“Kievan Rus” is a concept that is subject to much speculation today. Historians argue not only about whether there was a state with that name, but also about who inhabited it.
Where did “Kievan Rus” come from?
If today in Russia the phrase “Kievan Rus” is gradually leaving scientific usage, being replaced by the concept “ Old Russian state”, then Ukrainian historians use it everywhere, and in the context of “Kievan Rus - Ukraine”, emphasizing historical continuity two states.
However, before early XIX centuries, the term “Kievan Rus” did not exist; the ancient inhabitants of the Kyiv lands did not even suspect that they lived in a state with such a name. The first to use the phrase “Kievan Rus” was the historian Mikhail Maksimovich in his work “Where does the Russian Land Come From,” which was completed in the year of Pushkin’s death.
It is important to note that Maksimovich used this expression not in the sense of the state, but in a number of other names of Rus' - Chervonnaya, Belaya, Suzdal, that is, in the sense of geographical location. The historians Sergei Solovyov and Nikolai Kostomarov used it in the same meaning.
Some authors of the early 20th century, including Sergei Platonov and Alexander Presnyakov, began to use the term “Kievan Rus” in the political sense, as a name for the state Eastern Slavs with a single political center in Kyiv.
However, Kievan Rus became a full-fledged state in Stalin era. Exists interesting story, as academician Boris Grekov, working on the books “Kievan Rus” and “Culture of Kievan Rus,” asked his colleague: “You are a party member, please advise, you should know what concept He (Stalin) will like.”
Having used the term “Kievan Rus,” Grekov considered it necessary to explain its meaning: “In my work, I deal with Kievan Rus not in the narrow territorial sense of this term (Ukraine), but precisely in that in a broad sense“Rurikovich empire”, corresponding to the Western European empire of Charlemagne, which includes huge territory, on which several independent state units were subsequently formed.”
State before Rurik
Official domestic historiography says that statehood in Rus' arose in 862 after the Rurik dynasty came to power. However, for example, political scientist Sergei Chernyakhovsky argues that the beginning of Russian statehood should be pushed back at least 200 years into history.
He draws attention to the fact that in Byzantine sources, when describing the life of the Rus, clear signs of their government structure: presence of writing, hierarchy of nobility, Administrative division lands, small princes are also mentioned, over whom the “kings” stood.
And yet, despite the fact that Kievan Rus united under its rule vast territories inhabited by East Slavic, Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes, many historians are inclined to believe that in the pre-Christian period it could not be called a full-fledged state, since there were no class structures there and there was no centralized authority. On the other hand, it was not a monarchy, not a despotism, not a republic; most of all, according to historians, it was like some kind of corporate governance.
It is known that the ancient Russians lived in ancestral settlements, were engaged in crafts, hunting, fishing, trade, agriculture, and cattle breeding. The Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described in 928 that the Russians built large houses in which 30-50 people lived.
“The archaeological monuments of the Eastern Slavs recreate a society without any clear traces of property stratification. In the most different regions forest-steppe strip, it is not possible to indicate those that, in their architectural appearance and in the content of the household and household equipment found in them, would stand out for their wealth,” emphasized historian Ivan Lyapushkin.
Russian archaeologist Valentin Sedov notes that the emergence of economic inequality is not yet possible to establish based on existing archaeological data. “There seems to be no clear trace of property differentiation Slavic society and in grave monuments of the 6th-8th centuries,” the scientist concludes.
Historians conclude that the accumulation of wealth and their inheritance in ancient Russian society were not an end in themselves, it apparently was not moral value, nor a vital necessity. Moreover, hoarding was clearly not welcomed and even condemned.
For example, in one of the agreements between the Rus and the Byzantine emperor there is a fragment of the oath of the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav, telling what will happen in case of violation of obligations: “may we be golden, like this gold” (meaning the golden tablet-stand of the Byzantine scribe) . This once again shows the despicable attitude of the Rus towards the golden calf.
More correct definition political structure Predynastic Kievan Rus was a veche society, where the prince was completely dependent on the people's assembly. The veche could approve the transfer of power to the prince by inheritance, or it could re-elect him. Historian Igor Froyanov noted that “the ancient Russian prince was not an emperor or even a monarch, because a veche stood over him, or national assembly, to whom he was accountable."
The first Kyiv princes
The Tale of Bygone Years tells how Kiy, who lived on the Dnieper “mountains,” together with his brothers Shchek, Khoriv and sister Lybid, built a city on the right bank of the Dnieper, which was later named Kiev in honor of the founder. Kiy, according to the chronicle, he was the first prince of Kyiv. However, modern authors are more inclined to believe that the story of the founding of the city is an etymological myth designed to explain the names of Kyiv localities.
Thus, the hypothesis of the American-Ukrainian orientalist Omelyan Pritsak, who believed that the emergence of Kyiv is connected with the Khazars, and Kiy as a person is identical to the hypothetical Khazar vizier Kuya, became widely known.
At the end of the 9th century historical scene No less legendary princes appear in Kyiv - Askold and Dir. It is believed that they were members of the Varangian squad of Rurik, who later became the rulers of the capital city, adopted Christianity and laid the foundations ancient Russian statehood. But here too there are many questions.
In Ustyug chronicle code it is said that Askold and Dir were “neither the tribe of a prince nor a boyar, and Rurik would not give them a city or a village.” Historians believe that their desire to go to Kyiv was stimulated by the desire to obtain lands and a princely title. According to historian Yuri Begunov, Askold and Dir, having betrayed Rurik, turned into Khazar vassals.
The chronicler Nestor writes that the troops of Askold and Dir in 866 made a campaign against Byzantium and plundered the outskirts of Constantinople. However, academician Alexei Shakhmatov argued that in the more ancient chronicles telling about the campaign against Constantinople there is no mention of Askold and Dir, nothing is said about them in either Byzantine or Arab sources. “Their names were inserted later,” the scientist believed.
