Suzdal. 1024
In the Suzdal land, one of the first major popular uprisings in ancient Rus' known to us from sources took place. The reason for it was the famine that gripped the Suzdal land in 1024 and caused a “great rebellion” in it. The ancient Russian chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years" reports that the common people began to beat the "old children", i.e. the local secular and church nobility, who had hidden supplies of grain from the people, and that this popular uprising was led by the Magi - the priests of the old, pre-Christian religion of the Slavs . The "old child" obviously took advantage of the people's disaster - hunger, taking bread into her hands and selling it to the starving at an extortionate price on credit.
Thus, the church and the nobility enslaved the surrounding people, subjugated them, forced them to work for themselves in their feudal economy. Arriving in the Suzdal region, Prince Yaroslav captured the magicians, brutally executed some, and sent others into exile.
Rostov. 989
The princely authorities of Rostov decided to baptize the local population. All the townspeople were taken into the waters of Lake Nero and divided into groups of 10-15 people each. Specially invited Byzantine priests sailed boats between the groups and baptized the inhabitants, giving them one name per group. Obviously, the priests were paid by piecework, not hourly. The places of worship of the pagans were destroyed, books were destroyed and the wise men were burned.
At the same time, despite the outward submission, for many years the population resisted innovations: they raised uprisings, restored their temples to Veles and Yarila. Thus, in 1071, the first bishop Leonty was killed in Rostov. But in 1073, Jan Vyshatich from Kyiv brutally suppressed the last of the Rostov uprisings. The pagans had to abandon the open expression of their faith, disguising their rituals in accordance with Christian teachings.
Novgorod.
Novgorod is the second largest city of ancient Rus' after Kyiv - in to a greater extent retained his pagan religion. Its large local population resisted both the Christian Church and the Kyiv princes, who sought to subjugate Novgorod, place their warriors in a particularly privileged position and force the Novgorodians to pay tribute. It is no coincidence that ancient legend tells us that the governors of the Kyiv prince Vladimir, Dobrynya and Putyata, baptized the Novgorodians “with fire and sword.”
The 1070s are marked in the history of Novgorod and all of Ancient Rus' as a period of outbreak of pagan unrest. The most “rebellious” region was the northeast of Rus' - the lands around Rostov, Suzdal, Murom. Here Christian priests for a long time felt themselves in a hostile environment local population who adhered to the original Slavic religion. Control over the religious sentiments of the inhabitants of the territories of Rus' remote from the urban centers remained in the hands of the Magi - pagan priests, soothsayers and healers (the word “magic” came from them).
In 1071 they made themselves known in Novgorod. One of the Magi gathered Novgorodians around him and, in the wake of popular sentiment, staged an uprising. The overwhelming majority of the townspeople were on the side of the original Slavic faith. But the authorities had long been converted to Christianity and did not particularly take into account the opinions of local residents.
To the prince’s question, “What will the sorcerer be doing today?”, he, without feeling any trick, answered that he would perform “great miracles.” Prince Gleb took a hatchet from under his cloak and meanly hacked to death the Slavic sorcerer. After this, the Novgorodians, although they did not change their minds, were forced to disperse.
Reasons for the uprisings:
Christianity, which supplanted the cult of the old gods through the cult of Byzantine saints, penetrated into Rus' with extreme difficulty. At the same time, the local ecclesiastical and secular nobility, taking advantage of their wealth, enriched themselves as a result of the exploitation of the local population, enslaved their relatives.
Orthodoxy (from the words “to glorify Rule”) was the native faith of the Slavs; it successfully resisted the introduced Christianity by force of the sword.
Volkh is a representative of his native, familiar religion. He himself came from the community, he is close to the rural people. In the minds of rural people, the sorcerer is associated with a free state, with the absence of princely tributaries, virniks and other princely “husbands”. When the sorcerer was there, there were no tributes, no carts, no virs, the land was with the community members, their property was land, fields, fields, crops and forests. They celebrated old holidays, adhered to their native customs, and prayed to their native gods. Now, not only in the princely upper rooms and gridnitsa, but throughout Rus', the sorcerer was replaced by a priest and a princely danshik who had come from Byzantium.
Tributes and extortions, taxes and carts, the appearance of new owners on the communal lands - boyars and monasteries, expropriation of communal lands and lands, enslavement by the local "old child", the introduction of Christianity and the appearance of churches on the site of temples and sacred groves - all this is understandable reasons caused the Russians to have a fierce hatred of power and imposed religion.
The first peasant uprising known to us in Rus' was the uprising of the Smerds in the Suzdal land in 1024. But the question arises: is it possible to think that this first peasant movement known to us did not have its predecessors? After all, the first uprising of the Smerds, noted in the chronicles, took place in such a remote corner of Rus' as the Suzdal land at the beginning of the 11th century. Meanwhile public relations in itself; By this time, the Kyiv land had advanced much further than in the Russian northeast.
A valuable observation on this matter was made by B.D. Grekov. He rightly connects the Suzdal uprising with the peace agreement between Yaroslav the Wise and Mstislav of Chernigov in 1026. “And strife and rebellion arose, and there was great silence in the land,” the chronicler ends his story. B.D. Grekov suggests that “the word “rebellion” means a popular movement directed against the authorities and the ruling classes.” The aggravation of class contradictions in Rus' was facilitated by a long war, “infighting” between rival princes. “This difficult period for Rus' lasted ten years and ended precisely in 1026.” . Thus, B.D. Grekov views the Suzdal uprising not as an isolated phenomenon, but as one of the links in a series of popular movements that broke out in different parts of Rus'.
This observation can be expanded, extended to a significant territory and connected with news of the largest anti-feudal movement unfolding outside of Rus', in neighboring Poland. However, let us make a reservation in advance that our story is about peasant and urban movements in Rus' at the beginning of the 11th century. does not at all set out to prove that we are dealing with a single peasant movement, which covered the territory of Rus' and Poland, with a movement that in its tasks and scope would be reminiscent of the uprisings of Bolotnikov or Razin. The words of F. Engels about the peasant uprisings that preceded the peasant war in Germany in the 16th century can rightfully be applied to popular movements in Rus'. "In the Middle Ages, meeting with big amount local peasant uprisings, we - at least in Germany - before Peasant War We do not find a single nationwide peasant uprising."
Popular movements in Rus' at the beginning of the 11th century are distinguished by precisely this fragmentation and disunity, the very existence of which is restored with great difficulty and only with a careful study of the sources relating to the famous feud between Svyatopolk the Accursed and Yaroslav the Wise.
This discord is depicted in church and chronicle legends with a certain tendency. On the one hand, Svyatopolk, the murderer of three brothers; on the other, Yaroslav, the defender of Russian interests. The opposition of evil and virtue is emphasized even by the nicknames of both princes: Svyatopolk - the Accursed, Yaroslav - the Wise. There is no reason to engage in the rehabilitation of Svyatopolk, who sought the Kyiv table by any means - with the support of either the Poles or the Pechenegs, but one should not overly exalt the activities of Yaroslav, who also relied on the foreign help of the Varangians, who also dealt with his brother Sudislav, doomed to life imprisonment in dungeon Both princes were equally brutally ready to deal with their rivals. What is interesting for us is not the characteristics of the personalities of Yaroslav and Svyatopolk, but the conditions under which the princely strife unfolded at the beginning of the 11th century.
An undoubted indication that the princely feuds affected wide circles of the population both in Kyiv and Novgorod is the chronicle news about the actions of Svyatopolk and Yaroslav. Svyatopolk, having established his reign in Kyiv, “called people together, began to give outer clothing to some, money to others, and distributed a lot.”
IN in this case We are not talking about boyars, but about “people,” as townspeople and common people in general were usually called. Svyatopolk tried to appease the Kyiv townspeople, preparing for a decisive battle with Yaroslav. On this occasion, the chronicler bursts out with many quotations from church books, attacking the wicked prince, who relied on “young advisers”: everyone sinned from head to foot, “from the Caesar to the common people.” “Young advisers” and “gonosha” prince are not age categories, but social categories, since the thirty-five-year-old Svyatopolk could not be called a youth. Youth here is understood in the sense of a low social position, as opposed to the “old and wise” - the top of feudal society.
