a veche on the Yaroslavl courtyard on the Trading Side, then all the streets that the people went to rob were on On the Sofia side – Kuzmodemyanskaya, Yaneva, Chudintseva, Ludogosha, there was also a monastery of St. Nicholas. Nikola, only Prusskaya Street, also located on the Sofia side, has strayed from the people. After that, the people "came running" to "their" side of the Trade, and began to say that the Sofia side would now go "into the army" against them. ^{[19, p. 409]} In 1359, the Slavs, residents of the Trading side, beat many boyars. The surviving boyars fled to their side, gathered their army and again "armed both sides against themselves." ^{[19, p. 366]} In 1476, during the train of the Moscow Grand Duke to Novgorod, he was given two petitions, one from the boyars, the other from the people. The boyars beat their foreheads against the inhabitants of the Merchant Side, who robbed them, and the representatives of the people beat their foreheads against the Boyars, the inhabitants of the Sofia side, who robbed them in turn. ^{[20, pp. 305-306]}. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Trading side was considered by the contemporaries to be folk, and the Sofia side to be boyar. This division is clearly recorded from the middle of the 13th century to the end of the independence of the Novgorod statehood at the end of the 15th century, thus coinciding in time with the era of the struggle of the Novgorod aristocracy and the people.

^[6] For convenience, the term will be used without quotation marks in the future. The word "people" in this context will be used in the modern historical sense, in the sense of the urban artisan and merchant population.

^[7] Hereafter, we do not mean the Marxist classes that make up formations, but the social classes of medieval Italian urban society.

The article is published in the version approved by the reviewers (after receiving a positive review recommending the manuscript for publication) with corrections made by the author (after receiving the editor’s comments, if any).
Read all reviews on this article