"The Slavic tribes that occupied the vast territories of Eastern Europe are going through a process of consolidation and in the 8th-9th centuries form the Old Russian (or East Slavic) people. Common features in modern Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian languages show that they all emerged from one common Russian language. On In the Old Russian (East Slavonic) language, such monuments as "The Tale of Bygone Years", the oldest code of laws - "Russian Truth", the poetic work "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", numerous letters, etc.
The beginning of the formation of the common Russian language is determined by linguists - as 8-9 centuries.
The consciousness of the unity of the Russian Land was preserved both in the era of Kievan Rus, and in the period of feudal fragmentation. The concept of "Russian Land" covered all the Eastern Slavic regions from Ladoga in the north to the Black Sea in the south and from the Bug in the West to the Volga-Oka interfluve inclusive in the east.
At the same time, there was still a narrow concept of Russia, corresponding to the middle Dnieper (Kiev, Chernigov and Seversk lands), preserved from the era of the 6th-7th centuries, when a tribal union existed in the Middle Dnieper under the leadership of one of the Slavic tribes - the Rus. The population of the Russian tribal union in the 9th-10th centuries. served as the core for education ancient Russian people, which included the Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe and part of the Slavic Finnish tribes.
What are the prerequisites for the formation of the East Slavic people?
The widespread settlement of the Slavs in Eastern Europe falls mainly on the 6th-8th centuries. It was still the Proto-Slavic period, and the settled Slavs were united linguistically. Migration did not come from one region, but from different dialect areas of the Proto-Slavic area. Consequently, any assumptions about the "Russian ancestral home" or about the beginnings of the East Slavic people within the Proto-Slavic world are not justified in any way. The Old Russian nationality was formed over vast expanses and was based on the Slavic population, united not on ethno-dialect, but on territorial soil.
The leading role in the formation of this nation, apparently, belongs to the ancient Russian state. After all, it is not for nothing that the beginning of the formation of the ancient Russian nationality coincides in time with the process of the formation of the Russian state. The territory of the Old Russian state also coincides with the area of the East Slavic people.
Russian land or Rus, began to call the territory of the ancient Russian early feudal state. The term Rus is used by PVL and foreign countries of Europe and Asia. Russia is mentioned in Byzantine and Western European sources.
The formation of ancient Russian statehood and nationality was accompanied by the rapid development of culture and economy. The construction of ancient Russian cities, the rise of handicraft production, the development of trade relations favored the consolidation of the Slavs of Eastern Europe into a single nationality.
In the formation of the Old Russian language and nationality, an essential role belonged to the spread of Christianity and writing. Very soon the concepts of "Russian" and "Christian" began to be identified. The Church played a multifaceted role in the history of Russia.
As a result, a single material and spiritual culture is being formed, which is manifested in almost everything - from women's jewelry to architecture. (22, p.271-273)
"When, as a result of the Battle of Kalka and the invasion of the hordes of Batu, not only the unity of the Russian land was lost, but also the independence of the scattered Russian principalities, the consciousness of the unity of the entire Russian land became even more acutely felt in literature. The Russian language, which was unified throughout the entire territory of the Russian land, became an unconscious expression of Russian unity , and conscious - all Russian literature. "The Word about the destruction of the Russian land", "The Life of Alexander Nevsky", the cycle of Ryazan stories and especially the Russian chronicles reminded of the former historical unity of the Russian land and thus, as it were, called to regain this unity and independence. " (9 a, p. 140)
Within the framework of this concept, it is believed that all three modern East Slavic peoples - Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians - arose as a result of the gradual disintegration of the Old Russian people after the Mongol invasion of Russia.
The concept has both its supporters and opponents.
History of occurrence
The idea of the unity of the Eastern Slavs in the Old Russian era goes back to late chronicle sources and historical writings of the 17th century.
In the Kiev synopsis, the authorship of which is attributed to the archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Innokenty Gizel, the concept of the ancient unity of the “Russian peoples” is outlined, which predetermined the views of most historians of the 18th and 19th centuries. on all the Eastern Slavs as representatives of a single Russian people.
In Russian historiography of the XIX century. From time to time, disputes arose regarding the “primogeniture” and advantages over the heritage of Kievan Rus, which individual representatives of the Little Russians (Markovich, Maksimovich) or Great Russians (Pogodin) attributed to their own branch.
Alexander Presnyakov tried to smooth these contradictions, in 1907 he argued that Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians have equal rights to the heritage of Ancient Russia, which formed a new “triune” historical nationality (“triune Russian people”) that continued to exist.
In parallel, the idea of Old Russian unity was also supported by philologists, who showed the existence of a single Old Russian language, which subsequently broke up into several related languages. The most influential works on this issue belong to Alexander Vostokov, Izmail Sreznevsky, Alexei Sobolevsky, Alexei Shakhmatov.
Kievan Rus in 1113-1194In contrast to this concept, Mikhail Grushevsky introduced the thesis about the separation of the ethnogenesis of Ukrainians and Russians. This view has become dominant in the historiography of the Ukrainian diaspora and has received some distribution in modern Ukrainian science.
In his modern form, the concept arose in the Soviet historiography of the 1930s, when the status of Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians as three peoples was no longer in doubt. Soviet scientists formulated Kievan Rus as the "common cradle" of the East Slavic peoples, which formed in the XIV-XV centuries.
Boris Grekov put forward an assumption about the ethnic unity of the Eastern Slavs in the era preceding the division. It acquired theoretical and factual content in the 1940s thanks to the works of the Ukrainian M. Petrovsky, the Russians A. Udaltsov and Vladimir Mavrodin. It is Mavrodin who authored the term "Old Russian nationality". It was first used in 1945 in the monograph "Formation of the Old Russian State"...
The problem of the Old Russian nationality experienced a large-scale discussion in the early 1950s. It was substantiated by Sergei Tokarev, archaeologists Pyotr Tretyakov and Boris Rybakov also took part in its development.
A significant role in the design and further development of the concept is recognized by the Soviet historian and historiographer, a specialist in the era of feudalism, Lev Cherepnin.
It was also subjected to careful analysis by Peter Tolochko, who came to the conclusion that there was a single ancient Russian people.
The formation of the early feudal state of Kievan Rus was also facilitated by the fact that under the feudal system, the East Slavic tribes over a large territory united into a higher ethnic (folk) community compared to clans and tribes - ancient Russian people.
The overcoming of tribal isolation was facilitated by the development of agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts, crafts, and trade. The separation of handicrafts from agriculture and animal husbandry accelerated the further development of commodity production and trade exchange within and between tribes, as well as with neighboring countries. Trade strengthened economic ties between Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Seversk, Volyn, Galicia, Novgorod, Smolensk and other lands of Kievan Rus.
Joint life in one state led to the gradual erasure of differences (in language, customs, etc.) between related East Slavic tribes over a large area. They communicated with each other more and more actively. And this gradually led to the formation of local dialects old Russian language, understandable for the entire population of Kievan Rus. This population created an original material and spiritual culture, reflecting achievements in agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts, everyday life, architecture (construction), folklore, literature, and fine arts. Old Russian culture was imbued with the idea of the unity of the entire Russian land.
The ancient Russian nationality was based not only on the common economic life, territory, language and culture, but also consisted of two main, irreconcilable classes - peasants and feudal lords.
At the same time, certain features in the language, culture and life of the people who inhabited the northeastern, western and southwestern territories of Kievan Rus were still preserved within the Old Russian nationality. Later, these features developed and served as the basis for the formation of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian nationalities.
Kievan Rus is the cradle, and the Old Russian nationality is the single root of the fraternal Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples, who have preserved and carried through the centuries the understanding of the unity of origin, the closeness of language and culture, the awareness of the commonality of their destiny.
Socio-economic and political development of the Old Russian state
> Changes in the development of the economy
Compared with the primitive communal and slave-owning feudal system, new forms of management and improvement of labor tools. Household left natural. In its main industry in Russia - agriculture, narrow-bladed rallies, plows, wooden harrows, spades, hoes, sickles, scythes, wheelless, and sometimes heavy wheeled plows with mouldboards were widely used. Their working parts were made of iron. At that time, they used undercut ( forest areas) and fallow ( steppe and forest-steppe) farming systems, land cultivation was improved. As before, smerd peasants sowed rye, wheat, millet, buckwheat, barley, oats and other crops. But yields have gotten higher. The sickle and scythe were the main tools of labor of the peasants in a difficult time. The grain was threshed with wooden flails. Grinding was no longer only done with hand-held stone millstones - simple windmills and watermills appeared.
