Social The structure of society changed and became more complex as feudal relations developed. Some pre-revolutionary historians argued that the free population of the Kievan state did not know class divisions and partitions. Everyone enjoyed the same rights, but, of course, different groups of the population differed from each other in their actual situation, i.e., in wealth and social. influence. The social leaders were called: the best people, (husbands), goblin, big, first, deliberate, boyars.

The social ranks were smaller, black, simple children, smerds. Klyuchevsky and the historians of his school note that the upper stratum of the population (the boyars) consisted of two elements: the zemstvo boyars - the local tribal aristocracy (descendants of tribal elders, tribal princes), as well as the military-commercial aristocracy, the serving princely boyars and the upper layer of princely combatants. Soviet historiography in the class of feudal lords distinguishes the top - representatives of the grand ducal house with the grand duke at the head. According to Klyuchevsky, the middle strata were: an ordinary mass of princely combatants who were kept and fed in the princely court and received their share of tribute and military booty as an additional reward: the middle strata of the urban merchant class. The lower strata - the urban and rural common people - were the main population of Russia. Free community-farmers who owe tribute to the prince, urban and artisans, purchases and ryadovichi, smerds - not free or semi-free tributaries who sat on the land of the prince and carried duties for his personal benefit. The non-free population of Russia are serfs (prisoners of war, bonded serfs, outcasts).

The apparatus of power performed the following functions:

• - Collection of tribute from subject lands in favor of the Grand Duke of Kyiv (polyudye);
• - Maintenance of public order in their land. The princes judged and sorted out conflicts and defended their lands from external enemies, especially nomads;
• - Foreign policy activities. Military campaigns were undertaken against neighboring states in order to seize booty, alliances were concluded, and trade and diplomatic relations were established.

The historian Semenikova believes that the Old Russian state was built on the basis of the institution of vassalage.

The upper layer of society - the boyars were vassals of the Grand Duke of Kyiv and were obliged to serve his squad.

But at the same time they were full masters in their lands, where they had less noble vassals. The system of boyar immunity included the right to transfer to the service of another prince.

2.1 The social structure of Ancient Russia

The social structure of Ancient Russia was complex. The bulk of the rural population, dependent on the prince, was called smerds. They lived both in peasant communities and in estates. The ruined peasants borrowed a loan from the feudal lords - "kupa" (money, crops, etc.), hence their name - purchases. A person who lost his social status became an outcast. In the position of slaves were servants and serfs, replenished from among the captives and ruined fellow tribesmen.

The dependent people were opposed by the free population, called people (hence the collection of tribute - "polyudye"). The social top was made up of princes from the Rurik family, surrounded by a retinue, which was divided from the 11th century. into the older (boyars) and younger (children, youths, merciful). "The new retinue and zemstvo (zemstvo boyars) nobility, which took the place of the former tribal, represented a kind of aristocratic stratum supplying political leaders." The free population consisted mainly of residents of cities and villages, community husbands, who created a significant part of social wealth. They were the social core of the socio-political and military organization in the Old Russian state. This was expressed as follows.

Free community members had their own military organization, which in terms of combat power far exceeded the prince's squad. It was a people's militia led by a leader - a thousand (the militia itself was called "thousand"). The supreme authority in the Russian lands of the X-XII centuries. there was a popular assembly of the "older city" - a veche, which was the highest form of self-government. According to L.I. Semennikova, in ancient Russian society, the ideal of people's rule, collective communal governance dominated: "The prince in Kievan Rus was not in the full sense of the word a sovereign, either in the eastern or in the western version ... Arriving in one or another volost, the prince had to conclude a" series " (agreement) with the people's assembly - "veche". And this means that he was also an element of communal power, designed to look after the interests of society, the collective; The composition of the veche was democratic. The ancient Russian nobility did not have the necessary means for its complete subordination. influenced the course of social and political life"

Opinion of L.I. Semennikova about the popular character of the vecha is shared by many scientists, including I.Ya. Froyanov, A.Yu. Dvornichenko. At the same time, in science there is a view of the veche as a narrow-class body of power, where ordinary people could not get (V.T. Pashuto, V.L. Yanin, and others). Another point of view boils down to the following: the veche became a relic in Russia already by the 11th century. and was collected in exceptional cases, and as the highest form of power, it is up to the XV century. existed only in Novgorod, Pskov and partly in Polotsk.

