This culture subsequently entered, as a defining and most important part, into the entire culture of Ancient Rus': Yaroslav’s code formed the basis for all subsequent Russian chronicles, determining its content and style; Hilarion's "Word" gained wide popularity and was reflected not only in many works of ancient Russian writing, but also in Slavic writing. Hilarion's "Word" and, in particular, the last two, most patriotic parts of it were reflected in the praise of Vladimir in the Prologue (XII-XIII centuries), in the Ipatiev Chronicle (praise to Vladimir Vasilkovich and Mstislav Vasilkovich), in the life of Leonty of Rostov (XIV-XV c.), in the works of Epiphanius the Wise (in the life of Stephen of Perm) and others. Hilarion’s “Word” is even consonant with folk art. That part of the Lay, where Hilarion addressed Vladimir with a call to rise from the grave and look at the people he left behind, at his heirs, at the prosperity of his business, is close to the favorite pattern of people's lamentations about tsars (about Ivan the Terrible, about Peter). Finally, beyond Russian borders, Hilarion’s “Word” was reflected in the works of the Hilandar Serbian monk Domentian (13th century) - in his two lives: Simeon and Savva.93 Hilarion’s prayer, which ended with the “Word,” was repeated at all the most critical moments of ancient Russian life. Its lines, dedicated to a plea for the preservation of the independence of the Russian land, were pronounced during the most formidable times of enemy invasions.
The architecture of the era of Yaroslav's reign, just like bookishness, was directed towards the future of the Russian land. The grandiose cathedrals of Yaroslav in Kyiv, Novgorod and Chernigov were conceived as palladiums of these cities. Sophia of Kyiv competed with Sophia of Constantinople. The idea of this Sophia was also imbued with the idea of equality of Rus' to Byzantium, like the entire policy of the era of Yaroslav, based on the desire to create their own centers of book learning, art, and churchliness, independent of the Empire. It is no coincidence, I think, that Sofia in Kyiv, the Church of the Savior in Chernigov, Sofia in Novgorod remained the largest and most luxurious church buildings in these cities throughout Russian history until the 19th century. Sophia of Novgorod has never been surpassed in Novgorod, either in its size, or in the splendor of its interior decoration, or in the solemn and monumental forms of its architecture.
It is significant that the entire culture of the Yaroslav era, all aspects of cultural activity in the first years of the 11th century. pass under the sign of close interpenetration of architecture, painting, politics, and bookishness.
7
Under Yaroslav, the international authority of the Kyiv state grew highly. Rus' appears on the pages of Western European historical documents not as a backward, barbaric country, but as an equal state. This is also evidenced by the extensive political connections of Kievan Rus with all European states. Prince Yaroslav the Wise himself was connected with all the courts of Europe. He was married to Ingigerda, daughter of the Swedish king Olaf. His eldest daughter was married to the French king Henry I and was at one time the regent of France under her young son Philip I. Together with her minor son, she signed French state documents. The middle daughter Anastasia was "married to the Hungarian king Andrew I. Yaroslav's son Vsevolod was married to the Greek princess Anna; he was highly educated and spoke five foreign languages. The son Izyaslav was married to the sister of the Polish king Casimir. The famous Viking persistently sought the hand of Yaroslav's daughter Elizabeth Harald the Strict, later the Norwegian king, whose exploits resounded throughout Europe.
The appearance of Kyiv, its remarkable art, the development of crafts, and extensive world trade corresponded to this. Yaroslav to the international authority of the Kyiv state, its extensive connections with the countries of the East and West.
III
THE IDEA OF THE UNITY OF Rus' DURING THE REIGN OF VLADIMIR MONOMACH
One of the most significant phenomena of Russian medieval culture is chronicle writing. The politically sensitive chronicle constantly served as a guide in the political life of cities, principalities, and regions. The most important ideological currents of Rus' were crossed in the chronicle; the most important documents (treaties, wills of princes, messages) and the best historical literary works were included in it.
Having emerged in the second quarter of the 11th century, under Yaroslav the Wise, chronicle writing immediately reached high levels of development. The most ancient Kiev arch of Yaroslav the Wise and the subsequent Kiev-Pecherokye arches of 1073 and 1093. were, as far as it is possible to judge them from the fragments preserved in later chronicles, works of national scope and enormous ideological power.
1
Yaroslav's attempt to create a strong stronghold of Russian enlightenment around Sophia of Kyiv failed. Following the Russian Metropolitan Hilarion, Constantinople again sends a Greek metropolitan. The center of Russian education has been moving since the second half of the 11th century. to the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, where the first Russian bishops and priests received their education and where books and literature found a reliable refuge for the time being.
The first revision of the Ancient Kievan Codex was carried out around 1073 by the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Nikon, whose book activity was later particularly noted in the life of Theodosius. Nikon was at one time (at the end of the 1060s) exiled to Tmutarakan. Hence, in the code there are a number of Tmutarakan news and legends: about the duel of the Circassian Kasog Rededi with Mstislav (this episode is mentioned in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”), about the Khozar tribute, etc. The use of folklore of the Black Sea region led to the reworking of the story of the Most Ancient Code about the baptism of Rus'. Nikon introduced into the code the so-called “Korsun Legend”, which told about the baptism of Vladimir not in Kyiv, but in Korsun (Chersonese), in the Crimea, as a result of the victory he won over the Greeks.94
The mood of triumph over the establishment of a new order and Christianity, which covered the entire Ancient Code, is replaced by Nikon in the new political circumstances of the second half of the 11th century, by anxiety for the fate of the homeland, torn apart by feudal strife.
Nikon carefully expressed his political aspirations by placing in the vault the will of Yaroslav the Wise (a work possibly not written by Yaroslav). In it, Yaroslav asks his sons to be “in love with each other” and not to destroy “the land of their fathers and grandfathers, who labored through their great efforts.”95
Nikon's code was subjected to a thorough revision in 1093. In this code, the central part of the chronicle was finally formed in the form in which it was later included in the Tale of Bygone Years. This allowed chronicle researchers to call the code of 1093 “Initial.”
The initial vault is imbued with the same mood of anxiety for the fate of the homeland as Nikon’s vault that preceded it. The civil strife between the princes had by this time assumed such a character that the chronicler had to not only call for an end to the strife, but also justify the very unity of the princely family. For this purpose, a legend about the calling of three Varangian brothers was included in the code. This legend was apparently borrowed from the Novgorod chronicle, where legends about inviting mercenary squads of the Varangians were still alive. These legends turned out to be transformed under the influence of epic motifs, very widespread in both the West and the East, about three brothers - the founders of cities, and under the influence of current medieval legends about the origin of the ruling dynasty from foreign states.
A remarkable feature of the Pechersk Initial Code of 1095 was the use of the Novgorod Chronicle for its compilation. The Kiev chronicle thus became all-Russian, not only in idea, but also in execution.
In the context of the decline of the Kyiv state, the Initial Code embarked on the path of idealizing old times and old princes, who were, as it were, opposed and set as an example for the new. The chronicler values military valor and tirelessness in campaigns most of all in the first Russian princes. Based on old squad songs, the chronicler inserted into his collection a well-known characteristic of Svyatoslav - he described his harsh lifestyle, enterprise, mobility and knightly straightforwardness with which he warned Fr. enemies, introduced his energetic appeals to the squad before battles, etc.
Encouraging the princes to take an active policy against the steppe, the chronicler, in words full of tragedy and sorrow, tells of the predatory raids of the Polovtsians who ravaged the Russian land, taking the population of the villages into slavery in droves! and cities. Sad, with haggard faces, with their legs in shackles, driven by an “unknown country,”96 tormented by thirst and hunger, the captives said with tears to each other: “I have lost this city,” “I have sown all” (villages).
The chronicler of the Initial Code belonged to those “sensible men” who saw the misfortune of the Russian land in the strife of the princes, who were making their way to the Kyiv table with their heads, and more than once turned to the princes with an appeal: “why are you in strife among yourself, and the abominations [pagans - steppe peoples] to destroy the Russian Land."97
1. Historical background of “Words...”.
2. The contrast between personal glory and the good of one’s native land. Images of Igor and Svyatoslav.
3. High patriotism of the “Word...”. O Russian land! You're already over the hill!
“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The events discussed in the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” date back to the end of the 12th century. However, two “ulcers” - princely civil strife and Polovtsian raids, which especially cruelly tormented long-suffering Rus', “opened up” much earlier. As a matter of fact, the enormous damage that the Polovtsians inflicted on the Russian lands was largely predetermined by the fragmentation, fragmentation of the principalities, and the enmity of the Russian princes among themselves. This is very clearly shown in the “Word...”. “The struggle between the princes and the filthy has subsided, for brother said to brother: “This is mine, and that is mine.” And the princes began to say about the small “this is great” and create troubles for themselves, and the filthy from all sides came with victories to the Russian land.” Who were the Polovtsians? Steppe dwellers, nomads, they came and went like streams of dry hot wind, leaving behind devastated cities and villages. There is a version that the image of the Serpent Gorynych in Russian fairy tales, burning everything in its path and taking people captive, is a peculiar variation of the historical memory of the raids of the steppe peoples.
Obviously, it was possible to cope with this test only by uniting the forces of all Russian principalities. An attempt to create such a military alliance was made by the Prince of Kiev Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich. Although he failed to unite all the princes, he achieved certain successes: together with those who responded to his call, he defeated the Cumans in 1183. Another campaign was planned, which was supposed to consolidate the successes of Russian weapons.
Among Svyatoslav's allies was Igor, Prince of Novgorod-Seversky. It was his untimely initiative that destroyed the further plans of the Russians. Igor led his own squad and opposed the Polovtsians. However, he was defeated and captured. But Igor’s defeat had sad consequences not only for him and his supporters. Many Russian lands were again subjected to a brutal attack by the Polovtsians, who had risen after the victory over the Novgorod-Seversky prince. What made Igor come out against the Polovtsians with a small squad? It would seem that there was no objective need for this - the enemy did not stand at the gates of his fortress, moreover, the prince had certain obligations to participate in the general campaign. And the solution is simple. It lies in the understanding of personal glory and valor as the highest value. But you said: “Let us be courageous ourselves: we will steal the former glory ourselves, and divide the present one among ourselves,” the wise Svyatoslav laments, having learned about the captivity of Igor, his relatives and friends who participated with him in the ill-fated campaign. The attitude towards the personal glory of a warrior as the greatest value in the early Middle Ages was characteristic not only of Rus', but also of other peoples of Europe. However, the author of “The Lay...”, despite the glorification of the valor of Prince Igor and his army, points out that for a ruler the highest value should be the good of his country. The glory of a simple warrior lies in his exploits on the battlefield, and the honor and glory of a prince lies primarily in the well-being of his subjects. Thus, the courage and valor of the prince
The wife should serve for the benefit of his people, and not appear unscrupulously, only in order to provide a theme for the songs of storytellers.
Surprisingly, Igor’s unreasonable act was actually glorified by the unknown author (or authors) of “The Lay...”. It is quite possible that the work was created by order of the prince himself or someone close to him. In any case, praise for Igor is present in the text of “Words...”. Of course, in a certain sense, Prince Igor deserves respect for his courage and determination. However, he lacks wisdom, this blessed quality of the few truly great rulers, the ideal of which for the author of the “Word...” was embodied in the image of the Prince of Kyiv Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich. It would hardly be fair to consider Svyatoslav and his supporters to be insufficiently brave warriors. However, the difference between Svyatoslav and Igor is that the Kiev prince objectively assessed his own strength and came to the conclusion that without the help of other princes, the campaign against the Polovtsians would not bring the desired result.
It is interesting to note how these two characters in “The Lay...” relate to phenomena that they regard as bad omens. Igor and his soldiers witnessed a solar eclipse. The shadow that covered the entire army probably struck the imagination of the ancient Russians - the people of the Middle Ages treated such phenomena with trepidation. In fact, the eclipse was a warning to the overly risky prince - after all, captivity or death awaited his warriors ahead. But how did Igor behave? Although he considered the eclipse a sign from above, he did not stop. Passion gripped the prince's mind, and the desire to experience the great Don overshadowed the omen. “I want,” he said, “to break a spear on the border of the Polovtsian field, with you, Russians, I want to either lay down my head, or drink from the Don with my helmet.”
As for Svyatoslav, he saw a prophetic dream foreshadowing trouble for the Russian land. Waking up, the Prince of Kiev learns about Igor’s campaign and his captivity. What did Svyatoslav do? He tries to gather other Russian princes as soon as possible in order to go to the aid of Igor and protect Rus' from a new invasion of the steppes. So, Igor acts contrary to everything, contrary to the agreement, expediency and even divine omen. Svyatoslav’s task, as the wiser one, is to minimize the damage from Igor’s untimely daring. The author of “The Lay...”, despite the fact that he praises Igor’s valor, sincerely worries about his captivity, rejoices at his release from captivity, and constantly laments: “But Igor’s brave regiment cannot be resurrected!” This short phrase conceals not only sadness, but also condemnation of the rash act of the Novgorod-Seversky prince. After all, the thirst for glory, which led Igor into captivity, turned into disaster not only for him personally, but also for the entire Russian land. Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, who pacified the Polovtsians, deserves glory to an immeasurably greater extent than Igor. The author of the “Word...” mentions that many other nations glorify the wisdom of Svyatoslav, reproaching Igor: “... the Germans and Venetians, here the Greeks and Moravians sing the glory of Svyatoslav, reproach Prince Igor, who sank wealth to the bottom of the Kayala river Polovtsian - he scattered Russian gold.” However, what is the strength and attractiveness of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, besides the high artistry of the narrative? Is this really such a significant event - the campaign of the Novgorod-Seversky prince, and an unsuccessful campaign at that? But it should be borne in mind that in the plot of “The Lay...”, in the references to princely civil strife scattered throughout its text, in the image of the Prince of Kyiv Svyatoslav outlined in a few strokes
hidden deep meaning. The author of the Work clearly shows what troubles the fragmentation and enmity of the princes threaten the country with. Only in unity, in the desire to jointly preserve and defend their native land, the author of “The Lay...”, like Prince Svyatoslav, sees the future of Rus'.
Introduction
ChapterI. Social and political development of Kievan Rus inIX- beginningXIIcenturies
1. Formation of the Old Russian state
2. Reform activities of the Rurikovichs, aimed at strengthening personal power and strengthening a unified state
3. Foreign policy of the Kyiv princes
4. The emergence of a new social class - the clergy
ChapterII. Political collapse of Rus'.
1. Fragmentation in Rus'. The nature of political power during the period of fragmentation
2. System of management of Russian lands during the period of the Mongol-Tatar yoke.
Conclusion
Literature
Application
Introduction
Each era needs to understand the history of the Fatherland in close connection with world history. And this happens because the world itself is changing, we ourselves are changing generation after generation, and the change in ideological stereotypes is ultimately only a reflection of the historical development of the entire world civilization, as well as our Fatherland.
The history of Kievan Rus is undoubtedly a large segment of world history. Why is this era dear to us? How is it related to modernity? Today you need to regain interest in your past. There are many mysteries: the relationship between the Russian people and the vast Russian spaces; between a people that many called “stateless” and the powerful state they created. In order to speak with reason about the significance of the history of the Fatherland, it is necessary to imagine the most important stages of the formation and development of the Russian state since ancient times.
The methodological basis of this work is analysis, comparison, synthesis, generalization.
The theoretical analysis is based on material from historians whose contribution to the study of the deep antiquity of our country is significant: N.M. Karamzina, V.O. Klyuchevsky, N.I. Kostomarov, B.A. Rybakova, A.N. Sakharova, E.M. Zhukova, B.D. Grekov and others. On the pages of literature devoted to the origin of the Eastern Slavs, the organic unity of the Slavs with the surrounding foreign-language world is emphasized. The question has definitely been raised about the two main political centers that consolidated the Eastern Slavs: Northern (Novgorod) and Southern (Kyiv), about the struggle between North and South, the victory of the North, which served as a prerequisite for the formation of a single Old Russian state. Analysis by historians allows us to compare the activities of Russian princes in the formation and strengthening of a single state and conclude that Russian Truth protected the interests of the prince and his entourage. The authors show constant unrest and civil strife in Rus' as natural phenomena explained by the regional, ethnic and, of course, social characteristics of the country. In the system of ancient Russian society, historians assign a certain place to religion.
Object of study:
the activities of the Kyiv princes to strengthen the internal and international position of the Old Russian state.
Subject of research:
the main directions of the policy of the princes of the Old Russian state, which had a fateful significance for Russian civilization.
Purpose of the study:
determine the role of the Rurikovichs in the formation of the unity of Kievan Rus and the reorganization of the management of Russian lands.
Research objectives:
· compare the activities of Russian princes to strengthen the state in the system of European and eastern states;
· justify that the baptism of Rus' was an act of political wisdom on the part of St. Vladimir;
· compare the order of princely ownership of Russian land before and after Yaroslav;
· show the personal merits of the princes in the formation of the Kyiv state;
· analyze the effect of princely relations on public mood and consciousness.
Hypothesis: strong princely power is a powerful and authoritative state.
The list of presented literature makes it possible to objectively study, compare and summarize the role of princely power in the formation of the Kyiv state.
Analysis of yesterday makes it possible to avoid mistakes today. This is all the more necessary today, for we live in a dynamic time, rich in ideals that fight with each other and are sometimes deeply hostile. In determining the tasks and directions of his activities, everyone must be to a certain extent a historian in order to become a consciously acting citizen.
ChapterI. Social and political development of Kievan Rus in
IX- beginningXIIcenturies
1. Formation of the Old Russian state.
The emergence of Kievan Rus fits into the process of state formation that took place in the 9th – 10th centuries. over a large area of Northern, Central and Eastern Europe.
According to the Tale of Bygone Years, the Russian princely dynasty originates in Novgorod. In 859, the northern Slavic tribes, who were then paying tribute to the Varangians or Normans (according to most historians, immigrants from Scandinivia), drove them overseas. However, after these events, internecine struggle began in Novgorod. “They drove the Varangians overseas, and did not give them tribute, and began to control themselves, and there was no truth, and generation after generation rose up, and they had strife, and began to fight with each other. And they said to themselves: “Let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge us by right.” And they went overseas to the Varangians, to Rus'. And they said: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us." ".
In 862, Prince Rurik and his two brothers were called to Rus', marking the beginning of the Russian princely dynasty. The legend about the calling of the Varangian princes served as the basis for the creation of the so-called Norman theory of the emergence of the ancient Russian state. Its authors were German scientists G. Bayer, G. Miller and A. Schlozer. They emphasized the complete lack of prerequisites for the formation of a state among the Eastern Slavs. The scientific inconsistency of the Norman theory, the supporter of which was the prominent historian S.F. Platonov, is obvious, since the determining factor in the process of state formation is the presence of internal prerequisites, and not the actions of individual, even outstanding, individuals. Most historians prove that the Slavs and Scandinavians were in the 8th – 9th centuries. approximately at the same level of social development. The invitation of the Varangians to reign indicates that the form of power was already known. The Varangians, judging by the Chronicle of Bygone Years, settled in already existing cities, which can be considered as an indicator of the high development of East Slavic society. If the Varangian legend is not fiction (as most historians believe), the story about the calling of the Varangians testifies only to the Norman origin of the princely dynasty.
The prerequisites for the formation of a state among the Eastern Slavs developed over several centuries from the 6th to the 8th centuries:
1. Swidden farming was replaced by arable farming;
2. Tools of labor were improved (iron openers, plows);
3. The clan community gave way to the territorial “neighborhood”.
The community members were no longer united by kinship, but by a common territory and economic life.
The first historical information about Rus', about the people “Rus” or “ros”, as B.A. Rybakov wrote, dates back to the 6th century. In the Middle Dnieper region, where the Ros River flows into the Dnieper, the Rus tribe was located. The Russian tribe led the union of the Dnieper Slavic tribes, called the Polans. The Tale of Bygone Years says: “The Khazars attacked the Polans... and the Khazars said: “Pay us tribute.” The clearing consulted and was given a sword. And the Khazar elders said: “This tribute is not good. We got it with sabers, sharpened on one side, but these weapons are double-edged, they (Russians) will then take tribute from us!”
In the 9th century, a number of tribal unions came under the rule of the Russians: Dregovichi, Drevlyans, Northerners, Polochans, Novgorod Slovenians.
The date of formation of the Old Russian state is considered to be 882, when the prince launched a campaign against Kyiv. By killing the princes, he united the northern and southern lands into a single state for the first time. Since the capital was moved to Kyiv, this state is often called Kievan Rus. Kyiv in its relations was oriented towards Byzantium, which means that Oleg made a civilized choice in the history of Rus'. In the history of Kievan Rus there are three periods: the period of formation; strengthening and flourishing; decomposition. The first period, the chronological framework of which is determined by the 9th end of the 10th century, is associated with the activities of the Kyiv princes - Oleg, Igor, Olga, Svyatoslav. At this time, the process of unification of the East Slavic lands was almost completed. The strengthening and flourishing of Kievan Rus (late 10th - first half of the 11th centuries) is associated with the reign of Vladimir the Holy and Yaroslav the Wise. During this period, the unification of the East Slavic lands within a single state was completed. A.N. Sakharov argues that the reign of Princess Olga represents an important milestone in the transition from the pre-state period to the state period; she can be considered the true organizer of the Old Russian state. (Appendix 2).
Thus, assessing from a scientific point of view the role of the Varangian element in the creation of Kievan Rus, one should reduce this role to the “gathering” of East Slavic lands, already prepared by internal development for statehood and unification. The main achievements of the first princes were the unification of disparate territories under a single authority. To do this, the princes had to often travel around these lands, reminding them of themselves and collecting tribute. Subsequently, all that remained from the Varangians was the name of the dynasty of Kyiv princes - the Rurikovichs, and the origin of individual noble families. Ethnocultural processes in the Eastern Slavs did not experience any Varangian influence. The Khazar Kaganate also failed to establish influence. According to Grekov, back in the first half of the 9th century, before the Rurikovichs, the Kyiv princes adopted the Turkic title “Khakan”. The first Rurikovichs were also called Khakans (khagans), which testified to their position and prestige in Eastern Europe. The rivalry between the two kaganates for political hegemony ended with the death of the Khazar state in the mid-20th century, and Kievan Rus became the dominant force.
The Old Russian state, according to many historians, was a monarchy headed by the Grand Duke. It consisted of separate lands, headed by local princes. They obeyed the Grand Duke of Kyiv, but, at the same time, enjoyed a certain independence. The state apparatus in Ancient Rus' is just being formed. The development of social relations during this period was reflected in legislation. In the 11th century, the first set of laws appeared - “Russian Truth”.
2. Reform activities of the Rurikovichs, aimed at
strengthening personal power and strengthening the state.
Klyuchevsky wrote this: “Approximately by the half of the 9th century, external and internal relations in the commercial and industrial world of Russian cities developed into such a combination, due to which the protection of the country’s borders and its foreign trade became their common interest, which subordinated them to the prince of Kyiv and made the Kiev Varangian principality the grain of the Russian state." The Kyiv princes, expanding their possessions, established state order in the territories under their control. The main goal of the princely administration was the collection of taxes. The tribute that the ruler collected at the same time constituted the material for his trade turnover. The most prominent phenomenon in the foreign policy of the princes until the half of the 11th century were military campaigns caused by the desire to maintain trade relations. Trade agreements resulted in the development of legal norms, especially international law. So in Igor’s treaty it was added: “Let those who enter Rus' into the city not do dirty tricks.” But, littering the steppe roads of Russian trade, the nomads disturbed the borders of the Russian land. Therefore, over time, the concern of the princes to defend Rus' from the steppe inhabitants became the dominant matter.
It is quite difficult to say what order of princely ownership existed in Rus' in the 9th – 10th centuries. Sometimes power passed according to seniority (for example, Rurik’s successor was not his young son, but his relative Oleg). If a prince had several sons growing up, each of them received a region to manage. Svyatoslav, getting ready to go on a campaign to the Danube, distributed the volosts to his sons. This was already a new phenomenon in political life - the division of territory into “spheres of influence” between sons. The prince stops going to Polyudye. A prototype of the local government apparatus, that is, elements of local self-government, is beginning to take shape. Family law applied between father and children; there was no law between the brothers, which can explain the strife between the sons of Svyatoslav and Vladimir. Consequently, autocracy before the 11th century was a political accident, and not a political order.