Along with agriculture, cattle breeding developed in Russia: herds of cows, herds of horses, flocks of sheep and goats were grazing in the meadows and steppes. In winter, cattle were kept in barns and pens, fed with hay harvested in summer. People also raised pigs and poultry (chickens, geese, ducks). This required a lot of labor. The crafts, especially hunting, fishing and beekeeping, did not lose their significance, which provided additional profits.
Crafts have made notable progress. Iron was smelted from bog ore in doinits - raw furnaces. In blacksmith workshops - forges, it was reforged, tempered, turned, polished. Old Russian blacksmiths made about 150 types of iron products. Their swords were famous. Pottery and Gutnichestvo (glass production), woodworking developed. From wood they built dwellings, places of worship (temples) and fortifications, made carts, sledges, canoes, furniture and other household items. Hemp and wool spinning, weaving, jewelry making and other handicrafts were further developed. Products of Russian people were known far beyond the borders of Russia.
As a result of the gradual separation of handicrafts from agriculture, the expansion of production and the consolidation of certain types of it in certain areas, trade exchange revived. Trade contributed to the economic unification of the country, which occupied a large territory of Eastern Europe. Kievan Rus conducted active trade with foreign countries (Scandinavia, the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Western Europe, the Middle East and Asia, Byzantium). The world-famous trade route along the Dnieper "from the Varangians to the Greeks" passed through the whole of Kievan Rus from north to south, which connected it with Scandinavia and Byzantium. In foreign markets, Russian merchants sold handicrafts, furs, honey, wax, leather, etc. And in local markets, goods from other countries were sold: gold items, expensive fabrics, wine, dishes, weapons, copper, lead. Along with merchants, princely and boyar servants, peasants and city dwellers were engaged in trade.
The administrative, defense, craft, trade and cultural centers of Kievan Rus were cities, of which there were at least 80. The cities of Kiev, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Lyubech, Vyshgorod, Kanev, Korsun, Zhytomyr, Korosten (Iskorosten), Radomyshl and others were famous in the Middle Dnieper. Among the urban population, the number of artisans increased, numbering about 60 specialties. Artisans united in communities for mutual assistance in the production and sale of goods. In the Middle Ages, such associations in Western Europe were called workshops. Communities of artisans opposed the princes and boyars, who encroached on their rights, as well as the economically growing church.
Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
Stavropol State University
History department
Department of Historiography and Source Studies
Thesis
On the topic: “The origin of the Eastern Slavs in domestic and foreign historiography”
Performed: student
V course group "B"
Apolonskaya I.N.
Scientific adviser:
candidate of historical
Sciences, Associate Professor
Tkachenko S.D.
Stavropol, 2002
Introduction. …………………………………………………………….3
Chapter I. Pre-revolutionary domestic historiography of the East Slavic tribes……………………………………………..9
Chapter II. Soviet historiography the origin of the Slavic
tribes……………………………………………………………………..20
Chapter III. Foreign historiography the origin of the Slavs ....39
Conclusion………………………………………………………….54
Bibliography……………………………………………………….56
Appendix.
Introduction.
Among the well-known world civilizations that embodied the achievements of a particular ethnic group or ethnic groups at certain historical stages of development, Russian civilization has a special place. It was prepared for her by a unique historical fate and the phenomenon of the development of the culture of the Russian people, based on the synthesis and transformation of the diverse traditions of the West and East, as well as the perception of the cultural achievements of the settled agricultural and nomadic worlds of Eurasia.
At present, there is an increasing need in society for a truthful and unbiased presentation of the history of our Motherland in highlighting the main stages of its formation and development as one of the largest states of the medieval and modern world. The greatness of Russia is not only in its colossal economic potential, vast territorial space, wealth of natural resources, it is in its centuries-old history, in the unique ancient Russian Eastern Christian civilization that has developed in the vast expanses of Eurasia, the phenomenon of which has largely remained and remains a mystery to generations of researchers.
“Where is it, did the Russian Land come from?” - this question, which still occupied the minds of the first Russian chroniclers, subsequently became the subject of sharp controversy and discussion about the origin and development of the ancient Russian state for many centuries.
The study of the origin and ancient history of the Slavs is one of the most difficult problems in historical science. The efforts of various historians, archaeologists, linguists, anthropologists, and ethnographers are directed towards its solution, whose joint research should eventually lead to certain positive results. The greatest controversy arises in determining the territory of the formation of the Slavs (their ancestral home), the chronological framework for the formation of the Slavic community, in resolving issues of Slavic glottogenesis, clarifying the connections of archaeological cultures with Slavic tribes and the continuity of cultures.
Historiography of the issue. For many centuries, in the scientific field, there have been discussions on the topic of the origin of the Slavic tribes - their ancestral home, chronological framework, etc. But, however, agreement among scientists has not been reached to this day.
In the domestic pre-revolutionary historiography, this problem was not given due influence. Ustryalov N. in the book “Russian History” calls the Slavs “Veneds” and divides them into three branches - the Venets, who lived between the Baltic Sea and the Carpathians; the Slavs who lived from the Tisza to the banks of the Dniester and from the Danube to the Vistula; ants, located between the mouths of the Danube and the Dnieper. And their appearance in the historical arena refers to the end of V and the beginning. 6th century AD The outstanding Russian scientist Solovyov S.M. in "History of Russia from ancient times" touched little on the issue of the ancient population of Eastern Europe and does not dwell in detail on the problem of the origin of the Slavs. But he still considered the Slavs to be aliens from Asia on the banks of the Danube.
At the end of the XIX century. An interesting study by A.L. Pogodin appears in the book “From the History of Slavic Movements”, in which he gave an outline of the history of the Slavs, starting from the 1st centuries. AD and attempted to delineate the early Slavic territory by analyzing river names. In his opinion, the initial territory of the Slavs was located on the territory of modern Poland, Podolia and Volhynia.
The original theory of Slavic ethnogenesis was developed by A.A. Shakhmatov, which later predetermined long time, the formation of the views of Slavic historians of the Soviet era. He argued that the ancient Indo-Europeans lived in the Baltic Sea basin, who in the 1st millennium BC. began to settle, and in the end, the Balto-Slavs remained in the Eastern Baltic. Their unity in the 1st millennium BC split, resulting in the formation of the Slavs and the Balts.
In the first years of Soviet power, the ethnolinguistic concept of Marr N.Ya. He acted as an active opponent of Indo-Europeanism in linguistics, was also an opponent of the Slavic "brotherhood" and the Slavic "proto-language", further the closeness of the Russian and Ukrainian languages was called into question. He argued that the Slavic language is the language of “Skolot”, i.e. Scythian and Sarmatian.
From the 50s. 20th century the ancient history of the Russian people begins to be widely studied, already with the use of archaeological material (until that time, archaeological sources were used, but in small quantities).
A huge contribution to the study of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs was also made by prominent Russian-Soviet scientists, such as Rybakov B.A., Tretyakov P.N., Rusanova I.P., Sedov V.V. With the use of archaeological, toponymic sources, they thoroughly studied this problem in Russian history.
The ancestral home of the Slavs, according to B.A. Rybakov, reached the Oder and Warta, passed north of Pripyat, the land along the Dnieper with the mouths of the rivers Berezina, Desna, Seim, and from the south was limited by the flow of Rossi and Tyasmin, Yuzh. Bug, Dniester and Prut and walked along the northern slope of the Carpathians.
P.N. Tretyakov emphasized the complexity of the process of Slavic ethnogenesis, in which many tribes were involved at different stages, believed that the ancestors of the Slavs were lost among the ancient European agricultural and pastoral tribes.
The concept of the western ancestral home of the Slavs, covering the basin of the middle and partly upper Vistula, reaching the middle reaches of the Oder in the west and in the east of the Pripyat Polissya and Volhynia, is defended by V.V. Solovyov.
