Perrie M. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume 1: From Early Rus’ to 1689

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

denisj.b.shaw

believed, ﬂowed from the imposition upon towns of the centralised, Mus-

covite model of control rather than a more ‘democratic’ model like the one

they postulated for early Novgorod.

From the point of view of a hard-pressed and ﬁnancially constrained Mus-

covite state, however, strict control had many advantages. The problem was

that the state was barely in a position to enforce it. The sixteenth century was

a time of transition between the fragmented polity which had characterised

the post-Mongol period and the more centralised system inaugurated by Peter

the Great. As towns had been absorbed by the expanding Muscovite state their

princes or other rulers had been replaced by the tsar’s representatives (namest-

niki), often members of the Muscovite elite. The latter were maintained by a

system of ‘feedings’ (kormlenie) or payments and provisions derived from local

sources. Similar payments were made to subordinate ofﬁcials. As centralisa-

tion proceeded, these payments were regulated more strictly, and certain of

the functions of the namestnik were transferred to other centrally appointed

ofﬁcials. But some namestniki proved disturbingly independent, incompetent

and corrupt, inﬂuenced by oscillations in the power of elite families at court.

From the 1530s, therefore, various reforms were inaugurated. The ﬁrst, the

guba reform (1538–9), removed the duty of suppressing lawlessness and dis-

order from the hands of the namestniki into those of elected local ofﬁcials.

A new law code (1550) regulated provincial administration. The 1550s wit-

nessed the inauguration of new local ofﬁcials to oversee tax collection and

civil administration and then, in 1555–6, the abolition of kormlenie and with it

provincial administration by the namestniki.

What eventually replaced the

latter was a system of administration by military governors (voevody) based

on the towns and responsible for civil and military affairs within their towns

and the surrounding districts (uezdy). Military governors were usually mem-

bers of the service class rather than of the central elite. The new system

was pioneered on the southern frontier before the end of the sixteenth cen-

tury. However, strict and systematic central control of the towns and their

subsidiary districts was vitiated, among other things, by the chaotic struc-

ture of central government departments (prikazy) which supervised different

facets of urban life, and towns in different locations, in a seemingly random

31 J. Michael Hittle, The Service City: State and Townsmen in Russia, 1600–1800 (Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979), pp. 5–9.

32 Janet Martin, Medieval Russia, 980–1584 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),

pp. 284–6, 344–7; Brian L. Davies, ‘The Town Governors in the Reign of Ivan IV’, RH 14

(1987): 77–144.

308

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Towns and commerce

fashion. This was a problem which was to persist until the reforms of Peter the

Great.

Urban and regional commerce

The great majority of Russians during this period were peasants, involved

in a largely subsistence economy and resorting to the market only where it

became necessary to earn money to pay taxes and duties or to purchase essen-

tial goods. Many town dwellers also supported themselves to greater or lesser

degree by engaging in agriculture and various kinds of primary production.

Wealthy landowners, including those engaged in political, administrative, mil-

itary and other tasks in Moscowand lesser towns,could often rely on their serfs

and other dependents to supply their needs from their country estates. Other

urban dwellers, however, including many administrative and military person-

nel, clergy, merchants, traders and craftsmen, were more or less dependent

on the market. The rise and growth of towns, and particularly the stimu-

lus provided by the burgeoning state and its growing needs in raw materials

and manufactured goods, were important impulses to market and commer-

cial activity. Especially signiﬁcant in this regard was the role of Moscow, as

commercial as well as political and administrative centre of the country and,

as has been seen, dominant over all other towns in the realm. The major

communications routes (rivers and roads) radiated from the capital to all the

populated parts of the territory, and also beyond via ports and frontier posts.

A number of scholars have thus seen the basis for an ‘all-Russian market’ with

Moscow as its nodal point being established in this period.

The signiﬁcance

of the international market place in Russia’s development, whilst impossible

to establish with any certainty because of scanty evidence, should probably

not be exaggerated. Whilst Russian state-building was clearly partly a response

to the dangers and challenges posed by potential or actual enemies beyond

the frontiers, the country was unable to beneﬁt fully from the expanding

commercial network based on Western Europe and the North Atlantic which

33 Tikhomirov, Rossiya v XVI veke,p.30; for details of central administration of towns

and districts in the seventeenth century, see A. S. Lappo-Danilevskii, Organizatsiia pri-

amogo oblozheniia v Moskovskom gosudarstve so vremen smuty do epokhi preobrazovanii (St

Petersburg: Tipograﬁia I. N. Skorokhodova, 1890), pp. 542–50.