Some researchers suggest that Askold and Dir ruled in Kyiv in different time. Others put forward the version that Askold and Dir are one and the same person. According to this assumption, in the Old Norse spelling of the name "Haskuldr", the last two letters "d" and "r" could be isolated into a separate word, and over time turn into an independent person.
If you look at Byzantine sources, you can see that during the siege of Constantinople, the chronicler speaks of only one military leader, although without naming his name.
Historian Boris Rybakov explained: “The personality of Prince Dir is not clear to us. It is felt that his name is artificially attached to Askold, because when describing their joint actions, the grammatical form gives us a single, and not a double, number, as it should be when describing the joint actions of two persons.”
Kievan Rus and Khazaria
The Khazar Kaganate is considered a powerful state, under whose control were the most important trade routes from Europe to Asia. +In its heyday (at the beginning of the 8th century), the territory Khazar Khaganate extended from the Black to the Caspian Sea, including the lower Dnieper region.
The Khazars carried out regular raids on Slavic lands exposing them to plunder. According to the testimony of the medieval traveler Ibrahim ibn Yaqub, they mined not only wax, furs and horses, but mainly prisoners of war for sale into slavery, as well as young men, girls and children. In other words, the lands of Southern Rus' actually fell into Khazar bondage.
Maybe they were looking for the Khazar state in the wrong place? Publicist Alexander Polyukh is trying to understand this issue. In his research, he focuses on genetics, in particular, on the position according to which the blood type corresponds to the way of life of the people and determines the ethnic group.
He notes that according to genetic data, Russians and Belarusians, like most Europeans, have more than 90% blood type I (O), and ethnic Ukrainians 40% are carriers of group III (B). This serves as a sign of peoples who led a nomadic lifestyle (he includes the Khazars here), in whom blood group III (B) approaches 100% of the population.
These conclusions are largely supported archaeological finds Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Valentin Yanin, who confirmed that Kyiv at the time of its capture by the Novgorodians (IX century) was not Slavic city, this is also evidenced by the “birch bark letters”.
According to Polyukh, the conquest of Kyiv by the Novgorodians and the revenge on the Khazars carried out by the Prophetic Oleg suspiciously coincide in terms of timing. Perhaps it was the same event? Here he makes a resounding conclusion: “Kyiv is the possible capital of the Khazar Kaganate, and ethnic Ukrainians are the direct descendants of the Khazars.”
Despite the paradoxical nature of the conclusions, perhaps they are not so divorced from reality. Indeed, in a number of sources of the 9th century, the ruler of the Rus was called not a prince, but a kagan (khakan). The earliest report of this dates back to 839, when, according to ancient Russian chronicles, Rurik’s warriors have not yet arrived in Kyiv.
Rurik(?-879) - the founder of the Rurik dynasty, the first Russian prince. Chronicle sources claim that Rurik was called from the Varangian lands by Novgorod citizens to reign together with his brothers Sineus and Truvor in 862. After the death of the brothers, he ruled over all Novgorod lands. Before his death, he transferred power to his relative, Oleg.
Oleg(?-912) - the second ruler of Rus'. He reigned from 879 to 912, first in Novgorod, and then in Kyiv. He is the founder of a single ancient Russian power, created by him in 882 with the capture of Kyiv and the subjugation of Smolensk, Lyubech and other cities. After moving the capital to Kyiv, he also subjugated the Drevlyans, Northerners, and Radimichi. One of the first Russian princes undertook a successful campaign against Constantinople and concluded the first trade agreement. He enjoyed great respect and authority among his subjects, who began to call him “prophetic,” that is, wise.
Igor(?-945) - third Russian prince (912-945), son of Rurik. The main focus of his activities was protecting the country from Pecheneg raids and preserving the unity of the state. He undertook numerous campaigns to expand the possessions of the Kyiv state, in particular against the Uglich people. He continued his campaigns against Byzantium. During one of them (941) he failed, during the other (944) he received a ransom from Byzantium and concluded a peace treaty that consolidated the military-political victories of Rus'. Undertook the first successful campaigns of the Russians into the North Caucasus (Khazaria) and Transcaucasia. In 945 he tried to collect tribute from the Drevlyans twice (the procedure for collecting it was not legally established), for which he was killed by them.
Olga(c. 890-969) - wife of Prince Igor, the first female ruler of the Russian state (regent for her son Svyatoslav). Established in 945-946. the first legislative procedure for collecting tribute from the population of the Kyiv state. In 955 (according to other sources, 957) she made a trip to Constantinople, where she secretly converted to Christianity under the name of Helen. In 959, the first of the Russian rulers sent an embassy to Western Europe, to Emperor Otto I. His answer was a direction in 961-962. with missionary purposes to Kyiv, Archbishop Adalbert, who tried to bring Western Christianity to Rus'. However, Svyatoslav and his entourage refused Christianization and Olga was forced to transfer power to her son. IN last years life from political activity was actually suspended. Nevertheless, she retained significant influence on her grandson, the future Prince Vladimir the Saint, whom she was able to convince of the need to accept Christianity.
Svyatoslav(?-972) - son of Prince Igor and Princess Olga. Ruler Old Russian state in 962-972 He was distinguished by his warlike character. He was the initiator and leader of many aggressive campaigns: against the Oka Vyatichi (964-966), the Khazars (964-965), North Caucasus(965), Danube Bulgaria (968, 969-971), Byzantium (971). He also fought against the Pechenegs (968-969, 972). Under him, Rus' turned into the largest power on the Black Sea. Neither could come to terms with this Byzantine rulers, nor the Pechenegs, who agreed on joint actions against Svyatoslav. During his return from Bulgaria in 972, his army, bloodless in the war with Byzantium, was attacked on the Dnieper by the Pechenegs. Svyatoslav was killed.