In the 11th century, a management system developed in Kievan Rus (Appendix 4). At the head of Rus', as before, were the great princes of Kyiv. The former husbands of tribal princes were called boyars. They constituted the top of the squad layer, the oldest squad. The lowest stratum was the junior squad. Both were servants of the Grand Duke, ruled the country, the court, and collected tribute. In the service of the prince there were also personal servants, a personal squad, the so-called youths and children. In the cities, the prince relied on the boyar mayors, in the army - on the governors of the thousand. The Grand Duke led the entire system of government of the country and legal proceedings. And the more the remnants of the old tribal system disintegrated and disappeared, the more the role of the Grand Duke increased.
In whose interests did the prince act? Of course, first of all, he expressed the interests of the top of society - the boyars, the clergy. These layers were close to the princely power and were interested in it to protect their privileges and income. But these people were also a dynamic part of society. Its progress was carried out mainly through their organizational efforts and abilities.
At the same time, the princely power expressed the interests of society as a whole, as it carried out the defense of the country, maintained order within the country, and protected property rights.
In Rus' XI - XII centuries. At the same time, remnants of the old system were preserved. There were meetings in the cities where anyone could come.
State power in the 11th – 12th centuries differed significantly from the first years of the reign of Oleg and Igor. The first stage of subjugation was polyudye, and later the orderly collection of tribute from the subject population. The land with the population working on it acquired great value. Possession of such lands promised income and political power. One of the ways to enrich the ancient Russian elite was to grant the great princes, first of all, to local princes, as well as boyars, the right to collect tribute from certain lands. These lands were given as food. Later, cities also became part of such “feeding”. And then the vassals of the Grand Duke transferred part of these “feedings” to their vassals. This is how the system of feudal hierarchy was born. One of the main features of feudalism as a system is the presence of relationships between lord and vassal on many levels. Such a system originated in Rus' in the 11th – 12th centuries. The order of princely power changed. Yaroslav distributed parts of the land among his sons, coordinating their mutual relations according to the degree of seniority. The older the prince was, the better and richer the volost he received. The princes never ceased to express the idea that the entire family of Yaroslav should own the inheritance of their fathers and grandfathers inseparably - one by one. The Yaroslavichs were mobile owners who moved from volost to volost in a certain line. All existing princes, by degree of seniority, formed one genealogical ladder. In the same way, the entire Russian land represented a ladder of regions according to the degree of meaning and intelligibility. The order of princely possession was based on the exact correspondence of the steps of both of these ladders, genealogical and territorial, the ladder of persons and the ladder of regions. Therefore, as soon as the prince rose one step on the ladder of seniority, his inheritance rights should have risen to a corresponding height. Until the end of the 12th century, the Yaroslavichs considered the order of ownership built on such foundations to be the only correct one; they wanted to rule the land as their ancestral dignity.
But to the first generations of Yaroslavichs, the foundations of order seemed clear. As the circle of relatives expanded, kinship relations became more complicated and confused, disputes arose, the main source of disputes being the question of how to determine the relative seniority of the prince, on which the line of ownership was based. This scheme became difficult to apply to further generations of the Yaroslav family when it split into several parallel branches (Appendix 3). When genealogical relationships began to become entangled, the princes adhered more and more tightly to the territorial order of their fathers, even when it did not coincide with genealogical relationships. Due to this, as the Yaroslav family disintegrated into branches, each of them became more and more confined to one of the large original regions owned by the sons of Yaroslav. These regions began to be considered the homelands of individual princely lines. Vsevolod of Chernigov, having occupied Kyiv in 1139, wanted to transfer one Monomakhovich to Kursk, but he answered Vsevolod: “It is better for me to die in my fatherland and grandfather than the reign of Kursk; My father didn’t spend time in Kursk, I want to die in my homeland. It is easy to see that the territorial significance of the fatherland facilitated the distribution of possessions between the princes. But it is also obvious that the territorial significance of the fatherland destroyed the fundamental basis of the next order, the indivisibility of the ancestral domain: under its action, the Russian land fell apart into several genealogical territories, which the princes owned by paternal inheritance. But the order of births does not correspond to the order of deaths; therefore, when the prince’s father died before his grandfather, the grandson did not have his father’s place in the front line. He became an outcast prince (orphan), a genealogical undergrowth. The personal virtues that distinguished some princes created great popularity for them in Rus', with the help of which these princes concentrated in their hands areas other than the lineage of the clan. In the 12th century, most of the Russian land was in the possession of one princely line - the Monomakhovichs. Finally, another outside force interfered in the mutual accounts of the princes, and confused their turn in possession. These were the main cities of the regions. Among the constant princely disputes, the cities developed their own dynastic sympathies, which tied them to certain princes. Thus, the Monomakhovichs were popular in the cities that belonged to the Chernigov Svyatoslavichs. Beginning in 1074, a fierce struggle for the Kiev throne unfolded between the Yaroslavichs. The increasing frequency of strife seriously worsened the internal and especially foreign political situation of the Russian lands. This forced the princes to search for a political compromise. In 1097, a princely congress took place in the city of Lyubech, at which Yaroslav’s grandchildren established a new principle of relationships: “Let each one maintain his fatherland.”
The Yaroslavichs “established” the Truth of Yaroslav throughout the “Russian Land” and supplemented it with a number of norms, in particular they prohibited blood feud, replacing it with a fine.
As Klyuchevsky wrote, the Yaroslavichs largely remained the same as their ancestors of the 9th century. They had not yet had time to completely renounce the old Varangian view of themselves; they saw in themselves not only the rulers of the Russian land, but also the hired, food guardians of the country. Their food was a political right, the defense of the land was their political duty, which served as the source of this right. The quarrels of the princes and the interference of the volost cities in their affairs made them more and more aware of the fragility of the political soil under their feet. Yaroslav's closest successor, Grand Duke Izyaslav, was expelled from Kyiv twice. Izyaslav said: “And now let’s not bother, brother! If we both have communion in the Russian land, if we lose it, then both of us, and I will lay down my head for you.” This could not have been said by the autocrat of the Russian land, but by a hired servant, not now or tomorrow, expecting an unexpected resignation.
One can note the great historical significance of the activities and power of the Rurikovichs. Being the first common power among many previously separated worlds, the Varangian princes with their warriors were the first representatives of tribal unity. Moving from place to place across Russian soil, connecting tribes and cities, the princes created the ground for national unification and national self-awareness. By uniting the state externally, they also created the possibility of internal unity. According to historians, the origin of the clan order of the princely domain is explained by the influence of private native life on the political system of the land: the visiting Varangian princes adopted the clan concepts and relations that were dominant among the Eastern Slavs and based on them they organized their order of governing the country. During Vladimir's reign, the pressing problem was the protection of the state from nomads and the reform of internal governance. The time of Yaroslav the Wise was a period of political, economic and cultural prosperity of Kievan Rus, the rules of government of the state were clearly developed. The foreign policy and legislative activities of Vladimir Monomakh were dictated by the Polovtsian invasion and the complexity of the social situation in Kyiv. The revolt of 1068 was caused by these reasons. Therefore, in the “Charter” the prince eased the situation of various types of debtors and allowed purchases to leave his master. The strong prince managed to rally the rest of the princes and unite the government of the state in one hand. However, even he could not stop the objective process of state disintegration. This is evidenced by the Lyubech Congress, on the one hand, it called on the princes to unite in the fight against external danger, but on the other hand, it consolidated the situation of fragmentation in Rus' (“Let each one keep his fatherland”). Now the “fatherland” was inherited by the son. The “ladder” system of princes ascending to the throne was replaced by dynastic rule. The guarantor of compliance with the new norms of relations was not the “senior”, but all the princes, who promised to jointly act against the violator of the treaty.
The “Russian Truth” code of laws is the basis for proving the development of statehood and the preservation of consanguineous relations in the regulation of disputes.
To characterize the socio-political system, the legal status of various segments of the population, the dominant ideology of Ancient Rus', you can use the “Russian Truth” code of laws. Already at the time of the creation of the code of laws, it was clear that society was rapidly moving forward; a new legal code was needed that would protect the rapidly developing property of the powerful “on the land” and the associated material acquisitions and various kinds of social advantages. Such a new code began to be created during the life of Yaroslav Vladimirovich in order to establish order and legality in the Russian lands in troubled times. This legal monument reflected the fact of the formation of princely domain land ownership - most of the articles are devoted to the legal protection of princely property, officials and dependent people of the estate.
A slave who hit a free man could be killed on the spot. “If the ruler kills a full servant, he will not commit murder (this is murder), but the guilt will be from God.”
We can get a closer look at the princely administration by referring to the text of the monument and get an idea of the hierarchy in it:
"11. About the princely youth. If they kill a princely youth or a cook, then (pay) 40 hryvnia.
12. And for (killing) a butler or groom (to pay) 80 hryvnia.
13. And for (the murder of) the princely tiun, who was in charge of the regions or arable lands, (to pay) 12 hryvnia.”
Russian Truth makes it possible to imagine the feudally dependent population. For example, Article 52 talks about procurement. If he runs away from his master without paying, he must be made a complete serf (slave).
The uprisings of the late 60s and early 70s of the 11th century required vigorous action from the princes and boyars. “Russian Truth,” as Orlov wrote, was supplemented by a number of articles. The purpose of the additions is to protect the property of the feudal lord and his patrimony. The wealth of the estate was the land, so the princely boundary was protected by a high fine. The largest fine was paid for the murder of senior warriors. Pravda describes the life of the princely estate. At the head of the estate is the representative of the prince - the boyar - fireman. He is responsible for the entire course of life of the estate. All persons at the prince's court are protected by 80 hryvnia vira, which indicates their privileged position. According to Orlov, the person himself is considered in Pravda not so much as a member of society, but as an owner or producer of capital: a person who does not have it or cannot produce it loses the rights of a free or full-fledged person (woman and procurement). The Varangians are placed in a disadvantaged position by law. So, if the offender was a Novgorodian, then the offended person must present two witnesses; if the Varangian turned out to be a rude person, then one oath from the offended Novgorodian was enough. Pravda prohibits blood feud and its replacement with a fine. Thus, with the advent of written law, Rus' rose one more step in its development. Relations between people in society began to be regulated by laws, which largely brought order to social life with its countless difficulties.
3. Foreign policy of the Kyiv princes.
The object of the princes' foreign policy was all matters related to dynastic relations, issues of war and peace, foreign trade, and the relationship of the Grand Duke and his state to foreign religious organizations. All these problems required the personal participation of the head of state, because the affairs of the dynasty, military affairs, taxes, like the rest of the treasury, were concentrated in the hands of the prince. At the same time, since all these issues related largely to personal matters (marriage, inheritance, donation) or required only the personal decision of the prince (war, purchase of weapons abroad, release of money from the treasury for this) and, moreover, by their nature, should to be secret, secret, the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy inevitably from the very first days of its inception acquired a strictly secret, narrow circle of persons character. Almost all matters were decided by the prince in council with two or three especially close people. Most sources prove that this circle of people varied, was unofficial, everything depended on the personality of its participants, on the degree of their personal talent, influence and practical significance for this or that prince whom they served, and not on their nominal position and position at court .
Kievan Rus had foreign policy relations with three types of states during the period of its existence:
1. Russians are independent or appanage and related (dynastically) dependent on the Grand Duke of the Kyiv principality and land.
2. Non-Russian state entities and lands that were the closest neighbors of Kievan Rus, bordering on it, entering into wars, alliances, and treaty relations with it.
3. Western European states that did not have direct borders with Kievan Rus.
Thus, Kievan Rus had complex relations with almost four dozen foreign policy entities. Already from this purely quantitative fact it is clear that at the very moment of its inception and organization, Russian foreign policy inevitably had to face complex, often contradictory tasks. This could not affect the fact that, as a result of many mistakes, Russian foreign policy developed its basic tactical rule: to be careful, try not to rush into choosing friends and enemies, and cultivate a sense of mistrust and wariness in its leaders. The concentration of all foreign policy and its leadership in the hands of one person - the Grand Duke - created favorable conditions for strengthening the tactics of caution, ensuring the greatest secrecy and surprise of all the most important decisions of the head of state. And this was a huge advantage of the Kyiv princes over other European monarchs.
According to Pokhlebkin V.V., the following periods can be distinguished in the foreign policy of the princes of Kievan Rus:
1. From Rurik to Yaroslav the Wise (862 - 1054) The period of an entirely personal, dynastic foreign policy, the main feature of which is the accumulation of lands, the expansion of the state at the expense of internal resources - the inheritance of weakened and impoverished princes - relatives of the Grand Duke.
2. From Yaroslav the Wise to Vladimir Monomakh (1054 - 1125) The period of stabilization of foreign policy advances, the period of consolidating the successes of foreign policy and protecting from interference in it by other Rurikovichs, appanage princes, attempts to defend and canonize the individuality of pursuing a foreign policy line as a personal policy prince or, at least, as a unified national policy.
3. From Mstislav I to Daniil Romanovich Galitsky (1126 - 1237) The period of a defensive direction of foreign policy, the main task of which was to preserve the acquisitions of previous centuries, to prevent the strengthening regional principalities from weakening the Kiev state. During this period, the weakened Kyiv princes had to share a monopoly on foreign policy with their Monomakhovich relatives. And this leads to the disappearance of the continuity of the foreign policy line that was preserved during the prince’s personal foreign policy. The frequently replaced great princes, who have ruled for a year or two, can no longer see foreign policy prospects. As a result, at the first strong external pressure from the Tatar-Mongols, all of Rus' collapses.
Pokhlebkin compiled a chronological list of princes - leaders of the foreign policy of Kievan Rus (Appendix 7).
Beginning in 1125, a new dynasty was established on the Kiev grand princely throne - the Vladimirovich - Monomakhovich (semi-Scandinavian). The influence of the grand dukes on foreign policy after Vladimir Monomakh weakens. The reason lies not only in the short duration of the princes’ tenure in their positions, but also in the need to take into account the opinion of the entire Monomakhovich clan. The desire for “equality” in power leads to a decline in authority and the inability to solve big foreign policy matters. Along with the liquidation of the independence (political) of Kievan Rus, its independent foreign policy, determined in the Horde by the Great Khan, was also liquidated.
However, the state unity of Rus' itself was not strong. Signs of the fragility of unity were revealed after the death of Svyatoslav, when young Yaropolk took power in Kyiv. Yaropolk relied on the Varangians - mercenaries hired by his father. The Varangians behaved arrogantly. Svyatoslav's second son Oleg began a fight with them and sought to replenish his squad with peasants - Oleg died in this strife, but Vladimir (3rd son) began to reign over the walls of Kyiv. After the death of Grand Duke Vladimir in 1015, difficult times came for Rus': his sons (12 of them) began long-term strife, in which the Pechenegs, Poles, and Varangian detachments were involved. The soldiers barely violated the established order in the state. The year 1073 came, and a new internecine struggle. This time, strife occurred between the sons of Yaroslav the Wise. If Yaroslav the Wise managed to maintain the unity of Rus' for a long time, then it turned out to be more difficult for his sons and grandsons to do this. There are many reasons for this.
Firstly, the order of succession to the throne established by Yaroslav turned out to be unsuccessful. The sons of the deceased Grand Duke did not want to give power to their elders, their uncles, and they did not allow their nephews to take power, putting their sons in their place, even though they were younger.
Secondly, among the successors of Yaroslav the Wise there was no purposeful and strong-willed personality like Vladimir I and Yaroslav himself were.
Thirdly, large cities and lands were gaining strength. The emergence of large patrimonial farms, including church estates, contributed to the general progress of economic life and the desire for independence from Kyiv.
Fourthly, the constant interference of the Polovtsians in the internal affairs of Rus'.
In 1068, when the Polovtsian Khan Shakuran invaded Russian lands, the sons of Yaroslav the Wise took refuge in their fortresses. The Kiev people overthrew Izyaslav and proclaimed the Polovtsian prince Vseslav to the throne, who left a grateful memory for seven years. Having expelled Vseslav, the Yaroslavichs continued to quarrel with each other for eight years. During these years, popular uprisings broke out in the Volga region and in distant Belozer, in the Rostov land, Novgorod against the feudal nobility, which increased taxes: taxes and sales (judicial duties), feed (supply for officials). Since the anti-feudal movements were also directed against the church, the rebels were sometimes led by the Magi. The movement took the form of an anti-Christian movement, appealing to the return of the old pagan religion. Since 1125, after the death of Monomakh, the son of Monomakh, nicknamed the Great, established himself on the Kiev throne. He ruled Russia as menacingly as his father. Under him, the Polotsk Vseslavichs were expelled from their possessions. Due to internal strife, the Chernigov Svyatoslavichs weakened: Muromo - Ryazan land separated from Chernigov. None of the princes dared to confront Mstislav. But after his death in 1132, strife began among the descendants of Monomakh. The Olegovichs immediately took advantage of this, and the relative calm in Rus' came to an end. The fragmentation of Rus' became a fact.
Thus, we can conclude that after the death of Svyatoslav, a new political situation arose in Rus': after the death of the ruler, several sons remained who shared power. The new situation gave rise to a new event - princely strife, the purpose of which was the struggle for power. How did the strife differ from the events of the struggle between Igor, and then Olga and the Drevlyans? The difference is that then we could talk about the uprising of an entire tribe, led by its local nobility, against the central government in the person of the prince. Now it was not so much about the unity of the lands, but about which of the representatives of the ruling dynasty would rule, thus, it was about the personality of the prince.
The works of historians place an important emphasis on the role of a strong, imperious ruler, with whose passing the state lost its unity and an internal struggle for power began.
The emergence of an energetic and strong-willed ruler once again united the state. This usually happened by force. Therefore, the role of the individual in the formation of the state cannot be underestimated.
4. The emergence of a new social class - the clergy.
When we talk about the historical significance of the introduction of Christianity, we first of all mean the subsequent development of the church. Its gradual rooting on Russian soil and the comprehensive influence that it began to exert over time.
All the main events during the reign of Vladimir are connected with the baptism of Rus'. With baptism a church organization came to Rus'. According to V.V. Artemov, since 1036, a metropolitan appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople was installed at the head of the Russian Orthodox Church; Some regions of Rus' were headed by bishops, to whom the clergy of cities and villages were subordinate. The metropolitan see, the bishop, and the monasteries soon became the largest land owners, who had a huge influence on the course of the historical development of the country. The church organized its own farming on the lands. The best gardeners were monks. In the hands of the church there was a court in charge of cases of anti-religious crimes, violations of moral and family norms.
Over time, the monasteries became centers of trade, even usury. The monks of the monasteries led a highly moral life, becoming devotees of the Christian idea and morality. Thus, they had a strong spiritual and religious influence on the world around them.
Having strengthened itself in the economic sense, having raised highly educated personnel from the Russian environment, the church began to exert an increasing influence on the political life of the country. Some major church hierarchs - metropolitans, bishops - participated in state intrigues and supported one or another prince in the political struggle. However, the church tried to be above petty political interests, and its best representatives advocated the unity of Rus' and against civil strife. There are many known cases when prominent church leaders carried out peacekeeping missions, leading patriotic movements, denouncing princes for their selfishness, selfishness, political limitations, and cowardice. Schools were created at churches and monasteries, and the first Russian artists worked here. In the church “statutes” the church advocated the maintenance of Christian principles in society and the family, and against pagan customs (sacrifices). Helping economic, cultural, religious rapprochement with Byzantium and other Orthodox countries, the church, in its struggle against “Latinism”, against papal Rome, contributed to the isolation of Rus' from some of the spiritual processes taking place in the West in the 11th century. The first handwritten books, mainly of church content, began to appear in Rus'. Books were created and copied in monasteries, which turned into cultural centers.
According to many historians, the adoption of Christianity was of great importance for the further development of Rus'. Christianity, with its idea of the eternity of human life, affirmed the idea of equality of people before God. According to the new religion, the path to heaven is open to both rich nobles and commoners, depending on their honest performance of their duties on earth. “God's servant” - the sovereign was, according to Byzantine traditions, both a fair judge in domestic affairs and a valiant defender of the borders of the state. The adoption of Christianity strengthened the princely power and territorial unity of Kievan Rus. Vladimir “often, with great humility, consulted with his fathers and bishops about how to establish the law among people who had recently come to know the Lord.” The divine origin of princely power, according to the teachings of the church, required unquestioning obedience from its subjects, and from the prince an awareness of his high responsibility. “Let every soul be submissive to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God. Therefore, those who resist the authorities resist God's institution. One must obey not only out of fear of punishment, but also out of conscience.” Fear of God's punishment limited the exploitative appetites of the elite of society. Christianity taught the rich to help the poor. All this illustrated the contradictions in society and contributed to its progressive development.
Speaking about the significance of the Christian educational activities of Saint Vladimir and Yaroslav the Wise, let us remember the figurative description that the chronicler gives us: “As if one plows the land, another sows, and others reap and eat food that never fails, so does this one. His father, Vladimir, plowed the land and softened it, that is, enlightened it with baptism. This same one sowed bookish words in the hearts of believers, and we reap by receiving bookish teaching.”
The growth and strength of the authority of Rus' allowed Yaroslav for the first time to appoint a statesman, Hilarion, a Russian by birth, as Metropolitan of Kyiv. Thanks to the books that Yaroslav wrote, already the second generation of Russian Christians had the opportunity to study more deeply the truths of the Christian faith.
Grekov wrote that Saint Vladimir lived in peace with the surrounding princes - with Bolislav of Poland, Stephen of Hungary, Andrew of Bohemia, there was peace and love between them.
The adoption of Christianity radically changed the international position of Kievan Rus. Yesterday's barbarian power, according to Orlov, has now entered on equal terms into the family of European Christian peoples, which was manifested in numerous dynastic marriages that the Russian princes of the 11th century entered into with the royal houses of Western Europe.
Outside of Christianity, it is impossible to imagine the unification of the East Slavic tribes by the princes into a single Russian people.
The Orthodox faith was adopted largely as a result of political choice: a strong Kiev state needed a new ideology - a monotheistic religion that would symbolize and sanctify the unified power of the Grand Duke.
ChapterII. Political collapse of Rus'.
1. Fragmentation in Rus'. The nature of political power in
period of fragmentation.
In 1125, after the death of Monomakh, his eldest son Mstislav established himself on the Kiev throne. Under him, the Polotsk Vseslavichs were expelled from their possessions. Due to internal strife, the Chernigov Svyatoslavichs weakened. None of the princes dared to confront Mstislav. After his death in 1132, the eldest of the Monomakhovichs, Yaropolk, who had previously been the prince of Pereyaslavl, ascended the Kiev throne. At first glance, as Academician Sakharov writes, it seemed that everything was going as usual, that the powerful Kiev state was simply experiencing another change of prince. But, starting from 1132, events in Rus' began to take on such a character that it became clear: the country had entered a new historical stage, which had been preparing gradually over the previous decades.
Outwardly, this was expressed in the fact that another inter-princely unrest broke out in Rus'. Its main characters were again the Monomakhovichs and Olgovichs. At the beginning there was a quarrel between the sons and grandsons of Monomakh. The attempt of the great Kyiv prince Yaropolk to give Pereyaslavl to his nephew Vsevolod Mstislavich, as he promised Mstislav before his death, met resistance from Yuri Vladimirovich of Rostov and Andrei Vladimirovich, who ruled in Volyn. The sons of Monomakh, not without reason, suspected that the childless Yaropolk intended to prepare the transfer of the Kyiv throne to the son of Mstislav the Great. Their rebuff led to the fact that Pereyaslavl was given to Yuri Dolgoruky.
The discord among the Monomakhovichs was exploited by Vsevolod Olgovich of Chernigov, who, with the support of the Polovtsians and the neutrality of the Rostov and Volyn princes, attacked Kyiv. Vsevolod stood under the city for three days; The Polovtsians carried out the destruction of the Dnieper lands at this time. But the Chernigov prince failed to take the city, and he went home.
The offensive of the Chernigov prince rallied the sons of Monomakh - Yaropolk, Yuri and Andrey. Now they begin to unitely oppose Vsevolod Olgovich, but he enters into an alliance with the grandchildren of Monomakh, the sons of Mstislav, whom their uncles actively began to push into the shadows.