34 Ocherki istorii SSSR,pp.249–61; Artur Attman, ‘The Russian Market in World Trade,

1500–1800’,ScandinavianEconomic History Review 29 (1981):177–80;KristoffGlamann,‘The

Changing Patterns of Trade’, in Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. v (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 217, 228.

309

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

denisj.b.shaw

was becoming apparent about this time.

Not only was Russia geographically

peripheral to many of the new developments, but access was hindered by poor

communications and its limited coastline.

By clustering around the towns commerce and manufacture were able to

beneﬁt from the military protection, access to important ofﬁcials and geo-

graphical nodality available in urban centres. At the same time the state itself

encouraged such patterns since it eased the problems of regulation and tax col-

lection. Moreover, particularly from the time of Ivan III (1462–1505) the tsars

pursued a regular policy of relocating wealthy merchants and craftspeople

from peripheral towns to Moscow and other places. Such crude actions seem

to have been motivated more by political than by economic considerations

and they may well have been to the detriment of commerce. But they do

indicate the importance accorded by the tsars to commerce in general and

to merchants and craftspeople in particular. The ﬁnancial signiﬁcance of the

towns to the state was, of course, one of the reasons why the latter attempted

to eradicate the privately owned suburbs and towns from the ﬁfteenth century

onwards.

Crafts and manufactures were a key feature of the posad of many towns,

as well as of many of the ‘white’ suburbs. Moscow in particular was char-

acterised by numerous suburbs owned by the court, the state and private

owners (including the Church) whose inhabitants lived not (or not only) by

selling their products on the marketplace but by fulﬁlling the orders of their

respective masters. Thus Moscow had its armaments manufacturers (most

notably, the cannon foundry, established by Ivan III) and other metalworkers,

some of whom were engaged in ﬁne metalwork for the court, those engaged

in textile and clothes production, the preparation of food, workers in wood

and stone, those engaged in specialist crafts like icon-painting, printing and

jewellery manufacture, and many others, often directly serving the needs of

court, government or private landowner. But the key point is that the presence

of manufacture did not necessarily imply market relations. Moscow’s court (or

palace and treasury) suburbs originally developed to supply the needs of the

court and the government and worked in response to speciﬁc orders. Their

inhabitants fulﬁlled the latter on the basis of their obligations as residents of the

35 I. Wallerstein, The Modern World-System, vol. ii: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the

European World-Economy, 1600–1750 (New York: Academic Press, 1980).

36 But for a positive assessment of the situation before the 1560s, see D. P. Makovskii,

Razvitie tovarno-denezhnykh otnoshenii v sel’skom khoziaistve russkogo gosudarstva v XVI veke

(Smolensk: Smolenskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, 1963); N. E. Nosov,

‘Russkii gorod i russkoe kupechestvo v XVI stoletii (k postanovke voprosa)’, in Issle-

dovaniia po sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii Rossii (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971), pp. 152–77.

310

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Towns and commerce

court suburbs. By the late sixteenth century, however, many of these people

seem to have been working for the market also (which might include the state

as purchaser) like other residents of the ‘black’ and ‘white’ suburbs.

Crafts and manufactures generally took place in the urban suburbs in the

homes of the various artisans. The sources rarely permit an insight into the

location of different kinds of manufacturing and craft activities in different

towns, but in Moscow’s case it seems that a few of the suburbs were specialised

in this sense, including some of the court suburbs.

