How do I imagine the people of ancient Rus'? It would seem a simple question. What if you think about it? What might a Russian person look like several centuries ago? What was he thinking? Where did you live? How did you dress? The answer to these questions can be given to us by historians who have long been studying the life of the ancient peoples who inhabited wild Rus'. And yet, what did the Slavs look like? My imagination pictures a birch forest; at the edge of the forest stands a slender girl with a long brown braid and a white sundress. Or here's another picture. A village on the river bank, smoke slowly creeps out of clay chimneys and rushes upward to the white clouds. An old man sits on the porch of one of the houses, his hair has long since become white as snow, and his hands have become rough from hard work. An old man weaves a fishing net. From time to time he raises his eyes and directs his gaze to the surface of the water. At the gate, people meet the hunters who have returned with their prey; they are all tall and slender, fair-haired and with blue eyes. Why do all Russians have blond hair? Probably because I associate the word “Rus” with the word “blond”. The first Russians were fair-haired, that’s why they were called that, and the place where they lived was called Russia. Rus' is endless fields, wide rivers and beautiful birch forests. Rus' is freedom. Have you ever gone out into a field to listen to the rustle of the wind in the grass, to see the horizon line... Only then can you feel all the greatness of our Motherland. After all, you can take a geographical map and find out that our country is really big, but only in the field can you understand this: wherever you look, there is only grass swaying in the wind, and the endless blue sky, which, there in the distance, right at the horizon, touches land. Only strong people with light brown hair and blue eyes like the sky could live on this land. All other peoples: Pechenegs, Polovtsians, Tatars, seem to me small and hunched over and scary. By the way, this is how the authors of cartoons about Russian heroes portray them. Just imagine, an army of Polovtsians is marching towards Rus'. Wheat fields and peaceful villages are burning. The prince and his retinue rush to meet the enemy. Battle. Rusich, in chain mail sparkling in the rays of the sun, is covered with a scarlet shield in the form of a raindrop (or tear) from a hail of arrows, and with his sword he defeats the enemies of the Russian land. Remember how many wars our land has gone through. More than one red river flowed so that peace could finally be established in Rus'. And even then, for how long? Polovtsians, Pechenegs, knights of the Teutonic Order, Tatars, Swedes, fascists with machine guns…. How many enemies have trampled our land? But none of them succeeded in conquering Rus'. And why all? Yes, because Russian people love their freedom. It's in our blood. Because our ancestors did not live in small apartments in big cities. They lived in nature and saw its beauty. Every day, every hour, every second they felt the delight that a modern city dweller experiences when he finds himself for the first time in an endless field or in a forest, when there are no cars, no huge houses or other benefits of civilization nearby. Only then does a person understand that everything that happened before in his life was not important, and in the world there is only the sky, the wind playing in the grass or foliage of trees, the cries of birds and white clouds floating above our heads across the blue sky . And when we understand this, we will be able to understand those people who proudly called themselves Russians and whom no other people could defeat.
P.S. You read the school essay that I wrote for my younger brother.
Smerds Smerds are small landowners who made up a group of the population heterogeneous in terms of socio-legal status in Ancient Rus' (and in some other Slavic countries). During the period of the XI-XII centuries. S. are, first of all, communal peasants who have lost personal freedom in whole or in part. Along with them, the S. category also included the personally free rural population. During the period of feudal fragmentation (XII-XIII centuries) the term "S." all rural residents of a certain territory were designated (peasants - subjects of the local feudal lord). S.'s personal freedom was limited by the prohibition of transferring under the guardianship of another feudal lord. In the XIV-XV centuries. the concept of peasants in Rus' was replaced by a new one - peasants.
Large legal dictionary. - M.: Infra-M. A. Ya. Sukharev, V. E. Krutskikh, A. Ya. Sukharev. 2003 .
See what “SMERDS” are in other dictionaries:
Communal peasants in Ancient Rus' (9th-14th centuries). Initially free, with the development of socio-economic relations they gradually became dependent... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
Smerdy, communal peasants in Ancient Rus' (9th-14th centuries). Initially free, with the development of socio-economic relations they gradually became dependent. Source: Encyclopedia Fatherland ... Russian history
In ancient Russian law, free rural inhabitants were opposed to serfs on the one hand and princely husbands on the other. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Pavlenkov F., 1907 ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
Category of dependent rural population in Ancient Rus'. Mentioned in Russkaya Pravda, The Tale of Bygone Years, etc. The murder of a scum was punishable by the same fine as the murder of slaves. Their escheated property was inherited by the prince. The word "smerd" ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
- (smurdi, smardones) social layer of slavs. societies of the early Middle Ages. In sources of the 11th and 12th centuries. S. are noted in Kievan Rus (Russkaya Pravda and other sources), in Poland, among the Polabian Slavs; S. may have also been in the Balkans. On the question of... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia
Smerda- – the name of feudally dependent peasants in Ancient Rus' (9th–13th centuries). V.I. Lenin points out that “landowners enslaved the smerds back in the days of “Russian Truth” (Works, vol. 3, p. 170). S., attached to the ground, were operated as... ... Soviet legal dictionary
The name of feudally dependent peasants in Ancient Rus' and in some other Slavic countries. In sources of the 11th and 12th centuries. S. are noted in Kievan Rus (Russkaya Pravda and other sources), in Poland, among the Polabian Slavs. S. in Rus' peasants,... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- ... Wikipedia
stinkers- small landowners who made up a group of the population heterogeneous in terms of social and legal status in Ancient Rus' (and in some other Slavic countries). During the period XI-XII centuries. S. are, first of all, communal peasants who have lost personal freedom... ... Large legal dictionary
Smerda- agricultural population of villages. At the beginning of the historical existence of Rus' it was free, and then gradually became dependent on individuals, princes or patrimonial lords. The first written collections of laws are somewhat limited in... ... Cossack dictionary-reference book
Books
- People and customs of Ancient Rus', Romanov B.. Among other books dedicated to the formation of the ancient Russian state, Boris Romanov’s book stands apart. The focus here is not the struggle of princes for power and not military campaigns, but...
- Tsars and Smerds: a novel. Benyukh O.P., Benyukh O.P.. The action of the novel takes place in the outback of Russia and covers the second half of the 20th century. Against this historical background, the life of two main characters is shown - a rural priest and a rural teacher.…
In Ancient Rus', people lived in tribes, the tribe made up one big family. All property owned by the tribe was common and indivisible. The father of the clan or family headed the tribe and was its ancestor. The younger ones were obliged to honor and respect the elders, as well as follow their instructions. The Slavs had good health, their bodies were muscular, they easily tolerated heat and cold, and also made do with a minimum of food and clothing. The ancient Slavs were outwardly very similar in height, fair skin and long dark brown hair. The main value of the Slavs was freedom and independence.
“All Russians are similar in their way of life, in their love for freedom; they cannot be persuaded to slavery or submission in their country,” as the ancient Byzantine chronicler wrote about them.
According to him, the Slavs were friendly to all foreign guests arriving in their lands, if they came with friendly intentions. Another advantage of the Slavs was that they did not take revenge on their enemies, but released them to their homeland for a ransom. There were cases when the enemy was even left to live in the society of the Slavs as a free person.
The Russians did not fortify their settlements, but built them in hard-to-reach places - on the high banks of lakes and rivers, as well as in swampy areas. Slavic tribes were engaged in cattle breeding, agriculture, fishing and hunting, and also collected roots, mushrooms and berries for the winter. During excavations of Slavic settlements, archaeologists found grains of wheat, rye, barley, millet, oats, buckwheat, peas, hemp - these were the crops that the Slavs of those times were able to domesticate. Some tribes were engaged in breeding horses, goats, sheep and cows. There were entire artisan settlements that made pottery and iron tools. Trade was well developed in ancient Slavic society; they traded furs, wax, honey, weapons, dishes, as well as various jewelry. The Slavs mastered not only rivers and lakes, but also learned to go to sea.
The Old Russian state arose in the 9th century on the territory of Eastern Europe. Under the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, the Finno-Ugric and East Slavic tribes were united. According to historians, at that time about 7,000,000 people lived on the territory of the ancient Russian state. 1,000,000 lived in cities; there were about 300 such small towns.
The population of ancient Rus' was divided into several groups.
Outstanding Slavic families and tribes became nobility, its main part being representatives of the Rurik dynasty.
They were helped by squads, and it was from such squads that the boyars were formed. The squads were divided into senior and junior. Prosperous people appeared, such as merchants, land owners, as well as some artisans. 
Everyday life of the Old Russian state in the 9th-12th centuries.
Ancient Rus' as a state arose in the last quarter of the 9th century. as a result of the unification of the two main centers of the Eastern Slavs - Novgorod and Kyiv under the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty. At this time, the gradual formation of the Old Russian people from several East Slavic tribes took place. The largest trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” played a major role in the development of the new state. The development of trade and crafts led to the emergence and rapid growth of cities. The most ancient of them: Kyiv, Novgorod, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Pskov, Rostov the Great, Ladoga, etc.
Rural population
In addition to trade and crafts, the population of Ancient Rus' was engaged in cattle breeding, hunting, fishing and beekeeping. Despite this, agriculture remained the dominant occupation of the Eastern Slavs. The slash-and-burn farming system was gradually replaced by the three-field system; Wheat, oats, millet, and rye were grown. Among the farmers, a large family dominated, all members of which worked the land together. Relationships in the family were patriarchal, the head of the family, the eldest in the family, controlled both the property and the fate of everyone. With the adoption of Christianity, significant changes occurred in family relationships: polygamy was prohibited; if “bride kidnapping” had previously been practiced, then marriage after baptism had to take place in the form of a church wedding. At the same time, many other pagan rituals were preserved. Church names did not easily penetrate into the people's environment; Slavic names were preserved for a long time - Vladimir, Dobrynya, Molchan, Osoka, Wolf, Wolf's Tail, Svyatoslav, etc.
The main element of clothing was the shirt. Moreover, the cut of peasants and feudal lords was the same, only the quality of the fabric differed. The woman's shirt was floor length. To decorate shirts and outerwear, bright, elegant embroideries were used, which played the role of a talisman against evil forces. They used flax, hemp, wool, or even silver and gold if we were talking about feudal lords. On their heads, women wore a leather hoop, a cap, metal pendants, etc.
In the south, the main dwellings of the Eastern Slavs were half-dugouts with earthen floors, a roof covered with earth. In the north, these were low wooden log houses covered with boards or straw. In the hut, as a rule, there was a stove, completely included in the room and heated in black. The houses were illuminated by torches.
Urban population
In the cities of Ancient Rus' lived princes, warriors, artisans and merchants. It was in the cities that the veche order continued to be maintained for a long time. They were centers of culture: they had schools, chronicles were created, and icon-painting and craft workshops functioned. The largest part of the urban population were artisans, both free and dependent. There were a variety of types of crafts: blacksmithing, weapons, jewelry (forging and embossing, embossing and stamping of silver and gold, filigree, granulation), pottery, leatherworking, tailoring. Even small and new cities had blast furnaces for making iron. But the majority of ordinary townspeople continued to engage in agriculture and cattle breeding. At the same time, city residents, as a rule, built tall houses in which the second floor served as living space. At the bottom there was a cellar. Cities were mainly built of wood, but some temples and palaces of the nobility were built of stone.
Tall wooden houses were called mansions. The prince and boyars lived in them. Often, mansions consisted of several buildings connected by passages (entrances). Around the prince's mansion there were outbuildings for servants and storage of grain, meat, honey, wine, etc. The mansions were surrounded by a fence with strong gates. The reception rooms in the Grand Duke's mansion were called "gridnitsa", here the prince feasted with his retinue. The tables were lined with expensive dishes, often decorated with gold and silver. The guests were entertained by guslars and buffoons. But at the same time, both the prince and the simplest peasants strictly observed fasts: on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and even Saturdays.
