Drevnejšie gosudarstva Vostočnoj Evropy: mate­rialy i issledovanija. 2004: Političeskie in­sti­tu­ty Drevnej Rusi. Izdat. Vostočnaja literatura RAN Moskva 2006. 438 p. ISBN: 5-02-018489-6.

Seven of the eleven main contributions to this volume bear more or less directly on its declared theme, ‘political institutions of Old Rus’, four of them tackling the problem of the ve­che and its role in Rus’ urban history. That the ve­che should not be regarded as an institution at all is the thesis of J. Gransberg’s study, a 160-page shortened version in Russian translation of his monograph, Veche in the Chronicles of Medi­eval Rus: a Study of Functions and Terminology (Göteborg, 2004). Gransberg underlines the ambiguousness of the term, as used in Rus’ chronicles. Although often associated with Pskov and Novgorod, especially in the fifteenth century, veches are also mentioned for Kiev, Smolensk, Suzdal and several other, sometimes minor, towns. The term veche could apply equally to meetings called by the prince and to those occurring spontaneously. There are, concludes Gransberg, no grounds for supposing that the veche enjoyed legal status as a corporate entity or had a formal constitutional role, for example in the appointment of town governors. Gransberg acknowledges the veche’s formidable potential both for stability and for unrest, and the vitality of Novgorod’s veche in the twelfth and thirteenth century is examined in detail by P. Lukin. As he shows, factions led by the nobles usually gained the upper hand eventually, yet assemblies’ outcomes were unpredictable. The number of persons attending could amount to several hundred, and attendees could be of quite humble social status. The ‘collective socio-po­li­ti­cal activity’ of the Novgorodians was not contained within specific institutions, but no faction of nobles could predominate for long without coming to terms with mass-assemblies. A rather different approach is favoured by T. Vil­kul, who views the veche more as a literary ‘construct’ of the chroniclers. N. Kotliar examines the characteristics of urban assemblies in Galich and Volynia: there, the landed boiars were better able to take concerted action against the prince than were their counterparts in other Rus’ regions, and the support of townsfolk for a prince against them seldom tipped the balance in his favour. Other articles include A. Naza­ren­ko’s study on Vladimir Monomakh’s plan to ‘reform’ arrangements for princely succession to Kiev: in later life Monomakh apparently sought to modify those made at the Council of Liubech (1097), and his famous Pouchenie was composed in at least two stages, the first being as early as c. 1100. Also noteworthy is T. Gimon’s study, ‘On what occasions did the names of Novgorodians enter the pages of the chronicle?’ Occasions include appointments of new governors, regularly recorded from 1132 on, and the names of victims of assault or oppression within the city. Gimon concludes with valuable remarks about the function of Novgorodian chron­icles in establishing juridically significant pre­ce­dents, setting norms while also highlighting undesirable behaviour of princes and nobles. L. V. Stoliarova contributes the fourth in her series of studies of commissioners (zakazčiki) of early Rus’ codices, here presenting instances from the later thirteenth century. The Russo-Byzantine treaties of the tenth century are the subject of contributions from P. Stefanovich and S. Kis­te­rev, shedding light on, respectively, Rus’ attitudes to oaths and Byzantine treaty-making.

Jonathan Shepard, Oxford

Zitierweise: Jonathan Shepard über: Drevnejšie gosudarstva Vostočnoj Evropy: materialy i issledovanija. 2004: Političeskie instituty Drevnej Rusi. Izdat. Vostočnaja literatura RAN Moskva 2006. ISBN: 5-02-018489-6., in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. Neue Folge, 57 (2009) H. 1, S. 104: http://www.dokumente.ios-regensburg.de/JGO/Rez/Shepard_Drevnejsie_gosudarstva_2004.html (Datum des Seitenbesuchs)