Citizens are also very active in Novgorod. The violence of the Varangian warriors of Yaroslav caused an uprising of the Novgorodians, who killed the Varangians at the “Poromon yard”. The words “the Novgorodians rose up,” i.e., “the Novgorodians rebelled,” directly indicate that an uprising took place in Novgorod. Yaroslav lures “ostentatious” Novgorodians to his place and arranges them in his country residence a real massacre. At night he receives a message about the death of his father and the establishment of Svyatopolk in Kyiv. Shocked by this news, having lost his support in the Varangian squad, Yaroslav turns to the Novgorodians “for eternity” with a request to support him in the fight against his brother.
According to the Novgorod Chronicle, which is undoubtedly more knowledgeable about these events than the southern Russian chronicles, Yaroslav was angry “with the citizens,” gathered “a thousand glorious warriors” and destroyed them at his country residence. The assembly, which decided to provide assistance to Yaroslav, gathered “on the field.”
As we see, the actions of Svyatopolk and Yaroslav are almost uniform. Both are forced to seek help from the townspeople. “People” in Kyiv are the same “citizens” in Novgorod. These are the same social groups, mainly urban population. Defeated on the Bug River by the troops of Svyatopolk, Yaroslav fled to Novgorod with only four warriors and was about to flee overseas. But this was opposed by the mayor Konstantin and the Novgorodians, who collected money to hire the Varangians. After the victory on the Alta River, Yaroslav established himself as the reign of Kiev.
The immediate result of the agreement between the Novgorodians and the prince was that part short version"Russian Truth", which is now commonly called the Most Ancient Truth, may only be its first articles. Most characteristic feature of these articles is the absence in them of indications of princely jurisdiction. There is still no sale in favor of the prince, but only payments “for the insult” that go to the benefit of the victim. Rus', gridin, merchant, sneaker, swordsman, outcast, Slovenia are equated to each other, while the Extensive Truth already establishes a distinction between the princely people and the rest of the victims. In the Most Ancient Truth we have letter of commendation, freeing the Novgorodians from the princely court and the Protori in favor of the prince. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the testimony of the chronicle that Yaroslav gave the Novgorodians “the truth and the charter by copying” immediately after the victory over Svyatopolk.
According to the exact meaning of the chronicle, “Pravda” and the written charter were given in Kyiv. This may be indicated by the fact that “Rusyn” (from Kiev) and “Slovenia” (from Novgorod) are equally mentioned in the very first article of Pravda. It can be assumed that a similar award was given to the Kyiv townspeople and Svyatopolk, but it has not reached our time.
The long struggle for the reign of Kiev affected not only the townspeople, but also the Smerds. According to the Novgorod Chronicle, Yaroslav’s army, assembled in Novgorod, consisted of 1 thousand Varangians and 3 thousand Novgorodians. Among this army we find Smerds and Novgorodians, in other words, townspeople and peasants.
The difference between them is emphasized by the size of the reward that was given to them by Yaroslav after the victory. Novgorod residents received 10 hryvnia, elders also 10 hryvnia, and smerdas received one hryvnia. The mention of elders and smerds definitely indicates that communal peasants took part in Yaroslav’s army, going on a campaign under the leadership of their elders. In this case, the elders are equal to the rest of the Novgorodians, while, according to another piece of news, ordinary Novgorodians (“men”) turn out to be of little power in comparison with the elders.
In direct connection with the Novgorod events of 1015-1019. there is news from the Sofia First and Novgorod Fourth Chronicles about Yaroslav’s anger at the mayor Constantine, who earlier, together with the Novgorodians, kept Yaroslav from fleeing overseas. A message about this was placed in the chronicle immediately after the news of the awarding of the Novgorodians by Yaroslav. Konstantin was imprisoned in Rostov and killed in Murom on the third summer on the orders of Yaroslav. This means that the death of Constantine occurred approximately in 1022. The ambiguity of the story about Yaroslav’s anger does not prevent us from talking about some kind of major conflict between the Novgorodians and Yaroslav.
As we see, in the events of 1015-1019. The townspeople and smerds of the Novgorod land took part. These events were to affect the rural and urban populations to an even greater extent. southern Rus'. True, the chronicle speaks briefly and unclearly about the reign of Svyatopolk in Kyiv, but foreign sources (Thietmar of Merseburg and others) directly indicate the difficult situation in Kyiv and the regions adjacent to it at that time. After all, Svyatopolk’s temporary victory over Yaroslav was achieved with the help of the Polish prince Boleslav, who did not stand on ceremony with his ally and stationed his squads throughout the Russian cities, as the chronicle puts it, “to conquer.”
Russian sources completely avoid the question of the nature of this “feeding”, but we also have other, Polish sources. Particularly interesting is the presentation of events by Dlugosz, who combined both Russian and Polish sources in one narrative. According to him, Boleslav, enraged by the secret beating of Polish soldiers in the cities, gave Kyiv to his soldiers as booty. Martin Gall writes about the same thing in his chronicle, praising Boleslav and attributing to him “heroic feats.”
Dlugosh and the Russian chronicle attribute the initiative to fight against the Polish invaders to Svyatopolk himself, who declared: how many Poles are in the cities, beat them.”
The reliability of this chronicle news was questioned by Karlovich and later by A.A. Shakhmatov, according to whom the chronicle story of 1018 was supplemented on the basis of the same story about the intervention of Polish feudal lords in 1069.
However, these authors did not pay attention to the fact that the story about the Kyiv events of 1069 also has similarities with another text borrowed from earlier chronicles. Svyatoslav, in the Battle of Snova, addresses the soldiers with the words of another Svyatoslav, a famous warrior of the 10th century: “Let’s pull, we can’t stand the children anymore.” Consequently, the story about the Kyiv events of 1068-1069. written by a person who was familiar with the earlier chronicles. The events of 1069 reminded him of the Polish intervention of 1015-1018, and the battle of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich with the Polovtsy - of the victory won in the 10th century by Svyatoslav Igorevich over superior enemy forces.
To speak out against the arrogant invaders, no special signals were required, since medieval military outposts, as a rule, were accompanied by robberies and violence. “And I beat up the Poles,” says the chronicler, reporting on Boleslav’s flight from Kyiv.
Who beat up the armed Poles in the cities? In this case, we are talking about a broad popular uprising directed against foreign invaders. This uprising swept Russian cities, was supposed to find support in the countryside and took an anti-feudal direction.
We will find confirmation of this assumption in the so-called “Reading about the life and destruction of Boris and Gleb.” Talking about the death of Svyatopolk in a foreign land, “Reading” explains the reasons for his expulsion in the following terms: “There was sedition from the people and he was expelled not only from the city, but from the entire country.” The city - in this case Kyiv, whose inhabitants, "people", expel Svyatopolk as a result of sedition - a conspiracy or uprising.
The situation that developed in the south of Rus' in 1015-1026 was extremely difficult, since final victory Yaroslav over Svyatopolk was by no means the end of the princely strife. Prince Bryachislav of Polotsk captured and plundered Novgorod in 1021. Bryachislav's campaign characterizes the alarming situation in the north of Rus'. The reign of Yaroslav in Kyiv also did not last long. In 1024 he had a dangerous rival. His brother Prince Mstislav came from Tmutarakan and tried to occupy Kyiv, but failed - the people of Kiev did not accept him. In the same year, the Battle of Listven took place, ending with the victory of Mstislav and the flight of Yaroslav to Novgorod. After this, Yaroslav did not dare to go to Kyiv, although his proteges were sitting there. The princely feud ended with the division of the Russian land along the Dnieper line. Yaroslav sat down to reign in Kyiv, Mstislav - in Chernigov. Then “there was strife and rebellion, and there was great silence in the land.”
So, the chronicler had the right to talk about a “rebellion” in the Russian land, meaning by it popular uprisings. Unrest swept across vast areas of what was then Rus', from Novgorod in the north to Kiev in the south. In the light of these events, in our opinion, the Suzdal uprising of 1024 should be considered, which, therefore, cannot in any way be called the first in the 11th century. anti-feudal movement in Rus'. The uprising of 1024 becomes understandable only in connection with the events in the Kyiv and Novgorod lands of the beginning of the 11th century.