Princely power and the masses of the people in Kievan Rus are a problem that remains insufficiently studied in historical science. This situation in historiography is explained by the fact that historians (both pre-revolutionary and Soviet) more often turned to social connections within the ruling class, focusing on inter-princely relations, as well as on the relations of princes with the squad, the boyars and the clergy. And if this problem was nevertheless considered, it was mainly in terms of the activities of the veche. Meanwhile, the written monuments of Kievan Rus reveal to the researcher a richer spectrum of relations between the princes and the people, designated in the sources by the term “people”, “people”. It should be noted, however, that in the Old Russian language this term was complex and polysemic. That is why it is necessary to say something special about it. Let's start with some historiographical information.
The term “people” has come to the attention of scientists for a long time. There are various interpretations of it in the literature. According to N.M. Karamzin, people in Ancient Rus' “except for boyars, in fact, all free citizens were called” 1 . According to M.P. Pogodin, people are the second (after the boyars) estate, brought to Russian soil by the Normans and soon disappeared once and for all 2. For V. Dyachan, the word “people” had a more capacious meaning, meaning “the entire population, the entire volost, just like the expression “kiyans”, “Polotsk residents”, etc.” 3.
1 Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State. St. Petersburg, 1892, vol. 2, approx. 67.
2 Pogodin M.P. Research, comments and lectures on Russian history in 7 volumes. M., 1846. T. 3, p. 404.
3 Dyachan V. Participation of the people in the supreme power in the Slavic states. Warsaw, 1882, p. 92.
In the concepts of K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, people are the entire zemstvo population, except for the squad and, of course, the princes 4. V. O. Klyuchevsky had a similar view, who believed that under the name “people” were hidden non-service free elements - guests, merchants, smerdas, purchasing hirers 5. Collectively, the people represented the “tax-paying common people,” distinguished by “their attitude towards the prince: as tax payers, they treated the prince not as single individuals, like service people, but as whole worlds, urban or rural societies, bound by a mutual guarantee in paying taxes and worldly affairs.” responsibility for police order (the wild rule of Russian Truth)” 6.
A similar picture was painted by S. F. Platonov. During “ancient Kievan Rus,” people represented the bulk of the free population, occupying an intermediate position between the privileged elite and slaves 7 . Gradually, the social structure becomes more complex, and people are divided “into townspeople (merchants and artisans) and villagers, of which free people are called smerds, and dependent people are called zakup” 8.
According to A.E. Presnyakov, “the word “people” in Ancient Rus' always meant the lower population, the subservient mass, as opposed to “husbands”” 9.
In the works of V.I. Sergeevich and M.A. Dyakonov, people are the name of all free people, regardless of their social status 10.
The term “people” also attracted the attention of Soviet historians. According to the definition of G.E. Kochin, people are the masses, mainly the urban population 11.
For M. N. Tikhomirov, the word “people” served as the key to understanding the most important socio-political processes that took place in the ancient Russian city. According to M.N. Tikhomirov, “people” are townspeople who played a significant role in city uprisings and veche meetings of the 12th-13th centuries. 12 .
The people of V.V. Mavrodin were considered to be the inhabitants of the villages and villages of Ancient Rus', who emphasized that the name “people” as an equivalent of the rural population, leaving primitive antiquity, it is eventually replaced by the term “smerd” 13.
4 Bestuzhev - Ryumin K.N. Russian history. St. Petersburg, 1872, vol. 1, p. 115, 212.
5 K l e v s k p i V. O. Soch. M., 1959, vol. 6, p. 150.
6 Tam Yage, p. 315.
7 Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 82-83.
8 Ibid., p. 84.
9 Presnyakov A.E. Lectures on Russian history. M., 1938, vol. 1, p. 124.
10 S e r g e v p h V. I. Russian legal antiquities. St. Petersburg, 1902, vol. 1, p. 174; Dyakonov M.A. Essays on the social and state system of Ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg.. 1912, p. 72-74.
11 Kochin G. E. Materials for the terminological dictionary of ancient Russia. M.; L., 1937, p. 177.
12 T their worlds M. N. Ancient Russian cities. M., 1956, p. 219.
S. A. Pokrovsky looked at “people” more broadly. He wrote: “The term “people,” denoting the entire mass of the free population as a whole, corresponds in its meaning to the chronicle expressions “all Kiyans,” “Polotsk residents,” “Nougorodians,” etc.” 14 .
In accordance with the observations of V. T. Pashuto, “the word “people” (“people”) has two main meanings in the chronicle: firstly, people in general, outside of classes, and secondly, in the class sense of the word with the addition of adjectives “simple” or “good”, the latter, as a rule, meant “merchants”” 15. V. T. Pashuto believes that in order to establish the specific meaning of the term “people” it is necessary to carry out a special source analysis every time it is mentioned 16.
The word “people” was subjected to special terminological study by L. V. Cherepnin. For this, he used a variety of sources: chronicles, Russian Pravda, and official material. In the earliest news, L.V. Cherepnin believed, the concept of “people” embraced broad layers of the rural and urban population 17. The author noted that “the preservation of this term for a long time in the meaning of a free population indicates that the process of feudalization that took place in Kievan Rus affected individual rural peasant communities differently; the inhabitants of many of them, losing their class rights, retained personal freedom” 18. With the establishment of feudalism in the 9th-11th centuries. and by the transformation of land ownership of feudal lords into a means of “exploitation of direct producers of material goods, the term “people” acquired the meaning of a feudally dependent peasantry, exploited by the state by collecting tribute or by private feudal lords by involving them in corvee service or collecting quitrents.” 19 In another of his works, L. V. Cherepnin introduces some additions and clarifications. He says: “The term “people”, along with a general, broad meaning, also had a narrower meaning: townspeople and even the ordinary mass of townspeople, ordinary people, the trade and craft population of the city, “black people.” Therefore, when encountering this term in the chronicle, the researcher must each time pay very close attention to the question of who is being discussed” 20.
13 M a v ro d i n V. V. Essays on the history of the USSR. Old Russian state. M., 1956, p. 73, 74.
14 Pokrovsky S. A. Social structure of the ancient Russian state. - Proceedings of the All-Union. correspondence legal in-ta. M., 1970, t. 14, p. 61.
15 Pashuto V. T. Features of the political system of ancient Rus', - In the book: Novoseltsev A. P. et al. The ancient Russian state and its international significance. M., 1965, p. 12.
16 Ibid.
17 Cherepnin L.V. 1) From the history of the formation of the class of feudally dependent peasantry in Russia. - Historical Notes, 1956, vol. 56, p. 236; 2) Rus'. Controversial issues in the history of feudal land ownership in the 9th-15th centuries - In the book: Novoseltsev A.P. et al. Ways of development of feudalism. M., 1972, p. 168-169.
18 Chereinin L.V. Rus. Controversial issues... p. 169.
19 Cherepnin L.V. 1) From the history of formation... p. 236; 2) Rus'. Controversial issues... p. 169.
So, scientists, as we see, interpret the term “people”, which appears in ancient sources, differently. It seems to us that its discussion can be continued.
T"The word “people”, being of common Slavic origin, is represented in all Slavic languages: Bulgarian (lyude), Serbo-Croatian (lo^udi), Slovenian (ljudje), Czech (lide), Slovak (ludia), Polish (ludzie), etc. 21. The original meaning of this word is people 22. It is in this broad sense that it appears in chronicle reports about the early history of Rus', contained in the dated and undated parts of the Tale of Bygone Years 28 . At the same time, in the news documenting the events of the 10th century, there are examples, albeit isolated ones, when the boyars and city elders do not mix with the rest of the people, forming separate social groups 24. In these examples, the “people” mentioned along with the boyars and elders are probably simple people, i.e. the same bulk of the rural and urban population that L.V. Cherepnin wrote about 25 . It also happened that the chronicler called the prince’s immediate circle “people,” which, presumably, included the boyars 26.
Consequently, in chronicle texts telling about the past of the Eastern Slavs and about Rus' during the times of the first Rurikovichs, the word “people” covers different concepts: the people in general (minus the princes alone), the democratic strata of the population and, finally, the “men” who surrounded the prince. At the same time, the term “people” in the meaning of “people” was the most widespread and used, from which we conclude that in Kievan Rus of the 10th century. social differentiation was still weakly expressed 27 .
More than a hundred years have passed and the situation has changed somewhat.
20 Cherepnin L.V. On the question of the nature and form of the Old Russian state of the 10th - early 13th centuries. - Historical notes, 1972, vol. 80, p. 379.
21 P r e o b r a z h e n s k iy A. G. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1959, vol. 1, p. 493; Vasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1967, vol. 2, p. 545; S h a n s k p i N. M. et al. Brief etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1971, p. 250.
22 S h a n s k i N. M. et al. Brief etymological dictionary with 250
23 PVL, part I, p. 12. 18, 25, 30, 35, 40, 41, 47, 56, 81, etc. - The Novgorod First Chronicle contains similar data. - See: NPL with 106 109, 110. 112, 116, 118, 120, 128, 157.
24 PVL, h.I, p. 35, 38-39, 74; NPL, p. 148, 156.
25 Cherepnin L.V. From the history of formation... p. 236.
26 PVL, part I, p. 39, 41, 54.
27 Characteristic in this regard is the chronicle record of the death of Prince Vladimir, in which the boyars and the “poor” are equally called “people”: “Behold, having seen the people, they fell into despair and cried for them, the bo-lyars as the protector of their land, the wretches as the protector n feeder." - PVL, part I, p. 89; see also: NPL, p. 169.
In the second half of the XI-XII centuries. Chroniclers, as before, often understand by “people” the people as a whole, regardless of social gradation 28. Sometimes the term “people” is addressed to the top of society (boyars, merchants) and princely household 29. In the rarest cases, op is used to designate dependents 30, but very often - as a name for simple free townspeople and villagers. It can be said with complete confidence that the last meaning of the term was in the 12th century. was dominant. It is necessary, however, to emphasize one detail: in the chronicles, “people” from villages are much less common than “people” - city dwellers 31. This is reflected in the specificity of chronicle sources, focused mainly on urban life 32 . Fortunately, the gaps in the chronicles are filled in by Russian Truth. In Art. 19 of the Brief Pravda, which determines the fine for killing a fireman “in offense”, mentions “people” - farmers united in a rope community 33. The Extensive Truth speaks even more clearly, according to which the rope and “people” are synonymous 34. We also have an eloquent text in Art. 77 of the monument: “...where there is no village, no people, then do not pay either sale or tatba” 35. It is curious that the Extensive Truth contrasts the “liudin” with the “princely husband” 36.
28 PVL, h.I, p. 153, 167; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 289, 405, 407; vol. II, stb. 263, 264, 268, 274, 289, 339, 372.
29 PVL, part I, p. 141; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 501; t. I, stb. 877.
30 We know of the only fact dating back to the 12th century (the second similar one dates back to the last quarter of the 13th century and appears in the spiritual book of Prince Vladimir Vasilkovich), when “people” act as dependents. According to the charter of Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, the Yuriev Monastery received “Terpuzhsky churchyard of Lyakhovichi with land, and with people, and with horses...” (GVNP, No. 80, p. 139). Here the “people” are serfs-slaves (see: Agrarian history of the North-West of Russia. Second half of the 15th - early 16th centuries. L., 1971, p. 67; Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-economic history. L., 1974, pp. 10-11). Since the slaves of Ancient Rus' came from among local residents, i.e. “people” (Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus... pp. 110, 113), they could easily learn their name. But in Kievan Rus such terminological extrapolation was not typical. And only later, in the era of Moscow Rus', did it become the norm.
31 The chronicles are filled with messages about “people” - townspeople. - PVL, part I, p. 116, 120, 133, 145, 147, 150, 171, 172, 177, 180; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 298, 301, 303 305-306, 313, 317, 320, 338, 387, 402, 417, 429, 432, 434, 499-500; vol. II, stb. 276, 287, 292, 307, 317, 352, 410, 414, 433, 456, 487, 493, 510, 561, 605, 648; NPL, p. 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 43, etc.