As for foreign historiography, it should be said that Western historians basically defended the theory of the Western origin of the Slavs. The ancestral home of the Slavs was attributed to the territory between the rivers Vistula and Oder, or Oder and Dnieper. Such researchers include Yu.Kostshevsky, T.Ler-Splavinsky, Ya.Chekanovsky, V.Genzel.
But still, the greatest contribution to the study of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs was made by the Czech scientist L. Niederle. He developed an ethnolinguistic scheme for the Slavic tribes. And he claims that along with other Indo-European languages during the 2nd millennium BC. there was a Balto-Slavic language, as a result of the division of which the Slavic language was formed (I millennium BC). The ancestral home of the Slavs, according to L. Niederle, was located north of the Carpathians, was limited from the west by the Vistula, and from the east by the middle Dnieper, including the Berezina and the Desna.
This is a brief historiographical review of ethnogenetic theories, both domestic and foreign Slavic scientists.
Sources. A clear and growing contribution to lighting ancient history Slavs are given by archeology, which has specific and well-dated sources, the number of which increases every year, and has its own methods of research and evidence. The major achievements of archeology in recent decades include the identification and study of Slavic monuments of the 5th-7th centuries. - the time of the first mentions in written sources of the Slavs under their own name. Large irreplaceable material is provided by written sources of Byzantine and Latin writers of the 7th-8th centuries. In the first centuries of our history, or rather our history, or rather our era, the Slavs come to the attention of ancient authors such as Tacitus. Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy. In their writings, the Slavs, or future Slavs, are called "Venedi".
Among the Byzantine writers is the well-known author of the history of the Goth Jordan, who already distinguishes two branches of the Eastern Slavs - one of which is the Antes, who live in the Northern Black Sea region, in the interfluve of the lower reaches of the Dniester and the Dnieper, and the other is the Slavs proper, north of the Danube to Upper Vistula and east to the Dnieper.
But it should be noted that written sources, in relation to archaeological sources, may be implausible, since they could be built not only on the basis of directly seen, but also by hearsay.
We now turn to the definition of the subject and object of this work. In this way, subject work is the origin and resettlement of the Slavic tribes. object however, we have the right to consider - pre-revolutionary domestic, Soviet, and foreign historiography on this topic.
aim the thesis is to try to analyze and present the points of view, theories of historians who studied the problem of the origin of the Slavs.
IN tasks includes:
· To highlight the theories of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs of pre-revolutionary domestic historians.
· Presentation and comparison of ethnogenetic schemes of Slavic tribes, historians of the Soviet period.
· A brief review of the theories of the ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs by foreign historians, mainly Czech and Polish.
Before proceeding to the consideration of the methods of historical research that were used in writing the work, I would like to note that this work was written based on the form of an integral approach in history.
Moving on to characterization methods historical research, it will be important to reveal the very essence of the methods. The methods of historical research are understood as all general methods for studying historical reality, i.e. methods relating to historical science in general, applied in all areas of historical research.
The main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological, historical-systemic. When using one or another general historical method, other general scientific methods are also used (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, description and measurement, explanation, etc.), which act as specific cognitive means necessary to implement the approaches and principles underlying basis of the leading method.
In the work, the main method was used - historical-comparative. It involves revealing the essence of the phenomena under study both by similarity and by the difference in their inherent properties, as well as making comparisons in space and time.
In general, this method has broad cognitive capabilities. Firstly, it allows you to reveal the essence of the phenomena under study in cases where it is not obvious, on the basis of the available facts: to identify the general and repetitive, necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other.
Secondly, it makes it possible to go beyond the studied phenomena and, on the basis of analogies, comes to broad historical generalizations and parallels.
Thirdly, it allows the use of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic one.
Confirmation of the above mentioned, we can give an example from this work. Comparing, analyzing and synthesizing the points of view of scientists of domestic and foreign different eras on a given topic. Those. a comparison of the ethnogenetic schemes of the Slavs is carried out.
Also using the historical-genetic method, which, as we know, tends to be descriptive, factographic and empiricist. In addition, it allows you to show cause-and-effect relationships in the patterns of historical development in their immediacy, and characterize historical events in their individuality and imagery. Thus, describing, considering the ethnogenetic schemes of historians dealing with this problem, we reveal causal relationships and facts.
The practical significance of the work is the fact that the work can serve and help in preparing for seminars on the subject under study, both in the history of Russia and in historiography.
And in conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to the teachers of the Faculty of History, for their help in writing the thesis, especially to my supervisor Tkachenko Sergey Dmitrievich.
Chapter I. Pre-revolutionary domestic historiography of the East Slavic tribes.
One of the most important problems in the history of the Old Russian state is the problem of the formation of that ethnic array from which the Old Russian people grew and developed, the creator of economic, socio-political institutions and culture of Kievan Rus. The importance of this problem was spontaneously recognized already by the first Russian chroniclers of the 11th-12th centuries. It was they who developed the first ethnic concept of the emergence of the ancient Russian nationality, which contained two fundamental provisions that have not lost their significance to this day. The first is about the kinship and unity of the entire Slavic world, the second is about the initial migration from the west of the Slavic tribes that formed the active core of the Old Russian state.
In this chapter, I will touch upon the consideration of the points of view of the theories of pre-revolutionary Russian scholarly historians about the resettlement of the Eastern Slavs.
But first, let's plunge into the distant 18th century, since at that time there was a controversy between Lomonosov and Miller about the calling of the Varangians and the introduction of statehood by them to the Russian land.
This controversy is of great historiographical significance, because it begins a struggle between anti-Normanists and Normanists, which does not stop either in the 19th or in the 20th century. During this long period, repeated attempts were made to use the chronicle legend about the calling of the Varangians and other sources of information about the Varangians in Eastern Europe to assert the inability of the Slavs to independently create a state and the decisive role of the new Germans in the creation of Russian culture. However, we are gravely mistaken if we begin to think that all Normanists defend such assertions that are offensive to the Russian people and far from science. Among the Normanists, in addition to direct falsifiers, there were many outstanding scientists and indisputable patriots (for example, A.A. Shakhmatov and A.E. Presnyakov).
In modern historiography, the dispute between anti-Normanists and Normanists includes several complex and important problems: 1) about the role of internal causes and the role of foreigners (Varangians) in the process of formation and development of the Old Russian state; 2) about the degree of Norman influence on the development of social relations and culture, and to answer this question, data from archeology, linguistics, cultural monuments are involved (Soviet historians noted the comparative weakness of the Norman influence, compared with Byzantine and Tatar); 3) about the origin of the name Rus, the Russian people, and this terminological issue, which is of wide interest, still has less scientific significance than the first two.
In the middle of the XVIII century, the question of the origin of the state was not yet associated with the emergence of social classes and irreconcilable contradictions between classes. It boiled down to the ethnic origin of the ruling dynasty. Neither Lomonosov nor Miller doubted the calling of Rurik and his brothers; only the question is debatable whether Rurik was a Norman or a Slav, and where he came from. If Bayer and Miller believed that the Varangians led by Rurik came to Novgorod from Scandinavia and were Normans, then Lomonosov believed that they came from the southeastern shores of the Varangian (Baltic) Sea. Here, between the Vistula and the Dvina, lived the Slavic tribe Rus, called in 862 to Novgorod. 1
Miller deduced the origin of the name Rus from the term Rossaline, which the Finns called the Swedes. Lomonosov considered it incredible that Novgorod would begin to call the newcomers Varangians, and then themselves, with a Finnish word. He drew attention to the similarity of the name Russians and Roxalana - ancient people, who lived between the Don and the Dnieper, from where part of this people spread to the north, reaching the Baltic Sea and Lake Ilmen. The name of the ancient city - Staraya Russa testifies that "before Rurik, the people of Russ or Ross lived here, or in Greek they are called Roxalans." 2
Of the arguments given by Lomonosov in favor of the opinion about the southern origin of Russia, his indication of the presence in the south of toponyms with the root -ros- (for example, a tributary of the Dnieper - the Ros-river) is still used.
The opinion of M.V. Lomonosov about the origin of the Russians from the Russians did not survive in science. Miller wrote that in ancient times the word Rus appeared. And the word Russians arose and came into use recently and cannot serve as proof of this opinion. 3 Lomonosov's thesis about the arrival of Rurik in Novgorod land from the southeastern Slavic coast of the Baltic did not hold out in science either.
