17
Dmitriy Weber
In the Middle Ages and in later historical periods, the payment of taxes by the population and various kinds of taxation were an important marker of power over the territory from which one was paid. It was also an issue in the borderlands, which in the Middle Ages was more of a contact zone than a border in the modern sense.1 This led to disputes over the control of a particular territory. One notable example is the so-called “Dorpat tribute,” which was related to the events of medieval Livonian history, but which became a political tool during the 16th century. Undoubtedly, the Dorpat tribute was used in the 16th century as a political argument for the claims of Ivan the Terrible to Livonia. Thus, according to the “Book of Royal Degrees,” which contained the official view of the history of Livonia, Russian princes originally established towns in Livonia and the Orthodox diocese, but then the Livonians stopped paying tribute and fought a war with Novgorod and Pskov; for these reasons, the Livonian war began.2
Today there are several points of view about the origin of the Dorpat tribute. This treaty is also referred to as the so-called “honey tribute,”3 the tribute of the “right faith,”4 and the tribute of the “Tolova.”5 Each of these is possible given the complex Pskov-Livonian relations.6
In Russian historiography, the question of the Dorpat tribute was raised more than once. For example, one prominent historian, Sergei Soloviev, believed that the origin of the issue of these payments stemmed from an agreement between Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Novgorod, and Dorpat in 1234.7 The first special study of the question of the origin of the Dorpat tribute is contained in the series of articles by I. Yurjens published in 1913.8 Yurjens remarked that the tribute to the Latgale region of Tolov was connected to the “Dorpat tribute.” The idea of payments was also studied in Soviet times, when this issue was considered in a slightly different context, particularly in the work of Vladimir Pashuto. From his point of view, early feudal relations existed in this region, which manifested themselves in the obligation to pay tribute to the Russian princes. The conflicts between the Estonian and Latvian tribes and Russia in the 11th and 12th centuries were seen from the perspective of a class struggle.9 He argued his viewpoint with a report from the chronicle of Henry of Livonia, written in the 1220s, that the Duke of Polotsk demanded an annual tribute from the Livonians in the early 13th century.10 I. P. Shaskolsky saw the “Yuryev tribute” more as a point of diplomatic struggle,11 noting that the demand for 50 years’ tribute was connected to the issue of Muscovy’s “historical rights” over the Dorpat area and, in a broader sense, over the whole of Livonia.12 According to N. Kazakova, it is important to distinguish the political situation at the turn of the 15th–16th centuries from the situation on the eve of the Livonian War when analysing the importance of the Dorpat tribute.13 Certain aspects of this issue have also been touched upon by Sergei Kashtanov, Vadim Popov Alexander Filyushkin, and others, mainly in connection with the study of the Russo-Livonian treaties.
Among foreign researchers, some studies, such as that by Carl von Stern, have also paid attention to this issue.14 Specifically, he suggests that the “duty” clause in the 1463 Treaty of Pskov and Dorpat was connected to an agreement between the magistrate of Dorpat and Pskov, whereby the magistrate had to send to the Russian churches a certain sum of money collected as a tax from the Russian population of Dorpat, to be paid annually.15 In recent years, the discussion of the Jura tribute has been reflected in detailed studies by Anti Selart.16
Because Anti Selart’s research has dealt with this problem in some detail in analysing the events of the 13th century, I should like to dwell more on the 16th century and the eve of the Livonian War, when the Yuryev tribute began to play a significant role. As already noted, I. P. P. Shaskolsky wrote that, “according to the data in the 16th century Derpt archives,” the obligation to pay the tribute to Pskov “was included in the treaties of 1493, 1531 and 1534.” The latter case is more likely to be about 1535. S. M. Kashtanov, following N. M. Karamzin, compared the date of the treaty in the original with the chronicles’ reports of the arrival of Livonian Master Hermann’s envoys to Moscow in March 1535. The author suggested that the treaty had been drawn up between March 16 and September 1, 1535.17