In the mid-30s of the 12th century, this enmity resulted in a series of wars, in which Polovtsian troops traditionally acted on the side of the Chernigov prince.
Yaropolk died in 1139. After his death, the throne in Kyiv was taken by the eldest of Monomakh's surviving children, Vyacheslav, but a few days later he was expelled from the city by Vsevolod Olgovich. Finally, the Chernigov princes exercised their right of seniority and occupied Kyiv. Neither Yuri nor Andrei Vladimirovich had good reasons to interfere in the struggle: both of them were only the youngest in a large family of great-grandchildren of Yaroslav the Wise.
The reign of the Chernigov prince did not put an end to civil strife, but only made it more persistent and large-scale. From now on, the sons and grandsons of Monomakh and the most active of them, Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky, became the permanent enemies of the Kyiv prince.
After the death of Vsevolod Olgovich in 1146, the Kiev throne briefly passed to his brother Igor. But soon another uprising of “lesser” people broke out and the frightened Kiev elite sent walkers, as once in 1113, to Pereyaslavl, where Monomakh’s grandson Izyaslav Mstislavich reigned. He and his army approached Kyiv. So the Monomakh dynasty regained the Kyiv throne. This was done bypassing the elders in the family.
During almost ten years of internecine struggle, Kyiv changed hands several times. It was ruled either by the Chernigov princes or by the children and grandchildren of Monomakh. The Rostov-Suzdal prince Yuri Dolgoruky played an active role in this feud. But the Kyiv elite did not favor Yuri.
During this fierce struggle for Kyiv, the pretending princes, occupying the Kiev throne, nevertheless retained their former possessions. So Yuri Dolgoruky, having become the great prince of Kyiv, continued to live in his beloved northeast; the Olgovichi also relied on Chernigov, remaining, first of all, the princes of Chernigov, and then the princes of Kyiv.
What is the meaning of this new situation in which the capital of Rus' found itself in the 12th century? According to many historians, the social structure of Russian society became more complex, its layers in individual lands and cities became more defined: large boyars, clergy, merchants, artisans. The dependence of rural residents on landowners developed. All this new Rus' no longer needed the previous centralization. The huge Kievan Rus, with its very superficial political cohesion, necessary, first of all, for defense against an external enemy, for organizing long-distance campaigns of conquest, now no longer corresponded to the needs of large cities with their branched hierarchy, developed trade and craft layers, and the needs of patrimonial owners striving to have a power close to their interests - and not in Kyiv, and not even in the person of the Kyiv governor, but its own, close, here on the spot, which could fully and decisively defend their interests. The nobility arose, whose life was based on service in exchange for a land grant. This system further strengthened the position of local princes. They also often relied in the fight against the willfulness of the boyars on the increased political activity of the townspeople. The urban strata began to turn into a certain counterweight in the relations between the princes and the boyars. All this determined a shift in historical emphasis from the center to the periphery, from Kyiv to the centers of individual principalities.
Kiev’s loss of its historical role, according to A.N. Sakharov, was to a certain extent connected with the movement of the main trade routes in Europe and Western Asia. The defense of the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” by the Kyiv princes lost its meaning, because in Europe the trade route from the Baltic Sea to Venice (the “Amber Route”) came into first place. In Northern Europe, German cities were gaining strength, towards which Novgorod and other cities of the Russian north-west increasingly began to focus.
Centuries of intense struggle with the nomads - the Pechenegs, Polovtsians, and Turks - could not pass without a trace for Kyiv and the Russian land. This struggle exhausted the people's strength, slowing down the overall progress of the region, and doomed it to fall behind. Advantage was given to those regions of the country that, although they were in less favorable conditions (Novgorod land, Rostov-Suzdal Rus'), did not experience such debilitating pressure from the nomads as the Middle Dnieper region. All taken together determined the weakening of Kyiv, the power of the great princes and determined the beginning of the political collapse of Rus'.
The fierce struggle of the princes with each other, the endless civil strife were only an external expression of the deep processes of development of the Russian lands. If earlier civil strife was a reflection of tendencies either of tribal separatism, or were associated with crises of power after the death of the great princes, now these wars were a consequence of new circumstances of Russian life. They defended the right of princes to decide the fate of their possessions. And behind the princes stood grown, formed social worlds.
As Sakharov figuratively said, Kievan Rus nursed and raised other Russian principalities, and now they, like independent chicks, have scattered around the world. During the 12th century, Rus' politically became like a patchwork quilt.
So, historical tradition considers the chronological beginning of the period of fragmentation to be 1132, when, after the death of Mstislav, the son of Monomakh, the Russian land was “torn apart” (as the chronicle puts it) into separate principalities. Prior to this, the grand ducal power did not experience an excessive threat from local separatism. Since the most important political and economic levers were assigned to it: the army, tax policy, the priority of the princely treasury in foreign trade.
The process of regulating intrastate relations did not take place without friction between the central government and local government. At the same time, social practice was not suppressed by power structures; centralism of management coexisted well with local characteristics and traditions. And yet, in the second third of the 12th century, disintegration tendencies prevailed - Rus' fell into a zone of fragmentation.
From the point of view of general historical development, the political fragmentation of Rus' is only a natural stage on the path to the future centralization of the country and future economic and political takeoff on a new civilizational basis. This is evidenced by the rapid growth of cities and patrimonial economies in individual principalities, and the entry of these practically independent states into the foreign policy arena: Novgorod and Smolensk later concluded their own agreements with the Baltic lands and with German cities; Galich actively conducted diplomatic relations with Poland, Hungary and even with Papal Rome. In each of these principality-states, culture continued to develop. The famous “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” was born precisely at the time of this political collapse of the once united Rus'.
Within the framework of principalities-states, the Russian Church was gaining strength. During these years, many remarkable philosophical and theological creations emerged from the circles of the clergy. And most importantly, in the conditions of the formation of new economic regions and the formation of new political entities, the peasant economy was steadily developing, new arable lands were being developed, and estates were expanding and quantitatively multiplying. Which for their time became the most progressive form of running a large complex economy, although this happened due to the forced labor of the dependent peasant population, either given by the prince to the patrimonial owner along with the lands, or who ended up in poverty with a rich landowner. But such are the paradoxes of history, where progress is sometimes based on suffering and where future prosperity passes through the great difficulties of the country.
Moreover, the political collapse of Rus' was never complete. Centripetal forces remained, which constantly opposed centrifugal forces. First of all, it was the power of the great Kyiv princes. It may be transparent at times, but it existed, and even Yuri Dolgoruky, remaining in the far northeast, called himself the Great Prince of Kyiv. And later: among other Russian principalities there was the Principality of Kiev, which, albeit formally, cemented all of Rus'. It is not without reason that for the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” the power and authority of the Kyiv prince stood on a high political and moral pedestal.
The all-Russian church retained its influence. The Kyiv metropolitans were the leaders of the entire church organization. The Church stood for the unity of Rus'. She condemned the internecine wars of the princes. An oath on the cross in the presence of church leaders was one of the forms of peace agreements between the warring parties.
A counterbalance to the forces of disintegration and separatism was the constantly existing external danger to the Russian lands from the Polovtsians. On the one hand, the rival princely clans attracted the Polovtsians as allies, and they ravaged the Russian lands, on the other hand, the idea of unity of forces in the fight against an external enemy constantly lived in the all-Russian consciousness, the ideal of a prince - a guardian for the Russian land, which was Vladimir I and Vladimir Monomakh. It is not for nothing that in Russian epics the images of these two princes merged into one ideal image of the defender of the Russian land from evil enemies.
Among the dozen and a half principalities that were formed in the 12th century on the territory of Rus', the largest were: Kiev, Chernigov, Novgorod, Galicia-Volyn, Vladimir-Suzdal, Polotsk, Smolensk. The Principality of Kiev, although it had lost its significance as the political center of Russian lands, was home to the largest number of large patrimonial estates and arable lands. In the 30s and 40s of the 12th century, Kyiv irrevocably lost control over the Rostov-Suzdal land, where the power-hungry Yuri Dolgoruky ruled, over Novgorod and Smolensk, whose boyars themselves began to select princes for themselves.
For the Kyiv land, big European politics, long campaigns in the heart of Europe, the Balkans, Byzantium and the East are a thing of the past. Now the foreign policy of the Kyiv princes was limited to two directions. The same exhausting struggle with the Polovtsians continues. The Vladimir-Suzdal principality, which is maturing every year, is becoming a new strong enemy. If the Kyiv princes managed to contain the Polovtsian danger, relying on the help of other principalities, which themselves suffered from Polovtsian raids, then it was more difficult to cope with their northeastern neighbor. After the death of Yuri Dolgoruky, the Vladimir-Suzdal throne passed to his son Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky, who in 1169 with other princes approached Kyiv. For the first time in its history, Kyiv was taken “on the shield,” and not by external enemies, but by the Russians themselves. As the chronicler said, there was then in Kyiv “there was groaning and melancholy among all the people; inconsolable sadness and incessant tears.” Unlike Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky paid main attention to the internal affairs of his principality. He severely suppressed opposition movements of the local boyars and sought to strengthen the princely power. Andrei's policies displeased the local boyars, and he was killed by the conspirators. The murder of the prince and the strife between his younger brothers over the princely “table” interrupted the process of centralization in the Vladimir-Suzdal land. The Kiev principality, according to Sakharov, achieved stability under Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, who shared power in the principality with his co-ruler Rurik Rostislavich of Smolensk. After the death of Svyatoslav, Rurik, until the beginning of the 13th century, shared power with the pretender to the throne Roman Mstislavich, the great-great-grandson of Monomakh. But Roman captured Rurik and tonsured his family as monks. He continued the policy of centralizing power and suppressed boyar separatism. The boyars fought against the centralization of power, entered into an agreement with Hungary and Poland, and undermined the political and military power of the principality.
Researchers have revealed both the causes and the very nature of this phenomenon in different ways at different times. The school of M.N. Pokrovsky considered feudal fragmentation as a natural stage in the progressive development of productive forces. According to the formational scheme, feudalism is the isolation of economic and political structures. Fragmentation is interpreted as a new form of state organization. It was believed that the natural isolation of individual lands made it possible to more fully use the local economic potential.
Historians S.V. Dumin and A.A. Turilov directly admit that the unsettled order of princely succession, strife within the ruling dynasty, separatism and ambitions of the local landed nobility reflected the destabilization of the political situation in the country. Moreover, this destabilization was not an abstract trend, but expressed itself through the concrete activities of specific people.
According to N.M. Karamzin and S.M. Solovyov, this period was a kind of turmoil, a “dark, silent” time, as well as “scarce in deeds of glory and rich in insignificant feuds.” V.O. Klyuchevsky spoke not about fragmentation, but about the “specific system”; he called this period “specific centuries.” Klyuchevsky's terminology implied, first of all, state decentralization due to the implementation of the principle of hereditary division of land and power within the princely family. Thus, the joint clan order of ownership of all Russian land in order of seniority, which was in effect among the Yaroslavichs in Kievan Rus, gave way in the Suzdal north in the descendants of Vsevolod III to separate hereditary ownership of parts of the land on the right of full personal property, which belonged to each prince-owner. The new order was established in northern Rus' simultaneously with its Russian colonization, which was the main reason for this change. The northern princes, leading this colonization, settling and arranging their possessions, got used to looking at them as the work of their own hands, that is, as their personal property. The action of this order was accompanied by consequences that were very important for the subsequent political fate of northern Rus':
1. By dividing the princely estates between the heirs, northern Rus' was gradually fragmented into many small fiefs, approaching in size the estates of simple private landowners;
2. The reduction of appanages was accompanied by the impoverishment of appanage princes and the decline of their governmental authority;
3. The appanage order introduced mutual alienation among the princes, weakening their sense of solidarity, community of interests, weaning them from acting together, making them incapable of friendly political alliances;
4. By alienating the princes from each other and confining them to small hereditary estates, the appanage order lowered the level of their civic feeling and zemstvo consciousness, obscuring the thought of the unity of the Russian land, of the common people's good.
According to the great Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, “the concept of separate hereditary ownership is ... the content of the appanage order.” The Russian land as an indivisible whole, located in the common possession of princes - relatives, from the turn of the 10th-12th centuries ceased to be a strictly political reality. However, it continues to exist as a single ethnic and religious territory, governed from Kyiv.
All these state entities can be divided into three types:
· early feudal monarchy;
feudal republic
· despotic monarchy.
They differ in which of the listed political bodies play a decisive role in them.
An example of the first type of state is the Kiev and Galicia-Volyn principalities. The princes continue to fight for the Kyiv throne. Possession of it gives the right to be called the Grand Duke, formally standing above all other - appanage - princes. Here the strong Kiev government, based on the squad, the voice of the prince is the decisive force.
Its own type of state power has developed in the North-West of Rus'. Here, princely power as an independent political force ceased to exist as a result of the events of 1136, when the Novgorodians put the ruling prince under arrest; from that time on, the Novgorod prince was elected at the veche, and his functions were limited to military issues. All power in the periods between veche gatherings was concentrated in the hands of Novgorod mayors and bishops. This type of government can be defined as a feudal republic.
A completely different type of power is emerging in the North-East of Rus'. This region, whose settlement by the Slavs ended only in the 11th-12th centuries, obviously did not have deep veche traditions. The social base on which the prince relied when carrying out his reforms were the “militaries,” that is, people dependent on the mercy of the prince.
We are talking about a “service organization”, the courtyard “slaves” of the prince. The service of the “alms-mongers” to the prince was absolutely dependent on the master; the “alms-monk” was the property of the prince, although he could occupy high positions and have large estates. A new system of state power is being strengthened - a despotic monarchy, based on the direct subordination of slave subjects to their master - the prince.
The trend towards strengthening princely power, according to many historians, met stubborn resistance from the boyars. The first news of clashes between princes and local boyars appeared in chronicles from the 60s of the 12th century. In the fight against the boyars, the princes relied on the princely domain. The prince's immediate military support was his “court” - the squad. The character of the squad during the period of fragmentation in Rus' changes. Instead of senior warriors - boyars, who settled on the land and turned into vassals of the prince, military servants, “youths” and “children”, who received land holdings for their service, were recruited into the squad. A new class of feudal lords was growing - the service feudal lords. A prototype of the future local nobility. The final outcome of the struggle between the princes and the boyars was determined by the real balance of power in each principality. In the Novgorod land, the boyars turned out to be so powerful that they completely subjugated the princes, turning Veliky Novgorod into a kind of “boyar republic”. In fact, the old Kiev boyars also held power in their hands, expelling unwanted princes and inviting others. The struggle between the princely power and the boyars in the Galicia-Volyn land was persistent and long-lasting. The struggle between the princely power and the boyars was the main content of the realistic life of the Russian feudal principalities in the second half of the 12th and first half of the 13th centuries.
According to the concept of L.N. Gumilyov, the fragmentation of the Kyiv state was the result of a decline in passionary energy in the system of the ancient Russian ethnos. He saw the manifestations of this decline in the weakening of public and intrastate ties due to the victory of narrow selfish interests and consumer psychology, when the state organization was perceived by ordinary people as a burden, and not a guarantor of stability and protection. Consumerism inflamed selfish passions, spread indifference to government problems, and made it difficult to sense the future. Relative safety became familiar and introduced elements of carefreeness. Generations who grew up in such conditions lost attention to the idea of the state as a guarantor of the survival of the people - an idea that was well understood by their ancestors, who created the state in an environment of continuous wars with nomads. People lost their vigilance, their attention switched to internal political squabbles.
According to A.N. Sakharov, political reasons were not the basis for the collapse of Rus'. Within the framework of a single state, over three centuries, independent economic regions emerged, new cities grew, large patrimonial farms, monastery estates and churches arose and developed. In each of these centers, behind the backs of the local princes stood the grown and united feudal clans - the boyars with their vassals, the rich elite of the cities, the church hierarchies.
V.V. Artemov believes that as individual lands developed economically, their residents gradually ceased to feel the need for central government. The population of the lands grew, and material conditions were created to support their own troops. Therefore, it seemed unnecessary to send a significant part of what was produced locally to Kyiv as a tribute. Therefore, the importance of Kyiv in the 12th century decreased. A significant reason was that since 1132 there were no longer authoritative princes on the Kiev throne capable of keeping all of Rus' under their rule. The power of the princes weakened as a result of the fragmentation of the principalities. According to N.M. Karamzin, an example of a structure with weak power of the prince is the Novgorod Republic. A republic means a political system in which power belongs to a group of the most noble people. How can you explain the reasons for this feature in Novgorod? Novgorod was the largest center of trade, on the one hand, but due to low soil fertility, agriculture was not developed as, for example, in the southern regions. Therefore, the owners of the lands - the patrimonial boyars - did not have economic power and political weight. The main role was played by artisans, merchants, and traders. This was reflected in the specifics of the Novgorod structure: an aristocratic republic with severely limited power of the prince, who was invited.
According to O.A. Platonov, the first and main reason for the decline of Kievan Rus was that in a single land, in a single society, there was no single political power - a numerous princely family owned Russia; when clan and family accounts were confused due to seniority or because of some grievances, the princes often started strife and dragged the population into an internecine war; People suffered from these strife, and the development of national life suffered. Of the 170 years (1055-1224), 30 years were spent in strife. The second misfortune of Kievan Rus was the strengthening, from the middle of the 12th century, of its steppe enemies. The Polovtsians appeared in the southern steppes, and over the course of two centuries they devastated the Russian land forty times with significant raids, and there were countless small raids. Trade with the south began to freeze thanks to the same Polovtsians; they robbed merchants on the lower Dnieper and Dniester, and trade caravans were out of danger only under strong military cover. In 1170, the southern Russian princes, at the initiative of Mstislav Izyaslavich, had a congress at which the means of fighting the Polovtsians were discussed, and it was said that the Polovtsians “are already taking away from us both the Greek route (to Constantinople) and the Salt (Crimean or Czech) , and Zalozny (on the lower Danube).” This was a great disaster for the country. Because of the Polovtsian threat, our ancestors did not notice that their trade was falling for another reason, precisely because the Crusades created a new trade route between Europe and Asia, past Kyiv, through the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea.
By the 13th century, life in Kievan Rus had become poorer and lost its last security; than further. It became all the more difficult to live in the south, which is why entire cities and volosts are beginning to empty, especially since the princes, as before quarreling over seniority, now began to quarrel over people, over “fullness.” They began to make raids on neighboring principalities and took the people away in droves; the population could not live in peace, because their own princes tore them away from the land, from the economy.
These circumstances - strife among the princes, lack of external security, decline in trade and flight of the population to the northern and northwestern regions of the country - were the main reasons for the decline of southern Russian public life.
Against the background of the decline of Kyiv, the relative political rise of the Vladimir-Suzdal and Smolensk principalities, as well as the Novgorod land, is evident. However, this rise at that time could not yet lead to the creation of an all-Russian center capable of uniting Rus' and fulfilling the most important foreign strategic tasks.
In the second third of the 12th century, Rus' faced difficult trials when the Mongols attacked it from the east, and German, Danish, Swedish knights, Lithuanian, Polish and Hungarian feudal lords attacked it from the west. The Russian princes, overwhelmed by infighting, were unable to unite to repel aggression. The collapse of the state organization weakened the ability to resist.
Thus, by the beginning of the 13th century, Rus' had lived in conditions of fragmentation for more than a century. Up to one and a half dozen principalities emerged. Most of them were monarchies headed by the Grand Duke; within the boundaries of his land, principalities and the owners of smaller appanages - appanage princes - were subordinate to him. All of them passed on power by inheritance. Only in Novgorod the Great, and then in Pskov, republican order was established. By the beginning of the 13th century, the lands of Rus' extended to the Urals. In the first third of the 13th century, political leaders emerged, the most powerful states - the principalities: Galicia-Volyn and Vladimir-Suzdal. They indicated clear aspirations for the political unification of the lands of Rus', for centralization. But this was prevented by the Tatar-Mongol invasion.
Our historiography is sympathetic to Kievan Rus. This Rus' has not developed a strong political order capable of withstanding external attacks; however, researchers of various directions generally tend to paint the life of Kievan Rus with bright colors. Where is the reason for this attitude? There were many troubles in the old Kyiv life. But in the princes of that time there was such a lively, or rather genealogical, feeling, so much daring, the desire to “love to gain glory for themselves, and love to lay down their lives for the Russian land.”
Further development of the Russian lands could have followed any of the outlined paths, but the invasion of Mongol troops in the second half of the 13th century significantly changed the political situation in the country.
2. The system of management of Russian lands during the period
Mongol-Tatar yoke.
In the 13th century, the Russian principalities had a formidable enemy - the Mongol-Tatar conquerors. Having conquered Northern China, the Mongol conquerors invaded Central Asia, Persia and Transcaucasia and in May 1223 attacked the Cumans, the southern neighbors of the Russian principalities. Polovtsian Khan Katyan turned to the Russian princes for help. Princes of Kyiv, Chernigov. Smolensk, Galitsky and Volynsky, in alliance with the Polovtsians, opposed the invaders. On May 31, 1223, a bloody battle began on the banks of the Kalka. Not all princes took part in this battle. The soldiers of the Galitsky regiments fought bravely. Volyn principalities, but the Polovtsians suddenly rushed to flee, crushing the Russian regiments. The Mongols went on the offensive and defeated the Russians. Six princes were killed. The princes of Galicia and Volyn escaped. After this, the enemy surrounded the camp of the princes who did not participate in the battle. Having treacherously broken his promises, the enemy defeated the Russian squads. But the enemies were exhausted, they did not dare to go to the city of Kyiv, and went east.
In 1237-1241 Russian lands were subjected to new blows from the Mongol Empire, as a result of which the so-called Mongol-Tatar yoke was established. It is often called the Golden Horde yoke - after the name of the western ulus of the Mongol Empire, which in the 60s of the 13th century became an independent state. Only in 1480 Rus' was forever freed from any dependence on the Horde.
In a general assessment of the period of the 13th – 15th centuries, in the first place is, naturally, the question of the role of foreign invasion (yoke) in the fate of Rus'. Comparing different points of view on the problem of the impact of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on ancient Russian society, three groups of researchers can be distinguished. The first consists of those historians who recognize the significant and predominantly positive impact of the conquerors on the development of Rus', which prompted the creation of a unified Russian (Moscow) state. The founder of this point of view was N.M. Karamzin. At the same time, Karamzin noted that the Tatar invasion and yoke delayed the cultural development of Rus'.
Another group of historians (among them S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.F. Platonov) assessed the impact of the conquerors on the internal life of ancient Russian society as insignificant. They believed that the processes that took place in the second half of the 13th–15th centuries either flowed organically from the trends of the previous period, or arose independently of the Horde.
Finally, many, especially Soviet researchers, for example, V.A. Kargalov, V.P. Pashuto, F.F. Nesterov, regarded the influence of the conquerors as noticeable, but not decisive, and at the same time exclusively as negative, inhibiting the development of Rus' and its unification . The creation of a unified state, these researchers believed, occurred not thanks to the yoke of the Golden Horde, but in spite of it.
The conquest of Rus' proceeded gradually: in 1237 the Ryazan principality and Kolomna were taken; in 1238 - the entire Vladimir-Suzdal land from Rostov to Tver; in 1239 – Murom, Gorokhovets; in 1240 - Kyiv; in 1241 - the cities of Vladimir-Volynsky, Galich. The Novgorod lands were not plundered, but they also paid tribute.
The Mongol-Tatars did not occupy Russian lands, since they were of little use for the economic activities of nomadic peoples. But the yoke was very real. Cities suffered the most. According to archaeological data, out of 74 Russian cities of the 12th–13th centuries, 49 were destroyed, that is, almost 2/3. Among them, 29 never rose from the ashes or gradually turned into villages. Craft production fell into decline. The conquest led to the systematic confiscation of significant material resources, in the form of extortions, which bled the Russian principalities dry.
The Horde sought to actively influence the political life of Rus'. The efforts of the conquerors were aimed at preventing the consolidation of Russian lands by confronting one principality with another and weakening them mutually. Sometimes the khans, for these purposes, went to change the territorial and political structure of Rus'. On the initiative of the Horde, new principalities (Novgorod) were formed or the territories of old ones (Vladimir) were divided.
