Treaties between Rus' and Byzantium: general characteristics. General characteristics of treaties between Rus' and Byzantium

The agreement - one of the earliest surviving ancient Russian diplomatic documents - was concluded after the successful campaign of the Kyiv prince Oleg and his squad against the Byzantine Empire in 907. It was originally compiled in Greek, but only the Russian translation has survived as part of The Tale of Bygone Years. The articles of the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911 are devoted mainly to the consideration of various offenses and penalties for them. We are talking about liability for murder, for intentional beatings, for theft and robbery; on the procedure for assisting merchants of both countries during their voyages with goods; the rules for the ransom of prisoners are regulated; there are clauses about allied assistance to the Greeks from Rus' and about the order of service of the Russians in the imperial army; about the procedure for returning escaped or kidnapped servants; the procedure for inheriting the property of Russians who died in Byzantium is described; regulated Russian trade in Byzantium.

Relations with the Byzantine Empire already from the 9th century. constituted the most important element of the foreign policy of the Old Russian state. Probably already in the 30s or very early 40s. 9th century The Russian fleet raided the Byzantine city of Amastris on the southern Black Sea coast (modern Amasra in Turkey). Greek sources talk in sufficient detail about the attack of the “Rus people” on the Byzantine capital - Constantinople. In the Tale of Bygone Years, this campaign is erroneously dated to 866 and is associated with the names of the semi-mythical Kyiv princes Askold and Dir.

News of the first diplomatic contacts between Rus' and its southern neighbor also date back to this time. As part of the embassy of the Byzantine emperor Theophilus (829-842), who arrived in 839 at the court of the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious, there were certain “suppliers for peace” from the “people of Ros”. They had been sent by their Khakan ruler to the Byzantine court, and were now returning to their homeland. Peaceful and even allied relations between Byzantium and Russia are attested by sources of the 2nd half of the 860s, primarily by the messages of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius (858-867 and 877-886). During this period, through the efforts of Greek missionaries (their names have not reached us), the process of Christianization of Rus' began. However, this so-called “first baptism” of Rus' did not have significant consequences: its results were destroyed after the capture of Kyiv by the troops of Prince Oleg who came from Northern Rus'.

This event marked the consolidation under the rule of the northern, Scandinavian in origin, Rurik dynasty of lands along the transit Volkhov-Dnieper trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” Oleg, the new ruler of Rus' (his name is a variant of the Old Norse Helga - sacred) primarily sought to establish his status in the confrontation with powerful neighbors - the Khazar Khaganate and the Byzantine Empire. It can be assumed that initially Oleg tried to maintain partnerships with Byzantium on the basis of a treaty in the 860s. However, his anti-Christian policies led to confrontation.

The story of Oleg's campaign against Constantinople in 907 is preserved in the Tale of Bygone Years. It contains a number of elements clearly of folkloric origin, and therefore many researchers have expressed doubts about its reliability. In addition, Greek sources report practically nothing about this military campaign. There are only isolated mentions of the “Ross” in documents from the time of Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-912), as well as an unclear passage in the chronicle of pseudo-Simeon (late 10th century) about the participation of the “Ross” in the Byzantine war against the Arab fleet. The main argument in favor of the reality of the campaign of 907 should be considered the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911. The authenticity of this document does not raise any doubts, and the conditions contained therein, extremely beneficial for Rus', could hardly have been achieved without military pressure on Byzantium.

In addition, the description in the Tale of Bygone Years of the negotiations between Oleg and the Byzantine emperors, co-rulers Leo and Alexander, is fully consistent with the well-known principles of Byzantine diplomatic practice. After Prince Oleg and his army appeared under the walls of Constantinople and ravaged the outskirts of the city, Emperor Leo VI and his co-ruler Alexander were forced to enter into negotiations with him. Oleg sent five ambassadors to the Byzantine emperors with his demands. The Greeks expressed their readiness to pay a one-time tribute to the Rus and allowed them duty-free trade in Constantinople. The agreement reached was secured by both parties through an oath: the emperors kissed the cross, and the Rus swore on their weapons and their deities Perun and Volos. The taking of the oath was apparently preceded by an agreement, since the oath was supposed to relate precisely to the practical articles of the contract that it was intended to confirm. We do not know what exactly the parties agreed on. It is clear, however, that the Rus demanded some kind of payments and benefits from the Greeks and that they received this in order to then leave the area of Constantinople.

The formal agreement between Rus' and Byzantium was apparently concluded in two stages: negotiations took place in 907, then the agreements reached were sealed with an oath. But the attestation of the text of the treaty was delayed in time and occurred only in 911. It is worth noting that the most beneficial articles of the treaty for the Rus - on the payment of indemnities (“ukladov”) by the Greeks and on the exemption of Russian merchants in Constantinople from paying duties - are only among the preliminary articles 907, but not in the main text of the treaty of 911. According to one version, the mention of duties was deliberately removed from the article “On Russian traders”, which was preserved only as a title. Perhaps the desire of the Byzantine rulers to conclude an agreement with Russia was also caused by the desire to gain an ally in the ongoing war against the Arabs. It is known that in the summer of the same year 911, 700 Russian soldiers took part in the Byzantine campaign against the Arab-occupied island of Crete. Perhaps they remained in the empire, entering military service there, after Oleg’s campaigns, and did not return to their homeland.

Detailed textual, diplomatic and legal analysis showed that the texts of the diplomatic protocol, acts and legal formulas preserved in the Old Russian text of the treaty of 911 are either translations of well-known Byzantine clerical formulas, attested in many surviving Greek authentic acts, or paraphrases of Byzantine monuments rights. Nestor included in the “Tale of Bygone Years” a Russian translation made from an authentic (that is, possessing the force of the original) copy of the act from a special copy book. Unfortunately, it has not yet been established when and by whom the translation was carried out, and under no circumstances did extracts from the copy books reach Rus'.

During the X–XI centuries. wars between Russia and Byzantium alternated with peaceful ones, and rather long pauses. These periods were marked by increased diplomatic actions between the two states - exchange of embassies, active trade. Clergymen, architects, and artists came to Rus' from Byzantium. After the Christianization of Rus', pilgrims began to travel in the opposite direction to holy places. The Tale of Bygone Years includes two more Russian-Byzantine treaties: between Prince Igor and Emperor Roman I Lekapin (944) and between Prince Svyatoslav and Emperor John I Tzimiskes (971). As with the 911 agreement, they are translations from the Greek originals. Most likely, all three texts fell into the hands of the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years in the form of a single collection. At the same time, the text of the agreement of 1046 between Yaroslav the Wise and Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh is not in the Tale of Bygone Years.