Veche played a prominent role in the political life of Ancient Russia, so the political system of that time can be called veche democracy.

An analysis of the socio-political situation in Kievan Rus leads to the conclusion that the people were an active political and social force, based on the traditions of freedom and public institutions dating back to antiquity, but built on a territorial basis. By means of the vecha, the people often decided which of the princes to "put on the table", discussed issues of war and peace, acted as a mediator in princely conflicts, and resolved financial and land problems. As for the nobility, it has not yet emerged as a separate, closed class, has not yet turned into a social entity that opposes the main part of the population.

3. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE OLD RUSSIAN STATE

The ancient Russian state in the form of government is an early feudal monarchy. In addition to the monarchical element, which is undoubtedly the basis, the political organization of the Russian principalities of the Kievan period also had a combination of aristocratic and democratic rule.

The monarchical element was the prince. The head of state was the Grand Duke of Kyiv, who, however, in ancient Russia was not an autocratic ruler (but rather was "first among equals"). His brothers, sons and warriors carried out: 1) government of the country, 2) court, 3) collection of tribute and duties.

The main function of the prince was military, the first duty was the defense of the city from external enemies. Among other functions - judicial. He appointed local judges to deal with cases among his charges. In important cases, he judged himself as the supreme judge.

The aristocratic element was represented by the Council (Boyar Duma), which included senior warriors - the local nobility, representatives of cities, and sometimes the clergy. At the Council, as an advisory body under the prince, the most important state issues were resolved (the full composition of the council was convened if necessary): the election of the prince, the declaration of war and peace, the conclusion of treaties, the issuance of laws, the consideration of a number of judicial and financial cases, etc. The Boyar Duma symbolized rights and autonomy vassals and had the right to "veto".

The younger squad, which included boyar children and youths, yard servants, as a rule, was not included in the Prince's Council. But when resolving the most important tactical issues, the prince usually consulted with the squad as a whole. It is widely believed that the boyars were completely free in their service to the prince. The boyar could always leave his court or enter the service of another prince. However, since the boyars became landowners, they could only do so by sacrificing their rights to the land. Sometimes it happened that a boyar, who was the owner of land in one principality, served the prince of another. But, nevertheless, usually the growth of land holdings forced the boyars to more often combine their interests with the principality where they lived.

With the participation of princes, noble boyars and representatives of cities, feudal congresses also met, at which issues affecting the interests of all principalities were considered. A management apparatus was formed that was in charge of legal proceedings, the collection of duties and tariffs. From among the combatants, the prince appointed posadniks - governors to manage the city, region; governor-leaders of various military units; thousand - senior officials (in the so-called decimal system of the military-administrative division of society, dating back to the pre-state period); collectors of land taxes - tributaries, court officials - virniki, porches, collectors of trade duties - collectors. The rulers of the princely patrimonial economy - tiuns - also stood out from the squad (later they became special government officials and were included in the state administration system).

Democratic control is found in the city assembly, known as the veche. It was not a body of representatives, but a meeting of all grown men. Unanimity was essential for any decision to be made. In practice, it happened that this requirement led to armed clashes between groups arguing at the veche. The losing side was forced to agree with the decision of the winners. The veche in the capital of the principality influenced the veche of smaller cities. In the XI-XII centuries. Veche fell under the influence of social leaders, losing the functions of management and self-government.

An important feature of Kievan Rus, which developed as a result of constant danger, especially from the steppe nomads, was the general armament of the people, organized according to the decimal system (hundreds, thousands). It was the numerous people's militia that often decided the outcome of battles, and it was not subordinate to the prince, but to the veche. But as a democratic institution, it was already in the 11th century. began to gradually lose its dominant role, retaining its strength for several centuries only in Novgorod, Kyiv, Pskov and other cities, continuing to exert a noticeable influence on the course of the socio-political life of the Russian land.

The social structure of Kievan Rus

The social structure of Kievan Rus corresponded to its economic system. The dominant position was occupied by governors (boyars), thousand, sotsky, tiuns, firemen, village elders, and the city elite. The free category of rural producers was called smerds, the feudally dependent population in Kievan Rus were ryadovichi, purchases and outcasts. Serfs and servants were in the position of slaves.