32 Nevertheless, in the chronicle stories there are also “people” - villagers (PSRL, vol. I, stb. 349, 358, 361, 363, 388; vol. II, stb. 506, 556, G60, 562). Let us add to this that chronicle texts do not always allow us to divide “people” into urban and rural. This especially applies to news of the military devastation of cities, the beating and captivity of “people”. Indeed, with the approaching danger, the inhabitants of the surrounding villages ran to the city to take refuge behind its walls. Thus, the Ipatiev Chronicle, telling about the military actions of 1150 near Pereyaslavl, testified: “... we will let the people who have fled to the city, not daring even their cattle, leave the city” (PSRL, vol. II, stb. 404; see also vol. I, stb. 328; t. II, stb. 358).
33 PR, vol. I, p. 71.
34 Ibid., p. 104-105.
The semantic connection of the word “people” with the predominantly democratic circles of the population of Ancient Rus' at the end of the 11th-12th centuries. indicates a deepening, in comparison with the previous period, of the social division between the nobility and the lower classes of a free society. However, a complete break between the ruling elite and the people has not yet occurred, because the formation of classes in Rus' in the 11th-12th centuries. not finished yet. This was precisely the root cause of the polysemy of the term “people”. But since property stratification took place, and society was already ranked, that is, divided into social groups differing in position in the socio-political structure with the resulting difference in rights and responsibilities, then in the sources to designate the democratic stratum of the population and the nobility along with the single, as we know, expression “people”, the following phrases are used: “simple people” 37, “black people” 38, “wild people” 39, “good people” 40, “first people” 41, etc. X / Thus, the word “people” in Kievan Rus of the second half of the 11th-12th centuries. retains its polysemy: the people (ethnic group or population in the broad sense of the word), the common people (demos), the social elite (boyars, merchants, princely entourage) 42. Through this semantic diversity, the basic meaning of the term “people” breaks through, “people” - the mass of the ordinary free population, both urban and rural. What role did it play in the socio-political life of Rus' in the 10th-12th centuries? How were her relationships with the nobility, primarily with the princes, built? These are the questions that need to be answered.
In 944, Russian ambassadors who arrived in Constantinople concluded an agreement on behalf of “Igor, the Grand Duke of Russia, and on behalf of all the princes and all the people of the Russian land” 43 . Having sealed the agreement with an oath, the Greeks sent their ambassadors to Kyiv “to the Russian Grand Duke Igor and his people” 44 . There they “brought to the company” Igor and his people, “very filthy of Rus', and led the Christian Rus' to the company in the Church of St. Elijah” 45. I. D. Belyaev, referring to the treaties between Rus' and the Greeks, including the treaty of 944, noted that “the zemshchina took an active part in their conclusion” 46 .
35 Ibid., p. FROM.
36 Ibid., p. 104.
37 PVL, part I. p. 142; PSRL, vol. II, stb. 867, 870 897
38 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 641; NPL, p. 81.
39 NPL, pp. 44, 81.
40 Ibid., p. 71.
41 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 495.
42 “People” in the 12th century, in addition, occasionally they called serfs and princely servants.
43 PVL, part I, p. 35.
44 Ibid., p. 38.
45 Ibid., p. 39.
V.I. Sergeevich saw in the above excerpts evidence of official documents of the 10th century. about the participation of the people “in the public affairs of that time” 47. He wrote: “The chronicler says that all the baptized and all the unbaptized swore the oath; this means that by “Igor’s people” we must mean the entire existing population of Kyiv, and not any close group of people dependent on Igor.”48 V.I. Sergeevich’s idea was challenged by A.E. Presnyakov, who in the phrase of the agreement “from all people of Russian land" saw the transfer of the Greek jtavtcov tcov pa>g 49 . A. E. Presnyakov also doubted that the entire population of Kyiv swore allegiance to the Byzantine “slates,” as V. I. Sergeevich believed 50. V.I. Sergeevich’s arguments were rejected by another prominent researcher of Kievan Rus, B.D. Grekov 51. For the newest historian V.T. Pashuto, the involvement of “people” in the conclusion of the treaty of 944 seems completely implausible 52 .
In our opinion, there is a rational grain in the judgments of V.I. Sergeevich. The critic of the author of “Legal Antiquities” A.E. Presnyakov passed by the very expressive text he quoted. “Rumors and guests” from Rus' said to the Greeks: “And our Grand Duke Igor, and the princes and his bolyars, and the people of all Russia have sent us to Roman, and Kostyantin and to Stefan, to the great kings of Greece, to create love with the kings themselves, with with all the Bo-lyarians and with all the Greek people for the whole summer, until they eat up the sun and cost the whole world” 53 . One cannot ignore the statement of the Russian “diplomats” themselves that they were sent not only by Igor, the princes and boyars, but also by “the people” 54. This is understandable, because the conclusion of the treaty with Byzantium was not indifferent to the people. The resumption of the “old world” is the result of previous events, in particular the grandiose campaign against Constantinople, in which numerous warriors from the Polyans, Slovenes, Krivichi, and Tiverts took part.
46 Belyaev I. D. Stories from Russian history. M., 1865, book. 1, p. 53.
47 Sergeevich V.I. Russian legal antiquities. St. Petersburg, 1900, t. 2. p. 33. - A.V. Longpnov argued in a similar way. - See: Longinov A.V. Peace treaties between Russians and Greeks, concluded in the 10th century. Odessa, 1904, p. 64-65, 71.
48 Sergeevich V. I. Russian legal antiquities, vol. 2, p. 34.
49 Presnyakov A.E. 1) Princely law in Ancient Rus'. St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 159, note; 2) Lectures on Russian history, vol. 1, p. 74. 50 Presnyakov A.E. Princely law... p. 159, approx.
51 G rekov B. D. Kievan Rus. M., 1953, p. 365.
52 Patu t o V. T. Features of the political system of Ancient Russia. - In the book: Novoseltsev A. P. et al. The Old Russian state and its international significance, p. 50-51.
53 PVL, part I, p. 35.
54 According to B. D. Grekov, “all people of Russia” play “the same role as “all Greek people,” but here, as there, the veche is not meant.” - See: Grekov B. D. Kievskaya Rus', p. Old Russian orders on Byzantine soil.
The fate of the campaign and its success depended not on the princely squad, but on the people's militia - warriors, in the terminology of the Tale of Bygone Years. The people went to war, of course, not under pressure, but of their own free will and, of course, not in order to stand up for the interests of the princes and boyars to the detriment of their own benefit. The opportunity to plunder and take tribute was what inspired the “people” when they were going to war with the Greeks. But this time Rus' did not reach the Byzantine capital. Halfway there she was met by imperial ambassadors who offered peace and tribute. Igor “take gold and pavoloki from the Greeks and for all the howling(emphasis added - I.F.), and turn back and come home to Kyiv” 55. It was a one-time payment that stopped the campaign 56. The establishment of a long-term peace presupposed the periodic payment of tribute, which also attracted “people,” which is confirmed by chronicle data. “Don’t go, but take the tribute that Oleg received, and I’ll add more to that tribute,” said the “luchi boyar” on behalf of the emperor 57. Oleg, as is known, ordered the Greeks “to give orders to Russian cities: first to Kyiv, the same to Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Pol-tesk, Rostov, Lyubech and other cities” 58 . Therefore, the cities received a “lesson” from the tribute 59. Somewhere in the 30s of the 10th century. Byzantium annulled the terms of the treaties of 907 and 911, which forced Rus' to take up arms again 60. Ultimately, the empire began to “give tribute” again. It is no coincidence that the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal says: “Igor the Greek is going to take revenge. They, having paid tribute and humbled themselves and envoyed, will strengthen the peace until the end” 61. Part of the tribute, as before, probably went to the cities, that is, to the zemstvo. This is exactly how we understand the text of the chronicle, which talks about the emperor’s willingness to pay tribute. “south imal Oleg” 62. But since this tribute provided for deductions received by the cities for expenses for public needs, not only the nobility, but also the “people” - the ancient Russian demos - were interested in it. That is why there is nothing incredible in the fact that the embassy to Constantinople was sent both from the princely-boyar elite and from the democratic layers of Kyiv and, probably, other cities.
55 PVL, part I, p. 34.
56 A similar tribute was later taken by Svyatoslav with his howls: “And a date for him (Svyatoslav.- I.F.) tribute; and wave for the slain, saying as if “his family will take over.” - PVL, part I, p. 51. - This is further proof of the interest in tribute of “people”, i.e. ordinary soldiers. After all, the Greeks paid tribute to all warriors, “by number per head.”
57 PVL, part I, p. 34. 68 Ibid., p. 24.
59 Pashuto V.T. Features of the political system... p. 36-37.- The fact that the cities had the right to a share of tribute is evidenced by the chronicle account of the massacre of the Drevlyans committed by Princess Olga, who avenged the murder of her husband Igor. Having punished the Drevlyans, Olga “laid” on them “a heavy tribute; 2 parts of the tribute go to Kyiv, and the third to Vyshegorod to Olza; Be bo Vyshegorod city of Wolzin.” - PVL, part I, p. 43.- This distribution becomes understandable if we consider that in order to suppress the rebellious Drevlyans, the princess “gathered many and brave” (Ibid., p. 42), otherwise, she attracted the people’s militia to the campaign “into the trees” - the Kyiv thousand and, to be maybe warriors from Vyshgorod.
60 Grekov B.D. Rus'’s struggle for the creation of its own state. M.; L., 1945, p. 62-63; Levchenko M.V. Essays on the history of Russian-Byzantine relations. M., 1956, p. 137-138; History of Byzantium. M., 1967, vol. 2. p. 231.
61 LPS. M., 1851, p. 10.
The chronicle legends about Princess Olga reflected the participation of the people in political affairs. When the Drevlyans offered Olga the hand and heart of their prince Mal, she said: “If you ask me for the right, then send your husband deliberately, so that in great honor I will come for your prince, the people of Kiev will not let me in.” 63 The source before us is, of course, complex. As A. A. Shakhmatov showed, stories about Olga’s revenge entered the chronicle much later than the incidents depicted there 64 . Nevertheless, in these stories one can hear an echo of a certain dependence of the princely power on the people 65.
A visibly popular initiative, carrying the prince along with it, appears in the descriptions of the Drevlyan camp hostile to Olga. None other than the people planned to kill the Kyiv prince Igor. Having finished with him, the Drevlyans (i.e., the people) decide to marry Mal to the widowed Olga and send matchmakers to Kyiv - “the best husbands.”
62 Other facts testify to the regularity of tributary payments coming from Byzantium to Rus' and the interest of “people” (ordinary people) in them. The chronicler, for example, recalls the following words of Prince Svyatoslav addressed to the squad: “... let us make peace with the king, behold, we have received tribute, and then be content with us. As soon as we can’t manage the tribute, and again from Rus', having collected the greatest number of howls, let’s go to Tsaryugorod.” - PVL,h.I, p. 51.- It is natural to assume that the “most numerous warriors”, these representatives of the zemstvo, along with the prince and his retinue, were offended by the violation of the tributary obligations of the “tsar”, and therefore they were determined to use armed force to achieve their renewal. The constancy with which the Greeks had to pay tribute to Rus' is reported by the Nikon Chronicle, the information of which, if not going back to ancient records, is, in any case, consistent with them: “... came from the Greek king to Yaropolk, and took peace and love with him, and paid tribute to him, as he did to his father and his grandfather.” - PSRL, vol. IX-X. M., 1965, p. 39.
63 PVL, part I, p. 41.
64 Shakhmatov A. A. Research on the most ancient Russian chronicles. St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 109-110.
65 It is noteworthy in this regard the expression: “...don’t let me into the people of Kiev.” Therefore, I. I. Lyapushkin is hardly right, who believed that in the fight against the Drevlyans “the measures of the Kyiv side are determined by princes Igor and Olga” (Lyapushkin I. I. Slavs of Eastern Europe on the eve of the formation of the Old Russian state. L., 1968, p. 169 ). Without a large army, consisting of numerous warriors (people's militia), the Kyiv rulers would not have been able to conquer the Drevlyans. It is a mistake, however, to think that these howls slavishly obeyed the Kyiv princes. They are an independent military and political force that local princes had to reckon with.