A prominent feature of

manytownswas the tradingsquare(torg),usuallylocated at a centralandacces-

sible point. In Moscow’s case this was to the east of the Kremlin by the Moscow

River on the site of the present-day Red Square, sometimes supplemented in

winter by trading on the actual ice of the river itself. Much of what is now

the open space of the square was occupied in the sixteenth century by a series

of specialised trading rows (riady) consisting of individual shops (lavki), stalls

and sometimes cellars and stores owned or rented by merchants, craftsmen,

Church and monastic dependents and others. Shops were predominantly of

wood, occasionally of stone. Sixteenth- or early seventeenth-century Moscow

rows seem to haveincluded a Surozhskiirow (trading mainly in foreigngoods),

shoe row, ironmongery row, cloth row, glove row, women’s row, kaftan row,

iron row, silver row, tinkers’ row and numerous others. Towards the end of the

century one or more trading courts (palaty) are recorded which incorporated

shops and rows, including a merchants’ bazaar (gostinnyi dvor) where visiting

or foreign merchants could trade. The streets of the Kitai gorod, Moscow’s

oldest posad to the east of the trading square, had many trading establishments,

including the houses of foreign merchants, whilst some trading bazaars and

markets were located in other parts of the city. The latter included markets

for horses, cattle, timber and construction materials.

The detailed geographical patterns of trade and commerce across Russia

in the sixteenth century cannot be established because of the lack of adequate

source materials. The exact nature of the links between Moscow and the rest

of the country, for example, is only known in part, thanks to the researches

into often difﬁcult source material by a handful of scholars.

The character of

37 V. Snegirev, Moskovskie slobody (Moscow: Moskovskii rabochii, 1947), pp. 56ff., 78; French,

‘The Early and Medieval Russian Town’, p. 270.

38 Istoriia Moskvy, vol. i,pp.156–61.

39 See e.g. M.V. Fekhner, Torgovlia russkogo gosudarstva so stranami Vostoka v XVI veke

(Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo muzeia, 1952); N. Kostomarov,

Ocherki torgovli Moskovskogo gosudarstva v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh (St Petersburg: N. Tiblen,

1862); S. V. Bakhrushin, Nauchnye trudy, 4 vols. (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1952–9); G. S. Rabi-

novich, Gorod soli: Staraia Russa v kontse XVI–seredine XVIII vekov (Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo

311

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

denisj.b.shaw

commerce and trade in Russia’s regions and their towns is also known only in

part. Very little is known about trade and commerce taking place below the

level of the ofﬁcial towns, even though there is plenty of evidence to suggest

the rise of trading centres and villages in various parts of the country from at

least the ﬁfteenth century. In the north-west, for example,the Novgorod cadas-

tres record the existence of numerous small trading points or riady from this

time whilst in the north similar places, often dealing in furs, were sometimes

described as pogosti.The term posad could also be used to describe such centres,

as in the case of Tikhvin Posad in the north-west.

Their inhabitants were

often traders and craftspeople rather than agriculturalists. Many settlements

of this type were monastic centres. Serbina collected evidence for a hundred

or more small trading and commercial centres for various sixteenth-century

dates in thirty-four districts (uezdy) of the Russian state. For the ninety-three

centres for which it was possible to ascertain ownership, 82 per cent were

monastic, a quarter of these belonging to one monastery, the Trinity-Sergius

(Troitse-Sergiev), north-east of Moscow.

What became of all these centres

during the vicissitudes of the later sixteenth century is unknown, although it is

apparent that several of those located in the north-west and near the western

frontier disappeared, perhaps in consequence of the Livonian war.

Towns often acted as commercial foci for their surrounding regions and

many manufactures were oriented to the meeting of local and everyday needs.

These included the provision of food, clothing, footwear, fuel, building mate-

rials, horses and so on to urban and rural inhabitants. In this sense urban

economies bore the unspecialised character which was typical of early mod-

ern towns throughout Europe. Where they also engaged in more specialised

activities, this reﬂected their locations relative to such features as localised

resources, important trading routes, coasts, borders and the like. One exam-

ple was the fur trade which had once been the basis of the wealth of the city of

Novgorod. By the second half of the ﬁfteenth century Novgorod’s leading role

Leningradskogo universiteta, 1973); K. N. Serbina, Ocherki iz sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi

istorii russkogo goroda: Tikhvinskii posad v XVI–XVII vv. (Moscow and Leningrad:

AN SSSR, 1951); Paul Bushkovitch, The Merchants of Moscow, 1580–1650 (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1980).