Political fragmentation of Kievan Rus and its consequences

Kievan Rus was one of the most powerful states of its time, which significantly influenced the development of European civilization, but after the death of Vladimir Monomakh's son Mstislav Vladimirovich (1132), it began to lose its political unity and was divided into 15 principalities and lands. Among them, Kiev, Chernigov, Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod, Smolensk, Polotsk and Galician principalities were large and influential.

The political prerequisites for fragmentation were as follows:

• - the succession to the throne among the princes of Kievan Rus was different: in some lands, power was transferred from father to son, in others - from older brother to younger;
• - political ties between individual feudal estates and individual lands were weakened, the development of individual lands led to the emergence of local separatism;
• - in some lands, the local boyars demanded the strong power of the prince to ensure the protection of their rights; on the other hand, the real power of the specific princes and boyars increased, the power of the Kyiv prince was weakened, many boyars put local interests above national ones;
• - in the Kiev principality was not created its own dynasty, as the Struggle for the possession of Kyiv were representatives of all princely families;
• - the expansion of nomads to Russian lands intensified.

Socio-economic prerequisites for fragmentation:

• - the natural nature of the economy of the Kievan state led to the weakening of economic, trade ties between individual lands;
• - rapidly developed cities that became political, economic and cultural centers of the principalities;
• - the transformation of the conditional landownership of the specific boyars into hereditary significantly increased the economic role of the local nobility, who did not want to share their power;
• - a change in the trading environment, as a result of which Kyiv lost its role as a center of trade, and Western Europe began to trade directly with a close gathering.

Modern research scientists prove that feudal fragmentation is natural stage in the development of medieval society. This is also evidenced by the fact that all the peoples and states of Europe survived it. Fragmentation was caused by the further feudalization of ancient Russian society, the spread of socio-economic development in the field. If earlier Kyiv was the center of the entire socio-economic, political, cultural and ideological life of the country, then from the middle of the XII century. other centers already competed with it: the old ones - Novgorod, Smolensk, Polotsk - and the new ones - Vladimir-on-Klyazma and Galich.

Russia was torn apart by princely civil strife, large and small wars, constantly going on between the feudal lords. However, contrary to popular belief, the Old Russian State did not collapse. It only changed its form: in place of the one-man monarchy came federal Monarchy, in which Russia was jointly ruled by a group of the most influential and powerful princes. Historians call this form of government "collective sovereignty."

Fragmentation weakened the state politically, but contributed to the development of the local economy and culture. She, to a certain extent, laid the foundations of three East Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. The last decades of the 15th century, when the Russian centralized state was formed, and the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands fell under the rule of Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and Moldova, are considered to be the period of ending fragmentation in the East Slavic lands.

2. Social stratification

A society consisting only of family communities can be thought of as essentially homogeneous. All members of a friend have an equal share both in the total labor and in the product of production. It is a "classless" society in miniature.

With the breaking of the friend and the emancipation of the family from the clan, with the similar isolation of the individual from society and the formation of a new type of territorial community, the entire social structure of the nation becomes more complex. Gradually, different social classes take shape.

The process of social stratification began among the Eastern Slavs long before the formation of the Kievan state. We know that the Sclavenes and Antes in the sixth century turned prisoners of war - even those of the same race - into slaves. We also know that there was an aristocratic group among the Antes and that some of the war chiefs held great wealth. So, we have among the Eastern Slavs elements of at least three existing social groups already in the sixth century: the aristocracy, the common people and the slaves. The subjugation of some of the East Slavic tribes to foreign conquerors could also be realized in the political and social differentiation of various tribes. We know that the Eastern Slavs paid tribute in grain and other agricultural products to the Alans, Goths and Magyars, as each of these peoples in turn established control over part of the East Slavic tribes. While some of the Slavic groups eventually asserted their independence or autonomy, others remained under foreign control for a longer period. Peasant communities, initially dependent on foreign masters, later recognized the power of local Slavic princes, but their status did not change, and they continued to pay their former duties. So, a difference was established in the position of different Slavic groups. Some of them were self-governing, others were dependent on the princes.