The latter, having reached the city and standing in front of Olga, begin their speech with the significant phrase: “Sent from the Derevsky Land” 66. It is impossible, of course, to identify the system of relations with the princes of the Iolians and Drevlyans. Apparently, patriarchal morals were more clearly manifested in the Drevlyan land 67. But even in Kyiv, the prince had relative power, limited by the people.
Under 980, the Tale of Bygone Years reports how Vladimir, having gathered a huge army, went against his brother Yaropolk, who reigned in Kyiv. Yaropolk could not “stand against and shut up Kyiv with his people and with Fornication” 68. Vladimir managed to persuade Blud, the governor of Yaropolk, to betrayal. And Blud began to say “flattery” to the prince: “The Kiyans flock to Volodymer, saying:“ Approach the city, as Yaropolk has betrayed you. Run for the city"" 69. The frightened Yaropolk "ran", and Vladimir victoriously "went" to Kyiv. From here it is clear that the strength of the position of the Kyiv prince depended to a large extent on the disposition of the city masses towards him. The prince, who laid claim to the Kyiv table, faced failure , if he gained the affection of the townspeople. This happened with Mstislav, who
66 PVL, part I, p. 40. - I. I. Lyaputktsh correctly noted that in all these events the people set the tone (Lyapushkin I. I. Slavs of Eastern Europe... p. 169). V. T. Pashuto objected to I. I. Lyapushkin. The course of his reasoning is as follows: “The Drevlyans have their own social structure: princely power (and an old one at that: “the princes laid waste” to the land - this takes time), “the best men”... and, finally, the people. The people act not directly, but through the “best men”: they “number 20.” The Drevlyans send ambassadors to Olga, and they tell her: “We have been sent by the Derevskaya land”; and it is not the people who utter the words that reek of patriarchy, namely “the best men.” And the Drevlyans did not move in a crowd to the second embassy, but “having chosen the best men who held the Derevsky land,” below the Drevlyans call these men “the squad.” When Olga goes to war against the Drevlyans, they meet her with a “regiment”; having lost the battle, the Drevlyans defend themselves in Iskorosten, where courtyards, cells, vezhi, odriny are mentioned. Here, too, it is not democracy that reigns, but there are “elders” ... "(Pash u t o V. T. Chronicle tradition about “tribal reigns” and the Varangian question. - In the book: Chronicles and Chronicles 1973. M.. 1974, p. 106). The arguments of V. T. Pashuto make at least a strange impression. Following the author’s logic, we can talk about democracy among the Drevlyans only if they walked everywhere in crowds, lived without princes, best husbands, elders, otherwise they were in some kind of herd state. It is difficult to understand what arguments to refute the idea of the democratic structure of the Drevlyan society V. T. Pashuto drew up in the courtyards, cages, vezhs and odrins mentioned in the chronicle. V.T. Pasha, it seems to us, does not distinguish between two essential points: the presence of a ruling group and the usurpation of power. There is no human society that can do without leaders. And the fact that they exist does not mean that the people have no rights. It is necessary to show whether the people have been removed from power or have been endowed with it. And here the information from the chronicle is very important that the Drevlyans (people) gather at the Duma with their prince Mal and decide to deal with Igor, and then elect the “best husbands” and send them to Olga in Kyiv. Consequently, the people act with full awareness of their own rights, without looking at the nobility.
67 Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus, p. 365.
68 PVL, part I, p. 51
69 Ibid., p. 5o.
ry, in the absence of Yaroslav, who was in Novgorod, wanted to settle in Kyiv, but “the Kiyans did not accept him” 70. To raise their prestige in the eyes of the people and gain a foothold on the princely table, the Rurikovichs distributed gifts to “the people” 71 . For example, Svyatopolk “sat in Kiev after his father, and called the Kiyans, and began to give them property. They are primach, and their hearts are not with him, like their brothers are with Boris” 72. Regarding these generosities of Svyatopolk, A.E. Presnyakov wrote: “The desire to find support in the local population, in view of the alleged rivalry of Boris, of course,
70 Ibid., p. 99.
71 For prestigious feasts and gifts, see below.
72 PVL, part I, p. 90.-i By “kiyans” here, as in the other cases cited, the chronicler, in our opinion, means the mass of townspeople. There is a different point of view, which V. T. Pashuto adheres to. Revealing the meaning of the terms “Kyyans”, “Minyans”, “Chernigovtsy”, “Muromtsy”, “Smolnyans”, and others, he argues that “the actions of the ruling layer of the townspeople could be hidden under these terms.” To prove the idea put forward, he refers to the chronicle story about Oleg Svyatoslavich, who, while fighting with Izyaslav, the son of Monomakh, “seized Rostov, and Belozerets, and Suzdal and Pokov.” According to V.T. Pashuto, “from what follows it is clear that he (Oleg - I.F.) forged, for when he approached Suzdal, he “decided to give” to him, and he, “pacified the city,” that is, one must think, having planted in it “a row” of his supporters, “seize some, and waste others, and the property take them away." Of course, we are not talking about smerds and lesser ones, deprived of such “estate,” but about part of the city’s men” (Pashuto V.T. Features of the political system... pp. 26-27). To better understand how solid V.’s conclusions are. T. Pashuto, we present a more complete version of the chronicle text. In the Tale of Bygone Years we read that Oleg, “having come to Smolinsk and went to Murom, and in Murom then there was news to Izyaslav, that Oleg was going to Murom. Ambassador Izyaslav, throughout Suzdal, and Rostov, and Belozerstsa, gathered many people. And ambassador Oleg sent his word to Izyaslav, saying: “Go to your father’s volost, Rostov, that is, my father’s volost...” And Izyaslav did not listen to his words. these, hoping for a multitude of howls... Oleg went to him with a regiment, and stepped over the wallpaper, and the fighting was fierce. And having killed Izyaslav, the son of Volodymer, the grandson of Vsevolozh, on the 6th day of the month of September, the rest of the howls ran away through the forest, the friends into the city. Oleg went into the city... after receiving the city, seizing Rostov, and Belozersts, and Suzdal and Pokov, and rushed to Suzhdal. And when the Judge came, the judge gave himself to him. Oleg, having pacified the city, took some, and squandered others, and took away their property. I went to Rostov, and the people of Rostov gave in to him” (PVL part 1, p. 168). By applying the logic of V. T. Pashuto to the chronicle story, we discover its inconsistency. It is true that Oleg “pokova” not all Suzdal, Rostov and Belozersk residents, but only a part of them. But this goes without saying, because Oleg took Murom, and not Suzdal, Rostov and Beloozero. It’s not difficult to guess who the “seized” Rostovites, Belozersk and Suzdal residents were. This is the “howl of many”, called by Izyaslav (“ambassador Izyaslav to the howl of Suzdal, and Rostov, and to Belozerstsy, and the collected howl of many”). Back then, as we know, the people's militia was called warriors. Therefore, the interpretation of the terms “Suzdal residents”, “Rostov residents”, “Belozersk residents” as the “ruling layer of townspeople” must be rejected. Let us note, by the way, that the chronicler, speaking about the liberation of the Rostov and Suzdal residents chained by Oleg, calls them “people” (PVL part 1, p. 170). The ease with which Oleg captures Suzdal and Rostov is noteworthy. The Suzdal and Rostovites turned out to be powerless before Oleg (“having given in to him”), since their militia was defeated near Murom. Further puzzling is the attempt of V. T. Pashuto to deny “estate” to the mass of townspeople.
a sign that the population was taken into account” 73. But then, contradicting himself, the researcher notes that in this story “what is more striking is the passivity of the Kievites: they only hesitate, because their brothers are in the ranks of Borisov’s warriors, but any of their own tendencies that would cause their action are imperceptible until the explosion 1068" 74. It must be admitted: the “kiyans” really waited. However, we will be hasty if we take their caution as a manifestation of the general passivity of “people”, devoid of any “own tendencies.” The indecision of the people of Kiev in front of Svyatopolk is understandable. It is the result of the absence of the combat-ready population, who left, led by Boris, to meet the Pechenegs 75. As for the “own tendencies” of the people of Kiev, there is hardly any need to doubt - the facts we have already brought in speak about them quite eloquently. In addition to those mentioned, we will also refer to news dating back to the reign of Vladimir. In the “Tale of the Initial Spread of Christianity in Rus',” compiled under Yaroslav the Wise and which formed the basis of Russian chronicles, 76 the people are endowed with a tangible charge of social energy. Prince Vladimir appears against the backdrop of “people”, surrounded not only by the squad, but also by the people. Together with the “people” he performs pagan sacrifices 77 . In general, in the practice of the pagan cult, the “Tale” assigns the most active role to the people. The murder of Christian Varangians, doomed to be sacrificed to “idols,” is the work of enraged Kievites (“people”),” who, by the way, are armed 78 . It is especially important to emphasize the involvement of “people” in the establishment of Christianity in Russia. They attend the meeting to choose a religion, cast their vote, and elect “good and sensible men” for travel abroad for the purpose of “testing” their faith 79 . Previously, the people, on the contrary, opposed (and not unsuccessfully) the introduction of Christianity. It is known, for example, that in 961, at the request of Princess Olga, the German Emperor Otto I sent a missionary to Kyiv.
The author finds that the vast majority of the townspeople were poor. But this cannot be proven in any way. Returning to the “kiyans”, we note that the chronicler finds a synonymous replacement for them: “people”, “people kyevstip”, “people” (Ibid., pp. 95, 114, 116). We see in this clear evidence of the “Kyans” as masses of the urban population.
73 Presnyakov A. E. Princely law... p. 199-200.
74 Ibid., p. 200.
75 Let us emphasize that it was a people’s militia - howl (PVL, part 1, pp. 89, 90).
76 Likhachev D.S. 1) Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M.; L., 1947, p. 71, 76; 2) Great legacy. M., 1975, p. 67, 69.
77 PVL, part I, p. 58.
78 Ibid.
79 There, p. 74.- V.I. Sergeevich wrote about this: “Equal to the Apostles Prince Vladimir decides to accept Christianity only by asking for the advice of his boyars and city elders and having received the consent of all people.” - See: Sergeevich V.I. Lectures and research on the ancient history of Russian law. St. Petersburg, 1910, p. 148.
Roman Catholics led by Adalbert. The angry people expelled the hapless preachers with great dishonor 80 . In V. N. Tatishchev’s “Russian History” it is said about Yaropolk Svyatoslavich that he loved Christians, but he himself was not baptized “for the sake of the people” 81.
So, the written monuments depicting the ancient Russian society of the 10th and early 11th centuries characterize the ordinary population as an active socio-political force limiting the princely power. Second half of the XI-XII centuries. did not make significant changes in the style of relations between the princes and the “people”. Moreover, we have reason to believe that at this time there was an increase in the socio-political mobility of the people and a slight weakening of the power of the princes.
The unrest in Kyiv in 1068 abundantly showed what the “people of Kyivstia” were capable of. The prince and his squad were helpless before them. The “Kyyans” drove out Izyaslav, destroyed and plundered his “court”, and proclaimed Vseslav of Polotsk the new prince of Kiev 82. There is nothing in the behavior of the Kievites that would betray them as a chaotic crowd, beating in blind anger left and right. They are an organized mass that discusses the current situation at the veche, and then carries out the veche decision. Events of 1068-1069 in Kyiv they discover a political mechanism driven by two main springs: the princely-boyar elite and the people.