40 French, ‘The Early and Medieval Russian Town’, pp. 265–6; R. A. French, ‘The Urban

Network of Later Medieval Russia’, in Geographical Studies on the Soviet Union: Essays

in Honor of Chauncy D. Harris (Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geogra-

phy, Research Paper no. 211, 1984), p. 45; Serbina, Ocherki; V. N. Vernadskii, Novgorod i

Novgorodskaia zemlia v XV veke (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1961), p. 112.

41 K. N. Serbina, ‘Iz istorii vozniknoveniia gorodov v Rossii XVI v.’, in Goroda feodal’noi

Rossii (Moscow: Nauka, 1966), pp. 135–8.

42 French, ‘The Urban Network’, p. 46.

312

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Towns and commerce

had been eclipsed by competition from Moscow and new organising centres

for the trade had become signiﬁcant, such as Velikii Ustiug, Vologda,

and

Tobol’sk in western Siberia.

Likewise the salt trade played an important part

in the life of many northern centres as well as others towards the Urals and fur-

ther south along the Volga.

Iron ore, ﬁsh or important agricultural products

like ﬂax and hemp helped deﬁne the characters of other centres. For towns

in central Russia the looming presence of Moscow and the many demands of

its marketplace were signiﬁcant and helped mould the economies of towns

across a wide area.

Long-distance and international trade

Referring to Europe’s regional economies in the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries, Kristof Glamann has written that ‘it is isolation, not interaction,

that leaps to the eye’.

Everywhere the costs and risks of long-distance trade

militated against its easy development. Travel by land was particularly prob-

lematic. Only where the sea penetrated deeply into the European land mass,

as it did most notably in the cases of the Mediterranean and the Baltic and their

associated gulfs and bays, or where the land was crossed by great and easily

navigable rivers, as was the case on the East European plain, was communica-

tion somewhat easier. In the Baltic the rise of the Hanseatic League of north

German cities had fostered commercial relations with the Russian principali-

ties of Novgorod and Pskov in particular. Hanseatic dealings with the Russians

were facilitated by their factories in such centres as Novgorod, Riga, Vitebsk,

Polotsk and Dorpat.

But Russia’s commercial relations were not only with

the West. It also had extensive dealings with the East, whose importance for

Russia had been enhanced by the latter’s dependence on the Golden Horde for

two and a half centuries. Communications in this direction were eased by the

possibility of using navigable rivers like the Don, the Dnieper and, especially

43 J. Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness: The Fur Trade and its Signiﬁcance for Medieval

Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 92–109.

44 O. N. Vilkov, ‘Tobol’sk – tsentr tamozhennoi sluzhby Sibiri XVII v.’, in Goroda Sibiri:

ekonomika, upravlenie i kul’tura gorodov Sibiri v dosovetskii period (Novosibirsk: Nauka,

Sibirskoe otdelenie, 1974), pp. 131–69.

45 E. I. Zaozerskaia, U istokov krupnogo proizvodstva v russkoi promyshlennosti XVI–XVII vv.: k

voprosuo genezise kapitalizma v Rossii (Moscow:Nauka,1970);N.V. Ustiugov, Solevarennaia

promyshlennost’ Soli Kamskoi v XVII veke (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1957); R. E. F. Smith and

David Christian, Bread and Salt: A Social and Economic History of Food and Drink in Russia

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 27–73.

46 Glamann, ‘The Changing Patterns’, p. 186.

47 Walther Kirchner, Commercial Relations Between Russia and Europe, 1400–1800: Collected

Essays (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966), p. 92.

313

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

denisj.b.shaw

later, the Volga. In the opinion of Fekhner, Russia’s commercial links with the

East were more signiﬁcant than its Western ones in the sixteenth century.