Given this extraordinary social and historical background, we must approach the study of Russian society in the Kievan period. It can be assumed that the society was quite complex, although in Kievan Rus there were no such high barriers between individual social groups and classes that existed in feudal Europe of the same period. In general, it should be said that the Russian society of the Kyiv period consisted of two large groups: free and slaves. Such a judgment, however, although correct, is too broad to adequately characterize the organization of Kievan society.

It should be noted that among the free themselves there were various groups: while some were full citizens, the legal status of others was limited. In fact, the position of some of the free classes was so precarious, due to legal or economic restrictions, that some of them voluntarily chose to become slaves. So, between the free and the slaves, an intermediate group can be found, which can be called semi-free. Moreover, some groups of the truly free were better off economically and better protected by law than others. Accordingly, we can talk about the existence of a high-ranking class and a middle class of free people in Kiev society.

Our main legal source for this period is Russkaya Pravda, and we must turn to this code for legal terminology characterizing social classes. In the eleventh century variant of Pravda—the so-called Short Version—we find the following fundamental concepts: men- for the upper layer of the free, people- for the middle class smerdy - for limited free, servants - for the slaves.

In the eyes of the legislator, a person had a different value, depending on his class affiliation. Ancient Russian criminal law did not know the death penalty. Instead, it was a system of cash payments imposed on the killer. The latter had to pay compensation to the relatives of the slain (known as bot in the Anglo-Saxon version) and a fine to the prince ("bloodwite"). This system was common among the Slavs, Germans and Anglo-Saxons in the early Middle Ages.

In the earliest version of Pravda, the wergeld, or payment for the life of a free person, reached 40 hryvnias. In "Pravda" of the sons of Yaroslav, princely people ( men) were protected by a double fine of 80 hryvnia, while the fine for people(plural - people) remained at the initial level of 40 hryvnia. The fine to be paid to the prince for murder stink was set at 5 hryvnias - one-eighth of the normal wergeld. Slaves who were not free did not have a wergeld.

From a philological point of view, it is interesting that all the above terms belong to an ancient Indo-European foundation225. Slavic husband (may) related to Sanskrit manuh, manusah; Gothic manna; German mann and mench. In Old Russian, "husband" means "a man of noble birth", "knight" and also means "husband" in family terms. People means a community of human beings, which can be compared to the German leute. It turns out that the root of the word is the same as in the Greek adjective eleutheros ("free")226. Smerd can be seen in relation to the Persian mard, "man"; in Armenian it also sounds mard. The disappearance of the initial "s" in the combination "sm" is not unusual in the Indo-European languages227. According to Meie, mard emphasizes the mortality of man (as opposed to the "immortals", i.e. the gods)228. From this point of view, it is interesting to compare the Persian mard and the Slavic death(both words mean "death").

In the social development of Russia, each of the above terms has its own history. The term "smerd" has acquired a pejorative meaning in connection with the verb "stink", "stink". The term "husband" in the sense of a specific social category gradually disappeared, and the class of boyars eventually developed from husbands. In its diminutive form, the term man("little man") was applied to peasants subordinate to boyar power. From here - man,"peasant". Term lyudin(singular) also disappeared except for the combination commoner.

Plural form people still in use; it corresponds in modern Russian to the word Human, used only in the singular. The first part of this word (chel-) represents the same root that is present in the Old Russian word servants("domestic slaves"). The original meaning of the root is "genus": let's compare the Gaelic clann and the Lithuanian keltis229.

From the book Kievan Rus author

2. Social stratification A society consisting only of family communities can be thought of as fundamentally homogeneous. All members of a friend have an equal share both in the total labor and in the product of production. This is a "classless" society in miniature.

author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

Social stratification in the Frankish society of the Merovingian period The germs of social stratification among the conquering Franks are manifested in Salic Pravda in various sizes of the wergeld of different categories of the free population. For simple free francs, he

From the book History of the Middle Ages. Volume 1 [In two volumes. Under the general editorship of S. D. Skazkin] author Skazkin Sergey Danilovich

Social stratification among the Anglo-Saxons In the first centuries after settling in Britain, along with the Curls, the Anglo-Saxons also had a tribal nobility - the Earls, people who are richer and more influential, protected by a higher wergeld than the Curls. The lower stratum of society consisted of slaves

From the book History of Ancient Greece author Andreev Yury Viktorovich

4. Property and social stratification The patriarchal monogamous family living in a closed economy (oikos) was the main economic unit of Homeric society. Tribal ownership of land and other types of property, apparently, was obsolete in the Mycenaean