Vladimir I Saint (?-1015) - younger son Svyatoslav, who defeated his brothers Yaropolk and Oleg in an internecine struggle after the death of his father. Prince of Novgorod (from 969) and Kiev (from 980). He conquered the Vyatichi, Radimichi and Yatvingians. He continued his father's fight against the Pechenegs. Volga Bulgaria, Poland, Byzantium. Under him, defensive lines were built along the rivers Desna, Osetr, Trubezh, Sula, etc. Kyiv was re-fortified and built up with stone buildings for the first time. In 988-990 entered as state religion Eastern Christianity. Under Vladimir I, the Old Russian state entered a period of its prosperity and power. The international authority of the new Christian power grew. Vladimir was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church and is referred to as a Saint. In Russian folklore it is called Vladimir the Red Sun. Was married to Byzantine princess Anna.
Svyatoslav II Yaroslavich(1027-1076) - son of Yaroslav the Wise, Prince of Chernigov (from 1054), Grand Duke of Kiev (from 1073). Together with his brother Vsevolod, he defended the southern borders of the country from the Polovtsians. In the year of his death, he adopted a new set of laws - “Izbornik”.
Vsevolod I Yaroslavich(1030-1093) - Prince of Pereyaslavl (from 1054), Chernigov (from 1077), Grand Duke of Kiev (from 1078). Together with the brothers Izyaslav and Svyatoslav, he fought against the Polovtsians and took part in the compilation of the Yaroslavich Truth.
Svyatopolk II Izyaslavich(1050-1113) - grandson of Yaroslav the Wise. Prince of Polotsk (1069-1071), Novgorod (1078-1088), Turov (1088-1093), Grand Duke of Kiev (1093-1113). He was distinguished by hypocrisy and cruelty both towards his subjects and his close circle.
Vladimir II Vsevolodovich Monomakh(1053-1125) - Prince of Smolensk (from 1067), Chernigov (from 1078), Pereyaslavl (from 1093), Grand Duke of Kiev (1113-1125). . Son of Vsevolod I and daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Monomakh. He was called to reign in Kyiv during the popular uprising of 1113, which followed the death of Svyatopolk P. He took measures to limit the arbitrariness of moneylenders and the administrative apparatus. He managed to achieve the relative unity of Rus' and an end to strife. He supplemented the codes of laws that existed before him with new articles. He left a “Teaching” to his children, in which he called for strengthening the unity of the Russian state, living in peace and harmony, and avoiding blood feud
Mstislav I Vladimirovich(1076-1132) - son of Vladimir Monomakh. Grand Duke of Kiev (1125-1132). From 1088 he ruled in Novgorod, Rostov, Smolensk, etc. He took part in the work of the Lyubech, Vitichev and Dolob congresses of Russian princes. He took part in campaigns against the Polovtsians. He led the defense of Rus' from its western neighbors.
Vsevolod P Olgovich(?-1146) - Prince of Chernigov (1127-1139). Grand Duke of Kiev (1139-1146).
Izyaslav II Mstislavich(c. 1097-1154) - Prince of Vladimir-Volyn (from 1134), Pereyaslavl (from 1143), Grand Duke of Kiev (from 1146). Grandson of Vladimir Monomakh. Participant in feudal strife. Supporter of the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church from the Byzantine Patriarchate.
Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky (90s of the 11th century - 1157) - Prince of Suzdal and Grand Duke of Kiev. Son of Vladimir Monomakh. In 1125 he moved the capital of the Rostov-Suzdal principality from Rostov to Suzdal. Since the beginning of the 30s. fought for southern Pereyaslavl and Kyiv. Considered the founder of Moscow (1147). In 1155 captured Kyiv for the second time. Poisoned by the Kyiv boyars.
Andrey Yurievich Bogolyubsky (ca. 1111-1174) - son of Yuri Dolgoruky. Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal (from 1157). He moved the capital of the principality to Vladimir. In 1169 he conquered Kyiv. Killed by boyars at his residence in the village of Bogolyubovo.
Vsevolod III Yurievich Big Nest(1154-1212) - son of Yuri Dolgoruky. Grand Duke of Vladimir (from 1176). Severely suppressed boyar opposition, who participated in the conspiracy against Andrei Bogolyubsky. Subjugated Kyiv, Chernigov, Ryazan, Novgorod. During his reign, Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' reached its heyday. He received the nickname for the large number of children (12 people).
Roman Mstislavich(?-1205) - Prince of Novgorod (1168-1169), Vladimir-Volyn (from 1170), Galician (from 1199). Son of Mstislav Izyaslavich. He strengthened the princely power in Galich and Volyn, and was considered the most powerful ruler of Rus'. Killed in the war with Poland.
Yuri Vsevolodovich(1188-1238) - Grand Duke of Vladimir (1212-1216 and 1218-1238). During the internecine struggle for the Vladimir throne, he was defeated in the Battle of Lipitsa in 1216. and ceded the great reign to his brother Constantine. In 1221 he founded the city of Nizhny Novgorod. He died during the battle with the Mongol-Tatars on the river. City in 1238
Daniil Romanovich(1201-1264) - Prince of Galicia (1211-1212 and from 1238) and Volyn (from 1221), son of Roman Mstislavich. United the Galician and Volyn lands. He encouraged the construction of cities (Kholm, Lviv, etc.), crafts and trade. In 1254 he received the title of king from the Pope.
Yaroslav III Vsevolodovich(1191-1246) - son of Vsevolod the Big Nest. He reigned in Pereyaslavl, Galich, Ryazan, Novgorod. In 1236-1238 reigned in Kyiv. Since 1238 - Grand Duke of Vladimir. Went to twice Golden Horde and to Mongolia.
In modern historiography, the title “Kyiv princes” is usually used to designate a number of rulers of the Kyiv principality and the Old Russian state. Classical period Their reign began in 912 with the reign of Igor Rurikovich, the first to bear the title of “Grand Duke of Kyiv,” and lasted until about the middle of the 12th century, when the collapse of the Old Russian state began. Let's briefly look at the most prominent rulers during this period.