Russia’s trade with the West, and its policies with respect to that trade,

were moulded by two major factors in this period. One was the opportu-

nities for trade and development presented by the more dynamic European

economies, particularly from the ﬁfteenth century. The other, and not unre-

lated to the ﬁrst, was the growing political instability along Russia’s western

borders and the eastern Baltic as various powers began to compete for both

territory and commercial advantage. Traditionally the German Hanse with

its principal centre at L

ubeck had dominated the Baltic trade in such goods as

grain, salt and salt ﬁsh, woollen cloth, furs, timber and forest products. Baltic

products like furs, hides, honey, ﬂax, hemp and wax were in constant demand

in Central and Western Europe. From the early ﬁfteenth century, however, the

Hanse monopoly was increasingly challenged as the cities of the eastern Baltic

attempted to bypass the dominance of L

ubeck and its associates. A compli-

cating factor was Moscow’s annexation of Novgorod (1478) followed by Tver’

(1485) and Pskov (1510). This appeared to threaten the balance of power in

the region, especially when Ivan III’s founding of Ivangorod opposite Narva

in 1492 signalled Muscovy’s commercial ambitions in the Baltic in no uncer-

tain manner. Two years later, however, Ivan closed down the Hanse’s major

factory at Novgorod which proved a severe blow to those ambitions, hardly

compensated for by Ivangorod and the opening up of Russian trade to other

foreign merchants. Nevertheless the Muscovite state found itself in increasing

need of Western goods as well as of Western technical expertise whilst Russian

goods continued to ﬁnd a market there. The situation therefore encouraged

further contacts. In addition to the Baltic, Russia had links to the West via the

traditional overland route through Lithuania and Poland though commerce

was frequently interrupted by difﬁcult political relations and border changes.

Smolensk, taken by the Russians in 1514, was an important trading centre in

this direction.

The beginning of the Livonian war in 1558 proved an important milestone

in Russia’s commercial relationships with the West. The capture of Narva by

Russian forces in that year meant that Russia now had a secure port on the

Balticwhichproved attractivetomerchantvessels from many partsof northern

and western Europe. In Kirchner’s view, within ten years Narva had developed

into one of the Baltic’s wealthiest ports as well as one of its most signiﬁcant

48 Fekhner, Torgov lia,pp.5–6.

49 Bushkovitch, The Merchants of Moscow,pp.87–91.

314

Towns and commerce

political focal points.

Kirchner argues that, had the Russians retained Narva

for longer than they did, it might have proved a most potent instrument in the

country’s Westernisation and that its loss to the Swedes in 1581 was a serious

setback which was only rectiﬁed by Peter the Great. But this argument appears

to give too much weight to the importance of a single port – compared to the

disasters of the Livonian war, the oprichnina and the other calamities which

befell Russia in the late sixteenth century Narva’s loss appears a relatively

minor affair. Nevertheless the loss did mean that Russia now lacked its own

Baltic port, becoming dependent on Sweden for its Baltic trade links via Revel’

and Narva. This fact severely restricted the country’s Baltic connections down

to Peter the Great’s time.

It is in this context that the arrival of an English merchant ﬂeet under

Richard Chancellor at the mouth of the Northern Dvina on the White Sea in

1553 assumes signiﬁcance. The English had participated to some degree in the

Baltic trade but their northern venture had been directed more at discovering

a north-east passage to Asia than at ﬁnding a new route to Russia. Nevertheless

withintwoyearsan EnglishMuscovy Company had been established to exploit

this newcommercial opportunity. The English were soon joined by the Dutch,

the French and others. At ﬁrst the tradeinvolved a ratherdifﬁcult transhipment

and transit of goods to Kholmogory, situated some way up the river at a

point which could not be reached by larger vessels. In 1583–4, however, the

government, possibly responding to the loss of Narva, decided to build the

new port of Archangel close to the river’s mouth and accessible to the large

sea-going ships used by the English and Dutch to negotiate the difﬁcult passage

around the North Cape. Within a few years, it seems, Archangel had become

Russia’s most important port.

According to Bushkovitch, the importance

of Archangel lies not so much in the kinds of goods traded there but in the

fact that Russia now had direct contact with West European states, bypassing

the Swedish middleman. Statistics for the early years of trade at Archangel are

almost completely missing, but some for the English Muscovy Company in the

mid-1580s seem to show that agricultural products (ﬂax and hempen cordage,

tallow) were more important exports than the traditional forest products by

this stage.

This may reﬂect some of the ways in which the Russian economy

had changed during the course of the sixteenth century. Archangel, though

remote, was destined to play an important role in Russian commerce down to

50 Kirchner, Commercial Relations,pp.70–1.

51 Bushkovitch, The Merchants of Moscow,p.69.

52 T. S. Willan, The Early History of the Russia Company, 1553–1603 (Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 1956), pp. 182–3; Bushkovitch, The Merchants of Moscow,pp.65–7.

