Novgorod Great was one of medieval Europe's preeminent cities. It stood apart from other cities and towns of medieval Rus' because of its political order and de facto autonomy of its church administration. (1) Instead of local princely dynasty establishing itself, Novgorod had veche with rather raucous and obstreperous political milieu. The city's storied wealth from fur trade meant that most powerful princes of Rus' vied for control of it, but none was able to establish hereditary title or control over city. Instead, nominal prince of Novgorod--beginning in 13th century he was almost always prince of Vladimir--was usually off at Horde or in his home city (usually Tver' or Moscow). In his absence, an aristocracy drawn from most powerful local clans monopolized elective offices of posadnik (mayor) and tysiatskii (thousandman), (2) sharing power with veche, if not controlling it. (3) Ecclesiastically, too, Novgorod differed from other episcopal sees of Rus'. Beginning in 1156, its archbishop was frequently chosen locally, often drawing of lots, and not appointed metropolitans or grand princes as were other bishops of Rus'. (4) From office's elevation to archiepiscopal dignity in 1165, (5) Novgorod's was almost only archbishop in Russian Church until late 4th century, when bishops of Rostov and Suzdal were elevated to archiepiscopal dignity as well. (6) Some scholars have argued that title of archbishop made Novgorod autocephalous from Kiev, (7) but Iaroslav Shchapov rejects this contention: The title was well known in Christian Church, being granted to those episcopal sees which virtue of historical conditions or some special relationship with Patriarchate were not subordinate to geographically closest metropolitan and came directly under hand of patriarch. The enumeration of 12th-century archbishoprics lists 40 to 50 sees that possessed this advantage. But neither these nor later enumerations listed Novgorod as an archbishopric because only Rus' archbishopric was merely titular, an honorary archbishopric, whose relationship with superior centers did not relieve it of subordination to Kiev. (8) Indeed, Novgorodian archbishops' presence in synodal documents (appearing immediately after metropolitan), their consecration metropolitan, and other evidence clearly indicate their continued subordination to metropolitans in Kiev, Vladimir, or Moscow. (9) In addition to their honored place within Russian Church, archbishops stood among secular rulers of Novgorod Great and wielded civil or secular powers not normally seen among Orthodox episcopate. Indeed, their powers domestically, their often antagonistic relationship with Moscow's grand princes and metropolitans, and their role in Novgorod's foreign relations have led number of scholars to argue that they were real power in Novgorod. A number of general studies of Russian history have seized on archbishops' economic, social, cultural, and political powers to argue that archbishops were in some ways like prince-bishops of West. Thus, in his lectures on Russian history, Vasilii Kliuchevskii argued that archbishop was the permanent president [postoiannyi predsedatel'] of Sovet gospod, (10) or Council of Lords, which Henrik Birnbaum defined as a delegated and executive organ of veche. (11) The council acted as an executive committee (or Politburo if you will) of veche and carried out day-to-day duties of government when veche was not convened, and it usually met in archbishop's chambers and later Palace of Facets. (12) Indeed, Kliuchevskii contended that archbishop, by presiding over Council of Lords ... came to occupy first place in secular hierarchy of city. …