Information on the thesis

During the 16th and the first half of the 17th centuries, cities are massively
being established in the Volhynia; the vast majority of them gained the Magdeburg
Charter (some obtained it immediately, while others later). If in Princely Era city
inhabitants were not lodged with any specific rights and appeared to be mere
dwellers, now they became a city community with Magdeburg Charter with clearly
outlined rights and responsibilities.
Historians have debated on the term “city” for ages. The problem is that they
majorly approached this issue bearing economic standards in mind and repeatedly
pondered what the difference between a small city and a big village is in the fact that
the last could exceed an urban settlement by size and population number. Instead, in
that time state the settlement was regarded as urban in case when it gained the city
status with a corresponding privilege. Therefore, a city should be primarily viewed
from the legal viewpoint, however, it did not deny the importance of economics role
in its life. Having analyzed works of predecessors, the author arrived at the
conclusion that the population is the best criteria of urban settlement classification.
Based on this criteria and taking into account administrative weight of some cities,
they can be divided into 4 groups: 1) the main cities (Lutsk, Kremenets, Volodymyr,
as county administrative centers, where magistrate and terrestrial judicial and
administrative institutions acted, sejmiks took place, administrative-religious centers
were situated, biggest fairs were held, and education institutions were centered; 2)
bigger cities (more than 500 buildings, 15 cities); 3) middle cities (from 200 to 500
buildings, 42 cities); 4) small towns (up to 200 buildings, 55 towns). Since the
publishing of author’s monograph (in 2003) about urbanization process on Volhynia
during the 16th and the first half of 17th centuries, the author managed to find
mentioning about the city status of additional 19 settlements. In total during the
middle of 17 th century, we document 209 city-founding initiatives.
Taking into account the fact that 89% of cities were private, the influence of
their owners on the development was inevitable. They invested considerable sums of
money in this process and smaller part of these costs was required for obtaining
location permission from the King, while bigger part was invested in settlement
establishment and its development. City founding was economically advantageous
for Szlachta, while prestige, being significant in Szlachta society, played important
role in this process.
Starostas, usually princes, had a huge influence on the development of royal
cities. Starostas’ main responsibility was to take care of castle and city defensive
capacity and ensure order on the territories entrusted to them. Starostas were also
involved in police functions performance. There are known cases when Starostwos
(administrative units) were leased, which negatively affected citizens’ conditions.
Interference of Starostas in city affairs was a common occurrence and can be partly
explained as caring about the city in general, and not only about the community
having the Magdeburg Charter.
Vogt institution was central in the system of municipal self-governing. In
accordance with the Magdeburg Charter, Vogt had to be elected by citizens; however,
the actual practice was different, as in royal cities he was appointed by the King,
while in private cities it was done the owner. Quite often the first settler (Osadchyi)
became the Vogt. In terms of private cities, Vogt was majorly appointed by the owner
to his will, and he could be replaced at any time, however, in terms of royal cities
Vogts were mostly hereditary. Judicature was the main function of Vogt. Almost all
Vogts in the royal cities were Szlachta, and the majority of private cities’ Vogts also
belonged to Szlachta.
Vogts predominantly transferred their duties on their Leitvogts, especially
judicial ones. Leitvogts were appointed by Vogts and they typically lost their
governing together with the change of the Vogt. Leitvogts’ governing duration was
significantly different, from several days to weeks or even few years. There are
known cases of combining deputy governments with others, in particular with
municipal commissioner (Raitsia), Starosta deputy and Voznyi (judicial officer).
Citizens prevailed among Lawnyks, ethnically Ukrainians; the only exception in the
first half of the 17 th century was Kremenets, were Poles dominated. Lawnyks were
involved in evaluation and describing of debtor’s belongings, they were
commissioned to clarify on-sire the essence of accusations charged against citizens,
they witnessed during the formation of building/land plots purchase/sale contracts
and testaments, their presence was necessary during the issuing of city books
abstracts, and sometimes they were forced to carry out police functions. Regardless
of the fact that Lawnyks’ activities stipulated certain education level, some of them
were illiterate; there are also known cases of improper authority fulfillment.
Raitsias were the backbone of the city self-government. Their elections
appeared at different times in different cities. Holding of Raitsia’s government was
considered as honorable, thus, citizens desired to hold a place in it. Usually cities had
4 Raitsias, but sometimes sources document 5 or 6. The duration of governing
fluctuated between one and several years, and in some cases, it lasted 10 and more
years, but interrupted by breaks. Szlachtas rarely became Raitsias, as the last were
predominantly local Ukrainians. According to the tradition, Raitsias are the defenders
of city rights and citizens’ economic interests when confronting the Jurydykas
settlers. The facts of their city interests lobbying at Seims are also well-known.
Raitsias acted as the main allocators of city finances and had a duty of reporting on
these topics before Starosta and community. They were responsible for controlling
the order and setting the guards. They also verified city documents.
The normal development of the city was provisioned by the whole phalanx of
hired servicemen, including scriber, shafar, instigator, announcer, executioner, city
guard, city and Vogt servants. Approximately a half of scribers can be identified as
Szlachta. Lutsk and Volodymyr scribers were predominantly Ukrainians, while the
percentage of Poles was much higher for other cities. Scriber’s work was quite well-
paid. In Lutsk, Volodymyr and Kremenets Raitsia and Vogt scribers are mentioned
(sometimes a scriber could simultaneously be both) while smaller cities merely had a
municipal scriber.