Oleg Prophetic (882-912)
Igor Rurikovich (912-945) – the first ruler of Kyiv, called the “Grand Duke of Kyiv.” During his reign, he conducted a number of military campaigns, both against neighboring tribes (Pechenegs and Drevlyans) and against the Byzantine kingdom. The Pechenegs and Drevlyans recognized the supremacy of Igor, but the Byzantines, better equipped militarily, put up stubborn resistance. In 944, Igor was forced to sign a peace treaty with Byzantium. At the same time, the terms of the agreement were beneficial for Igor, since Byzantium paid significant tribute. A year later, he decided to attack the Drevlyans again, despite the fact that they had already recognized his power and paid him tribute. Igor’s vigilantes, in turn, got the opportunity to profit from robberies local population. The Drevlyans set up an ambush in 945 and, having captured Igor, executed him.
Olga (945-964)– Widow of Prince Rurik, killed in 945 by the Drevlyan tribe. She headed the state until her son, Svyatoslav Igorevich, became an adult. It is unknown when exactly she transferred power to her son. Olga was the first of the rulers of Rus' to convert to Christianity, while the entire country, the army, and even her son still remained pagans. Important facts her reign was to bring the Drevlyans to submission, who killed her husband Igor Rurikovich. Olga installed exact dimensions taxes that the lands subject to Kyiv had to pay, systematized the frequency of their payment and deadlines. Was held administrative reform, which divided the lands subordinate to Kyiv into clearly established units, at the head of each of which a princely official “tiun” was installed. Under Olga, the first stone buildings appeared in Kyiv, Olga's tower and the city palace.
Svyatoslav (964-972)- son of Igor Rurikovich and Princess Olga. A characteristic feature of the reign was that most of its time was actually ruled by Olga, first due to Svyatoslav’s minority, and then due to his constant military campaigns and absence from Kyiv. Took power around 950. He did not follow his mother’s example and did not accept Christianity, which was then unpopular among the secular and military nobility. The reign of Svyatoslav Igorevich was marked by a series of continuous campaigns of conquest that he carried out against neighboring tribes and state entities. The Khazars, Vyatichi, the Bulgarian Kingdom (968-969) and Byzantium (970-971) were attacked. The war with Byzantium brought heavy losses both sides, and ended, in fact, in a draw. Returning from this campaign, Svyatoslav was ambushed by the Pechenegs and was killed.
Yaropolk (972-978)
Vladimir the Holy (978-1015) – Kyiv prince, best known for the baptism of Rus'. Was Novgorod prince from 970 to 978, when he seized the Kiev throne. During his reign, he continuously carried out campaigns against neighboring tribes and states. He conquered and annexed to his power the tribes of the Vyatichi, Yatvingians, Radimichi and Pechenegs. He carried out a number of government reforms aimed at strengthening the power of the prince. In particular, he began minting a single state coin, replacing the previously used Arab and Byzantine money. With the help of invited Bulgarian and Byzantine teachers, he began to spread literacy in Rus', forcibly sending children to study. Founded the cities of Pereyaslavl and Belgorod. The main achievement is considered to be the baptism of Rus', carried out in 988. The introduction of Christianity as a state religion also contributed to the centralization of the Old Russian state. The resistance of various pagan cults, then widespread in Rus', weakened the power of the Kyiv throne and was brutally suppressed. Prince Vladimir died in 1015 during another military campaign against the Pechenegs.
SvyatopolkDamned (1015-1016)
Yaroslav the Wise (1016-1054)- son of Vladimir. He feuded with his father and seized power in Kyiv in 1016, driving out his brother Svyatopolk. The reign of Yaroslav is represented in history by traditional raids on neighboring states And internecine wars with numerous relatives laying claim to the throne. For this reason, Yaroslav was forced to temporarily leave the Kiev throne. He built the churches of St. Sophia in Novgorod and Kyiv. The main temple in Constantinople is dedicated to her, so the fact of such construction spoke of the equality of the Russian church with the Byzantine one. As part of the confrontation with the Byzantine Church, he independently appointed the first Russian Metropolitan Hilarion in 1051. Yaroslav also founded the first Russian monasteries: Kiev-Pechersk Monastery in Kyiv and Yuriev Monastery in Novgorod. First codified feudal law, publishing a code of laws “Russian Truth” and a church charter. Spent great job on the translation of Greek and Byzantine books into Old Russian and Church Slavonic languages, constantly spent large amounts for copying new books. He founded a large school in Novgorod, in which the children of elders and priests learned to read and write. He strengthened diplomatic and military ties with the Varangians, thus securing the northern borders of the state. He died in Vyshgorod in February 1054.
SvyatopolkDamned (1018-1019)– secondary temporary government
Izyaslav (1054-1068)- son of Yaroslav the Wise. According to his father's will, he sat on the throne of Kyiv in 1054. Throughout almost his entire reign, he was at odds with his younger brothers Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, who sought to seize the prestigious Kiev throne. In 1068, the Izyaslav troops were defeated by the Polovtsians in the battle on the Alta River. This led to Kyiv uprising 1068 At the veche meeting, the remnants of the defeated militia demanded that they be given weapons in order to continue the fight against the Polovtsians, but Izyaslav refused to do this, which forced the people of Kiev to revolt. Izyaslav was forced to flee to to the Polish king, to my nephew. WITH military assistance Poles, Izyaslav regained the throne for the period 1069-1073, was again overthrown, and in last time reigned from 1077 to 1078.
Vseslav the Magician (1068-1069)
Svyatoslav (1073-1076)
Vsevolod (1076-1077)
Svyatopolk (1093-1113)- son of Izyaslav Yaroslavich, before occupying the Kyiv throne, he periodically headed the Novgorod and Turov principalities. Start Principality of Kyiv Svyatopolk was marked by the invasion of the Cumans, who inflicted a serious defeat on Svyatopolk’s troops in the battle of the Stugna River. After this, several more battles followed, the outcome of which is not known for certain, but ultimately peace was concluded with the Cumans, and Svyatopolk took the daughter of Khan Tugorkan as his wife. The subsequent reign of Svyatopolk was overshadowed by the continuous struggle between Vladimir Monomakh and Oleg Svyatoslavich, in which Svyatopolk usually supported Monomakh. Svyatopolk also repelled the constant raids of the Polovtsy under the leadership of the khans Tugorkan and Bonyak. He died suddenly in the spring of 1113, possibly poisoned.