From the book Stalin. Red "king" (compilation) author Trotsky Lev Davidovich

The stratification of the proletariat It would seem that in a workers' state the data on real wages should be studied with particular care; and indeed, all income statistics by categories of the population should be completely transparent and accessible to the public. Actually

From the book Pre-Letopisnaya Rus. Russia pre-Orda. Russia and the Golden Horde author Fedoseev Yury Grigorievich

Chapter 2 Calling the Varangians, their first steps. The formation of Kievan Rus. tormenting neighboring tribes. Squads. communities. Social stratification. Tribute. Remains of the ancient people's rule Well, what about Rurik with his Vikings? How to explain their appearance in 862 in Russia: how

From the book History of Korea: from antiquity to the beginning of the XXI century. author Kurbanov Sergey Olegovich

§ 4. Social stratification. A new path of economic development in Korea Social stratification in Korea in the 17th-18th centuries. occurred through the formation of three main new groups of the population: large landowners (chichu), peasants with land (chongho), and landless

From the book Ancient East author Nemirovsky Alexander Arkadievich

Social stratification During this period, the genus is increasingly losing strength, and blood ties - significance. There is an increase in the power of the specific ruler, the influence of dignitaries, and the tribal aristocracy is losing power. Becomes an independent economic cell

From the book Mayan People author Rus Alberto

Social stratification What kind of social organization could develop on the economic basis we have outlined? Obviously, this is a society divided into classes, with interests not only different, but also antagonistic. Social stratification is clear

From the book of the Romanovs. Mistakes of a great dynasty author Shumeiko Igor Nikolaevich

Social, too social That's why Arnold Toynbee himself had to be clarified: what should be understood by "Western technologies". Why did he emphasize the long historical periods of victories of Europeans, armed not one iota better than Asians. And what gunpowder

From the book of Masons. Volume 1 [big encyclopedia] author Team of authors

The stratification of Moscow Freemasonry The further history of Freemasonry shows how gradually, with the death of Schwartz, the stratification of Rosicrucianism set in. Of course, not only the death of Schwartz was the reason for this: in the very Freemasonry of this time, corrupting principles lurked.

From the book ISSUE 2. HISTORY OF PRIMARY SOCIETY author Semenov Yuri Ivanovich

3.8. Prestigious economy and social stratification As we have already seen, the emergence of gift-exchange led to the emergence of a kind of social inequality. People were divided into those who participated in this exchange, and those who did not participate in it. In turn, the participants

From the book From the USSR to Russia. The history of the unfinished crisis. 1964–1994 author Boff Giuseppe

From the book Dawn of the Slavs. 5th - first half of 6th century author Alekseev Sergey Viktorovich

Social stratification The Slavic society of the described period was at the stage of a tribal system. The processes of its decomposition, the development of proprietary relations and the formation of the state, slowed down for a while by the Hun invasion, from the VI century. approaching the final

From the book Kievan Rus author Vernadsky Georgy Vladimirovich

2. Social stratification A society consisting only of family communities can be thought of as fundamentally homogeneous. All members of a friend have an equal share both in the total labor and in the product of production. It is a "classless" society in miniature. With a broken friend and

From the book From the USSR to Russia. The history of the unfinished crisis. 1964-1994 author Boff Giuseppe

Social stratification and way of life What happened, in spite of everything, the increase in the standard of living had a radical impact on the way of life and the demands of people. In the late 1950s, the urban population outnumbered the rural population. In 1972 the ratio was 58% and 42%, respectively.