The situation is different with the question of the extent of the cultural influence of the Normans on the Eastern Slavs. The opinion of Miller and Schlozer about the complete savagery of the Eastern Slavs before the arrival of the Varangians, which provoked strong objections from Lomonosov, has been rejected by modern historians, as well as the assertion of the decisive influence of the Normans. The idea of M.V. Lomonosov that in the Slavic language there is no noticeable “noble change” towards the Scandinavian language is supported and supported by a special analysis, meanwhile “we still have a great many Tatar words in our language”. 4 This argument remains valid today in scientific circles. Together with a relatively small number of Scandinavian archaeological sites on the territory of Russia, he refutes the opinion of a strong Norman influence.
Around 1751 Lomonosov began preparatory work on "Ancient Russian History from the Beginning of the Russian People to the Death of the Great Russian Prince Yaroslav the First." Until 1754 he collected and wrote out data from Russian, ancient and Western medieval sources, and then wrote his work for several years. Like Tatishchev, Lomonosov devotes the first part of his work to the “ancient age before Rurik” and expresses a number of original and valuable thoughts in it. These include the thesis about the participation of the Slavs in the campaigns of the Germans against Rome. Lomonosov's assumption about the Slavic origin of the conqueror of Rome, Alaric, cannot be considered justified, but his statement that "between the Goths, many Slavs fought together" is quite fair. 5
Among the remarkable historiographic thoughts of M.V. Lomonosov is his thesis about the absence of “pure” peoples in racial and ethnic terms (“it is impossible to approve of a single language so that it stands by itself from the beginning without any admixture”), and the words about the role of both the Slavs and the Finns (Chuds) in the development of the vast expanse of Russian lands, and the assertion that the composition of the Varangian squads in Ancient Russia included not only Swedes, but also representatives of other northern peoples. 6
Thus, I outlined the beginning and essence of the Norman theory and the controversy between Lomonosov, a true patriot, and Miller, an outspoken Normanist, which laid the foundation for a discussion that continues to this day.
It should be noted that in the 19th century, which I will discuss below, the Norman theory was considered in all works relating to the ancient history of the Russian state, all pre-revolutionary Russian scientists - historians.
Russian historian Ustryalov N. put forward his ethnogenetic scheme. In his opinion, the tribe now known under the name of the Slavic, at the first appearance in history, at the end of the 5th century and at the beginning of the 6th century after the birth of Christ, occupied for numerous generations the space from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the Danube, from the Tisza to the Oder and the banks of the Dnieper. 7
Contemporaries called it Venedsky, dividing it into three main generations: the Wends, who lived between the Baltic Sea and the Carpathian Mountains; to the Slavs who lived between the Tisza to the banks of the Dniester and from the Danube to the sources of the Vistula; on the Antes, who lived on the shores of the Black Sea between the mouths of the Danube and the Dnieper.
The fate of the Slavic name, from its first appearance in history to the formation in it in the 9th - 10th centuries of the states of Russian, Polish, Bohemian, Moravian, Serbian and others, is little known. Eastern Slavs form an independent state Rus.
The generation of Slavs, forced out by the Avars from the banks of the Danube and the Black Sea, and retreating to the northeast, probably in the 8th century occupied the entire space from the Vistula to the Oka, from Lake Ladoga to the rapids of the Dnieper. What peoples lived in this space before the arrival of new settlers and how the Slavs established themselves there, by the power of a tool or by other means, has not been reliably established. 8 It is known that during the reign of Herodotus some Androphagi and Milanoleni lived here. In the 3rd century, in the course of 400 years, various peoples came to southern present-day Russia: from the north, the Goths, who founded a powerful state there, in the 4th century, from the east, countless hordes of Huns, Alans, Balgars, Avars; but in the 7th century, as one might guess, only a small remnant of these peoples could be held in western Russia, and the Slavs probably found there only deserts, where weak crowds wandered, part of their fellow tribesmen, part of alien peoples who soon merged with them. In his work "Russian History" N. Ustryalov also draws attention to the Norman problem. And he defends his Normanist point of view in this way: Undertaking separate trips to the Atlantic and Mediterranean seas, the Normans naturally could not ignore the nearest Baltic countries, especially the Slavic ones, where, in addition to bread and other junk, they found another benefit for themselves: through the land of the eastern Slavs led the way to rich Greece, which they considered the most abundant country in the world with all the benefits of nature. They went there partly for robbery, partly to receive payment for serving the emperors: it is certain that long before settling in the Slavic lands, there were many Normans in the imperial guard. Until the middle of the 9th century, the Normans came to the Slavic land for a while, and it seems that they did not have stable settlements: when in Scandinavia, after the death of Charlemagne, there was a general unrest and a shortage of food forced its inhabitants to look for a new fatherland, some crowds rushed to the west, others to the east. In England, France, Italy, the Normans established themselves after a long war: in the Slavic land they did not meet such a rebuff and mastered it without difficulty.
From the advent of Rurik to the banks of the Ilmen, or from the first connection of the Slavs with the Normans, until the adoption by his great-grandson, Vladimir, of the Christian faith, which established the Russian State, the main phenomenon in the history of our fatherland was the rapid expansion of the boundaries of Russia, first to the southeast to the banks of the Oka, then south along the Dnieper, further west to the sources of the Vistula and Narew. 9 This expansion was a consequence of the Norman character. The Slavs could sacrifice their will and recognize the rule of the Normans, but their nationality remained inviolable; for wherever they came, in France, England, in Italy, the Normans quickly merged with the natives, the more inevitable was this merger in the Slavic land, because there they had to settle in a vast country and with their small numbers, in comparison with the mass of the conquered people, lose national physiology. For the Slavs, they were a noble, dominant generation, but not hostile, and served only as a connection link.
The genetic scheme of S.F. Platonov is also interesting.
The eastern branch of the Slavs came to the Dnieper probably in the 7th century, and gradually settling, reached Lake Ilmen and the Upper Oka. 10 Of the Russian Slavs near the Carpathians, Croats and Volynians (Dulebs and Duzhans) remained. Polyany, Drevlyans and Dregovichi settled on the right bank of the Dnieper and on its right tributaries. 11
The northerners, Radimichi and Vyatichi crossed the Dnieper and sat down on its left tributaries, and the Vyatichi managed to advance even to the Oka. The Krivichi also left the Dnieper system to the north, to the upper reaches of the Volga and the Western Dvina, and their branch of Slovenia occupied the river system of Lake Ilmen. In their movement up the Dnieper, on the northern and northeastern outskirts of their new settlements, the Slavs came into close proximity to the Finnish tribes and gradually pushed them further north and northeast. At the same time, Lithuanian tribes turned out to be the neighbors of the Slavs in the west, gradually retreating to the Baltic Sea before the onslaught of Slavic colonization. On the eastern outskirts, from the side of the steppes, the Slavs, in turn, suffered a lot from the nomadic Asian newcomers. Later, the meadows, northerners, Radimichi and Vyatichi, who lived to the east of other relatives, in great proximity to the steppes, were conquered by the Khazars, one might say, became part of the Khazar state.
This was how the initial neighborhood of the Russian Slavs was determined. The list of neighbors of the Russian Slavs must be supplemented by the Finnish and Lithuanian tribes, the Slavs felt their superiority to them and held on aggressively.
Also, the Varangians were neighbors, one might say, direct, but they lived “beyond the sea” and came to the Slavs “from beyond the sea”. With close contact between the Slavs and the Varangians, one would expect a great influence of the Varangians on Slavic life. But such an influence is not noticeable at all - a sign that culturally the Varangians were no higher than the Slavic population of that era.
The ancient Byzantine writers (Procopius and Mauritius) reveal the features of the original life of the Slavs, it will be interesting to get to know some of them in order to understand for themselves in what position, at what stage of development history finds the Slavs.
The first seeds of citizenship and culture, in his opinion, were thrown by the Varangians, who called the Slavs behind them into the historical arena. In "History of Russia from ancient times" S.M. Soloviev raises a number of important problems of the Russian historical process. Little touching on the question of the ancient population of Eastern Europe, Solovyov does not dwell in detail on the problem of the origin of the Slavs. In accordance with the historiography of his time (going back to the chronicle tradition), he considered the Slavs to be newcomers from Asia to the banks of the Danube, where they arrived for a long time, after which they settled in the places of their later residence. 12 This incorrect point of view was revised in the writings of subsequent scientists.