Treaties with Byzantium are among the oldest written sources of Russian statehood. As international treaty acts, they fixed the norms of international law, as well as the legal norms of the contracting parties, which, thus, was drawn into the orbit of another cultural and legal tradition.

The norms of international law include those articles of the treaty of 911 and other Russian-Byzantine agreements, analogues of which are present in the texts of a number of other treaties of Byzantium. This applies to the limitation of the period of stay of foreigners in Constantinople, as well as to the norms of coastal law reflected in the treaty of 911. An analogue of the provisions of the same text on fugitive slaves may be clauses of some Byzantine-Bulgarian agreements. Byzantine diplomatic agreements included clauses on baths, similar to the corresponding terms of the treaty of 907. The documentation of Russian-Byzantine treaties, as researchers have repeatedly noted, owes much to the Byzantine clerical protocol. Therefore, they reflected Greek protocol and legal norms, clerical and diplomatic stereotypes, norms, and institutions. This, in particular, is the usual mention for Byzantine acts of co-rulers along with the ruling monarch: Leo, Alexander and Constantine in the treaty of 911, Romanus, Constantine and Stephen in the treaty of 944, John Tzimiskes, Basil and Constantine in the treaty of 971. Such There were usually no mentions either in Russian chronicles or in short Byzantine chronicles; on the contrary, in the form of Byzantine official documents it was a common element. The determining influence of Byzantine norms was reflected in the use of Greek weights, monetary measures, as well as the Byzantine system of chronology and dating: indicating the year from the Creation of the world and the indict (the serial number of the year in the 15-year tax reporting cycle). The price of a slave in the contract of 911, as studies have shown, is close to the average price of a slave in Byzantium at that time.

It is important that the treaty of 911, as well as subsequent agreements, testified to the complete legal equality of both parties. The subjects of law were the subjects of the Russian prince and the Byzantine emperor, regardless of their place of residence, social status and religion. At the same time, the norms regulating crimes against the person were based mainly on the “Russian law”. This probably means a set of legal norms of customary law that were in force in Rus' by the beginning of the 10th century, that is, long before the adoption of Christianity.

From "The Tale of Bygone Years"

In the year 6420 [from the Creation of the world]. Oleg sent his men to make peace and establish an agreement between the Greeks and Russians, saying this: “A list from the agreement concluded under the same kings Leo and Alexander. We are from the Russian family - Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid - sent from Oleg, the Grand Duke of Russia, and from everyone who is at hand him, - the bright and great princes, and his great boyars, to you, Leo, Alexander and Constantine, the great autocrats in God, the Greek kings, to strengthen and certify the long-term friendship that existed between Christians and Russians, at the request of our great princes and by command, from all the Russians under his hand. Our Lordship, desiring above all in God to strengthen and certify the friendship that constantly existed between Christians and Russians, decided fairly, not only in words, but also in writing, and with a firm oath, swearing with our weapons, to confirm such friendship and certify it by faith and according to our law.

These are the essence of the chapters of the agreement regarding which we have committed ourselves by God's faith and friendship. With the first words of our agreement, we will make peace with you, Greeks, and we will begin to love each other with all our souls and with all our good will, and we will not allow any deception or crime to occur from those under the hands of our bright princes, since this is in our power; but we will try, as much as we can, to maintain with you, Greeks, in future years and forever an unchangeable and unchanging friendship, expressed and committed to a letter with confirmation, certified by an oath. Likewise, you, Greeks, maintain the same unshakable and unchanging friendship for our bright Russian princes and for everyone who is under the hand of our bright prince always and in all years.

And about the chapters concerning possible atrocities, we will agree as follows: let those atrocities that are clearly certified be considered indisputably committed; and whichever they do not believe, let the party that seeks to swear that this crime will not be believed; and when that party swears, let the punishment be whatever the crime turns out to be.

About this: if anyone kills a Russian Christian or a Russian Christian, let him die at the scene of the murder. If the murderer runs away and turns out to be a rich man, then let the relative of the murdered man take that part of his property that is due by law, but let the murderer’s wife also keep what is due to her by law. If the escaped murderer turns out to be indigent, then let him remain on trial until he is found, and then let him die.

If someone strikes with a sword or beats with any other weapon, then for that blow or beating let him give 5 liters of silver according to Russian law; If the one who committed this offense is poor, then let him give as much as he can, so that let him take off the very clothes in which he walks, and about the remaining unpaid amount, let him swear by his faith that no one can help him, and let him not this balance is collected from him.

About this: if a Russian steals something from a Christian or, on the contrary, a Christian from a Russian, and the thief is caught by the victim at the very time when he commits the theft, or if the thief prepares to steal and is killed, then his death will not be exacted from either Christians or from Russians; but let the victim take back what he lost. If the thief gives himself up voluntarily, then let him be taken by the one from whom he stole, and let him be bound, and give back what he stole in triple the amount.

About this: if one of the Christians or one of the Russians attempts [robbery] through beatings and clearly takes by force something belonging to another, then let him return it in triple amount.

If a boat is thrown onto a foreign land by a strong wind and one of us Russians is there and helps save the boat with its cargo and send it back to the Greek land, then we carry it through every dangerous place until it comes to a safe place; If this boat is delayed by a storm or has run aground and cannot return to its place, then we, Russians, will help the rowers of that boat and see them off with their goods in good health. If the same misfortune happens to a Russian boat near the Greek land, then we will take it to the Russian land and let them sell the goods of that boat, so if it is possible to sell anything from that boat, then let us, the Russians, take it [to the Greek shore]. And when [we, Russians] come to the Greek land for trade or as an embassy to your king, then [we, Greeks] will honor the sold goods of their boat. If any of us Russians who arrived with the boat happen to be killed or something is taken from the boat, then let the culprits be sentenced to the above punishment.

About these: if a captive of one side or another is forcibly held by Russians or Greeks, having been sold into their country, and if, in fact, he turns out to be Russian or Greek, then let them ransom and return the ransomed person to his country and take the price of those who bought him, or let it be The price offered for it was that of servants. Also, if he is captured by those Greeks in the war, still let him return to his country and his usual price will be given for him, as already said above.

If there is a recruitment into the army and these [Russians] want to honor your king, and no matter how many of them come at what time, and want to stay with your king of their own free will, then so be it.

More about the Russians, about the prisoners. Those [captive Christians] who came from any country to Rus' and were sold [by the Russians] back to Greece, or captive Christians brought to Rus' from any country - all of these must be sold for 20 zlatnikov and returned to the Greek land.