After the invasion of the 13th century, the disunity of Russian lands intensified. Kyiv lost its former importance, ceasing to be considered even nominally the capital of Rus'. The Chernigov and Smolensk lands, which played a prominent role in the pre-Mongol period, weakened. In the 14th – early 15th centuries, the western and southern Russian principalities were included in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland (Galician Land).
The Russian principalities retained their independence, administration and church, but each prince, including the Grand Duke, had to obtain permission from the khan to rule - “table”, khan’s label.
The main form of dependence on the Horde was the collection of tribute, which was collected from the house - the farm. Tribute collectors - Baskaks - came to Rus' accompanied by armed guards. The “Great Baskak” had a residence in Vladimir, where the political center of the country actually moved from Kyiv. In many cities of the Russian land (in Rostov, Suzdal, Yaroslavl, Ustyug the Great, Vladimir, Novgorod) popular uprisings took place, and tribute collectors were killed. Frightened by the popular movement, the Horde hurried to transfer a significant part of the tribute collection to the Russian princes. This further intensified the rivalry between the princes for the great reign (especially between Tver and Moscow at the beginning of the 14th century).
Real terror was used against the Russian princes, which was supposed to intimidate them and deprive them of even the thought of opposing the ruler of Sarai: in 1387, Mikhail Yaroslavich Tverskoy was killed; in 1326 - Dmitry Mikhailovich Tverskoy; in 1327 - Ivan Yaroslavich Ryazansky; in 1330 - Fyodor Starodubsky and other Russian princes.
After the Golden Horde adopted a single religion - Islam - in 1312, an even greater danger loomed over Russia. The unification of the diverse mass of nomads under the flag of a single religion was intended to give the Horde new strength. From that time on, Rus' was under the threat of not only economic, but also spiritual enslavement.
In the spring of 1380, having crossed the Volga, Khan Mamai and his hordes invaded the Eastern European steppes, intending to go to Rus' closer to autumn. His plans were sinister in nature: he wanted to carry out not just a raid for the purpose of robbery and increasing the size of tribute, but to completely capture and enslave the Russian principalities. Mamai's plans were destroyed by the victory of the Russian army over the Horde on the Kulikovo field. In September 1380, the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Ivanovich, with the support of almost all the principalities of North-Eastern Rus', went against the Mongol-Tatars. He not only won a victory over a strong and cruel enemy, but also cleared the way for national liberation and consolidation of Rus'.
Conclusion
Having analyzed the presented sources, we can conclude that the issue of creating a unified state is presented in them fully and comprehensively. But princely power, its subjective and objective meaning were the subject of this study. According to historians, Kievan Rus, which arose in the 9th century, existed until the 1130s, accelerating the process of developing the highest stage of a primitive tribal society into a more progressive, feudal one over a vast area and preparing the crystallization of one and a half dozen independent principalities, equal in importance to the large kingdoms of the West .
Taking a general look at the pre-Christian period of Russian history, we see that “with their sword, the first Kyiv princes outlined a fairly wide circle of lands, the political center of which was Kyiv” [Klyuchevsky]. However, their power rested only on the edge of their sword. Using the example of Igor and Svyatoslav, we see that the first Kyiv princes felt more like conquerors than sovereigns of the Russian lands, which were united only mechanically, only by external (military) force.
According to S.P. Pushkarev, the first Kyiv princes created only the body of the Russian state, but only Saint Vladimir, with the adoption of Christianity, breathed a soul into this body. Therefore, Vladimir was not only the spiritual father of the Russian people, but also the real founder of the Russian state.
The solution to all internal problems of the Old Russian state required the personal participation of the Grand Duke. The actual and nominal leader of foreign policy in Rus' was also the Grand Duke himself. Therefore, in order to imagine a series of successive leaders of foreign policy in Rus' in the period 862 - 1238, it is necessary to list all the great princes during this time, indicating the chronological framework of their stay in power. The princes of Kyiv Vladimir Svyatoslavovich and Yaroslav Vladimirovich enjoyed fame in international politics. Starting with Vladimir, the title of the prince in Rus' becomes “Grand Duke of Rus'”. Yaroslav the Wise laid the foundation for the creation of a code of laws - the “Russian Truth”, which protected the princely power. Under him, Russia's international authority grew. With his death (1054), Ancient Rus' buried its power and civil happiness, as his sons and grandsons were in conflict. In the grand ducal power itself, there was still no clear order in the order of its transfer: despite the will of Yaroslav, power in the period of the 11th - 12th centuries was transferred by seniority, and by will, and by inheritance from father to son, and thanks to the calling of the prince by the inhabitants of the city . State power in the 11th – 12th centuries differed from the first years of the reign of Oleg and Igor. The senior and junior squads, which previously performed military functions, throughout the 11th century increasingly merged with the administrative apparatus, turning into a lever of state power. Land with the population working on it became increasingly valuable in the eyes of society. Possession of such lands promised great income and political power. According to many historians, the first stage of subjugation by the prince and boyars of the population was polyudye, and later the regular and orderly collection of tribute from the subject population. The so-called reign of lands subject to the Grand Duke and the state took place, since the tributes received went to the needs of not only the prince, but also the entire emerging state. The state thereby asserted its supreme ownership of all subject lands. Thus, political rights to territory were expressed in often economic claims. Simultaneously with the establishment of the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv over all the East Slavic lands, another process was taking place - the emergence in the community of rich landowners and people forced to go to work for their rich neighbors. By the middle of the 11th century, this process had advanced far ahead. A princely domain is created, that is, a complex of populated lands belonging directly to the head of state, the head of the dynasty. The same possessions appear among the brothers of the Grand Duke, his wife, and other princely relatives. In the 11th century there were still not many such possessions, but their emergence marked the onset of new orders based on the emergence of land ownership. One of the ways to enrich the ancient Russian elite was to grant the great princes, first of all, to local princes, as well as boyars, the right to collect tribute, as if for feeding. And then the vassals of the Grand Duke transferred part of these “feedings” to their vassals. This is how the system of feudal hierarchy was born in the 11th-12th centuries. At this time, the first estates of boyars, governors, mayors, and junior warriors appeared. All this gave rise to human contradictions.
A.N. Sakharov wrote: “The popular unrest of the late 60s - early 70s of the 11th century, the appearance of the Polotsk prince on the Kiev throne, the flight of the Rurikovichs from Kyiv violated the state stability that existed in Rus' in the last years of Yaroslav’s life and during two decades of the reign of his sons."
But historians note that, despite all this, the Christian Church raised the importance of princely power to greater heights and strengthened the connection between parts of the state.
During the princely strife and the fight against the Polovtsians, Prince Vladimir Monomakh became widely known. His “Charter” was aimed not only at protecting the boyars, warriors, clergy, and rich merchants from the wrath of the people, but also to support the economy of the smerd and the artisan, which formed the basis of state welfare. After his death, Mstislav “wiped a lot of sweat for the Russian land.”
The individual lines of the princely family diverged further and further from each other and became alienated from one another. First, the Yaroslavich tribe splits into two hostile branches of Monomakhovich and Svyatoslavich; then the Monomakhovich line divided into Izyaslavichs, Rostislavichs, Yuryeviches, and the Svyatoslavich line into Davidovichs and Olgovichs. (Appendix 3). Each of these branches, quarreling with the others over the line of ownership, settled more and more firmly into permanent possession in a certain area. Therefore, simultaneously with the disintegration of the princely family into local lines, the Russian land also disintegrated into regions and lands isolated from each other. Feudal fragmentation was a time of great economic growth of the Russian lands. According to Academician B.A. Rybakov, for the young Russian feudalism of the 9th–11th centuries, the united Kievan Rus was, as it were, a nanny, raising and protecting the whole family of Russian principalities from all sorts of troubles and misfortunes. As part of it, they survived the two-century onslaught of the Pechenegs, the invasion of Varangian troops, the turmoil of princely feuds, and several wars with the Polovtsian khans, and by the 12th century they had grown so much that they were able to begin an independent life.
Analyzing the fate of the Old Russian state on the pages of sources from many authors, we can conclude that the activities of the Kyiv princes were of great importance in its formation. The solution to many problems in Europe, and sometimes the fate of entire nations, depended on the position of the princely power of Rus'.
Society necessarily leaves traces of its life activities, various evidence. They serve as sources for us. At the sharp turns of history, the study of these sources will help us understand who we are and where we must go. Sources can “give” answers to the questions that are “asked” to them, and they are formulated by researchers who, voluntarily or unwittingly, are subject to the influence of their society and civilization. Thus, with the change of society and its worldview, history also changes. Hence, the process of learning history is endless, at least as much as humanity itself is endless.
Literature
1. Alekseev M.A. Russian military intelligence. From Rurik to Nicholas II. Book 1.- M., 1998.
2. Baluev S.V., Mironov G.E. History of the Russian state: historical and bibliographical essay. Book 1., IX-XVI centuries, M., 1991.
3. Barkhatova E.Yu. History of the domestic state and law. - M., 2004.
4. Badak A.N. World History. T. 7. - Minsk, 1997.
5. Grekov B.D., Pashuto V.T., Cherepina L.V. Essays on the history of the USSR: the period of feudalism, IX-XI centuries, part 1. - M., 1953.
6. Grekov B.D. Kievan Rus. - M., 1953.
7. Gorinov M.M., Gorsky A.A., Danilov A.A. History of Russia. T. 1.- M., 1995.
8. Zhuravlev V.V., Kasarov G.T., Utkin A.I. Political history of Russia. - M., 1998.
9. Zhukov E.M. World History. T. 3. – M., 1957.
10. Zabelin I.E. How Russian tsars and sovereigns lived in the old days. - M., 1991.
11. Zuev M.N. History of Russia from antiquity to the present day. - M., 1995.
12. Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian state, IX-XII centuries. T.1. - M., 1989.
13. Karpuschenko S.V. History of the Russian state. - St. Petersburg, 1994.
14. Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history: a complete course of lectures in 3 books, book. 1. – M., 1993.
15. Klyuchevsky V.O. A short guide to Russian history. - M., 1992.
16. Kostomarov N.I. Dominance of the house of St. Vladimir. – M., 1993.
17. Lichman B.V. History of Russia from ancient times to the second half of the 19th century. - Ekateringburg, 1995.
18. Lubchenkov Yu. All the commanders of the world. Ancient Rus'. Moscow kingdom. The beginning of an empire. - M., 2002.
19. Mironov G.E. History of the Russian state: a reader, X-XIV centuries. – M., 1996.
21. Mironenko S.V. History of the Fatherland. People, ideas, decisions (essays on the history of Russia in the 9th - early 20th centuries). - M., 1991.
22. Orlov A.S. and others. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day. – M., 2000.
23. Pashkov B.G. Rus. Russia. Russian Empire. Chronicle of reigns and events 862-1917. – M., 1997.
24. Pashkov B.G. History of Russia (IX – XX centuries). – M., 1998.
25. Petrushevsky A. Stories about the old time in Rus'. – Yaroslavl, 1994.
26. Putilov B. Ancient Rus' in faces. Gods, heroes, people. – M., 1999.
27. Platonov O.A. Holy Rus'. – M., 2000.
28. Platonov O.A. A complete course of lectures on Russian history. – St. Petersburg, 1999.
29. Pokhlebkin V.V. Foreign policy of Rus', Russia and the USSR for 1000 years in names, dates, facts. Vol. 1. – M., 1992.
30. Pushkarev S.G. Review of Russian history. – Stavropol, 1993.
31. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the 12th – 13th centuries. – M., 1982.
32. Sakharov A.N., Novoseltsev A.P. History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century - M., 1997.
33. Shmurlo E.F. History of Russia 9th – 20th centuries. – M., 1997.
Composition
1. Historical background of “Words...”.
2. The contrast between personal glory and the good of one’s native land. Images of Igor and Svyatoslav.
3. High patriotism of the “Word...”. O Russian land! You're already over the hill!
“The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The events discussed in the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” date back to the end of the 12th century. However, two “ulcers” - princely civil strife and Polovtsian raids, which especially cruelly tormented long-suffering Rus', “opened up” much earlier. As a matter of fact, the enormous damage that the Polovtsians inflicted on the Russian lands was largely predetermined by the fragmentation, fragmentation of the principalities, and the enmity of the Russian princes among themselves. This is very clearly shown in the “Word...”. “The struggle between the princes and the filthy has subsided, for brother said to brother: “This is mine, and that is mine.” And the princes began to say about the small “this is great” and create troubles for themselves, and the filthy from all sides came with victories to the Russian land.” Who were the Polovtsians? Steppe dwellers, nomads, they came and went like streams of dry hot wind, leaving behind devastated cities and villages. There is a version that the image of the Serpent Gorynych in Russian fairy tales, burning everything in its path, taking people captive, is a peculiar variation of the historical memory of the raids of the steppe peoples.
Obviously, it was possible to cope with this test only by uniting the forces of all Russian principalities. An attempt to create such a military alliance was made by the Prince of Kiev Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich. Although he failed to unite all the princes, he achieved certain successes: together with those who responded to his call, he defeated the Cumans in 1183. Another campaign was planned, which was supposed to consolidate the successes of Russian weapons.
Among Svyatoslav's allies was Igor, Prince of Novgorod-Seversky. It was his untimely initiative that destroyed the further plans of the Russians. Igor led his own squad and opposed the Polovtsians. However, he was defeated and captured. But Igor’s defeat had sad consequences not only for him and his supporters. Many Russian lands were again subjected to a brutal attack by the Polovtsians, who had risen after the victory over the Novgorod-Seversky prince. What made Igor come out against the Polovtsians with a small squad? It would seem that there was no objective need for this - the enemy did not stand at the gates of his fortress, moreover, the prince had certain obligations to participate in the general campaign. And the solution is simple. It lies in the understanding of personal glory and valor as the highest value. But you said: “Let us be courageous ourselves: we will steal the former glory ourselves, and divide the present one among ourselves,” the wise Svyatoslav laments, having learned about the captivity of Igor, his relatives and friends who participated with him in the ill-fated campaign. The attitude towards the personal glory of a warrior as the greatest value in the early Middle Ages was characteristic not only of Rus', but also of other peoples of Europe. However, the author of “The Lay...”, despite the glorification of the valor of Prince Igor and his army, points out that for a ruler the highest value should be the good of his country. The glory of a simple warrior lies in his exploits on the battlefield, and the honor and glory of a prince lies primarily in the well-being of his subjects. Thus, the courage and valor of the prince
The wife should serve for the benefit of his people, and not appear unscrupulously, only in order to provide a theme for the songs of storytellers.
Surprisingly, Igor’s unreasonable act was actually glorified by the unknown author (or authors) of “The Lay...”. It is quite possible that the work was created by order of the prince himself or someone close to him. In any case, praise for Igor is present in the text of “Words...”. Of course, in a certain sense, Prince Igor deserves respect for his courage and determination. However, he lacks wisdom, this blessed quality of the few truly great rulers, the ideal of which for the author of the “Word...” was embodied in the image of the Prince of Kyiv Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich. It would hardly be fair to consider Svyatoslav and his supporters to be insufficiently brave warriors. However, the difference between Svyatoslav and Igor is that the Kiev prince objectively assessed his own strength and came to the conclusion that without the help of other princes, the campaign against the Polovtsians would not bring the desired result.
It is interesting to note how these two characters in “The Lay...” relate to phenomena that they regard as bad omens. Igor and his soldiers witnessed a solar eclipse. The shadow that covered the entire army probably struck the imagination of the ancient Russians - the people of the Middle Ages treated such phenomena with trepidation. In fact, the eclipse was a warning to the overly risky prince - after all, captivity or death awaited his warriors ahead. But how did Igor behave? Although he considered the eclipse a sign from above, he did not stop. Passion gripped the prince's mind, and the desire to experience the great Don overshadowed the omen. “I want,” he said, “to break a spear on the border of the Polovtsian field, with you, Russians, I want to either lay down my head, or drink from the Don with my helmet.”
As for Svyatoslav, he saw a prophetic dream foreshadowing trouble for the Russian land. Waking up, the Prince of Kiev learns about Igor’s campaign and his captivity. What did Svyatoslav do? He tries to gather other Russian princes as soon as possible in order to go to the aid of Igor and protect Rus' from a new invasion of the steppes. So, Igor acts contrary to everything, contrary to the agreement, expediency and even divine omen. Svyatoslav’s task, as the wiser one, is to minimize the damage from Igor’s untimely daring. The author of “The Lay...”, despite the fact that he praises Igor’s valor, sincerely worries about his captivity, rejoices at his release from captivity, and constantly laments: “But Igor’s brave regiment cannot be resurrected!” This short phrase conceals not only sadness, but also condemnation of the rash act of the Novgorod-Seversky prince. After all, the thirst for glory, which led Igor into captivity, turned into disaster not only for him personally, but also for the entire Russian land. Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, who pacified the Polovtsians, deserves glory to an immeasurably greater extent than Igor. The author of the “Word...” mentions that many other nations glorify the wisdom of Svyatoslav, reproaching Igor: “... the Germans and Venetians, here the Greeks and Moravians sing the glory of Svyatoslav, reproach Prince Igor, who sank wealth to the bottom of the Kayala river Polovtsian - he scattered Russian gold.” However, what is the strength and attractiveness of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, besides the high artistry of the narrative? Is this really such a significant event - the campaign of the Novgorod-Seversky prince, and an unsuccessful campaign at that? But it should be borne in mind that in the plot of “The Lay...”, in the references to princely civil strife scattered throughout its text, in the image of the Prince of Kyiv Svyatoslav outlined in a few strokes
hidden deep meaning. The author of the Work clearly shows what troubles the fragmentation and enmity of the princes threaten the country with. Only in unity, in the desire to jointly preserve and defend their native land, the author of “The Lay...”, like Prince Svyatoslav, sees the future of Rus'.
Other works on this work
The meaning of the “golden word” of Svyatoslav (According to the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign”) Prince Igor - the hero of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The image of the Russian land in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The image of Prince Igor in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” IMAGE OF YAROSLAVNA ("The Tale of Igor's Host") The image of the Motherland in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Essay on the work "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" Yaroslavna - the image of a patriotic woman in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Means of artistic expression in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The author’s attitude towards Prince Igor The main idea of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” What is the pathos of the monument “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” The theme of nature in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Yaroslavna's cry How do I imagine the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Review of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Prince Igor is a hero and protector in the poem “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Depiction of nature by the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Image of Prince Svyatoslav The author's problem in The Tale of Igor's Campaign Analysis of the episode “Yaroslav’s Dream” in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Nature in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Why is the ideological content of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” valuable? The image of the Russian land in the monument to Ancient Rus' “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - essay “The Golden Word” of Svyatoslav and the author’s position Patriotic idea of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Artistic means of depiction in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The image of an ideal ruler in works of Russian literature The image of Igor, the defender of the Russian land in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Description of the Russian land in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Dark places of the honest "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" After reading the poem "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" Yaroslavna continuation of folklore traditions in the image The image of Yaroslavna in the epic “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Folklore motifs in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Folklore tradition in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Description of the plot of the work “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Images and symbols in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The main idea of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" Sad stories in prose about Igor's campaign Who was the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The idea of protecting the Russian land in works of oral folk art CHRISTIAN BASIS OF "WORDS ABOUT IGOR'S CAMPAIGN" Historical background and meaning of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Composition “Words about Igor’s Campaign” “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” by Borodin The first part of “The Word…” is a story about Igor’s campaign “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and its connection with oral folk art Images of the Motherland and its defenders in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The image of the defender of the Motherland in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” A Tale of Bygone Years "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" - a monument of literature of ancient Rus' Pathos of the monument “Tales of Igor’s Campaign” Defenders of the native land in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” "The Tale of Igor's Host" - a historical document of the 12th century (1) “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” O Russian land The Tale of Igor's Campaign is a historical document of the 12th century. Oh, bright and red-decorated Russian land! (based on “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”) Courage and love for the motherland in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is the greatest monument of ancient Russian literature Ideological and artistic originality of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The story of the campaign of the Russian squad in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Religious ideas of a person of the 12th century using the example of the poem “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Image of Rus' in the Tale of Igor's Campaign Svyatoslav - Prince of Kyiv The history of the opening of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” It's better to be killed than to be captured Explanation of the main idea of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” is an outstanding monument of ancient Russian literature. The Tale of... is the embodiment of the idea of the unity of the Russian land. The creator of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” wrote his work in 1185 “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - an example of oral folk art Courage and love for the homeland collided in Igor’s character “The Word” occupies an outstanding place both in its artistic merits and in its depiction of nature Yaroslavna, as a real historical person, the wife of Prince Igor Adaptation of the chronicle text “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Chronicle story about Igor Svyatoslavovich’s campaign against the Polovtsians in 1185 The theme of Rus' in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The plot of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" THE GOLDEN WORD OF RUSSIAN LITERATURE (“The Lay of Igor’s Campaign”) "The Tale of Igor's Campaign." Basic images. The idea of patriotism. Yaroslavna - continuation of folklore traditions in the image (2) Unknown copy of the first edition of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Recommendations for studying “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” The connection between “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and oral folk art Author of the Tale of Igor's Campaign "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" is the most wonderful work Theme The central image and main character in “The Word in Igor’s Regiment” The deep patriotism of the author of "A Word to Igor's Campaign"Throughout the Middle Ages, the political power of feudal lords was inextricably linked with land ownership. As the feudal patrimony strengthens and turns it into a closed and independent economic complex - seigneury - the political power of the patrimony grows and strengthens.
At the stage of development of feudal relations, immediately preceding the time when the patrimony begins to be included in market circulation and corroded by commodity-money relations, the owner of the seigneury acquires enormous political rights, turning into a “semi-sovereign” almost independent of the central government. He carries out administrative control of the population under his control, collects taxes and fees among them in his favor, carries out trials and reprisals against them for almost all types of crimes (except for especially serious ones), has his own apparatus of power, his own armed forces, etc. Immunity the charters protect his rights and confirm his independence from representatives of the central government.
The heyday of the ssnieri falls on the period of feudal fragmentation, characterized by an extreme weakening of central power and the dismemberment of a single state into many small, almost independent semi-states. The feudal dismemberment of the state is a long-term process, developing as feudal tensions deepen and expand with the economic development of individual areas that no longer need support and protection from the center. This process is inextricably linked with the strengthening of the economic power of individual feudal lords. Having entrenched themselves in their fortified mansions and castles, possessing sufficient reserves to withstand long sieges behind their strong walls, provided with their own armed forces sufficient to protect their nests, the feudal lords did not hesitate to receive military assistance from the central authorities.
whom government. They were also not interested in such large military enterprises, which once, before the feudal dismemberment of the country, were organized by the bearers of the central power in search of booty and tribute. If, for example, once the Prince of Kiev gathered under his banners brave “men” from all the East Slavic tribes and led them on long campaigns, now such enterprises no longer attracted former friends: dangerous and dubious campaigns could end in failure, loss of weapons , people and your own head, meanwhile, close to home, without embarking on long journeys, you can extract a reliable and secure income delivered by a dependent and enslaved population.
Military operations, as a rule, lost their former scope, being limited to small tasks. The matter usually came down to armed raids on a neighbor or to somewhat more distant expeditions of the same predatory nature together with other feudal thugs. Just yesterday the allies were fighting among themselves, and tomorrow, without dividing the spoils or for some other insignificant reason, they will again quarrel to death and turn from allies into irreconcilable enemies, only to “make friends” again later.
Possessing their own apparatus of power and all the attributes of violence, the feudal lords themselves are able to fully exercise non-economic coercion over the population under their control, without needing the assistance of the central government in this regard.
The transformation of early feudal land ownership into a seigneury of the period of feudal fragmentation is a long process. It is impossible to trace how it happened in Rus' at an early stage of development due to the lack of sources. Our first written sources, depicting a fully established land fiefdom, date back to the 11th century. These same sources indicate that the owners of land holdings not only have feudal rights in relation to the surrounding peasantry, but also enjoy great political weight on a national scale.
