The manual is devoted to the history of Kievan Rus from its origin to the Mongol invasion. The book defines the typological features of the ancient Russian society, the features and the most important eras in its development.

* * *

The following excerpt from the book History of Civilization in Ancient Russia (A. N. Polyakov, 2011) provided by our book partner - the company LitRes.

Chapter 1 The Formation of Old Russian Civilization

§ 1 Prerequisites for the formation of Kievan Rus

Socio-economic background. Civilization, which we used to call Kievan Rus, arose on the site where the political associations of the Eastern Slavs already existed. By the time when the formation of new forms of life began, the East Slavic society had reached the necessary level of development, sufficient for a civilization to arise and exist here. We are talking about political and socio-economic conditions, without which it would be impossible to maintain the newly emerged structure of society and ensure sustainable development.

First the prerequisite that created the conditions for the formation of civilization among the Eastern Slavs is the participation of the Slavs in international trade. The role of international trade routes that passed through the lands of the Eastern Slavs is expressed in the fact that they gave rise to military trading communities, often consisting of people of different tribes - cut off from productive labor, united by a common cause, soldered by blood and military brotherhood. Their existence can be judged on the basis of a number of sources. So, Ibn Ruste tells that the Rus often attack the Slavs, take them prisoner and take them for sale to Khazaria and Volga Bulgaria. Gardizi reports that the Rus go to the Slavs in a hundred or two hundred people, and the Slavs come to the Rus and serve them. On the basis of these communities in Russia, a dominant layer was formed, which became the social core of ancient Russian civilization.

The existence of military trading communities is not a sufficient condition for the formation of a civilization. In order for a stratum of people to live off the labor of others, it is necessary that the direct producer does more than he himself needs. Second the most important condition for the stratification of society and the emergence of civilization is development ofdriving economy, in our case, agriculture- the main occupation of the Eastern Slavs. Otherwise, all these military-trading communities would be doomed sooner or later to merge with the ruling people without any consequences for the social order.

According to archaeological excavations, changes in agriculture among the Eastern Slavs begin from the ninth century. First of all, this is due to the transition to the use winter rye, which was a common phenomenon for both Slavs and Scandinavians. Rye ripens earlier than other breads and can stand on the vine for quite a long time. Knowing this, farmers left rye for the time being and began to harvest other crops. Rye is stable, almost always productive. Without requiring spring-summer preparation, rye gave an acceptable yield on any soil. The Russian people called rye "mother", she saved people more than once in difficult years. “Mother rye feeds all fools entirely, and wheat - by choice,” says a Russian proverb. Or: “The field is red with rye ...”, “when the rye, then the measure ...”, “he is good who gave birth to rye”. Winter rye has a cleaning ability and less spring crops are demanding on the availability of nutrients and therefore are more suitable for growing on cultivated soils. Sowing of winter crops is most often carried out according to couple, and therefore the use of winter rye indirectly indicates the transition of the Eastern Slavs to an intensive farming system - three-field crop rotation. The use of the steam system increased the productivity of the land in 10 - 15 times.

The first finds of winter rye date back to the 9th century (Svila I settlement, Vitebsk region). In the X-XIII centuries, it goes to first place among grain crops, and in the XIII-XV centuries, the amount of winter rye exceeded the total amount of spring rye. The dynamics of changes in the share of winter rye in crops exactly coincides with the dynamics of the development of ancient Russian civilization: the growth of cities, the development of crafts, architecture, culture and art. This indicates the interdependence of these processes. The use of winter rye, which gave stable yields, the transition to a steam system (three-field system) is growing in sync with an increase in the number of cities, and hence the proportion of people freed from work. Sufficiently high grain yields made it possible to use someone else's labor in agriculture, which turned urban farmers into landowners. Winter rye made it possible to feed not only the plowmen themselves and the owners of the land, but also artisans, artists, builders, servants, buffoons, etc., who made the life of these owners brighter and richer. In essence, ancient Russian civilization grew up on rye, to paraphrase The Tale of Igor's Campaign, - it was nurtured on rye, fed on rye, with rye ears of swaddling clothes. She kept on. Mother Rye fed Mother Russia.

The spread of winter rye was accompanied by other innovations. Of particular importance is the appearance bow and harness harness, which made it possible to use a horse as a draft force, which in this capacity is twice as effective as a bull or an ox. The use of the horse as a draft force made it possible to significantly expand the area under crops. At the same time, it appears plow, with which it was possible to cultivate heavy soils.

political background. First a political prerequisite should be considered accumulation of sufficient experience in uniting large social groups on the basis of a territorial sign. The basis of the political system that Russia absorbed into itself was the tradition of intertribal unification of the Slavs. A. A. Gorsky suggests calling such associations “tribal principalities” or “Slavinia”. Information about them is extremely scarce. Greek authors, in particular Procopius of Caesarea, called democracy (democracy) the main feature of the political system of the Slavs and Antes. He wrote that the Slavs and Antes are not ruled by one person, but since ancient times they live in democracy (democracy), and therefore they consider happiness and unhappiness in life to be a common thing. It means that the Slavs are used to solving matters that concern everyone at general meetings.

Sources also know the leaders of the Slavs - the princes. The Greeks called them rixes or archons. In Latin sources they are kings (rex). Some of them are known by name. These are Ardagast (Radigost), Piragast (Pirogost), Dervan, Davrit (Dobrit, Dobroslav?), Slavun and others. One of them, perhaps, is not a name, but a title - Valduk, i.e. Lord. All of them led the troops, engaged in litigation and were probably elected to their post. There is information about the king of the Slavs and the Khagan of the Rus. Ibn Ruste calls the Slavic king "the head of heads". According to him, he is crowned, has an assistant - supanej, who is his deputy. Every year the "lord" of the Slavs travels around his country, collecting gifts in the form of clothes. Along the way, he is involved in litigation. A similar position, according to Ibn Ruste, was occupied by the Khagan of the Rus. Ibn Fadlan writes about him somewhat differently. The king of the Rus lives in the palace, around him are four hundred men from among his associates. Each of them has two girls. They all sit next to the bed of the kagan. It is huge and adorned with precious gems. Forty girls are sitting on this bed with him. Sometimes he uses one of them as a concubine in the presence of his companions. The Khagan of the Rus never leaves his bed. He has a deputy who directs the troops, attacks the enemies and replaces him in all other matters.

The boundaries and chronological framework of the existence of associations of this kind are the subject of controversy. According to V. V. Mavrodin, in the fight against the Avars in the 6th century in Volhynia, in the Carpathian region, a powerful political association of the Eastern Slavs-Antes was created under the leadership of the Duleb Volynians. He considers this political association the initial stage of Russian statehood. Even before the revolution of 1917, A. A. Shakhmatov expressed a similar idea. By the 7th century, there is an association headed by someone Samo. As follows from the "Chronicle of Fredegar" in 623 (624) he was elected king by the Slavs and reigned for 35 years. He had 12 wives who bore him 22 sons and 15 daughters. As a king, he received ambassadors, conducted all kinds of trials (court), led the army - fought with Avars and Franks. Intertribal associations, obviously, were the annalistic East Slavic peoples: Drevlyans, Krivichi, Northerners, Vyatichi and others. The author of The Tale of Bygone Years points to the existence of independent principalities among them and calls them lands, like Russia. In the 9th century, the so-called Russian Khaganate became famous. According to O. Pritsak, it was located in the interfluve of the Volga, Trubezh and Kotorosl. D. A. Machinsky, A. N. Kirpichnikov and K. Zukerman believe that it was located in the Volga-Ilmensky basin, and Ladoga was its capital. B. A. Rybakov, H. Lovmyansky and P. P. Tolochko attribute the Khaganate of the Rus to the middle Dnieper and consider it the immediate predecessor of Kievan Rus. E. S. Galkina places the Russian Khaganate in the upper reaches of the Donets, Oskol and on the middle and upper Don, linking it with the Salto-Mayak archaeological culture. V. V. Sedov considers the bearers of the Volintsevo culture to be the creators of the Russian Khaganate. In his opinion, it was located between the Dnieper and the Don. Be that as it may, the existence of such political unions suggests that the Eastern Slavs had a certain experience, and we know approximately what it was, and it could form the basis of the emerging political system of Kievan Rus.

Second political prerequisite, which played a great role in the formation of civilization among the Eastern Slavs, is military activity, which made it possible to quickly accumulate material resources necessary for the maintenance of the state and social strata freed from productive labor. According to Menander Protector, a Byzantine historian of the second half of the 6th century, before the invasion of the Avars, the Slavic lands abounded in money, because the Slavs had long robbed the Romans ... their land was not devastated by any other people. Slavic raids on the Eastern Empire are known under 547, 549, 550, 578, 581, 583, 589 and other years. Under 844, Al-Jacobi reports an attack by the Rus on Seville in Spain. The "Life of George of Amastrid" refers to the attack of the Rus on the southern coast of the Black Sea in the early 40s of the IX century. On June 18, 860, the Rus attacked Constantinople. The Tale of Bygone Years connects this campaign with the Kyiv princes Askold and Dir. Under the years 912-913, Masudi tells about the campaign of the Rus to the Caspian Sea. The campaigns of Oleg and Igor against Tsargrad are well known.

Thus, the ancient Russian civilization arose on the basis of the socio-economic and political development of the East Slavic tribes. The most important socio-economic prerequisites were: the involvement of the Eastern Slavs in international trade and the development of agriculture, associated with the beginning of the use of winter rye and the transition to three-field cultivation. The main political prerequisites were: the experience of creating proto-state associations (the power of the Volhynians, the Russian Khaganate, the East Slavic lands) and the increased military activity of the Eastern Slavs.

§ 2 Time and signs of the birth of civilization in Russia

Cities. The most important feature of civilization is the presence cities . The emergence of the city actually dates back to the beginning of civilization. Soviet science made a huge contribution to the study of the ancient Russian city. Among the historians who studied it are such prominent representatives of Soviet historiography as B. D. Grekov, V. T. Pashuto, B. A. Rybakov, M. N. Tikhomirov, M. Kh. Aleshkovsky, V. V. Karlov, A V. Kuza, M. G. Rabinovich, P. P. Tolochko, I. Ya. Froyanov, V. L. Yanin and many others.

Figure 2 - The estate of a simple citizen

First the most important feature of the ancient Russian city, which distinguishes it from the ancestral village, is the presence courtyard and street buildings. The courtyard is the embodiment of the new position of the family and, as a result, the new territorial system of relations in the community. According to archaeological excavations, at least until the end of the 9th century, there are no clear signs of the presence of courtyards, and even in the 10th century they are far from always and everywhere. Estates appeared in Kyiv in the second half of the 9th - early 10th centuries. From the beginning of the 10th century, the first streets appeared in Ladoga, although traces of courtyard flooring, according to archaeologists, can be traced here as early as the 9th century.

Novgorod the Great was built up with courtyard estates in the second half of the 10th century, but courtyards in the city acquired a stable character only by the beginning of the 11th century. Polotsk at the turn of the 10th-11th centuries and Chernigov of the same time adjoin Novgorod and Kyiv. Yard plots of the 11th and subsequent centuries are ubiquitous and stable. In The Tale of Bygone Years, the courts are first mentioned under the year 945. We are talking about three estates of the Kyiv prince. The chronicle article of 946 speaks of courtyards in the Drevlyansk cities, while listing all the buildings inherent in the estate, known from archaeological finds: “klet” - an unheated room, “vezha” - a tower, a tower, “odrina” - a hayloft or bedroom.

Figure 3 - The estate of a wealthy citizen

Second the main sign of the urban character of the settlement in ancient Russia is street engineering- perhaps even more important than the courtyard, an indicator of the "cultivation" of the territory. In all cities, at least in the forest zone, archaeologists, opening ancient streets, discover wooden pavements, and on the territory of estates and along the streets all kinds of systems drainage and drainage systems. They are found in Novgorod, Pskov, Moscow, Beloozero, Minsk, Smolensk, Mstislavl, Polotsk, Vitebsk, and many other cities. In Novgorod, wooden flooring of the streets appeared in the first half of the 10th century.

Figure 4 - Part of the pavement Kholopya street in Novgorod. Photo from the excavation in 1951

The oldest pavement of Chernitsyna Street was built in 938. The first pavement of Velikaya Street at the Nerevsky end was laid in 953. On Mikhailovskaya Street, in the Trading Side - in 974. The appearance of courtyards, bridges and drainage systems in ancient Russian fortified settlements reliably determines the time when tribal fortresses grew into cities.

Additional evidence of the urban character of the fortified settlement can be considered the findings of door castles and appearance writing on things. The use of locks reflects new social conditions - the emergence of separate, and then private property and, as a result, theft (tatba). The fact is that the developed tribal system did not know theft, at least within the community. It was impossible for two reasons. First, tribal communities lived apart from each other. Units larger than the genus - the phratry and the tribe - acted as a single entity extremely rarely, and their social functions were minimal. Secondly, within the clan, theft was deprived of ground due to the nature of property. Since everything was common, it was pointless to steal. Theft could arise only after the violation of the tribal system, i.e. just as a result of the expansion of cities.

Figure 5 - Old Russian locks, keys to them and masks for locks

The appearance of inscriptions on things is connected with the rules of judicial proceedings in Russia, when the loss of one or another thing had to be declared at the auction and, most importantly, then identified. The owner's inscription or sign should have helped with this. This system is reflected in Russian Pravda (Articles 32, 34, 37. Prop. ed.) and other sources, for example, birch bark letters.

According to archaeological excavations, door locks have appeared in Russia since the beginning of the 10th century. There is not a single large settlement of the 10th-13th centuries, during the excavations of which several locks and keys would not be found. The number of found locks or keys to them increases by the beginning of the 11th century, and in the 12th-13th centuries this is already one of the most common types of finds. If in the 9th - 10th centuries there was one type of cubic lock, then by the end of the 12th - 13th centuries, locksmiths were already making about 12 types of locks for various purposes.

The earliest inscription dates back to the middle of the 10th century. This is the famous "pea" scratched on a korchag, the fragments of which were found by D. A. Avdusin in Gnezdovo, near Smolensk. Its meaning is still debatable. D. A. Avdusin and M. N. Tikhomirov believed that it means “mustard seed” or, in general, “bitter spice”. G. F. Korzukhina believed that this was something “fuel” - something like oil. A curious explanation of this word was offered at one time by the Czech researcher F. Maresh. In his version, "gorukhscha" is read as "Pea dog". In translation, this means "Goruh wrote." In other words, before us is the signature of the owner. If we use the previous reading of the inscription, we can assume that "pea" is a possessive adjective from the name "Goruh" or "Gorush". In this case, the oldest Russian inscription will also turn out to be the owner's one. In addition to Gnezdovskaya, three more inscriptions are known on korchags of the 11th-12th centuries: “Yaropolche wine” from Pinsk, “New wine Dobrilo sent to Prince Bohunka”, found in Old Ryazan, and “Blessed is this korchaga” from Kyiv. Almost all of them in one way or another talk about the owners of pots. In the 11th-12th centuries, inscriptions on things were far from uncommon. They signed the harp, spindle whorl, hryvnias, brothers, etc.

Rusinok 6 - Fragment of a korchaga with the inscription "gorukhshcha"

The time of the appearance of courtyards and pavements, castles and inscriptions on things, as well as the dynamics of their distribution shows that the formation of cities and civilization among the Eastern Slavs falls mainly on the 10th century. It was a kind of transitional period, when new relations (if we keep in mind the dynamics of distribution) gradually gain their positions and finally win by the beginning of the 11th century.

Architecture, luxury goods, writing. Information about other signs of civilization confirms the conclusion. monumental architecture in the 10th century it is known only in Kyiv. The chronicle contains information about the stone princely chamber of the middle of the 10th century, but archaeologists have not yet been able to find it. The earliest monumental building from which material evidence has come down to us is tithe church, erected in Kyiv in 996. Real rapid construction even here begins in the first half of the 11th century. Then the “city of Vladimir” was erected and the “city of Yaroslav” was created with the magnificent St. Sophia Cathedral and the Golden Gate. Kyiv becomes one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, a rival of Constantinople.

Figure 7 - Tithe church. Reconstruction by N. A. Kholostenko

Consistent with all of the above and data on production and distribution luxury goods. Old Russian jewelers possessed a high degree of skill, widely using such operations as chasing, rolling, forging, engraving, stamping, stamping, drawing, filigree, blackening, enamel, gold pointing and others. But the craft began to develop only from the 10th century. Most of the collections of jewelers' tools and devices collected by archaeologists do not go deeper than this century.

Eloquent and materials of treasures from coins, women's jewelry, silver and gold ingots. The earliest of them belong to the turn of the 9th - 10th centuries. They are extremely few (there are only eleven of them). The bulk of the clades falls on the second half of the X-ser. XIII centuries. The famous turya horns-rhytons from the Black Grave, bound with silver, date back to the second half of the 10th century. Nothing similar in elegance and beauty, craftsmanship and wealth of an earlier time was found in the lands of the Eastern Slavs.

Figure 8 - Silver binding of the tury horn from the "Black Grave"

Development Data writing in Russia, some have already been cited in connection with the distribution of signed things. The literacy of the population can also be judged on the basis of finds of birch bark letters. The first tools for birch bark writing (wrote) were found in Novgorod in the layers of 953-972, but not a single birch bark writing of the 10th century has yet been found. The oldest letters were extracted from the layers of the first half of the 11th century.