The news of the Suzdal uprising is placed in the Tale of Bygone Years, with minor differences in its Lavrentiev and Ipatiev lists. It is inserted into the chronicle in the middle of the story about Mstislav’s arrival in Chernigov and Yaroslav’s preparations for the campaign against Mstislav. In the Laurentian Chronicle we read the following:
“This summer, the Magi rebelled in Suzdal and killed the “old children” at the devil’s instigation and demonic possession, saying that they were holding the harvest. There was a great rebellion and famine throughout that country; All the people walked along the Volga to the Bulgarians and brought them, and so they came to life. Hearing about the Magi, Yaroslav came to Suzdal, captured the Magi, imprisoned them, and showed the others, saying this: “God brings famine, pestilence, drought, and other disasters to any land for sins, but man knows nothing.”
It should be noted that the text Ipatiev Chronicle differs somewhat from the Laurentian one. Instead of the words “in Suzdal” we find “in Suzdaltsikhe”, instead of “brought” we read “brought zhito”. These two amendments are important for a correct understanding of the chronicle. The addition “zhito” is quite appropriate to the verb “brought”. Without it, it would remain completely unclear what the people who traveled there during the famine brought from the Bulgarian land.
In the chronicle story about the events in the Suzdal land, what is striking is the fact that the Magi were at the head of the uprising. The absence of references to the fact that the rebels of Suzdal were from among the Meri or any other people speaks in favor of the fact that the rebels were led by Slavic pagan sorcerers. The movement was directed against the “old child”, who was accused of hiding “gobineau”.
The story about the Suzdal uprising in a more expanded form is placed in the Novgorod Fourth Chronicle, where there are some additions to it. So, it turns out that they were beating the “old child of the woman”, who “keep the gobin and live and let go of hunger.” The hunger was so great, “as if a husband would give his wife to feed himself, a servant,” that is, husbands gave their wives into bondage. From the Kama Bulgarians they brought “wheat and rye, and tacos from that zhizh.” Yaroslav came to Suzdal, “he grabbed, killed and imprisoned those who killed the women, and plundered their houses, and showed others.”
V.V. Mavrodin, who first pointed out the features of the story about the Suzdal uprising in the Novgorod Fourth Chronicle, with large base doubts its originality, in particular the word “women”, which is absent in the early chronicle vaults, he considers a later addition, introduced into the Novgorod Chronicle by analogy with the subsequent uprisings of the Magi. In the eyes of the Magi, the “old child of the woman” appears as a sorceress who brings on hunger. In the Tver Chronicle, the story of the uprising is even more colorful with various additions. The Magi are called deceitful murderers who beat up women and plundered their houses. The word “gobino”, which has become incomprehensible, turns into gubina.
Apparently, the original and obscure text about the Suzdal uprising was corrected and supplemented based on the story of the uprising of the Magi in the same Suzdal land, but only in 1071. Then the Magi killed the “best wives”, which was transferred to 1024. By the way “ old child" added "women". An explanation was also made that the famine had reached such proportions, “as if a wife should give to her husband, and feed her as a servant.”
As we see, in the story of the Fourth Novgorod and Tver Chronicles, the whole matter comes down to famine, during which husbands were forced to give their wives into bondage. False magicians took advantage of this, spreading rumors about the magic of old women, whose houses were plundered and they themselves were killed. These additions to the text of the old chronicles, therefore, do not give us new details about the Suzdal events of 1024, being only a dissemination and a kind of understanding of what was known about them from the Tale of Bygone Years. Consequently, in the analysis of the events of 1024 it will be necessary to proceed mainly from the text of the Hypatian and Laurentian Chronicles.
First of all, we will have to figure out what is meant in the chronicle by the terms “gobino” and “old child.” Let's make some references for this.
The word "gobino" meant abundance or harvest. The words “gob” and “gobzina” were known in the same meaning - abundance, harvest. In early Russian monuments, the word “gobino” was usually associated with the harvest of bread, vegetables or fruits. This allows us to conclude that the chronicle “gobino” of 1024 is primarily a grain harvest. Therefore, the word “zhito” is a necessary addition to the word “privezosha” (brought).
Before us is an agricultural environment that lives depending on grain harvests, perishes from hunger when there is a bad harvest - “gobino”, comes to life when “zhito”, bread, is brought from another country. This idea of the Suzdal land of the early 11th century as an agricultural region is confirmed by archaeological data showing that farming here early became the main occupation of the population. Consequently, we have the right to say that the movement of 1024 covered wide circles of the agricultural population - peasants, smerds, as peasants were called in Kievan Rus.
Who is this “old child” against whom the rebellion has risen? The word “child” meant people in general, sometimes the people, the squad. In old monuments, in addition, the term “simple children” is found to denote the common people. In the church charter of Yaroslav the Wise, “simple children” are contrasted with the boyars. In the Novgorod Chronicle, the “simple child” is the name given to the total mass of Novgorodians, etc. But the “gobino” was held not by the simple child, but by the “old child.” The word “old” meant not only old, but also elder. This is how “Russkaya Pravda” uses this word, in which we read: “and the groom of the herd is old.” Hence the word “old”, common in ancient Russian sources, in the meaning of eldest, superior. Consequently, we have the right to say that in the chronicle story about the Suzdal uprising of 1024 we are talking about the “old child”, opposed to the common people or “simple child”, i.e. about the emerging landowning group of the “old child”, which holds in its hands best lands, harvest - “gobino”.
The chronicle news of the uprising of 1024 reveals to us an interesting feature of socio-political life in Suzdal at the beginning of the 11th century. - fierce resistance to Christianization, sometimes forcibly carried out by princes. This feature was also typical for other parts of Rus'.
The spread of Christianity in Rus' was not at all a triumphal procession, as church writers often portrayed it. At least, legends have reached us about resistance to Christianity in a number of cities where “infidel people” did not accept the new faith for a long time. According to one piece of information, Christianity was established in Smolensk only in 1013. In Murom it was established even later. The Rostov legend tells us about the struggle of pagans with Christians in Rostov back in the 11th century. The life of Abraham of Rostov tells that a pagan idol stood at the Peipus end in Rostov.
The establishment of Christianity in Rus' was closely connected with the strengthening and expansion of feudal land ownership. Forced Christianization served as one of the means facilitating the seizure of communal lands and the conversion of previously free community members into dependent smerds. Following baptism, special taxes were established everywhere in favor of the church, known as tithes. All this sufficiently explains to us the fact that at the head of the Smerd uprising in the Suzdal land were pagan Magi as representatives of the religion of obsolete primitive communal relations. The uprising in Suzdal was a significant phenomenon in its scope and the territory it covered. This was a “great rebellion”, which Yaroslav came to pacify. He brutally dealt with the rebels. Some of them were imprisoned, some were executed. The princely authorities came to the defense of the “old child”, supporting social inequality, increasingly intensified as Rus' feudalized.
The date of the Suzdal uprising in the Tale of Bygone Years is 1024. Of course, the chronology of Russian chronicles of the 11th century. far from perfect. However, the chronicler was still guided by some chronological milestones. Therefore, if it is impossible to insist on the accuracy of the chronicle date indicating 1024 as the time of the uprising in the Suzdal land, then we can still assume that this uprising occurred before the reconciliation of Yaroslav and Mstislav, which happened in 1026. The reconciliation of the warring brothers itself remains in the chronicle somewhat unmotivated, as was the division of Russian lands along the Dnieper. But it will receive its explanation in the light of some events that took place at that time abroad in Russia.
The chronicle, usually skimping on reports about internal events in foreign countries, suddenly places on its pages brief, but significant news about a great uprising in Poland: “At the same time, Boleslav the Great died in Lyakh, and there was a rebellion in the Polish land, people rebelled, killed bishops and priests and their boyars, and they had a rebellion." The news of the “rebellion” in Poland is placed in the chronicle under 1030, but is associated with the death of Boleslav, who died in 1025. We also find this connection in the “Pechersk Patericon”, where we read: “on one night Boleslav suddenly died, and there was a rebellion "The great war in the entire Polish land began after the death of Boleslav."
So, according to the meaning of the chronicle and the Patericon, the rebellion in the Polish land began after the death of Boleslav, and this happened in 1025, that is, almost simultaneously with the uprising in Suzdal, before the reconciliation of the princes in 1026.
The uprising in Poland, according to Polish sources, dates back to 1037-1038. Information about him is recorded in the Chronicle of Gallus in the following form: “The slaves rebelled against the masters, the freedmen against the nobles, arbitrarily seizing power. Having killed some of the nobles, turning others into servants, the rebels shamelessly took possession of their wives and treacherously seized their positions. Moreover, leaving the Catholic faith, which we cannot talk about without crying and groaning, they rebelled against the bishops and priests of God, some of whom, recognizing them as worthy of a better death, were executed with the sword, others, allegedly worthy of death shameful, stoned."