About this: if a Russian servant is stolen, either runs away, or is forcibly sold and the Russians begin to complain, let them prove this about their servants and take him to Rus', but the merchants, if they lose the servant and appeal, let them demand it in court and, when they find , - they will take it. If someone does not allow an inquiry to be carried out, he will not be recognized as right.

And about the Russians serving in the Greek land with the Greek king. If someone dies without disposing of his property, and he does not have his own [in Greece], then let his property return to Rus' to his closest younger relatives. If he makes a will, then the one to whom he wrote to inherit his property will take what was bequeathed to him, and let him inherit it.

About Russian traders.

About various people going to the Greek land and remaining in debt. If the villain does not return to Rus', then let the Russians complain to the Greek kingdom, and he will be captured and returned by force to Rus'. Let the Russians do the same to the Greeks if the same thing happens.

As a sign of the strength and immutability that should be between you, Christians, and Russians, we created this peace treaty with Ivan’s writing on two charters - your Tsar and with our own hand - we sealed it with an oath of the honorable cross and the holy consubstantial Trinity of your one true God and given to our ambassadors. We swore to your king, appointed by God, as a divine creation, according to our faith and custom, not to violate for us and anyone from our country any of the established chapters of the peace treaty and friendship. And this writing was given to your kings for approval, so that this agreement would become the basis for the approval and certification of the peace existing between us. The month of September 2, index 15, in the year from the creation of the world 6420.”

Tsar Leon honored the Russian ambassadors with gifts - gold, and silks, and precious fabrics - and assigned his husbands to show them the church beauty, the golden chambers and the wealth stored in them: a lot of gold, pavoloks, precious stones and the passion of the Lord - a crown, nails , scarlet and the relics of the saints, teaching them their faith and showing them the true faith. And so he released them to his land with great honor. The ambassadors sent by Oleg returned to him and told him all the speeches of both kings, how they concluded peace and established an agreement between the Greek and Russian lands and established not to break the oath - neither to the Greeks nor to Rus'.

(translation by D.S. Likhachev).

Bibikov M.V. Rus' in Byzantine diplomacy: treaties between Rus' and the Greeks of the 10th century. // Ancient Rus'. Questions of medieval studies. 2005. No. 1 (19).

Litavrin G.G. Byzantium, Bulgaria, etc. Rus' (IX - early XII centuries). St. Petersburg, 2000.

Nazarenko A.V. Ancient Rus' on international routes. M., 2001.

Novoseltsev A.P. The formation of the Old Russian state and its first ruler // The Ancient States of Eastern Europe. 1998 M., 2000.

The Tale of Bygone Years / Ed. V. P. Adrianova-Peretz. M.; L, 1950.

Which articles of the treaty relate to the economic sphere, and which to the political?

What was the ethnic composition of the Russian ambassadors mentioned in the treaty?

What specifically Greek realities appear in the text of the treaty?

Why are Russians and Christians opposed in the treaty?

Is it possible to talk about a military alliance between Rus' and Byzantium on the basis of the treaty?

The year 907 became a milestone in the history of Russian diplomacy no less, if not more significant, than the year 860, when Rus' was recognized by Byzantium as a state and concluded the first treaty of “peace and love” with the empire.

Under 907, the author of The Tale of Bygone Years places a story about a new campaign of the Russian army against Constantinople and the conclusion of a new Russian-Byzantine treaty. This time, the chronicle preserved information about the conclusion of a truce, and about the progress of negotiations regarding the development of a peace treaty, and about its content.

In the works of historians of the 18th century. The Tale of Bygone Years version of the treaty of 907 was accepted unconditionally. V. N. Tatishchev, M. V. Lomonosov, M. M. Shcherbatov, I. N. Boltin did not doubt the reliability of this agreement. A long-term discussion was opened by A.L. Shletser, who questioned the chronicle news of both the campaign and the treaty of 907. 2 He was the first to introduce into historiography to confirm his position such an argument as the silence about these events in Byzantine sources.

Over the next 150 years, two lines were clearly defined in the discussion: some historians considered the treaty to be the fruit of invention of the author of The Tale of Bygone Years; others believed that it was a historical reality, but had different assessments of its content and place in the system of Eastern European diplomacy.

During the 19th century. Russian official and liberal historiography perceived the treaty traditionally: its content was covered in almost all general courses on Russian history and in special historical, historical-legal, historical-church works. And at the beginning of the 20th century, relying on the opinion of A.L. Shletser, G.M. Barats dealt a new blow to the reliability of the treaty of 907. He wrote that “you can’t understand anything” in the treaties between Rus' and the Greeks, that they are just “tattered rags” accidentally linked together by the inept hand of a bad compiler 3 .

V. I. Sergeevich adhered to a skeptical line in relation to the treaty of 907. He believed that “the reasons that led to the conclusion of the new peace (the treaty of 911 - A. S.) remain ... unclear,” and the very presentation of the treaty of 907, according to Sergeevich, looks fragmentary, it has no beginning. Opposing the point of view of a number of historians that the agreement may have been preliminary (preliminary) in nature and only preceded the further agreement of 911, V. I. Sergeevich wrote that this concept is too artificial in relation to “such primitive figures as there were Russians from Oleg’s time” 4.

The reality of the treaty of 907 also raised doubts among A. A. Shakhmatov. He argued that the treaty of 907 was a fiction of the chronicler, and a well-thought-out and deliberate fiction. A. A. Shakhmatov also explains the motives for this ancient falsification. The chronicler, having familiarized himself with the text of the treaty of 911, found in its title an indication that it was preceded by some kind of treaty identical with the treaty of 911 - this is exactly how A. A. Shakhmatov understood the initial words of the treaty of 911. : “Equal to another conference that took place under the same kings Leo and Alexander.” From the title the chronicler deduced that the first world dates back to the time of Oleg’s campaign against Constantinople. He also calculated the time of the campaign - 907, simply taking this "date from a folk legend, which turned out to be right here in the chronicle, and spoke of Oleg's death four years into the fifth after his campaign against Byzantium. But in 907 Emperor Constantine, who was crowned king later, had not yet ruled, and he was mentioned in the preamble of the agreement of 911. Then the chronicler crossed out the name of Constantine from the preamble and left there the names of Leo and Alexander, who reigned in 907, who concluded in 907 , some kind of agreement with Oleg, in some ways “equal” to the agreement of 911. But the series of forgeries does not end there. The Chronicler invents the agreement itself of 907. In addition, notes A. A. Shakhmatov, in Igor’s agreement 944 ... there are references to articles of the “old world” that lead to 911, but there are no articles themselves in the treaty of 911. This means, A. A. Shakhmatov concludes, they were artificially transferred from 911 to 907. And here is the result: the treaty of 907 did not exist, “Oleg concluded only one treaty with the Greeks” - 911.