Figure 9 - Old Russian wrote and ceres

According to data for 1996, 21 letters belong to the 11th century, and already 230 to the 12th century. An increase in the number of finds that speak of the development of writing (from the first wrote and the complete absence of texts in the 10th century to dozens of letters in the 11th and already hundreds in the 12th –m) indicates a similar dynamic as in the case of the distribution of courtyards, door locks, temples, and treasure hoards.

Figure 10 - The number of birch bark letters found in Novgorod

We have before us sufficiently reliable grounds to draw a final conclusion: civilization in Ancient Russia takes shape from the end of the 9th century during the 10th century, and is fully formed at the beginning of the 11th century.

§ 3 The role of the Varangians and Russ in the creation of ancient Russian civilization

The calling of the Varangians. The message of the "Tale of Bygone Years" about the calling of Rurik by the Ilmen Slovenes and their neighbors gave rise to many opinions and endless disputes. Most scholars accept the legendary nature of the story. It is known that the message of the Russian chronicle about the calling of Rurik is not original. Almost literally, it coincides with the story of Widukind of Corvey about the invitation of the Saxons by the Britons, written in the 10th century. I. N. Danilevsky believes that the chronicler hardly knew about the work of the German chronicler, and we should talk about some common literary source for them. He considers the third verse of Psalm 111 to be such a source. G. M. Barats found another biblical parallel to the chronicle story. In his opinion, the chronicle story is based on the text of the First Book of Kings. Whether or not the ancient Russian scribe knew about the “Acts of the Saxons” written by Widukind, used it, or only the Bible was his guide, one conclusion suggests itself: the legend of the calling of the Varangians is the fruit of literary creativity, based on the book tradition. The chronicle story is the result of the comprehension of the events of the 9th century by the author of the 12th century.

The degree of reliability, accuracy and completeness of the news are presented to historians in different ways. M. N. Pokrovsky wrote that the whole story is undoubtedly stylized, and so much so that it is almost impossible to discern its historical basis. S. V. Yushkov believed that the chronicler's story was entirely legendary and it was difficult to separate truth from fiction in it. D.S. Likhachev thought about the same. B. D. Grekov correctly recognized the fact that the Novgorodians hired Varangian auxiliary detachments. V. V. Mavrodin and I. Ya. Froyanov are close to his opinion. Judging by the level of material culture, the Slovenes, Krivichi and other participants in the proposed recruitment could hardly have done this. They lived at that time in a primitive system and did not have the means to hire. The Slovenians of this time are dominated by rural-type settlements with chaotic buildings and poor inventory. Meanwhile, judging by later data, the Varangians demanded a lot for their services. For example, after the capture of Kyiv, they asked Vladimir Svyatoslavich for 2 hryvnias per person, which he promised to collect in a month, but could not.

Figure 11 - Monument "Millennium of Russia" in the Novgorod Kremlin, erected on September 8, 1862, 1000 years after the legendary calling of the Varangians

Archaeological sources of the 9th-10th centuries confirm the presence of the Scandinavians in the lands of the Eastern Slavs. According to the excavations of Ladoga, they lived here from the moment the settlement appeared around 750. In the northeast of Russia, Scandinavian materials first appear starting from the 9th century, but most of them belong to the 10th century. For Russia of the X-XI centuries, mainly in relation to the Novgorod north, the so-called "things-hybrids" are characteristic, which can be considered as the result of the interaction of the Scandinavian and Slavic traditions. Hybrid are the Scandinavian burials in the area of ​​Gnezdov and the Upper Volga. As excavations have shown, many burials here were made "according to a mixed rite with complex inventory", in which archaeologists see various ethnic features. The funeral ritual becomes standard, but combines multi-ethnic features by the middle of the 10th century. In Timerev, the percentage of complexes with Scandinavian things in the second half of the 10th century drops sharply. In Kyiv and Chernigov, in the mounds of the 9th - 10th centuries, a complex hierarchy of burials is formed (monumental mounds, log-house tombs, burials of warriors with horses and weapons), but they do not have any specific Scandinavian features. The materials of the Shestovitsky burial ground near Chernigov contain a number of things of Scandinavian origin, which can be considered as evidence of the complex ethnic composition of the Chernigov community. However, most of the burials here are purely Slavic. In the XII century, the "Scandinavian trace" is almost nowhere to be traced.

Russ. According to the chronicle, the Rus were finders - people who came to the lands where the Krivichi, Dregovichi, Vyatichi, Radimichi, Severyans, Drevlyans and other Slavic tribes had already settled. Where they came from is not exactly known.

Information from foreign sources about the Rus is contradictory. According to the Bertinsky Annals of Bishop Prudentius in 839, the Frankish king Louis the Pious recognized the Swedes in the dews (as they are called in Greek sources). This evidence is often used to prove the Norman origin of the Rus. However, this conclusion cannot be considered justified. According to the message, a Greek embassy came to the emperor of the Franks, along with some people who called themselves representatives of the people "ros". The emperor did not immediately understand who exactly was in front of him. After investigation, it turned out that they were Swedes. Maybe even scouts, not friendship seekers. If the name "ros" meant "Swede", then no investigation would be required to understand this. The Venetian Chronicle (the turn of the 10th - 11th centuries) of John the Deacon also calls the Rus people the Norman people. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus gives the double names of the Dnieper rapids, Slavic on the one hand, and Russian on the other. I. Thunmann suggested that the latter be Scandinavian in origin. Many modern researchers, including M. V. Bibikov, E. A. Melnikova, R. G. Skrynnikov, V. Ya. Petrukhin, I. N. Danilevsky, S. V. Dumin, A. A. Turilov and others , recognize his point of view as the most probable. Indeed, the Greeks, who knew the Slavs well at least from the 6th century, faced with the dews, saw in them an unknown people. Patriarch Photius wrote about the dews that they are an unnamed people and unknown, received a name from the time of the campaign against the Greeks. However, Photius, as noted by V. Ya. Petrukhin and D. S. Raevsky, cannot be taken literally. The name of the people "ros" was known in the Empire. It is known that in the first half of the 9th century, the dews attacked the Byzantine ports on the Black Sea coast. The same Photius in another place called the people growing "notorious." According to E. S. Galkina, Photius meant only that the dews were not famous before the attack on Constantinople.

The successor of Theophanes points to the Frankish, i.e. Germanic origin of the Ross. Describing the campaign of Prince Igor in 941, he notes that the Ross are also called dromites and they come from the tribe of the Franks. Considering the message of Ibn Fadlan, who personally observed the Rus in Bulgar in 921, many researchers note that the description of the appearance of Russian merchants most of all makes them related to the Normans.

The opposite data is also known about the Rus: in many Arabic sources they are called Slavs or speakers of the Slavic language. A number of historians believe in this regard that the Rus became Slavic rather quickly. A. E. Presnyakov believed that in the 10th century they were bilingual. The main reason for such a conclusion was the message of K. Porphyrogenitus about the Slavic and Russian names of the Dnieper rapids. According to modern researchers E. G. Galkina and A. G. Kuzmin, the real bilingualism of the Rus, whom they consider to be Alans by origin, was preserved only in the 9th century, and from the beginning of the 10th, the Rus completely switched to Slavic speech.

The proximity of the Rus to the Slavs is evidenced by the data of the Arab geographer of the 9th century, Ibn Khordadbeh. According to him, the Rus, who went to Baghdad with goods, Slavic slaves served as translators. On this basis, it can be assumed that they spoke Slavic, or at least understood Slavic speech. In the work of Ibn Khordadbeh, Russian merchants are called " view of the Slavs". In a similar story by another Arab geographer, Ibn al-Fakih, these merchants are designated as Slavic. Ibrahim ibn Yaqub mentions Russ among the peoples who speak Slavic, as they mixed with the Slavs. One of the possible ways of mixing reveals Gardisi. According to his report, many people from the Slavs come to the Rus and serve them in order to protect themselves by this service.

Indisputable proof of the belonging of the Rus to Slavic peoples in the 10th century (when the Scandinavians are most active here) is contained in the treaties of Russia with the Greeks in 911 and 944. This means that the traces of the presence of the Scandinavians in the East Slavic north and northeast, discovered by archaeologists, have nothing to do with the Rus. Both agreements were drawn up in Greek and Slavonic. The Slavic side called itself Rus: " we are from the Ruskago family"- said the ambassadors and referred to Russian law. And this Russian law, as studies have shown, refers to Slavic, not Scandinavian law. The texts of the treaties of 907 - 911 indicate that the "Varangian" prince Oleg and the "Varangian" nobility of Russia swear before the Greeks not by Odin and Thor - the Scandinavian gods, but by Perun and Volos - purely Slavic deities. It turns out that the princes who seized power in the Kievan state, and their husbands from the very beginning were pagan Slavs.

The belonging of the Rus to the Slavs is also evidenced by the political terminology that they used. All of it, without exception, is Slavic: prince, veche, squad, thousand, posadnik, sotsky, tenth. It is believed that the word "prince" of Germanic origin. However, the alleged borrowing took place back in the days of Slavic unity, since the word is common Slavic.

For a Russian chronicler of the late 11th - early 12th centuries, the Rus are undoubtedly a Slavic people. « ... And the Slovenian language and the Russian one [is] ' he writes. It can be seen that the chronicler, although he calls the Rus Varangians, clearly distinguishes them from the Swedes, and from the Norwegians, and from the Normans in general, i.e. those whom we used to call the Vikings. The Rusov chronicler considered them as finders, but did not classify them as Scandinavians or Germans. Late Western sources of the heyday of Kievan Rus also unambiguously attribute Russia to the Slavs.

Language and religion, especially national, are objective signs of belonging to a particular nation. The Slavic speech of the Rus, the customs and gods in which they believed, irrefutably prove that the Rus in the 10th century are Slavs.

Russian civilization is formed as a result interactions Slavs with the local population (mainly Finns, Balts, Sarmatians (?)) and Scandinavian finders. At the same time, the Slavs were undoubtedly the dominant force.

The emergence of the social core of civilization. The emergence of cities and other phenomena noted above testify to changes in social relations, the main meaning of which is the allocation of a social group that allows the individual who is part of it to receive a high degree of freedom. It was a new nobility, representing the social core of ancient Russian civilization.

The data of written sources about Ancient Russia of the 10th-13th centuries include mentions of the best people, deliberate husbands, boyars, firemen and others. The great boyars and simply boyars (bolyars) are known from the earliest sources - the treaties of Russia with the Greeks of 911, 944 and 971. Along with them, the Light and Grand Dukes and "every prince" are mentioned here. Almost all of these categories of the population do not leave the pages of written sources until the Mongol invasion, and in some cases much later.

The basis of the social core in Russia was boyars. In the sources they appear as warriors, large landowners, usurers, statesmen. Among the privileges of the boyars is the right to participate in the management of society - as officials (posadniks, thousand, sotsky, etc.), advisers to the prince and participants in veche meetings. The boyars' favorite recreational activities were hunting and feasting. The origin of the boyars is controversial. "Boyarin" is a common Slavic word and, most likely, dates back to the era of primitiveness. In a tribal society, the boyar is the first in the community, perhaps the eldest in the family. According to V. V. Kolesov, "boyar", "boyar" - the one who is the largest, "the strongest representative of the family." At the root of this word is “pain”, the meaning is concluded: big, strong. However, this does not mean at all that the boyars descended from a local tribal elder. Most likely, the ancient Russian boyars were the origin from city founders and pioneers. If you pay attention to how the first cities appeared in Russia and how they were settled, we can conclude that the Russian boyars became the “best people” who were “cut” in them by the Kyiv princes (for more details, see the next paragraph). In other words, this there was a tribal aristocracy, cut off from their tribe and not associated with the local population, who assumed a different social status. The basis of the Kyiv boyars was the warriors who came with Oleg - representatives of his diverse squad and the local tribal nobility.

§ 4 The emergence of cities

The problem of the emergence of the first Russian cities is still controversial. V. O. Klyuchevsky believed that they arose as a result of the success of the eastern trade of the Slavs, as points of storage and departure of Russian export. In Soviet times, M.N. Tikhomirov opposed this. In his opinion, trade did not bring cities to life, it only created the conditions for singling out the largest and richest from them. He considered the development of agriculture and handicrafts in the field of economy and feudalism in the field of social relations to be the real force that brought Russian cities to life. The specific paths of the emergence of cities seemed to Soviet historians to be quite diverse. According to N. N. Voronin, cities in Russia were built on the basis of trade and craft settlements, feudal castles or princely fortresses. E. I. Goryunova, M. G. Rabinovich, V. T. Pashuto, A. V. Kuza, V. V. Sedov and others agreed with him, to one degree or another. M. Yu. Braichevskii singles out one of the listed possibilities. Most of the cities, from his point of view, arose around the early feudal fortresses-castles. V. L. Yanin and M. Kh. Aleshkovsky believe that the Old Russian city developed not from princely castles or trade and craft settlements, but from the administrative veche centers of rural districts-graveyards, places of concentration of tribute and its collectors. V. V. Mavrodin, I. Ya. Froyanov and A. Yu. Dvornichenko believe that the cities in Russia at the end of the 9th - 10th centuries. built on a tribal basis. They arose as a result of the formation of tribal unions, as vital bodies coordinating and directing the activities of the unions.

Kyiv. According to archaeological data on the appearance of manor buildings, bridges, drainage systems, etc., in relation to the 10th century, we can talk about the existence of only five real cities. At the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century, Kyiv and Ladoga arose, in the first half of the century - Novgorod, and at the end of the century - Polotsk and Chernigov.

Author of "The Tale of Bygone Years" calls the first Russian city Kyiv, and considers the founder of the Russian land Oleg. This follows from the words that he puts into the mouth of the prophetic prince: And Oleg, the prince, sat down in Kyiv and Oleg said:This will be the mother of Russian cities ". And he had- continues the chronicler, - Varangians, and Slovenes, and others who were nicknamedRussia »2. By "others" he meant other participants in the campaign (Chud, I measure, Krivichi) and polyan. It turns out that " Russian land" arose as a result of the merger of heterogeneous clans with the arrival of Oleg and his troops in Kyiv. The meaning of the phenomenon is clear. It has been well known since ancient times and is usually called the Greek word "sinoikism". The expression "mother of Russian cities", like the Greek "metropolis" (from meter - mother and polis - city) - means the founding city. The words of the Prophetic Oleg “Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities” is a kind of prophecy that predicts Kyiv the laurels of the founder of all Russian cities (or older cities).

Such information also penetrated into the chronicle that does not fit into the concept of the Kyiv scribe. Based on the Greek chronicles, he tells that the Russian land became known during the reign of the Roman Emperor Michael. According to the chronicle, in 866 (according to Greek sources in 860), the Rus attacked Constantinople. These Russ are connected by the chronicler with the Kyiv princes Askold and Dir. If this was indeed the case, it turns out that the Russian land arose at least a quarter of a century before the arrival of Oleg.

The story about Oleg's campaign against Kyiv is contradictory, and as it turns out, it is full of legendary details that never really happened. The chronicler claims that Oleg took Smolensk and Lyubech along the way and planted his husbands there. However, these cities did not exist at that time. According to the chronicle, Oleg went to Kyiv with a large army - "we will drink a lot of howls." But, having come to the mountains of Kyiv, for some reason he began to hide him in the boats and pretend to be a merchant. Firstly, if this multi-tribal army was really large, it was not so easy to hide it. Secondly, if it was really significant, why didn’t Oleg take Kyiv openly - by siege or attack, as he allegedly did with Lyubech and Smolensk, the news of the capture of which would have reached the Kyiv princes before the largest army? Most likely, Oleg's campaign was in fact a robber raid of a small detachment, consisting of representatives of Slovenes, Krivichi, Varangians, Mary, etc. But not a state enterprise. In this case, it makes sense to pretend to be merchants, especially since to a certain extent this actually happened. The raids of the Rus on the Slavs, which are described by Eastern authors, were directly related to the trade interests of the latter.

According to archaeological excavations, Kyiv arose on the site of a nest of Slavic settlements located in the 7th - 9th centuries on the Starokievskaya mountain and its slopes, the Kiselevka, Detinka, Shchekovitsa and Podol mountains. The settlements were interspersed with empty spaces, arable land and burial grounds. The ancient settlement was located in the north-west of the Starokievskaya mountain. According to B. A. Rybakov, it dates from the end of the 5th - beginning. 6th century At the end of the 9th century, Kyiv Podil developed rapidly, yard buildings and street planning appeared here.

In 969 - 971, during the reign of the famous warrior prince Svyatoslav Igorevich, Kyiv almost lost its status as the "middle" of the Russian land. Not only the prince and his family could leave him, but also the best part of the local nobility. The Kiev boyars were ready to change their place of residence to a more attractive one, having agreed, together with the prince, to settle in another city - Pereyaslavets on the Danube. Both Svyatoslav and his squad were only waiting for the death of the sick mother of the prince. The reason why such an outcome did not take place was the failure of the Russians in the fight against the Roman Empire. The reason why such an outcome could have taken place was that the Kyiv squad by that time had not yet completely settled on the ground and the old squad ideals of loyalty and brotherhood meant more to it than their own villages in the district of Kyiv.

Figure 12 - The central part of Kyiv in the XII century

Under Vladimir, not only religion was changed, but the final step was taken towards the settlement of the Russian squad. The development of Kyiv, its strengthening and growth begins at this time. This can be seen from the construction undertaken by the prince. First, a pagan sanctuary "outside the courtyard" of the Terem was built, then the Church of the Tithes and the fortifications of the "city of Vladimir".