Solovyov considered the establishment of the power of the newcomer Varangian kings in them as the initial event in the political history of the Eastern Slavs. “The calling of the first princes,” Soloviev writes, “is of great importance in our history, there are events of the All-Russian, and Russian history rightly begins with it.” Thus, he accepted the provisions of the "Norman theory" of the emergence of the Russian state. This was an erroneous position, just as Solovyov's opinion about the relatively late development of the Slavs (since the 9th century) must be recognized as erroneous. 13 It has now been found out that the first state formations among the Eastern Slavs arose as early as the 6th century.
But Solovyov expressed a number of sound judgments on the nature of the Norman influence on Russia, judgments that ultimately undermined the roots of the “Norman theory”. He rightly points out that the Varangians do not stand above the Slavs on the steps of public life and quickly merged with them. He also notes that it is impossible to talk about the influence of the Scandinavian languages on the language and legislation of the Slavs, that the princes - the descendants of Rurik were no longer pure Normans. A conscientious study of the sources led Solovyov to the conclusion that the question of the nationality of the Varangians in Russia was losing its importance in our history. This is the concept of S.M.Soloviev.
Karamzin N.M. in his “History of the Russian State” describes in the first volume in the chapter “On the peoples who from ancient times considered in Russia. - About the Slavs in general ”the most ancient period of Russian history. According to the reports of Greek and Roman writers, he says, “a great part of Europe and Asia, now called Russia, in its temperate climates was from time immemorial inhabited, but by wild peoples, plunged into the depths of ignorance, who did not mark their existence with any of their own historical monuments.” 14
Mentioning the Scythians, Goths, Wends and Huns, Karamzin cites chronicles of the settlement of the Eastern Slavs and concludes about their origin: “... If the Slavs and Wends were one people, then our ancestors were known to both the Greeks and the Romans, living south of the Baltic Sea". 15 Linking the initial period of Russian history with the settlement of the Eastern Slavs and rejecting Schlozer's assertions about the barbarism of the Eastern Slavic tribes, Karamzin recognizes the "Norman theory" and believes that Rurik "founded the Russian monarchy." 16
A great contribution to historical science was made by the Russian scientist, historian V.O. Klyuchevsky, who, as we know, divided our history into four periods. And he connected the beginning of Russian history, or its first “Dnieper” period, not with the calling of the Varangians, but with the military alliance of the Eastern Slavs that existed in the Carpathians in the 6th century under the leadership of the duleb prince. “This military alliance,” the historian writes, “is a fact that can be put at the very beginning of our history: it began in the 6th century on the very edge, in the southwestern corner of our plain, on the northeastern slopes and foothills of the Carpathians” . 17
In the process of subsequent settlement, the military alliance broke up into tribes, the tribes, in turn, decomposed into clans, and the latter began to break up into small households, or family farms. In this regard, the author fixes attention “primarily on the legal consequences that accompanied the resettlement of the Eastern Slavs”. 18
At the end of the 19th century, when determining the place of settlement of the early Slavs, along with historical and linguistic data, toponymy materials are involved. In 1901, an interesting study by A.L. Pogodin appeared in the book “From the History of Slavic Movements”, in which, based on the information of ancient authors, he gave an outline of the history of the Slavs, starting from the first centuries of our era, and made an attempt to outline the early Slavic territory in the analysis of river titles. Pogodin comes to the conclusion that the early Slavs were inhabitants of the territory of Poland, Podolia and Volhynia, where many Slavic hydronyms are found. The Slavs occupied these regions from ancient times until the early Middle Ages, when their widespread settlement began.
The original theory of Slavic ethnogenesis was developed by A.A. Shakhmatov. according to the ideas of this researcher, in remote antiquity, the Eastern Indo-Europeans occupied the Baltic Sea basin. Parts of them (the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians and Thracians) moved from here to the more southern regions of Europe, and the Balto-Slavs remained in the southeastern Baltic. In the 1st millennium BC The Balto-Slavic unity broke up, resulting in the formation of the Slavs and the Balts. 19 The absence in the Slavic language of its own phytonym for beech and the non-Slavic nature of the names of large rivers of the Middle Dnieper and the Vistula exclude these territories from the Slavic ancestral home. The main, interesting construction of this researcher is the contacts of the Slavs with the Celts and Finns that allegedly existed in antiquity. The Slavs, according to Shakhmatov, originally lived in the lower reaches of the Western Dvina and the Neman, where they neighbored with the Balts, Germans, Celts and Finns. In the II century AD. when the Germans left the Powisle, the Slavs moved west, to the territory of modern Poland, and from there they later settled in those regions of Europe where they are known from medieval sources. 20
There are many interesting, original points of view regarding the problem of the settlement of the Eastern Slavs and the Norman theory, but I settled on the opinions of more prominent historians of that distant time.
Notes.
To chapter I.
1. Lomonosov M.V. Complete Works: V 10 T. T. 6., M-L., 1952. S. 33.
2. Ibid., p. 37.
3. Ibid., S. 211.43.
4. Ibid., p. 39.
5. Ibid., S. 87,207.
6. Ibid., pp. 174,173,203.
7. Ustryalov N.G. Russian history. Part 1., St. Petersburg, 1838, S. 74.
8. Ibid., p. 77.
9. Ibid., p. 78.
10. Platonov S.F. A course of lectures on Russian history., M., 1988, p. 78.
11. Ibid., p. 79.
12. Soloviev S.M. History of Russia since ancient times. Book. 1,T. 1., M., 1959, S. 98.
13. Ibid., p. 99.
14. Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. T. 1., M., 1955, S. 21.
15. Ibid., p. 27.
16. Ibid., pp. 76-77.
17. Klyuchevsky V.O. Works: V 8 T., T. 1., M., 1959, S. 110-111.
18. Ibid., p. 114.
19. Shakhmatov A.A. The most ancient fate of the Russian tribe. Pgr., 1919, S. 84.
1. Old Russian state
- Varangian (Norman) question
- Yaroslav the Wise
- The heyday of the Kievan state
- Vladimir Monomakh.
Historiography of the Old Russian state
The historiography of the Old Russian state spans more than two centuries. The first scientific research and the first heated discussions around the annalistic news about the calling of the Varangians, the social system and life of the ancient Slavs, the reasons for the formation and collapse of the Kiev state arose in the second half of the 18th century. The most consistent concept of the history of Ancient Russia was substantiated by N.M. Karamzin, who considered it as the most important stage in the creation of a powerful Russian statehood. He attributed a decisive role in the historical process to the subjective factor - the activities of the princes, their moral and political qualities. This immediately provoked criticism from liberal-minded historians, who did not assign a significant role to the people and objective laws in the presentation of Russian history. CM. Solovyov proceeded from the theory of tribal life, which dominated ancient Russia and determined the way of life of ordinary people and the state order. The decomposition of tribal relations and their transition to state relations were, according to the historian, main reason the collapse of the Kievan state, the formation, and subsequently the power of Muscovite Rus, where state relations prevailed. Without completely rejecting the concept of S.M. Solovieva, V.O. Klyuchevsky attached great importance to the economic and social factors in the development of society. A new look at the history of Ancient Russia is concluded in the works that appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky and A.E. Presnyakov, who proceeded from the unity of the historical process of Western Europe and Russia and created the theory of Russian feudalism. This approach made it possible to consider social processes in the Kievan state more broadly. The post-October period, despite the presence of ideological canons, is characterized by further in-depth study of ancient Russian history. The main objects of research are the peasantry (B.O. Grekov), craft and pagan culture (B.A. Rybakov), law and social relations (S.V. Yushkov), the way of life and customs of ancient Russian society (B.A. Romanov). A new page in the history of Ancient Novgorod was opened by archaeological research and the works of A.V. Artsikhovsky and V.L. Yanina. Of the latest studies, it is necessary to note the works of P.A. Novoseltseva, I.Ya. Froyanov, who raised a number of new and debatable questions about the social and political structure of Kievan Rus. In recent years, the works of church historians devoted to the adoption of Christianity and the role of the Church in Ancient Russia have become available. Of considerable scientific interest are the corresponding sections of the two-volume “History of the Russian Church” by A.V. Kartashov, as well as the articles of Archpriest V. Tsypin, hieromonks Nikon, John (Ekonomtsev) published in the journal Questions of History.