However, tribute is mentioned in the report of the Pskov Third Chronicle on the conclusion of a treaty in 1463,18 a document whose original text has not been preserved.19 Its signing was the result of hostilities from 1459 to 1463 over a disputed sea area and numerous islands, some of which were settled.20 A regulation resulting from the payment of interest on the use of the disputed place would have been appropriate here. Besides, the Yuryev tribute is mentioned in the treaty of 1509, in its second chapter: “And the tribute of the blessed Lord, Tsar of Russia, and the old loans – even that to the honest bishof [sic] of Yuryev to give according to the old times by a cross kiss.”21
In the agreement between Pskov and the Bishop of Dorpat (1550), this demand reappears: “[B]ut for cross-border business, for Novgorod and Pskov’s guests, for sins, for duties, for duties to pay tribute and for old loans.22 The presence of tribute and “old pledges” next to each other suggests that in this case it was more a formulation used by the scribe. A temporary lull in Russian-Livonian relations ensues, which was caused by Ivan the Terrible’s Kazan War Company. Livonia and Russia extended the truce that had ended in 1551 for another five years. Before the treaty expired, however, the issue of the Tartu tribute was raised again with the signing of the 1554 treaty.
During negotiations, the Livonian ambassadors tried to quash the question of tribute, but Russian diplomats Alexei Adashev and Ivan Viskovaty explained that, if the tsar refused, he would “go himself for tribute.” In this context, it is clear that the tsar intended to start a war. Although the tribute was initially demanded only from the Bishop of Dorpat, the responsibility for its payment was spread to all Livonia, and the prescription for all payments was included in the treaty between Novgorod and Livonia until 1557.23
This treaty had serious repercussions for Livonia, as its noncompliance eventually led to the Livonian war because the tribute was not collected within the stipulated time of three years, as we know. Dissatisfaction within Livonia was also caused by the fact that the ambassadors had exceeded their authority.24 It is hard to determine at present whether this is really an exaggeration of power, or whether, in actuality, the landlord wanted to shift the share of responsibility to the ambassadors. Disagreement on the part of all those involved in the political process in Livonia was also evident at the Diet in Wolmar (March 29, 1558).25
The explanation for the Dorpat tribute problem on the eve of this may have to do with different understandings of the agreement made and its specifics.26 This appears to be the result of an error in translation.27 The treaties were translated by different people – Hans Vogt for the Pskov-Dorpat document and Melchior Grothusen for Novgorod. Both of them translated the Russian expression “to demand its collection, or payment” (syskati dan’) as “to investigate the question of tribute” (denselbigen Zinss undersuchunge thun).28
This undoubtedly had an impact on the meaning of the treaty. According to the German text, the Bishop of Dorpat was supposed to investigate the tribute question raised by the Russians and send the results of his investigation to Moscow in the third year of the truce. If he did not do so, the whole of Livonia must conduct the investigation. The Russian text stated that Livonians must collect and pay the tribute, but if they do not do so, the Russian tsar will collect the tribute himself. The open threat to declare war was transformed by Melchior’s interpreter into a peaceful wish of the tsar to participate in the tax collection efforts through his ambassadors (sine sacke suluest undersocken mith beschickinge syner baden).29
It is difficult to say whether this was a mistake on the part of the translator or a diplomatic trick that was intended to broaden the interpretation of the text. It is more likely, however, that the first variant is correct, especially in view of the Livonian side’s further actions. In the next half-year, the Livonians did their archival research, which resulted in five old agreements: two from Dorpat town archives and three from the bishop’s, none of which mentioned any tribute. Believing that they had thus “found the tribute,” the Bishop of Dorpat and the Master of Livonia sent an embassy to Moscow in early 1557, supplying it with the documents they had discovered.