A. A. Shakhmatov’s doubts were later shared by A. E. Presnyakov, S. P. Obnorsky, S. V. Bakhrushin b. Echoes of a skeptical approach to the treaty of 907 were also felt in Soviet historiography. 7 ak, D.S. Likhachev, on the one hand, did not doubt the realities of the campaign of 907 and wrote about four treaties (907, 911, 944 and 971) between Rus' and the Greeks, including the treaty of 907 in their composition. ... and on the other hand, he agreed with the point of view of A. A. Shakhmatov that the treaty of 907 is an extract, “a simple selection of some articles from the treaty of 911.” 7. B. A. Rybakov in his works ignores both the date of the campaign (907) and the treaty of 907 itself, although he recognizes the facts of the campaign as historically real. A. A. Zimin mentions the treaty of 907, but relies on the opinion of those scientists who considered it a literary compilation based on the material of the treaties of 911 and 944. Thus, he notes that “the treaty of 907 appeared only under the pen of the compiler of the Tale of Bygone Years from the materials at his disposal” 8 . Once again, the version about the artificial origin of the text of the treaty of 907 was voiced in the works of A. G. Kuzmin and O. V. Tvorogov 9 .

Another group of scientists - both pre-revolutionary and Soviet - does not deny the reliability of the chronicle information about the treaty of 907, but considers it a preliminary peace that was renegotiated in 911.

M. S. Grushevsky, denying the historical authenticity of the fact of Rus'’s attack on Constantinople, nevertheless admitted that some campaigns of Russian armies against Byzantium were undertaken, which resulted in the conclusion of agreements with the empire that were beneficial for Rus', which included conditions for the payment of indemnities by the Greeks, tribute and other points favorable for Rus'."

In Soviet historiography, the opinion on the preliminary nature of the contract was expressed by B. D. Grekov, M., V. Levchenko, V. T. Pashuto, and in legal literature by F. I. Kozhevnikov. B. D. Grekov, without, however, indicating the date of the campaign, believed that under the walls of Constantinople the Byzantines agreed to a peace that was unfavorable for them, “after which a written agreement was concluded that determined the relations between the Kyiv state and Byzantium.” The Treaty of 907, presumably, did not yet regulate such relations. Analyzing the treaty of 911, B. D. Grekov also considered in its composition the articles placed by the chronicler under 907, i.e., he relied on the traditional understanding of the articles of the treaty of 907, which had become traditional by that time, as extracts from the text of the treaty of 911 12 M. V. Levchenko believed that the agreement of 907 did not fully correspond to the conditions of developing Russian-Byzantine relations, which explained the sending of Oleg’s embassy to Byzantium and the conclusion of a new agreement in 911. 13 This point of view is shared by V. T. Pashuto. “It seems that those are right,” he writes, referring to M.V. Levchenko and the Polish historian S. Mikutsky, “who consider it (the treaty of 907 - A.S.) a preliminary agreement, the fate of which was decided march 911.” The Treaty of 907 is characterized by V. T. Pashuto as “interstate”, “legally mature”. He emphasizes that the agreement of 907.g. “only fixed and united the norms that already existed in previous agreements between individual Slavic lands and Byzantium” 14.

There is a third version, according to which the treaty of 907 was the main, decisive one in the relations between Rus' and Byzantium at the beginning of the 10th century. and had universal significance for subsequent relations between the two states in the X-XI centuries. This point of view was first expressed by N.A. Lavrovsky, and V.V. Sokolsky substantiated it in detail in a public speech in 1870. He drew attention to the fact that the very execution of this act was accompanied by a preliminary agreement, which was characteristic only of independent foreign policy agreements. The treaty of 911, according to Sokolsky, was only an addition to the treaty of 907, which became necessary in the course of trade and political cooperation between Rus' and Byzantium 15.

S. M. Solovyov gave an almost everyday sketch on this subject, which in general fits quite clearly into the concept of independence and universality of the treaty of 907. Having admitted the Russians to Byzantium, wrote S. M. Solovyov, “the Greek court had to settle down with the Kyiv prince, what to do in the event of necessary clashes between Russians and subjects of the empire.” This is how the treaty of 911 appeared, which was approved “on the basis of the previous series, concluded immediately after the campaign.” His point of view was shared by A.V. Longinov and D.Ya. Samokvasov. “The Ancient World” became the basis for subsequent agreements - this is how D. Ya. Samokvasov defined the meaning of the treaty of 907. In his opinion, “the treaties of 911, 945 and 971. were only confirmations and additions to the treaty of 907.” 16 .

The Soviet scientist V. M. Istrin defended this concept. He believed that the agreement of 907 met all the diplomatic canons of his time, but turned out to be insufficient to further regulate relations between the two countries. Therefore, in 911, Oleg sent “special envoys” to Constantinople to fill in the missing mutual conditions. They appeared in the treaty of 911, but a later chronicler shortened them as a simple repetition of the provisions of the treaty of 907. 17

Finally, some historians, both pre-revolutionary and Soviet, while recognizing the independence of the treaty of 907, gave it a restrictive, commercial character 18 .

Soviet historians - the authors of collective generalizing works, undoubtedly took into account the lack of consensus on this historical plot. Hence the cautious assessments. Thus, in the multi-volume “Essays on the History of the USSR” it is said: “There are disagreements in the literature about the relationship between the texts of these treaties (90? and 911 - A.S.). In any case, the fact that the treaty was concluded in 907 is beyond doubt and we can safely say that the treaty, beneficial for Rus', was a result of the successful campaign of the Russian “warriors” against Constantinople. Several years later, the authors of the multi-volume “History of the USSR from Ancient Times to the Present” days" passed over this controversial issue in silence. The authors of the two-volume "Brief History of the USSR", on the contrary, recognized Oleg's campaign in 907 as a concrete historical fact, but considered that the peace conditions of 907 were formalized later, in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911 ., “very beneficial for Rus'.” Neither the campaign nor the treaty of 907 were reflected in the “History of Diplomacy.” In the “History of Bulgaria,” the treaty of 907 is assessed as purely “trade.” The course and results of the military campaign are interpreted differently 907 in the “History of Byzantium.” The author of the chapter “Byzantium and Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries” G. G. Litavrin does not doubt the authenticity of the campaign and the treaty of 907. In his opinion, in 907 there was an agreement was reached, and in 911 another agreement was concluded 19.