A real leap in the development of Kyiv occurred in the era of Yaroslav the Wise after a period of temporary decline caused by the shock of the introduction of Christianity and the struggle of the sons of Vladimir for the Kievan inheritance. Then the boundaries of the city are noticeably expanding. The plan becomes sustainable. The center is being finalized - the "city of Vladimir" and the "city of Yaroslav" with the Golden Gate and the grandiose St. Sophia Cathedral. The fortifications of Kyiv increase in area by 7 times.

Ladoga. Judging by archaeological data, Ladoga arose at the same time as Kyiv. This is the only possible place where the legendary Rurik could come, and from where Prophetic Oleg could go on a campaign against Kyiv. The calling of Rurik to Ladoga, and not Novgorod, is mentioned in the Ipatiev and Radzivilov chronicles.

Archaeological excavations have shown that Ladoga as a settlement appears in the middle of the VIII century, but at that time, along with the Slavs, the Balts, Finns and Scandinavians lived here. Archaeologists have discovered both Slavic square log cabins with a stove in the corner, and large Scandinavian-style houses. The Slavs began to dominate here in the 10th century. The first fortress in Ladoga was built at the turn of the 9th - 10th centuries. Gradually, Ladoga becomes a Slavic city. The first streets appear, stretching along the banks of the Volkhov, and courtyard and estate buildings, typical of ancient Russian cities.

When Rurik came to Ladoga, it was an international trading post, with a more or less permanent agricultural and trade and craft population. Oleg left her together with his gang even when Ladoga did not represent a single organism. And only with his direct participation, it acquires urban features. Most likely, it was Oleg who built a stone fortress here, dated by archaeologists to the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries, which became the first step towards Slavic predominance. Oleg and his people took the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" under their control - this is the goal of strengthening the northernmost point of this trading system. In the X century, the Kyiv community persistently sought to master the East Slavic lands, rebuilding fortresses in the most important places, from the point of view of Kyiv. The most ancient Russian cities (Kyiv fortresses) ensured the dominance of Kyiv among the Slavic tribes.

Novgorod. Information about the construction of Novgorod is contradictory. Initially, according to chronicles, the Novgorod fortress was built by the Slovenes who came to these places, then Rurik set up his fortifications here. Finally, in 1044 Novgorod was once again laid by Vladimir, son of Yaroslav the Wise. Slovenian Novgorod is a ancestral village or tribal center, the location of which is unknown. Rurik's Novgorod is associated by many with the "Rurik settlement", located 2 km from ancient Russian Novgorod. Excavations have shown that a settlement existed here already in the middle of the 9th century. Along with the Slavs, who built wooden log cabins here (the walls are 4-6 meters long) and left behind molded dishes and socketed arrowheads, characteristic of the Western Slavs, a certain number of Scandinavians lived here. The Scandinavian trace is represented by torcs with pendants in the form of Thor's hammers, equal-armed and shell-shaped brooches, playing checkers, pendants with runic spells, etc. Only the last message pertains to the now-famous Novgorod citadel. It has been confirmed by archaeological excavations. Novgorod of Vladimir Yaroslavich is the oldest citadel, which occupied the northwestern part of the modern citadel and included St. Sophia Cathedral and the episcopal court. V. L. Yanin and M. Kh. Aleshkovsky believe that a pagan temple used to be on the site of the St. Sophia Cathedral, i.e. this part of the detinets was the center of the boyar farms surrounding it in pre-Christian times. There was also an older citadel. The first fortress of detinets could have been erected on this site during the reign of Oleg or Igor.

Figure 13 - Old Russian Novgorod

Initially, Novgorodians were part of the Kyiv city community. The unity of Kyiv and Novgorod of the 10th century is evidenced by the chronicle reports about the tributes established by Oleg, and then Olga, quitrents, traps and banners of the Kyiv princes in the Novgorod land. The connection with the "mother" was mainly political. Posadniks were sent from Kyiv. If it was a prince, for example, Svyatoslav, Vladimir, Yaroslav, this flattered the Novgorodians and made them more independent. The personality of the prince gave the city completeness - both political and spiritual: the pagans believed in a mystical connection between the ruler and the good of society.

Polotsk. For the first time, Polotsk is mentioned in the Tale of Bygone Years under the year 862 among the cities subject to Rurik. It is also on the list of Russian cities to which the Greek tribute taken by Oleg in 907 was intended. Under the year 980, the chronicle speaks of the first prince of Polotsk, Rogvolod, who allegedly came "from beyond the sea."

Figure 14 - Old Russian Polotsk

Systematic archaeological study of the city began in Soviet times. A. N. Lyavdansky, M. K. Karger, P. A. Rappoport, L. V. Alekseev and others excavated here. According to archaeological data, the original settlement in Polotsk arose in the 9th century on the right bank of the river. Cloths. The oldest Slavic strata date back to the 10th century. Detinets at the mouth of the Polota River was built in the second half of the 10th century. It became the center of the future city. Polotsk acquires city features in the late 10th - early 11th centuries, when courtyard and manor buildings spread and pavements were built. Polotsk was founded to control the trade route "from the Varangians to the Arabs" (as I. V. Dubov puts it), which passed from the Baltic Sea along the Western Dvina, through the portage along the Volga to the Caspian Sea.

Chernigov. The city was first mentioned in the annals under the year 907, among the Russian cities - recipients of Greek tribute. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus speaks of Chernigov as one of the “Russian fortresses”, from where Slavic one-trees come to Constantinople. The first event associated with the city dates back to 1024. Then Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich, not accepted in Kyiv, " gray hair on the table Chernihiv».

Figure 15 - Old Russian Chernigov (According to B. A. Rybakov)

The city has long attracted the attention of researchers. Mass excavations of the Chernihiv mounds were carried out in the 70s of the XIX century by D. Ya. Samokvasov. Detinets was studied by B. A. Rybakov. Architectural monuments were studied by N. V. Kholostenko and P. D. Baranovsky. In our time, excavations in Chernigov are led by V.P. Kovalenko. P. V. Golubovsky, D. I. Bagalei, M. N. Tikhomirov, A. N. Nasonov, V. V. Mavrodin, A. K. Zaitsev, M. Yu. Cuza and others.

Archaeological excavations have shown that on the territory of Chernihiv in the VIII-IX centuries there were several settlements of the Romny culture, traditionally associated with the tribes of the northerners. At the end of the 9th century, they cease to exist as a result of a military defeat. Their place is occupied by monuments of the Old Russian type. The first fortifications in the area of ​​the Chernigov citadel, apparently, were built at the beginning of the 10th century (there is no exact data on this). It is believed that in the 80s and 90s of the 10th century the citadel was rebuilt by Prince Vladimir. Chernihiv acquires urban character at the beginning of the 11th century, like Polotsk. The city probably followed the movement along the Desna and held the exit to the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", connecting it through the Ugra and Oka with the Volga route.

Forced Synoykism. Among the first Kyiv fortresses are Vyshgorod and Pskov. AT Vyshgorod there are no undisturbed deposits of the 10th century, there are only isolated finds. AT Pskov the first fortifications date back to the beginning or middle of the 10th century, but the settlement becomes a city only in the 11th century.

At the end of the 10th century, Vladimir Svyatoslavich built a number of fortresses near Kyiv to protect it from Pecheneg raids. Among them were Belgorod and Pereyaslavl. Archaeological excavations have confirmed the information of the chronicle. Belgorod was built on the site of a Slavic settlement (8.5 hectares in area), located on a cape formed by a ravine and the bank of the river. Irpin. According to excavations, at the end of the 10th century, fortifications of the citadel (12.5 hectares) and the first roundabout city were built here. The ramparts of the city had internal log structures and powerful mud-brick masonry. Ancient fortifications Pereyaslavl also belong to the end of the 10th century.

Figure 16 - Foundation of Belgorod by Prince Vladimir. Miniature of the Radzivilov Chronicle

Chronicle reports about the construction of Belgorod and information under the year 988 make it possible to find out exactly how Kyiv created its colonies. According to the chronicle, Vladimir " chop”, i.e. collected, scored people in Belgorod from other cities. He did the same when settling other, nameless cities, the construction of which is reported in the article of 988. Therefore, Vladimir united into one whole representatives of various tribes and clans, i.e. artificially did what had previously happened by itself in Kyiv. Before us is the real forced synokism, similar to those arranged by the Seleucids in their kingdom more than a thousand years before.

Information from the chronicles about other ancient Russian cities has not been confirmed as a result of archaeological excavations. First fortifications Smolensk dated by archaeologists at the turn of the 11th-12th centuries. The settlement of Podil dates back to the middle of the 11th century. As you know, the ancient Russian Smolensk was preceded by Gnezdovo X-XI centuries - an open trade and craft settlement with a multinational population. However, Gnezdovo cannot be recognized as the original Smolensk. In fact, it was a settlement closely associated with the interests of international trade and distant predatory campaigns. It was primarily trading place, a trading post and had no direct relation to the future of Smolensk. Beloozero(up. under 862) in the X century - the village of Vesi. It became an Old Russian city only in the 12th century. fortifications Izborsk were built at the turn of the 10th-11th centuries, although the settlement has been known here since the 8th century. Rostov According to archaeological data, it appears no earlier than the 11th century. It is preceded by the Sarskoye settlement of the 9th-10th centuries, but, like Gnezdovo in relation to Smolensk, it cannot be recognized as the original Rostov. The oldest layers Turov belong to the turn of the 10th-11th centuries, and the fortifications of the city were built no earlier than the 11th century. fortifications Lyubech were also built in the 11th century.

§ 5 Formation of the territory of Kievan Rus

Method for determining the boundaries of ancient Russian civilization. Evidence of the belonging of a certain territory to the ancient Russian civilization and, consequently, to the Kyiv state is the appearance here cities. East Slavic unions did not know real cities. All urban settlements known to us in Eastern Europe are Old Russian. They are similar in structure and material culture. The territory of the ancient Russian state can be tentatively determined by comparing data on the construction of a city in the land of an East Slavic tribe and the borders of a tribal association.

First stage. Based on the fact that at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th centuries there were only five cities, we can conclude that the territory of Russia was hardly large at that time. Moreover, it could not have been so at the turn of the 9th - 10th centuries, when only two cities are known. It all started from a small point - this is the northwestern part of the Starokievskaya mountain. The territorial core of ancient Russian civilization is Kyiv. Apparently, a small district adjoined it within the borders of the land of the glades.

Revealing the borders of the tribal territory of the glades causes great difficulties for researchers. The main problem is the lack of reliable Polyan features. The elusiveness of the ethnic features of the glades, along with attempts to find such features, brought to life the version that the glades arose as a result of a mixture of different Slavic tribes or that the glades did not exist at all. The absence of reliable signs by which it would be possible to delineate the territory of the “most important” East Slavic tribal union is really suspicious. However, this seemingly hopeless dispute has one positive result. The "territory without a face" with its center in Kyiv is distinguished by the fact that it combines the features of various Slavic and non-Slavic tribes. This reflects the initial stage of the formation of a new social organism on a common Slavic basis. Before us is the territory of the inter-tribal cauldron, in which the future culture of Ancient Russia was brewed during the 9th century. Old Russian civilization is the result of the joint creativity of all the Eastern Slavs. And this result first arose in this territory. In the 9th century, it most likely did not go beyond the boundaries outlined by Yu. V. Gauthier. For the Chernigov Desene of this time, a few Romanes are characteristic, i.e. northern monuments - the tracts of Yelovshchina in Chernigov, Shestovitsa, Sednev. At the turn of the 9th - 10th centuries, they ceased to exist as a result of a military defeat. Then they were replaced by monuments of the Old Russian type. The destruction of the Severyansk settlements in the Chernigov region occurred as a result of the campaigns of the Kyiv prince Oleg, which are noted in the annals around this time - 883 - 884. At the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries, in the Middle Dnieper region, Russia owned only a small area in the district of Kyiv - along the Teterev and Irpin watershed in the northwest, the Dnieper - in the East and in the Poros region - in the south. On the left bank of the Dnieper, Russian land covered the Chernihiv Podesene to the river Snov or Mena.

Even less was subject to Russia in the north of the East Slavic lands in the Volkhov region - where the second Russian city of Ladoga was located and the third, Novgorod, was founded. It was a narrow strip along the Volkhov from Ladoga to Lake Ilmen or to the source of the Lovat. The adjacent regions became part of Russia later. The development of the Slavic and Finno-Ugric lands began with Luga, where the Vod lived, the coasts of Lake Pskov and the Velikaya River - the possessions of the Krivichi, as well as Pomostye, where they lived all. According to the chronicle, this happened during the reign of Olga. Under the year 947, the chronicler tells how she built graveyards and banners here, determined the amount of tribute, dues, arranged traps and visited Pskov. Archaeological data confirm the information of the chronicle - the ancient Russian citadel of Pskov was being built approximately at this time.

By the middle of the 10th century the territory of Russia in the Middle Dnieper is expanding at the expense of the Derevskaya land. The Drevlyans lost their independence after the murder of Igor Stary and the war caused by this murder. The border of the ancient Russian state in the west moved at least as far as the Sluch River, and in the north-west it almost came close to Pripyat. The dividing strip between Russia and the Dregovichi was the former Drevlyansk border, which ran through swampy areas south of Pripyat.

Second phase. Significant territorial growth of Russia falls on the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich. He made his first acquisitions when he went to fight his brother Yaropolk. According to the chronicle, in 980 Vladimir took Polotsk, where Rogvolod reigned. Archaeological excavations confirm that at the end of the 10th century the old Krivichi fortress was destroyed, and the new Old Russian citadel of Polotsk was built at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th centuries on another higher place. Together with the city, only the most populated right-bank part of the Western Dvina, in the east reaching the Mezha or Volga, went to Russia. After gaining a foothold in Kyiv, Vladimir moved west. In 981, he conquered the Cherven cities from the Poles. At the same time, the Volyn land joins Russia, through which the Kyiv prince passed, heading for the Poles. The city of Vladimir, mentioned in the annals under the year 988, is being built here. Following the Volynians, the Croats join. According to The Tale of Bygone Years, Vladimir went to them in 992. Judging by the data of archaeological excavations, the city of Galich was built here at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th centuries. Soon the turn of the lands of the Dregovichi comes. The chronicle does not tell about the campaign against them. Under the year 988, the city of Turov is mentioned on the right bank of the Pripyat - the visible result of Vladimir's unknown campaign. According to archaeological excavations, it was built at the beginning of the 11th century. On the northwestern border of the land of the Dregovichi, at the end of the 10th century, the city of Novgorodok (Novgorodok Lithuanian, modern Novogrudok) was built. Probably, Vladimir annexed only the southern part of the Dregovichi to Russia: starting from the right bank of the Pripyat to the upper reaches of the Sluch, Ptich and Neman - the borders of the future Minsk volost. The northern territories remain untouched by civilization for a long time. At the end of the 10th century, Vladimir strengthened the position of Russia on the left bank of the Dnieper. According to archaeological excavations, at that time, the city of Voin (the first one was built in 1055) was being built at the mouth of the Sula River, Pereyaslavl was being built on the Trubezh, and the walls of Chernigov were being renovated (or were being built for the first time?) on the Desna. Between the Seversk land and the Radimichs, Starodub is being built. As archeological studies of the city have shown, the Old Russian layer rests partly here on the Yukhnov horizon, partly on the mainland. The oldest fortifications of the citadel date back to the end of the 10th century. The Radimichs were annexed to Russia a little later - at the beginning of the 11th century, although the chronicle tells of Vladimir's campaign against them under 984.

At the very end of the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, the Seversk land became part of Russia. Archaeological studies show that as a result of fires at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th centuries, a number of settlements perished here: the ancient settlement on the site of Novgorod-Seversky, settlements near the village. Slobodka, Gorbovo, Pushkari, Sverdlovka, Sosnitsa, Rogovka and others.

The event, which can be associated with the destruction of Seversk (this is how the predecessor of Novgorod-Seversky was probably called) and other settlements in the Middle Desene, occurred in the last days of Vladimir's life. At the end of 1014, Vladimir Svyatoslavich was saddened by the disobedience of his son Yaroslav. He refused to send tribute to Kyiv. Both began to prepare for a big war. In 1015, in Novgorod, local residents clashed with the Varangians hired by Yaroslav, and in Kyiv they learned about the movement to the capital of the Pechenegs. Vladimir sent his beloved son Boris against them. In the hagiographic version, placed below in all chronicles, this campaign is omitted. It is only said that Boris returned without finding the Pechenegs. In the "Tales of Saints Boris and Gleb", published by I. I. Sreznevsky, the campaign of 1015 is described in more detail. It turns out that from the very beginning Boris was heading for the northerners, who, perhaps, hired the Pechenegs. Those, in turn, having learned that the Kiev army was in the Seversk land, considered the fulfillment of their obligations unnecessary. Boris Vladimirovich, judging by the archaeological data, burned most of the Seversk centers. The devastated land was restoring its strength for a whole century.

Immediately after the death of the Roman settlement, new fortifications appeared on the site of Novgorod Seversky on Castle Hill - a little away from the center of the Severyansk settlement. Archaeologists do not note an intermediate layer that would speak of the temporary desolation of this place. Novgorod-Seversky is placed directly on the fire layer.