The princes were not at all indifferent to popular opinion and appealed to “the people” even on issues of internal princely life. In 1096, “Svyatopolk and Volodymer sent a message to Olgovi, saying to her: “Let’s go to Kiev, let us put order on the Russian lands before the bishops, and before the abbots, and before the men of our fathers, and before the people of the city, so that we may defend the Russian land.” from the filthy"" 83. Oleg, "having listened to the evil adviser," arrogantly replied: "It is not right for me to judge the bishop, whether he is an abbot or a smerd." 84. This phrase explains a lot. Firstly, it hints at what is behind the "people “city” were hiding the democratic elements of Kyiv - it was not for nothing that Oleg likened them to stinkers. Secondly, it is clear from it that Oleg was invited to the “oldest city” not only for the inter-princely “order” about the fight against the “filthy”, but also for the trial, where. “the people of the city,” like bishops, abbots and boyars, were destined to be arbiters. Oleg did not like this prospect. He did not respond to the call of his brothers. However, let us not forget that, according to the chronicler, the prince’s behavior was a deviation from the norm, for he “understood the meaning.” buoy and words are majestic" 85 .
A year later in Kyiv we find “people” in the position of advising the prince. Then tragic events were brewing in the city. Based on Davyd’s slander, Vasilke Terebovlsky was captured. Thus began the prologue to the bloody drama, the culmination of which was the blinding of the innocent Terebovl prince. Svyatopolk, involved in the unsightly story with Vasilko, feeling either remorse or fear for what he had done, “convened the bolyars and kiyans, and told them, as Davyd told him, that “you killed your brother (Vasilko - I.F.), but he was shining on you with Volodymer, and wants to kill you and take your cities.” And the boys and people decided: “You, prince, deserve to guard your head.” Yes, even if there is a right, said Davyd, to have Vasilko executed; If the verb Davyd is wrong, then take revenge from God and answer before God." 86. As we see, the "Kyans" here are "people", ordinary townspeople 87.
How freely the “Kyans” acted in dealing with the princes is evidenced by an episode placed in the Tale of Bygone Years under 1093, when Svyatopolk, Vladimir and Rostislav went against the Polovtsy, who were ravaging the Russian lands. Having reached Stugna, the princes hesitated whether to cross the river or stand on the bank, threatening the nomads. And the people of Kiev insisted on what Vladimir Monomakh and the best men tried in vain to dissuade: transport through Stugna. The chronicler reports: “Svyatopolk, Volodymer and Rostislav convened their squad for advice, wanting to cross the river, and began to think. And Volodimer said, “Here, standing across the river, in this storm, we will make peace with them” (Polovtsians.- I.F.). And I stand by the council in this sense, men, Yan and others. Kiyan did not want this advice, but said: “We want to beat you; Let’s go to the other side of the river.” And she fell in love and crossed the river.” Who the “kiyans” are becomes clear from the subsequent story about how the Polovtsians “attacked Svyatopolk first and broke into his regiment. Svyatopolk stood strong, and the people ran, unable to bear the military’s opposition, and Svyatopolk ran after him.”88 The “people” who fled from the battlefield were people’s militias from the Kyiv army, brought by Svyatopolk. They are the “kiyans” who rejected the advice of Monomakh and “sensible husbands” 89.
80 R a m m B. Ya. Papacy and Rus' in the X-XV centuries. M.; L., 1959, p. 34; Tikhomirov M. N. Ancient Rus'. M., 1975, p. 267.
81 Tatishchev V.N. Russian History. M.; L., 1962, vol. 1, p. 111.- Some very respectable scientists considered this news of V.N. Tatishchev, gleaned from the Joachim Chronicle, to be quite plausible. - See: Solovyov S.M. History of Russia since ancient times. M., 1959, book. 1, p. 175; Sergeevich V.I. Lectures and research... p. 149.
82 PVL, part I, p. 114-115.
83 Ibid., p. 150.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid. - N.I. Khlebnikov, on the basis of this chronicle message, came to the conclusion that at that time the princes “appreciated the people’s will” little. We cannot agree with this statement. - See: Khlebnikov N.I. Society and state in the pre-Mongol period of Russian history. St. Petersburg, 1872. p. 266.
86 Ibid., p. 172.
87 All this shows how wrong N. I. Khlebnikov was when he said, referring to the end of the 11th century, that “at that time the princes valued the people’s will little.” - See: N. I. Khlebnikov. Society and State. . With. 266.
88 Ibid., p. 144.
Sometimes princes found themselves in a worse position, literally giving in to the demands of the people. In 1097, the “people” with uproar and noise, in a clearly disrespectful manner, forced David to hand over his trusted husbands, Turyak and Lazar, to death 90 . According to the Laurentian Chronicle, in 1138, the Kiev prince Yaropolk, having gathered a large army, rushed to Chernigov, where his opponent Vsevolod Olgovich “shut up.” Then “the people of Chernigovtsi wrote to Vsevolod, you hope to flee to Polovtsian, and destroy your volost, then why are you turning back again, instead of that, remain arrogant and ask for peace” 91. Vsevolod “sent an ambassador with submission to Yaropolk and asked for peace” 92.
The Ipatiev Chronicle preserves remarkable descriptions of the events of 1150 in Kyiv. Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, in the face of the advancing Izyaslav Mstislavich, “unable to bear being in Kyiv,” hastily abandoned the city. But Izyaslav was ahead of Vyacheslav, who “entered Kyiv” and settled “in the Yaroslavl courtyard.” In the meantime, Izyaslav arrived, and the people of Kiev “made a lot of noise” to meet the prince and said to Izyaslav: “Gyurgi left Kiev, and Vyacheslav sits in Kiev, but we don’t want him.”93 Izyaslav, through his envoys, asked Vyacheslav to move to Vysh -city. But he became stubborn: “You should kill me, son, in this place, but kill me, but I’m not going.”94 Izyaslav Mstislavich, “bowing to Saint Sophia,” rode into the Yaroslavl courtyard “with his whole regiment and Kiyan with him.” a multitude came.” The unyielding Vyacheslav “sat on the hay.” And then “many people began to say to Prince Izyaslav: “The prince, they took away his squad.” The friends will start talking, or we’ll cut the canopy under him” 95. Alarmed by the growing excitement of the “kiyan”, Izyaslav “climbed” into the vestibule to his “former” in order to bring the old man to reason. He said to Vyacheslav: “Don’t let me get along with you, you see the strength of the people and the regiment standing, and they are planning a lot of evil, but go to your Vyshegorod, that’s why I want to get along with you.” Vyacheslav became quiet and timidly said: “Even now, son, otherwise you have Kyiv, and I’ll go to my Vysh-city” 96.
The same Ipatiev Chronicle tells about the military defeat of the Polotsk prince Rogvolod. Many Polotsk residents fell in the battle, and Rog-Volod “ran” to Sluchesk and then “went to Dryutesk, but don’t dare to go to Polotsk, before many Polotsk residents died. Polotsk residents put Vasilkovich in Polotsky" 97. This means that Prince Rogvolod is responsible to the Polotsk community for the defeat of its army and the death of Polotsk residents 98. Only this can explain the prince’s fear of appearing in Polotsk. Polotsk residents (the mass of townspeople and, possibly, villagers) who were angry with Rogovolod made a princely replacement, “planting” Vasilkovich in Polotsk.
The nature of the relationship between the prince and the “people” is clearly visible in the records of the Battle of Lipetsk in 1216. Yuri Vsevolodovich, defeated in battle by his lucky rivals, galloped to Vladimir, called the people and prayed: “Brothers Volodymertsi, let us shut ourselves in the city, we will fight them off.” In response, the “people” said: “Prince Yurya, with whom shall we close ourselves? Our brothers were beaten, and they were taken away, and what’s the use of the porridge, they came running without weapons, then who will we stand with." Yuri completely drooped. "Then I know everything, but don’t hand me over to my brother Prince Konstantin, or Volodimer, or Mstislav, so that I can get out.” of his own free will from the city,” he humbly asked. The people of Vladimir (“people”) promised him in intercession with the victors 100 Despite the extreme nature of the incident, we have before us a vivid episode that reveals the prince’s true view of the ordinary population, alien to political superiority and neglect. In this regard, we must appreciate the fact that the ancient Russian princes, when addressing the people, often used the word “brethren”, “brothers”, thereby emphasizing the equality of the parties 101.
The people in Ancient Rus' took a personal part in both inviting princes to the table and driving them away from the table. This sphere of folk activity was studied by V.I. Sergeevich with sufficient completeness and convincingness 102. In Soviet historical science there are diametrically opposed opinions on this matter. M.N. Pokrovsky and M.N. Tikhomirov recognized the common people of Rus' in the 12th century. the right to independently decide which of the Rurikovichs will reign in a particular volost 103. About the rise in the 12th century. “the political significance of the urban masses, which not only the upper classes of society, but also the multiplied princes are forced to reckon with,” wrote B. D. Grekov 104. Another point of view is shared by S.V. Yushkov and V.T. Pashuto, who believe that all important affairs in the cities were run by the local nobility, who skillfully incited the demos and cleverly used its speeches in their own narrow class interests 105. Some historians are so carried away in denying the rights of the ancient Russian people that they attribute to the people's representatives the insignificant role of extras in political performances staged by the feudal nobility 106 . We cannot agree with this derogatory socio-political assessment of the democratic strata of the free population of Ancient Rus'. The position of M. N. Pokrovsky, B. D. Grekov, M. N. Tikhomirov, who attached serious importance to the expression of the will of the masses in politics, seems to us incomparably more preferable than the position of S. V. Yushkov, V. T. Pashuto and P. P. Tolochko, turning the masses of Kievan Rus into the notorious “Kaluga dough” in historiography, from which those in power twisted any kind of pretzels.
89 Klyuchevsky V. O. Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'. Pg., 1919, p. 43.
90 PVL, part I, p. 177.
91 PSRL, vol. 1, stb. 306.
92 Ibid.
93 Ibid., vol. II, stb. 396.
94 There, Stb. 396-397.
95 Ibid., stb. 397.
96 Ibid., stb. 398.
97 Ibid., stb. 519.
98 Alekseev L.V. Polotsk land. M., 1966, p. 290.
99 PSRL, vol. 1, stb. 499.
100 Ibid., stb. 500.
101 See, for example, ibid., stb. 316, 327, 499; vol. II, stb. 348, 351, 370, 724.
102 Sergeevich V.I. Russian legal antiquities, vol. 2, p. 1-50, 73-81.
103 Pokrovsky M.N. Favorite proizv.M., 1966, book 1, p. 147-149; Tikhomirov M. N. Ancient Russian cities. M., 1956, p. 185-213, 215.
104 G reko vB. D. Kievan Rus, p. 359.
Chroniclers vied with each other to report on the countless movements of princes in Rus' in the 12th century. / Quite a few of them were caused between female connections intertwined into a ladder. Vassal relatives decisions also served as the reason for the princely movement. But no less the transfers of the princes were a consequence of what in Rus' was called liberty in the princes, which was enjoyed in a village of ancient Russian volosts headed by “elders” cities. Princes then s. are called with honor and accepted, then with they are expelled with great shame. And we see this all over Rus' 107.
In reports about the reshuffling of princes, the main characters often include “Kyans”, “Pereyaslavl”, “Smolnyans”, “Polotsk”, “Novgorodians”, “Vladimirians”, “Rostovians”, “Suzdalians”, etc. The masses of townspeople are guessed in them , absorbing and simple free 108 . The following circumstances give reason to think so: firstly, the great socio-political activity of the ordinary population that we established above; secondly, the words “people”, “people” 109 that are often found in chronicles equivalent to these names; thirdly, the practice of concluding a “number” of newly elected princes with “people”, and not with a handful of nobles 110.
The procedure for electing princes in the 12th century. was in basically the same everywhere. In this regard, Novgorod stood out little from other cities of Rus', further confirmation of which we find in the Novgorod Chronicle, where in the records of the reign in Novgorod and, say, Kyiv, a single phraseology is maintained 111. The Novgorod chronicler cannot be suspected of mechanically transferring the traditions of his city to foreign soil, because similar expressions are used in other chronicles 112.
105 Yushko in S.V. Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus. M.; L., 1939, p. 194-196; Pashuto V.T. Features of the political system... p. 13, 33-34, 36-51.