Vladimir Monomakh (1113-1125) was the prince of Chernigov when his father died. Had the right to the Kiev throne, but gave it up cousin Svyatopolk, because he did not want war at that time. In 1113, the people of Kiev rebelled and, having overthrown Svyatopolk, invited Vladimir to the kingdom. For this reason, he was forced to accept the so-called “Charter of Vladimir Monomakh”, which alleviated the situation of the urban lower classes. The law did not touch upon the basics feudal system, however, it regulated the conditions of enslavement and limited the profits of moneylenders. Under Monomakh, Rus' reached the peak of its power. The Principality of Minsk was conquered, and the Polovtsians were forced to migrate east from the Russian borders. With the help of an impostor who posed as the son of a previously murdered Byzantine emperor, Monomakh organized an adventure aimed at placing him on the Byzantine throne. Several Danube cities were conquered, but it was not possible to further develop the success. The campaign ended in 1123 with the signing of peace. Monomakh organized the publication of improved editions of The Tale of Bygone Years, which have survived in this form to this day. Monomakh also independently created several works: the autobiographical “Ways and Fishing”, a set of laws “The Charter of Vladimir Vsevolodovich” and “The Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh”.
Mstislav the Great (1125-1132)- son of Monomakh, formerly former prince Belgorod. He ascended the throne of Kyiv in 1125 without resistance from the other brothers. Among the most outstanding acts of Mstislav, one can name the campaign against the Polovtsians in 1127 and the plunder of the cities of Izyaslav, Strezhev and Lagozhsk. After a similar campaign in 1129, the Principality of Polotsk was finally annexed to the possessions of Mstislav. In order to collect tribute, several campaigns were made in the Baltic states against the Chud tribe, but they ended in failure. In April 1132, Mstislav died suddenly, but managed to transfer the throne to Yaropolk, his brother.
Yaropolk (1132-1139)- being the son of Monomakh, inherited the throne when his brother Mstislav died. At the time of coming to power he was 49 years old. In fact, he only controlled Kyiv and its environs. By his natural inclinations he was good warrior, but did not possess diplomatic and political abilities. Immediately after taking the throne, traditional civil strife began related to the inheritance of the throne in the Pereyaslav Principality. Yuri and Andrei Vladimirovich expelled Vsevolod Mstislavich, who had been placed there by Yaropolk, from Pereyaslavl. Also, the situation in the country was complicated by the increasingly frequent raids of the Polovtsians, who, together with the allied Chernigovites, plundered the outskirts of Kyiv. Yaropolk's indecisive policy led to military defeat in the battle on the Supoya River with the troops of Vsevolod Olgovich. The cities of Kursk and Posemye were also lost during the reign of Yaropolk. This development of events further weakened his authority, which the Novgorodians took advantage of, announcing their secession in 1136. The result of Yaropolk's reign was the virtual collapse of the Old Russian state. Formally, only the Principality of Rostov-Suzdal retained its subordination to Kyiv.
Vyacheslav (1139, 1150, 1151-1154)
Property process social stratification among the community members led to the separation of the most prosperous part from their midst. The tribal nobility and the wealthy part of the community, subjugating the mass of ordinary community members, need to maintain their dominance in state structures.
The embryonic form of statehood was represented by East Slavic tribal unions, which united into super-unions, albeit fragile ones. Eastern historians talk about the existence on the eve of the formation Old Russian state three large associations of Slavic tribes: Cuiaba, Slavia and Artania. Kuyaba, or Kuyava, was then the name of the region around Kyiv. Slavia occupied territory in the area of Lake Ilmen. Its center was Novgorod. The location of Artania - the third major association of the Slavs - has not been precisely established.
1) 941 - ended in failure;
2) 944 - conclusion of a mutually beneficial agreement.
Killed by the Drevlyans while collecting tribute in 945.
YAROSLAV THE WISE(1019 - 1054)
He established himself on the Kiev throne after long strife with Svyatopolk the Accursed (he received his nickname after the murder of his brothers Boris and Gleb, who were later canonized as saints) and Mstislav of Tmutarakan.
He contributed to the flourishing of the Old Russian state, patronized education and construction. Contributed to the rise of the international authority of Rus'. Established broad dynastic ties with European and Byzantine courts.
Conducted military campaigns:
To the Baltics;
To the Polish-Lithuanian lands;
To Byzantium.
Finally defeated the Pechenegs.
Prince Yaroslav the Wise is the founder of written Russian legislation (" Russian Truth", "The Truth of Yaroslav").
VLADIMIR THE SECOND MONOMACH(1113 - 1125)
Son of Mary, daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine the Ninth Monomakh. Prince of Smolensk (from 1067), Chernigov (from 1078), Pereyaslavl (from 1093), Grand Prince of Kiev (from 1113).
Prince Vladimir Monomakh - organizer of successful campaigns against the Polovtsians (1103, 1109, 1111)
He advocated the unity of Rus'. Congress participant ancient Russian princes in Lyubech (1097), which discussed the harmfulness of civil strife, the principles of ownership and inheritance of princely lands.
He was called to reign in Kyiv during the popular uprising of 1113, which followed the death of Svyatopolk II. Reigned until 1125
He put into effect the “Charter of Vladimir Monomakh”, where interest on loans was legally limited and it was forbidden to enslave dependent people working off their debt.
Stopped the collapse of the Old Russian state. Wrote " Teaching", in which he condemned the strife and called for the unity of the Russian land.