Analyzing the treaty of 945 between Prince Igor and Byzantium, B. D. Grekov paid special attention to those princes and boyars who are listed in the treaty next to Prince Igor and on whose behalf the treaty is signed by the ambassadors authorized by them. In first place is named Ivor, the ambassador of the Grand Duke Igor himself. This is followed by those also called by their names, “obchii ate”, representatives of Igor’s son - Prince Svyatoslav, Igor’s wife - Princess Olga, two of Igor’s nephews and up to twenty noble nobles. All of these ambassadors are equipped with gold seals (unlike guests who have silver seals). B. D. Grekov brings these ambassadors closer to those “apocrisiaries” (nobles), who, among her other retinue, accompanied Princess Olga to Constantinople. Further, B.D. Grekov proves the connection of these “bright princes and boyars” with land ownership. “What does this representation say?” writes B. D. Grekov. “Undoubtedly, first of all, that these delegates had someone to represent. Particularly characteristic in this regard are women who sent their representatives. It is impossible to come up with anything else here other than to admit that the nobles listed in the agreement and, one must assume, their wives and widows, have their own yards in the most common sense of the term for this time - that is, estate settlement, outbuildings, land , processed by the hands of “servants”, a certain number of military and non-military servants. From these large boyar families, boyar houses, representatives were sent to conclude treaties with the Greeks. In the event of the death of a boyar, the family house (courtyard, castle) did not stop its life: it was headed by his wife - a widow (“whatever the husband laid upon her, there is also a mistress” - “Russkaya Pravda”, Trinity List, art. 93) . She also sent her representative to Byzantium. All this tells us about the stability of these large family possessions, passed from fathers to wives and children, about the organization of these households, primarily in the sense of a human complex gathered under the authority of its owner" *.
This ends B.D. Grekov’s reflections on the introductory part of the treaty of 945 and the composition of the embassy of Princess Olga, since he needed these materials only as additional proof that in our country in the 10th century. large land ownership already existed. However, additional conclusions can be drawn from his observations.
1 B. D. Grekov. Kievan Rus. Gospolityazdat, 1953, pp. 131-132.
2 PVL, part I, p. 36.
Firstly, Russian nobles, already in the 10th century. who were large landowners, at the same time had so much political influence and weight that without their consent and direct participation an important international agreement could not be concluded. Secondly, the nobles listed in the treaty of 945 cannot be considered only as representatives of Prince Igor’s immediate circle who lived in Kyiv or had courtyards and castles in the vicinity of the capital. Further articles of the treaty stipulate that ambassadors arriving in Constantinople receive their “first from the city of Kyiv, packs from Chernigov and from Pereyaslavl and from other cities” 2. B. D. Grekov cites a number of weighty considerations in favor of his guess that some Novgorod boyar-men also had their representatives as part of the itorian delegation to Byzantium in 945. Therefore, political influence was exercised not only by the Kiev nobility who surrounded the Grand Duke, but also by “every prince” (in the terminology of the treaty) and land-owning boyars scattered throughout all regions of Kievan Rus. It was they who were the founders of the future Chernigov, Pereyaslav and other feudal lords, who opposed their local interests to the general interests of the entire country. Already in the 10th century. They participated in the conclusion of international treaties, they also played a prominent role in the internal political life of the country, because it is impossible to imagine that, having a decisive voice in the field of foreign policy, they at the same time were in the shadows when deciding internal political polls.
Among the latter in the 10th century. The collection of tribute from the population was of particular importance. And so we see that the collection of tribute from entire regions is concentrated in the hands of individual nobles. At least, Sveield, a prominent associate of Igor, having defeated the streets, receives from Igor the right to collect tribute from them4. After Igor's death, Sveneld retains his influence on state affairs: he is a prominent governor of Svyatoslav Igorevich. When Svyatoslav was forced to return from Bulgaria to Rus' to drive out the Pechenegs besieging Kyiv, Sveneld (Sfenkel in Greek sources) remained in Bulgaria as Svyatoslav's governor. Even under Igor, Sveneld was so rich that he had the opportunity to support his own squad and arm it perfectly at the expense of the collected tribute. According to the chronicle, this circumstance served as the reason for Igor’s unfortunate Drevlyan campaign, which cost him his life. Igor’s squad allegedly told him: “The boys of Sven-tzhi have been armed with weapons and ports, and we are Nazis. Come, prince, with us to pay tribute, so that you and we can get it” 6.
3 B. D. Grekov. Decree. cit., pp. 133-135.
4 PSRL, vol. V, p. 97; vol. VII, p. 277.
d Considering the consequences of the revolution in agrarian relations carried out by Charles Martell, Engels writes: “Before the face of the state, the leader of the squad (Gelolgsherr) received the same rights and obligations in relation to his vassals as the patrimonial owner (Grundherr), or beneficiary, in relation to his settlers... He brought vassals to court, gathered them on campaign, was their leader in war and maintained their military discipline; he was responsible for them and for the weapons installed for them” (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, 1st ed., vol. XVI, part I, p. 405 Emphasized by me. - Ya. V.).
6 NVL, part I, p. 39.
7 According to A. A. Shakhmatov, later chronicles are significant
The fight against Igor was led by the local Drevlyan prince Mal 7, who lived in the fortified town of Iskorosten. But Mal is not the only ruling prince “in the Trees”. At least, in the chronicle legend about Olga’s revenge, other influential representatives of the Drevlyan nobility are also mentioned, moreover, those associated with land ownership, without whose advice Prince Mal did nothing. “Deliberate”, that is, noble men, “princes..., who unraveled the essence of the Derevsky land”, “radiant muya^p. like the lords of the Derevsk land” - they all also live in peculiar castles, “in their own cities” 8. Even though a significant number of these princelings were later exterminated by the Rurik dynasty, there is no doubt that the main part of them joined the landowning nobility of the Old Russian state. For us, in addition, it is important to state the fact that already in the 10th century. even in the backward regions of Kievan Rus, political power was directly related to land ownership.
In the same X century. the first strife occurs between the princes of the ruling dynasty - the sons of Svyatoslav Igorevich, which ended with Vladimir Svyatoslavich, having seduced the governor Yaropolk Blud to his side, destroyed Yaropolk with weapons and intrigue “and began to reign... in Kyiv alone” 9.
They misrepresented the original story about the death of Igor, which is presented in the following form: “Igor, prompted by his squad, goes on a campaign to the Derevskaya land, but Sveneld does not renounce the rights given to him; there is a clash between Igor’s squad and Sveneld’s and with the Drevlyans (subjects of Svepeld); in this clash, Igor was killed by Mstislav Lyuty, the son of Sveneld” (A. A. Shakhmatov. Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles, p. 365). It is unlikely, however, that Sveneld, in this version, could have played such a prominent role under Svyatoslav. A. A. Shakhmatov in this case transfers the contemporary concept of citizenship to times when the relations of domination and subordination between Kiev and the tribes “tortured” by it were of a completely different nature than later citizenship. Most likely, it can be assumed that the Drevlyans who killed Igor were also hostile to Kyiv’s protege, Sveneld.
8 PVL, part I, pp. 40-42 (Emphasis by me - I.B.)
9 Ibid., pp. 53-56.
The struggle for power among the sons of Svyatoslav is somewhat reminiscent of the later princely turmoil in the sense that individual princes in the fight against Kyiv are already beginning to rely on certain regions (Oleg on the Drevlyansky land, Vladimir on the Novgorod land). To some extent, the Pechenegs also found themselves drawn into the struggle. However, there is a significant difference between the first princely strife and subsequent feudal strife. In the strife of the end of the 10th century. Only three princes participate (if you don’t count Rogvold of Polotsk, whom Vladimir killed on his way to Kyiv and captured the city), while during the period of feudal fragmentation, many princes, both large and small, usually took part in military clashes. Military actions at the end of the 10th century. were limited to a few points, while subsequently they tended to cover a wide area. In this regard, the population did not experience such suffering and disasters from the first princely strife that in the future befell the inhabitants of the regions covered by feudal strife.
It should be added that at first, princely strife occurred very rarely. After Vladimir's victory over Yaropol, Rus' did not experience internal wars for 35 years. After the second princely strife, which broke out among the sons of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and ultimately ended in the division of land between Yaroslav and Mstislav, internal peace lasted for almost 50 years. A completely different picture is observed during the period of feudal fragmentation, when the war usually goes on continuously, now dying down in one place, now flaring up in another, and rarely does a year go by without bloody battles, accompanied by massive devastation and death of the population.
Despite the fact that the population began to feel all the horrors of the princely turmoil only in the second half of the 11th century, long before that time the advanced Russian people sharply opposed internecine warfare. Regarding the betrayal of Fornication to Yaropolk, the chronicle contains a long tirade directed both against unfaithful servants and against civil strife in general: “Behold, there is a council of evil, who preach bloodshed; then the essence of frenzy, having received honor or gifts from a prince or from one’s master, is to think about the head of one’s prince for destruction, the mountain is the essence of such demons” 10.
Russian public thought reacted violently to the princely civil strife that took place between the sons of Vladimir Svyatoslavich in the first quarter of the 11th century.
10 PVL, part I, p. 55. According to A. A. Shakhmatov, this place ended up in the Tale of Bygone Years from previous codes and was already read in the Ancient Chronicle Code of 1039.
The four-year fratricidal war that arose after the death of Vladimir, in which the Poles and Pechenegs were drawn, gave rise to a number of journalistically focused literary works, where the main characters are the martyred princes Boris and Gleb, who innocently died at the hands of their brother Svyatopolk the Accursed. These include the chronicle from 1015 “On the murder of Borisov”, included by A. A. Shakhmatov in the most recent chronicle collection restored by him, then several seminal tales about Boris and Gleb: under July 24 - a short life of the “holy martyrs”, on September 15 - about the murder of Gleb, on May 2 and 20 - on the first and second transfer of relics (in 1072 and 1115), on August 11 - on the transfer of relics from Vypgorod to Smolensk to Smyadyn in 1191. In the second half XI century the famous Nestor, using the chronicle legend and some other sources, wrote “Reading about the destruction and miracles of the holy and blessed passion-bearer Boris and Gleb.” Somewhat later, “The Legend and Passion and Praise of the Holy Martyr Boris and Gleb” appeared by an unknown author, p.
11 In his study of this Legend, N. N. Voronin came to the conclusion that A. A. Shakhmatov was right in believing that the Reading preceded the Legend, which in the version that has reached us was compiled after 1115 (contrary to the opinion of S. . A. Bugoslavsky, who attributed the Legend to a time significantly preceding Nestor’s Reading). N.N. Voronin considers the author of the Legend (supporting this assumption with numerous witty considerations) to be Lazar, the Pereyaslavl bishop and associate of Vladimir Mopomakh, who, before his installation as a bishop, was the abbot of the Vydubetsky Mikhailov Monastery of Father Monomakh - Prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich, and even before that - the abbot ( “elder of the clergy”) of the Vyshgorod Church of Boris and Gleb (N.N. Voronin. “Anonymous” legend about Boris and Gleb, its time, style and author. TODRL, vol. XIII, M.-L., 1957, p. 11 -56).
A completely different point of view is held by N.N. Ilyin, who considers the Legend to be the original monument about Boris and Gleb, which arose around 1072 and served as a source for both the “Reading” of Nestor and the chronicle legend “On the Murder of Borisov.” N. N. Ilyin writes that the work of the chronicle compiler was reduced to reworking and greatly reducing the Legend, from where, critically checking the material, reworking it, regrouping, etc., the compiler extracted only factual data, clearing “his narrative of the hagiographic and rhetorical element , with which its source was saturated,” and this work was carried out extremely skillfully, which “testifies to the height of the intellectual level of the editor of the chronicle code of the 11th century, which is usually underestimated by our researchers” (N.N. Ilya n. Chronicle article of 6523 and its source. M., 1957, pp. 189-209; cited on p. 200). However, with the same success one can assert the opposite - that the source of the Legend was a chronicle article, from which the author of the Legend borrowed factual data, just as skillfully expanding them and diluting them with a “hagiographic and rhetorical element.”
Before moving on to the analysis of these monuments of Russian social thought of the 11th century, it is necessary to make one significant remark. The authors of the earliest chronicles were already entirely in the grip of the feudal worldview. The fragmentation of land between different owners does not seem to them to be an abnormal phenomenon. As progressive thinkers of their time, experiencing patriotic concern for the fate of their native country, they stand strongly for the unity of the Russian land, but they do not think of this unity in the form of autocratic government, but in the form of brotherhood and harmony between all princes, supported by strict adherence to the feudal hierarchy - subordination of the younger princes to the elders. Later, when individual regions began to separate and were assigned to certain branches of the princely dynasty, another requirement was added to the demand for compliance with the feudal hierarchy - the demand for strict delimitation of regions according to the principle of “fatherland”, non-intrusion of princes into other volosts. Having killed Boris and Gleb and his third brother, Svyatoslav, Svyatopolk ascended in soul. He was already dreaming: “I will beat all my brothers and destroy the Russian power as one.” 12. In these words one feels condemnation not only for the murder of brothers, but also for the most proud, absurd and unacceptable idea from the point of view of feudal psychology - to deprive all princes of power and take away herself.
12 PVL, part I, pp. 94-95.
13 Ibid., p. 100.
Having defeated the Holy Regiment after a long and intense struggle, Yaroslav a few years later encountered his other brother, Mstislav of Tmutarakan. The Battle of Listvenskaya that took place between them ended in the defeat of Yaroslav. But Mstislav sent to tell the defeated Yaroslav to continue to sit in Kyiv, because, as Mstislav allegedly stated, “you are the oldest brother, but be with me.” 13. Here the chronicler, based on his political goals, undoubtedly distorts the events , for after the defeat at Listvena, Yaroslav sat in Novgorod for two years, and his husbands remained in Kyiv. At this time, Mstislav made an attempt to establish himself in Kyiv, but the people of Kiev did not accept him, and he settled in Chernigov. Only having recruited many soldiers, Yaroslav returned from the North and agreed with Mstislav on the division of the Russian land along the Dnieper line, i.e., what Mstislav allegedly himself had offered him before. The chronicler does not complain at all about the fact that the earth was split in two. On the contrary, he notes with great satisfaction that after this “they began to live peacefully and in brotherly love, and strife and rebellion arose, and there was great silence in the land.” 14. The brothers lived for twelve years in good harmony and cooperation, and when Mstislav fell ill while hunting , died, Yaroslav again took over all power and “became the autocrat of the Russian land.” Again, the chronicler notes this phenomenon without any joy or inspiration, stating it only as a fact. And this phenomenon is completely accidental, since shortly before Mstislav’s death his son Eustathius died, and he had no other heirs. Consequently, public opinion was already fully prepared for the fact that after Yaroslav the land would be divided. The whole question consisted only in one thing: so that, even being divided, the earth would retain its unity. How to achieve this.
should have suggested the example of the “holy” brothers Boris and Gleb.
Even S. M. Solovyov expressed a very plausible assumption that Vladimir intended Boris to be his successor. During this campaign, Vladimir dies and, taking advantage of the support of the Vygagorodites, Svyatopolk seizes power. There is no reason to believe that Boris, possessing armed force, voluntarily gave up power. Russian scribes, however, convey events exclusively tendentiously. The legend about Boris and Gleb, which was included with relatively minor changes from the Ancient Chronicle in the Tale of Bygone Years, depicts the matter in the following form. Having not met the Pechenegs, Boris and his squad returned to Kyiv. On the way to Alta, he received news that his father had died. The squad put itself at his disposal: “Behold, your squad has been taken away and howled; go and sit on the table in Kiev” (before this it is said that the people of Kiev did not want to accept Svyatopolk). But Boris refuses: “Don’t let me lay hands on my elder brother; Even if my fathers die, then take my father’s place.”
15 S. M. Soloviev. History of Russia since ancient times, part I. oto. Sh-194.
16 In the chronicle tale of the murder of Boris and Gleb II. N. Ilyin finds “a number of inconsistencies.” For example, “Boris’s refusal to lead a squad against Svyatopolk is inexplicable, the consequence of which allegedly was his departure”; “It seems strange” that Boris “does not take any measures to save himself, does not even try to run, as if waiting for the killers” (N.N. Ilyin. Op. cit., p. 40). These inconsistencies are completely eliminated if we consider the monument under examination as a journalistic work, which extols brotherly love and mutual agreement between members of the ruling dynasty, whose representatives, far from treachery and internecine warfare, willingly give their lives, just not to “get out of obedience to the eldest prince. But N. II. gets out of the difficulty in a different way: he announces
Having forced Boris to proclaim a political doctrine, which seemed to the chronicler an ideal means of preserving the unity of the Russian land, the author of the chronicle legend “On the Murder of Borisov” conveys very sensitive, but completely unnatural details of the last hours of Prince Aguchenik. Having learned that Svyatopolk wants to destroy him, Boris does not make the slightest attempt to save him: he is so devoted to his elder brother (and not from any special motives, but only due to the fact that he is the eldest) that he is ready to accept from him martyrdom. The soldiers with whom Boris refused to go to Kyiv have already dispersed, and he remains only with some youths devoted to him. 16. At night, the killers sent by Svyatopolk arrived. When they approached Boris’s tent, they heard him singing psalms and eves (the following is an excerpt from the prayers and psalms spoken by Boris). The selflessness of the “blessed” Boris and his selfless devotion to his elder brother are emphasized by the final prayer: “Behold, I do not accept from those who are contrary, but from my brother, and do not commit seven sins to him, Lord.” After this, the killers, like “beasts of divia,” attacked him and pierced him with spears. Having shown the greatness of Boris, the author provides some more details in order to expose the baseness of Svyatopolk. When the wounded Boris was brought to the latter, he was still breathing. Seeing that his brother was still alive, Svyatopolk ordered to pierce him with a sword 17.
The legend about Boris and Gleb, read in the Ancient Chronicle, is hardly, as some believe, a non-literary example and source of the original story about Boris and Gleb, the Czech legends about Vyacheslav and Lyudmila, which made it possible for the author of the story to fill in the “meager and contradictory local Russian legends about fate Boris and Gleb” (ibid., pp. 54-65), although the parallel texts cited sometimes show almost no similarity.
17 PVL, part I, pp. 90-92.
18 Ibid., pp. 92-93. The posthumous glory of the martyred brothers is contrasted with the inglorious end of Svyatopolk. Pursued by God's wrath, he ends his life in the most shameful (“evil”) manner in the desert between Poland and the Czech Republic. His grave, the chronicler notes, exists to this day, and a terrible stench emanates from it: “Behold, the god shows punishment by the Russian princes” (ibid., p. 98).
Having dealt with Boris, Svyatopolk decided to kill Gleb as well. “With flattery” (treacherously) he sends to him to say that his father is very ill and that he should come to Kyiv as soon as possible. Gleb and his small retinue set off on the journey - “he was obedient to his father.” On the way to Smyadyie, Gleb received a message from Yaroslav warning him not to go to Kyiv, since his father had already died and Boris had been killed by Svyatopolk. If the story about the murder of Boris develops the theme of the younger brother’s devotion to the elder, then the story about the murder of Gleb emphasizes another point - the touching friendship between two brothers living in brotherly love and good harmony. Gleb cries and mourns the death of his brother; he laments that he will no longer hear his “quiet punishment”; he prays to God to send him the same martyrdom: it is better to unite with his beloved brother than to live “in the seven-delightful light” (treacherous). Here he is overtaken by merciless killers. Having accepted the crown, Gleb ascended to heaven, where he united with Boris. The story concludes with the psalm: “Behold, if it is good and if it is red, our brothers will live together!” 18 As a program and a call, this psalm for two centuries will be woven into various chronicle stories about the bloody feuds of the princes and attempts to reconcile them.
19 “The Lives of the Holy Martyrs Boris and Gleb and Services to Them.” Prepared for publication by D.I. Abramovich. “Monuments of ancient Russian literature”, vol. 2, ed. Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences. Pgr., 1916, p. XIV. A. A. Shakhmatov was also inclined to this opinion. “It remains unclear,” he writes, “whether it (the legend of Boris and Gleb. - L. B.) existed earlier in a separate form or was composed by the compiler of the code himself. The last assumption seems more likely to me” (A. A. Shakhmatov. Investigations..., p. 92).
20 It’s like the fact that the killers could not “quickly” take a large golden hryvnia from the beloved youth Boris the Ugrin Georgy, 21 A. A. Shakhmatov. Investigations..., pp. 66, 69-70, 94.
22 According to Nestor’s version, and also, as A. A. Shakhmatov suggests, and the Most Ancient Code, Gleb was in Kyiv at the time of his father’s death, and Svyatopolk did not have to send for him to Murom.
23 It is possible that initially there were two separate stories - about Boris and about Gleb. In the Tale of Bygone Years, the general story about the murder of both brothers is entitled “About the Murder of Borisov” - is this not the title of a separate story about the death of Boris? Nestor also first has a story about Boris, and then about Gleb; the connection between both stories is purely mechanical, and at the beginning, when the author talks about both brothers, it comes out rather awkwardly in literary terms with the reference: “now let’s return to the first story” (“Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature”, issue 2, p. 6). It seems strange why the third brother killed by Svyatopolk, Svyatoslav Derevsky, who died the same violent death as Boris and Gleb, was not canonized. Obviously, there was no literary legend about his death, except for a short chronicle record, so his “holiness” could not be confirmed by any “documentation.”
investigators, the most ancient and original 19. The legend preserves some real details of the tragic death of the brothers 20, which are completely lost in later pious phraseology and tendentious reasoning. It must be assumed that in the actual original tale there were much more real details and little of the reasoning piled up by subsequent writers and publicists. By the way, in the original version of the tale, Gleb was not portrayed as such a resigned martyr for fraternal unity as he appears in the Tale of Bygone Years. In the “Reading” of Nestor, which, according to L. A. Shakhmatov, the author based the legend of the Ancient Chronicle Code21, Gleb is depicted completely differently than in the Tale of Bygone Years. Judging by Nestor’s story, Gleb is not at all inclined to accept martyrdom. While Boris meekly awaits his fate, Gleb takes all possible measures to avoid death. He prepares a “ship”22 for escape in advance and flees from Kyiv. When he is overtaken by Svyatopolk’s people sent in pursuit, he orders his youths not to engage in battle with them, hoping that he will be able to come to an agreement with his brother, beg him, and appease him; he constantly prays to God for salvation, etc.23. But Nestor imbued the story about the murder of Boris with journalistic motives, strengthening and emphasizing in every possible way those political tendencies that were already contained in the previous story.
Nestor wrote his “Reading” in those years when feudal fragmentation had already become a tangible fact of the political life of Rus' and no other system was thought of by his contemporaries. Nestor therefore condemned the desire of the Holy Regiment for autocracy, 24 but at the same time, through the mouth of Boris, pointed out the path to preserving the unity of Rus' even in the face of feudal fragmentation. Boris, being the youngest son of Vladimir, does not at all strive to occupy the Kiev table. On the contrary, he is immensely glad and happy that the throne is occupied by his elder brother, to whom he expresses in advance his boundless submission. “When he heard that his brother was his oldest, his father sat on the table. He rejoiced, saying: these will be like a father.” 25. He goes to Svyatopolk. “The blessed one went on his way, rejoicing, and his older brother sat down on his father’s table” 26.
24 Svyatopolk “began to think about the righteous, because he wanted to destroy the whole country and rule alone” (ibid., p. 7. Emphasized by me. - I.B.).
25 Ibid., p. 8.
26 Ibid., p. 9.
“Reading” of Nestor, as A. A. Shakhmatov noted, was created under the fresh impression of the speech of the young princes - Boris Vyacheslavovich, Oleg and Roman Svyatoslavich, who took up arms against their uncles Yaroslavich - Vsevolod and Grand Duke Izyaslav. Condemning such speeches, Nestor puts into the mouth of Boris a whole tirade to the effect that under no circumstances can the younger brother, even if unfairly offended, be “disgusted” by the elder brother. When Boris receives a warning that Svyatopolk wants to kill him, he “does not have faith, saying: “How can this be the truth, which you are saying now? Or don’t you know that I (the younger one - I.B.) am not disgusted with my elder brother?” He does not change his convictions and intentions even when he learns the terrible truth about Svyatopolk’s plans and Gleb’s escape. “Hearing the blessed one, the verb: “Blessed be God!” I will not leave, nor run away from this place, nor will I again resist my brother, the eldest in existence; but as God knows, it will be so. I have no choice but to die, rather than in another country.” 27. The last words seem to express reproach to Gleb, who fled from Svyatopolk from Kyiv, as well as to Svyatoslav Derevsky, who fled to Hungary. It is also possible that there is a hint here about the flight of Oleg Svyatoslavich from his uncle Vsevolod from Chernigov to Tmutorokan. The idea of blind and boundless obedience to an older brother is so majestic and sublime that it is better to die for it than to save your life by violating it!