106 T o l o h k o P. P. Veche and popular movements in Kiev. - In the book: Studies on the history of Slavic and Balkan peoples. M., 1972, p. 142.
107 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 299, 301, 302, 304, 305, 308, 313, 326, 328, 330, 341, 342, 343-344, 344-345, 348, 374, 400, 431, 469; t. N, stb. 316-317, 396, 403, 445, 468, 471, 478, 490, 491, 493-495, 496, 504, 518, 526, 528, 534, 598, 624,702; NPL, p. 21, 30, 33, 43, 53, 205, 207, 213, 217, 223, 250.
108 M. N. Tikhomirov was right when, polemicizing with S. V. Yushkov, he said that by “Kyans”, “Chernigovites” and the like we should understand the urban masses, and not the boyars primarily. - See: T and x about m i-rov M. N. Old Russian cities, p. 211, 219.
109 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 301, 306, 313.379; vol. II, stb. 493-495, 496,504.
110 See, for example, ibid., vol. I, stb. 379; vol. II, stb. 474, 608.
It is necessary to pay attention to one more very significant area of competence of “people”, which, however, concerns not princes, but church dignitaries, but which is very important for determining the socio-political weight of the masses in ancient Russian society.
When historians talk about the veche election of Yeniskops, they usually mean Novgorod with its supposedly special structure of socio-political life. However, the sources preserve the rarest and therefore precious information about similar customs outside the Novgorod land. According to the Laurentian Chronicle, Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest asked Metropolitan Nikifor to appoint as bishop in Rostov, Vladimir and Suzdal “the humble and meek Luke, abbot of the Holy Savior on Berestovem.” The Metropolitan “did not want to install him, but for profit he installed Nikola Grchin.” Vsevolod rejected “Grchin”, and the chronicler explained why: “It is not worthy to jump on the priestly rank for a reward, but God will call him and the Holy Mother of God, the prince and the people will want to call him” 113. Nicephorus was forced to yield and elevate the “meek” Luke to the rank of bishop 114. The Ipatiev Chronicle contains an even clearer text: “Vsevolod Gyurievich, Prince of Suzhdal, did not accept him (Nikola Grechin.- AND. F.), but the ambassador to Kyiv to Svyatoslav, to Vsevolodich and to Metropolitan Nikephoros of the rivers: “Having not chosen this people for our land(emphasis added - I.F.), but you have set it, something else is suitable for you, there are ideas..." 115. If the “people” of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' were not at all involved in the election of a candidate for bishop, Prince Vsevolod would hardly have mentioned them. The fact that “people” in Vsevolod’s mouth is not an accidental slip of the tongue can be judged from some additional information. Thus, in the prologue life of Cyril of Turov we read that Cyril “by the supplication of the prince and the people of that city was elevated to the episcopal table” I6. The establishment of the Smolensk bishopric and the election of the bishop were also not without “people”. Prince Rostislav “brought” the bishop to Smolensk, “having agreed with his people” 117, or, according to the correct observation of A. A. Zimin, having reasoned at the meeting 118. The “people” of the Rostislav charter are the people 119. It is clear why the Charter of Rostislav served M.N. Tikhomirov as a direct indication of the participation of the urban masses in the political life of Smolensk 120.
111 NPL, p. 21, 30, 33, 53, 205, 217, 222, 252.
112 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 301, 306, 328, 341, 348, 374; vol. II, stb. 316, 445, 504.
113 Ibid., vol. I, stb. 391; see also LPS, p. 94.
114 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 391; LPS, p. 94.
115 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 629.
116 Nikolsky N.K. Materials for the history of ancient Russian spiritual writing. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 63.
117 PRP, issue. 2, p. 39.
Thus, the people in Ancient Rus' had the right to vote when the need arose to replace the episcopal tables. But the election of a “saint” is one side of the coin, so to speak; its other side is the expulsion of the bishop who aroused the discontent of the flock, that is, the deprivation of his episcopal see. In 1159, “having driven out Rostovtsi and Suzhdaltsi Leon the bishop, he increased the number of people robbing the church and priests” 121. In all likelihood, Leon’s guilt was not limited to greed. He frapped the local society with his teachings. The chronicler indignantly denounces them as heresy. What did Leon “teach”? It turns out that he “started to teach Suzh-dali not to eat meat on the Lord’s holidays, whether it be on Wednesday or Friday, neither on the Nativity of the Lord, nor on Epiphany” 122. The intensity of passions reached its highest point in a public debate, where His Grace Fyodor “reproached” Leon “before the noble Prince Andrei and before all the people” 123. The presence of “people” in the “string” between Fedor and Leon is not an accidental fact, indicating the keen interest of the people in what was happening and their involvement in the deposition of the bishop 124.
“Saint” Fyodor, who flashed his “wit” in a dispute with Leon, soon also lost his rank: “The people suffered a lot from him in his possession, and sat down, having lost both weapons and a horse, and gained friends and work, imprisonment and rake not only by a simpleton, but also by a monk and an abbot and a merciless tormentor. Cutting off the heads and beards of others, burning out others’ eyes and cutting off their tongues, and crucifying others on the wall, and tormenting them mercilessly, even though they steal their property from everyone, they are not satisfied with their property, like hell” 125. Fedorets, as the chronicler contemptuously calls him, was overthrown from the table and taken under escort to Metropolitan Constantine in Kyiv. Then Fyodor was taken to the “Dog Island”, and there, by order of the metropolitan, the disgraced bishop, “like a villain and a heretic,” had his tongue “cut off,” his right hand was cut off, and his “eyes were taken out.” “And his memory perished with noise,” the scribe sums up edifyingly and with undisguised pleasure 126. If we believe entirely in the chronicle version, then the main reason for the fall of the “nosy” Fedorets must be recognized as the bishop’s quarrel with the “Christ-loving” Prince Andrei, who ordered him to “go to the metropolitan in Kyiv,” but he “didn’t want to” 127. But the chronicler’s story about Fedorets, taken in its entirety, allows us to go beyond the usual conflict between secular authorities and church authorities and explain what happened with deeper motives, including, and above all, the discontent of the masses of the local population caused by the bishop’s violence.
118 Ibid., p. 45.
119 Golubovsky P.V. History of the Smolensk land until the beginning of the 15th century. Kyiv, 1895, p. 214-215, 257; Tikhomirov M. N. Old Russian cities, p. 202.
120 T i h o m i r o v M. N. Old Russian cities, p. 202.- The ending of Rostislav’s letter is very indicative, where it is said: “Yes, no one judged this in my days, neither the prince nor the people.” (PRI, issue 2, p. 42). Here “people” as potential violators of the Charter are placed on a par with the prince.
121 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 349.
122
123 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 352; LPS, p. 75.
124 N.I. Kostomarov had reason to say that “the Rostovites expelled (hence, in the veche) their bishop Leonty.” - See: Kostomarov N.I. The beginning of autocracy in Ancient Russia. - News. Europe, 1870, November, p. 42.
125 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 355-356; LPS, p. 77.
Finally, in the Laurentian Chronicle, under 1214, we learn how “John Bishop of Suzhdal resigned as bishop of the entire land of Rostov and took monastic vows in the monasteries in Bogolyubom” 128. The news, it must be said, is vague, covering with a thick veil the details in which John “unsubscribed as a bishop.” But the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal removes the annoying veil, notifying that “Volodimirtsi with his prince Gyurya expelled John from the bishopric, having done wrong, and installed Simon as bishop, abbot of the Holy Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ in the city of Volodymyr” 129.
So, the will of the people in electing the highest hierarchs and depriving them of their departments played not the least role in Rus' 130. N.M. Karamzin was certainly right when he wrote that “bishops elected by the prince and the people could be expelled by them in case of displeasure” 131.
The position of the prince, who did not secure popular support, was especially unstable. Without this support, he felt like a random guest who was about to be “showed the clear path.” To raise their authority among the “people” and gain popularity, the princes organized prestigious feasts and distributed wealth.
It should be noted that the social role of private wealth in pre-class societies is increasingly attracting the attention of Soviet scientists: historians, ethnographers and archaeologists. Researchers discover the uniqueness of value orientations in the early stages of class formation. Property wealth, in the context of the apparent collapse of the primitive system, often served as a means of advancement in society for both related associations and individuals 132 . Using the historical experience of the barbarian kingdoms of Western Europe, this purpose of material wealth was convincingly demonstrated by A. Ya. Gurevich. The wealth of the barbarians, he emphasized, had not so much a utilitarian quality as a prestigious one 133 . With its help, the clan nobility supported and expanded personal power and authority among fellow tribesmen 134.
125 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 356; vol. II, stb. 552; LPS, p. 77.
127 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 355; LPS, p. 77.- This chronicle version was adopted by B. A. Romanov. - See: Romanov B. A. People and customs of Ancient Rus'. M.; L., 1966, p. 152.
128 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 438.
129 LPS, p. 112.
130 M. S. Grushevsky was hardly right when he said that bishops in Kievan Rus “were usually elected by princes” - See: Grushevsky M. S. Essay on the history of the Ukrainian people. Kyiv, 1911, p. 108.
131 Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State. St. Petersburg, 1892, vol. 3, p. 129.
Observations of the life of the Indians of North America reveal, although more ancient, a picture still endowed with certain similarities. We are talking about the potlatch - a social institution that was studied in detail by Yu. P. Averkieva in Soviet historiography. The essence of this institution was the public display and distribution of private treasures accumulated by the Indians 135. The potlatch was at first a specific lever for property leveling and counteracting communal principles of personal enrichment 136. It seemed to combine two forms of property, the previous collective and the emerging private 137, the latter having a character subordinate to communal property 138. With the growth of property inequality, the dialectical essence inherent in it became more visible in the potlatch: the affirmation of individual wealth through its distribution according to the principle of collectivism. However, in any case, the potlatch was the tool by which people achieved high prestigious positions, strengthening their position in society 139. The potlatch reflected the contradictions of the transitional era from the pre-class formation to the class formation 140.
In the light of the conclusions of Yu. P. Averkieva about the potlatch of the North American Indians, V. I. Goremykin tried to consider the so-called “beggar-love” of the ancient Russian princes. The author's idea that the distribution of property and feasts of princes with the participation of the people, noticed in Ancient Rus', genetically goes back to the clan system 141 seems justified. In these feasts and distributions, V.I. Goremykina correctly guesses a weapon for strengthening political power and increasing the social status of the ancient Russian nobility 142. At the same time, by drawing too direct analogies between the potlatch of the Indians of North America and “hospitality” in Kievan Rus, V.I. Goremykina smoothes out the differences between the compared phenomena. She does not always successfully use comparative historical material 143.
The question arises to what extent the feasts and distribution of wealth in Ancient Rus' are in tune with the customs of ancient societies. The legitimacy of such a question is quite obvious, given the widespread dissemination in primitive times of orders associated with the redistribution of private treasures on the basis of collectivism. Similar orders are attested among the Eskimos and Indians of North America, among the tribes of Polynesia and Melanesia, and the peoples of Europe, Asia and Africa 144. Of course, these distributions have been modified over time. Using the example of a potlatch, Yu. P. Averkieva shows their evolution. First, when dividing private wealth, “the principle of equalization of property applies” 145. Somewhat later, “all private wealth was also subject to redistribution, but the largest and best part of the wealth was distributed among the rich clan elite, while the poor received the smaller and worse things distributed” 146. At the next stage, not all, but only part of the wealth was distributed 147.
Similar changes can be seen in the organization of feasts. Among the most ancient, we should probably include intercommunity celebrations - feasts similar to those described among the Papuans of New Guinea 148. Intercommunity feasts, typical of primitive societies, had their own dynamics, determined by the development of the community itself. Thus, with the maturation of the neighboring community in the organization of feasts, the act of sharing becomes more obvious, which was unnecessary within the framework of the clan community, where all supplies were common property. We can further talk about the organization of feasts “by all members of the community in turn” as a new step on the path of their development, and then there is a feast in the mansion of the leader 149.