During these negotiations, the Order’s ambassadors presented exactly this point of view:
[A]nd the whole Livonian land understood the clause written down in the last letter as nothing other than “investigation, enquiry” and not “collection,” as the tsar and the ruler of all Russia interprets it. Therefore, it is a misunderstanding that the bishop of Dorpat must pay tribute or taxes to the tsar of all Russia.30
There were also different views on the nature of legal practices. In the following year, 1555, Kelar Terpigorev arrived in Dorpat to confirm the treaty. The Livonian politicians approved the treaty, but with a “protest.” That is, they brought up the possibility of the treaty being contested in the Holy Roman Empire chamber court, and Moscow’s envoy replied that the tsar did not care about the emperor’s opinion. The description by the Livonian chroniclers, which differ somewhat from one another, describes his behaviour as defiant, thus depicting the point of view of the Livonians. According to Balthasar Rüssow, he put the charter, which confirmed the obligation of the Livonians to pay tribute, into his bosom and explained the meaning of his actions to those present: “This is a little child, who must be nurtured and fed with white bread and sweet milk. When the child grows up, it will probably speak and be of great use to our Grand Duke.” According to Nienstedt, Terpigoriv treated the Livonians who saw him off with vodka “according to the Russian custom,” and when he gave his scribe a diploma (gramota), he said, “Look, take care and look after this calf so that it grows big and fat.” On the one hand, this was disrespectful to the Livonians, while on the other hand, it suggests that the chroniclers were already aware of the consequences when they wrote their texts and gave the messenger a symbolic warning.
As mentioned previously, in 1557, on the eve of the Livonian war, Livonian ambassadors arrived in Moscow. After realising the difficulty of discussing the Dorpat tribute, they asked that the 1554 system of tribute be changed: “the tsar should set aside a grivna per head, and order the tribute to be paid by the lesson.”31
An additional source for the negotiations on Ivan the Terrible’s claims and the payment of the tribute of Yuryev is the Tagebuch of the envoys to Moscow, published in the late 19th century by Carl Schirren.32 In November 1557, amidst worsening relations in Moscow following the conclusion of the so-called War of the Coadjutor with the Polish king,33 ambassadors from the Livonian Master of the Teutonic Order and the Bishop of Dorpat arrived for negotiations.34 During the negotiations, they were asked to increase the amount, which they found impossible.35 Nevertheless, the ambassadors temporarily managed to resolve the dispute. However, on the way back, at the initiative of the Russian party, negotiations were continued, and the ambassadors were offered the option to pledge their jewel-lery and to stay in Moscow until tribute was sent. However, the hesitation of the ambassadors led to Moscow’s refusal to make concessions, and they left without any positive results.36 Although it was possible to avert war, the negotiations could hardly be expected to succeed: according to the instructions given to the ambassadors, they were only to discuss the reduction of the tribute.37 According to the chroniclers’ reports, for their part,38 the tsar forbade Russian merchants to lend the Livonian ambassadors the required sum to pay the tribute. It is possible to assume that Nienstedt was telling the tale he had heard in Dorpat, but this is not present in other sources. It can be assumed that Nienstedt was telling a rumour that was circulating in Dorpat. When it became clear that the ambassadors would not agree to further negotiations or they would refuse to pay the tribute, the tsar declared all previous agreements null and void. At the end of November, he ordered the Livonian envoys to leave his territory as soon as possible and deliver the Russian declaration of war.39
The place of the Dorpat tribute was changing in the political agenda of Russian-Livonian relations in the second half of the 15th and early 16th centuries. Whereas initially the tribute in the treaties between Pskov and Dorpat only applied to the relations between those cities and their bordering lands, on the eve of the Livonian war, this matter applied to all of Livonia, not just to the bishopric of Dorpat.
Another important aspect is the changing place of the Dorpat tribute, depending on the political context. In analysing 15th-century treaties, we can see that this wording was rather a clerical cliché, passed from one treaty to another. Only during the reign of Ivan IV the Terrible did it acquire a broader meaning and become used not only as a claim to territory but also as part of political propaganda, which is reflected in the appearance of the official version in the “Book of Royal Degrees.”