He continued the policy of strengthening dynastic ties with Europe. Was married to a daughter English king Harold the Second - Gita.
Mstislav the Great(1125 - 1132)
Son of Vladimir Monomakh. Prince of Novgorod (1088 - 1093 and 1095 - 1117), Rostov and Smolensk (1093 - 1095), Belgorod and co-ruler of Vladimir Monomakh in Kyiv (1117 - 1125). From 1125 to 1132 - autocratic ruler of Kyiv.
He continued the policy of Vladimir Monomakh and managed to preserve a unified Old Russian state. Annexed the Principality of Polotsk to Kyiv in 1127.
Organized successful campaigns against the Cumans, Lithuania, Prince of Chernigov Oleg Svyatoslavovich. After his death, almost all the principalities came out of obedience to Kyiv. A specific period begins - feudal fragmentation.
More than 200 years have passed since the moment when Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin taught us to begin the history of the Russian state in 862. He wrote about this with the conviction that Nestor’s chronicle “we can absolutely neither refute nor correct it, nor can we replace it with another most faithful." N.M. Karamzin presented the era of the birth of Russian statehood so colorfully that even today, in different variations, that ancient time is depicted in many historical publications in his words.
To support his conclusions N.M. Karamzin took the “newest chronicles” of the 16th century. - Degree Book, Trinity and Radzivilov Chronicles and many others. As well as Icelandic stories, the story of Tacitus, who lived in the first century AD, Greek writings, etc.
“The Chronicle of Nestor” is the initial part of the Laurentian Chronicle, which has come down to us in the edition of 1377. It is today that it is one of the oldest written sources, which describes in detail where the Russian land came from. This chronicle is pointed to when someone has doubts about the authenticity of oral legends and tales that have existed since ancient times. This chronicle is always referred to with one phrase: “so it is written in the chronicle” if someone tries to object to the veracity individual phrases, call for a reasonable reading with a more critical look of the article with obvious reservations, with a patriotic attitude where the Russian chronicler speaks about the greatness of Rus'.
It cannot be said that little has been written about the chronicle. On the contrary, many are dedicated to her research work, monographs, abstracts, literary works. Only in them all the messages of the chronicle are perceived as established historical fact, for something undeniable, immutable. And the cry “so it is written in the chronicle!” becomes louder if it concerns the so-called Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state. That is, any discussion is allowed only within the framework of recognizing the Varangians as the conquerors of Rus' in the middle of the 9th century, and the Varangian Rurik as the founder of the first Russian ruling dynasty. To see this, just look at the all-knowing Wikipedia website. There is plenty of material on this topic in printed publications- and all with one goal, so that no one would have any doubts about the authenticity of what was written in the chronicle. However, the more you read, the more suspicions arise about the sincerity of their authors, about the premeditation and far-fetched nature of what was said. There is always a residue of some kind of predetermination. It feels like they want to convince you before you start to doubt. It disgusts you and insults your dignity, but they tell you: no, there is nothing shameful in that. There is an underlying feeling that something is wrong here.
Interest in the Laurentian Chronicle and the Varangian theme is intensifying today due to famous events in Ukraine. Ideological fuss around the concept of “Kievan Rus” for Ukrainian nationalists takes on special significance. In one mouth, Kyiv and Rus' are already two different states. In others, Kievan Rus is the real Slavic Rus, while Novgorod and then Moscow are a mixture of Slavs, Varangians and Finno-Ugrians. According to them, the “Muscovites” have no Russian blood left. Turning to the Laurentian Chronicle, whether we like it or not, this wormhole gets stuck somewhere in the brain and we want to understand where the truth is buried.
Before turning directly to the chronicle, it is necessary to make small digressions. Say a little about the Laurentian Chronicle itself and recall the version of the Varangian advent to Rus' as presented by N.M. Karamzin. Let's start with the last one.
According to N.M. Karamzin's chronicler truthfully retells ancient legends. From them we learn about the life of our ancestors, their traditions, beliefs, and trade relations with their neighbors. Greatness of Happiness Introduction monarchical power, writes N.M. Karamzin, we are indebted to the Varangians - the Normans from Scandinavia. They were more educated than the Slavs , while the latter, imprisoned in the wild reaches of the north, lived in barbarism: they had cruel customs, worshiped idols, and sacrificed people to pagan gods. If St. Columbanus, writes N.M. Karamzin, in 613 converted many German pagans to the true Christian faith, then he returned from the Slavic lands without success, frightened by their savagery. Weak and divided into small regions, the Slavs could not unite our fatherland. Nestor's Varangians lived in the Kingdom of Sweden. The Finns called them Rosses, Rots, Rots. These brave and courageous conquerors in 859 imposed tribute on the Chud, Slovenians of the Ilmen, Krivichi, and Meryu. And two years later, the Slovenian boyars outraged the frivolous people, armed them and drove out the Normans. But strife turned freedom into misfortune and plunged the fatherland into the abyss of civil strife. And only, having established friendly relations, the Slovenians of Novgorod and the Krivichi with the Finnish tribes were able to come to an agreement with all their might. They sent an embassy overseas to the Varangians-Rus. And they said to them: “Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it: come reign and rule over us.” And three brothers were elected, surrounded by a large Scandinavian squad, ready to assert with the sword the rights of the elected sovereigns - Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. So in 862, these ambitious brothers left their fatherland forever and arrived in Novgorod. Some legends say that the Varangians oppressed the Slavs and soon they were indignant at slavery, accustomed to freedom from anarchy. But these ancient legends of Nestor seem to be mere guesswork and fiction. Soon Truvor and Sineus died and Rurik began to rule alone. And he had two fellow-countrymen named Askold and Dir. They asked to go to Constantinople to seek their fortune. On the way we saw a small town. This city was Kyiv. And Askold and Dir took possession of Kiev, called many Varangians to themselves and began to rule. So the Varangians founded two autocratic regions in Russia: Rurik in the north, Askol and Dir in the south. And only after the death of Rurik in 879, his relative, and therefore Varangian, Oleg was able to unite these two regions of ancient Rus'. This happened in 882. Then Kyiv was declared the mother of Russian cities. That relative Oleg began to rule due to the early childhood of Igor, the son of the Varangian Rurik, for, as stated in Nestorova’s chronicle, Igor was still very young that year. But Oleg ruled for a long time: as much as 33 years. Oleg, power-hungry, surrounded by the splendor of victories, stained with the blood of the innocent Varangian princes Askold and Dir, taught Igor to obey. So he did not dare to demand his inheritance. In 903, he chose his wife, Olga, famous for her feminine charms and good behavior. As stated in the newest (!) history books a simple Varangian family from Pskov. According to legend, Oleg the Prophet died from his horse in 912.