Thus, both the distribution of wealth and feasts in archaic societies gradually changed in accordance with the social changes taking place in the depths of these societies. That is why, by finding out the specific features of feasts and donations, we are able to judge to a certain extent the level of society as a whole. Ancient Rus' does not represent any exceptions here.
Domestic ancient monuments, mainly chronicles, have brought to us numerous information about feasts and gifts that flourished in Rus' in the 10th-12th centuries. The Tale of Bygone Years, reporting on the deeds of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, introduces the researcher into the atmosphere of feast and generosity that reigned in the prince's palace. In 996, Vladimir, having established a tithe for the young Russian church, “created a great holiday on that day by the bolyar and the elder of the city, and a lot of property was distributed to the poor” 150. In the same year, having “set up” the Church of the Transfiguration in Vasilevo, he organized “a great holiday, boiling 300 degrees of honey. And you called your bolyars, and mayors, elders throughout the city, and many people, and distributed 300 hryvnia to the poor. Having celebrated the prince for 8 days, the holy Mother of God returned to Kiev for the Dormition, and then created a great holiday, calling together a vast multitude of people” 151. The chronicler reports that the prince “did” all this every year 152. According to the scribe, Vladimir, inspired by biblical calls for poverty, “commanded every beggar and wretched person to come to the prince’s courtyard and collect every need, drink and food, and from the cowgirls kunami” 153. For those who, due to weakness, could not get to the princely court, Vladimir ordered his servants to load carts with meat, fish, vegetables, honey and deliver food around the city 154. Every Sunday in the princely gridnitsa, boyars, gridis, sotskys, tens, and deliberate men feasted 155.
148 Bakhta V.M. Papuans of New Guinea: production and society. - In the book: Problems of the history of pre-capitalist societies. M., 1968, book. 1, p. 313_314.
149 Lipets R. S. Epic and Ancient Rus'. M., 1969, p. 146.
150 PVL, part I, p. 85.
151 Ibid.
152 Ibid., p. 85-86.
In the chronicle narrative about the gifts and feasts of the Vladimirovs, two lines are visible in the interpretation of the motives for the generosity of the Kyiv prince. The chronicler interprets Vladimir’s kindness differently depending on who it is addressed to: the top of society, called the squad, or the people. In one case, everything looks quite vital and realistic. The prince is surrounded by a retinue as first among equals. Without his retinue, he is, in essence, not a prince. In this regard, the rather ordinary scene depicted by the chronicler is significant. It happened that the warriors “would get up and start grumbling at the prince: “It is evil for our heads: let us eat with wooden spoons, not silver ones.” When Volodymer heard this, he commanded the squad to look for silver spoons and eat the silver spoons, the river said, as “Silver and gold are not The imam will fill the squad, and with the squad I will fill the silver and gold, just as my grandfather and my father searched for gold and silver with the squad.” Be bo Volodimer loving the squad, and thinking with them about the system of the earth, and about the ra-those, and about the charter of the earth 156. By endowing the squad with such tangible social weight, the chronicler did not distort reality, but reproduced it truthfully. It is clear why in his descriptions the prince’s generosity towards the warriors is alien to frivolous extravagance or soul-saving charity. This is a perfectly conscious means of uniting the druzhina elements and maintaining princely authority in the druzhina environment 157. Such a policy did not stem from the special and unique personal qualities of Vladimir; it was dictated by the historical situation itself, in which the foundations of the tribal system were not yet shaken.
The chronicler depicts the princely gifts accepted by the people on a different plane. Here he departs from the historical truth and portrays Vladimir as a kind of enlightened neophyte, overcome by a feeling of poverty that warms the poor and wretched people. We have before us a clear stylization, executed in the spirit of Christian doctrine 158. And this feature of the chronicle as a source should be kept in mind by a researcher studying Rus' during the baptismal era. Fortunately, an important service that compensates for the indicated lack of the chronicle is provided to him by the epic works of Ancient Rus', in which there is not that touch of religiosity that is noticeable in the chronicle records belonging to the monk-chronicler 159. The epics allow the historian to look at the feasts and gifts of the times of Vladimir Svyatoslavich not from the cell of a monk-scribe, but from an ordinary city or rural hut, that is, through the eyes of an ordinary resident of Rus'. In the epic we find vivid scenes of feasts, accompanied by various gifts. Relatively recently, epic feasts in their structural and functional aspects were carefully studied by R. S. Lipets 16 °. She also studied gift giving at feasts 161 with great thoroughness. The processed materials of the epic plus the news of the Tale of Bygone Years, which we cited above, give us the right to confidently speak about the widespread prevalence of feasts and gifts in Rus' at the end of the 10th century.
153 Ibid., p. 86.
154 Ibid.
155 Ibid.
156 Ibid.
157 M a v ro d i n V. V. Formation of the Old Russian state. L., 1945, p. 323-324, 335-336.
158 Lipets R.S. Epic and Ancient Rus', p. 125-250.- Some researchers share the chronicler’s version. Thus, N.A. Rozhkov says that “Vladimir the Holy supported the poor and wretched, fed them... This
The feasts of that time, as V.V. Mavrodin correctly believes, cannot be reduced to ordinary court amusements or communal drinking bouts of a Rus' prone to revelry 163 . Scientists of the last century clearly understood this. Even A.A. Popov saw in them a social institution that was “once one of the important phenomena in the social life of times long past” 1b4. Soviet authors have no doubt that political institutions are hidden behind feasts and gifts. According to D.S. Likhachev, Vladimirov’s feasts were “a form of constant communication between the prince and the squad, a form of meetings. They found an economic basis for themselves in the nature of “feeding” the squad from the prince” 165. B. A. Rybakov, agreeing with D. S. Likhachev, still believes that Vladimir’s feasts are not only a unique form of conference between the prince and his retinue, but also a form of “real communication between the prince and his firemen and governor with a wide mass of heterogeneous people” flocking to the capital city 166. Giving preference to the version of B. A. Rybakov, we note, however, that we should probably talk not so much about people arriving in Kyiv, but about people’s representatives from the local population. Vladimir's feasts are a form of communication between the princely power and the people (in addition to the squad, of course), a weapon for strengthening its prestige among the people. Were feasts with the participation of ordinary people and gifts only echoes of ancient times? Were they realities only of the reign of Vladimir or of a later time?
there was simple alms in the form of distributing food, clothing and money to the poor (Rozhkov N.A. Review of Russian history from a sociological point of view. M., 1905, part 1, p. 81). Of course, one cannot agree with such a simplified interpretation.
159 L i p e c E. S. Epic and Ancient Rus', p. 125.
160 Ibid., p. 120-125.
161 Ibid., p. 239-266.
162 We also find confirmation of this from foreign informants. For example, Thietmar of Merseburg reports about Vladimir’s generous alms, that the prince ransomed prisoners and fed them. True, Titmar motivates Vladimir’s behavior with the desire to cleanse himself of the filth of his past pagan life. - See: Mavrodin V.V. Formation of the Old Russian State, p. 336.
163 M a v ro d i n V. V. Formation of the Old Russian state, p. 336.
164 P about p about in A. Feasts and brothers. - In the book: Archive of historical and legal information relating to Russia. M., 1854, book. 2, floor 2, p. 38; see also: Maikov L. About the epics of Vladimir’s cycle. St. Petersburg, 1863, p. 67.- According to D.I. Belyaev, feasts were a means for princes to “attract people to themselves.” - See: Belyaev D.I. Stories from Russian history. M., 1865, book. 1, p. 216.
165 Likhachev D.S. “Epic time” of Russian epics. - In the book: Academician B.D. Grekov on his seventieth birthday. M., 1952, p. 58; see also: Anikin V.P. Russian heroic epic. M., 1964, p. 101; Lipets R.S. Epic and Ancient Rus', p. 127-131.
In modern literature, feasts and donations are spoken of, as a rule, in relation to the era of Vladimir 167. However, sources indicate otherwise. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, Prince Svyatopolk, who sat down on the Kiev table after the death of Vladimir, called people and “began to give baskets to everyone, and kuns to others, and distributing a lot” 168. Svyatopolk's action, albeit vaguely, is reminiscent of the potlatches of the Indians, timed to coincide with the filling of the position of leader 169. Of course, there is no direct similarity here. Svyatopolk, apparently, wanted to appease the people of Kiev and win them over to his side in anticipation of the inevitable struggle with his brothers for Kyiv. And yet, in his actions, he certainly relied on ancient traditions that required the prince to show generosity when gaining power.
But the prince, who was at the helm of power, was famous for distributing wealth to people. Metropolitan Nikifor says about Vladimir Monomakh: “Thy hand, by God’s grace, stretches out to everyone, and neither was the treasure laid out for you, whether gold, or silver was sought, but giving everything away, and exhausting both hands even to this day. But your cowgirl, by God’s grace, is infinite and inexhaustible, distributed and inexhaustible” 170. Old Russian princes sometimes had to fork out money in order to stay on the table. Noteworthy in this case is the episode preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle under the year 1159. It was in Polotsk, where Rostislav then reigned. Unrest arose in the city, because many Polotsk residents “wanted Rogvolod.” The prince had difficulty getting along with the townspeople: “Just establish
166 Rybak about in B. A. Ancient Rus'. Tales, epics, chronicles. M., 1963, p. 61.
167 History of culture of Ancient Rus'. M.; L., 1948, vol. 1, p. 275-276; Likhachev D.S. “Epic time”... p. 58; Rybakov B. A. Ancient Rus'... p. 59-62; Lipets R. S. Epic and Ancient Rus', p. 149.
168 PVL, part I, p. 95.
169 A verkieva Yu. P. The decomposition of the clan community... p. 128.
170 Russian sights. M., 1815, part 1, p. 69-70.
people Rostislav, and giving many gifts, and leading to Christ” 171.
With the help of gifts, the princes sought to maintain good relations with the people. Going “to Pleskov” in 1228, Yaroslav did not forget to take gifts to the Pskovites: “pavoloki and vegetables” 172. True, the townspeople, frightened by rumors about how “the prince was carrying chains, although the forges were weak men,” closed the gates and did not let Yaroslav in. But what is important for us is not this incident, but the fact that the prince considered it natural to appear in the city under his jurisdiction not empty-handed.
Often the reason for the distribution of wealth was the death of some prince or its approach. In April 1113, “the blessed Prince Michael, called Svyatopolk, reposed.” The widow of the deceased “distributed much wealth to the monastery and the priest and the poor, as if everyone were amazed that no one could do such mercy” 173. Upon the death of Prince Vyacheslav in 1154, clothes, gold and silver were distributed to monasteries, churches and the poor 174.
Sensing the approach of death, Yaroslav Osmomysl ordered “to distribute his property to the monastery and the poor, and so he gave it throughout Galich for three days and could not distribute it” 175. The terminally ill Vladimir Vasilkovich “distributed to the poor his property, all the gold and silver, and expensive stone, and his father’s gold belts and silver, and his own, which he acquired from his father, all distributed. And large silver dishes and gold and silver goblets were beaten and poured out before his eyes and alms were distributed throughout the whole earth, and the herds were distributed to the poor people, some of whom do not have copies” 176 .
The chroniclers try to pass off all these pre-death and post-mortem distributions of material values as alms from “God-loving” and “God-fearing” princes who observe the commandments of Christianity. But, as is known, social institutions arose “not from the nature of Christian, but from the nature of human society” 177. We have good reasons to genetically associate the distribution of wealth "for the soul's sake" with the customs of pre-class society 178 .
Chroniclers more than once talk about the robberies of the property of deceased princes. In 1157, the people of Kiev plundered the courtyards of the late Yuri Dolgoruky 179. The wealth of Prince Yuri's son was also stolen
171 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 494.
172 NPL, p. 271.
173 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 275.