Notes
· 1 Paper was written for a project RSF Nr. 20 – 78 – 10060.
· 2 N. Pokrovsky and G. Lenhoff, eds., Stepennaja kniga carskogo rodoslovija po drevnejshim spiskam (The degree book of royal genealogy according to the most ancient lists), vol. 2 (Мoscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 2008), 380.
· 3 According to the version of the “honey tribute,” the Pskovites took money from residents of the Neuhausen district for the use of honey trees that were in the possession of Pskov; see Georgii Vasilievich Forsten, Baltiyskiy vopros v XVI i XVII stoletiyakh (1544–1648) [The Baltic question in the 16th and 17th centuries (1544–1648)], vol. 1 (St. Petersburg: Balashev, 1893), 86; Leonid Arbusow, Grundriß der Geschichte Liv-, Est- und Kurlands (Riga: Jonck & Poliewsky, 1918), 173–74.
· 4 C. v. Stern, Der Vorwand zum grossen Russenkriege 1558 (Riga: Bruhns, 1936).
· 5 Ivan A. Yur’ens, Vopros o livonskoj dani, Varshavskie universitetskie izvestiya 6 (1913), S. 1–8; Varshavskie universitetskie izvestiya 7 (1913), 9–16; Varshavskie universitetskie izvestiya 8 (1913), 17–32; Varshavskie universitetskie izvestiya 9 (1913), 33–57.
· 6 Anti Selart, “Der ‘Dorpater Zins’ und die Dorpat-Pleskauer Beziehungen im Mittelalter,” in Aus der Geschichte Altlivlands: Festschrift für Heinz von zur Mühlen zum 90. Geburtstag, eds. Bernhardt Jähnig und Klaus Militzer (Münster: LIT, 2004), 36.
· 7 Sergey Soloviev, Sochineniya (Moskow: Golos, 1993), Vol. 2, 144.
· 8 Ivan A. Yur’ens, Vopros o livonskoj dani, Varshavskie universitetskie izvestiya 6 (1913), S. 1–8; Varshavskie universitetskie izvestiya 7 (1913), 9–16; Varshavskie universitetskie izvestiya 8 (1913), 17–32; Varshavskie universitetskie izvestiya 9 (1913), 33–57.
· 9 Vladimir T. Pašuto, Rus’. Pribaltika. Papstvo. Izbrannye stat’i (Moskau: Universitet Dmitriya Pozarskogo, 2011), 154–55.
· 10 Nataliya A. Kazakova, “Russko-livonskie dogovory 1509 g.”, Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie discipliny 4 (1972), 209.
· 11 Igor’ P. Šaskol’skij: Ėstonija i Drevnjaja Rus’, Studia historica in honorem Hans Kruus, hrsg. von Juhan Kahk und Artur Vas-sar, Tallinn 1971, 115–32.
· 12 Igor’ P. Shaskol’skij. “Russko-livonskie peregovory 1554 g. i vopros o livonskoj dani”. Sbornik “Mezhdunarodnye svyazi Rossii do XVII v.” (Мoskow, 1961), 397–98.
· 13 Nataliya A. Kazakova, “Russko-livonskie dogovory 1509 …,” 211.
· 14 Von Stern, Russenkriege 1558, 18; Carl von Stern, “Der Kleinkrieg um die Ostgrenze im 15. Jahrhundert,” Baltische Monatshefte (1937): 69–79; Carl von Stern, “Der Separatvertrag zwischen Pleskau und dem Stift Dorpat vom 25. März 1509,” Mitteilungen aus der baltischen Geschichte 1, no. 3 (1939): 23–43; Carl von Stern, “Dorpat-Pleskauer Kämpfe und Verträge 1448–1463,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 5 (1940): 366–426; Georg von Rauch, “Stadt und Bistum Dorpat zum Ende der Ordenszeit,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 24 (1975): 577–626.
· 15 von Stern, Russenkriege 1558, 6–10.