Such is the general outline the concept of the formation of a monarchical system in ancient Rus'. And the credit for this belongs to the Varangians and Rurik personally, concludes N.M. Karamzin. In 1862, the millennium of Rus' was solemnly celebrated in Novgorod, and a monument dedicated to this historical event was erected. In the foreground of one of the scenes of the monument, Rurik holds a shield with the engraved letters STO, indicating 6730 from the creation of the world or 862 from the Nativity of Christ. This is how the Varangians are officially established in Russian history.
Now let’s read the currently known information about the Laurentian Chronicle. First, along with the Laurentian one, two more similar lists of chronicles are called - the Radzivilovskaya and the Moscow Academician and less similar, i.e., with a greater tolerance for inaccuracies and discrepancies, the Ipatievskaya and Khlebnikovsky lists. Second, the Laurentian Chronicle was rewritten by two scribes with minor participation of a third. At the end of the news about the Vladimir-Suzdal land, it is concluded that the chronicle was rewritten in Suzdal or Nizhny Novgorod. Levrentiy conscientiously rewrote what had been written before him by Abbot Silivester up to page 96. Third, philologists, in turn, declare that linguistic personality the author is difficult to catch, since the chronicles that have reached us have been preserved in the edition of the 14th – 15th centuries. They contain lexical and semantic changes, a mixture of Church Slavonic (or, according to A.A. Shakhmatov, Old Bulgarian) and Old Russian languages. This explains the variability in use grammatical systems in the construction of sentences, for example: sitsa bo xia call ti Varangians Rus, as all the friends are called Svei. But at the same time, their conclusions easily fit into the same Varangian scheme - they do not retreat and do not consider the authenticity of the writing of the legend itself.
Now let's look at the chronicle. Let's start with where did 862 come from in our historiography? It is not in the Nestor Chronicle! N.M. Karamzin refers to the “newest” chronicles, i.e., other lists from the Laurentian Chronicle. But can they be considered sources? Medieval scribes acted exactly the same as those who followed; when they didn’t understand something, they tried to explain everything in their own way. On last sheet In the Laurentian Chronicle, the copyist confesses: “Sorry, fathers and brothers, if I described or rewrote something wrong somewhere. Honor the corrections and do not curse, for those books are old, and my young mind has not grasped everything.” According to the same principle, in the chronicle of the 16th century. missed 862 and fits in. But these are chronicles of the sixteenth century, not the twelfth. Consciously or not, the chronicler missed 862, but the fact remains: it is not there. In addition, the Latin S in the letter designation of years, which is engraved on the monument, is found in the chronicle only on pages 42-44. In all other cases, the Cyrillic capital G was used, mirroring the Latin letter. Maybe there was some meaning behind this? Proximity to Western culture, for example? But even in this case, there is a distortion of the vision of our history.
And further. If the last chronicler calls himself the “mich” Lavrenty, who rewrote the chronicle at the behest of the Suzdal prince Dmitry Konstantinovich and with the blessing of the bishop of “Suzhdal, Novgorod and Gorodsky” Dionysius, then why does he not know the exact name of the neighboring city of Murom? He writes it without last letter, then with soft sign- Muro (Murosky), Murom (Muromsky). Although he names his “native” cities incorrectly: Suzhdal, Novgorod, Gorodsk. The question arises: maybe the census taker is not local? Why do letters miraculously begin to fall out of some words? From the word prince the letter z (prince), from the word brother - t (sconce). Even from such a familiar word for him as cross, the letter s (kret). And this is in no way connected with the use of some words as abbreviations without vowels. The thought creeps in: maybe the census taker is not Russian? And the names of Prince Oleg and Princess Olga are not written in any way: both through the Latin W and through the Cyrillic B - Wlzya, Wlga, Volga, Volga; Wleg, Wlg, Wlgovi. And many more questions. Well, for example, why do all the great princes become Gyurgys in the second half of the chronicle? No matter how he calls them by name, in the end they are still Gyurgi, Yurgi. Where did the Rurikids come from in 1086, although not a word was said about them before? And where do they disappear again for 100 years? Why does the chronicler in an unimaginable way connect two dynastic branches with one awkward phrase: “Yurgi married the son of his eldest Vsevolod Volodymernaya Rurikovich”?
Of course, the most significant for us are the first sheets of the chronicle, where the legend of the Varangians is given. And there are also a lot of questions here. Why is the text on sheets 11-19 lined on 31 lines, and on sheets 1-10 on 32 lines? Where did the word which come from on sheet 4 in line 16? In all other cases, as relative pronoun used the same, the same, the same. Why is the letter b, indicating the notebook number, placed on sheet 10? It is believed that the previous six sheets are lost. But why then is the number letter a missing on the eighth sheet? Why are three systems viewed “at a short distance” on four sheets of paper? morphological education verb forms? For example, the verb to be is past tense singular It is written sometimes with the suffix x, sometimes with the suffix w, and sometimes with the suffix st: “byahu muzhi wise”, “transport byashe then”, “and byasta he has two husbands”. Can this only be explained by a mixture of languages or linguistic substitution? Why are there only large letters drawn in cinnabar, some symbols, marks, etc. on these sheets? All this distinguishes the text of the first nine sheets, so to speak formal characteristics.