Finding out historical accuracy messages from the Russian chronicle about the uprising in Poland, V.D. Korolyuk, unfortunately, almost left aside the question of the nature and course of the events themselves in Poland. He correctly considers the news of our chronicle “the most important source for studying the turbulent events of the 30s of the 11th century. in Poland" . But this important and valuable conclusion is immediately reduced by the recognition that “in Russian monuments there was a confusion of two Boleslavs,” and this indicates the weak reliability of the chronicle, which was just recognized by V.D. himself. Korolyuk “the most important source.”
In addition, the time of the appearance of the Russian record of the uprising in Poland, according to V.D. Korolyuk, refers only to the second half of the 11th century, and the reference to Polish origin Russian record, which thus turns out to have arisen at least 20 years later than the events described in it.
It seems to us that the main mistake of V.D. Korolyuk lies in the arbitrariness of his constructions about the chronicle text. In fact, can it really be considered a serious argument that “during the life of Yaroslav, who at one time suffered greatly from a clash with the Polish prince,” the Russian chronicle could not call Boleslav “great.”
In fact, the chronology of the Russian chronicle, with all its shortcomings, as a rule, is relatively accurate. In this case, the news of the Russian chronicle and the Patericon completely coincide with Polish sources. Thus, Dlugosh talks about the campaign of the Russian princes Yaroslav and Mstislav against Poland in 1026, after the death of Boleslav. “Yaroslav and Mstislav, Russian princes, having heard about the death of Boleslav, Polish king, invaded Poland and occupied the city of Cherven and other cities."
Dlugosz's news is entirely consistent with the data of the Russian chronicle, according to which the reconciliation of Yaroslav and Mstislav took place precisely in 1026. It does not contradict the message placed below in the chronicle under 1031 about the campaign of Yaroslav and Mstislav to Poland, since it was secondary (“again” ) campaign against the Cherven cities: “and the Cherven cities were seized again.” Thus, there is no reason to attribute the message in the Russian chronicle about the uprising in Poland after the death of Boleslav to the events of 1037-1038, as V.D. does. Korolyuk.
The popular movement in Poland could have begun much earlier than these years. The “Pechersk Patericon” connects with the uprising in Poland the murder of the Polish lady Moisei Ugrin (“then he killed this wife”) and his release from captivity. At the same time, the Patericon gives a calculation of the years of the events described. Moses spent five years in captivity, and for the sixth year he was tortured for refusing to fulfill the wishes of his mistress. If we consider the time of Moses’ captivity to be 1018, when, according to the chronicle, Boleslav left Rus', then Moses’ return to his homeland coincides approximately with the death of Boleslav and the beginning of the uprising in Poland. Therefore, it is in vain to look for the Polish origin of the news of the chronicle about the uprising in Poland. It could have arisen on Russian soil.
Events in Poland, where “bishops and priests and boyars” were killed, find a direct analogy in Russian reality at the beginning of the 11th century. The movement against the “old child” in Suzdal was led by the “magi” and had an anti-Christian overtones, just like the uprising in Poland. This feature of the Polish uprising was well remembered in Rus'. “For the sake of guilt, Nekia expelled the former monk from the borders of our land, and great evil was committed in Lyasikh,” - in such words they later recalled the uprising in Poland. Yaroslav brutally dealt with the Magi and assisted the Polish feudal lords by “fighting” Polish land and bringing out from there many captives. The suffering element in this case were mainly the peasants.
V.D. Korolyuk did not pay attention to the fact that, according to Russian news, “people” (“rising people”) rebelled in Poland, and this term, as previously mentioned, in Rus' denoted the common people in their entirety, usually peasants and townspeople. Only with late XIV V. “people” begin to be called slaves, and even then usually with an addition: bought, vulgar, dowries, etc. This may serve as an indication of who exactly rebelled in Poland.
Now it is still difficult to talk about what the connection was between the popular movements in Rus' and the popular uprising in Poland. But there is every reason to assume that such a connection existed, at least in the area of the Cherven cities, in Volyn, perhaps in the Kyiv land.
Thus, the Suzdal uprising of 1024 should not be represented as the only peasant movement of the 11th century. It is associated with popular uprisings that covered vast territories in Rus' and Poland and were anti-feudal and anti-Christian in nature. These movements marked an important historical stage: the final establishment of feudal orders and Christianity in Rus' and in neighboring Slavic countries.
1. Popular uprisings XI century, the Magi and the opinion of historians. In the 11th century Several popular uprisings broke out in Rus'. Partly the uprising […]
1. Popular uprisings of the 11th century, the Magi and the opinion of historians.
In the 11th century Several popular uprisings broke out in Rus'. The uprisings were partly provoked by crop failure, partly by dissatisfaction with the new feudal order of Rus'. But the Tale of Bygone Years names certain Magi as the leaders of the first uprisings. Since they were Magi, it became generally accepted that they were pagan priests. This is the meaning that has been assigned to the word “magician” since the 18th century.
This is how it is still considered. Soviet historian V.V. Mavrodin wrote in the early 60s:
“The uniqueness of this popular movement lay in the fact that at the head of the Smerds who rebelled against the “old child” were the Magi, who sought to use the anti-feudal uprising of the people to return to the previous pre-Christian cults.
This was not the only attempt of the Magi to regain their former influence. In the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 1071 there is a story about the performances of the Magi in Kyiv, Novgorod and the Suzdal land, in particular in Belozer.”
V.V. Mavrodin “People’s uprisings in Ancient Rus'”, M.. 1961.
B. A. Rybakov wrote about these uprisings in the early 80s:
“In 1024, the Magi, having settled in Suzdal, raised a “great rebellion” throughout the Upper Volga region; in 1071, two “magicians” ruled over a huge space from the Volga 300 km north to Beloozero. In both cases, pagan priests (possibly of local Meryan-Vep origin) made human sacrifices: “and the two Magi killed many wives and took their property for themselves.”
B. A. Rybakov “Paganism of Ancient Rus'”, M. 1988.
N.N. Veletskaya directly linked the murder of noble and wealthy people by the Magi with the manifestation of the archaic ritual of sending old people “to the next world” (referring for some reason to Rubruk’s description of the customs of Tibet and Herodotus with his description of Indian customs):
“From the evidence of the Ipatiev Chronicle it is clear that the premature killing of venerable old men in the 11th century. still had a ritual character, having an agrarian-magical function, but it was already an episodic action. The expression “hold gobineau” can be interpreted both as “retarding the growth of grain” and as “creating an obstacle to the harvest.” Most likely, the evidence says that the Magi sent worthy representatives of the older generation to the “other world” to prevent the impending crop failure. The degradation of the ritual is manifested in the fear of a threat, associated to a certain extent with the fact that there were those on earth for whom it was time to go to their forefathers. Apparently, the degradation of the custom is also manifested in the departure from its regular and timely practice.”
N. N. Veletskaya, “Pagan symbolism of Slavic archaic rituals”, M., 1978.
The opinion that the Magi of these uprisings were pagan priests has not changed in the 21st century. I. A. Froyanov completely agrees with the opinion of N. N. Veletskaya and develops her hypothesis. In the book “Ancient Rus'” he devoted many pages to reasoning that these uprisings were a reaction of the pagan population of Rus':
“Thus, the Tale of Bygone Years captured the picture of the magi’s reprisal against the “best wives,” who supposedly with their harmful spells delayed the harvest, causing “scarcity” in the Rostov region. The Magi, according to the chronicler, “took away the “property” of the murdered “wives.” The transfer of the property of the “best wives” to the Magi has a certain meaning. Ancient man, as is known, spiritualized the world, inhabiting with spirits, good and evil, all objects with which he came into contact in one way or another. To this we must add that, according to the pagans, in the things belonging to man, there was a particle of the owner of these things, which reflected the general pagan consciousness of the inseparability of the world of people and the world of objects, and, ultimately, nature. The mentioned features of pagan thinking make it possible to explain why the Magi took the property (“estate”) of the “best wives” for themselves. They did this because this property bore the stamp of action. evil forces, witchcraft."