Figure 17 - Detinets Novgorod-Seversky in the XII century. Layout. Reconstruction by A. V. Kuza, model by A. A. Logvinenko

Not so large-scale, but still significant changes in this period occur in the north-east of the East Slavic world. Russia has significantly advanced here in the direction of the Volga - Oka. According to archaeologists, at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th centuries, the first Russian city in these places, Rostov, was built on the shores of Lake Nero. At the same time, as the researchers admit, no layers of the 11th century have been found here yet, which is explained by the insufficient archaeological knowledge of the city. The emergence of Rostov can be associated with the annalistic report of 988 about the distribution of princely tables by Prince Vladimir. According to the chronicle, one of the eldest sons of the Kyiv prince, Yaroslav, was originally sent here. At that time it was the extreme point of the territory belonging to Russia. According to the data on the settlement of Yaroslavl and Suzdal, the real development of the Volga-Oka interfluve will begin only in the first half of the 11th century, when Yaroslav the Wise becomes the prince of Kyiv.

Thus, during the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Kievan Rus expanded quite significantly. In the south-west, the border passed along the upper reaches of the Prut and Dniester - the extreme Croatian territories. In the west, Russian land was bounded by the Bug - from its upper reaches to Pripyat. Further, the borders of Russia coincided with the former border of the land of the Dregovichi. The frontiers of the Kyiv state went northwest from the mouth of the Lani to the Neman, in the area where the Shara River flows into it. The northern border of this enclave ran along the upper reaches of the Sluch and Ptich rivers to the Dnieper. On the left bank of the Dnieper, Russia included the former lands of the Radimichi and northerners. The border went from the basin of the middle Sozh to the Desna and further to the upper reaches of the Seim. The Vorskla, its upper and middle reaches, served as the southeastern border. In the very south, the border was the Dnieper to the city of Voin and the mouth of the Sula. In the north, Russia also expanded its borders. The western border of this enclave ran from the middle reaches of the Narva, Lake Peipus and Pskov along the Velikaya River south to the Western Dvina. Further - along the Dvina to the upper reaches of the Volga until the Kotorosl flows into it. Then the border turned to the north-west and ran in the direction from the interfluve of the Volga and Mologa to Pomost, further along the Msta to the Volkhov region.

Figure 18 - The territory of Kievan Rus at the end of IX - per. even 13th century

Third stage. Among the princes who "bred the Russian land", a place of honor belongs to Yaroslav the Wise. The chronicle draws attention only to the western direction of his foreign policy activities. Shortly before the collision with his brother Mstislav, Yaroslav conquered Berestye with the parish. In 1030, he goes on a campaign against the Estonian Chud and builds the city of Yuryev here. In 1031, together with Mstislav, he returns the Cherven cities lost during the strife. Chronicle news is fully consistent with the data of archaeological research. As the excavations of Suteisk, one of the Cherven cities, showed, the fortifications of the ancient Russian citadel and the roundabout city were erected here simultaneously in the first half of the 11th century on the site of an older settlement of the 9th-10th centuries.

A number of military actions aimed at annexing new lands remained outside the framework of chronicle texts. In the first half of the 11th century, Russia finally secured the Volga-Oka interfluve. Yaroslavl was built at the beginning of the century. Then - Suzdal. According to legend, Yaroslav the Wise founded Yaroslavl while still a prince of Rostov. According to archaeological excavations, the city was indeed built at the beginning of the 11th century, but these data are largely arbitrary. It is more likely that the city was founded after Yaroslav established himself in Kyiv, in the second quarter - the middle of the 11th century. Suzdal, as excavations have shown, was built in the middle of the 11th century. At the same time, Ryazan was founded.

Figure 19 - Yaroslav the Wise. Sculptural portrait. Reconstruction according to the skull of M. M. Gerasimov

Yaroslav the Wise managed to combine two territorial enclaves into one whole - Kyiv itself (“Rus”) and Novgorod (“outer Russia”). At the beginning of the 11th century, under Vladimir Svyatoslavich, the city of Drutsk was built. However, life here was barely glimmering, and the development of the citadel was chaotic. The settlement remained in this state for quite a long time. Orsha was built in the middle of the 11th century. At the same time, the settlement of the Smolensk Posad begins. Detinets of Smolensk was built on Cathedral Hill only at the end of the 11th century. Smolensk, the most important strategic point on the path “From the Varangians to the Greeks”, did not show itself in any way until the middle of the 11th century. Vladimir Svyatoslavich, distributing princely tables from sea to sea, did not notice Smolensk and did not identify any of his numerous offspring there - a clear hint at the absence of this city at the end of Vladimir's reign. The first to do this was Yaroslav. Under 1054, it is said that Vyacheslav was sent to Smolensk, and after his death in 1057 - Igor Yaroslavich. These were only the first steps towards the inclusion of the Upper Dnieper region into Russia.

Thus, by the middle of the 11th century, Russia acquires a look close to what is usually drawn on historical maps. From now on, the Russian land, with the exception of two enclaves (“Chernigov” Vyatichi and northern Dregovichi), spread over a significant part of Eastern Europe: from north to south from the Baltic to Vorskla, the middle reaches of the Dniester and the Southern Bug and from west to east from the Western Bug to the Volga .

Fourth stage. Under the Yaroslavichs in the second half of the 11th century, Russia included the lands of the northern Dregoviches and Yotvingians. At this time, the Dregovichi built Minsk on the Svisloch (most likely the prince of Polotsk), and the Yotvingians built Goroden, which became the center of the ancient Russian Ponemanye. So, by the beginning of the XII century, the main territory of Kievan Rus was taking shape.

Vyatichi - that part of their lands, which was located in the region of the middle and upper Oka - were annexed no earlier than the middle - the second half of the XII century by the Chernigov princes. Vladimir Monomakh in his "Instruction" tells about the campaign against the Vyatichi in the late 70s - early 80s of the XI century.

He headed the Vyatichi, according to him, the local prince Khodota. Before this trip, my journey " through Vyatichi he mentioned as a feat of sorts. At the beginning of the 12th century, in the area of ​​​​the future Serensk, the Vyatichi killed the Russian missionary Kuksha, who spread Christianity among them. In 1147, the princes of Chernigov, Vladimir and Izyaslav Davidovich, negotiated with the Vyatichi for the extradition of the Novgorod-Seversky prince Svyatoslav Olgovich, who was hiding with them. This means that in the middle of the 12th century, the Vyatichi nobility still remained in the land of the Vyatichi. Old Russian towns appear in this area no earlier than the middle of the 12th century. According to archaeological excavations, Serensk, one of the most famous cities in the land of the “Chernigov Vyatichi”, was founded in the middle of the 12th century on an uninhabited place. Kozelsk (“city of evil” as the Tatars call it for a long resistance) is practically not studied archaeologically. The expedition of 1992 could not unambiguously answer the question about the location of the ancient city. The most probable place - a hill near the Zhizdra River, at the confluence of the Drugusna River - does not allow studying dense buildings. But the appearance of Russian reigning here testifies to the late entry into Russia. The first Russian prince known in Kozelsk was Mstislav Svyatoslavich, a participant in the Battle of the Kalka.

Figure 20 - A woman from the Vyatichi tribe. sculptural portrait

In the XII century, Russia continued to expand its territory. Novgorod sought to subjugate the northeastern lands towards the White Sea and further to the east. As A. N. Nasonov established, already in the late 70s of the 11th century, Novgorod spread its “stations” in Zavolochye. In the 30s of the XII century Novgorod churchyards appeared on the lower half of the Vaga. Novgorod tribute reaches Pechora. However, so far we are talking only about tributary dependence, and not about joining Russia.

The onslaught of Russia to the south in the XII century is even more persistent. Attempts to seize the Black Sea region between the Prut and Dnieper rivers were made as early as the 10th century. Prince Igor, according to the Novgorod chronicler, in the 20s or 30s sent the governor Sveneld to the city of streets Peresechen. In 1111, the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk and Vladimir Monomakh made a deep raid into the Polovtsian steppe to the Don. In 1116, Vladimir Monomakh launched an offensive in two directions at once. Governor Ivan Voitishich was sent to the Danube - we are talking about cities from Derstra (Dorostol) to Chilia. Yaropolk Vladimirovich was sent to the Don in the same year. In the second half of the 12th century, Berlad entered the relationship of dependence on the Galician princes. By the turn of the 12th-13th centuries, Russia had advanced significantly into the steppe. In the XII century, as revealed by archaeological research, the Russians actively populate the Dnieper Nadporozhye. Old Russian settlements of this time were found at the mouth of the Sura River, the Yatseva beam, on about. Kamyanuvate and many other places. At the same time, Russia retains in its hands the city of Oleshye, located at the mouth of the Dnieper. Russian princes actually take control of the territory from the mouth of the Danube to the Dnieper. They hold land along the trade routes: Greek (along the Dnieper), Salt (along the Dnieper to the Crimea) and Zalozny (along the Seversky Donets to the Don and Tmutarakan). The attempts of the Polovtsy to hinder trade provoked a resolute rebuff from the Russian princes. The most likely reason for this "onslaught to the south" was the Black Sea possessions of Kievan Rus. It is possible to speak about the existence of the Black Sea Rus starting from the 9th century, the sources of the 10th century, the 11th and the beginning of the 12th century quite definitely testify to this.

Thus, the main territory of Kievan Rus took shape during the 10th-12th centuries. Several stages can be distinguished. First– from the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th to the middle of the 10th century.Second– from the middle of the 10th century to the beginning of the 11th century.The third– from the beginning of the 11th century to its middle. Fourth– from the middle of the 11th century to the middle of the 12th century. Initially, there were three groups of Rus: the northern one, centered in Ladoga, and then Novgorod; central with the center in Kyiv; and southern with the center in Tmutarakan and Korchevo. Kyiv princes sought to unite them into a single space. By the middle of the 10th century, Russia included the lands of the Drevlyans and Pskov Krivichi, territories along Msta and Luga. By the beginning of the 11th century, the Russian land covered the lands of the Croats, Volhynians, southern Dregovichi, Radimichi, northerners, and Polochans. By the middle of the 11th, the territory of Russia had basically taken shape. The northern enclave of the Rus and the central one merged, the lands of the Volga-Oka interfluve, the Cherven cities, and the lands to Lake Onega were attached. By the middle of the XII century, almost all the East Slavic lands became part of Russia. The fate of the third enclave was different. In ancient Russian times, it was not possible to connect it with the main territory of Russia. Only Catherine II will do this.

§ 6 Introduction of Christianity in Russia

Brief historiography of the issue. The Baptism of Russia is one of the most popular topics in Russian historiography. The first Russian rationalist historians turned to her. In the 18th century, the foundation was laid on which scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries would base their constructions. V. N. Tatishchev for the first time singles out and brings together information about the baptism of Russia and expresses doubts about the tradition of the Apostle Andrew. He publishes the Chronicle of Joachim, which still serves as one of the sources on the history of baptism. I. M. Stritger publishes translations of Byzantine texts that have served many generations of scholars. Catherine II resolutely rejected as fiction the story of the courtship of Emperor Constantine to Princess Olga. She also drew attention to the role of the veche meeting in the change of religion. A. L. Shletser and I. N. Boltin put forward the idea of ​​alternative ways of spreading Christianity - Varangian and Bulgarian. Many scientists are actively working on the issue of "home" or "family" acquaintance of Prince Vladimir with Orthodoxy (through the grandmother - Princess Olga or wives and concubines).

In the XIX - early XX centuries, a large number of works were devoted to the problem of baptism. Among them, the works of historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries are of the greatest importance. (mainly positivist historians) V. G. Vasilyevsky, E. E. Golubinsky, A. A. Shakhmatov, M. D. Priselkov. The attention of historians has been focused on such issues as the time of the appearance of the first Christians in the lands of the Eastern Slavs; the degree of reliability of the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" about the enlightenment of Russia by the Apostle Andrew; the time and place of Olga's baptism; the level of Christianization of Russia during the reign of Igor, Olga and Yaropolk; the circumstances of the baptism of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and other issues. Each of them was the subject of lively controversy, but the historians of tsarist Russia never came to a consensus.

V. G. Vasilevsky (1838 - 1899) - the famous Russian Byzantinist, many of whose works have not lost their significance to our time, divided the facts into reliable, probable and possible. In the first category, he attributed the conclusion that in 986-989. between Byzantium and Russia, an alliance agreement was concluded, sealed by the marriage of the Russian prince with the sister of the emperors and associated with the baptism of Vladimir. At the same time, he noted that neither Byzantine nor Russian sources say anything about this union and about the baptism of Vladimir by Byzantine missionaries. V. G. Vasilevsky pointed out the inconsistency of Russian sources. He, in particular, gave preference to the "Memory and Praise" of Jacob over the annals, arguing that Vladimir took Korsun, having already been baptized. The texts associated with the Apostle Andrew, according to Academician V. G. Vasilevsky, preserved a living testimony of a group of apostles, including Andrew the First-Called, Peter and Matthew, visiting a number of cities in the Northern Black Sea region and Scythia.

E. E. Golubinsky, a historian of the Russian church, a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, on every, even the smallest question, tried to say only what was reflected in the sources. Annalistic tradition about the journey of the Apostle Andrew along the banks of the Dnieper and Volkhov, the news of the baptism of Askold and Dir, the Russian prince in Sourozh, St. Olga, he considered the annalistic story about the baptism of Vladimir to be legends that have nothing to do with the truth. He considered the peaceful spread of Christianity in Russia to be an invention of immoderate patriots who sacrificed common sense to patriotism. The introduction of a new faith, in his opinion, was accompanied by considerable unrest among the people - there were open resistances and riots, as the Novgorod saying eloquently speaks - "Putyata baptized Novgorod with a sword, and Dobrynya with fire." This means, he wrote, “that in Novgorod the new faith was met with open indignation and that the most energetic measures were required and used to suppress the latter. It is very possible that such disturbances were not only in Novgorod. E. E. Golubinsky believed that the prince was baptized by local Christian Varangians. He considered the Varangians to be Normans and admitted that the local Christian community was closer to Rome than to Byzantium. "The speech of the philosopher", wrote E. E. Golubinsky, could be delivered with equal success by both the Greek and the papal missionary.

A. A. Shakhmatov (1864 - 1920), who studied the annals for more than twenty years, believed that the “Speech of the Philosopher”, which he considered a monument of Bulgarian literature, was placed in the “Ancient Code of 1039” allocated by him, and the Korsun legend developed not earlier than the last quarter of the 11th century. Here, he argued, for the first time appeared a story about the prodigal life and idolatry of Prince Vladimir, in which he saw the hand of a Greek or a Grecophile who sought to discredit the Kievan prince.

M. D. Priselkov (1881 - 1941) believed that the issue of adopting Christianity was not the subject of the ruler’s personal conviction in the truth of the new faith, but was a state issue and was hampered by the problem of establishing forms of the church hierarchy without losing political independence. Attempts to obtain an independent church dispensation began, in his opinion, even with Prince Igor, continued under Olga and Svyatoslav, and received legal formalization under Vladimir by receiving a hierarchy from Bulgaria. The dissatisfaction of Russia with the state of church-political relations with Bulgaria leads in 1037 to the establishment of a Greek metropolis in Kyiv.

The reaction of the first Soviet historians to the assessments of pre-revolutionary historical science was negative. M. N. Pokrovsky emphasized that “the Christian church owes its existence and prosperity in Russia to princes and boyars. When the upper stratum of society began to form in our country, he abhorred the old, Slavic religious rites and Slavic sorcerers, and began to write out for himself, along with Greek silk fabrics and gold jewelry, Greek rites and Greek "Magi". The Orthodox Church, of course, inflated the meaning of the so-called “baptism of Russia” in every possible way, but in fact the change was purely external, and it was a matter of changing only the rites.

A turn in the views of Soviet historians on the problem of the baptism of Russia occurred in the second half of the 1930s. The impetus for this was the resolution of the All-Union Committee for Arts under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On the play" Bogatyrs "by Demyan Bedny", adopted on November 13, 1936. It was noted here that this play "gives an anti-historical and mocking image of the baptism of Russia, which was in fact a positive stage in the history of the Russian people, since it contributed to the rapprochement of the Slavic peoples with peoples of a higher culture."

A vivid illustration of the changes in the views of Soviet historians on this issue that followed after this is the article by S.V. Bakhrushin, published in 1937 in the journal Historikmarxist (No. 2). S. V. Bakhrushin set himself the task of understanding the progressive moments that included the adoption of Christianity at a certain stage of historical development, that is, in the 10th-11th centuries. He saw the main reason for the adoption of Christianity by Russia in the social and cultural conditions prevailing in ancient Russian society in the 10th century. In his opinion, at that time a layer of the feudal nobility was formed, which "hurried to sanctify its claims to a dominant position." Christianity became an "energetic champion" of the advanced (compared to the primitive communal system) feudal mode of production, accelerating the development of feudalism in Russia. According to the views of S. V. Bakhrushin, Christianity struggled with the remnants of the tribal system, sought to eliminate the elements of slave labor. A noticeable impact, S.V. Bakhrushin, baptism "had an impact on the cultural life of the country." It extended both to material and spiritual culture: agriculture (horticulture), crafts, construction equipment, architecture, fine arts. Immediately after the baptism, Rus received writing in the Slavic language, which made it possible to start organizing school affairs and spreading books. Christianity became "a conductor in Kievan Rus of the high feudal culture of Byzantium and contributed to the establishment of cultural ties with the Western European feudal states." In other words, the influence of Christianity on ancient Russian society, according to S. V. Bakhrushin, was all-encompassing, extending to the economy, socio-economic relations, political ties, culture and education.

