Russia’s position in the Far East. Witte’s diplomacy helped to compensate for Russia’s military weakness.
Nevertheless, the Treaty of Portsmouth was perceived as a defeat for Russia and diminished its international stature, notably in the 1908 Bosnia crisis. Josef Stalin was to justify the Soviet entry into the war against Japan in 1945 in part on the grounds of reversing the 1905 “defeat.” See also: RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR; WITTE, SERGEI YULIEVICH slowly declined as princes had to share their authority with the mayor. The boyar elite of Novgorod and Pskov dominated the office of mayor.
At first only one mayor in Novgorod was chosen for life. In the fourteenth century a collective mayoralty developed (posadnichestvo) consisting of six mayors, one for each of the five districts (two from Prussian Street), and one who served as Lord Mayor (stepenny posadnik). In 1354 the term of Lord Mayor was shortened to one year, and after 1387 the office rotated among Novgorodian borough mayors. In 1416 and 1417 the term was reduced to six months, while the number of borough mayors increased to eighteen. In 1423 the borough mayors grew to twenty-four, and in the second half of the fifteenth century to thirty-four. Current and former Lord Mayors, together with the chiliarch (the leader of a thousand men or troops) and sitting borough mayors, comprised Novgorod’s Council of Lords. The mayoralty disappeared with the fall of Novgorod to Moscow in 1478. See also: BOYAR; NOVGOROD JUDICIAL CHARTER; NOVGOROD THE GREAT; VECHE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fuller, William C., Jr. (1992). Strategy and Power in Russia, 1600-1914. New York: Free Press. Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. (1984). A History of Russia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langer, Lawrence. (1974). “V. L. Ianin and the History of Novgorod.” Slavic Review 33:114-119. Langer, Lawrence. (1984). “The Posadnichestvo of Pskov: Some Aspects of Urban Administration in Medieval Russia.” Slavic Review 43:46-62.
A term meaning “mayor,” the leading political figure of Novgorod and Pskov.
In Novgorod the posadnik was second only to the archbishop, the symbolic ruler of the city. The term derives from the verb posaditi, to sit, and reflects the practice of Kievan princes who “sat” their representatives, often family members, as princes of Novgorod.
Toward the end of the tenth century the Nov-gorodian posadnik was separated from the governing prince, and after 1088 was chosen by a veche (assembly or gathering). Following Novgorod’s independence from Kiev in 1136, princely power
POSSESSORS AND NON-POSSESSORS
Possessors and non-possessors were purported rival monastic and church factions, c. 1480-1584.
The binary opposition stiazhatel/nestiazhatel (literally, acquirer/non-acquirer; translated as “Pos- sessor”/“Non-possessor” in the literature) is misleading. The possessions of cenobites theoretically belonged to their cloister, while hermitages were dependent upon the wealthy monasteries.
The real justification for the movable and landed wealth of the church lay in its economic, political, cultural, ceremonial, and charitable functions. The practical politics of ecclesiastical wealth involved several confiscations of Novgorodian church lands under Ivan III, the concrete provisions
1211
of new or revised immunity charters, and the state, church, and combined legislation of 1550-1551, 1562, 1572, 1580, and 1584, which both protected and limited monastic land. By the early 1500s a new juncture of developments favored state confiscation of lands: the state needed military service lands, and a faction of monks condemned monastic opulence, with some advocating state management of church lands.
The leading “Possessors” were well-placed figures who mobilized coworkers, disciples, employees, and consultants: Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod (r. 1484-1504); the founder-abbot Joseph of Volotsk (d. 1515); the latter’s successor and then Metropolitan of Moscow, Daniel (r. 1515-1522-1539); Archbishop of Novgorod and then Metropolitan of Moscow, Macarius (r. 1526-1542-1563); and several other prelates, mostly trained in the Iosifov- Volokolamsk Monastery. They defended church lands and Orthodoxy and created an inquisition of sorts. They also promoted commemorations, reformed and rationalized monasteries, strengthened episcopal administration and missionary activity, nationalized regional saints, patronized religious art, allowed allegorical innovations, commissioned a few scientific translations, attempted to introduce printing, contributed original compilations of history, hagiography, and canon law, and aided the state and court with ceremonies, ideology, military chaplains, colonizing clergy, and canon-legal decisions.
The “Non-possessors” are harder to pin down. Vassian Patrikeyev (active from 1505 to 1531 and personally influential from 1511 to 1522) and those in charge of his literary legacy also expressed heated opposition to execution of even relapsed and obdurate heretics, while Artemy of Pskov (active 1540s-1550s) disputed that the people on trial were genuine heretics. Other erudite critics of monastic wealth, Maxim the Greek (active in Russia, 1517-1555) and Yermolai-Yerazm (active 1540s-1560s), did not take a stand on these two issues. Furthermore, the roles of Vassian and his “Trans-Volgan” mentor Nil Sorsky (d. 1508) in politicizing the latter’s stringent hesychastic spiritual principles are not clear. Recent textual analysis questions the traditional assumption, in place by 1550, that Nil had counseled Ivan III at a synod in 1503 to confiscate monastic villages, and shows that Nil, like Maxim, Ermolai-Erazm, and Artemy, staunchly defended Orthodoxy. As individuals, some “Non-possessors” made outstanding contributions to Russian spiritual, literary, and legal culture and political thought, but as a group they carried little weight.
“Possessors” more or less dominated the Russian Church during 1502-1511, 1522-1539, and 1542-1566. The Josephites-Iosifov monastery elders and alumni prelates-were a formidable and often disliked “Possessor” faction, and not only by Kirillov-Belozersk Monastery elders, who patronized the northern Trans-Volgan hermitages. If Nil and Joseph collaborated against dissidence, Vassian and the Josephites were at loggerheads. Daniel had both Maxim and Vassian condemned and imprisoned for heresy. Later Macarius did the same to Artemy and maybe sponsored a purge of hermitages suspected of harboring dissidents. See also: DANIEL, METROPOLITAN; IVAN III; JOSEPH OF VOLOTSK, ST; MAKARY METROPOLITAN; MAXIM THE GREEK, ST.; RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ostrowski, Donald. (1986). “Church Polemics and Monastic Land acquisition in Sixteenth-Century Muscovy.” Slavonic and East European Review 64:355-79. Treadgold, Donald W. (1973). The West in Russia and China: Religious and Secular Thought in Modern Times. Vol. I, Russia, 1472-1917. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
The first regular postal routes in Russia (Moscow-Voronezh and later Moscow-St. Petersburg) were established at the start of the eighteenth century. In 1741 the service was expanded and intended to encompass all provinces of the empire. In reality, postal services were largely concentrated in European Russia, and mail was only delivered to one central location in a town, often a tavern. Beginning in the mid-eighteenth century, it became possible to send parcels through the mail as well as letters. Between 1830 and 1840, larger urban centers began to create systems for mail delivery within their confines, and this development spurred an increase not only in the number of mail distribution points within a given city but also in the number of letters being sent. In 1848 the first prestamped envelopes appeared, and periodicals began to be distributed by mail. Postal services were gradually extended to some larger villages in Russia starting in the 1870s.
1212