Strengthening the political tendency of previous stories about Boris, Nestor rearranges events somewhat. In the chronicle legend, Vladimir’s squad, returning with Boris from a campaign against the Pechenegs, invites him to occupy Kyiv after receiving news of the death of the old prince, when nothing is yet known about Svyatopolk’s intentions. True to the idea of eldership, Boris naturally rejects the squad’s offer. In Nestor’s “Reading,” the squad offers Boris its services to occupy Kyiv after Svyatopolk’s villainous intentions have been fully revealed. Now Boris, it would seem, already has the full moral right to speak out against his brother and punish him. Nestor also gives some details about the warriors accompanying Boris, saying that there were 8 thousand of them and all of them were armed. The details are important: they must show that the enterprise proposed to Boris could count on complete success. And yet, despite the fact that, having acted against Svyatopolk, Boris would essentially have defended a just cause, despite, further, the devotion of a large armed squad that promised him certain success, Boris resolutely refuses to speak and declares to his warriors: “ Neither, my brother, nor, father, do not anger the Lord my brother in such a way, how can you incite sedition against you; “I have no choice but to die alone, rather than a soul” 28. Here, among other things, the prince’s responsibility for the massive death of soldiers and population, which was accompanied by endless princely strife, is emphasized 29.
28 Ibid., p. 10.
29 The same idea about the responsibility of princes for the people entrusted to them by God is also carried out by the chronicler in the story about the crimes of Svyatopolk the Accursed: “If princes are virtuous in the land, then many are given away for the sins of the land; If there is evil and deceit, then God brings more evil to the earth, since he is the head of the earth” (PVL, part I, p. 95).
Nestor’s “Reading” ends with a significant allusion to contemporary events. Mention is made of “childish princes who do not submit to the elders and resist them,” by which, as already indicated, they mean outcasts - Svyatoslavich and Boris Vyacheslavovich, who opposed Izyaslav and Vsevolod Yaroslavich. Boris Vyacheslavovich died in battle on Iezhatina Niva, Roman Svyatoslavich on the way back was killed by the Polovtsians he brought, with whom Vsevolod Yaroslavich managed to come to an agreement. The young princes are killed, but this is not the martyrdom that raised Boris and Gleb so highly: “You are not worthy of such grace as this saint.” The “holy” brothers achieved honor and glory through submission. “We are not the least submissive to the elders, but we always speak to them in the same way, and when we reproach them, we resist them many times” 30.
30 “Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature”, no. 2, p. 25. With all the value of the observations and conclusions made by N. N. Voronin in his study of the Legend, I cannot, due to the above considerations about the journalistic sharpness of the “Reading,” agree with the idea expressed and named in the study about the abstractness of the work of Ne- stora, which Y. N. Voronin, following S. A. Bugoslavsky, characterizes it as a church life, compiled “following the model of Greek hagiographers,” where the reader “moves among the phenomena of the abstract world.” It is also impossible to agree with the statement of S. A. Bugoslavsky (to which N. N. Voronin echoes, calling him “sharp”) that Nestor “ignores reality” and “historical interests come last” (N. N. Voron. Op. p. 40, 48 and 52). It is strange that N. N. Voronin, who so carefully and lovingly analyzed all the considerations of A. A. Shakhmatov regarding “Reading” and Legend, is silent about the fact that, in the opinion of A. A. Shakhmatov, “Reading” Nestor was a kind of response to the speech of the young princes - Boris Vyacheslavich, Oleg and Roman Svyatoslavich. The idea clearly expressed in “Reading” that younger princes should obey the eldest prince is qualified by N. N. Voronin as a manifestation of “narrow feudal dynastic morality.” Meanwhile, in the conditions of the beginning of the dismemberment of the previously united Rus', patriotic publicists of the late 11th - early 12th centuries. They saw in such submission one of the means of establishing inner peace.
31 According to the apt observation of N.N. Voronin, the Legend conveys “the idea of the international, world significance of the cult of Boris and Gleb. They are superior to those of a certain Saint Demetrius - he defended only the city of Thessaloniki, his interests were feudally narrow. Boris and Gleb care not about one or two cities..., but about the entire Russian land” (N.N. Voroni n. Op. cit., p. 52).
32 “The Journey of Novgorod Archbishop Anthony to Constantinople at the end of the 12th century.” St. Petersburg, 1872, pp. 79 and 150; II. Silver claim and th. Ancient Russian princely lives. M., 1915, p. 20; Nikolai Nikolsky. Materials for a time-based list of Russian writers and their works (X-XII centuries). St. Petersburg, 1906, p. 276; V. N. Beneshevich. Armenian prologue about St. Boris and Gleb. IORYAS, vol. XIV, book. 1. St. Petersburg, 1909, pp. 201-236.
The cult of Boris and Gleb, established during the reign of Yaroslav, enjoyed great popularity in Rus' and was even brought to other countries31. Thus, Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod saw in 1200 the “great icon” of Boris and Gleb in Sofia of Constantinople and the Church of Boris and Gleb in the city of Ispigas. In the Sozavsky monastery in the Czech Republic there was a special chapel of Boris and Gleb. In the Yugoslavian prologue under July 24, there are two editions of the lives of Boris and Gleb; In addition, in the form of a short life, a note about them was placed under May 2, the day of the transfer of the relics. The Armenian prologue about “Romanos and Davita” (Roman and David are the Christian names of Boris and Gleb), “who hid in Rusekh from their lawless brother,” has also been preserved 32.
The popularity of the cult of Boris and Gleb, which even spread beyond the country’s borders, is not at all explained by the fact that these were the first Russian “saints”. This popularity was caused by the aura of greatness that surrounded their patriotic feat in the eyes of the Russian people. Among the bloody princely turmoil that devastated the once flourishing lands, people remembered with emotion that once there allegedly existed princes, selflessly devoted to their leader, infinitely far from even the thought of any strife, who gladly sacrificed their lives just to avert bloodshed , who kept their squad from tempting temptations to seize power, filled with a sense of responsibility for the peaceful existence of the people. And looking at some pugnacious contemporary, people; those brought up in the book tradition probably thought with longing: oh, if only this one was at least somewhat reminiscent of Boris and Gleb!.. Tales of selfless and peace-loving princes, naturally, found admirers in countries such as the Czech Republic, Serbia and Armenia, whose population also suffered from princely turmoil.
33 PVL, part I, p. 54.
34 Ibid., p. 96. The same motive is put forward by the Legend of the murder of Boris and Gleb: “Yaroslav, not suffering this evil murder, we are moving towards his fratricide, the okannago Svyatoplak...” (“Monuments of Ancient Russian Literature”, issue 2, p. 44).
From the point of view of the ideal concepts of humility and obedience to the elder prince, embodied in the “feat” of Boris, the struggle of Vladimir Svyatoslavich against his elder brother Yaropolgg and Yaroslav - against Svyatopolk the Accursed - appears in an unsightly light. No matter how great the guilt of Yaropolk, who was the first to raise an army against Oleg Drevlyansky, and Svyatopolk, who killed his three innocent brothers, it was not the younger princes who should have judged him according to the concepts of the scribes, the authors of the tales of Boris and Gleb... But it was too lively in memory of the reign of Vladimir and Yaroslav, when Rus' was not tormented by strife, in order to condemn them for their actions, as a result of which order was established on earth. Therefore, while condemning in every possible way Blud, who betrayed his master, the chronicler at the same time not only does not blame Vladimir, but puts him in the role of a defender. “It wasn’t Yaz who started beating the brothers,” he allegedly ordered to convey to Blud, “but he. I was afraid of that, and when I died” 33. And Yaroslav is presented as a tool and avenger for the trampled right. “It’s not I,” he says, “who started beating my brothers, but he; May God have vengeance on the blood of my brothers, by shedding the righteous blood of Borisov and Glebov without guilt... Judge me, O Lord, in truth, so that the sinner’s malice may end” 34.
Having achieved power, Yaroslav, using less brutal means, essentially continues the policy of Svyatopolk the Accursed, which boiled down to concentrating all power in one hand: with his brother Mstislav, Yaroslav resolves the dispute with weapons, and with his other brother - Sudislav - through obvious slander (perhaps inspired by him) he put him in the "cut". And yet, although after the death of Mstislav of Chernigov, Yaroslav managed to become the “autocracy” of the Russian land, we observe in his time the well-known decline of the former political unity of the state. During the reign of Yaroslav, the separatism of individual regions intensified even more. Polotsk was owned by the descendants of Yaroslav's brother Izyaslav Vladimirovich, and Yaroslav did not dispose of the Polotsk region. Rich Novgorod, already under Vladimir Svyatoslavich, burdened by its dependence on Kyiv, under Yaroslav flourished even more economically, and thus the prerequisites for its future separation accumulated. Chernigov was already completely isolated from Kyiv under Mstislav, who, by the way, undertook the construction of a patronal church here - the Cathedral of the Savior, where he was buried. The ruling nobility of the regions, eager for isolation, needed independent princely dynasties that would be firmly connected with the given land and could protect its local interests from the claims of Kyiv. Thus, the idea of “eldership” was supplemented by the idea of “fatherland,” i.e., semi-independent regions belonging to representatives of certain princely lines, which the Grand Duke of Kiev cannot, at his own discretion, change, move, or infringe on in any other respect.
The combination of the idea of eldership with the rights of the “fatherland” was embodied in the famous monument of the 11th century, included in the Tale of Bygone Years, known in literature as the “Yaroslav row”. When Yaroslav was dying, the chronicle says, he allegedly called his sons to him and “ordered” them. “Have love in yourself,” Yaroslav punished his sons, “for you are brothers of the same father and mother. Yes, if you are in love with each other, God will be in you and you will subdue the enemy under you, and you will live peacefully. If you live in a hateful way, in strife and struggle, then you yourself will perish and destroy the land of your fathers and your grandfathers, even though you have climbed through your great labor; but remain peacefully obedient brother to brother.” Yaroslav entrusted the capital city of Kyiv to his eldest son Izyaslav and commanded the other sons: “Listen to this, as you listen to me, so that you will have a place in me.”
Thus, in the “row of Yaroslav” the idea of eldership is emphasized: younger brothers must unquestioningly obey the elder, who holds the Kiev table, and obey him like a father.
The elder brother is also subject to certain obligations. If someone wants to offend his brother, Yaroslav punishes Izyaslav, then he is obliged to help him against the offender. This is still not a limitation of the idea of eldership, for an exemplary father, naturally, should come to the aid of a son suffering unjust insults. But at the same time, Yaroslav significantly limited the rights of his eldest son, distributing volosts to other sons and “commanding them not to cross the limit of the brethren, nor to drive them away.” 35. Vladimir himself placed numerous of his sons in the volosts, considering them as governors, moving from one end of the state to another. Yaroslav did the same. But after his death, other orders were to come: the prince of Kiev, whom all other princes were supposed to honor as their own father, from now on had no right to dispose of the volosts: they became permanent possessions of a certain princely line, became a “fatherland” over which he had no power even the oldest prince, the nominal head of state. The series attributed to Yaroslav reflects what had already become apparent in the second half of the 11th century. feudal fragmentation of Rus', caused by the deepening of feudal relations and the strengthening of individual regions.
By this time, all the negative phenomena of feudal fragmentation begin to take their toll. The younger Yaroslavichs - Svyatoslav and Vsevolod in 1073 drove Izyaslav Yaroslavich from the Kyiv table. In the fight against his brothers, Izyaslav relied on external forces - the Poles, Germans, and the Pope. Corroded by strife, Rus' is no longer able to provide concentrated resistance to the steppe nomads and becomes easy prey for the Polovtsians. Under these conditions, the country's leading people are painfully searching for a way out of this difficult situation.
36 PVL, part I, -p. 108.
As in assessing social relations, Russian scribes, and in particular chroniclers, proceed from real possibilities. They do not invent any unrealistic schemes. They understand that there is no return to the times of Vladimir and Yaroslav, when the prince of Kiev could control all the resources of the earth. In order to resist the nomads and stop the constant internal war, it was necessary first of all to regulate inter-princely relations. It was for these purposes that the theory of “fatherland” was put forward, which was supposed to keep obstinate and pugnacious princes from illegally invading foreign borders. Thus, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe “fatherland”, as a region that has its rightful owner and is protected by “patrimonial right” from attacks by other princes, arose as an ideological theory on the basis of certain socio-economic and political relations36.
Bourgeois historians view this issue completely differently, usually interpreting the matter in such a way that first Yaroslav came up with the idea of seniority and the idea of patrimony, and only then inter-princely relations began to be built along his “line”.
S. M. Solovyov, when determining the inter-princely relations that prevailed in Kievan Rus, proceeded from his theory of tribal life. In his opinion, the “tribal life” that allegedly prevailed in Rus' also influenced mutual relations among the princely dynasty of the Rurikovichs, so that “when the princely family, the Rurikovich family, became numerous, then tribal relations began to dominate between its members...” . The unity of the princely family, according to S. M. Solovyov, was preserved with the help of the so-called “ladder ascension”, due to which, after the death of the Grand Duke, each of the remaining members of the princely family takes the next step, climbing one step on the ladder leading to the pinnacle of power, to the Kyiv golden table. “Such relationships in the family of rulers,” writes S. M. Solovyov, “such an order of succession, such transitions of princes have a powerful effect on the entire social life of ancient Rus', on determining the relations of the government principle to the squad and to the rest of the population, in a word, are on first plan, characterize time.” Changes came only in the second half of the 12th century, when northern Rus' appeared on the scene.
36 It is not without reason that A. A. Shakhmatov, and before him some other researchers, noted the connection of the chronicle article about the death of Yaroslav with the events of 1073, when Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, breaking “the commandment,” expelled Izyaslav from Kyiv. Speaking in 1073 with decisive accusations against the younger Yaroslavichs, especially Svyatoslav, the chronicler twice points out the violation of Yaroslav’s covenant. In this regard, A. A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that the articles about the death of Yaroslav and the events of 1073 were compiled by one person: under 1054, the author reports in detail how Yaroslav commanded his sons “not to cross the limit of brotherhood, nor drive away,” and under 1073 he acts as an accuser of the younger princes who were flattered by someone else’s border (A. A. Shakhmatov. Investigations..., pp. 403-404, 451).
After the death of the Grand Duke, it was not at all difficult to determine the eldest in the family. “The basis of seniority was physical seniority, with an uncle having an advantage over his nephews, an older brother over his younger ones, a father-in-law over his son-in-law, an older sister’s husband over his younger brothers-in-law, and an older brother-in-law over his younger brothers-in-law.” From the order of staircase ascent, ONLY the “OUTGY PRINCE” (whose father died during the life of his grandfather) was excluded. The outcast was assigned a certain volost, to which he and his descendants were once and for all “limited.” It is precisely this accidental circumstance that M. S. Solovyov explains the isolation of the Polotsk land, Ga- lshchka, Ryazan, and later Turov land. If we exclude the few outcast princes, the concept of the unity and indivisibility of the princely family was supported among the other princes by the fact that each member of the family “could receive seniority that did not remain exclusive in any line.”
What were, according to S. M. Solovyov, the responsibilities of the princes to each other and their real relationships? “The eldest prince,” he writes, “as a father, had the duty to look after the benefits of the whole clan, to think and wonder about the Russian land, about his honor and about the honor of all relatives, had the right to judge and punish the younger ones, distribute volosts, gave away orphans-daughters of princes married The younger princes were obliged to show respect and obedience to the older members, having him as their father in truth and obeying him, appearing to him at the first call, setting out on a campaign when ordered.” In other words, all these definitions of rights and obligations are exactly the same kind as those that we saw in Yaroslav’s will. However, a feeling of kinship cannot be maintained between distant relatives, “and as soon as this condition (kindred love. - //. B.) disappeared, then at the same time every connection, every subordination collapsed, because no other relationships except family relations was; the younger ones obeyed the elder until it seemed to them that he was treating them like a father; if they noticed the opposite, they armed themselves” 37.
37 S. M. Solove v. History of Russia since ancient times, ed. "Public Benefit", book. I, stb. 2-3, 279 "-280, 282, 284 (Emphasis by me - I.B.)
S. M. Solovyov’s construction, which completely ignores specific socio-economic relations, is artificial and far-fetched, and the picture he painted never took place in Kievan Rus. The occupation of princely tables did not take place at all according to the rules invented by S. M. Solovyov, about which the princes themselves had no idea, but depending on the real capabilities and resources of each prince and on how tightly he was connected with a given volost and, first of all, with her land ownership. The main mistake of S. M. Solovyov is that he reduces such an important and complex process as the feudal dismemberment of the country exclusively to the dulling of related feelings in the princely “family”. Meanwhile, this process, which had deep socio-economic and political roots, was not caused at all by the nature of princely relationships, but, on the contrary, princely relationships were built depending on how deep this process went. Of course, it is completely absurd to explain the isolation of individual regions by accidents in the princely family (the premature death of the prince - the father of the “outcast” during the life of the outcast’s grandfather).
Like S. M. Solovyov, and V. O. Klyuchevsky believes that the order of occupation of princely tables in Kievan Rus was of decisive importance for the entire life of the then society. If S. M. Solovyov believed that the order he depicted of the transition of princes from volost to volost supposedly “mightfully affects the entire social life of ancient Rus'”, that the relations between the princes “are in the foreground, characterize the time,” then V.I. Klyuchevsky believes that active in the 11th century. the order of princely ownership of the Russian land is the basis of its political system38.
V. O. Klyuchevsky accepts in general the construction of S. M. Solovyov, although he makes amendments to it, distinguishing between “the scheme or norm of order and its practical development.” “The norm of order,” according to V. O. Klyuchevsky, was allegedly observed in the practice of the first generations of Yaroslavichs, “and then it remains only in the concepts of the princes, forced out of practice by changing circumstances.” The established order was only occasionally disrupted by the valor of the prince, who looked at the city he conquered as a spoil of war, as well as by the intervention of cities. Like S. M. Solovyov, V. I. Klyuchevsky also explains the isolation of individual regions by the fact that they accidentally went to rogue princes, “genealogical undergrowth.”
Fully accepting the “theory of ladder ascension” by S. M. Solovyov, V. O. Klyuchevsky somewhat clarifies it with considerations about the existence of two ladders - the “ladder of persons and the ladder of regions”, which strictly corresponded to one another. “All the existing princes,” writes V. O. Klyuchevsky, “in terms of seniority, constituted one genealogical ladder. In the same way, the entire Russian land represented a ladder of regions according to the degree of their purpose and profitability. The order of princely possession was based on the exact correspondence of the steps of both of these ladders, genealogical and territorial, the ladder of persons and the ladder of regions.”
38 See V. O. Klyuchevsky. Works, vol. I. Course of Russian history, part I-M.5 1956, p. 169.
V. O. Klyuchevsky connected the “Theory of Ladder Ascent” with his own idea of the ancient Russian prince as some kind of migratory bird soaring all over the world.
regions of Rus' and did not have a strong nest anywhere. V. O. Klyuchevsky, contrary to firmly established historical facts, sees the roots of the system of undivided ownership of the princes of the Russian land in the fact that allegedly in the 11th century. “The concept of a prince as a territorial owner, the owner of any part of the Russian land, who has permanent connections with the territory he owns, is not yet noticeable. The Yaroslavichs, to a large extent, remained the same as their ancestors of the 9th century were - river Vikings, whom the dangers coming from the steppe barely forced to change from boat to horse.” And the princes came up with the very theory of staircase ascension for their practical convenience. However, the order they invented was disrupted due to the fact that the princely family grew and family relations became confused; Some nephews turned out to be years older than their uncles, this gave rise to misunderstandings, feuds and disputes - which of them was “older”. It was these difficulties that gave rise to the concept of fatherland: “When it became difficult for the sons to calculate their mutual genealogical relationship according to their fathers, they tried to settle down in the volosts in which their fathers sat” 39.
The theory of staircase ascent, as amended by V. O. Klyuchevsky, raises even more objections to that of S. M. Solovyov. Firstly, V. O. Klyuchevsky claims that this order was firmly held in the first generation of Yaroslavichs. Meanwhile, it was violated 19 years after the death of Yaroslav and his imaginary “row,” namely in 1073, when Svyatoslav, with the help of Vsevolod, drove out his elder brother Izyaslav. After the death of Svyatoslav, Vsevolod ceded the great reign to his elder brother Izyaslav, not because he was the eldest (this circumstance did not prevent Vsevolod from helping Svyatoslav expel Izyaslav), but because he was not confident in the favorable outcome of the armed struggle and preferred to negotiate peacefully with his elder brother, having received from him the lion's share of Svyatoslav's inheritance with the city of Chernigov and completely deprived his nephews of Svyatoslavich (not “outcasts” in the understanding of S. M. Solovyov and V. O. Klyuchevsky), who not only did not move forward along the genealogical ladder (as required by “ theory of ladder ascension"), but also generally lost almost all of their possessions.
39 Ibid., pp. 170, 174, 176, 178, 183.
When the last Yaroslavich, Grand Duke Vsevolod, died, the “eldest in the clan” Svyatopolk occupied the Kiev table not by right of seniority, but quite by chance, as a neutral person who could balance the sharp struggle observed at that time between Vladimir Monomakh and Oleg
Svyatoslavich. After the death of Svyatopolk, the grand-ducal table, as is known, was occupied by Vladimir Monomakh. Meanwhile, if, as V. O. Klyuchevsky claims, during the first generations of the Yaroslavichs the “system” invented by him and S. M. Solovyov was in effect, then the Kiev table should It was not Vladimir Monomakh who took over, but the eldest in the family, David Svyatoslavich.
V. O. Klyuchevsky’s statement that the concept of fatherland arose as a result of the difficulty of calculating the genealogical relationships of princes sounds very naive. Of course, the point here is not in genealogical calculations, but in the much deeper reasons already indicated above.
Further, V. O. Klyuchevsky’s statement that in the 11th century is incorrect. Russian princes were not at all connected with any specific territory. Already in the middle of the 11th century. Princely land ownership assumed such wide dimensions that there was a need to protect the interests of this land ownership through legislation. As you know, this was embodied in “Pravda Yaroslavichy”. Even while occupying Kyiv, individual princes continued to rely on their homelands.
It is characteristic in this regard that Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, who died in 1076 as the Grand Duke of Kyiv, was buried not in Sofia in Kyiv, but in the Church of the Savior in Chernigov.
Feeling, probably, all the unsteadiness of his construction, V. O. Klyuchevsky is forced to admit that the order he invented “always and never worked - always partially and never completely”40. But to admit that the “system” that supposedly underlay the entire political life of the country operated only during the first generations of the Yaroslavichs, and only “partially” at that, means discrediting the very system on the construction of which so much wit was spent.
40 See V. O. Klyuchevsky. Decree. cit., p. 188.
41 V. Sergeevich. Antiquities of Russian law, vol. II, ed. 3. St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 365.
The Solovyov-Klyuchevsky theory met with critical attitude already in bourgeois historiography, in particular, from V.I. Sergeevich. Having outlined the relationship between Yaroslav the Wise and his brother Sudislav, who was imprisoned by Yaroslav, V.I. Sergeevich wittily notes that Sudislav, according to the theory of ladder ascent, had an undoubted right to eldership after Yaroslav; therefore, Yaroslav eliminated him not because he did not have the right to Kyiv, but “because our ancient princes did not even suspect the existence of the theory of tribal distribution of tables” 41. But correctly rejecting the fetish in the form of the system proposed by Solovyov-Klyuchevsky “ staircase ascent,” which supposedly existed in Kievan Rus and was developed there in every detail, V.I. Sergeevich, for his part, puts forward another fetish in the form of a “contractual principle,” which supposedly underlay the entire political language of Rus' from ancient times to 30 -s of the 16th century.