“Where did the Russian land come from” - this is how the oldest chronicler titled his creation. The history of Ancient Russia is the history of the first state formation of the current Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians. The desire of pre-revolutionary and some modern Ukrainian historians to consider Kievan Rus as the oldest state formation of only the Ukrainian people is rather controversial. We must pay tribute to the scientific contribution of the talented Ukrainian historian M.S. Grushevsky in the study of the history of Ancient Russia, but at the same time, his concept of the isolation of the history of the Ukrainian people, starting from ancient times, cannot be accepted as unconditional. In his ten-volume work “History of Ukraine-Rus” M.S. Hrushevsky seeks to prove that the term "Rus" refers to Ukraine, and not to the Muscovite state. Moscow sovereigns, according to the author, appropriated this term to justify their expansion, the seizure of Ukrainian and Belarusian lands.
The scheme adopted by classical Russian historiography, which begins the history of Russia with the formation of the Old Russian state and the Old Russian people, is historically justified and scientifically substantiated. Ancient Russia was the ancestral home of the closely related common origin and common original historical fate of the fraternal Slavic peoples - Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians.
The historical tradition, recorded in the annals, finds the Slavic tribes on the East European Plain, where they moved in the 7th-8th centuries. The Eastern Slavs occupied a vast territory from the Carpathian Mountains to the shores of the Baltic, from the Western Dvina to the upper reaches of the Volga and Oka. The historical landscape of this territory is huge forests, wide expanse steppe, crossed by large river systems of the Dnieper, Volga, Western Dvina, Dniester, Western and Southern Bug. Unlike Western Europe, there were no mountain systems that separated peoples. The main habitat of the ancient Slavs was the forest. The forest saved them from the steppe nomads, provided them with food, clothing and footwear, housing and fuel. Slash-and-burn forestry, hunting, hunting, beekeeping, forestry have been the main occupations of the Slavic tribes since ancient times. But the forest was fraught with many dangers. He frightened a person with his mysterious noises, which suggested the existence of invisible evil spirits. Forest farming in a harsh climate required hard, intense work. The cut down forest thicket overgrown again, and people had to constantly move to new areas.
Another element of ancient Russian man was the rivers with their abundant fish stocks. The rivers were the main means of communication - in the summer on the boats, in the winter on the sleigh. Slavic colonization and development of new territories followed the course of the rivers. Trade routes passed along the rivers, connecting the Slavs with other peoples. The main one is “the way from the Varangians to the Greeks”. On rivers and lakes, and then by portage, boats with goods from the Baltic reached the upper reaches of the Dnieper, along the Dnieper, overcoming the rapids, to the Black Sea and Byzantium. On this way, the first cities arose - Novgorod, Smolensk, Kiev. Another way is along the Oka and the Volga to the Caspian Sea, to the state of the Bulgarians (present-day Tataria and Chuvashia). The third route is from the middle reaches of the Dnieper to the Don and the Northern Donets, to the Caspian and Azov Seas.
No wonder the Russian man loved his river, as V.O. Klyuchevsky, "did not have a soul in her." According to the system of rivers, one can determine the habitat of individual Slavic tribes. The main water artery was the Dnieper. On the right bank of the middle reaches of the Dnieper and its right tributaries, there were clearing, drevlyans, dregovichi. northerners And radimichi occupied the left tributaries of the Dnieper. In the upper reaches of the Dnieper, Volga, Western Dvina lived a large Slavic tribe - krivichi. On the Dniester, the Southern Bug, closer to the Carpathian Mountains, they lived somewhat apart Volynians, Buzhans and other small tribes.
To the east of the Dnieper, to the south of the Oka and the Upper Volga stretched boundless, wide, secluded steppes. From the depths of Asia, from the North Caucasus, warlike nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples penetrated into the southern Russian steppes, representing a constant threat. In the IV-V centuries. These were Huns, at the end of the 7th century appeared Avars, then disappeared, according to the chronicler, no one knows where (“died like a monk”). At the end of the 7th century settled on the Lower Volga and in the Don steppes Khazars, who founded a strong state here with the capital Itil. The Khazars conducted extensive trade. During the heyday of the Khazar state (Kaganate), their influence spread to the North Caucasus. Some Slavic tribes paid tribute to the rulers of Khazaria, established trade relations with them, and sometimes waged armed struggle. At the end of the ninth century in the Northern Black Sea region, in the Azov steppes, a Turkic nomadic tribe appeared - Pechenegs, constantly disturbing the Slavic population with their raids. In the second half of the XI century. they were replaced by the Polovtsians. In the XIII century. Russian lands suffered a terrible disaster - the Tatar-Mongol invasion.
Life and beliefs of the ancient Slavs
Geographical and climatic conditions had a decisive influence on the life, life, economic activity of the East Slavic tribes, the formation of the character of the people. In the harsh conditions of life and struggle, such qualities as endurance, unpretentiousness, the ability to work hard in a bad time and patiently wait out the long winter months, slowness and caution, the habit of constant movement and development of new spaces, suspiciousness and militancy were developed. These features of the Slavic character were noticed by visiting merchants and travelers from neighboring countries (Arabs, Byzantines). The author of the chronicle, a Christian, on the contrary, is inclined to a tendentious depiction of the life of the Slavs in pre-Christian times, who, according to his testimony, lived in the forests, like all kinds of animals, in a bestial way “I kill each other, I eat all uncleanly.” They did not have a marriage, and the girls, as a rule, were kidnapped (kidnapped).
From chronicle information, reports of foreign authors, modern archaeological research, it can be concluded that the Slavs lived in small villages of three or four yards.
In the VIII-IX centuries. dominated by small families, consisting of a husband, wife (sometimes their parents) and children. Related families united in the clan. But tribal ties at the indicated time were already weakening and they were replaced by a neighboring community (verv - from the word “rope”, which was used to measure the land during divisions). At the head of the clan and the community were the elders, who had great power. The need for defense against nomads, the development of trade required a more solid organization. The decomposition of the tribal system, the strengthening of family life and the property of individual families caused inevitable conflicts over property ownership. There was a need for litigation. The beginnings of statehood appeared. The prince became the head of the tribe, who led the armed force (squad), ruled the court, for which he was paid tribute, which was supposed to ensure the maintenance of the prince and the squad. Sometimes several princes ruled in one tribe.
The beliefs of the ancient Slavs were pagan, like those of other peoples who were at the stage of decomposition of the tribal system. They worshiped the forces of nature, which dominated man and were incomprehensible to him. Like other primitive peoples, the Slavs animated and deified all the forces of nature and, above all, the sun. The god of the sun (Dazhbog, Veles, Khoree) was a good god for them, who gave light, warmth, patronized animals. But Perun - the god of thunder and lightning - was terrible. To appease Perun, sacrifices were made to him, sometimes even human. They revered the god of the wind Stribog, worshiped the patron of the family and home, Shura, Rozhanitsa, Domovoy. Such were the views of primitive man. They tried not to anger the God of the forest - Leshy.
The beliefs of the Eastern Slavs have not yet become a religion. There were no temples and priests. Magi and sorcerers were engaged in divination, predictions. The images of the gods were embodied in wooden idols. A peculiar form of worship was folk games associated with life-defining natural phenomena - the beginning and end of winter, the end of summer (harvest time). And even after the adoption of Christianity, many pagan rites were preserved for quite a long time. With the disintegration of the tribal system, the strengthening of statehood and the unity of the tribes, it became necessary to create a new religion, corresponding to the changing conditions and way of life.
Varangian (Norman) question
The history of the emergence of the Old Russian state is closely connected with the so-called Norman theory. For more than 200 years, since the first attempts to create a scientific history of Russia, there have been fierce disputes about the role of the Varangian princes and their squads in the formation of the state among the Eastern Slavs, about the origin of the word “Rus”. Attempts were made to divide historians into Normanists and anti-Normanists, depending on how they viewed the role of the Varangians in the formation of the Old Russian state. In the course of heated discussions, many valuable discoveries were made that contributed to the scientific solution of the problem.