174 Ibid., stb. 473.
175 Ibid., stb. 657.
176 Ibid., stb. 914.
177 Marx K., Engels F. Soch., vol. 1, p. 110.
178 A verkieva Yu.P. Decomposition of the clan community...p. 181-182.
179 “And a lot of evil was done that day, plundering his (Yuri’s) yard. I.F.) Red and other courtyards beyond the Dnieper were plundered, they call it Paradise itself...” - PSRL, vol. II, stb. 489.
Andrei, killed by the conspirators 180. Historians usually classify these robberies as acts of class struggle 181 . Without denying the presence of social protest in them, we note that the motives of primitive psychology are also heard here. Thus, according to the ideas of South African Bantu pastoralists, “the leader has nothing of his own, everything he owns belongs to the tribe” 182 . Hence, “the total surplus product, alienated in a variety of forms in favor of leaders and leaders, is considered not only as compensation for the performance of a socially useful function of management, but also as a kind of social fund, the expenditure of which should be made in the interests of the entire collective” 183. Among the Indian horse breeders, “there were cases when community members, having learned about the death of a rich Indian, rushed to his herd and captured the best horses. They could ignore the will of the deceased and leave nothing to his widow and children 184. It is curious that “the closest relatives of the deceased did not have the right to prevent this theft of the inheritance. It was carried out with particular zeal in relation to herds of stingy rich people. In this behavior of relatives and community members, as well as in the customs of dividing the inheritance of the deceased, one can see the survival of the former collectivism of cattle ownership" 185. In the light of the above ethnographic data, the robberies of the property of deceased princes take on a new facet, refracting residual phenomena that go back centuries. Their inner meaning becomes clear if we remember that the princes in Rus' in the 11th-12th centuries. prospered largely due to feedings - a kind of payment from the free population for the provision of public services, the origin of which is lost in ancient times 186. Such an inherently archaic system of remuneration for princely labor contributed to the development of a view of princely property as partly public property. Nothing else can explain, for example, the duty of the princes in Kievan Rus to supply the people's militia with horses and weapons 187 . It seems that any interpretation of the chronicle records of posthumous robberies of princely wealth, undertaken without taking into account the social psychology of pre-class society, risks being one-sided 188.
180 “The townspeople of the God-loving people robbed the prince’s house... the robbers sat down and robbed, and so did Volodymeri, if it was time for Mikulitsa to walk with the Holy Mother of God in robes around the city, then don’t rob more often.” - Ibid., stb. 592.
181 Tikhomirov M.N. Peasant and urban uprisings in Rus' in the 11th-13th centuries. M., 1955, p. 161-162, 231-234; Mav Rodin V.V. Popular uprisings in ancient Rus'. M., 1961, p. 83-86; Cherepnin L.V. Socio-political relations in ancient Rus' and Russian Truth. - In the book: Novoseltsev A.P. et al. The ancient Russian state and its international significance, p. 268-269; Tolochko P.P. Veche and popular movements in Kyiv, p. 142.
182 X azanov A. M. Social history of the Scythians, p. 184.
183 Ibid.
184 A ver k i e v a Yu. P. Indians of North America, p. 266.
185 Ibid.
186 Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus... p. 62-65.
dinar, familiar to contemporaries. They are not only an echo So, princely donations in Rus' of the 11th-12th centuries are events or relics of past centuries, but also institutions generated by the socio-political system of Rus' 189. By giving gifts to the ancient Russian people, the princes rose in public opinion, gained popularity among the masses and (most importantly) achieved the favor of the people. In the minds of the people of Ancient Rus', a good prince is, first of all, a good prince. It is not without reason that in chronicle obituaries scribes tried to emphasize the generosity of the deceased princes 190.
In the XI-XII centuries. the princes not only gave gifts to people, but also feasted with them. The chronicles are replete with reports of princely feasts.
In the May days of 1115, celebrations took place in Vyshgorod regarding the transfer of the relics of Boris and Gleb to a temple specially built for this purpose. Vladimir Monomakh, Davyd and Oleg Svyatoslavich came to Vyshgorod. After the consecration of the church, Prince Oleg gave lunch: “And the institution was great and fed the poor and strange for 3 days” 191. The chronicler, listing those who celebrated in Vyshgorod, names princes, boyars and people, that is, the people 192.
Apparently, Vladimir Monomakh was a great hospitable person. In the famous “Instructions” he repeatedly calls on his children to be generous. “In all things, do not forget the poor, but feed the most powerful in your power, and give it to the orphan,” he inspires 193. And again: “Wherever you go, where you stand, give them something to drink, and feed them” 194. By “unein” here we must understand, as it seems to us, a simple, “young” person, a representative of the lower social classes, i.e., the ordinary free population 195 . At Monomakh, investigator-
187 Ibid., p. 57-58.
188 The same must be said about the numerous news of the chronicles about the plunder of the property of princes expelled by people from this or that city.
189 Wed: History of culture of Ancient Rus', vol. 1, p. 275-276.
190 PVL, part I, p. 101, 111, 132, 142; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 294, 368, 443 447, 466, 468; vol. II, stb. 289, 550, 563, 583, 610, 617, 681, 703.
191 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 280.
192 Ibid., stb. 282.
193 PVL, part I, p. 157.
194 Ibid., p. 158.
195 The text with “unein” is one of the “dark” places in the “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh. Scientists have proposed various interpretations of this word: master, owner of the house, young hungry poor man, beggar, wanderer, etc. - See: Orlov A.S. Vladimir Monomakh. M.; L., 1946, p. 182-184; Larin B. A. Lectures on the history of the Russian literary language (X - mid-18th century). M., 1975, p. 138-139.- Relatively recently, N.A. Meshchersky considered that “we are talking about arranging dinners for the common people. Hospitality, according to Monomakh, is one of the highest virtues. “Honor more the guest, from where he comes to you, or simple, or kind, or salt, if you can freely, with food and drink...” 196. The doors of the princely house, as we see, were open not only to “good” people, but also to ordinary people. It is not surprising that Monomakh gained enormous popularity among the people 197. An excellent commentary to what has been said are the words of Metropolitan Nikifor, addressed to Monomakh: “And we know how you cooked lightly at dinner with frost, and having served all kinds of things, and having acquired everyone, both lawful and lawless, for the sake of the prince’s majesty; and you yourself serve and guard with your own hands, and your food reaches even the mosquitoes, who create the same reign for the sake of power; and those who gorge themselves on frost and become drunk, while sitting down and disgracing themselves, eat others and become drunk, and with a small taste and a little water, it seems that you are poisoned and drunk with him. You thus guess at the beings under you, and sit down and drink in vain the slaves who had them, and thereby truly tame and conquer a...” 198 . Therefore, Monomakh gave feasts and served everyone “for the sake of princely majesty,” “for the sake of reign and power.” The Metropolitan succinctly and accurately defined the social significance of the princely feasts.
Public feasts take place throughout the 12th century. On them we meet both the nobility and the demos. A simple child feasted, for example, with Prince Izyaslav, who, while in Novgorod, “the ambassador of the military and biriche clicked along the streets, calling the prince for dinner from young to old, and having dined, having fun with great joy, honorably went into their homes » 199. The same Izyaslav, having driven Yuri Dolgoruky out of Kyiv, organized a dinner in honor of the victory over his opponent. Among those invited to dine “in the great courtyard of Yaroslavl” there were also “kiyans”, otherwise - townspeople 200. We also meet the “kiyans” at a feast at Prince Vyacheslav, who was the uncle of the hospitable Izyaslav 201 . We find them at a feast at Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich's 202.
On August 25, 1218, the doors of the church of the “holy martyrs” Boris and Gleb in Rostov opened. To commemorate the opening of the temple, Prince Constantine “create a feast and establish people, and give a lot of alms to the poor” 203. April 3, 1231, Metropolitan of Kina" for a contextual synonym for the word "youth", meaning warrior, warrior, servant. - See: Meshchersky N.A. On the interpretation of the vocabulary of one of the "dark" places in the "Teaching" of Vladimir Monomakh.- In the book: Russian historical lexicology and lexicography. L., 1977, 2, p. 41.
196 PVL, part I, p. 158.
197 See p. 42-43 of this book.
198 Russian landmarks, part 1, p. 69.
199 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 369.
200 Ibid., stb. 416.
201 There, Stb. 418-419.
202 Ibid., stb. 634.
203 Ibid., vol. I, stb. 442.
Evsky appointed a certain Cyril, the confessor of Prince Vasily Konstantinovich, as bishop of Rostov, after which a grandiose feast took place: “And eating and writing that day in the monastery of the Holy Mother of God of Pechersk there were many people and... without the power of looking for them” 204.
Often the prince and the townspeople exchanged pleasantries, inviting each other to dinner: “The Kiyans often invited David to a feast and gave him great honor and many gifts. Davyd invited Kiyane to come to him for dinner and be with them in joyful times and in love, honor them and send them away” 205. In 1159, Polotsk residents invited Prince Rostislav to a city feast - “brotherhood”, in the terminology of the chronicle 206.
The chroniclers' stories about feasts we have collected indicate the prevalence of public feasts in the everyday life of ancient Russian society. These stories convince us that at the princely feasts of the 11th-12th centuries, as before, representatives of the ordinary population of Rus' were frequent guests 207 . At feasts, the simple and the noble are in the same company. There is a very interesting touch in Russian Pravda, which once again confirms that we are right. Article 6 of the Extensive Pravda, which determines the punishment for a community member (member of the rope) for the murder of a “prince husband,” reads: “But if he killed someone, either in a wedding or at a feast, then he must be paid according to the rope now, and he will also be given the same.” 208 It is easy to understand that the “liudin” commits the murder of a high-ranking “husband”, feasting with him, if not at the same table, then next to him.
So, prestigious feasts and gifts in Rus' of the 10th-12th centuries are phenomena familiar to the eyes of contemporaries. They corresponded to a more structurally complex society than the potlatch of the North American Indians and related institutions of other tribes. Private property in Kievan Rus was firmly established. Therefore, in ancient Russian feasts and donations there is no what was a characteristic feature of the potlatch: the redistribution of wealth according to the principle of collectivism, the confrontation between individual and communal principles, although some traces of all this are still visible. They were driven primarily by the prestige factor. However, both feasts and gifts, and the potlatch, are typical of societies with an incomplete process of class formation. And this is their fundamental similarity.
By resorting to feasts and distribution of treasures, the princes of Ancient Rus' pursued a specific political goal - to gain the favor and support of the masses of the population.
Thus, our research allows us to say that the people played a very active role in the socio-political life of Kievan Rus. In the relations of ancient Russian princes with the masses (“people”) we do not find anything similar to absolute domination on the one hand and complete subordination on the other. “People” are a fairly independent political force, capable of forcing princes and nobles to reckon with themselves. In their political plans and combinations, the princes of Ancient Rus' could not ignore the people, much less go against them.
This structure of relations between princes and “people” is clearly visible in the sources of the 10th century. It can be clearly traced in the 11th-12th centuries. Probably at the end of the XI-XII centuries. the socio-political mobility of “people” is increasing somewhat, which was facilitated by the fall of the clan system and the formation of city volosts - state entities with a noticeable democratic bias. And yet there is no fundamental difference between the nature of the political activity of the people in the 10th and 12th centuries. cannot be detected 209, because throughout the entire Old Russian period it was based on traditions genetically associated with the democracy of pre-class societies.
The pinnacle of the political activity of the people in Kievan Rus was the veche, to which we now turn.
204 Ibid., stb. 457.
206 Ibid., vol. II, stb. 682.
206 Ibid., stb. 495.
207 We cannot agree with N.N. Voronin, who believes that only gentlemen sat at these feasts. - See: History of the Culture of Ancient Rus', vol. 1, p. 276.- M. G. Rabinovich’s opinion about the narrow-class nature of princely feasts in Ancient Russia also seems unfounded. - See: M. G. Rabinovich. Essays on the ethnography of a Russian feudal city. M., 1978, p. 80.
208 PR, vol. I, p. 104.
209 Compare: Pokrovsky M.N. Izbr. prod., book. 1, p. 147; Greco B. D. Kievan Rus, p. 361-370.