From the point of view of the needs of feudalization, academician B. D. Grekov considered the baptism of Russia, calling the adoption of Christianity a fact of “paramount importance”. For M.N. Tikhomirov, the establishment of Christianity in Russia was a major historical event that marked the victory of new feudal relations over the moribund tribal system. In the cultural life of Ancient Russia, the establishment of Christianity meant joining the traditions of Byzantium and Hellenism. Close views were also expressed by another prominent Soviet historian B. A. Rybakov.

A special surge in research activity was caused by the anniversary celebrated in the USSR in 1988 - the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Russia. A number of monographs and collections are published for the anniversary. Among the authors who devoted their works to this event were A. G. Kuzmin, O. M. Rapov, Ya. N. Shchapov, I. Ya. Froyanov, A. D. Sukhov, A. P. Novoseltsev and others. In the historical studies of this time, the idea of ​​a rigid relationship between the processes of feudalization and Christianization is carried out, on the basis of which a conclusion is made about the progressiveness of the baptism of Russia. The exception is the position of I. Ya. Froyanov. He proceeded from the denial of the existence of feudalism in Russia. The real reasons for the introduction of Christianity in Russia, he believed, cannot be understood, abstracting from the pagan transformations that preceded it. The choice of a new faith that fell on Byzantine Christianity was not a mere accident. For ancient Russian society with its pre-class structure, a certain democratism of the Byzantine church, the well-known tolerance of its ministers towards paganism, was of great importance. Close trade and political ties between the two countries played an important role. The preference given by Vladimir to Christianity from Byzantium depended to a large extent on the external situation on the southern borders of Russia. In the second half of the 10th century, Pecheneg raids on Russian lands became more frequent. Under these conditions, friendly and allied relations between Kyiv and Constantinople were highly desirable for Russia. Taking into account all these circumstances, Vladimir was baptized by the Greeks. There are no grounds, wrote I. Ya. Froyanov, to consider it progressive in the sense that it allegedly contributed to the victory of the feudal system and ideologically consecrated the domination of the emerging class of feudal lords. Christianity was introduced not to establish new, "historically progressive institutions", but to preserve the old tribal orders. The “baptism of Russia” meant the conversion to Christianity of the Kyiv prince with his household, the nobility close to him and some part (possibly significant) of the inhabitants of Kyiv, as well as the population of nearby cities and villages. The conversion of these people to the new faith was voluntary, which is not difficult to understand: after all, Christianity was established to maintain the dominance of the Kyiv elite and the entire Polian community over the conquered East Slavic tribes. As for the tribes subject to Kyiv, Christianity entered them with fire and sword. From the point of view of the progressive development of Russia, the introduction of Christianity at the end of the 10th century was in some way ahead of events, Froyanov believes, running ahead. Lacking a solid social ground and an immediate political perspective, it glided over the surface of ancient Russian society and much later (in the 14th-15th centuries, when the formation of classes was completed) turned into an instrument of class domination, as well as a lever for uniting Russian lands around Moscow. I. Ya. Froyanov came to the conclusion that, despite the conservative socio-political role, Christianity also had a positive impact on some aspects of ancient Russian life, facilitating the establishment of relations between Russia and Byzantium, the Christian countries of Central and Western Europe, contributing to the growth of culture, the formation of ancient Russian nationalities.

The question of the baptism of Russia for many reasons remains relevant to this day. Interest in this topic is determined by the fact that it is located at the intersection of the most important problems in the history of Russian statehood and culture. The assessment of this event has practically not changed over the entire period of the existence of Russian historical science: the introduction of Christianity is a progressive phenomenon; baptism was massive; along with Christianity, writing appeared in Russia; Christianity introduced the Eastern Slavs to the achievements of Byzantine culture, contributed to their rapprochement with the peoples of a higher culture. The views of individual historians, who questioned some of these theses, did not affect the general background4.

Reasons and prerequisites for the introduction of Christianity in Russia. The adoption of Christianity by Russia tried to explain even contemporaries of this event. The Arab chronicler Yahya of Antioch connected the baptism of Kievan Rus with military assistance provided by Prince Vladimir to the Byzantine emperors to suppress the uprising of Varda Foki, as well as with Vladimir's subsequent marriage to Princess Anna. The latter circumstance, in his opinion, tipped the scales in favor of the Christian faith, since the Byzantine princess did not want to be married to a pagan, and insisted on the baptism of the prince and the population of the country. German chronicler of the late 10th - early 11th century. Titmar of Merseburg wrote that Vladimir was baptized under the influence of his Greek wife Helen. In the Scandinavian saga about Olaf Tryggvason, it is stated that Russia owes its baptism to the Norwegian king Olaf, who, having arrived in Kyiv from Byzantium, persuaded his tutor Prince Vladimir and his wife Allologia to accept Greek Christianity. Russian writers of the 11th century. Hilarion and Jacob Mnich declared that Russia owes Christianization only to Vladimir Svyatoslavich, on whom the grace of God descended and he was able to understand that the Orthodox faith is the only correct one. Jacob Mnikh also noted that Vladimir's grandmother, Princess Olga, had a great influence on the formation of Vladimir's Christian worldview. It seemed to the author of The Tale of Bygone Years that the skillful propaganda of the Byzantine missionaries and the desire of the Kyiv boyars served as the reason for the baptism of Russia.

The first Russian historians usually followed in their explanations the given sources. N. M. Karamzin, for example, reduced the Christianization of Russia to the personal whim of Prince Vladimir. Similar views were also held by church historians Filaret and E. E. Golubinsky. In the 19th century another version of Christianization arose. Its adherents were church historian Macarius, S. M. Solovyov, T. Barsov, S. F. Platonov, S. I. Grechushkin, and in the 20th century.

- N. N. Rozhkov. All of them claimed that Russian paganism was "poor", "colorless" and "primitive" and therefore could not supposedly compete with any of its contemporary religions. Prince Vladimir and his entourage were extremely depressed by this circumstance, which is why he decided to borrow religion from the most advanced power of that time - the Byzantine Empire. F. I. Uspensky suggested that the Christianity of Russia was necessary for obtaining state institutions from Byzantium, which should have led to the emergence of statehood in Eastern Europe. M. D. Priselkov believed that the main reason for the adoption of Christianity by Russia was the absence of a Byzantine-type church hierarchy in Eastern Europe, which the country really needed. Her search led Russia to the court of the Bulgarian kings and then to the subsequent Christianization of the Russian people, who received baptism not from Byzantium, but from Bulgaria. I. E. Zabelin, V. Zayats, N. M. Nikolsky and a number of other historians tried to explain the baptism of Russia by the trade interests of the country, as well as by the influences that Russian people experienced in international relations. S. V. Bakhrushin noted that Christianity owed its establishment in Russia to the “international character of Kyiv”.

Some historians have tried to explain the Christianization of Eastern Europe by a complex of causes. For example, V. A. Parkhomenko wrote that the following factors influenced Vladimir's decision: the need to conclude trade deals with Byzantium and other Christian countries; propaganda of Greek missionaries; the difficult foreign policy situation of the Romaic state, which made it possible for the Russian prince to “wrest” Princess Anna from the Byzantine emperors.

The problems of the Christianization of Russia were also touched upon by many Soviet historians. Most of them drew attention to the class character of the Christian doctrine. Thus, B. D. Grekov wrote that the pagan religion is not like the religion of a class society. The religion of the tribal system does not know classes and does not require the subordination of one person to another, does not shed light on the domination of one person over another, class religion has a different character. The liquidation of the old basis and the creation of a new one demanded the liquidation of the old superstructure. The old religion has lost its meaning. The new feudal basis created a corresponding superstructure. Russia adopted a new religion.

M. V. Levchenko, S. A. Tokarev and A. M. Sakharov expressed the opinion that the Christian religion served as a solid basis for uniting the East Slavic tribes into a single state. The ancient cults of the Eastern Slavs, wrote A. M. Sakharov, were not suitable for consolidating relations of domination and subordination. They also did not correspond to the idea of ​​the unity of the country, since for the most part they had a local distribution. To strengthen the Kievan state, a single religion was needed that would deify not only and not so much the forces of nature, but, above all, a new social system with its private property, divided into rich and poor, masters and exploited.

O. M. Rapov explained the need for baptism as follows: in the era of the genesis of feudalism, the feudal mode of production came into irreconcilable contradiction with Slavic pagan ideas. The pagan religion demanded from the Slav the accumulation of material values, the wealth necessary to ensure a free life in the afterlife, and the feudal state forced him to give the surplus product to the owner of the land. The pagan religion opposed the enslavement and enslavement of the Slav by anyone, insisted on his complete independence, so that in the other world he could lead the life of a free man, and the feudal lords needed an enslaved, enslaved, attached to the earth, uncomplaining producer. In a slave state, the slave owners did not care what religion the slaves professed. They were forced to work with sticks and weapons. The producers of feudal society were in a different position. They owned personal property, houses, tools and much more freedom than slaves. The withdrawal of their surplus product, control over their lives, property, behavior in everyday life - all this was a difficult problem that arose before the class of feudal lords. Such a force was to become a new religion, whose task was to consolidate in the minds of the working people the idea of ​​the legitimacy of the regime existing in Russia. Its clergy were obliged to observe the direct producers, distract them from the class struggle, fight against the concealment of the surplus product by them, threatening heavenly punishments, force them to meekly perform any work entrusted by the feudal lord, inspire them with thoughts that would benefit the tops of feudal society. In addition, O. M. Rapov argued, all the peoples that were part of the Old Russian state had their own pagan deities that they worshiped, and the planting of a Slavic pagan cult among them would only lead to an aggravation of contradictions with the main population of the country. Differences in beliefs among the peoples that were part of Russia did not contribute to their rapprochement in cultural and linguistic terms. The pagan worldview also had a detrimental effect on the international relations of Russia with other states. Christian sovereigns did not want to enter into family alliances with pagan princes. In other words, the researcher repeated all the main provisions adopted earlier by Soviet historical science: Christianity was adopted to illuminate the class domination of the feudal lords; to unite the country into a single state; to facilitate international communications.

All these statements lose their meaning as soon as we abandon the assumption that Russia was formed as a feudal society and pay attention to the facts. It is not clear why paganism, which did not sanctify the rule of one class over another, corresponded to the slave-owning system and allegedly did not correspond to the feudal one. Paganism existed in slave-owning states for hundreds, and sometimes thousands of years, and did not at all undermine the unlimited power of the Egyptian pharaohs, Babylonian kings and Roman emperors, who owned vast territories inhabited by multilingual peoples. Why does it suddenly cease to satisfy the ruling strata of society in Russia? Especially when you consider that the existence of feudalism in the Russian lands has not been proven. It is also impossible to assert that Christianity most of all corresponded precisely to the feudal system. As you know, in the Roman Empire, Christianity became the state religion during the days of slavery, not feudalism. Views on the Slavic pagan religion as "parochial" do not correspond to reality. It is enough to note that the main Slavic gods - Perun, Dazhbog, Veles and others - were revered by all Slavs. Ideas about the afterlife, funeral rites, holidays, etc. were common. Taking steps to impose on the population (both one's own and the conquered) an alien worldview is a more difficult task than imposing tribute, introducing a tax system, etc. Christianity has been known to the Russians for a long time, but this did not lead to its, however significant, spread in Russia. The same should be said about the position of Christianity after the baptism of Russia. I. Ya. Froyanov quite rightly noted that it glided over the surface of ancient Russian society and much later (in the 14th-15th centuries) "turned into an instrument of class domination", i.e. it was then that it began to decisively influence the behavior of people, forming the basis of their worldview . This means No, that the ancient Russian society did not feel the need to change religion and the baptism of Russia did not have any internal reasons.

The chain of events - (the uprising of Varda Foki in Byzantium and the military assistance of Russia - the marriage of Vladimir to Princess Anna - the baptism of Russia) - are interconnected. Among all known facts, they are recognized as the most reliable. The relationship between these events suggests that the baptism of Russia was caused by foreign policy reasons. The main problem of the Kyiv prince at that time was the constant raids of the Pechenegs. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus argued that in the absence of peace between Russia and the Pechenegs, the thresholds occupied by nomads become insurmountable for the Kyiv flotilla. How dangerous and devastating the Pecheneg raids were and how difficult it was to fight them, is evident from the report on the Pechenegs by the author of the 10th century. Theophylact of Bulgaria. According to him, their raid is a lightning strike, their retreat is hard and easy at the same time: hard from the abundance of prey, easy from the speed of flight. By attacking, they prevent rumors, and by retreating, they do not give the persecutors the opportunity to hear about them. And most importantly, they devastate a foreign country, but they don’t have their own ... Peaceful life is misfortune for them, the height of well-being - when they have an opportunity for war or when they scoff at a peace treaty. The worst thing is that they outnumber spring bees in their numbers, and no one yet knew how many thousands or tens of thousands they are considered: their number is countless. Byzantine diplomacy skillfully used the Pechenegs for constant military pressure on Russia. V. G. Vasilyevsky, the author of the study “Byzantium and the Pechenegs,” wrote that the Pecheneg horde was the center of the “system of Byzantine balance in the north.” Byzantine diplomats believed that while Byzantium was on friendly terms with the Pechenegs, neither Russia nor Bulgaria could seriously threaten the borders of the empire, since "otherwise they could be threatened by the Pechenegs." In order to somehow protect the population of the regions bordering the steppe along the Stugna, Irpen, Trubezh and other rivers from the Pecheneg raids, Vladimir built a chain of fortress towns.

Western sources also report on the great efforts of Russia to strengthen its southern borders. Archbishop Bruno, who visited Kievan Rus at the beginning of the 11th century, noted in a letter to the German emperor Henry II that the steppe borders of the country for security in a very large area were circled on all sides by the most durable blockages. At the end of the 10th century, the Pecheneg onslaught on the southern borders of Russia intensified significantly. S.P. Tolstov explains the intensification of the Pechenegs’ onslaught by the desire of Khorezm, using the Pechenegs, to weaken Russian political influence in South-Eastern Europe, which increased significantly after the defeat of the Khazar Khaganate by Prince Svyatoslav. It was, according to S.P. Tolstov, an attempt to push Russia out of the sphere of Khorezmian interests on the Volga. The nine-year Russo-Pecheneg war of 988-997 began after the adoption of Christianity by Russia. The Pecheneg offensive was directed by Khorezm in response to a change in the religious and political line of Russia. According to the observations of S.P. Tolstov, the Islamization of the Pechenegs took place around this time, which confirms that they had certain political ties with Islamic Khorezm.

On August 15, 987, the uprising of Varda Foki began in the Byzantine Empire, and the emperors Constantine and Basil turned to Prince Vladimir for help. The condition for providing assistance was an alliance against the Pechenegs, which was supposed to seal the marriage of the Kyiv prince with the Byzantine princess. The emperors gave their consent to this on the condition that Prince Vladimir accept Christianity. In the spring of 988 (or perhaps at the end of the summer or autumn of 987), a 6,000-strong corps arrived from Russia to help Vasily. In the summer of 988, the Russians took part in the defeat of the troops of Phocas near Chrysopolis. Basil's position was greatly strengthened. Therefore, the emperor was in no hurry to fulfill the agreement reached - Anna was not sent to Russia. In order to force Basil to this, Vladimir next spring, 989, laid siege to Chersonese (which was taken at the beginning of summer). Fearing a deepening of the conflict and wanting to return the Crimean colonies, the emperor ordered to send his sister to Vladimir. The marriage, which was preceded by the adoption of Christianity by Vladimir, took place, apparently, in the summer of 989. It is unlikely that Vladimir then thought about the meaning of the Christian worldview and the consequences of his step. Another task was on the agenda - it was necessary to protect Russia from the most dangerous enemy at that time, and here all means were good. The beginning of the spread of Christianity only under Yaroslav the Wise confirms this assumption. Vladimir did what was required of him, and waited for reciprocal steps from the Empire.

Baptism of Russia contributed the fact that Christianity had long been familiar to the Russians and, moreover, often influenced the domestic and foreign policy of the young ancient Russian state. Christianity began to penetrate to the Eastern Slavs long before the official baptism. The first mass baptism of the Rus took place in the summer or early autumn of 866, when some of them accepted Christianity from a bishop sent by the Byzantine Emperor Michael III and Patriarch Photius of Constantinople. The reason for this step was the unsuccessful campaign of the Rus against Byzantium in 866, as well as the spread of disease and famine in the country. Christianization embraced the southern Rus, who lived near the Northern Taurus, i.e., the Crimean peninsula. The second mass baptism of the Rus took place between 874 and 877. after another unsuccessful campaign of the Rus against Byzantium. This baptism affected the Kievan Rus, as evidenced by the numerous graves of Christians of the 9th century, found during excavations on the territory of Kyiv. The capture of Kyiv by Oleg in 882 did not mean that Christianity was completely done away with in the Kievan land. In the Kiev suburb of Ugorsky and during the reign of Oleg (882 - 912), the Christian church of St. Nicholas, near which the Christian community lived. Christian merchants still lived there. It is impossible to exclude the existence in the second half of the IX century. Russian metropolis, the center of which was probably in the Northern Black Sea region. In the 10s - early 40s of the X century, Christianity continues to make its way to Russia. During the reign of Igor, the number of Christians in the Kievan state increases sharply. Christians of Varangian and Khazar origin live in Kyiv. Christians are in the service of the Russian prince, they occupy important posts, since in Igor's treaty with Byzantium they act as equals with pagan Russ. In Kyiv in the 40s of the X century. there are Christian churches and among them the cathedral church of St. Ilya. After the death of her husband, Olga converted to Christianity. She unsuccessfully tries to persuade her son Svyatoslav to Christianity. During her reign in the Kievan state, two competing groups continue to coexist: the pagan, led by Svyatoslav, and the Christian, led by Olga. The number of Christians is increasing. However, Olga fails to carry out the Christianization of the population on a national scale. She has some kind of friction with the Byzantine imperial house, possibly caused by the attempts of the Byzantine government to subjugate Russia through the church organization. Despite this, Olga continues to strive for the establishment of Christianity in Russia. She appeals to the German Emperor Otto the Great with a request to send Christian missionaries to preach the new faith among the Russian people. The Latin preachers who arrived in Russia, led by Bishop Adalbert, did not find support from the pagan population of the country and were forced to flee from its borders, and some of them were killed by the pagans.