The works of foreign historians reflected the intense debate on this issue in Russian historiography. In the XVIII-XIX centuries. in general works on Russian history published abroad, the history of the campaign and treaty of 907 was presented in accordance with the interpretation of this issue in Russian historiography of the 18th century. 20 But already in the first third of the 19th century. In the West, there were voices of skeptics who expressed distrust of the message of The Tale of Bygone Years. The German historian S. Wilken called the events of 907 “a completely mythical tradition.” He was echoed by the Englishman S. Runciman. The history of Oleg's campaign and the treaty of 907 was considered an “ordinary saga” by the German historian G. Lair 21 . These scholars regarded the silence of Greek sources as the main argument in favor of denying the realities of 907.

People especially actively opposed the reliability of the information in the Russian chronicle about the campaign and the treaty of 907 in the 30s-50s of the 20th century. Belgian Byzantinist A. Gregoire and English historian R. Dolley.

V. Gregoire, in the article “The Legend of Oleg and Igor’s Expedition,” wrote that Prince Oleg never existed, that Nestor’s chronicle “contains as many errors as words.” Subsequently, A. Gregoire’s position on the “unhistoricity” of the campaign was developed by R. Dollei, who argued his position again with references to the silence of Greek sources about the campaign and the treaty of 907 and subsequent “borrowings” from the history of Bulgarian-Byzantine relations 22 .

In the early 60s of the XX century. In Paris, the work of I. Sorlen “Treaties of Byzantium with Russia in the 10th century” was published. Without clearly defining his position in the approach to the treaty of 907, I. Sorlen, on the one hand, admits that “the reliability of the treaties can be called into question if the campaign that preceded them is only a legend,” and on the other hand, - notes that if we accept both agreements as real facts, then the agreement of 907 “is a document independent of the agreement of the City Council.” .

In the 70s of the XX century. D. Obolensky and his student D. Shepard spoke out against the authenticity of the treaty of 907. D. Obolensky in the work “Byzantine Community. Eastern Europe. 500--1453” accepted the version that the treaty of 907 was only part of the agreement of 911, but ignored such subjects of the negotiations of 907 as the conclusion of peaceful relations between the two countries or the payment of tribute by Byzantium to Rus'. D. Shepard, in a small student work on the problems of Russian-Byzantine relations from 860 to 1050, without bothering with arguments, completely omitted the date 907. 24

However, A. Gregoire was deeply wrong when he argued that by the end of the 30s of the 20th century. not a single voice was heard in defense of the reliability of the Russian chronicle news about the events of 907. In 1938, the American historian G. Rondal spoke in favor of the credibility of the campaign and the treaty of 907. In 1947, the famous French Byzantinist L. Breuer not only noted the reality of Oleg’s campaign and the defeat of the Greeks, but even insisted on the authenticity of the fact of the meeting between Leo VI and Oleg to approve the peace treaty. In 1948, the chronicle version of the campaign and treaty of 907 was accepted by the Canadian scientist A. Boak. Like previous historians, he viewed the negotiations of 907 as only a preliminary agreement that was completed by the “formal treaty” of 911. 25

But G. Ostrogorsky and A. A. Vasiliev spoke most decisively in defense of the reliability of the chronicle information about Russian-Byzantine relations in 907. In the article “The campaign of Prince Oleg against Constantinople in 907” G. Ostrogorsky noted that the Russian chronicle text goes back to some ancient source. He explained the fact of the silence of the Greek chroniclers about the events of 907 by the fact that all their information also goes back to a common root - the chronicle of Simeon Logothet, which actually does not mention the campaign of 907. A. A. Vasiliev in the book “The Second Russian Attack on Constantinople "examines in detail the circumstances of the campaign and the treaty of 907. True, he considers Kievan Rus to be a Norman state, and Oleg as a Varangian leader, but he does not doubt for a minute the reality of Oleg himself, his campaign and the treaty of 907. Like G. Ostrogorsky , he does not agree with the negative assessment of the treaty of 907 by A. A. Shakhmatov and tried to reconstruct its full text, arguing that this treaty also included an article on allowing Russian soldiers to serve in Byzantium. A. A. Vasiliev opposes the skeptical assessments of A. Gregoire. This view of the work of A. Gregoire is shared by G. Vernadsky 6 .

Thus, in our opinion, an objective understanding of the events of 907 is possible only by answering two interrelated questions: was the campaign of 907 a historically real fact and is the information of the author of The Tale of Bygone Years about the conclusion of a treaty by Oleg in 907 reliable? of these questions is fraught with an independent research topic.

Russian-Byzantine Treaty 907 g. Russian-Byzantine Treaty Concluded after the successful campaign against Constantinople by Prince Oleg. Its main provisions were the restoration of peaceful and good neighborly relations between the two countries. Byzantium pledged to pay an annual tribute to Rus' in substantial amounts and to pay a one-time indemnity in money, gold, things, fabrics, etc., stipulating the amount of ransom for each warrior and monthly allowance for Russian merchants.

IN Tales of Bygone Years about this agreement it is said:

Kings Leon and Alexander made peace with Oleg, pledged to pay tribute and swore allegiance to each other: they themselves kissed the cross, and Oleg and his husbands were taken to swear allegiance according to Russian law, and they swore by their weapons and Perun, their god, and Volos, the god of cattle, and established peace.

Russian-Byzantine Treaty of 911 Reference article

Russian-Byzantine Treaty 911 d. Its general political part repeated the provisions treaties of 860 and 907. Unlike previous treaties, where its content was communicated as an “imperial grant” to the Russian prince, now it was an equal treaty in its entirety between two equal participants in the negotiation process. The first article talked about ways to deal with various atrocities and penalties for them. The second is about responsibility for murder. The third is about liability for intentional beatings. The fourth is about responsibility for theft and the corresponding punishments for it. The fifth is about responsibility for robbery. The sixth is about the procedure for helping merchants of both countries during their voyages with goods. The seventh is about the procedure for ransoming prisoners. Eighth - about allied assistance to the Greeks from Rus' and about the order of service Rusov in the imperial army. The ninth is about the practice of ransoming any other captives. The tenth is about the procedure for returning escaped or kidnapped servants. The eleventh is about the practice of inheriting the property of Rus who died in Byzantium. Twelfth - about the order of Russian trade in Byzantium . The thirteenth is about responsibility for the debt taken and about punishment for non-payment of the debt.