I. A. Froyanov “Ancient Rus' IX-XIII centuries. Popular movements. Princely and veche power", M., 2012.
It would seem that the issue is closed. The first uprisings in Rus' were led by pagan priests, period.
2. Magi are not pagan priests.
The main mistake in understanding the essence of the rebel leaders is that for some reason the term “magician” is translated as “pagan priest.” Although “magician” itself and the meanings derived from this word do not relate to religion. A Magus is a spell specialist, that is, a sorcerer. But sorcerers have never been ministers of cults anywhere. Sorcerers could worship this or that god, but they were not servants of the gods, just as now a grandmother-healer who whispers conspiracies is not a pagan servant of the cult. In the Slavic translation of the New Testament, three wizards from the East are called Magi, who came to worship Jesus, who in the original were called magicians (in ancient times, the word “magician” even then meant not only a minister of the Zoroastrian cult, but also an Eastern wizard). Magus is a wizard, sorcery is to conjure - this is the meaning in which these words existed in Old Russian language. This is how it looks in the dictionary of I. I. Sreznevsky:
The terminology of Slavic paganism, quite ancient and precise, did not tolerate double interpretation. A cult minister, that is, a person who served the gods at the temple and led religious rituals, was called a “priest” (priest, priest). The word comes from the word “zhreti” - “to sacrifice.” The sacrifice to the gods was called “treba” (treba). Pagan terminology was still alive in the 11th century. and our ancestors remembered it and did not confuse it. So, when describing the pagan reform of Prince Vladimir, the chronicler of The Tale of Bygone Years (hereinafter referred to as PVL) wrote: “ AND they're eating they are the gods, and I bring my sons, and to the bully demon, and desecrate the earth requirements their own. And become defiled requirements Russian land and hill«.
The Magi kill women.
If the leaders of the uprisings really made human sacrifices to the pagan gods, then contemporaries would certainly note this fact. However, the chroniclers in no way noted the actions of the Magi with pagan terminology, which is quite strange. Even more strange is the transfer of property of the murdered. Slavic paganism does not know such a custom. Contemporary Jan Vyshatich speaks about the killings of people by the Magi precisely as murder, and not about sacrifice: “... and killed<…>many wives”, “And Yan’s speech to the driver: “Whose homeland was killed from this?” In the Old Russian language, the meaning of the word “murder” and its derivatives was exactly the same as it is today.
Thus, contemporaries did not consider the Magi to be pagan priests. The Magi were not considered such even later. So “Stoglav” defines the Magi as sorcerers and astrologers: “ ...magi and sorcerers give them aid from demonic teachings; the kudes strike the Aristotelian gates and look through the raffles, and tell fortunes by the stars and planets and look at the days and hours". (“Aristotle’s Gate” is a popular work on astrology in Rus', rafli is a popular method of fortune telling).
And most importantly: Slavic clan society was not divided into classes, like the Celts, or into varnas and castes, like the Indians. Therefore, the priestly class simply did not exist. The priests were respected people chosen by the community, or the role of the priest was performed by the head of the clan or the prince. With the baptism of Rus', the need for priests disappeared (this social role passed to Christian priests) and the priesthood simply disappeared from the life of Ancient Rus'. But the sorcerers remained because they were doctors, agronomists, meteorologists and analysts rolled into one. There was no way to replace them with scientific specialists at that time (this was only possible to do in the 20th century under Soviet rule). Therefore, the church and authorities, although they threw lightning and thunder at sorcerers and healers, tried not to touch them, preferring to fight the external manifestations of paganism.
But then, who were the mysterious wise men of the 11th century uprisings?
3. Popular uprisings of the 11th century. in The Tale of Bygone Years.
The rebellion of 1024 provides little information on the issue of interest. After the death of Prince Vladimir in 1015, a war for power began between his numerous descendants, which had a deplorable effect on the country’s economy. In 1024, famine began in the Suzdal land. Some magicians started a rebellion in Suzdal. The Magi accused the “elder children,” that is, the local nobility, of hiding food. The Magi were probably experienced agitators, and the people were irritated by the inaction of the authorities and “There was a great rebellion...”. The rebels in Suzdal killed noble and rich people, their yards were plundered. The authorities reacted quickly - they purchased food from Volga Bulgars and the rebellion came to an end. Prince Yaroslav the Wise and his retinue came to Suzdal and arrested the leaders of the rebellion. After a short trial, some Magi were executed, others were expelled (PVL does not say where they were expelled).
It should be noted that the Christian chronicler reacted very calmly to the very fact of the uprising of the Magi, which is very strange, because the Magi were directly supposed to threaten Christianity, which had just established itself in Rus'. There is no information about the pagan nature of the uprising. But social motives are obvious - the Magi spoke out against the rich, that is, they looked at wealth negatively, and this is not typical for pagan priests.
Uprising in Novgorod, 60-70. XI century
In the late 60s or early 70s (the exact date is not known), the sorcerer appeared again in Novgorod. This sorcerer has already begun anti-Christian agitation: “. .. spoke to people, pretending to be God, and deceived many, almost the entire city, he said: “I foresee everything” and, blaspheming the Christian faith, assured that “I will cross the Volkhov in front of all the people". And this was enough to start the riot. The Magus began to call for the murder of the bishop and the crowd followed him. Prince Gleb Svyatoslavovich and his retinue met the crowd at the bishop's courtyard. The bishop in full vestments with a cross in his hands tried to reason with the crowd: “ Whoever wants to believe the sorcerer, let him follow him; whoever believes God, let him go to the cross“, but the call was not heard: the people remained with the sorcerer, but the prince and his retinue remained next to the bishop. Then Gleb Svyatoslavovich, seeing that he could not withstand the entire city, decided to nip the rebellion in the bud. Hiding the ax under his cloak, he approached the sorcerer and asked:
“Do you know what will happen tomorrow and what will happen until this evening?” He replied: “I know everything.” And Gleb said: “Do you know what will happen to you today?” “I will do great miracles,” he said. Gleb, taking out an ax, cut the sorcerer, and he fell dead, and the people dispersed.»
The denouement is surprising: just when the people were ready to start a rebellion and shed blood, after the death of the sorcerer, people simply went about their business. We must think that we only know the culmination of events. Even in those distant times, people were quite sensible enough to simply believe a rogue who suddenly declared that he was a god and a prophet and could walk on water. And not just believe, but also go kill the bishop. It is clear that this rebellion was carefully prepared and only the prince’s determination made it possible to avoid much bloodshed. The heart of the rebellion was precisely the nameless sorcerer - as soon as he was eliminated, the rebellion immediately died out by itself.
But who was this sorcerer? And who provoked the rebellion? A pagan priest? The chronicler does not even hint at this. He writes only about demons who seduce people, which fits perfectly into the worldview of a medieval person. The Magus was clearly anti-Christian. He not only called for the murder of a clergyman, that is, opposed the church, but also uttered prophecies and even threatened to repeat one of the miracles of Jesus Christ. And not a single mention of pagan gods.
In 1071, famine began in the Rostov region. At this time, two wise men came from Yaroslavl. It is doubtful that pagan priests would live peacefully in Yaroslavl. Therefore, the two were hiding their true identities. This time the agitation of the Magi was of a social nature. They convinced the people that noble women were hiding food. Using a simple trick (they cut women's clothes and showed people food or luxury items), they convinced people that they were right. Began massacres women. The property of noble and rich people was taken away and, as the chronicler writes, they took it for themselves, but most likely they gave it away ordinary people, otherwise it would be difficult to explain the wide popular support for the Magi. Soon a whole community of adherents of about 300 people formed around them, who walked around the cities and committed murders and division of property. But in Beloozero, the rebels came across Yan Vyshatich, the future Kyiv tysyatsky, the leader of the city militia, who with a small detachment was collecting tribute. Apparently, Jan fled from Kyiv after the uprising of 1068 and entered the service Prince of Chernigov Svyatoslav. Having learned that the Magi were smerda (people, subjects) of his prince, he ordered their arrest, but was refused. After a short fight, the rebels fled, killing the priest who was with Jan. Entering the city, Jan ordered the Magi to be handed over, which was done. And then an interesting dialogue took place.
« And he said to them: “Why did they kill so many people?”
They said that “they hold reserves, and if we destroy them, there will be abundance; if you want, we will take out the wheat, or fish, or something else in front of you.”
Yan said: “Truly this is a lie; God created man from the earth, he is made up of bones and blood veins, there is nothing else in him, no one knows anything, only God knows.”