Shafars dealt with city financed in Lutsk, while instigator acted as citizen
interests’ guardian and public prosecutor. Apart from county centers, municipal
servants are also mentioned for a number of other cities. They appear under different
names, i.e. municipal servants, criers, pozowchyks, “boys”, and announcers. Sources
document city guards, both day and night, while Jewish watchmen separately
operated in Volodymyr. Executors existed in a number of cities, and they were turned
to not only by municipal authorities, but also by municipal courts. Cannon-founders,
locksmiths, saber-founders, shepherds, and trumpeters are known as servicemen of
the lower level municipal service.
Pospilstwo (commons) took part in city self-governing. Sometimes they
showed their power during the city authorities’ elections, foiling Vogts’ plans to take
dependent from them people on the governmental board. This is the most
characteristic for powiat cities. Citizens attempted to control Raitsia’s activities,
demanding reports on disbursed costs and tried to influence the taxes formation. In
general, Volhynia city pospilstwo did not manage to buy back Vogt lands, did not
introduce regulatory authorities (the right granted to Kremenets allowing to create
collegium consisting of 24 men remained on paper).
Coexistence in the city was not trouble-free, as sometimes citizens became
involved in debates, oppositions, fights, and this required them to initiate
proceedings. Vogts and Leitvogts chaired municipal courts, which meant that trial
could not take part without the present of at least one of them. However, there were
some situations, when Lawnyk chaired the trial on behalf of Leitvogt. Trials were
typically mixed, involving Raitsia and Lawnyk. In case when a city had a Hall, trials
were conducted there; however, they also appeared outside the Hall, i.e. in
Vogt’s/Leitvogt’s houses or some citizen’s building. Trial summons were either
written or oral, and they indicated the day and sometimes even the hour of the trial,
which typically took place in the morning and lasted till noon, in case of any delays,
it still had to be ended before the nightfall.
City community was formed slowly and required incessant inflow of new
citizens. Replenishment of citizens occurred in three ways: through natural
reproduction, migration, and escaping to cities. Taking into account the absence of
conducted census in the analyzed period, it is complicated to say anything about the
natural reproduction of city population. Migration to cities of free people existed, but
peasants’ escapes to municipal settlements were clearly predominant. Peasants did it
both on their own and with the help of city owners, and sometimes they were
resettled by prior arrangement. Large-scale escapes forced Szlachta to enter
agreements about mutual return of escapees.
Legal status of citizens was highly critical for them; under legal status one
should understand a set of rights and responsibilities. Rights presupposed the
possibility of electing and being elected to city authorities, of free engagement in any
economic activity, and the opportunity to have real estate in the city. Citizen
responsibility stood for tax payment and duties performing. In terms of private cites,
owners, as a rule, granted privileges, which enlisted citizen rights and responsibilities
in more details, when compared to royal privileges. Granting of municipal right is
documentally confirmed for Lutsk. It is likely to say that the same is applicable for
Volodymyr and Kremenets. Traditional for the Volhynia royal cities was the
extending of the notion “citizen” not only on the citizens of Hall jurisdiction, but
actually on all city settlers, including Jews, which was absent in the Crown cities. In
private cities all city settlers were considered as citizens, as all of them were owner’s
subjects.
Social structure of Volhynia citizenship looked quite complicated. Using
classic scheme, citizens can be divided into patriciate, pospilstwo (burghers) and
plebs. Richer merchants, Raitsias, Lawnyks, and scribers should be included in
patriciate in big cities. In terms of small cities, patriciate did not exist as such; we can
only talk about relative “elite” of such cities. Pospilstwo included smaller merchants,
shop foremen, craftsmen, richer resellers, representatives of liberal professions and
owners of the real estate. Plebs in cities include out-of-shop craftsmen, fellow
crafts/apprentices, house servants, mercenary, “luzni” (idlers). With all the
convenience of such triad, it should be highlighted that it is a theoretical creation. In
terms of professional structure of citizens, we managed to count at least 135
professions. Craft guilds are mentioned in at least 15 cities, and it was the most
significantly developed in Lutsk, Volodymyr, and Kremenets.
Representative of different ethnic groups lived in cities. It is natural that the
number of Ukrainians was the biggest, followed by Jews and Poles. Correlation of the
last two groups was different for different cities and changed with the pace of time.
Armenians, Belarusians, Tatars, Lithuanians, Gypsies, Germans and Russians also
lived in cities. Ethnicity determination is hindered by the lack of direct denotement.
At the very best, such ethnic definitions as lyakh (Pole), moskal (Russian), tsyhan
(Gypsy), and lytvyn (Lithuanian) are mentioned. The only exceptions were Jews,
QHDUZKRPWKHWHUP³Īyd” was used, as their Jewishness was clearly observed in their
names. It is important to bear in miQG WKDW FRQWHPSRUDU\ HWKQRQ\P ³Īyd” did not
differentiate actual Jews and Karaites, who appeared to be a separate nation.
Szlachta played an important role in the life of royal cities, as when they
penetrated into cities, they merged into municipal structures, occupying governments
of Vogts, Leitvogts, Raitsias, Lawnyks, and scribers. Citizens fought against
Szlachta-created Jurydykas.
Citizens, who made a third of Volhynia population, were the most active part
of the society. It was actively engaging into trade and craft activities, and business
operations on a broader scale, accumulating significant capital and investing it into
new types of activities, while cities transformed into nodal economic points of this
land. Granted with Magdeburg Charter, citizens more or less but with positive
tendencies attempted to organize life on this basis, as it was a desired reference point
for peasantry. To be a citizen was regarded as not only beneficial but also prestigious.
City identity becomes a common denominator of the city population. City education
and religious institutions promoted the creation of proto-intellectuals and had a
crucial significance for modernization processes of not only this region, but the whole
Ukraine in general.
Keywords: Volyn, city, burghership, self-government, justice, social and ethnic
structure of urban population, nobility.