Modern historical science has given an answer to almost all seemingly controversial questions. Well-known scientists in Russia and other countries do not recognize the episode about the calling of the Varangians, described in the annals, as decisive in the history of ancient Russian statehood. The largest pre-revolutionary historians S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky adhered to approximately the same position, limiting themselves only to the presentation of the chronicle version. The near-scientific conjectures encountered so far are most likely of a political nature.
What is the essence of the "Norman problem"? Let's start with chronicles. The first message of the chronicler about the peoples living on the shores of the Baltic (Varangian) Sea: “Varyazs sit on the same Varangian sea ...”, “And then the Varyas: Svei, Urman (Norwegians), Gotha, Russia, Anglyane”. Thus, the generic concept of the Varangians includes a number of tribes and peoples of Scandinavian and North German origin. Russia is one of these tribes. Another story is about the calling of the Varangians. The chronicler tells that the Varangians already owned Chudya and the Novgorod Slavs, collected tribute from them. Then the Varangians were expelled, but it was not possible to establish inner peace and tranquility among the Slavs. “And decide for yourself: “Let’s look for a prince for ourselves, even a volodel would judge us by right”, “And go across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia” ”. And then it is told in detail about how the three brothers - Rurik, Sineus and Truvor - responded to this call and began to reign in Novgorod, Belozersk and Izborsk (near Pskov). What can add modern science and how does she interpret chronicle news?
1. Not only the Kiev chronicler, but also the Byzantines and Arabs knew about the Varangians. They are known to them under the name "varengs". The homeland of the Varangians is also known - Scandinavia, or rather, Norway. These were merchants, detachments of warriors who traveled along the Dnieper to Byzantium long before the chronicle story.
2. The most heated disputes were caused by the origin of the term "Rus". According to one version, “Rus” is a Norman tribe, or the common name of the Varangians. The Finns call the Swedes “ruotsi”. There is such a word in the Estonian language. But Byzantine and Arabic sources mention the people "Rus", who lived in the Northern Black Sea region. Many toponyms with elements of the word "Rus" have been preserved.
Noteworthy are the conclusions of the largest philologist and historian, researcher of the ancient Russian chronicle A.A. Shakhmatov, according to which one of the Varangian tribes "Rus" came to the Black Sea even before the calling of the Varangians.
Opponents of the Norman theory tried to derive the name "Rus" from different languages, even from Georgian and Hebrew.
3. Even pre-revolutionary historians established that the episode about the calling of princes is found in the legends of many peoples, and the Kiev chronicler, obviously, used epic tales known to him. The date of the calling of Rurik and his brothers is doubtful - 862. And there is no reliable information about Rurik himself. In history, he remained a semi-legendary personality.
4. However, the first Kiev princes bore Scandinavian names: Oleg (Helgi), Olga (Helga), Igor (Ingvar). In Byzantine sources, the Scandinavian names of Oleg's combatants, who participated in the conclusion of an agreement with Byzantium, have been preserved. The Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus lists the names of the Dnieper rapids in Slavic and Russian (Scandinavian) languages. The foregoing testifies to the presence of the Varangian element at the top of Slavic society during the formation of the Old Russian state. But it is also known that the Varangians had no influence on the internal processes of development of the Slavic peoples. All historical studies confirm that in the VIII-IX centuries. Eastern Slavs were at the stage of formation of a class society and state. The Varangian princes and their retinue, who integrated into Slavic society, were included in the course of the formation of statehood among the Slavic tribes. But in these complex historical events they did not play an independent role and did not exert a decisive influence on them.
Unification of Slavic tribes around Kiev
“Oleg the Ruler” - this is how N.M. Karamzin one of the chapters of the first volume of the History of the Russian State. Oleg is the first historically reliable and largest personality among the Kievan princes. From the reign of Oleg (879-912) begins the true history of the Kievan state. His successors continued to strengthen the unity, independence and international prestige of Kievan Rus. An important historical date is 882 - Oleg's campaign from Novgorod to Kiev. Having crossed Lake Ilmen to the upper reaches of the Dnieper, Oleg and his soldiers conquered Smolensk, then Lyubech in the country of the northerners and approached Kiev. Kiev did not accidentally become the center of the Old Russian state. At that time it was the main city of the glades. According to the surviving legend, the city was founded by three brothers - Kyi, Shchek and Khoriv. They are mentioned in different sources in the VIII-IX centuries. There is archaeological evidence of the existence of a settlement here as early as the 6th century BC. In the VIII-IX centuries. Kiev becomes the main center of trade of the Slavic tribes. “Kiev was a collection point for Russian trade; merchant boats flocked to it from everywhere - from the Volkhov, the Western Dvina, the Upper Dnieper and its tributaries. Whoever owned Kiev held in his hands the key to the main gates of Russian trade,” wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky.
From Kiev, trade caravans went to Byzantium, with which diplomatic and trade relations were established. Kiev is located on the borders with the steppe. This was precisely what determined its strategic and political significance as a center for the unification of Slavic tribes.
According to the chronicle, Oleg, with Rurik's young son Igor, sailed to Kiev, treacherously killed the Varangian combatants Askold and Dir, who reigned in Kiev, and began to reign in Kiev. “Oleg, stained with the blood of innocent princes, famous for their courage,” writes N.M. Karamzin, - entered their city as a conqueror, and the inhabitants, frightened by his very atrocity and strong army, recognized him as their lawful sovereign” 2 .
From the chronicle story, we can conclude that before the arrival of Oleg, Kiev was already a state entity. Modern historical publications speak negatively about Oleg's cruelty. But the subsequent Christian princes were not inferior to Oleg in cruelty in the struggle for power in Kiev. The words “Become a Russian city”, attributed by the chronicler Oleg, have a great historical meaning.
The historical role of Oleg lies, first of all, in the fact that under him Kiev became the center of the unification of the Slavic tribes. Acting by force and voluntary agreements, he, having subjugated the vast expanses located on both sides of the great waterway, and uniting Novgorod's north and Kiev's south, began to collect tribute from the Drevlyans, Krivichi, Severyans, Radimichi and other tribes.
From a city of local significance, Kiev has become the center of a large state.
In modern terms, Oleg pursued an active foreign policy. He struck a blow at the Khazar state and stopped paying tribute to the Khazars. On the border with the steppe, he arranged fortified points, towns. But his main business was campaigns against Byzantium and the development of relations with her. Sources testify that there were several campaigns. There are many legends and tales about these events. At the same time, boats with soldiers moved along the Dnieper and the Black Sea, and cavalry moved by land. Oleg's warriors devastated the outskirts of Constantinople and kept the emperor at bay. The result of the victorious campaigns was the agreement of 907 with Byzantium, which was beneficial to the Kievan prince. Kiev merchants received a number of advantages in trade. A special auction was arranged for them in the vicinity of the city. Local authorities were supposed to ensure the safety of the merchants and give them monthly food rations. Entry into Constantinople was allowed only in small, no more than 50 people, groups and without weapons. Byzantium paid Oleg a large indemnity, 12 hryvnias for each soldier. According to legend, Oleg ordered to nail his shield on the gates of Constantinople (Constantinople) as a sign of victory.
Oleg's successors continued the work he had begun - the strengthening of the Kievan state. From the stories about the reign of Igor (912-945), the son of Rurik and his wife Olga (945-957), it is clear that their main concern was to strengthen the centralization of the still fragile state. A sign of obedience and recognition of the power of the Kiev prince was the regular payment of tribute - the source of his strength and wealth. “Charters and dooms, tributes and graveyards” were established. Every year in early spring, the prince and his retinue, moving along the river system, collected tribute and administer court (many). In other cases, subject tribes themselves brought tribute to Kiev (cart). Sometimes subject tribes resisted. So, in 945, there was an uprising of the Drevlyans, as a result of which, during the collection of tribute, Igor's squad was killed, and the prince himself was executed.
After the death of Igor, his wife Olga cruelly took revenge on the Drevlyans.