They said: “We know how man was created.”
He asked: “How?”
They answered: “God washed himself in the bathhouse and sweated, wiped himself with a rag and threw it from heaven to earth. And Satan argued with God over who should create man from her. And the devil created man, and God put his soul into him. That’s why, if a person dies, the body goes to the earth, and the soul goes to God.”
Yan said to them: “Truly the demon has deceived you; what god do you believe in?
They answered: “To the Antichrist!”
He said to them: “Where is he?”
They said: “He sits in the abyss.”
Yan told them: “What kind of god is this if he sits in the abyss? This is a demon, and God is in heaven, sitting on a throne, glorified by the angels, who stand before him with fear and cannot look at him. One of the angels was overthrown - the one you call the Antichrist; he was cast down from heaven for his arrogance and is now in the abyss, as you say; he waits for God to descend from heaven. God will bind this Antichrist in chains and put him in the abyss, capturing him along with his servants and those who believe in him. You will also receive torment from me here, and after death, there.”
They said: “The gods tell us: you can’t do anything to us!”
He told them: “The gods are lying to you.”
They answered: “We will stand in front of Svyatoslav, but you cannot do anything to us.” Yan ordered to beat them and pull out their beards.
When they were beaten and their beards were torn out with a splinter, Yan asked them: “What do the gods say to you?”
They answered: “We should stand before Svyatoslav.”.
Execution of the Magi by Jan Vyshatic.
The persistence with which the rebels rushed to the prince is surprising, as if they were sure that they would remain unpunished or their goal was to appear before the prince. Apparently Jan Vyshatich suspected something, so he handed over the Magi to the relatives of the women killed by the rebels for reprisal. Apparently, he did not want these wise men to convey their thoughts to the prince.
According to historians, this is a recording of the direct memories of Jan Vyshatic, made about thirty years after the events. There are too many details in the story that only he could see. So he could have forgotten some details over the years, but in general the events are described reliably.
4. The Magi are missionaries of the Manichaean sect of the Bogomils.
The uprising of 1071 had a pronounced social orientation: the destruction of property inequality and the redistribution of property (otherwise it is not clear why the rebels so easily gave the property of those executed to the Magi). All three uprisings are united by the figures of the Magi-leaders. But it is very doubtful that these were pagan priests. The doctrine of social equality (in its primitive form: take everything and divide it, and kill the rich) is already higher than generic pagan philosophy. And the anti-Christian orientation of the uprisings is alarming. The pagan priests had nothing to fear in Ancient Rus'. They simply stopped being priests. IN ancient Russian society only sorcerers retained a number of previous functions: fortune telling, weather forecasting, performing some rituals related to fertility, healing, and making amulets. With Christianization, the priests had to cede functions such as birth ceremonies, weddings and funerals to the church. The former priests did not even hide, but lived quietly among the people. Perhaps former priests performed such rituals illegally.
Let's look at the miniature of the Radziwill Chronicle (the chronicle of the 15th century, but goes back to the chronicle of the 13th century, and researchers date the miniatures to an even earlier time), where the artist depicted the Novgorod sorcerer and Prince Gleb.
Execution of the Magus.
The “pagan” priest looks very strange, if not alien. It seems that the artist wanted to show precisely the foreignness of the sorcerer. A shaved face (this is in Rus', where there was a reverent attitude towards a beard!), long hair, rich strange clothes. No, these were not pagan priests. Notice what nonsense the “magician” suddenly began to spout when talking about the creation of man! This is not a pagan concept. In pagan mythology, gods create humans from wood, clay, and stone. There is some kind of bizarre pseudo-Christian legend here. And even more so, a pagan priest would not mention Christian characters.
As a result, we can generally identify the main features of the ideology of the “magi”: hatred of Christianity, hatred of the church, the idea of social equality.
History knows such an ideology - it is Manichaeism. The very teaching of the Iranian founder of the religion, Mani, is very complex, confusing, and most importantly, it was secret from ordinary followers. In short, Mani taught that matter (that is, our world) is evil, part of the world’s darkness, which just wants to absorb the divine light of truth. The human soul is fragments of this light, absorbed by matter as a result of a universal cataclysm. Therefore, the soul had to be saved from the evil of matter through death. The Manichaeans advocated an ascetic lifestyle and did not like Christians very much. L. N. Gumilyov called Manichaeism an anti-system, that is, the systemic integrity of people with a negative worldview. Indeed, to consider our world evil is already too much, and the Manichaeans did not love either the world or people, they sought to unite with the “light”, freeing themselves from the shackles of matter. And the people surrounding the Manichaeans responded with hostility, because wherever the Manichaeans went, they began their destructive activities, destroying peoples and states.
Although the Manichaean faith forbade lying, it only applied to one’s own people; it was possible to deceive others, because it was necessary for the sake of “saving” the “infidels” from the shackles of darkness. Therefore, the Manichaeans penetrated into foreign society by putting on masks familiar to the population: with Christians they pretended to be Christians, with Buddhists they were Buddhists. So in Iran they put on a Zoroastrian mask and in the 6th century. their leader Mazdak even gained access to power, starting the execution of the nobility and rich people, distributing wealth to the poor, including the harems of the nobility. In the Muslim East, Manichaeism took the form of Ismaili sects and modern Wahhabism.
In the 7th century the Manichaeans penetrated into Asia Minor, where they took the name Paulicians, where they even founded their own republic, from where they carried out predatory raids on Byzantium, destroying Christian churches.
In the 10th century Manichaeism penetrated into Bulgaria and, under the name of Bogomils (Bogomil was the name of the founder of the sect in Bulgaria), spread throughout the Balkans. Through Italy, the Bogomils penetrated into France and Germany, where they took the names of Cathars, Waldensians, Albigensians, and Patarens.
In order to make it easier to attract new adherents, the Manichaeans modified their teaching, modernizing it to Christianity. Our world, as their teaching now said, was created by Satan, or rather, then he was still the angel Satanail, who envied God and created material world, confining particles of divine light in the form of a soul in the grave of matter. Compare with the speeches of the sorcerer Jan Vyshatic about the creation of man by Satan, into which God put his soul. Apparently, we have before us a version of the Manichaean teaching, developed specifically for Rus'.
There is also an explanation for the “magi”’s mention of certain gods whom they worship. The Bogomils were dualists - they equally revered the good god of Heaven and the evil god of Earth. Moreover, the Bogomils believed that a person himself should choose which god to worship in accordance with his character. So among the Bogomil Satanists, Satanail was a good god, whom the God of Heaven envied and therefore sent all sorts of troubles to the earth, like thunderstorms.
The spread of Bogomilism in Europe.
If Bogomilism penetrated into Europe, then couldn’t it have penetrated into Rus'? How could it? And it penetrated. The Bogomils penetrated under the guise of Magi, although they were the same Magi as the Masons were masons. The Bogomils came to Europe as weavers. Having settled in a foreign society, they began underground agitation among the population, recruiting followers. In Europe, where clan society was completely broken by feudal orders, and the church and government no longer met the concept of justice, this was easy. The Bogomils used social inequality and dissatisfaction of the population (and absolutely everyone in Europe was dissatisfied). Because Christian church was a direct competitor of the Bogomils, they did not hesitate to denounce her, especially pointing out the wealth of the church, called icons idols, and the Pope Satan, and argued that God did not need churches and called for living modestly, like the first apostles. This found a lively response among the people. Eventually the Bogomil Church in Europe grew so large that it became a threat to European countries. It was necessary to conduct crusades against the Bogomils and introduce the Inquisition.
In the same way, the Bogomils began to penetrate into Rus'. Apparently, they decided that the best masks in Rus' would be the sorcerers-magi. And then the Bogomils miscalculated. And if the authorities of Byzantium and European states long time did not even notice that the Manichaean sect was growing and strengthening under their noses, then in Rus' they quickly noticed this, because they could not confuse the delusional legends about Satan, who created man, with real pagan myths.