Now let's turn to the content side of the chronicle. Let's try to simulate the situation with the exclusion of the Varangians and Rurik from the text. (Let me remind you that the legend about the calling of the Varangians appears in the chronicle on page 7.) So, on page 6, the chronology of the reign of the Russian princes from the first to Yaroslav the Wise is given. We read: “In the year 6360 (852), indictment 15, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called... And from the first year of the reign of Michael to the first year of the reign of Oleg, the Russian prince, 29 years, and from the first year of the reign of Oleg, because he sat down in Kiev, 31 years before the first year of Igor’s reign, and 13 years from the first year of Igor’s reign to the first year of Svyatoslav...”, etc. It turns out that the next article should begin from 882, i.e. . from the legend about the formation of the town of Kyiv by the three brothers Kiy, Shchek and Khorev and the reign of Oleg in Kyiv.
What’s interesting: with this approach, the very idea of the beginning of Rus' changes.
If according to N.M. Karamzin, the main thing in the initial part of the chronicle is the establishment of a monarchy in the person of the Varangian Rurik, the founding of the Rurik dynasty, then according to another version, we must think according to the plan of the monk Nestor, the main thing is the spiritual origins of Rus', the choice of the right faith.
In the chronicle it looks like in the following way. “Every nation has either a written law or a custom, which people, not knowledgeable of the law, accepted as the tradition of the fathers." The glades have such a law. The chronicler then successively conveys with condemnation the customs of the tribes of other peoples and neighboring Slavic tribes, and each time repeats: “We, Christians of all countries where they believe in the Holy Trinity and in one baptism and profess one faith, have one law, since we were baptized in Christ and have put on Christ.” We, the Slavs, and one of their tribes - the glades, living on the Dnieper mountains, are a freedom-loving people who have connections with many neighboring countries, received the grace of God from Saint Andrew. “And it happened that he came and stood under the mountains on the shore. And in the morning he got up and said to the disciples who were with him: “Do you see these mountains? On these mountains the grace of God will shine, there will be great city and God will raise up many churches.” And he ascended these mountains, blessed them, and put up a cross, and prayed to God, and came down from this mountain, where Kyiv later arose...” The glades were oppressed by the Bulgarians and the Drevlyans, but by no one else. One day, the story goes, the Khazars demanded tribute from them. The glades brought them a sword. The Khazars looked and were upset: the glades have a double-edged weapon, “they will someday collect tribute from us and from other lands.” These lines are recorded in the chronicle on sheet 6. And on the next page, for no apparent reason, the Slavs turn out to be tribute payers to both the Varangians and the Khazars. In addition, on these first pages there is not a single hint of the savagery and barbarism of the Slavs, as N.M. presents them in his “History”. Karamzin. Moreover, no strife, enmity, or struggle for the princely table is described. The chronicler's idea from these first pages of the chronicle is to show the confession of a single faith, and not the coming of the Varangians. The fact that the land of Kiev - the mother of Rus' - is blessed, that the Apostle Andrew clothed the glades in the true Christian faith with the correct laws.
What conclusions arise? The Laurentian Chronicle provides two chronological schemes of the reign from the first prince to Yaroslav the Wise: from Oleg and from Rurik. The first lists all the princes with an exact indication of the years of their reign in direct and reverse order. Rusich Oleg is called the first prince with his place of reign in Kyiv. Rurik is not on this list. According to the second, Rurik appears before Oleg and in Novgorod, shifting all the other dates of his reign proposed by the first version. Adapting the legend to the text of the main chronicle, the scribes each time added their own understanding, their own explanation of certain versions of ancient legends. Moreover, while meticulously examining in one place something necessary to reinforce the Varangian legend, they did not pay attention to the absurd inconsistencies in another place. So, based on the records in the “newest” chronicles (the Laurentian Chronicle does not say this), N.M. Karamzin marries Igor to Olga in 903. And in article 955, Olga goes to the Greeks. Meets with King Tzimiskes. He marvels at her beauty and intelligence. He says: “I want to drink you to my wife.” A legend is a legend. But the details are still awkward. If we add to this date 17 years from her marriage, it turns out that at that time she was already more than 70 years old. Or take other “newest” chronicles, where suddenly Rurik has a wife named Efanda. Well, etc.
What can we say here? The chronology of Oleg's reign, which is given on page 6, has an equal right to exist as the legend about the calling of the Varangians. But for some reason no one pays attention to her? She is not quoted in any of the Normanist materials. N.M. Karamzin is not considered at all. This suggests the directional selectivity of supporters of Normanism on the Varangian theme in favor of certain interests.
Meanwhile, it is precisely this that is key and, perhaps, truly preserved from the first storyteller, untouched by copyists. And here it is up to us which one to recognize as correct. N.M. Karamzin proceeded from the idea of preserving the unity of Rus' by establishing a monarchy. But he contradicted himself. Exalting the Varangians, recognizing the legend of the Varangians, he created another legend - about the two centers of ancient Rus'. And it is not only not historical, but also harmful no less than the first.
If we judge the editing of the Laurentian Chronicle for the Varangians, then based on the formal features discussed above, we can conclude: the legend about the Varangians was inserted into the chronicle much later than the 12th century. Then it turned out to be profitable and was artificially supported. There were reasons for this. Still, they have always tried to interfere in our Russian history. Even today, entire institutes of foreign Sovietologists are engaged in rewriting history textbooks. And the chronicle is, by and large, the same history textbook, only medieval. But this is a separate topic.
In conclusion, I would like to say: today a unique situation is emerging when, in the wake of healthy patriotic sentiments, it is possible to understand the origins of our early Rus' without prejudice. But we must start not with self-abasement, but with the way, as Lomonosov said, where other peoples seek honor and glory for themselves. Finally with recovery historical truth.
Prophetic Oleg went down in history as the winner of Constantinople, nailing his shield to one of the city gates.