IN Tales of Bygone Years about this agreement it is said:

Per year 6420 ( 912 ). Sent Oleg their husbands to make peace and establish an agreement between the Greeks and Russians, saying this: “A list from the agreement concluded under the same kings Leo and Alexander. We are from the Russian family - Karla, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid - sent from Oleg , the Grand Duke of Russia, and from everyone who is under his hand - the bright and great princes, and his great boyars, to you, Leo, Alexander and Constantine, the great autocrats in God, the Greek kings, to strengthen and certify long-term friendship, which was between Christians and Russians, at the request of our great princes and by command, from all the Russians under his hand. Our Lordship, desiring above all in God to strengthen and certify the friendship that constantly existed between Christians and Russians, decided fairly, not only in words, but also in writing, and with a firm oath, swearing with our weapons, to confirm such friendship and certify it by faith and according to our law.

About this: if one of the Christians or one of the Russians attempts (robbery) through beatings and clearly takes by force something belonging to another, then let him return it in triple amount.

If a boat is thrown onto a foreign land by a strong wind and one of us Russians is there and helps save the boat with its cargo and send it back to the Greek land, then we carry it through every dangerous place until it comes to a safe place; If this boat is delayed by a storm or has run aground and cannot return to its place, then we, Russians, will help the rowers of that boat and see them off with their goods in good health. If the same misfortune happens to a Russian boat near the Greek land, then we will take it to the Russian land and let them sell the goods of that boat, so if it is possible to sell anything from that boat, then let us, the Russians, take it (to the Greek shore). And when we (we, Russians) come to the Greek land for trade or as an embassy to your king, then (we, Greeks) will honor the sold goods of their boat. If any of us Russians who arrived with the boat happen to be killed or something is taken from the boat, then let the culprits be sentenced to the above punishment.

If there is a recruitment into the army and these (Russians) want to honor your king, no matter how many of them come at what time, and want to stay with your king of their own free will, then so be it.

More about the Russians, about the prisoners. Those who came from any country (captive Christians) to Rus' and were sold (by the Russians) back to Greece or captive Christians brought to Rus' from any country - all of these must be sold for 20 zlatnikov and returned to Greek land.

And about the Russians serving in the Greek land with the Greek king. If someone dies without disposing of his property, and he does not have his own (in Greece), then let his property return to Rus' to his closest younger relatives. If he makes a will, then the one to whom he wrote to inherit his property will take what was bequeathed to him, and let him inherit it.

About Russian traders.

As a sign of the strength and immutability that should be between you, Christians, and Russians, we created this peace treaty with Ivan’s writing on two charters - your Tsar and with our own hand - we sealed it with an oath of the honorable cross and the holy consubstantial Trinity of your one true God and given to our ambassadors. We swore to your king, appointed by God, as a divine creation, according to our faith and custom, not to violate for us and anyone from our country any of the established chapters of the peace treaty and friendship. And this writing was given to your kings for approval, so that this agreement would become the basis for the approval and certification of the peace existing between us. The month of September is 2, index 15, in the year from the creation of the world 6420."

Tsar Leon honored the Russian ambassadors with gifts - gold, and silks, and precious fabrics - and assigned his husbands to show them the church beauty, the golden chambers and the wealth stored in them: a lot of gold, pavoloks, precious stones and the passion of the Lord - a crown, nails , scarlet and the relics of the saints, teaching them their faith and showing them the true faith. And so he released them to his land with great honor. The ambassadors sent Oleg , returned to him and told him all the speeches of both kings, how they concluded peace and established an agreement between the Greek and Russian lands and established not to break the oath - neither to the Greeks nor to Rus'.

Russian-Byzantine wars is a series of military conflicts between Old Russian state And Byzantium in the period from the second half of the 9th century to the first half of the 11th century. At their core, these wars were not wars in the full sense of the term, but rather - hiking and raids.

First trip Rus' against Byzantine Empire(with the proven participation of Russian troops) began a raid in the early 830s. The exact date is not indicated anywhere, but most historians point to the 830s. The only mention of the campaign is in the Life of St. George of Amastrida. The Slavs attacked Amastris and plundered it - this is all that can be extracted from the work of the supposed Patriarch Ignatius. The rest of the information (for example, the Russians tried to open the coffin of St. George, but their arms and legs were lost) does not stand up to criticism.

The next attack was on Constantinople (Constantinople, modern Istanbul, Türkiye), which occurred in 866 (according to Tales of Bygone Years) or 860 (according to European chronicles).

The leader of this campaign is not indicated anywhere (as in the campaign of the 830s), but we can almost certainly say that it was Askold and Dir. The raid was carried out on Constantinople from the Black Sea, which the Byzantines did not expect. It should be noted that at that time the Byzantine Empire was greatly weakened by long and not very successful wars with the Arabs. When the Byzantines saw, according to various sources, from 200 to 360 ships with Russian soldiers, they locked themselves in the city and made no attempt to repel the attack. Askold and Dir calmly plundered the entire coast, receiving more than enough booty, and took Constantinople under siege. The Byzantines were in panic; at first they did not even know who attacked them. After a month and a half siege, when the city actually fell, and several dozen men-at-arms could have taken it, the Rus unexpectedly left the Bosphorus coast. The exact reason for the retreat is unknown, but Constantinople miraculously survived. The author of the chronicles and an eyewitness to the events, Patriarch Photius, describes this with helpless despair: “The salvation of the city was in the hands of the enemies and its preservation depended on their generosity... the city was not taken by their mercy... and the disgrace from this generosity intensifies the painful feeling...”

There are three versions of the reason for the departure:

fear of reinforcements arriving;
reluctance to be drawn into a siege;
pre-thought-out plans for Constantinople.

The latest version of the “cunning plan” is confirmed by the fact that in 867 the Russians sent an embassy to Constantinople, and a trade agreement was concluded with Byzantium, moreover, Askold and Dir committed first baptism of Rus'(unofficial, not as global as Vladimir’s baptism).

The campaign of 907 is indicated only in a few ancient Russian chronicles; it is not in the Byzantine and European chronicles (or they are lost). However, the conclusion of a new Russian-Byzantine treaty as a result of the campaign has been proven and is beyond doubt. It was that legendary hike Prophetic Oleg when he nailed his shield to the gates of Constantinople.

Prince Oleg attacked Constantinople with 2,000 rooks from the sea and horsemen from the land. The Byzantines surrendered and the result of the campaign was the treaty of 907, and then the treaty of 911.