5. Why did Manichaeism not have a destructive effect on Rus'?
Of course, the authorities in Rus' at first did not yet understand what kind of infection they were dealing with, they simply felt that something alien had come to Rus', which threatened riots and rebellions. Therefore, they acted simply and harshly - they destroyed the instigators of the riot without touching the people, thereby the people were not embittered by the repressions and did not consider the dead Bogomils “innocent sufferers.” But the Bogomil abstruse anti-Christian concept itself did not find a response among the population of Rus'. She was too alien. The people could still rebel against injustice, but they no longer had the desire to go to death for the sake of “union with the light.” Therefore, the Bogomil teaching remained forever underground in Rus', sometimes breaking out in the form of heresies, which the authorities justly and harshly suppressed.
It cannot be said that the activities of the Bogomils remained a secret for a long time. Soon after the first speeches of the Bogomils, secular and ecclesiastical authorities exposed the imaginary Magi, and from the end of the 11th century. Teachings against Bogomilism are spreading throughout Rus'.
It is worth noting that the Church of Ancient Rus' had not yet become deeply mired in luxury and corruption, like the Catholic Church of Europe. Therefore, the anti-Christian propaganda of the Bogomils in Rus' simply passed by the population, since it did not reflect reality.
If secret Manichaean sects arose in Rus', they died in the fire of the Mongol invasion, leaving behind legends about Satanail in Russian folklore. The Bogomils penetrated into Rus' even after the Mongol invasion, creating various heresies, such as the Strigolnik heresy, but these heresies were quickly suppressed by the authorities.
But most importantly, the Bogomils did not find contact with higher authorities and sympathy for Manichaean views among the population, as happened in Europe. For these reasons, Manichaeism in Rus' remained a small, marginal sectarian movement.
In contact with
Convenient navigation through the article:
Salt riot
Modern historians and researchers of Russia during the seventeenth century argue that the main reasons Salt riot lie in the shortcomings of that historical period. Therefore, it is necessary to consider this uprising only after learning the events that preceded it.
Background and causes of the Salt Riot
So, one of the most important prerequisites for the coming popular uprisings, including the phenomenon under consideration, occurs in 1646, when the existing government of the Russian state, in order to replenish the treasury, decides to introduce a huge customs duty on transported salt. The consequence of this was an increase in the price of this product for everyone who sold them in Russia. Thus, the price of salt has almost tripled.
And although the essence of this duty was the state’s desire to make a profit, most merchants, seeing the state of affairs and popular discontent, refused to deliver salt to the country, because at that moment they could not afford it most of population. As a result, at the end of 1647, the government abolished the customs duty on this important and sought-after product. This is what became main reason popular unrest.
The result of the introduction of a duty on salt
Since the introduced duty did not bring the expected profit to the state, it was followed by an increase in duties from “black” settlements, that is, from small traders, artisans, various small employees, etc. historical period It was customary to divide the people into the so-called “white settlement” and “black settlement”.
The white settlement included officials, large merchants, as well as artisans and employees who carried out their activities under royal court. As a result, a situation arose again when the shoulders of ordinary free people Heavy taxes fell, while the rich continued to evade paying. More and more residents of the capital began to discuss government innovations in a negative tone. But there were also those for whom talking alone was not enough.
In addition, a congress of noble cavalry was planned for the spring (April) 1648 in the capital. This provoked a sharp rise in food prices in Moscow. In fact, prices have risen two to three times. More and more people began to form groups discussing the wrong tsarist policy and your position.
Speaking out against the arbitrariness of the government, Muscovites increasingly mentioned among the offenders the representative of the boyars Morozov, the head of state affairs capital and state finances. Another official who was guilty of raising prices, in the opinion of dissatisfied citizens, was Plyushcheev, the head of the black settlements of the capital. Nazariy Chisty was also included in the same list, according to whose initiative the salt duty took place. As we see, the people had every reason to blame state machine in the deterioration of the quality of life of Muscovites.
Progress of the Salt Riot
The salt riot began calmly, as a demonstration of discontent, and at first did not at all foretell it developing into something more. On June 1, 1648, the Tsar left the Trinity-Sergius Monastery for Moscow, to whom the inhabitants of Rus' decided to submit a petition to the situation that had developed in the city and several of the above-described officials who were to blame for it.
As a result of this, the entire crowd was dispersed by the tsarist army, and sixteen people making their way to the Russian monarch were arrested. The next day, the dissatisfied people again went to the tsar and, finally making their way to him, began to complain about Plyucheyev, as well as his entourage. In addition, some rebels managed to penetrate into the Kremlin.
The archers, called to help the government, decided to take the other side and went over to defend the rebels, since they were also dissatisfied with Morozov, who had cut their salaries the day before.
The participants in the riot demanded that the Tsar hand over Plyucheyev and Morozov to them. The monarch personally had to negotiate with the protesters, assuring that all those responsible for the deterioration of life in Rus' would be punished, according to the law, without lynching. However, the consequences of the salt duty and people's hatred of the rich and officials were very high. Therefore, realizing that the king would not help them, the crowd rushed to the house and demolished it, dismantling its property.
Then the rioters went to the house of Nazariy Chisty and repeated there the same thing as Morozov. As a result, the official was killed. But this was not enough for dissatisfied Muscovites, so the crowd then went to the houses of all the officials they disliked, burning and looting everything. According to information that has survived to this day, Moscow, or rather most of it, burned for three days.
The outcome of the Salt Riot
As a result, by the end of the third day, the tsar was forced to hand over Plyucheyev to the crowd, who was beaten to death with stones and sticks on Red Square. Of all those who were on the list of rioters, only boyar Morozov, who was the educator of the ruling Russian monarch, managed to escape the crowd's reprisals. The authors of the chronicles of that period say that the tsar personally stood up for him and persuaded the crowd not to touch Morozov, who, however, was soon expelled from the city forever.
Table: popular uprisings in Rus' in the 17th century
Video lecture: Salt riot
The main source about popular movements in Rus' in the X-XIII centuries. are chronicles. Of course, one cannot expect from them a complete and adequate coverage of social conflicts, given the dependence of their compilers on the princely power. Fulfilling the social order, the chroniclers were more interested in inter-princely relations, reflecting the state activities of the “powers that be,” the struggle of Russian squads with enemies, and events in international life. It was not safe to express sympathy for popular uprisings on the pages of chronicles. And if, under such conditions, information about them, even in a somewhat veiled form, was nevertheless entered into the chronicle, it means that this phenomenon constituted an integral feature of ancient Russian life.
The first major social conflict arose in 945, when Prince Igor, in violation of polyudye norms, demanded additional tribute from the Drevlyansky land. The Drevlyans, led by their prince, rebelled, Igor’s squad was defeated, and he himself was executed. An unambiguous assessment of the Drevlyan uprising as a class protest, which one has to meet, is apparently unacceptable. Here the contradictions between central government Kyiv and the Drevlyan princes, who did not want to obey her unquestioningly. However, there is undoubtedly the presence in these events of an element of popular protest on the basis of increased feudal exploitation.
One of the reasons for the popular movements of the 10-20s of the 11th century. There was an aggravation of the internal political situation, the participation of Varangian mercenaries and Polish squads in resolving inter-princely contradictions. In 1015, an uprising broke out against the Varangians in Novgorod; in 1018, significant unrest took place in the south of Rus'. Their cause was the robberies and violence of the Poles allied with Svyatopolk, who were disbanded to “conquer” the cities and villages of the Kiev region.
Popular movements were sometimes led by pagan priests who tried to benefit from the discontent of the poor. One of them occurred in 1024 Rostov-Suzdal land during hunger. Encouraged by the wise men, who believed that all troubles came to their land along with Christianity, the peasants began to rob and kill the community nobility - the “old children.” The main force of the uprising, apparently, were outcasts - peasants who were ruined and left the community, deprived of their source of livelihood - land. Yaroslav the Wise brutally suppressed the uprising; Some of its participants were executed, some were imprisoned.
A major uprising of the Kyiv lower classes occurred in 1068, after Prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich, defeated in the battle with the Polovtsy, he refused to give the people weapons to repel the enemy. The uprising took on such a scale that Izyaslav was forced to leave Kyiv and flee to Poland. The “Dvor of the Princes” was plundered. The rebels proclaimed Vseslav of Polotsk, whom Izyaslav kept in prison, as the Grand Duke. In the summer of 1069, having received help from the Polish king Boleslav, Izyaslav returned to Kyiv and brutally dealt with the participants in the uprising: “And when Mstislav came, he killed the kiyans, who flogged Vseslav, numbering 70 children, and others were killed, others were killed without guilt, without experiencing ". Izyaslav ordered to move the trade from Podol to the mountain, i.e., within the princely part of the city. This action was aimed at bringing one of the most important centers under government control. public life Kyiv and hinder the influence of the merchants on the “black” people. It was not possible to fully achieve this goal.