Figure 21 - V. M. Vasnetsov. Duchess Olga. The main iconostasis of the Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv

After these events, a pagan group led by Prince Svyatoslav came to power in Russia. During his reign, the position of Christians in Russia deteriorated. Svyatoslav showed his hatred of Christians in earlier times as well. Some of his nobles, who were inclined towards Christianity, "death came", while others were "cursed" by the pagans. Svyatoslav subjected Christians to severe persecution after the death of his mother during the war with Byzantium. Many Christians who were part of the Russian army were executed, Svyatoslav sent trusted people to Kyiv, who were instructed to eradicate Christianity in Russia. During the reign of Svyatoslav, the church of St. Nicholas in Ugorsky. Svyatoslav himself was going to "destroy all Christians" upon his return from the Balkan campaign. But his death in 972 prevented further repressions against Russian Christians. With the coming to the supreme power of the eldest son Svyatoslav Yaropolk, the position of Christians in the Kievan state began to improve again. Both the Byzantine and Roman Catholic churches are trying to find ways to penetrate Russia. Christians receive "great will" in the Kievan state. This circumstance caused discontent in pagan circles. And when his half-brother Vladimir, who at that time firmly stood on pagan positions, spoke out against Yaropolk, part of the Grand Duke's army went over to the side of his opponent. As a result, Yaropolk failed to stay in power in Kyiv. He fled to the city of Roden on the Ros River and after a while was killed. Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich came to power on the crest of a pagan wave. He immediately began to carry out activities to strengthen the position of paganism in the largest urban centers of the country - Kyiv and Novgorod. In the early years of his reign, the pagans completely dominated the Christians.

Baptism of Kyiv and Novgorod. In The Tale of Bygone Years, the christening of Russia is preceded by a "test of faith." A whole gallery of preachers passed in front of Vladimir, each of whom praised his faith. In the beginning, adherents of Islam appeared before the prince. But of everything Muhammad taught, Vladimir liked only one thing: polygamy. With obvious disapproval, the prince reacted to circumcision, abstinence from pork meat and wine.

“Rus has fun to drink, we can’t be without it,” Vladimir said to the Muslims at parting.

Then came missionaries from Rome, sent by the pope. “Your land,” the pope told Vladimir through his messengers, “is the same as ours, and our faith is not like yours, since our faith is light; we bow to the god who created the sky and the earth, the stars, the moon and everything that breathes, and your gods are just a tree. The prince inquired: “What is your commandment?” Papal ambassadors answered: “Lent according to strength; if anyone drinks or eats, then all this is for the glory of God, as our teacher Paul said. Then Vladimir said: "Go where you came from, for even our fathers did not accept this."

Then the Khazar Jews appeared with the words: “We heard that the Bulgarians and Christians came, each teaching you their faith. Christians believe in the one whom we crucified, and we believe in the one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Vladimir asked: “What kind of law do you have?” And they answered: "To be circumcised, not to eat pork and rabbit meat, keep the Sabbath." A new question followed: “Where is your land?” And when the Jews said that their land was in Jerusalem, the prince sarcastically remarked: “Is it really there?” The Jews were forced to confess: "God was angry with our fathers and scattered us into different countries for our sins, and gave our land to the Christians." Vladimir edifyingly said: “How can you teach others, but you yourself are rejected by God and scattered: if God loved you and your law, then you would not be scattered over foreign lands. Or do you want the same for us? The Jews left with nothing.

The last to come to Vladimir was an Orthodox “philosopher”, who began his speech like this: “We heard that the Bulgarians came and taught you to accept your faith. Their faith defiles heaven and earth, and they are cursed above all people, like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, on whom the Lord let a burning stone and flooded them. So the day of their destruction awaits these, too, when God will come to judge the nations and destroy all those who do iniquity and filth. For, having washed themselves, they pour this water into the mouth, smear it on the beard and commemorate Mohammed. Also, their wives do the same filth, and even more…” Then Vladimir could not stand it, spat on the ground and said: "This is not a clean business." Meanwhile, the “Philosopher” continued: “We also heard that they came to you from Rome to preach their faith to you. Their faith differs little from ours... However, they believe incorrectly.” Then Vladimir remarked: “The Jews came to me and said that the Germans and Greeks believe in the one whom they crucified.” The “Philosopher”, not in the least embarrassed, replied: “We truly believe in him! Their own prophets predicted that God would be born, and others that he would be crucified and buried, but on the third day he would rise and ascend to heaven. They beat some of those prophets and tortured others. When their prophecies came true, when he descended to earth, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven. God expected repentance from them for 46 years, but did not repent, and then he sent the Romans against them, and the Romans defeated their cities, and scattered themselves over other lands, where they remain in slavery. The prince asked: “Why did God come down to earth and accept such suffering?” To which the “philosopher” replied: “If you want to listen, I’ll tell you in order from the very beginning why God came down to earth.” “Glad to hear it,” Vladimir said. The “philosopher” spoke for a long time, lively and enthusiastically. His speech made a strong impression on Vladimir, but did not lead to his adoption of Christianity.

According to the chronicle, events unfolded differently. Prince Vladimir summoned the boyars and the elders, announcing to them: “The Bulgarians came to me, saying: “Accept our law.” Then the Germans came and praised their law. Jews came after them. After all, the Greeks came, scolding all the laws, and praising their own ... What do you advise? The boyars and elders sensibly remarked: “Know, prince, that no one scolds his own, but praises. If you really want to find out, then you have husbands with you: sending them, find out what their service is, who serves God in what way.

Figure 22 - Monument to Prince Vladimir in Kyiv (detail). sculpt. Demut-Malinovsky and P. Klodt, arch. A. Ton Malinovsky and P. Klodt, arch. A. Tone

The ten “wise and glorious” men chosen at the veche traveled to different countries and, returning, told the prince and the boyars: “We went to the Bulgarians, watched them pray in the temple, that is, in the mosque, stand there without a belt; making a bow, he sits and looks here and there, like a madman, and there is no fun in them, only sadness and a great stench. Their law is not good. And we came to the Germans, and saw their various services in the temples, but we did not see any beauty. And we came to the Greek land, and led us to where they serve their god, and did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth: for there is no such sight and beauty on earth and we do not know how to tell about it. We only know that God lives there with people, and their service is better than in all other countries. We cannot forget that beauty, for every person, if he tastes the sweet, will not take the bitter later: so we cannot live here in the old way. The boyars said: “If the Greek law was bad, then your grandmother Olga would not have accepted it, but she was the wisest of all people.”

After listening to the arguments of the boyars about the preference for Christianity of the Greeks, Vladimir allegedly asked: “Where shall we be baptized?” The boyars answered: "Where you like it." It would seem that now the chronicler should have told about the baptism of the prince and his entourage, but he starts talking about Vladimir's campaign against Korsun, a Byzantine city in the Crimea, and about baptism as a result of this campaign, and the motivation for the prince's baptism turned out to be different, purely personal.

So the chronicler tells about the conversations of Prince Vladimir with representatives of various religions and reciprocal embassies. The authenticity of the speeches of the preachers and what Vladimir told them raises serious doubts. The chronicler, who created his work more than a hundred years after the prince's conversations with the missionaries, could not be aware of what the ambassadors who came to Vladimir said and what he answered them. The story about Vladimir's testing of faiths is built according to the scheme of instructive works, which were intended to persuade the reader to accept Christianity by the example of their head (in this case, Prince Vladimir). This, of course, does not mean that there are no historical facts at the basis of the chronicle narrative. As was often the case in the Middle Ages, stories about events that really took place could be included in the stencil form of church literature. In particular, in the Arabic “Collection of Anecdotes” of the 13th century, written by Muhammad al-Awfi, there is a story about the embassy of Bulamir (Vladimir) to Khorezm (Khvaliss of the Russian chronicle) with the aim of “testing” Islam and about the embassy of a Muslim imam to Russia to convert Russians to the Mohammedan faith. Perhaps the story about the testing of faiths reflects the missionary activity of representatives of various religions, which took place constantly, and was not directly connected with baptism.

According to the chronicle story, after returning from a campaign against Korsun (Chersonese) with the princess and priests, Prince Vladimir ordered the idols to be overthrown - some to chop and others to burn. Peruna ordered to tie a horse to the tail and drag him from the mountain along the Borichev vozvoz to the Creek, ordering twelve men to beat him with rods. Dragged to the shore, Perun was thrown into the Dnieper. Vladimir assigned people to him, saying: “If he sticks to the shore somewhere, push him away. And when the rapids pass, then just leave it.” And so it was done. When Perun passed the rapids, he was thrown by the wind onto the shallows, and therefore, the chronicler writes, that place was known as “Perunya shallows”. Judging by this text, a kind of pagan court was arranged over Perun, accompanied by punishment - dragging and beating with "rods".

After the massacre of Perun and the rest of the idols, Vladimir sent his servants "throughout the city with the words:" If someone does not come to the river tomorrow - whether it be rich, or poor, or a beggar, or a slave - let there be an enemy to me. Hearing this, people went with joy, rejoicing and saying: “If it weren’t good, our prince and boyars would not have accepted it.” The next day, Vladimir went out with priests to the Dnieper and there gathered people without number. Some entered the water there up to their necks, others up to their chests, the young ones near the shore up to their chests, some held babies, and already adults wandered, the priests prayed, standing still. Having baptized the people of Kiev, Vladimir “built a church in the name of St. Basil on the hill where the idol of Perun stood. Churches also began to be erected in other cities, and priests were identified in them, and people were baptized.

Under the pen of the chronicler, the appeal to the new faith turned into a triumphal procession of Christianity through the cities and towns of Russia. A careful analysis of the sources indicates that the “baptism of Russia” meant the conversion to Christianity of the Kyiv prince, the nobility close to him and some part of the Kyivans, as well as the population of nearby cities and villages. Probably, during baptism in Kyiv, there were also separate facts of coercion.

Figure 23 - V. M. Vasnetsov. Baptism of Russia by Prince Vladimir. Painting of the Vladimir Cathedral. Kyiv.

The Joachim Chronicle provides details of the baptism of the Novgorodians. Prince Vladimir instructed Bishop Joachim and Dobrynya to baptize the inhabitants of the city on the Volkhov. When the Novgorodians found out about the approach of uninvited guests, they convened a veche and vowed not to let them into the city "and not to let the idols be refuted." “They swept away the great bridge”, connecting the two sides of Novgorod, they fortified on the side where the citadel stood, turning it into a stronghold of resistance. The leaders of the uprising were the pagan priest Bogomil Nightingale and the thousand Ugony. The missionaries, meanwhile, appeared on the Trading Side and began their work, bypassing the “marketplaces” and “streets” and calling people to be baptized. The “baptists” worked for two days, but they managed to convert only a few hundred people to the new faith. And on the other side passions boiled. The people, having become furious, ruined Dobrynia's house, plundered their property, beat their wife and other relatives. And then the thousand Putyata crossed at night in boats with a detachment of 500 soldiers to the opposite bank and landed at the end of Lyudin. 5 thousand Novgorodians rushed to him. They surrounded Putyata and a fierce battle began. When some Novgorodians fought with Putyata, others destroyed the Church of the Transfiguration of the Lord and plundered the houses of Christians. At dawn, Putyate came to the aid of Dobrynya. In order to distract the Novgorodians from the battle, he ordered to set fire to "some houses near the shore." People rushed to extinguish the fire, stopping the battle. Frightened Novgorodians asked for peace. After that, Dobrynya destroyed the pagan sanctuaries, burned the wooden idols, and, breaking the stone ones, threw them into the river. Then he sent heralds everywhere, announcing that they should go to be baptized. Those who did not want to go were forcibly dragged by the soldiers and baptized, men above the bridge, and women below. Many unbaptized began to cheat by declaring themselves baptized. However, the trick failed: an order followed for all the baptized to hang crosses around their necks. If someone does not have a cross, baptize him, at least anew. For a long time, the news of the Joachim Chronicle about the baptism of Novgorodians aroused distrust among researchers. But a special study of sources, and especially archaeological excavations in Novgorod, carried out by the famous Soviet archaeologist V. L. Yanin, proved their historical authenticity. The story of the Joachim Chronicle about the baptism of Novgorodians leaves no doubt that Christianity in Novgorod was introduced by Vladimir by force, accompanied by bloody clashes.

Distribution, consequences and significance of the baptism of Russia. Christianity spread in Russia rather slowly. After the baptism of Kyiv and Novgorod, and then other ancient Russian urban centers, there were many pagans left. Some of them fled from cities to remote places, others (for example, Rostov or Murom) continued to profess paganism openly, at times seriously resisting the church and Christianization. The local princely power was far from always able to resist the pagans, apparently due to a lack of military strength. The inhabitants of Russia were converted to Christianity according to the following scheme: the prince of Kyiv appeared with his army in one area or another and demanded that the population perform the rite of baptism. Residents, as a rule, could not withstand such vigorous pressure and carried out the will of the Kyiv ruler. But as soon as they left, everything returned “to normal”: people renounced the Christian dogma.

Figure 24 - M. V. Nesterov. St. Boris. Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv

People in Ancient Russia continued to be baptized not only in the 11th, but also in the 12th century. At the same time, it was prescribed before baptism " Slovene prayers announced to create in 8 days". Many of the Russians did not remember whether the rite of baptism was performed on them. And if it turned out that there was no "hearing" - a witness to the baptism of this or that person, then he was baptized again. There were cases, and not uncommon, of retreat from Christianity and return to it. Those who converted to Christianity again had to curse the faith that seduced him in front of the people and fast for 40 days. From the sources we learn what faith such an apostate accepted. This is paganism and Judaism. The freedom of transition from one religion to another is an indicator of the religious tolerance inherent in ancient Russian society. Indirectly, this testifies to the leading role of the pagan worldview, in contrast to monotheistic religions, which were calm about heterodoxy. Christianity became the basis of the worldview in Russia outside the Kyiv period of the history of Russian civilization - in the XIV - XV centuries.

Christianity had a significant impact on the development of Kievan Rus, and in the future it became a decisive factor in domestic and foreign policy, the basis of the culture and life of the Russian people. Referring to the well-known gospel thesis that every power is from God, the church demanded from the population an uncomplaining subordination to their masters. In contrast to the pagan priests, the Christian clergy, being in subjection to the "powerful of this world", as a rule, became obedient conductors of their will. The great Russian princes received the right to interfere in church affairs. They appointed people loyal to them to church posts, deprived disobedient bishops of dioceses, and sometimes even arranged their own trials over them.

On the other hand, the highest representatives of the church became participate in political life Russia. They sat in princely councils and veche meetings, collaborated with the princes in the creation of all-Russian legislation. Church hierarchs also received the right to exercise their own courts over the inhabitants of the country.

The conversion to Christianity of various ethnic groups that were part of the Kyiv state, brought them closer to the Eastern Slavs economically, ideologically, culturally and linguistically.

The baptism of Russia led to the establishment closer international ties with neighboring Christian states. Russian princes got the opportunity to enter into dynastic marriages with princesses from the imperial, royal, princely houses of Europe, who proclaimed their belonging to Christianity. With the help of these marriages, the cooperation of the ruling circles of Russia with the governments of other powers was achieved, peace treaties were concluded, military alliances were created, and profitable trade relations were ensured.

The Christianization of Russia gave impetus to the development of Russian handicraft production. In the 11th century, a number of branches of Russian craft (for example, jewelry production, construction) were influenced by Byzantine and Western European culture.

The Christian Church has made an important contribution to the development of Russian culture. It contributed to the creation of many magnificent monuments of architecture and painting, the development of chronicle writing, the emergence of schools, the development of libraries, the penetration into Russia of works by foreign authors containing important knowledge in a number of branches of culture and art. At the same time, the church ostracized many works of folk culture created on the basis of pagan ideas about the real and the afterlife.

The influence of the church was twofold family relations. On the one hand, she strengthened the monogamous family. On the other hand, she strove for strict regulation of intra-family life, asserted patriarchalism, demanded the unquestioning subordination of the wife to her husband, and the children to the father5.

§ 7 The development of ancient Russian civilization in the XI - per. third of the 13th century

Brief historiography of the issue. In the 11th century, the Russian land entered as a powerful power, which was known, as Metropolitan Hilarion of Kyiv wrote, "in all four corners of the earth." In Russian historiography, the Kyiv period in the development of Russian civilization is usually divided into two. The boundary between them is called the “row of Yaroslav” (1054), the Lyubech congress (1097) or the death of Mstislav the Great, son of Vladimir Monomakh (1132). The first stage, as a rule, is considered the time of the unity of Russia, and the second - fragmentation. Before the revolution of 1917, it was called appanage (Destinies are the principalities into which Russia allegedly broke up).

