A posadnik (Russian: посадник, pl. посадники, posadniki) was a representative of the prince in some towns during the times of Kievan Rus', and later the highest-ranking official (mayor) in Novgorod (from 1136) and Pskov (from 1308).[1]
In the early 12th century, Novgorod won the right to elect its own posadnik, who was originally appointed by the prince to rule on his behalf during his absence, thus the posadnik became the elected burgomaster. In 1136, the prince Vsevolod was expelled and the Novgorod veche began to appoint and expel princes at its own will. The posadnik was so much of an official that the representative of the prince became known as the namestnik.[2]
Etymology
editThe term posadnik appears to be derived from the early process of princely representation, when the prince placed (posadi) his men in towns such as Novgorod.[1]
History
editNovgorod
editDespite legends of posadniks such as Gostomysl that were set in the 9th century, the term posadnik first appears in the Primary Chronicle under the year 977.[3] The earliest Novgorodian posadniks include Dobrynya (an uncle of Vladimir the Great), his son Konstantin Dobrynich and Ostromir, who is famous for patronizing the Ostromir Gospels, among the first books published in Russia (it is now housed in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg).
In the Novgorod Republic, the city posadnik was elected from among the boyars by the Novgorod veche (public assembly). The elections were held annually. Novgorodian boyars differed from boyars in the other principalities in that the category was not caste-like and that every rich merchant could reasonably hope to reach the rank of boyar. Valentin Yanin, the Soviet "dean" of medieval Novgorodian history, has found that most posadniks held the office consecutively for sometimes a decade or more and then often passed the office on to their sons or another close relative, indicating that the office was held within boyar clans and that the elections were not really "free and fair".[4] Yanin's theory challenged historians' understanding of the Novgorod Republic, showing it to be a boyar republic with little or no democratic elements. It also showed the land-owning boyarstvo to be more powerful than the merchant and artisan classes, which until that time were thought to play a significant role in the political life of the city. It also called into question the true nature of the veche, which up until that time had been considered democratic by most scholars. However, Yanin's interpretation of the Novgorod government as a hereditary oligarchy is not universally accepted.
Originally, there was one posadnik, but gradually over time the office multiplied until, by the end of the republic, there were something like 24 posadniks. There were also posadniks for each of the city's boroughs (called ends - kontsy, singular konets in Russian). The multiplication of the office dates to the 1350s, when the posadnik Ontsifor Lukinich implemented a series of reforms.[5] Retired posadniks took the title "old posadnik" (старый посадник) and the current, serving posadnik was known as the stepenny posadnik (степенный посадник). In accordance with the reform of 1416–1417, the number of posadniks was increased threefold and stepenny posadniks were to be elected for a six-month period. In this manner, the various boyar clans could share power and one or another of them would neither monopolize power or be left out if they lost an election. However, it diluted power in the boyarstvo. Some scholars have argued that the archbishop of Novgorod became the head of the republic and stood above the fray of partisan politics that raged among the boyardom, but the archbishops seem to have shared power with the boyardom and the collective leadership tried to rule by consensus.[6] The dilution of boyar power may, however, have weakened Novgorod in the 15th century, thus explaining the series of defeats it suffered at Moscow's hands and the eventual end of its independence.
The posadnikdom (mayoralty) was abolished along with the veche when Ivan III, the grand prince of Moscow, took full control of the city in 1478.[7] In fact, upon being asked by Archbishop Feofil (1470–1480) on behalf of the Novgorodians what type of government he wanted, Ivan (speaking through Vassian Patrikeyev) told them "there will be no veche bell in our patrimony of Novgorod; there will be no posadnik, and we will conduct our own government".[8]
Pskov
editThere were 78 known posadniks in Pskov between 1308 and 1510.[9] The posadnichestvo was abolished in Pskov in 1510 when Grand Prince Vasili III took direct control of the city.
See also
edit- ru:Список новгородских посадников [List of Novgorod posadniks]
References
edit- ^ a b Kaiser, Daniel H. (14 July 2014). The Growth of the Law in Medieval Russia. Princeton University Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-4008-5559-9.
- ^ Feldbrugge, Ferdinand Joseph Maria (2009). Law in Medieval Russia. BRILL. p. 159. ISBN 978-90-04-16985-2.
- ^ Feldbrugge, Ferdinand J. M. (20 October 2017). A History of Russian Law: From Ancient Times to the Council Code (Ulozhenie) of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich of 1649. BRILL. p. 430. ISBN 978-90-04-35214-8.
From Primary Chronicle: А Ярополк посадил своих посадников в Новгороде и владел один Русскою землёю
- ^ Valentin Lavrent'evich Yanin, Novgorodskie Posadniki (Moscow: Moscow State University, 1962; reprinted Moscow: Iazyki Russkoi kultury, 2003).
- ^ Yanin, Novgorodskie Posadniki, 262-287.
- ^ Michael C. Paul, "Secular Power and the Archbishops of Novgorod Before the Muscovite Conquest," Kritika 8, No. 2 (Spr. 2007): 231-270.
- ^ Elton, G. R. (2 August 1990). The New Cambridge Modern History: Volume 2, The Reformation, 1520-1559. Cambridge University Press. p. 596. ISBN 978-0-521-34536-1.
- ^ Moskovskii Letopisnii svod, Vol. 25 in Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisei(Moscow ANSSSR, 1949, p. 146 (emphasis added). See also Paul, "Secular Power and the Archbishops of Novgorod Before the Muscovite Conquest," 267.
- ^ For a discussion of the office in Pskov, see Lawrence Langer, “The Posadnichestvo of Pskov: Some Aspects of Urban Administration in Medieval Russia.” Slavic Review 43, no. 1 (1984): 46−62.