In 1054 Yaroslav the Wise, dying, divided the country between 5 sons and established the procedure for transferring power not to the eldest son, but to the eldest in the family. In 1054-1072 - the reign of the three sons of Yaroslav the Wise: - the eldest Izyaslav Yaroslavich - sat in Kyiv; - Svyatoslav Yaroslavich - to Chernihiv; - Vsevolod Yaroslavich - to Pereyaslavl; The younger brothers got more distant lands: - Vyacheslav - Smolensk; - Igor - Vladimir-Volynsky. 1072 - Pravda Yaroslavichi was created. The contradictions laid down in the order of succession to the throne by seniority lead to the appearance of PRINCES - OUTSIDES - this is a prince whose father died without reaching seniority in the family. His sons were deprived of the right to be grand dukes. The area of ​​their reign was divided among other princes. 1 strife 1073-1076 Svyatoslav and Vsevolod violated their father's commandment to rule the world and expelled Izyaslav from Kyiv. Izyaslav fled to Poland. Svyatoslav became prince of Kyiv. 1076 - death of Svyatoslav. 2 strife 1076 - 1078 In 1076 Vsevolod took the throne of Kyiv, but lost it without a fight to Izyaslav, who, with the help of the Poles, returned to Kyiv again, and left for Chernigov himself. The son of Svyatoslav Oleg was left without a paternal throne in Chernigov. He fled to Tmutarakan and from there in 1078. came with the Polovtsians to wage war against Vsevolod. During the battle on the Nezhatina Field, Izyaslav of Kyiv and Vsevolod of Chernigov defeated Oleg Svyatoslavovich. But Izyaslav was killed in the battle. Oleg runs back to Tmutarakan. Vsevolod occupied the throne of Kyiv, and put his son Vladimir to reign in Chernigov. Vsevolod was the last of the Yaroslavichs. He held power thanks to the victories of his son Vladimir Monomakh (he received his nickname for being the son of a Byzantine princess, daughter of Emperor Constantine Monomakh, Maria Monomakh.) 1093. - death of Vsevolod. Vladimir, seeking to avoid strife, renounced the great reign and Svyatopolk Izyaslavovich, who had more rights to the capital throne, received power. was the eldest in the family. Vladimir Monomakh himself settled in Chernigov. 3 strife 1094 Oleg Tmutarakansky came with the Polovtsians, occupied Chernigov and Vladimir Monomakh returned to Pereyaslavl, the city that his father received from his grandfather Yaroslav the Wise. For almost 20 years, Vladimir Monomakh reigned in Pereyaslavl. Vladimir Monomakh defeated Oleg and he agreed to negotiate on the rights to the inheritance. 1097 LUBECHESKY CONGRESS. On the initiative of Vladimir Monomakh, Svyatopolk of Kyiv, Oleg, Vladimir Monomakh, and other descendants of Yaroslav came to the city of Lyubech for the congress. Decisions: 1) Return to the order of inheritance of lands established by Yaroslav (“Each prince keeps his fatherland”), i.e. inherit land from his father. Pereyaslavl is assigned to the descendants of Vsevolod Yaroslavich. 2) Unification of forces in the fight against the Polovtsians. Thus, the congress will have a number of major political consequences: - it will lead to political fragmentation in Russia, which began in the 12th century; - will lead to an attempt by the princes to stop princely strife; - will lead to an attempt by the princes to jointly oppose the Polovtsians. But the strife continued: 4 strife 1097 Davyd Igorevich, the son of Igor Yaroslavich, violated the decisions of the congress and went to war against other princes, but was defeated and, as a punishment, lost the city of Vladimir-Volynsky, his ancestral homeland. In 1100 another congress was held in Vitichev, which consolidated the decisions of the congress in Lyubech. In 1103 in the city of Dolobsk, the princes agreed on a joint struggle against the Polovtsy. In 1113 Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich died. After his death, a major uprising began in Kyiv. The people smashed the courts of princely tiuns, large feudal lords and usurers. The uprising lasted 4 days. The Kievan boyars summoned Vladimir Monomakh to the grand-ducal throne. He makes concessions to the people and, as a token of gratitude for the invitation, writes the Charter "On Purchases and Cuts." Cuts -% rate. (the essence of the rebellion on page 27). 1113 Monk Nestor writes the chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years". 1113 - Vladimir Monomakh wrote "The Charter of Vladimir Monomakh", which became an integral part of the "Russian Truth". Vladimir Monomakh made a serious attempt to restore the former significance of the power of the Kyiv prince. Vladimir Monomakh considered the "younger" members of the princely family as vassals who had to go on campaigns on his orders and, in case of disobedience, were deprived of the princely throne. Vladimir Monomakh enjoyed great prestige and was widely educated, possessed literary talent. After him, the crowning of the kings became the Hat of Monomakh - allegedly transferred to Vladimir Monomakh from the Byzantine emperor - Constantine Monomakh, his grandfather.