From Kyiv the uprising spread to the villages, where it reached even greater proportions. Population Kyiv land decisively dealt with the Poles stationed in the surrounding villages for feeding, and forced Boleslav to return to his homeland. To no lesser extent, the anger of the people was directed against “their” oppressors, especially the adherents of Izyaslav.
Significant unrest occurred in 1070-1071. in Rostov land. They were led, as in 1024, by the Magi. Having traveled from Yaroslavl to Beloozero and gathering about 300 people around them, the servants of the pagan cult accused the “best wives” of usurping significant food reserves in their hands - “how to keep life, and here honey, and here fish, and come soon." The uprising was suppressed by the boyar Jan Vyshatic. In this movement, according to researchers, the Smerds protested against property inequality and fought for the redistribution of life reserves that were in the hands of the rich.
Almost simultaneously with the unrest in Kyiv and Rostov, they also occurred in Novgorod. The rebellion was raised by a sorcerer who agitated among the population against the Christian faith. The scope of this movement was significant. The chronicle reports that the sorcerer forced people to deal with the bishop. In this conflict, the prince and the squad took the side of the bishop, and the common population took the side of the sorcerer: “And they were divided in two; Prince Gleb and his squad went to the bishop and stasha, and all the people went to the sorcerer. And there was great rebellion among them."
Popular movements of the 70s of the 11th century. in various parts of the vast Old Russian state, whatever color they took, were objectively caused by the strengthening of feudal exploitation. The maintenance of a large unproductive population - princes, boyars, merchants-usurers, managerial personnel, clergy - fell heavily on the shoulders of the working people.
In 1113, a new major unrest broke out in Kyiv, affecting various segments of the population. The reason for it was the death of the Grand Duke Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, who “in Kiev created a lot of violence against people... the houses of the powerful (to the ground) were uprooted from the innocent and we took away many names, and for this sake, let the filthy force be used, and there was a lot of warfare from the Polovtsians, to Thus, there was strife in those times, and there was great hunger and great poverty in everything in the Russian land.”
The stories of the chronicle and the Pechersk Patericon indicate that Svyatopolk pursued a policy of expanding the rights of Kyiv merchants and moneylenders, which did not satisfy either the democratic lower classes, who were directly in contact with the predatory habits of the new class, or the feudal upper classes of Kyiv, who did not want to cede their eternal leading influence in the state.
The spearhead of the uprising of 1113 was directed against the princely administration, headed by the governor Putyata, as well as merchants and moneylenders. The expansion of popular unrest caused concern among large feudal lords, who sent ambassadors to the Pereyaslavl prince Vladimir Monomakh with a proposal to occupy the Kiev table. The nobility hoped that Monomakh would be able to suppress the uprising: “yes, when he entered, he would establish sedition among the people.” The compiler of “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” emphasizes that these hopes were justified. Monomakh really pacified the Kyiv lower classes.
Following the people of Kiev came rural population land. The bulk of the rebellious peasants, undoubtedly, were purchasers and hirelings, driven to despair by their creditor masters and demanding restrictions on the arbitrariness of large landowners.
In the 30s of the 12th century. worsened social contradictions in Novgorod. The reason for them was the situation with the replacement of the Novgorod princely table by Vsevolod Mstislavich. In 1132, the boyars hostile to the prince managed to take advantage of the discontent of the people and expel the prince from Novgorod. After some time, Vsevolod’s supporters managed to cope with the rebels, but already in 1136 a new uprising broke out against the prince and his administration. Taking advantage of the anger of the people, the boyars captured Vsevolod with his wife and children and put them in custody in the Sofia house. Among the accusations brought against him by the rebels was that he “does not watch the stink.” Here we are talking about, as L.V. believed. Cherepnin, about the desire of the Novgorod boyars to prevent the transition of the smerds - tributaries of the Novgorod land - to the number of dependent princely peasants.
Special social activity characterized the situation in 1146-1147. in the south of Rus'. The struggle of various boyar groups and their proteges on the grand-ducal table for power stirred up the Kyiv lower classes to active action. In 1146, the rebels of Kiev destroyed the courts of representatives of the administration of Prince Igor Olgovich, which, led by Tiun Ratsha, literally ruined the common population. The unrest continued in next year. Their culmination was the murder of Igor. The boyar group, which supported Izyaslav Mstislavich, managed to give the discontent of the masses some “anti-Chernigov” direction, but in that they also pursued their own own interests, there can be no doubt.
Another chronicle mention of the uprising in Kyiv dates back to 1157. It began, as in 1113, immediately after the death of the Grand Duke. You can get an idea of the scope and social character of this uprising of the masses from the following lines: “And a lot of evil was done on that day: he plundered his courtyard (Yuri Dolgoruky. - P.T.), he plundered his red and other courtyard beyond the Dnieper, he himself calls it Paradise, and he plundered his son’s Vasilkov courtyard in the city; beat up the Judgments in cities and villages, and plunder their goods.” The uprising of 1157, directed against supporters of the deceased prince, was not limited to Kiev, but spread to other cities and villages of the Kiev region. This was a natural response of the working people to the excessive strengthening of the administration of Yuri Dolgoruky.
The reason for widespread popular unrest in the Vladimir land was the murder of Andrei Bogolyubsky by the boyars in 1174. As soon as the trade and craft population of Bogolyubov and Vladimir learned about the death of the prince, they began to inflict reprisals on the princely administration and plunder its yards. Soon the peasants of the surrounding villages joined the rebel townspeople. Among the measures of the new prince Vsevolod Yuryevich is the rationing of duties levied from the population in favor of the princely administration when they consider court cases, which indicates some concessions from the Vladimir elite.
In 1207 and 1228 There were major popular movements in Novgorod. In the first case, the rebels opposed the mayor Dmitry Miroshkinich and his brothers, who imposed exorbitant tributes on the urban and rural population, in the second - against Archbishop Arseny and the mayor Vyacheslav, who had huge food reserves while the people were starving. The movement of the “black people” of Novgorod in 1228 was in a certain connection with some unrest of the smerds of the earth. This is evidenced by the newly elected mayor’s demand to the prince not to send his judges to the volosts, as well as the provision of certain benefits to the smerds in the payment of tribute.
Thus, even based on incomplete information from the chronicle, one can conclude that the struggle of the lower classes with ruling class was constant and certainly one of the most important factors in the social and political history of Ancient Rus'. In response to brutal exploitation, the common population actively participated in the class struggle. Popular uprisings and the constant threat of new uprisings forced the feudal ruling elite to make some concessions and make changes to legislation that limited the arbitrariness of patrimonial owners, the princely administration and moneylenders in relation to the rural and urban population.
At the same time, we have to admit that popular movements in Rus', due to the conditions of the time, were still very unorganized. Being an objectively large social force, the lower classes were extremely immature politically. They did not have any clear program. Their demands usually did not go beyond the removal of specific princes or persons in the princely administration who were involved in abuses, and a reduction in the norms of feudal exploitation.
Speaking about popular movements in Rus' in the X-XIII centuries. as class ones, they cannot nevertheless be characterized as anti-feudal. In conditions when feudalism was a formation that had not yet exhausted its progressive possibilities, and the alternative to it could only be primitive communal relations, anti-feudal movements, if such had taken place, would have been regressive phenomena. In fact, none of the movements considered set themselves the goal of replacing the existing orders with some fundamentally different ones. The population of Ancient Rus' did not fight against the feudal system as such, but against specific representatives feudal class, against exploitation, the exorbitant increase of which led to the impoverishment of the masses and objectively undermined the viability of the system itself. Under these conditions, the constructive beginning of popular uprisings lay not only in their class orientation, but also in the fact that they contributed to the establishment of more expedient forms of socio-economic relations in Rus'.
Notes
There, Stb. 163.
PVL, part 1, p. 117.
There, p. 120.
Monuments of Russian literature of the 12th and 13th centuries. - St. Petersburg, 1872, p. 152.
. Cherepnin L.V. Decree. cit., p. 250.
PSRL, vol. 2, stb. 489.
. Tikhomirov M.N. Peasant and urban uprisings in Rus' in the XI-XIII centuries. - M., 1945, p. 254-262.