N. M. Karamzin began the specific period immediately after the death of Yaroslav the Wise in 1054. In his opinion, Yaroslav divided Russia into four parts, and then each of them was divided into several more parts.

S. M. Solovyov did not notice fragmentation. The Russian land, in his opinion, maintained its unity throughout the entire ancient Russian period. N. I. Kostomarov argued the opposite: “Slavic-Russian peoples” lived separately from time immemorial. The power of the Kyiv princes was expressed only in the fact that they collected tribute from their subordinates, and then began to place their sons in different lands. V. O. Klyuchevsky believed that the Russian land was something like a “geneological federation”. Russia, in his opinion, was not divided into parts, completely isolated from each other, did not represent a bunch of regions connected only by neighborhood. There were connections in it that connected these parts into one whole; only these ties were not political, but tribal, economic, social and church-moral. A close point of view was expressed by S. F. Platonov. Composed of many tribal and urban worlds, he believed, this principality could not form into a single state in our sense of the word even in the 11th century. fell apart. Therefore, it would be most accurate to define Kievan Rus as a collection of many principalities united by one dynasty, the unity of religion, tribe, language and national identity.

M. N. Pokrovsky believed that the Kyiv princes never eliminated the independence of the lands they owned, neither under Oleg, nor under Monomakh. In his opinion, the “federal” and “republican” character of the ancient Russian state at the earliest stages of its development known to us is established quite definitely.

Soviet researchers, with the exception of I. Ya. Froyanov and A. Yu. Dvornichenko, portrayed Russia in the 10th-11th centuries as an early feudal empire (the empire of the Ruriks, in the words of K. Marx), and Russia in the 12th-13th centuries as a multitude of small feudal principalities that were at war between yourself. According to I. Ya. Froyanov, the result of the collapse of Russia was not feudal principalities, but city-states.

Development of the economy, political system and culture. Kievan Rus went through two main stages in its development:

1) The stage of formation (late IX - early XI centuries);

2) Stage of growth (XI - the first third of the XIII centuries).

It did not fall apart as it developed, and the "Yaroslav series", the Lyubech congress or the death of Mstislav the Great do not divide its history into two different stages. Right up to the invasion of Batu, Russia was experiencing an unprecedented flourishing of cities. In this era, their rapid territorial and numerical growth takes place. If in the 11th century 20-25 urban-type settlements are known, then in the middle of the 12th century there were already about 70 of them, and by the middle of the 13th, at least 150 cities.

Figure 25 - The development of ancient Russian cities

Archaeological excavations convincingly testify to the rapid growth of the "mother of Russian cities" - Kyiv. In the 12th century, the territory of the city continued to expand, new defensive fortifications were built (on Podil and at the Kopyrev end), the products of Kyiv artisans were widely dispersed throughout Russia.

Figure 26 - Kyiv in the X - XIII centuries.

At the end of the first third of the 12th century, i.e., just in the years when the period of fragmentation usually begins, the assortment of handicraft products expands sharply, and broad specialization occurs within individual branches of production. Nail-makers, boilermakers, shield-makers and other specialties stand out. The number of craft professions in large cities exceeds a hundred. In textile production, at the end of the 12th century, they began to use a horizontal loom, which significantly increased labor productivity. Small-scale production is developing rapidly. In the middle of the 12th century, Russian artisans moved from production to order to work for the market.

The social core in Kievan Rus actively participated in cultural, economic and political life. The princes personally led regiments into battles, and the boyars considered it their highest honor to die for the Russian land. They were the main customers of temples, icons, kolts, izborniks, and some of them are themselves known as writers, poets and chroniclers. Suffice it to recall "Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh" and "The Tale of Igor's Campaign".

It was they who organized production and elected the head of the land at the veche. All this together allows us to assert that the ancient Russian civilization, right up to the invasion of the Tatars, was at an ascending stage of development.

Figure 27 - Church of Paraskeva Pyatnitsa in Chernihiv (beginning of the 13th century)

The essence of princely strife. Civil strife is the most noticeable political phenomenon in Russia. S. M. Solovyov calculated that from 1055 to 1228, strife occurred almost a year later, and some of them lasted for 12 and 17 years.

Ancient Russian sources name princes as the perpetrators and main participants in numerous strife. Finding out the relationship between themselves, the princes involved the land in the confrontation and brought the Polovtsy, Ugrians, Poles to Russia, did not disdain the ruin of the volosts.

According to V. O. Klyuchevsky, princely strife belonged to the same order of phenomena with rows, i.e. were of legal origin. They were exactly the same way to resolve political disputes between the princes, which served then field(judicial duel) in criminal and civil litigation between individuals. It is no coincidence that the armed struggle of the princes for seniority, like the field, was called the "judgment of God." Therefore, the people of Kiev often accepted the winner in sedition as a legitimate prince, i.e. considered the oldest in the family of the one who turned out to be stronger at the moment. So it was in 1073, when Svyatoslav Yaroslavich occupied Kyiv, driving his own brother out of there. So it was in 1139, when Vsevolod Olgovich sat down in Kyiv, driving Vyacheslav Vladimirovich out of the city. So it was in 1146, when Izyaslav Mstislavich overthrew Igor Olgovich from the Kyiv table.

Much in the nature of the clashes can clarify the composition and number of participants. Unfortunately, the chroniclers usually do not mention the number of troops that took part in the strife, limiting themselves to the expressions " with many howls», « with a squad», « with cues" etc. The numbers they sometimes cite are comparatively small. Yaroslav the Wise, going to war with his brother Svyatopolk, collected only 4 thousand. Izyaslav Davidovich, setting off in pursuit of Svyatoslav Olgovich - 3 thousand. For comparison, Prince Mstislav Rostislavich, going on a campaign against the Chud, recruited 20 thousand people in Novgorod. But in the annals one can also find such cases when the prince took 300 or even 100 people with him. That's how much David collected during the strife that happened immediately after the Lyubech Congress.

The collection of wars "from small to large", as a rule, is specified by the chronicler, which indicates that this was an infrequent phenomenon. Large military formations are found in the sources as an exception. An example of this kind is the army gathered by Andrei Bogolyubsky against the Kyiv prince Mstislav Izyaslavich. In 1169, he sent to Kyiv the united regiments of twelve princes, led by his son Mstislav. Even Kyiv, which had great mobilization capabilities, could not resist them. The city was taken and plundered. Under the year 1174, the Ipatiev Chronicle speaks of another army of Andrei, sent against the Rostislavichs, who occupied Kyiv. This time, the exact figure is called - 50 thousand - at that time a very large connection.

Princely civil strife could not take place without the participation of the townspeople. The decision on this, especially in emergency cases, was taken by the veche. In 1147, Izyaslav Mstislavich persuaded the people of Kiev to take part in the fight against Yuri Dolgoruky, to which he received a negative answer. Under the people of Kiev, Novgorod, Chernigov and others, the chroniclers did not understand the citywide army, but volunteers from among the boyars, Grid and merchants. The prince threw a call - someone went with him, someone did not. It also happened that the townspeople set their own conditions or even refused to support the prince. This happened during the strife of 1097, when David, shutting himself in Volodymyr Volynsky, clearly counted on the help of the townspeople.

There were two main reasons for the conflict. They quite definitely characterize the internal wars in Russia as a way to resolve political disputes between the princes. These reasons were, firstly, the desire to take the Kyiv table. Secondly, the desire to have more volosts at your disposal, more, better and more profitable. Each prince in Russia was looking for a richer volost, just like the priest - a more profitable parish.

Fight for Kyiv. The struggle of the princes for the Kyiv gold table began in the 10th century. And even then, the people of Kiev had to recognize as the senior prince, apparently, the youngest of the sons of the Great Svyatoslav - robichich Vladimir. Vladimir solved the problem of seniority in the princely family in a simple and reliable way - by killing his rival. The death of Vladimir himself brought to life an even more acute and fierce strife between his sons - the first and largest in the 11th century. As you know, four brothers died during this feud: Svyatopolk, Svyatoslav, Boris and Gleb.

Sudislav turned out to be imprisoned in a cut for almost his entire life. Izyaslav and Vysheslav died during the life of their father. The fate of the three - Vsevolod, Pozvizd and Stanislav - is not clear. In the 20s of the XI century, the struggle unfolded between the two remaining brothers - Yaroslav and Mstislav. And again, the issue of seniority in the princely family was decided with the help of the "court of God", i.e. in battle. We are talking about the famous battle of Listven in 1024. The peculiarity of the situation was that the battle solved only the problem of seniority in the princely family, and did not touch the Kyiv table, the fate of which by that time had been decided by the people of Kiev. In 1023, when Mstislav came to Kyiv in the absence of Yaroslav, the townspeople did not accept him. This was the first known case when the townspeople decisively influenced the results of the princely strife, in fact, predetermining the distribution of tables and making it so that seniority in the princely family did not entail the possession of Kyiv. Mstislav won the battle, but Yaroslav still remained in Kyiv. And the winner was forced to be content with Chernigov - the city in which he was already imprisoned. In 1025, having gathered at Gorodets, they divided the Russian land along the Dnieper into two parts. Thus, the crisis of power that emerged at the beginning of the 11th century was overcome. The division of Russia into two parts did not have a long-term character, it resolved only this particular situation and was later remembered only as a pretext for claims to the Kyiv table. He was not destined to repeat himself ever again.

Figure 28 - "Golden Gate" in Kyiv. Reconstruction. contemporary photography

The long reign of Yaroslav the Wise ended with the so-called "row of Yaroslav". Opinions about him are very different. Some researchers believe that he did not introduce anything new into the order of succession of princely power (A. E. Presnyakov, S. V. Yushkov, P. P. Tolochko). Other historians attach fundamental importance to it (V. O. Klyuchevsky, L. V. Cherepnin, N. F. Kotlyar). For example, V. O. Klyuchevsky believed that the scheme of successive inheritance originates from him. From that moment on, the princes had to move from volost to volost according to the queue, which was determined by seniority in the princely family. According to N. F. Kotlyar, the principle of hierarchical relations between princes directly follows from Yaroslav's series. Most likely, this was the usual distribution of tables, which we saw even under Svyatoslav Igorevich in 970, and which will be repeated more than once after that. The order of succession of the Kievan table on the basis of "tribal seniority", as well as the generic principle of relations between princes as a whole (father - children, elder brother - younger brother), has its origins in the tribal society, and is not established by the authorities. The struggle for a place under the sun could flare up even after the death of Yaroslav, and only due to a number of specific reasons, and not at all thanks to Yaroslav, this did not happen. Since then, there has been no fierce struggle for the Kyiv table until the middle of the 12th century. For more than a hundred and a quarter years, Kyiv lived relatively calmly. The fate of the unfortunate Izyaslav Yaroslavich does not count. He was expelled from Kyiv twice - first by the people of Kiev, then by his brother Svyatoslav - but this did not lead to an armed struggle for the Kiev reign. In the first case, Vseslav Bryachislavich let him down, who fled to his place in Polotsk and left Kyiv to the mercy of fate. In the second case, Izyaslav did not have time to find allies for himself - Svyatoslav died unexpectedly and he calmly returned back, not meeting resistance from the last brother Vsevolod.

After the death of Izyaslav Yaroslavich in 1078, Vsevolod sat in Kyiv unhindered - he simply had no rivals left. A new round of confrontation between the princes falls at the end of the 11th century. But its main content was the struggle for volosts, and not for Kyiv. Last but not least, this is due to the position of Vladimir Monomakh, the son of the last of the Yaroslavichs, who voluntarily ceded the great Kyiv throne to his cousin Svyatopolk Izyaslavich. At the same time, Vladimir Monomakh was not a stranger to Kyiv affairs, and wherever he sat - in Chernigov or Pereyaslavl - he always, together with the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk, solved the problems that arose there.

Vladimir and Svyatopolk are regular participants in the princely congresses that take place during this period. The chroniclers mention a number of them. They gathered on various occasions: in 1096 in Kyiv - to establish order in the Russian land (did not take place); in 1097 in Lyubech - to reconcile the princes; in 1100 in Vitichev - again for the reconciliation of the princes; in 1101 in Zolotcha - to resolve Russian-Polovtsian relations; in 1103 near Dolobsk - to organize a campaign against the Polovtsians. The most famous of them - the Lubech Congress - causes a lot of controversy. Some historians attach great importance to it, but evaluate it differently (M. S. Grushevsky, B. D. Grekov, A. P. Tolochko). Others consider it an ordinary event that did not have serious consequences (V. O. Klyuchevsky, A. E. Presnyakov, B. A. Rybakov, N. F. Kotlyar). Apparently, all the congresses of the late 11th - early 12th centuries were of the same order - a kind of duumvirate that developed between Vladimir Monomakh and Svyatopolk Izyaslavich. In this case, the congress met after a long war with Oleg Svyatoslavich for the Chernigov volost. Its goal was to conclude peace and distribute volosts among the participating princes, in a word, to reconcile the parties. It was decided that everyone should reign where his father had previously reigned. This is the meaning of the phrase “everyone keeps his own fatherland”, and there should not be any additional reservations and logical constructions here. The application of this formula applies only to the results of the strife that preceded the congress. This means that Oleg agreed that Svyatopolk should stay in Kyiv, and Vladimir Monomakh should go to Pereyaslavl. And he could take Chernigov. Almost everything turned out that way. Oleg received the fatherland he sought, but not alone, but together with his brother David. The most famous seditious in the history of Kievan Rus was now calmed down and did not create such problems for the duumvirates again. The sedition that flared up immediately after the Lyubech congress is already connected with other people. Congress could not warn her. The next princely congress was devoted to the whole complex of problems related to the new strife. But even he was not able to put an end to the princely strife once and for all, and he had no such goal. The entire first half of the 12th century passed under the sign of the struggle for certain volosts. Chroniclers talk about it all the time.

Kyiv was lucky for a very long time - until the death of Vsevolod Olgovich, he was not the subject of controversy. After Svyatopolk, as already noted, the Kyiv table was taken by Vladimir Monomakh. None of the princes then ventured to challenge the decision of the Kyiv community. Vladimir was the most powerful and authoritative prince. In 1125, seniority in the family and the reign of Kiev peacefully passed to his son Mstislav the Great, and when Mstislav also died, to his brother Yaropolk. In 1139, after the death of Yaropolk, Vsevolod Olgovich established himself in Kyiv with the help of force. Only after his death in 1146 did the incredibly heated struggle for the reign of Kiev begin. One way or another, Galician, Volyn, Pereyaslav, Suzdal, Chernigov, Seversk, Smolensk, Novgorod and other volosts were involved in it. It was attended by the neighbors of Russia: Polovtsy, Hungarians and Poles. The intensity of passions was associated primarily with the difficulties of determining seniority in the princely family. It was at this time that the question arose with all its sharpness: who is higher on the ladder of seniority, an uncle younger in years or a younger in generation, but older nephew? Another problem was the coordination of the opinion of the princes on this matter and the opinion of the townspeople.

It all started with the fact that the people of Kiev, in violation of the oath given to their late prince, invited Izyaslav Mstislavich, the grandson of Vladimir Monomakh, to reign. Izyaslav, who took the same oath, accepted the offer without hesitation. Having gathered an army, he went to Kyiv, where Igor Olgovich was already sitting. Having lost allies and the support of the people of Kiev, Igor could not stay in Kyiv. His fate was sad. Having lost the battle, he got stuck in a swamp, was taken prisoner, languished in a cut, then was tonsured a monk and, in the end, brutally killed by the people of Kiev. Sitting on the table of "his father and his grandfather," Izyaslav ran into Prince Svyatoslav Olgovich, who was sitting in Novgorod-Seversky, and Yuri Dolgoruky, the prince of Suzdal. Yuri became Izyaslav's main rival in the fight for the Kyiv table. The old nephew opposed the young uncle. Between them stood an old uncle - Vyacheslav Vladimirovich, who, during the strife, once said to his younger brother: "I was already bearded when you were born." Every now and then he interfered with both rivals, and ended up on the Kiev table every time when one of them had already left the city, and the other had not yet entered it.

In 1149, Yuri forced Izyaslav to leave for Vladimir Volynsky, but the next year he returned and forced Yuri to flee. Then, Yuri again kicked out Izyaslav, and then Izyaslav Yuri. In 1151, in order to legitimize his stay in Kyiv and strengthen his position, Izyaslav invited his uncle Vyacheslav Vladimirovich, who had been deceived by him more than once, to the Kyiv table. Uncle said everything he thought about his nephew, but accepted the offer. A new duumvirate was formed, in which the title of Grand Duke was carried by one - Vyacheslav, and the other - Izyaslav ruled. Yuri Dolgoruky did not like this alignment and the strife continued. In the battle near the Ruta River, Izyaslav Mstislavich almost died. In battle, he was wounded, and almost finished off by his own. When they wanted to kill the wounded Izyaslav, thinking that this was an enemy, he got up and said: "I am a prince." One of the people of Kiev replied: "Well, we need you." He took a sword and began to beat him on the helmet. Izyaslav hastened to clarify: "I am Izyaslav, your prince" and took off his helmet. Only then did they recognize him and help him. In 1154, Izyaslav Mstislavich fell ill and died, and Vyacheslav died after him, who, shortly after the death of his co-ruler, tried to put together a new duumvirate together with his brother Rostislav. Izyaslav Davidovich, the prince of Chernigov, tried to take advantage of the death of Vyacheslav, but Yuri did not allow him to gain a foothold in Kyiv. He sent him a demand to leave the city, saying: " My father is Kyiv, not you. Izyaslav did not argue, and, justifying himself - “ put me Kiyane"- left" the mother of Russian cities. Finally, Yuri managed to take the great Kyiv table and get rid of serious opponents. But his joy was short-lived. A few years later, in 1157, after one of the feasts, he suddenly fell ill, and, having suffered for five days, died.