In his theory of the “contractual principle,” V.I. Sergeevich proceeded from the position that individual regions of Rus' from time immemorial were completely independent states, headed by sovereign sovereigns. Considering the princes as rulers of volosts independent from each other, V.I. Sergeevich believes that relations between them were settled only in two ways: either by an army or by a peace treaty, and such relations were already observed in the second half of the 10th century. “We observe exactly the same thing in everything that followed until the complete disappearance of appanage princes” 42.
The end of contract law, which “represents the greatest obstacle to the formation of a single state with a single sovereign at the head” 43, was put, according to V.I. Sergeevich, by the Moscow boyars during the time of Ivan the Terrible, when they led the brothers of the deceased Grand Duke Vasily Ivanovich to kiss the cross , and they themselves refused to kiss the cross in the name of the young sovereign44. The fact that “contract law,” which had been in continuous operation for six centuries, was suddenly interrupted by the Moscow boyars, is explained, according to Sergeevich, by the fact that “the offspring of the founder of the Moscow line, Prince Daniel, was less prolific than the offspring of Vladimir Moyomakh. Thanks to this, in Moscow at any given moment there were fewer applicants-fathers for the Moscow table than in Kyiv for the Kiev table” 45.
42 Ibid., pp. 150-152.
43 Ibid., p. 221.
44 Ibid., p. 256.
45 Ibid., p. 275.
The construction of V.I. Sergeevich is no more acceptable than the Solovyov-Klyuchevsky scheme. First of all, Sergeevich proceeds from the false premise of the original sovereignty of the ancient Russian principalities, although it is known that even under the feudal system, individual principalities were not real, completely sovereign states. Before this, that is, before the fragmentation of Rus' into independent semi-states, the individual regions that were part of Kievan Rus were certainly not real states. The nature of the agreements concluded between Russian princes in the X]-XII centuries is completely different from the nature of the agreements concluded in subsequent centuries. Of course, both of them often talk about the same issues - about borders, inviolability of possessions, etc. However, the subject matter and wording of the agreements do not yet determine either their internal content, much less the nature of the power of the contracting parties.
Restoring the characteristic, as it seems to him, sides of inter-princely agreements over a long period, from the 10th to the 16th centuries, V.I. Sergeevich does not take into account at all the socio-economic and political situation that gave rise to these agreements, and the amendments that this situation contributed not only to the content, but sometimes even to the form of contracts. In V.I. Sergeevich’s view, it is not real life, not the material conditions of society that have developed certain legal norms and formulas, but, on the contrary, legal formulas weigh on life, determining its course and development.
V. I. Sergeevich’s considerations with which he explains the cessation of the practice of “contractual principles” in Moscow sound completely unfounded and naive. Explain the creation of the autocratic system only by “favorable accidents” or biological reasons, such as the insufficient fertility of the descendants of Prince Daniil Alexandrovich. Moskovsky - this means admitting complete methodological helplessness.
In our review of the theories put forward by bourgeois historiography on the subject of interest to us, we will also dwell on the scheme of A. E. Presnyakov, developed by him in his dissertation “Princely Law in Ancient Rus'.” The essence of its construction is that the princes of ancient Rus' owned the country according to the norms of customary family law46 As long as the princely family is not divided, the state remains intact; the latter disintegrates as soon as a family division occurs: “Undivided ownership - with the indivisibility of the family; after the division, complete separation, independence of ownership with the disintegration of the family union into a number of separate, independent families, a common grandfather - into a number of independent patrimony" 47.
46 A. Presnyakov. Princely law in ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg, 1*909,. page 154.
47 Ibid., p. 61.
The norms of family life led to the collapse of all states of the “Slavic-Germanic world,” including Kievan Rus. In all such states, A. E. Presnyakov points out, we “see how the concept of inheritance, the customary legal concept of family life, applied to princely ownership, leads to the collapse of the young statehood, which has not yet managed to create new norms and relations free from narrow the framework of private family life. Everywhere the need to preserve the once created unity leads to the struggle against what was perceived as right - to family atrocities, the destruction of rival brothers and other relatives. Through a series of bloody experiments, historically young dynasties at the dawn of the Slavic Middle Ages reached the point of attempting to work out some compromises to reconcile irreconcilable principles: state and family-dynastic. A.E. Presnyakov sees such a compromise in the “Yaroslav series”. This includes family division and “the desire to avoid the natural consequence of division: the collapse of the family union”48.
Considering the property of the Rurik princes as some kind of “family possession,” A.E. Presnyakov cannot even grasp what their state functions actually consist of. Summing up the results of his research, A.E. Presnyakov comes to the conclusion that the basis of the possessive relations of the princes of the Rurik dynasty to the lands and volosts “was the relationship of family ownership.” What did the princes of the “Rurik clan” own, asks A.E. Presnyakov, and answers: “Not territory. Until the end of the period under consideration, the princes are not considered the owners of all the land: its ownership was a matter of further historical development. And not by the supreme power. The princes of the 11th-12th centuries were not sovereigns - neither in themselves, nor, especially as members of a proprietary family. There is no need to talk about either the individual or the collective state supreme power of the ancient Russian princes, if we do not abuse words. The Rurik princes own the volosts. These volosts are formed into systems on separate lands, around the main cities, and in the total sum of the lands-volosts they constitute ancient Kievan Rus, the Russian land, in the broad sense of the word... This unity is expressed in such aggregate relationships that do not find expression in terms of state rights. We cannot subsume ancient Rus' either under the concept of a single state, or under the concept of a federation, or under the concept of a sum of sovereign states-volosts..." 49.
48 Ibid., pp. 33-34.
49 Ibid., pp. 153-154.
The construction of A. E. Presnyakov is no less idealistic than the already considered schemes of S. M. Solovyov, V. O. Klyuchevsky and V. I. Sergeevich. It is not the “family division” and not the “concept of inheritance” that determine the dismemberment of the young states of the “Slavic-Germanic world,” as A.E. Presnyakov believes, but the growth and deepening of feudal relations. It is not the orders of the reigning prince, made by him during his lifetime or in his death row, that determine the further political relations of the country, but, on the contrary, the political relations that develop under the influence of the material conditions of life of society give rise to the appearance of various legends and tales about the death rows created by certain political groups for specific political purposes. It’s simply amazing that such a subtle source scholar (like A.E. Presnyakov) blindly believes in the existence of the “Yaroslav series” exactly in the form in which it is placed in the chronicle, and gives it magical significance in the future destinies of the country.
Having placed the princes of Kievan Rus into the narrow framework of family relations, A.E. Presnyakov does not recognize them as possessing territory or supreme power. In his depiction, the princes of ancient Rus' are some kind of mysterious creatures, who do not know what they are doing and do not know why they exist. In this regard, A.E. Presnyakov went even further than V.O. Klyuchevsky, who recognized for the prince at least the functions of a “military guard” of the Russian land.
In the same way, Kievan Rus, in the view of A.E. Presnyakov, is, at best, only a geographical concept that cannot be subsumed under any term that has any relation to state law. Meanwhile, both the prince of Kiev and the individual princes who stood at the head of the semi-states into which Kievan Rus was divided, owned the means of state violence - armed force, “cuttings”, the princely administration, issued laws, levied taxes, etc., providing everyone by these means]I the power of the ruling class over the exploited masses; at the same time, they headed the armed forces of the state and relied on them in carrying out their foreign policy. Denying Kievan Rus as a state, A.E. Presnyakov comes into conflict with himself, because elsewhere in his dissertation he still reads Kievan Rus as a young state of the “Slavic-Germanic world.”
In general, A.E. Presnyakov’s construction is a variation of the “ladder ascension” scheme, based on the theory of tribal life (although A.E. Presnyakov makes amendments to this scheme and in places criticizes it). Only for S. M. Solovyov the Russian land is in the family possession of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and for A. E. Presnyakov - in the family; for S. M. Solovyov, the land begins to fragment a certain time after the division, when the family accounts become confused, and for A. E. Presnyakov, fragmentation begins immediately after the “family division.”
All the theories discussed, no matter how different they may be, are based on an idealistic methodology, by virtue of which the life of states and peoples is governed by unshakable legal relations and formulas. In fact, as we have already indicated, the dismemberment of the Old Russian state occurred as a result of profound changes that took place in the material life of society. For the people of that time, it was clear to what sad consequences the political collapse of the state would lead. Struggling against these consequences, they put forward various ideas that, in their opinion, were supposed to restore the unity of the country. This is how the idea of eldership arose, embodied in legends and literary monuments about the popular princes Boris and Gleb. But in the context of the rapid progress of feudal fragmentation, the idea of eldership in its pure form turned out to be very unrealistic and it was soon supplemented by the idea of otchina, according to which the princes, in order to avoid unnecessary strife and disputes among themselves for volosts, should sit in the domains inherited from their fathers (and at that Now is the time to recognize and respect the rights of the senior prince of Kyiv.
The idea of the fatherland was recognized at the first inter-princely congress, held in 1097 in Lyubech. The congress was attended by the Kiev prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, Vladimir Monomakh, David and Oleg Svyatoslavich, the prince of Vladimir-Volyn David Igorevich - all cousins and their cousin nephew Prince of Terebovl Vasilko Rostislavich. Convened “to establish peace,” the congress is held under the sign of uniting all the forces of the country to fight the Polovtsians. “Why are we destroying the Russian land,” said the princes, according to the chronicle testimony, “on which we ourselves are acting? But the Polovtsi are discordantly dissecting our land, and for the sake of it, they are fighting between us. Yes, but from now on we have one heart and protect the Russian lands” 50. For a general agreement, a formula was found that seemed to satisfy everyone. This formula read: “Everyone should maintain his fatherland.” 51. According to this formula, Svyatopolk was supposed to receive all the volosts that belonged to Izyaslav Yaroslavich, Vladimir - the volosts of Vsevolod Yaroslavich, David, Oleg and their brother Yaroslav - the inheritance of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich. In addition, some princes were assigned cities that were distributed to them by Vsevolod when he was the Grand Duke. David Igorevich received Vladimir-Volynsky, Volodar Rostislavich - Przemysl, and Vasilko Rostislavich - Terebovl. At the agreement reached, the participants of the congress kissed the cross and agreed to act together with everyone in relation to the prince who would decide to speak out against another (“if anyone is against anyone, then we will all be against him”52). Thus, the principle put forward by Russian social thought back in the 70s of the 11th century triumphed in state practice.
50 PVL, part I, p. 170. D)1 Ibid.
52 Ibid., pp. 170-171.
The principle of fatherland, which, on the one hand, restrained princely civil strife, and on the other hand, limited in a certain sense the rights of the oldest (Kyiv) prince, was put forward by Russian journalism as a compromise. In the latter, as often happens, there was an internal contradiction, because it was precisely with the isolation of the fatherlands that it was impossible to think about uniting all the forces of the country against the steppe nomads. It is characteristic that the very principle proclaimed at the congress was not followed to the end, for rich Novgorod, Izyaslav’s long-standing fatherland, was transferred not to Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, but to Vladimir Monomakh. But the worst thing was that the solemnly proclaimed principle was violated immediately after the congress. David Igorevich, who was present at the congress, with the consent of the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and on his territory, brutally blinded another participant in the congress, Vasilko Rostislavich, Prince Terebovlsky. The story of the blinding of Vasilko, written with stunning drama by the priest Vasily and included in the Tale of Bygone Years, was greatly changed by Sylvester, for the author of the first edition of the Tale of Bygone Years was rather shielding Svyatopolk and probably confirmed the existence of joint plans between Vasilko and Vladimir Monomakh against Svyatopolk. In this altered form, the story presents many unknowns. On the one hand, outraged by Vasilko’s insidious blindness, Vladimir Monomakh, acting together with David and Oleg Svyatoslavich, forces Svyatopolk to oppose David Igorevich and restore the situation. On the other hand, at the second princely congress in 1100 in Vitichev, Monomakh agrees to the transfer of Vladimir-Volynsky, which belonged to David Igorevich, to the guilty Svyatopolk and to the confiscation of Terebo from the injured Vasilko. Forced under pressure from Vladimir Monomakh to oppose David Igorevich, Svyatopolk Izyaslavich not only seizes the latter's volost - Vladimir-Volynsky, in his favor, but also strives to own the Rostislavich volosts - Vasilko and his brother Volodar, and all this does not meet any resistance from the favored chronicler Vladimir Monomakh.
From the chronicle description of the events that followed the blinding of Vasilko, it is clear how deeply the question of the unity of the state worried Russian socio-political thought and how any prince, who sometimes tore the Russian land into pieces, covered up his actions with conversations about its good. When Vladimir Monomakh learned about the blinding of Vasilko, he demanded that David and Oleg Svyatoslavich act together with him against Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and David Igorevich. “If we don’t rule this,” said Vladimir Monomakh, “then a greater evil will arise in us and brother will begin to slay brother, and the Russian land will perish, and attack the Polovtsians, who have come to disturb the earth
Russian" 53. But the punitive expedition undertaken by Vladimir Monomakh had its downside: regardless of its goals and reasons, it still increased discord between the Russian princes and weakened the Russian land. This motive was put forward by Metropolitan Nicholas and Vladimir’s stepmother Monomakh, sent by the people of Kiev to dissuade Vladimir from military action. “We pray, prince, to you and your brother, that you will not destroy the Russian lands. If you take the army among yourselves, you will rejoice at the abominations and seize our land, which your fathers and grandfathers acquired through great labor and courage, scouring the Russian land, looking for other lands, and you want to destroy the Russian land." 54. Vladimir Monomakh bowed down on admonitions from the Metropolitan and his stepmother, and peace was concluded on the condition that Ovyatopolk himself would speak out against David Igorevich. The strife, therefore, was not eliminated at all, but only localized.
53 PVL, part I, p. 174.
54 Ibid., pp. 174-175. The passages cited are reminiscent of the corresponding passage from the Preface to the Initial Code. Let us further note that, describing the events that took place several years earlier, in 1093, when “strife and conflicts” arose between Vladimir Monomakh and Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who opposed the Polovtsians, the chronicler, through the mouths of “meaningful” people, also expresses the idea that in the face of external danger one should postpone one’s mutual settlements until a more favorable time. “Why are you fighting among yourself? - asked the “sensible” men of Vladimir and Svyatopolk. - A. It’s abomination to destroy the Russian land. Afterwards, she will settle things, but she will not go against the filthy ones” (ibid., p. 143).
55 Ibid., p. 115,
Already before, the chronicler, on occasion, emphasized the need for the princes to comply with their obligations. When, as a result of the popular uprising of 1068, Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich was forced to flee from Kyiv and Prince Vseslav of Polotsk, freed by the people from the “cut,” sat on the throne, the chronicler considered this event significant in the sense that it happened on the day of the erection of the cross. Since, the chronicler argues, Izyaslav violated the kiss of the cross by arresting Vseslav, to whom safety had been promised with an oath, “God showed the power of the cross to show the land of Russia,” first bringing in the Polovtsians, and then freeing Vseslav on the day of his exaltation55. At the end of the century, in connection with the blinding of Vasilko and the violation of the agreement reached at the Lyubech Congress, Russian journalism begins to pay more attention to the topic of the need to comply with the obligations assumed. In the story about the blinding of Vasilko, those places where it is said about the violation of accepted obligations are emphasized with particular expressiveness. One of Vasilka’s “children” warns him not to go to Svyatopolk, because he wants to grab him. But Vasilko doesn’t want to hear it, not allowing the thought that people could so gullibly violate the kiss of the cross: “Why would you want to give me? Sometimes they kissed the cross, saying: “If anyone is against anyone, then the cross will be against him, and we will be with you” 56.
This gullibility of Vasilka; his deep conviction that princes cannot violate their obligations represents a very skillful literary device that should demonstrate to the reader the baseness and gravity of the crime committed. The subsequent narrative describes how the blinded Vasilko, forced to enter into battle with Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, inspires his soldiers, holding high above his head the cross that Svyatopolk treacherously kissed. “Take Svyatopolk the cross, hope for many howls. And sitting on the ground on Rozhni, both of them were filled, and Vasilko raised up the cross, saying: because you kissed this one, you took the first sight with my eye, and now you want to take my soul. Let the cross be between us” 57. The reader is psychologically prepared for the fact that victory should rightfully go to Vasilko. And indeed Svyatopolk was defeated and fled to Vladimir-Volynsky.
The theme of fidelity to obligations is also developed by Vladimir Monomakh in his Teaching. At the very beginning of the Teaching, Vladimir1 tells how he was met on the Volga by ambassadors from the “brothers”, who invited him to unite with them in order to drive out the Rosti-Slavichs and take their volosts. But Monomakh did not agree with their proposal and declared: “Even if you are angry, I cannot walk or cross the cross.” 58. And further, among the instructions to children, we find this: “If you kiss the cross to your brothers or Whoever, if you have controlled your heart, can stand on it, kiss him too, and be careful when you kiss him, lest you step in and destroy your soul” 59.
The Polovtsian khan Belduz, who fell into his hands, was brutally executed by Monomakh, according to the chronicler’s explanation, because he had repeatedly violated his oath obligations (“company”) not to attack the Russian land. “Why are you not a Kazakh,” Vladimir Monomakh asked Beldyuz, “your sons and your family do not transgress the company, but shed the blood of peasants? Let your blood be on your head" 60.
56 PVL, part I, p. 172.
57 Ibid., p. 178.
58 Ibid., p. 153.
59 Ibid., p. 157.
*" Ibid., pp. 184-185.
In this atmosphere of painful search for acceptable
political forms of inter-princely relations that would bring peace and tranquility to the land tormented by internal whirlpools and external attacks, the Tale of Bygone Years appeared. This wonderful monument of Russian culture has been carefully studied for almost 200 years. The most prominent Russian historians and literary scholars have devoted many studies to him, examining the monument from different angles: as a historical source, as a work of art, etc. The works of A. A. Shakhmatov are very famous in this area, especially his extensive introduction to the text of the Tale he reconstructed temporary years according to the second and third editions 61.
The Tale of Bygone Years has reached us in the second edition, which belonged to one of the associates of Vladimir Monomakh, the abbot of his family Vydubitsky monastery, and subsequently the Bishop of Pereyaslavl - Sylvester (the third edition, which appeared under Vladimir Monomakh, contains only the most minor amendments and additions). Thus, before us is a monument of socio-political thought, which reflected in another literary genre the same ideas that Vladimir Monomakh carried out in his teaching. Hence, it is quite natural that the Tale of Bygone Years pays a lot of attention to the Rurik dynasty. “The dynasty, in the opinion of the historian-chronicler,” writes B. D. Grekov, “saved the Russian and many non-Russian peoples from “strife,” it put together a state with “great labor,” and it should do so even now, when “strife” is with renewed vigor are corroding Rus', saving the political unity of the country. This idea permeates all contemporary and subsequent literature, bringing it to its highest expression in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” 62.
61 A. A. Shakhmatov. The Tale of Bygone Years, vol. I. Pgr., 1916.
62 B. D. Grekov. The first work on the history of Russia. "Historical Journal", 1943, No. 11-12, p. 66.
63 PVL, part I, p. 175.
This idea, we would add, clearly expressed in the Tale of Bygone Years, echoes similar thoughts in the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh. We have already cited above the words of Metropolitan Nicholas and stepmother Monomakh, who recalled how the fathers and grandfathers of their contemporary princes “acquired” the Russian land, which their descendants make easy prey for the “filthy”. These words find complete sympathy on the part of Vladimir Monomakh. According to the chronicler, “having heard all this, Volodimer burst into tears and said: truly our fathers and our grandfathers have devoured the Russian land, and we want to destroy it.” 63. Princely strife seemed to the author of the Tale of Bygone Years (as well as to previous chroniclers) a matter so absurd,
monstrous and savage that they attributed them to the machinations of the devil and explained any princely “which” as the machinations of “soto-iy”. We find the same thoughts in the Teaching. “But everything is teaching the devil! - writes Vladimir Monomakh in a message to Oleg Svyatoslavich, - Because there were armies under our smart grandfathers, and under the good ones and under our blessed fathers. The devil doesn’t want the good of the human race, so he brings us in” 64.
B. D. Grekov defines the “core idea” of the Tale of Bygone Years as “pride in one’s past, fear for the future and a call to protect the integrity of the homeland” 65. But the author of the Tale does not just call for respect for the integrity of the homeland, he puts forward an entire system of social and political measures, which, in his opinion, should have stopped the collapse of the state. The social views of the chroniclers of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, which were reflected in the Tale of Bygone Years, were discussed in the previous essay. We saw that these views completely coincided with the views of Vladimir Monomakh, expressed by him in the Instruction, in the corresponding articles of the Extensive Russian Pravda and in general in his practical activities. We could also be convinced that the political ideal of the chronicler, who came as a result of bitter experience to the conviction that the idea of eldership must be supplemented with the idea of the inviolability of fatherland, also corresponded to the state aspirations of Vladimir Monomakh, who, in turn, came to this compromise after heavy defeats ( loss of Chernigov) and disappointments.
64 PVL, part I, p. 166.
65 B. D. Grekov. Decree. article, page 66.
66 PVL, part I, p. 171.
67 Ibid., p. 10 (Emphasis added by me. - //. B.).
In the Tale of Bygone Years, the idea of a fatherland, which foreign princes do not dare encroach on, permeates the entire content of the monument. Russian scribes believed that if the princes were imbued with this idea, then each of them would sit calmly in their homeland, and discord and bloodshed would cease in Rus'. This idea found vivid expression in the story about “Yaroslav’s row”, which was discussed above; it triumphed at the Lyubech Congress, about which the chronicler notes that “for the sake of the people of all” 66. Even in the introductory, undated part of the monument, where the story is told about legendary prehistoric times, the idea of peaceful cohabitation of princes is promoted, which can be achieved by a clear delineation of volosts, the boundaries of which no one should transgress: “By this, Ham and Afet, having divided the land, cast lots, did not transgress anyone’s lot, brother, and alive every one in his part” 67.
Any violation of this principle is met with furious condemnation from the chronicler as an evil deed inspired by the devil. “Svyatoslav sat in Kiev,” the chronicler notes, “having driven out his brother, breaking the commandment of his own, and above all God’s. For it is a great sin to transgress the commandment of one’s father..., for it is not good to transgress someone else’s limit” 68.
But being in his homeland, the prince should not withdraw into his own shell and isolate himself from the interests of the entire Russian land. On the contrary, he must always stand guard over the unity of Rus', help the unjustly suffered princes (what the Lyubech Congress also decided), show devotion to the elders, and not remember evil. From this angle, the chronicler describes the events associated with the speech of Oleg Svyatoslavich and Boris Vyacheslavich against their uncles Vsevolod and Izyaslav Yaroslavich. Oleg and Boris came to Chernigov, “doing a lot of evil, shedding blood on the peasants, but God will seek their blood from her hand and give an answer to them for the ruined souls of the peasants” e9. Broken by his nephews, Vsevolod came to his older brother Izyaslav for help. He consoled him, remembered how he himself, having lost the throne, wandered through foreign lands, and promised Vsevolod help: “If there is communion in the Russian land, then both; If it is deprived of budeve, then both. I laid down my head for you” 70. Izyaslav kept his word. He came to the aid of Vsevolod and in the battle on Nezhatina Niva he died, struck by a spear. For this, the chronicler dedicated a heartfelt funeral eulogy to him. When the beaten Vsevolod, the chronicler says, turned to Izyaslav, he could remember to him the evil that he suffered from his brothers. But Izyaslav “does not give evil for evil, but comforts him,” he said: “Elma, my brother, you showed love for me by bringing me to my table and calling me an elder for yourself, but I will not remember the first malice, you are my brother, and I will lay my head for you, and so be it.” This is how Izyaslav died, “not wanting more volost, no estate, although more...” 71. Next comes a panegyric of love, which, in the mind of the chronicler, like other Russian clergy, was thought of as universal consent and harmony of interests.