Unconfirmed legends about the campaign:

Oleg put his ships on wheels and moved overland with a fair wind to Constantinople;
the Greeks asked for peace and brought poisoned food and wine to Oleg, but he refused;
The Greeks paid each warrior 12 gold hryvnia, plus separate payments to all the princes - Kyiv, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Rostov, Polotsk and other cities (plausible).

In any case, the texts of the treaties of 907 and 911, included in the Tale of Bygone Years, confirm the fact of the campaign and its successful result. After their signing, the trade of Ancient Rus' reached a new level, and Russian merchants appeared in Constantinople. Thus, its significance is great, even if it was intended as an ordinary robbery.

Reasons for the two campaigns (941 and 943) Prince Igor to Constantinople are not precisely known, all the information is unclear and partially reliable.

There is a version that Russian troops helped the Byzantines in the conflict with the Khazar Kaganate (Jews), which repressed the Greeks on its territory. At first, the fighting developed successfully, but something happened after the defeat of the Russians in the Kerch Strait area near Tmutarakan (some kind of negotiations with an element of blackmail), and the ancient Russian army was forced to march against Byzantium. Cambridge document reads: “And he went against his will and fought against Kustantina at sea for four months...” Kustantina is, of course, Constantinople. Be that as it may, the Russians left the Jews alone and moved towards the Greeks. In the battle of Constantinople, the Byzantines introduced Prince Igor to “Greek fire” (an incendiary mixture of oil, sulfur and oil, which was shot through a copper pipe using bellows - pneumatically). The Russian ships retreated, and their defeat was finally sealed by the onset of a storm. The Byzantine Emperor Roman himself prevented the second campaign by sending an embassy to Igor with the goal of returning peace. A peace treaty was signed in 944, the result of the conflict was a draw - neither side gained anything except the return of peaceful relations.

The Russian-Byzantine conflict of 970-971 ended with approximately the same result during the reign of Svyatoslav. The reason was disagreements and mutual claims on the territory of Bulgaria. In 971, Prince Svyatoslav signed a peace treaty, and upon returning home he was killed by the Pechenegs. After this, most of it was annexed to Byzantium.

In 988 Prince Vladimir the Great besieged Korsun (Chersonese - modern Sevastopol), which was under Byzantine rule. The cause of the conflict is unknown, but the result was Vladimir’s marriage to the Byzantine princess Anna, and ultimately the complete baptism of Rus' (Korsun, of course, fell).

After this, peace reigned in relations between Rus' and Byzantium for many years (except for the attack of 800 renegades in 1024 on the Byzantine island of Lemnos; all participants in the campaign were killed).

The reason for the conflict in 1043 was an attack on a Russian monastery in Athos and the murder of a noble Russian merchant in Constantinople. The events of the sea campaign were identical to Igor's campaign, including the storm and Greek fire. Led the campaign Prince Yaroslav the Wise(He was called wise not for this battle, but for the introduction of “Russian Truth” - the first set of laws). Peace was concluded in 1046 and sealed by the marriage of the son of Yaroslav (Vsevolod) with the daughter of the Byzantine emperor.

Relations between Rus' and Byzantium have always been closely connected. The abundance of conflicts is explained by the formation of statehood in Rus' during that period (this was the case with the ancient Germans and Franks with the Roman Empire, and with many other countries at the stage of formation). An aggressive foreign policy led to the recognition of the state, the development of the economy and trade (plus income from robbery, let's not forget), as well as the development of international relations, no matter how strange it may sound.

The cooperation between Rus' and Byzantium was beneficial to both Rus' (trade, culture, access to other states with the help of the Greeks) and the Byzantine Empire (military assistance in the fight against the Arabs, Saracens, Khazars, etc.).

TREATY OF 907.

In 907, the Byzantine emperors “made peace with Oleg, pledged to pay tribute and swore allegiance to each other: they themselves kissed the cross, and Oleg and his husbands were taken to swear allegiance according to Russian law, and they swore by their weapons, and by Perun, their god, and Volos, their god cattle, and established peace." This passage says that Oleg’s state had its own laws by which people lived, Rus' was still a pagan country, so both the Russians and the Byzantines had their own text of this agreement, most likely it was drawn up in the form of a chrisovul. An imperial grant, where some specific conditions were stipulated, as evidenced by traces of documentary passages traced in the “Tale of Bygone Years” and marked 907.

In fact, this treaty was a political interstate agreement that regulated the main issues of relations between the two states, peaceful relations between countries, the payment of annual monetary tribute to Rus', the exemption of Russian merchants from trade duties in the capital markets of Byzantium. This agreement regulated the entire complex of relationships between the subjects of Rus' and Byzantium, which both states urgently needed.

Rus' has confidently entered the international arena. It declared itself as a serious, independent force pursuing its own foreign policy. For some time, peace was established between the two states.

After the 907 treaty concluded between Russia and Byzantium, there was a pause of four years in relations between the two states, at least that’s how it looks according to the Tale of Bygone Years. And historians who wrote on this topic unanimously agreed that between the events of 907 and the subsequent chronicle mention between Russia and Byzantium, no remarkable phenomena occurred.

TREATY OF 911

In 911, Oleg decided to send his ambassadors to Constantinople so that they could conclude a written agreement.

"We are from the Russian family, Karl, Ingelot, Farlov, Veremid, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Flelav, Ruar, Aktutruyan, Lidulfost, Stemid, sent by Oleg, the Grand Duke of Russia and all the Bright Boyars under his hand to you, Leo , Alexander and Constantine" (brother and son of the first) "To the Great Kings of Greece, for the retention and notification of the former love between Christians and Russia for many years, by the will of our Princes and all those who are under the hand of Oleg, the following chapters are no longer verbal, as before , but they confirmed this love in writing and swore it according to Russian law with their weapons.

1. First of all, let us make peace with you, Greeks! Let us love each other with all our hearts and let us not allow any of those under the hands of our Bright Princes to offend you; but let us strive, as much as we can, to always and unconditionally observe this friendship! Likewise, you, Greeks, may you always keep unmoving love for our Bright Russian Princes and all those who exist under the hand of Bright Oleg. In the case of crime and guilt, let us act as follows:

II. Guilt is proven by evidence; and when there are no witnesses, then not the plaintiff, but the defendant swears an oath - and everyone swears according to his Faith." Mutual grievances and quarrels between the Greeks and the Russians in Constantinople forced, as one must think, the Emperors and Prince Oleg to include articles of criminal laws in the peace treaty of the state.