Regardless of the results, the strife actually made only one possibility to determine the seniority in the princely family - "God's judgment" a reality. From now on, any prince who had the strength to do so could become a senior. The main conditions for seniority were the military power and personal authority of the prince, sufficient for his position to be recognized by other princes and Kyiv society. At the same time, the disposition towards the applicant from the side of Kiev begins to play an increasingly important role in acquiring the Kyiv table. And if we are talking about other lands, then the main city of each of them. Most often, the townspeople had the last word, because they, in essence, decided how much strength the prince would have.

Formally, the princes continued to be within the framework of family relations and, when they needed to, they remembered which of them was really older and who was younger. But when such a need disappeared, the “ancestral” rhetoric also disappeared, and the princes immediately forgot that one of them had just recognized himself as a “son”, and called the other, whom he had now driven out of the city, called “father”.

For a quarter of a century, the struggle for Kyiv, with short breaks, has been feverish on the Russian land. It was accompanied by wars for certain volosts, which practically did not stop. After the death of Yuri, Izyaslav Davidovich again entered Kyiv, but did not last long here. Then Rostislav Mstislavich, who reigned from 1159 to 1167, entrenched himself in the city. In 1167 - 1169, Mstislav Izyaslavich was sitting in Kyiv, who brought the first big rout to the city, which struck the chronicler, and after him the historians. For about two years, the prince of Kyiv, under the seniority of Andrei Bogolyubsky, was his brother Gleb (1169 - 1171). Then successively visited here: Vladimir Mstislavich, Roman Rostislavich, Rurik Rostislavich with brothers David and Mstislav, Yaroslav Izyaslavich, and, finally, again Roman Rostislavich, who had previously reigned in Smolensk. Kyiv only had time to recognize or call on one prince, as another turned out to be here, while all this was accompanied not by peaceful conversations, but by the endless “judgment of God”, otherwise the princes could not make out which of them was older and who was younger.

The last quarter of the 12th century for Kyiv, tired of civil strife, became a time of stability and the revival of the era of Vladimir - Svyatopolk. It was the "golden age", the years of the highest rise of ancient Russian civilization, when the political world was accompanied by an unprecedented economic and cultural rise. These were years of relative calm before the final fall of Kyiv. The wars for the volosts, which continued at that time, did not have a significant impact on the development of Kievan Rus.

In 1176, he became the prince of Kyiv Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, called in "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" "terrible" and "great". Svyatoslav was the son of Vsevolod Olgovich, and at that time he headed the "brave Oleg's nest." He managed to oust Roman Rostislavich from Kyiv, and, unlike his father or unfortunate uncle, enlist the genuine support of the people of Kiev. However, until 1180, i.e. for about four years, Svyatoslav continued to fight for the Kievan reign with the Rostislavichs. In 1180, after another clash between two rival factions, an agreement was found. Rurik Rostislavich, having defeated the Olgovichi, just like Mstislav Vladimirovich in his time, invited Svyatoslav to return to Kyiv. This unexpected brotherly love shown by Rurik can be easily explained. The result of the strife was influenced by the attitude towards rivals from the Kyivans, almost the same as the outcome of the battle between Yaroslav the Wise and Mstislav the Fierce, as he was called in Kyiv. Only the new duumvirate took a slightly different form. Kyiv and seniority remained with Svyatoslav, and the Russian land, i.e. towns in the Kyiv district passed under the control of Rurik.

During the reign of Svyatoslav and Rurik, the combined campaigns of the Russian princes against the Polovtsy resumed. The glorious times of Vladimir Monomakh returned to life for a short time. The chronicle is literally replete with reports of such campaigns, which were undertaken by the co-rulers, almost every year. In just two years (1184 and 1185), Svyatoslav organized four campaigns against the Polovtsy, and all of them ended in victory - the Polovtsy were either defeated or driven away. Svyatoslav managed to unite under his banner up to a dozen different princes.

The reign of the "terrible" Svyatoslav and Rurik Rostislavich continued until the death of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich in 1194. But even after that, Kyiv was not the object of fierce disputes and large-scale attacks until the beginning of 1203. Ironically, a terrible rout in Kyiv was then perpetrated by Rurik, expelled from the city by his son-in-law Roman Mstislavich. In 1240, he was finally defeated by the Mongols. This event marked the beginning of a new chapter in the history of Russian civilization.

The above review of the princely civil strife of the 11th - early 13th centuries, associated with the struggle for the great Kyiv table, allows us to reveal statistics of a different kind, which differs from the data of S. M. Solovyov. Between the first major strife of the XI century (1015 - 1025) and the period of long sedition of the second half of the XII century (1146 - 1180), there is an era of 121 years relative to peacetime, when the struggle for Kyiv did not lead to its ruin. Then the era of civil strife, which lasted intermittently (sometimes up to 7 years) for 34 years, was replaced by another period of peaceful development of Kyiv, which lasted 22 years. At the same time, for all the years of civil strife, from the founding of the city to the Mongol invasion, the capital of Russia only twice (in 1169 and 1203) was subjected to a major defeat. Similar statistics are also found in relation to other major centers of Kievan Rus. Some cities did not go bankrupt at all like Kyiv until the beginning of the Mongol yoke. This kind of information reflects the development of ancient Russian civilization more objectively and fully explains the lack of influence of princely strife on the general state of Russia.

The most important indicator of the health of a social system is culture. It reflects the thoughts, feelings, tastes, preferences, ideas of beauty, emotional upsurge or depression inherent in the era. It completely and completely reproduces the nature of the social system in a certain historical period. This allows us to use achievements in culture as a reliable measure of the level of development of society and its state as a whole. If you look from this point of view at Kievan Rus in the 11th - the first third of the 13th centuries, it is easy to see that, right up to the Mongol invasion, ancient Russian society did not experience long periods of decline. Moreover, the peak in its development, the period of true heyday, in which the greatest number of masterpieces fall, was the third quarter of the 12th - the first third of the 13th centuries - the very height of fragmentation. It was at this time that the Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir, the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, and the Tale of Igor's Campaign were created.

The diagram below, compiled on the basis of achievements in three areas of culture - architecture, painting and literature, shows the dynamics of the development of Kievan Rus. These achievements are conditionally designated as "masterpieces".

Figure 29 - The development of ancient Russian civilization

The diagram clearly shows that the ancient Russian civilization was caught by the Mongols at the stage of take-off and, if not for the destruction brought by the invasion, and not for the Horde yoke, which laid a heavy burden on the shoulders of the ancient Rus, the history of the country would have been completely different.

A millennium ago, at the end of the 10th century, one of the first Russian chroniclers devoted a special work, The Tale of Bygone Years, to clarifying the question “where did the Russian land come from, who in Kyiv began before the princes, and where did the Russian land come from.” Here, apparently, for the first time the legends of bygone times, the era of the tribal system, were comprehended, when songwriters and priests at meetings of fellow tribesmen reminded of ancient ancestors and customs sanctified by centuries. Cyril of Turov at the end of the 12th century. will remind you that the legends of bygone times are kept by chroniclers and vitii, and the monument of the same time "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" is the golden word of the vitii, who have kept the memory of their ancestors for a whole millennium.

In the era of transition from tribal to state relations, when the Power was increasingly moving away from the Earth, the interests of different social strata were inevitably affected. As a result, different versions of the origin of this or that people appeared. It is clear that the first chronicler adhered to one version, but in the chronicles that have survived to this day, there were unequal and even directly opposite solutions to the issues raised in the title. They arose, in all likelihood, in different social strata and at different times. Over time, however, when the burning relevance of tendencies was dulled, the later compilers included these versions in their compilations, in some cases trying to somehow reconcile them, and in others (fortunately for researchers!) Not noticing the contradictions at all.

These later writings also include the so-called "Initial Chronicle", which retained the ancient title "The Tale of Bygone Years" in the title and which in the literature is attributed to the pen of either the Caves monk Nestor or the Vydubitsky abbot Sylvester.

This chronicle was considered original for a long time, which is reflected in its traditional name. This is the main written source on the ancient history of Russia, and later researchers, referring to it, heatedly argued, not noticing that very often they only continued the dispute that had begun many centuries earlier.

History has always been and will always be a political science. And Bismarck's well-known aphorism that "the German history teacher won the war with France" does not mean the superiority of German dialectics over French positivism, but German science permeated with ideological purposefulness over unprincipled French collections of anecdotes. Of particular relevance is usually the study of civilizations that have direct successors. The beginning of Russia is the process of the formation of the ancient Russian people and the formation of the state, which had a great influence on the fate of the peoples who inhabited Central and Eastern Europe. And it is not surprising that the study of this topic was often fueled and deformed by pragmatic interest. Suffice it to recall the nearly three centuries old (continuing to this day) polemic between Normanists and anti-Normanists. Very often, scientists were driven by a purely cognitive interest, but very rarely this interest contradicted the public sympathies of the author, and the social content of the accepted methodological system was most often not realized at all.

For a number of centuries, Slavs and Germans interacted in large areas of Europe. The forms of their interaction were very different, but the tradition preserved the idea of ​​a long-standing struggle, while during the formation of the early Slavic states this struggle escalated quite realistically. The impression was created of the eternal confrontation between two large ethnic groups: from the 8th century. the German "onslaught to the east" is carried out, in the XVIII - XIX centuries. long-standing strategic goals of Russia are being realized - the mastery of the Baltic coast. The German heirs of the Livonian Order found themselves under the rule of the Russian tsars, but the new subjects very soon acquired the rights of a privileged estate, and later became the backbone of the Russian autocracy. Mean counts and barons from numerous German principalities fed at the royal court. And the more significant were the successes of Russian weapons on the battlefield, the more firmly the defeated took possession of the approaches to the Russian throne. It was in this peculiar situation that the Norman theory took shape - an interpretation of the annalistic tradition about the calling of the Varangians in a pro-German spirit.

The dispute between Normanists and anti-Normanists, of course, was not limited to ethnic oppositions. But it was carried out almost invariably with heightened passion, even if passion was generated simply by a thirst for truth - the scientists' constructions could be affected by methodological attitudes, their specialization, and the range of sources selected from a sea of ​​the most diverse and contradictory evidence.

Of course, scientists cannot be held responsible for the conclusions that politicians sometimes draw from their investigations. But they are obliged to take into account exactly what provisions turn out to be convenient for speculative constructions. In the 30s - 40s. In the last century, the Norman theory was adopted by German fascism, and the most irreconcilable apologists for the apolitical nature of history had to make sure how supposedly purely “academic” reasoning turns into a poisoned weapon of aggression and genocide. The leaders of the Third Reich themselves joined the ideological struggle, exposing and propagating some important provisions of the Norman theory. “The organization of Russian state education,” wrote Hitler in Mein Kampf, “was not the result of the state-political abilities of the Slavs in Russia; on the contrary, this is a marvelous example of how the German element manifests in the lower race its ability to create a state ... For centuries, Russia lived at the expense of this German core of its upper ruling classes. A practical conclusion followed from this “scientific” analysis: “Fate itself, as it were, wants to show us the way with its finger: having handed the fate of Russia to the Bolsheviks, it deprived the Russian people of the mind that gave rise to and still supported its state existence.” The provisions of the Norman concept were also addressed in public speeches. “This base human rabble,” Himmler, for example, raged, “the Slavs are just as incapable of maintaining order today as they were not able many centuries ago, when these people called on the Varangians, when they called on the Ruriks.”

The legend about the calling of the Varangians was directly cited in propaganda documents for mass purposes. In the memo to the German soldier - "12 commandments of the behavior of Germans in the East and their treatment of Russians" - the phrase was cited: "Our country is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it. Come and own us." A similar instruction to village managers (drawn up three weeks before June 22) explained: “Russians always want to remain a mass that is controlled. In this sense, they will also perceive the German invasion, for this will be the fulfillment of their desire: "Come and own us." Therefore, the Russians should not be left with the impression that you are hesitating about something. You must be people of action who, without superfluous words, without long conversations and without philosophizing, clearly and firmly carry out what is necessary. Then the Russians will obligingly obey you.”

Topic 1.

Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy (1350 – 138 9) - son of Ivan the Red, Prince of Moscow (1359), Grand Duke of Vladimir (1359), nicknamed Donskoy for the victory over Mamai in the Battle of Kulikovo, founder of the white-stone Moscow Kremlin. During his reign, the Moscow principality became the main center of the political unification of the ancient Russian lands, and the Vladimir principality became the hereditary possession of the Moscow princes.

Andrey Kurbsky (1528 - 1583) - an outstanding Russian commander during the Livonian War, politician and writer, one of the closest associates of Ivan the Terrible. Oprichnina opponent. Fleeing from the treachery of the king, he fled to Lithuania. He remained in the memory of posterity thanks to the correspondence with Ivan the Terrible, in which he denounced the abuses and vices of the tsar.

Ermak Timofeevich (c. 1532-1542 - 1585) - Cossack chieftain, conqueror of the Siberian Khanate .

Ivan Fedorov (c. 1520 - 1583) - one of the first Russian book printers. Published the first printed book "Apostle". However, the mistakes made in the publication aroused a rebellion, supported by scribes who saw in I.F. competitor. Fleeing from the wrath of ill-wishers, he fled to Lithuania, where he recreated his printing workshop.

Patriarch Nikon ( 1605 - 1681) - Moscow Patriarch, came from the environment of the rural clergy. Subsequently, a friend and closest adviser to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. For a long time he enjoyed the great confidence of the tsar, was awarded the title of "great lord and sovereign", similar to that worn by the father of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, Patriarch Filaret (boyar Fedor Romanov). The organizer of the largest church reform, designed to unify the ancient Russian church life according to Greek models. The reform ended with the emergence of the Schism and the Old Believers. He pursued a policy aimed at elevating ecclesiastical authority over secular. He was accused of abuse of church power, ill-treatment of the clergy, an attempt to usurp the powers of the king, was deprived of his dignity and exiled to a monastery. Shortly before his death, he was forgiven, justified and restored in his dignity by Feodor Alekseevich.

Stepan Timofeevich Razin (Stenka Razin) (c. 1630 - 1071) - Don Cossack from the village of Zimoveyskaya, who declared himself king, the leader of the largest uprising in the history of pre-Petrine Russia in 1670-1671. Simeon Polotsky ( 1629 - 1680) - an outstanding figure of East Slavic culture, a monk, a graduate of the Kyiv Academy, a spiritual writer, theologian, poet and playwright. Teacher of the children of the king Alexey Mikhailovich from Miloslavskaya: Alexei, Sophia and Fedor. Artworks S.P. had a significant influence on the formation of Russian literature not only at the end of the 17th, but throughout the 18th centuries.
Questions for independent work:

1. 
   What civilizations and peoples had a fundamental influence on the formation of ancient Russian civilization?
2. 
   What common socio-political and cultural features did Ancient Russia have with Europe?
3. 
   How and to what extent did the new geographical discoveries, the invention of printing and the development of universities, private and monastic schools contribute to social changes in Europe? Have these processes affected the cultural and social processes in Russia?
4. 
   How can one explain the despotic forms of government in Russia in the 16th century, and to what extent did this phenomenon fit into European political processes?
5. 
   Can Russia be considered XV-XVII centuries. European power?

Workshop:

1. 
   While the Christian life of Kievan Rus was guided mainly by the religious patterns of Byzantium, the political processes in the ancient Russian state largely corresponded to what was happening in Western Europe. How can this phenomenon be explained?
2. 
   In the X-XIII centuries. Western European rulers, ambassadors, travelers and missionaries perceived the expanses of Ancient Russia as part of the European political and cultural space. How can one explain the fact that already in the XIV century the assessments changed, and in the eyes of the Germans, the French and even the Poles, and the Hungarians, the territories of the Vladimir Grand Duchy were assessed differently, being considered as part of Asia?
3. 
   Grand-princely, and then royal power in Ancient Russia was considered sacred. The commoner did not even have the right to freely see the rulers of the state and the heirs to the throne. The ruling stratum was small, its representatives were connected by close family and service relations. As a result, it was extremely difficult to take on someone else's name and impersonate someone else. How could it arise in such conditions at the beginning of the 17th century. imposture, which relatively easily received the support of broad sections of Russian society, enlisted the blessing of the largest church hierarchs, and eventually reached the royal throne?

Test

Ancient Russia (IX-XVII centuries)
East Slavic peoples are

Poles

Serbs
Russians
The Slavs are
Zyrians

Volynians

Circassians
The tribal union of Novgorod Slovenes was formed

on the banks of Ilmen Island and the Volkhov River

on the banks of the Oka river

in the upper reaches of the river Volga
The main branch of the economy of the Eastern Slavs in the VI-VII centuries.

beekeeping

nomadic pastoralism

intermediary trade

slash-and-burn agriculture
The main city of the glades was

Novgorod

Chernihiv
Smolensk
The rudiments of statehood appeared earlier than others in

drevlyans

Krivichi

Vyatichi

glades and novgorod slovaks
The theory according to which statehood was brought to Russia by the Varangians is called