· 16 Selart, “Dorpat Pleskauer Beziehungen,” 11–38; Anti Selart, “Gab es altrussische Tributherrschaft in Estland (10–12 Jahrhundert)?” Forschungen zur baltischen Geschichte 15 (2015): 11–30.
· 17 Sergej M. Kashtanov, Bor’ba za Uglich i drevnejshie piscovye opisaniya Uglichskogo uezda, Vostochnaya Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekov’e (Moskva: Institut vseobshchej istorii Rossi-jskoj Akademii Nauk, 1978), 215.
· 18 Vasilij A. Gejman Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova (Moskva, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1949), 133. № 78.
· 19 Nataliya A. Kazakova, “Russko-livonskie dogovory 1509 g.”, Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie discipliny 4 (1972), 209.
· 20 Ibid, 210.
· 21 Ibid.
· 22 Rossijskij Gosudarstvennyj Arhiv Drevnih Aktov. Opis’. 2. Delo. 10. List. 2 ob.
· 23 Yurij N. Sherbachev, “Kopengagenskie akty, otnosyashchiesya k russkoj istorii. Pervyj vypusk 1326–1569 gg.,” Chteniya v imperatorskom obshchestve istorii i drevnostej Rossijskih (Moskva: Obshchestvo istorii i drevnostej ros. pri Moskovskom universitete, 1915). Iss. 1, 23–38. № 20.
· 24 Heinrich von Galen, Master of Livonia (1551–1557), for example, complained that the messengers had exceeded their powers. See Nordosteuropa und der Deutsche Orden: Kurzregesten. Bd 1, Bis 1561, ed. Klemens Wieser (Bad Godesberg: Wissenschaftliches Archiv, 1969), 209 (Nr. 1763).
· 25 See Friedrich Bienemann, Briefe und Urkunden zur Geschichte Livlands in den Jahren 1558–1562, Bd. 1: 1557–1558 (Riga: N. Kymmel, 1865), 146 (Nr. 88):
Das der liebe friede ahne erlegunge Sechtzigk tausent thaler, oder auch einer grossern vnd hohernn Summa Derptischen Tribut oder zinss schwerlich von dem Musskowiter wirdt konnen erlangt werden, Doch gleichwol das ein Herr Ertzbischoff Herr Meister vnd andere Stende zu dem Derptischen zinse vnvorbunden.
· 26 Erik Tiberg, “Die politik Moskaus gegenüber Alt-Livland: 1550–1558,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 25 (1976): 593–94.
· 27 Ibid., 577–617. Also see Vadim E. Popov, “Oshibka perevodchika. Kak v Novgorode nachalas’ pervaya vojna Rossii i Evropy,” Rodina. Rossijskij istoricheskij zhurnal 9 (2009), 52–53.
· 28 Monumenta Livoniae Antiquae. Sammlung von Chroniken, Berichten, Unkunden und anderen schriftlichen Denkmalen und Aufsätzen, welche zur Erläuterung der Geschichte Liv-, Ehst- und Kur-lands dienen, Bd. 5: Die letzten Zeiten des Erzbisthums Riga, dargestellt in einer gleichzeitigen Chronik des Bartholomäus Grefenthal und in einer Sammlung der auf jene Zeiten bezügli-chen Urkunden, ed. Friedrich Georg von Bunge (Riga and Leipzig: Eduard Frantzen, 1847), 508–15 (Nr. 184).
· 29 Ibid., 510.
· 30 Bienemann, Briefe und Urkunden zur Geschichte Livlands in den Jahren 1558–1562, Bd. 5: 1561–1562 (Riga: N. Kymmel, 1876), 462–63 (Nr. 910):
[D]ann usner gnediger her sowol die ganzen lande zu Liflant haben den punct, so im jüngsten friedbrief geschrieben “untersuchung” nit anderst dan “nachforschung, erkundigung” und niclct “samlung”, wie es der keyser und herscher aller Reussen deutet und ausleget, verstanden: darumb es ein missverstant, so nun dem keyser aller Reussen der bischof zu Dorpt je zins oder tribut zu geben schuldig sein sali, des aber hoch-genannter bischof mit nichten gestendigk.