III. “Whether a Rusin kills a Christian or a Christian Rusin, let him die at the scene of the crime. When the murderer goes home and hides, then his estate is given to a close relative of the murdered man; but the wife of the murderer is not deprived of her legal share. When the criminal leaves without leaving the estate, then it is considered under trial until he is found and executed by death.

IV. Whoever strikes another with a sword or some kind of vessel must pay five liters of silver according to Russian law; let the poor one pay what he can; let him take off the very clothes in which he walks, and let him swear by his Faith that neither his neighbors nor his friends want to ransom him out of guilt: then he is released from further punishment.

V. When a Rusin steals something from a Christian or a Christian from a Rusin, and the one caught in the theft wants to resist, then the owner of the stolen thing can kill him without being punished, and will take back what he has; but must only bind the thief, who surrenders into his hands without resistance. If a Rusin or Christian, under the guise of a search, enters someone's house and by force takes someone else's property instead of his own, he must pay three times.

VI. When the wind throws the Greek boat onto a foreign land, where we, Rus', happen to be, we will guard it along with its cargo, send it to the Greek land and guide it through every terrible place to the fearless. When she cannot return to her fatherland due to a storm or other obstacles, we will help the rowers and bring the boat to the nearest Russkaya pier. Goods, and everything that will be in the boat we saved, may be sold freely; and when our Ambassadors to the King or guests go to Greece to make a purchase, they will honorably bring the boat there and hand over intact what was received for its goods. If any of the Russians kills a person on this boat, or steals something, let the guilty person receive the penalty described above.

VII. If there are Russians among the purchased slaves in Greece or Greeks in Rus', then free them and take for them what they cost the merchants, or the real, known price of the slaves: let the captives also be returned to their fatherland, and for each let a payment of 20 gold be paid. But the Russian soldiers, who out of honor will come to serve the Tsar, can, if they themselves want, remain in the Greek land.

VIII. If a Russian slave leaves, is stolen, or taken away under the guise of a purchase, then the owner can search everywhere and take him; and whoever resists the search is considered guilty.

IX. When a Rusin, serving the Christian Tsar, dies in Greece without disposing of his inheritance, and there are no relatives with him: then send his estate to Rus' to his dear neighbors; and when he makes the order, then give the estate to the heir designated in the spiritual.

X. If among the merchants and other Russian people in Greece there are guilty ones and if they are demanded to return to their fatherland for punishment, then the Christian Tsar must send these criminals to Rus', even if they did not want to return there.

Yes, the Russians do the same in relation to the Greeks!

For the faithful fulfillment of these conditions between us, Russia and the Greeks, we ordered them to be written in cinnabar on two charters. The Greek King sealed them with his hand, swore by the holy cross, the Indivisible Life-Giving Trinity of the one God, and gave a charter to our Lordship; and we, the Russian Ambassadors, gave him another and swore according to our law, for ourselves and for all Russians, to fulfill the established chapters of peace and love between us, Russia and the Greeks. In the 2nd week of September, in the 15th year (that is, Indicta) from the creation of the world..."

Subsequent analysis of the 911 agreement confirms the idea that this is an ordinary interstate agreement.

Firstly, this is evidenced by the characteristics of the partners participating in the negotiations: on the one hand, this is “Rus”, on the other, “Greeks”. The chronicler noted that Oleg sent his ambassadors to Constantinople “to build a row and make peace” between Russia and Byzantium. These words clearly define the nature of the agreement: on the one hand, it is “peace”, and on the other, “a series”. The treaty speaks of “retention” and “notification” of “former love” between the two states. The first article of the treaty, coming after the protocol part, is directly devoted to the general political subject: « First of all, let us make peace with you, Greeks! Let us love each other with all our hearts and let us not allow any of those under the hands of our Bright Princes to offend you; but we strive, as much as we can, to always and immutably observe this friendship...” and then comes the text, which says that both sides swear to maintain peace for many years. This political commitment is formulated in separate chapters, one of which speaks of the Russian promise to preserve this peace, and the other reflects the same commitment on the part of the Greeks. “Likewise, you, Greeks, may you always keep unmoving love for our Holy Russian Princes...” .This general political part is separated from subsequent articles devoted to specific topics in the relationship between the two states. At the same time, if in 907 the agreement was drawn up in the form of a chrisovul, then in 911 the Russians could insist on a different form of agreement - on an equal bilateral agreement.

On the other hand, the agreement was not only a contract of “peace and love,” but also “nearby.” This “series” refers to specific subjects of the relationship between two states (or their subjects) in the economic and political sphere.

The first article talks about the ways of dealing with various atrocities and the penalties for them; the second is about liability for murder, and in particular about property liability; the third - about liability for intentional beatings; the fourth - about responsibility for theft and the corresponding punishments for it; fifth - about responsibility for robbery; sixth - about the procedure for helping merchants of both sides during their voyage with goods, helping shipwrecked people; the seventh - about the procedure for ransoming captured Russians and Greeks; the eighth - about allied assistance to the Greeks from Rus' and about the order of service in the imperial army; the ninth is about the practice of ransoming any other captives; the tenth - about the procedure for returning escaped or kidnapped servants; eleventh - about the practice of inheriting the property of Russians who died in Byzantium; twelfth - about the order of Russian trade in Byzantium (article lost); the thirteenth is about responsibility for the debt taken and about punishments for non-payment of the debt.

Thus, a wide range of problems regulating the relationship between the two states and their subjects, in the most vital and traditional spheres for them, are covered and regulated by specific articles, which constitute the words “row”. From all this it follows that the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 911 was a completely independent interstate equal “world row”. The formalization of this agreement took place according to all the canons of the then diplomatic practice regarding the conclusion of an agreement between two equal sovereign states. This agreement was another step in the development of ancient Russian diplomacy.

The agreement was written in Greek and Slavic languages. Both the Greeks and the Varangians had to understand peaceful conditions: the former did not know the language of the Normans, but Slavic was known to both.

It should also be noted that among the names of the fourteen Nobles used by the Grand Duke to conclude peace terms with the Greeks, there is not a single Slavic one. Only the Varangians, it seems, surrounded our first Sovereigns and enjoyed their trust, participating in the affairs of government.

The Emperor, having presented the Ambassadors with gold, precious clothes and fabrics, ordered to show them the beauty and wealth of the temples (which, stronger than mental evidence, could imagine the greatness of the Christian God to the imagination of rude people) and with honor released them to Kyiv, where they reported to the Prince on the success of the embassy.

This treaty presents us with Russians no longer as wild barbarians, but as people who know the sanctity of honor and national solemn conditions; have their own laws that approve personal security, property, inheritance rights, and the power of wills; have internal and external trade.