68 Ibid., p. 122.
69 Ibid., p. 132.
70 Ibid., pp. 132-133.
71 Ibid., p. 134.
Even when talking about matters that had nothing to do with the political life of the country, the chronicler sometimes sought to cover them in such a way as to draw a lesson for inter-princely relations. Talking, for example, about the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, the Tale of Bygone Years reports that after death
The Theodosius monastery continued to prosper under the new abbot Stefan. The monks lived in aching and prayers, “in love always existing, the men repenting to the elders and not daring to speak before them, but all with great submission and obedience, and the elders also named love for the lesser...” 72. The touching picture drawn by the chronicler was pure fiction, since in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery the struggle of “parties” was in full swing all the time and intrigues did not stop. In the midst of this struggle, Stephen did not retain power. As the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon tells, the monks themselves, contrary to the will of Theodosius, who nominated Stephen as their abbot, rebelled against him and overthrew him from his abbotship. But the chronicler is not at all embarrassed by all this, and he even remains silent about the fact of Stefan’s displacement. He paints an ideal picture, which should serve as an example and model for Russian princes and be the basis for maintaining external security and internal peace in Rus'.
Sometimes the chronicler does not stop before deliberately (though only in detail) to distort and embellish the facts, just to emphasize again and again his favorite idea about the means of achieving harmony in the Russian land. We have already seen this in the example of coverage of events related to the struggle between Yaroslav the Wise and his brother Mstislav of Tmutorokan, when the chronicler attributes to Mstislav, who went to war against Yaroslav, unusual respect and love for his older brother. The chronicler also embellishes the events associated with Rostislav Vladimirovich’s struggle for Tmutorokan. In 1065, the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, the rogue prince Rostislav Vladimirovich, expelled his cousin Gleb Svyatoslavich from Tmuto-rokan and sat down as a prince there. Gleb's father Svyatoslav of Chernigov opposed Rostislav in Tmutorokan, and he cleared the city. At the same time, the chronicler assures that Rostislav was not at all afraid of Svyatoslav, but retreated out of political convictions, not wanting to take up arms against his uncle (“not even to take his weapons against the enemy”) 73. How much Rostislav really respected the senior princes and took into account their will, can be judged by the fact that as soon as Svyatoslav went back to Chernigov, Rostislav again drove out Gleb and finally settled in Tmutorokan...
72 PVL, part I, p. 125.
73 Ibid., p. 110.
So, The Tale of Bygone Years, in addition to its artistic and scientific merits, is also a purposeful journalistic work, the main thoughts of which are aimed at justifying the best ways to preserve the unity of the Russian land. In artistic form, using all the methods of scientific criticism available to him at that time, the chronicler narrates the historical destinies of his homeland, but he uses the lessons of history to instill in the princes and in general the entire ruling class the need to achieve inner peace - social and political. We have already seen that these ideas are consonant with the program and state practice of Vladimir Monomakh. Thus, the appearance during his reign of the Tale of Bygone Years in the edition that has reached us is a completely natural phenomenon, indicating that Vladimir Monomakh widely used ideological means to carry out his policies.
In general, the time of Vladimir Monomakh was marked by intensive work of social thought and a broad cultural movement, which was expressed, in addition to the appearance of two editions of the Tale of Bygone Years and the Teachings of Monomakh himself, in the construction and decoration of many churches with paintings, the beginning of the creation of the Pechersk Patericon, the processing of original Russian lives, the Walk of the Abbot Daniel, who undertook a journey to Palestine, etc. It is worth dwelling in a little more detail on the Walk of Abbot Daniel, since this work reflected the concern for the Russian land characteristic of that time, which contemporaries felt united and indivisible.
74 It is interesting to compare the warnings of Hegumen Daniel with “In the petition of Kirikov,” where the hieromonk of the Novgorod Anthony Monastery Kirik asks Archbishop Nifont: “And those who are like this: to go towards Jerusalem to the saints, and I do not order others to go; to be..., am I, sir, is that a sin? Tshrchik's actions were probably caused by a reluctance for “good” workers to be taken away from work by their employers; In addition, pilgrims returning to their homeland, surrounded by an aura of “holiness,” had to be counted as church people, accepted into church almshouses, and thereby burdening the church treasury. One way or another, Niphon approved of Kirik’s behavior. “Velmi... do good,” said Nifont, “and share it, so that the walking people eat and drink separately” (RIB, vol. VI, stb. 27). Niphon answered a similar question from priest Elijah even more decisively. “We went to byahu company (gave an oath. - I.B.), - asked Ilya, -
In the literature one can find an indication that the work of Abbot Daniel is a guide for pilgrims to “holy places”. But this is not a guide, for Daniel sets himself completely different goals. Not only does he not try to tempt anyone on a long journey to Palestine, full of difficulties and dangers, but he inspires the reader that with alms and good deeds one can “be saved” while sitting at home and without making such a journey; Daniel, in addition, warns that such an enterprise requires large funds, and not everyone can afford it 74.
Daniel himself belonged to the top of Russian society. It was not for nothing that King Baldwin of Jerusalem treated him attentively, and the Catholic bishop in Nazareth received him with great honor and richly treated him. Having large funds at his disposal, Daniel, together with a “squad” of his servants, lived for 16 months in the Lavra of St. Savva in Jerusalem. From here, having hired himself a good guide (“the leader of good”), he undertook excursions in various directions, on which he spent a lot of his “earnings.” The time of Daniel's stay in Palestine is established quite accurately. It falls on 1106-1107; At this time, King Baldwin of Jerusalem made a campaign against Damascus, which Daniel took advantage of to get to Lake Tiberias under the protection of the crusaders.
Without being a guidebook, Daniel's notes at that time are distinguished by the exceptional accuracy of the facts and data reported in them. He describes mainly what he saw with his own eyes, and if he reports something from hearsay, then only after making sure of the reliability of the source. Having described, for example, Mount Lebanon, he adds: “But those Lebanon mountains I could not reach with my feet, for fear of the filthy, but we said good things about that mountain, even though we are Christians living there.” 75. Wherever possible, he tries everything himself measured to give readers the most reliable information. He reports, for example, that the depth of the Jordan is 4 fathoms, “as I measured and tested myself, for I wandered into the country of the Jordan, walking a lot on its banks.” 76. He himself measured the “sepulchre of the Lord” in length, width and height (it was impossible to do this in public, but he was allowed into the room alone by the housekeeper, to whom Daniil gave “something little”) 77.
“I want to go to Jerusalem.” And Niphon ordered in such cases to impose an epithem: “that bo, speech, company (such a vow - I.B.) to destroy this land” (ibid., stb. 61-62).
75 “The Life and Walk of Danil of the Russian Land as Abbot,” ed. M. A. Venevitinova. "Orthodox Palestine Collection", vol. III, no. 3. St. Petersburg, 1885, p. 109.
76 Ibid., vol. I, no. 3. St. Petersburg, 1883, pp. 45-46.
77 Ibid., vol. III, no. 3, pp. 138-139.
78 Ibid., p. 126. This literary manner does not leave him when, filled with pathos, he describes the service on Holy Saturday in the Jerusalem Church of the Resurrection, where the “Holy Sepulcher” stands. He very realistically describes the crowd and turmoil observed here,
Abbot Daniel's life is free from the fantastic executions with which medieval pilgrims who visited the “holy places” loved to amaze the imagination of their listeners or readers. In Daniel’s own words, he describes his journey “not cunningly, but simply,” “not wisely..., but not falsely, as he saw his own eyes” 78.
After living for 16 months in Palestine, Daniel walked the length and breadth of the country. Constantly living in Jerusalem, he visited Jaffa and other cities on the Mediterranean coast, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jericho, Acre and the Jordan, Galilee, Mount of Olives, Mount Lebanon and many other places.
Daniel's excursions were often fraught with great difficulty and even danger. He himself climbed up a difficult rocky slope to the top of Mount Tabor, and the ascent took six hours “borzo idugtse” 79. Once Daniel had to go from Bethlehem to Ascalon, but along the road there was a mountain that was occupied by the Saracens. However, Daniel had a good, numerous squad, with whom he was able to “pass that terrible place without dirty tricks; then, to stay close to the Askolon city, and from there let filth and filth come out and beat on that evil path” 80. He visited Galilee, where the mountainous “path leads from Jerusalem is terrible and very difficult.” Balduin went east to Damascus past Lake Tiberias. When Daniel found out about this, he went to the king, bowed to him and asked him to take him with him. Baldwin happily agreed and entrusted Daniel to his youths. “And so that terrible place passed through with the royal howls without fear and without dirty tricks; and no one can pass the way without howling” 81.
First of all, Daniel, of course, was interested in the “shrines,” but they were not the only things that attracted his attention. His inquisitive gaze turns to many aspects of life and everyday life in the areas he visits, far from the goals of his travel. In his notes he provides a lot of interesting geographical, economic and ethnographic data.
which came from a multitude of people who came here at Easter from Babylon, Egypt, “and from all the ends of the earth.” The “great oppression” and “fierce languor” are so terrible that many people are suffocating (ibid. p. 130).
79 Ibid., p. 111.
80 Ibid., vol. I, no. 3, p. 69.
81 Ibid., pp. 92-93.
82 Ibid., p. 9.
83 Ibid., vol. III, no. 3, p. 102.
But observing and studying other people’s places, Daniel always remembers his homeland, the images of which cannot be obscured by magnificent landscapes with lush vegetation, abundant valleys, or even “holy places.” The trees on which black thyme and gonfir grow remind Daniel of his native alder and aspen82. On the banks of the Jordan there grows a tree that reminds Daniel of a Russian willow. On Lake Tiberias he ate an unusually tasty fish (“the fish... is wonderful and wonderful... and there is a sweet, poisonous fish and a bunch of all kinds of fish”), which reminds him of the Russian koropich or korop (carp) 83. According to reminiscences associated with Christian antiquities, Daniel is very attracted to the Jordan River. He visited its middle reaches, where there is a font in memory of the baptism of Jesus Christ, and then, taking a different route, he went to its upper reaches. He drank Jordanian water with pleasure, about which he writes that it is very cloudy, but tasty (“sweet”) and you just can’t get enough of it, “no pain from it, no dirty tricks in the belly of a person.” He provides information about the flow of the Jordan, its banks, its depth and width. And all the time, among the pathetic statements associated with the baptism of Christ, Daniel remembers his native river Syov (a tributary of the Desna), which, according to Daniel, Jordan is very reminiscent of: “To all, the Jordan is like the river of the Dreams, both in width and in depth , and flows slyly (before this it was already described that the Jordan makes a loop. - IL B.) and quickly led me, like a river again.” Having visited the upper reaches of the Jordan, Daniel again compares it with the River Again: “the Jordan is like the River Again, in breadth and depth, and the Jordan is similar to the River Again” 84.
With great pathos, Daniel tells how on the “Holy Sepulcher” he placed a “candilo” “from all the Russian land” 85, how “in all the holy places” he did not forget “the Russian princes and princesses, and their children, bishops, abbots, and bolyar n... all Christians” Zb. At the same time, he is far from regional limitations, proud of the fact that, through his efforts, Russian princes are now commemorated in Palestine “in Aktenin”, among whom are listed the Prince of Kiev Svyatonolk Izyaslavich, Vladimir Monomakh, the princes of Chernigov David and Oleg Svyatoslavich, Gleb of Minsk, in addition to other princes , not named 87.
84 “Orthodox Palestinian Collection”, vol. I. issue. 3, pp. 45-46; vol. III, no. 3, p. 100.
85 Ibid., vol. III. issue 3, pp. 127-129.
86 Ibid., pp. 139-140.
87 The fact that Daniel “inscribed in his commemoration in the Lavra of St. Savva, the names of both the Grand Duke Svyatopolk and Vladimir Monomakh, and Oleg Svyatoslavich, who was hostile to them,” V. V. Danilov explains by the fact that Daniil was “a follower of the popular direction of the Pechersk Monastery,” of which, as V. V. Danilov proves, he was a monk. was (V.V. Danilov. On the characteristics of the “walking” of Abbot Daniel. TODRL, vol. X, M.-L., 1905, p. 104). However, by the time Daniel was in Palestine, a political balance had temporarily been established in Rusp between the three main princely lines, and Oleg did not show hostility towards Svyatopolk and Vladimir.
By the nature of Daniel's notes one can judge the tastes and demands of Russian readers at the beginning of the 12th century. The accuracy of the description, the reliability of the reported facts, realism and ardent love for the homeland, conceived as a great, indivisible whole - all this constitutes a distinctive feature not only of the Walk of Daniel, but also of many other literary monuments of that time. The Tale of Period Years and the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, two of the most striking literary monuments that aimed to ideologically unite Russian society in the face of external danger and the real threat of internal dismemberment of the state, satisfy the same requirements.
The bold attempt of Vladimir Monomakh through moderate reforms and certain concessions to the princes (recognition of their rights to their fatherland) to reunite the Kiev state was doomed to failure in advance. For, firstly, it is impossible, firstly, to destroy the deep contradictions of the antagonistic classes by any moderate reforms and, secondly, it is impossible, secondly, to suspend the process of feudal dismemberment of the state, caused by deep economic and social reasons, by any legal formulas and diplomatic agreements. In addition, the principle proclaimed at the Lyubech Congress, according to which each prince had to maintain his fatherland, contained, as noted above, an internal contradiction, for, having eliminated, on the one hand, some reasons for princely troubles, he, on the other hand , contributed to even greater isolation of individual volosts from Kyiv.
True, Vladimir Monomakh achieved great success in his unification policy. During his 12-year reign (1113-1125), Rus' was relatively quiet and calm. The campaigns into the depths of the steppes that preceded the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, in which Monomakh himself played an active role, especially the campaigns of 1103 and 1111, protected the Russian land from Polovtsian raids for several decades. Inside the country, Vladimir Monomakh concentrated in his hands a huge territory (Kyiv, Pereyaslavl, Novgorod, Smolensk, Rostov), where he ruled autocratically either directly or through his sons. But other princes who were firmly in their ancestral lands, including Vladimir Monomakh’s long-time rival Oleg Svyatoslavich, did not dare to contradict him and obediently walked “to his will.” Two rebellious princes - Gleb Vseslavich of Minsk and Yaroslav Svyatopolkovich of Vladimir-Volynsky were mercilessly crushed, and the chronicler who condoned Monomakh writes about their disobedience; in fact, it is possible that Monomakh was simply flattered by their land. This unity of the Russian land achieved by Vladimir Monomakh continued for some time even after his death, under Moomakh’s son Mstislav Vladimirovich (1125-1132).
It should be noted, however, that the nature of this unity of Rus', achieved under Vladimir Monomakh and his son, differs from the unity that was observed in Rus' under Monomakh’s ancestors. The princes under Monomakh unquestioningly obeyed him and carried out his instructions, but he could no longer at his own discretion transplant them from one volost to another: in their homelands they had strong roots and were complete masters. They obeyed Monomakh not because their lands were organically connected with Kiev, that they depended on the Kyiv prince, whoever he was, but because in the hands of Vladimir Monomakh, due to a favorable combination of circumstances, there were large resources, thanks to which he could provide put pressure on other princes and keep them in submission. But the luckiest prince cannot turn back the course of history. Only for a very short time - for some 20 years - Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav Vladimirovich managed to delay the feudal dismemberment of the country, and after the death of Mstislav, princely turmoil flared up with renewed vigor, completely exhausting the population.
The situation was further complicated by the fact that now the rival princes were increasingly bringing the Polovtsians to the Russian land, leaving behind them a bloody trail of violence and murder, fires and ruins. Poles and Hungarians intervened in the inter-princely struggle, whose troops destroyed Russian cities and villages.
Relying on their ancestral lands, the princes no longer looked at Kyiv as the center of the entire Russian land, but as a fatherless possession that did not belong to any specific princely dynasty, which could be annexed to their volosts in the form of a rich prize. Due to the obvious feudal fragmentation of the Kyiv state and the economic isolation of individual regions, the princes are no longer able to single out from their midst major figures such as Vladimir Monomakh, who would try to reunite the Old Russian state. Princes still often talk about the common interests of the entire Russian land, that there is no need to shed the blood of Christians, but such statements come either from princes who have suffered defeat, for whom it is beneficial for the time being to make peace, or from princes who have lost material resources and authorities, like the feeble-minded son of Monomakh Vyacheslav Vladimirovich.
Conversations about the need to feel sorry for the Russian land are started under difficult circumstances by the very princes who constantly brought the Polovtsians to Rus'. These conversations turned into an empty, cliché formula, devoid of any specific content. Sometimes, in order to “justify” their claims, princes simply parodied those put forward by 11th-century journalism. old formulas aimed at preserving the unity of the Russian land. For example, at the end of the 12th century. a group of Monomashich princes, who sought to secure Kyiv for themselves forever, came up with a new “testament of Yaroslav.”
which had nothing in common with the one that was invented in the 70s of the 11th century. We are talking about the embassy that in 1195 Rurik Rostislavich with his matchmaker Vsevolod the Big Nest and brother David Rostislavich sent to the prince of Chernigov Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and to all the Olgovichs with the demand that they not look for the fatherland of Monomakh - Kyiv and Smolensk - “beneath us and under our children, and under our entire Volodymyr tribe, just as our grandfather Yaroslav divided us along the Dnieper, and you don’t need Kiev” 88.
Meanwhile, among broad sections of the Russian people the idea of the unity of the Russian land continued to live. Princes and large feudal lords wage continuous wars among themselves, certain regions are subjected to devastating raids, but among the mass of the population, who suffer most from princely turmoil, the idea of a single Russian land, not divided into separate volosts-semi-states, living by common interests and aspirations, is firmly held. . Every now and then the townspeople, and first of all the people of Kiev, refuse to support the princes, demanding that they make peace with the enemy and stop the senseless bloodshed. Even Izyaslav Mstislavich, who enjoyed great influence in Kyiv, sometimes had to resort to cunning to force the people of Kiev to provide him with military assistance. Here is one of such episodes. In 1149, Izyaslav, having learned that Yuri Dolgoruky had spoken out against him, declared to the people of Kiev: “If he had only come with children, then the volost that he liked would have been taken, but he would have brought the Polovtsi to me and my enemies Olgovich, then I want Xia beati.” The people of Kiev, however, did not want war and resolutely declared to Izyaslav: “Mirisya, prince, we are not going.” Izyaslav did not want to reconcile, but in order to receive an auxiliary army, he had to convince the people of Kiev that only with strength would it be easy for him to come to an agreement with Yuri. Only after heeding these arguments did the people of Kiev follow him89.
From time to time, from the pages of literary monuments or from the pulpit, voices were heard calling on the princes to stop strife and remain faithful to their obligations, but these calls were already powerless to influence the course of events.
88 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 688.
89 Ibid., stb. 378.
90 For the first time, an excerpt from the Word was published by M. P. Pogodin (“Moskvityanin”, 1843, No. 12, pp. 412-413). The entire monument was printed by Chr. Loparev (“A word of praise on the transfer of the relics of St. Boris and Gleb.” PDP, issue XCVIII. St. Petersburg, 1894). Judging by what is said about Prince David Svyatoslavich, he is “not in a foreign country
Among such monuments is a literary work known in science under the name “Tales about Princes”90. The author addresses the princes who oppose their eldest brothers, raise armies and bring “filthy” people against their brothers. He gives them the example of Boris and Gleb, who “suffered their brother not only the taking away of power, but the taking away of his life.” “But you,” the author addresses the princes, “cannot erase a word to your brother, and for the slightest offense you will stir up deadly enmity; you accept help from the filthy for your brothers.” 91. Next, the author cites a “parable” about the Chernigov prince, participant in the Lyubech Congress, David Svyatoslavich : “That David has no enmity with anyone; Even if someone hires an army to raise up, he has tired out the army with his subjugation... If anyone commits lies against him from his brothers, he is still on his own; Whoever you kiss the cross, don’t step on your whole belly, and even if someone doesn’t kiss him correctly, he corrects him the same way, he doesn’t offend anyone, he doesn’t do any harm. His brothers, seeing this being, all listen to him like a father and submit to him like a master. In great silence his reign was speedy" 92.
It is very characteristic that the Word, while protecting the interests of the princes, says nothing about the disasters of the Russian land. The interests of the homeland and people are relegated to the background and overshadowed by concern for the princes. The author's appeals are vague and pointless. They do not go beyond the bounds of pious desires and, being applied to obstinate, greedy, self-interested princes, are devoid of any practical significance.
91 “Monuments of Ancient Writing”, no. HSUSH, page 15.
92 Ibid., p. 16. After this there is a story about the miracles at the death of David, even to the point that the sun did not set until he was laid in the coffin (ibid., pp. 16-17).
93 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 467-469.
As for the chroniclers of the 12th century, they very often calmly pass by such horrors of the feudal war, which would certainly have caused an excited reaction in the old chroniclers of the 11th or early 12th centuries. The author of the Tale of Bygone Years (and perhaps the previous compiler) sharply condemned Oleg Svyatoslavich for bringing “filth” to the Russian land. But the favorite hero of the Kyiv chronicle of the mid-11th century. Izyaslav Mstislavich, who in his gravestone is depicted as a “true, faithful, Christ-loving, glorious” prince, shortly before his death captured many Russian prisoners in the Galician land, and since he had few squads, so as not to burden himself and not be subject to sudden a sortie from Galich, he ordered to kill all the prisoners, taking with them only the best men 93 - either in the form of especially valuable booty or out of solidarity with the captured knights, people of their class.
And the chronicler, undoubtedly a person close to Izyaslav, dispassionately sets out this fact and does not find a single word to condemn the actions of his prince.
Let us give an even more striking example. In 1169, Kyiv suffered a terrible defeat from the coalition of Russian princes organized by Andrei Bogolyubsk. For two days the people of Suzdal, Smolensk and Chernigov destroyed the city, “and there was no mercy from anyone from anywhere, churches burning, peasants being killed, others being tied up, wives being taken into captivity, separated by need from their husbands, babies crying in sight of their mothers, and having taken property they laid bare the multitude of churches with icons and books and vestments and bells... and in Kyiv there came upon all people groaning and pain and unconsolable sorrow and incessant tears." 94. And again the chronicler does not find a word of condemnation addressed to the organizer of the pogrom, Apdrey Bogolyubsky and his son Mstislav, who led the troops. On the contrary, the chronicler notes that “God helped Andreevich) Mstislav and his brothers and took Kyiv,” as if we were talking about the occupation of an enemy city 95.
Kyiv suffered a second even more terrible pogrom on January 2, 1203. Kyiv was attacked by Rurik Rostislavich and Olgovpchi “with all the Polovtsian land.” They burned and plundered the entire city, destroyed churches and monasteries, killed a lot of people and took many captives. The chronicler notes that there was no such “evil from the baptism over Kiev”, declares the disaster a punishment for sins 96, but again does not condemn a word of either Rurik or the Olgovnch, who led the Polovtsians to the oldest Russian city and themselves destroyed it.
94 Ibid., stb. 545.
95 Ibid., stb. 544.
96 PSRL, vol. I, no. 2, stb. 418-419.
Thus, chronicles, due to the changed internal political situation in Rus', are becoming smaller and losing their former broad political horizon. The ancient formulas, which once had the goal of uniting the Russian land again, are becoming smaller. Formula about fatherland, which in the 11th century. meant three large land complexes (the possessions of the Izyaslavichs, Svyatoslavichs and Vsevolodovichs), between which an unbreakable friendship was supposed to be established, but now it was fragmented and extended to any feudal neighbor. In the already cited “Golden Cheggi” of the 14th century, the articles of which were compiled much earlier than this time, there is a special “Word about Susedeh”, where it is prescribed: “Do not offend Suseda Yache and do not take away his land” 9/. Thus, the “testament of Yaroslav” and the principle solemnly proclaimed at the Lyubech Congress “shattered”.
Another article in the same collection is “The Tale of Princes,” compiled, in all likelihood, in the 12th century. and, in any case, no later than the first half of the 13th century, it was also imbued with a feudal worldview. The main emphasis in this article is on the need to faithfully serve your prince and under no circumstances leave for another. The author of the article “back and forth” emphasizes that the one who leaves for another prince is like Judas. “If you begin to accept another prince from your own,” the Word says, “then you will be like the wife of a whore husband who wants to be with everyone, and after that her husband will watch over her, feed the dogs with her, and her whole family will be great in rubbish” 98 .
The Kiev state crumbled into small holdings and at the same time, in the literature of the feudal class, the idea of a single, strong Russian land, which was so passionately defended by the journalism of the 11th - early 12th centuries, was crushed.
“Moskvityanin”, 1851, No. 6, p. 125.