315

denisj.b.shaw

the eighteenth century. Its communications links with central Russia via the

Northern Dvina and Sukhona routes and then via Vologda and Iaroslavl’ to

Moscow, and its link to Siberia via Velikii Ustiug, Viatka and Perm’, brought

the beneﬁts of long-distance trade to a signiﬁcant number of northern centres.

The meagre sources recording Russian trade with countries to the south

allow only the most general picture to be presented.

Down to 1530 or so the

Ottoman Empire seems to have been the main trading partner and Russian

merchants regularly travelled to Kaffa in Crimea either via the Don or another

route. Later, routes through Poland and Moldavia to the Ottomans seem to

have been favoured. But trade with the Ottomans appears to have declined

from 1580 or so whilst that with Persia via the Volga and Astrakhan’ ﬂourished.

Persian silks and other textiles were in demand by the Russians whilst Russian

leather and furs travelled towards Persia. Many of the Volga towns and also

Moscow itself beneﬁted from this trade.

Conclusion

Sixteenth-century Russia and its towns underwent many vicissitudes. From

apparent buoyancy in the late ﬁfteenth and early sixteenth centuries the towns,

and commercial life in general, seem to have entered a more problematic phase

after about 1560. Yet Russiacontinued to expand territoriallyand this expansion

was accompanied by the spread of urbanism and commercial activity into

new regions. Unfortunately the nature of the source material is such as to

make the detailed study of such apparently contradictory processes extremely

difﬁcult. What can be said is that the growing network of towns was of central

importance for the whole process of Russian state-building. Whilst the towns

may not have compared with those of Western Europe in their commercial

dynamism and civic development, their overall signiﬁcance for Russia’s quest

to build a strong and expansive empire is clear.

53 V. E. Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane(Izvestiia gosudarstvennoi Akademii Istorii Material’noi

Kul’tury, 127) (Moscowand Leningrad: OGIZ, 1935); Fekhner, To rgovlia; Bushkovitch, The

Merchants of Moscow,pp.92–101.

316

The non-Christian peoples on the

Muscovite frontiers

michael khodarkovsky

When Ivan III was crowned as grand prince of Moscow in 1462, he became

the ruler of a small but ambitious principality. First among equals, the grand

prince of Moscow was one among several RussianOrthodoxprinces whoruled

over the East Slavic lands. By the time of his death in 1505, Ivan III was the

ruler of a sovereign Muscovite state which now subsumed most of the other

Russian Orthodox principalities, and was an heir to the Byzantine emperors.

The long reign of Ivan III marked two important phases in Muscovite history:

political uniﬁcation of the Russian Orthodox Christian lands under a single

sovereign, and territorial expansion into the neighbouring lands populated by

non-Christians.

The conquest in the north and north-east

The rise of Moscow had always been closely connected with its expansion in

the north and north-east. There, the dense woods and numerous lakes and

rivers of the north offered abundant supplies of precious furs and the primitive

hunters of the region could be easily compelled to pay such tribute. From

the late fourteenth century, Moscow was attempting to establish its control

around the Dvina River in the north and in the Perm’ region in the north-east.

Moscow fought several wars with Novgorod over control of the northern

region and its inhabitants who had already been paying tribute to Novgorod.

Throughout the ﬁfteenth century, Novgorod was forced to cede more and

more of its northern colonies to Moscow until Novgorod’s ﬁnal defeat by

Moscow in 1478 brought the region under Moscow’s sway.

1 Janet Martin, ‘Russian Expansion in the Far North’, in Russian Colonial Expansion to 1917,

ed. Michael Rywkin (London: Mansell Publishing, 1988), pp. 35–40; Andreas Kappeler,The

Russian Empire: A Multiethnic History, trans. Alfred Clayton (Harlow: Longman, 2001), pp.

6–18; M. K. Liubavskii, Istoricheskaia geograﬁia Rossii v sviazi s kolonizatsiei (Moscow: I. I.

Liubimov, 1909; reprinted St Petersburg: Lan’, 2001), pp. 155–62.

317