· 31 Licevoj letopisnyj svod XVI veka. Russkaya letopisnaya istoriya. 22 (Moskow Firma: Akteon, 2010), 440–41.
· 32 Carl Schirren, Quellen zur Geschichte des untergangs Livlandischer Selbst-andigkeit (Reval: Klüge, 1862), 4–26; B. I, Reval, 1883. 20–33.
· 33 For more about the coadjutor’s war, see Stefann Hartmann, “Neue Quellen zur livländischen Koadjutorfehde 1555/6: Mit einer Darstellung der livländischen Koadjutorfehde bis zur Gefangennahme Erzbischof Wilhelms in Kokenhusen im Spiegel der Regesten Herzoglichen Briefsarchivs und der neu aufgefundenen Quellen,” in Aus der Geschichte Alt-Livlands (2004), Riga: LIT, 2004, 275–306; Alexander Bergengrün, Christoph von Mecklenburg, letzter Koadjutor des Erzbistums Riga: ein Beitrag zur livländischen und mecklenburgischen Geschichte (Reval: Kluge, 1898), 20–94; Thomas Lange, Zwischen Reformation und Untergang Alt-Livlands: Der Rigaer Erzbischof Wilhelm von Brandenburg im Beziehungsgeflecht der livländischen Konföderation und ihrer Nachbarländer, Hamburger Beiträge zur Geschichte des östlichen Europa, 21 (Hamburg: Kovač, 2014), 161–242; Попов В., Филюшкин А. Война коадьюторов» и Позвольские соглашения 1557 г.//Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 1 (2009): 151–84; Dmitry Weber, “Pamphlet as a Means of a Propaganda in Baltic Region in Early Modern Time,” Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 62, no. 2 (2017): 291–98. Maadis Maasing and Dmitry Weber, “Die Gerüchte über den Tod des Erzbischofs Wilhelm von Riga im Sommer 1556,” Acta Historica Tallinnensia 25, no. 1 (2019): 3–18.
· 34 On the material of this embassy, S. Svensson concluded that the positions of Adashev and Viscovaty were different during the negotiations. See Hans H. Kruus “Retsenziya na knigu: Svensson S. Den merkantila backgrunden till Russlande onfall pa denlivlan Lund, 1951,” Voprosi istorii 1 (1958), 181. Later, Alexander Zimin, expressed the view that it was Viskovatyi who contributed to the breakdown of the negotiations. See Alexander A. Zimin, Reformy Ivana Groznogo. Ocherki social’no-ekonomicheskoj i politicheskoj istorii Rossii serediny XVI veka (Мoskow: Socekgiz, 1960), 472.
· 35 “Allein der Zins muste höher gesatzt sein. Warauff die Dorptischen Gesandten vermeldett, das unmöglich denn Zins höher … zuverwilligenn.” See Schirren C. Quellen …, B. II, s. 25.
· 36 Carl Schirren, Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des untergangs Livlandischer Selbstandigkeit, Bd. 1 (Reval: Klüge, 1883), 29–33.
· 37 Ibid., 3.
· 38 Franz Nienshtedt. “Livonskaya letopis’”, Sbornik materialov i statej po istorii Pribaltijskogo kraya. 4 (Riga, 1882), 14. Thomae Hiarn’s Esth-Lyf und lettlandische Geschichte. Monumenta Livoniae Antiquae (Dorpat, 1835), Bd. I. s. 212.
· 39 Alfred Dreyer, Die lübisch-livländischen Beziehungen zur Zeit des Unterganges livländischer Selbständigkeit 1551–1563. Eine Vorgeschichte des nordischen siebenjährigen Krieges (Lübeck: Max Schmidt, 1912), 25.