The Kiev prince acted as an organizer of trade, which to a large extent contributed to the strengthening of his power. In the Kiev area was the main collection point of the trading caravan, consisting of hundreds of boats loaded with wax, honey, furs and other goods, as well as the collected tribute. The princely squad guarded the caravan from nomads. The crossing over the Dnieper rapids (between the present cities of Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye) was especially dangerous. The prince also took care of the normal conditions of trade. Trade agreements were reinforced by military campaigns. Igor's campaigns against Byzantium in 941-945. did not always end in his victories. In 945 a peace treaty was concluded with the Greeks. Igor's widow, Olga, established friendly relations with Byzantium and even adopted Christianity in Constantinople, but, as befits the ruler of a major power, she held herself proudly and rejected the courtship of the Byzantine emperor.
Under Svyatoslav (957-972), the son of Olga and Igor, the international prestige of Kiev increased. By the end of the second half of the tenth century. the process of centralization of the Kievan state was completed. Svyatoslav is known as a warrior who conquered the Volga Bulgaria. In the city of Pereyaslavets founded by him on the Danube, he even tried to move the capital of his state against the interests of Byzantium. Svyatoslav defeated the Khazar kingdom, defeated the Yases and Kasags (Circassians) in the North Caucasus and fortified the eastern and southern borders of the Kiev principality. On the shores of the Sea of Azov, he founded the city of Tmutarakan.
Not only military successes are associated with the name of Svyatoslav. Under him, relations with Byzantium escalated. The defeat of the Khazar state opened the borders for the raids of the Pechenegs, who killed the prince, taking him by surprise on the way from Byzantium to Kiev, not far from the Dnieper rapids.
The reign of Svyatoslav ends the period of formation of the Old Russian state. In the middle of the X century. it becomes the largest of the then known states of Eastern Europe, along with Byzantium and the Khazar Khaganate, which successfully competed with them and repeatedly defeated them in open struggle. From a union of tribes, Russia turned into a state with a single central princely power that united the territories inhabited by Slavic tribes. Tribal division gradually disappeared. A single nation was formed. With the unification of Russia and the strengthening of the military power of the Kievan state, the country's security from enemies increased. Unhindered trade routes and favorable trade agreements ensured the economic growth of the country and strengthened its power.
The baptism of Russia and the strengthening of the Old Russian state
The adoption of Christianity is the largest event in the history of Ancient Russia. The establishment of a new religion was historically conditioned. The political and social development of the Slavic tribes, the formation of a single state and the growth of its international influence were in conflict with pagan beliefs. Christianity began to penetrate into Russia from Byzantium long before Vladimir Svyatoslavovich. Under Igor, the Christian church of St. Elijah was built in Kiev. Olga converted to Christianity. Many of her warriors were Christians. The transformation of Christianity into the state religion, the class baptism of the entire population of Russia took place under Vladimir Svyatoslavovich in 988-989. There are several legends about the baptism of Russia.
First. Vladimir's choice of the true faith. According to the chronicler, he talked with representatives of various monotheistic religions: Byzantine Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Muslim and Jewish churches. Vladimir sent ambassadors to different countries to ascertain the advantages of one or another faith. But the magnificent rite of worship, moral norms and philosophical depth of religious teaching convinced him of the advantages of Eastern Christianity. Of the many religions, Vladimir thus chose the best and true faith.
Second. The personal interest of the prince, who planned to marry Anna, a relative of the Byzantine emperors. But a Christian woman could not marry a pagan. Other historical events intertwined around this marriage contract. Thus, Vladimir helped the Byzantine emperor put down a dangerous rebellion. But even after that, the emperors hesitated to marry. Then Vladimir used force, laid siege to Korsun (Chersonese), the main Byzantine city in the Crimea, after which the emperors brought the bride to Korsun. The ceremony of marriage and baptism of Vladimir took place.
This story is based on reliable historical events, which are confirmed by Byzantine sources.
Third. The church version considers the baptism of Vladimir as the result of a deep moral upheaval in the views and life of the Kiev prince, who had previously been mired in debauchery, guilty of many atrocities. According to the chronicler, Vladimir had five wives; having killed his brother Yaropolk, he seized the Kiev table and took away his Greek wife. Polotsk princess Rogneda (mother of Yaroslav the Wise) he took by force, without her consent, killing father Rogvolod and his sons. Vladimir is also credited with the presence of a harem, where 800 concubines were kept. And this great sinner had the voice of God, some kind of inspiration descended on him, and he accepted a new faith and morally changed. According to this story, Vladimir was baptized even before the campaign against Korsun, in 987, in Vasiliev, near Kiev.
Fourth. The legend about the Apostle of Christ Andrew the First-Called, who, during one of his travels from Byzantium to the Baltic Sea, ended up on a high hill near the Dnieper, at the place where Kiev later arose. Andrei preached a new faith among the locals and, as a sign of memory, he placed a wooden cross on this place. In the XVIII century. here was built the Church of St. Andrew the First-Called, designed by the architect Rastrelli. The legend of St. Andrew the First-Called became widespread in the 15th-16th centuries, during the period of consolidation of the Moscow autocracy. In a discussion with the envoy of the Pope A. Possevin, Ivan IV assured that “we received faith at the beginning of the Christian Church, when Andrei, the brother of the Apostle Peter, came to these countries to go to Rome.” Thus, it was proved that Russian Orthodoxy is older than Catholicism and comes from Christ himself. The truth of this story was refuted by the largest church historians E.E. Golubinsky, A. V. Kartashov and others.
The existence of various versions about the history of the baptism of Russia testifies to the outstanding significance of this turning point in history. The adoption of a new faith meant a sharp turn in the life and views of each person and the whole people. Such a turn could not have taken place all at once. The baptism of people, which was carried out not only by persuasion, but also by violence, was only the beginning of the establishment of a new religion. Pagan customs and beliefs persisted for a long time and coexisted with Christianity.
Briefly, the historical significance of the adoption of Christianity can be summarized as follows.
1. The affirmation of the Christian faith completed the process of formation of the ancient Russian people. Former tribal strife was a thing of the past. The unity of faith, language, culture replaced past differences. The concept of the community of the people, its past, present and future is reflected in the annals. The chronicler titled his work “Where did the Russian land come from”. He speaks of various Slavic tribes, of their life and way of life, as of a distant past. Moreover, the concept of “Russian land” is found in many sources.
2. The Christian religion was the most important factor in the strengthening of the Kievan state. With the adoption of Christianity, a centralized church government was established, headed by the metropolitan, who was first sent from Constantinople. Then the Patriarch of Constantinople began to appoint a local clergyman to this position. The metropolitan appointed bishops to large cities (at first there were 6, and then 15). Locally established churches and monasteries were subordinate to the bishop, and the bishop to the metropolitan. A strictly organized church hierarchy contributed to the centralization of secular power. Under Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, a collection of church laws came from Byzantium - the Pilot Book (in Greek, Nomocanon), according to which a church court was held. This accelerated the codification of civil law and the creation in the first half of the 11th century. civil code "Russian Truth".
The establishment of a single faith, a single legislation, a single power of the Kiev prince - this is the result of the development of the Old Russian state in the late 10th - early 11th centuries.
3. The Christian religion gave a new status to princely power. The Church introduced the belief in the divine origin and divine purpose of secular power. This increased the authority of the prince, as well as his responsibility. He had to conform his actions to the position of God's anointed one. The metropolitans intervened in the relations between the princes when they took the form of enmity and bloody strife.
4. The Baptism of Russia became a turning point in the development of culture. The Bulgarian monks Cyril and Methodius developed the Slavic alphabet (Cyrillic) and began translating church books into Slavic. Book education and literature began to develop, historical narratives (chronicles, etc.) appeared. The correspondence of books has become in Russia, as in other Christian countries, the most important business of monasteries. Monasteries became centers of book learning and education. The construction of churches and monasteries contributed to the development of architecture, building art, and painting.
Speaking in general about the role of Christianity in the development ancient Russian culture, you need to keep in mind some features. Christianity came to Russia from Byzantium. This led to the strengthening of cultural ties with Byzantium and its influence. But the external influence cannot be exaggerated. Relying on the achieved level of development of Byzantine culture, original literature, art, and architecture developed in Ancient Russia. The introduction of Slavic writing and the Slavic language into church life had a double meaning. On the one hand, religion and culture as a whole became accessible to the masses. But, on the other hand, this led to a separation from the Greek language, from the ancient Greek literature, philosophy, and history created in this language.
5. The Church influenced the development of social relations. The established ideological stereotype that the adoption of Christianity contributed to the intensification of exploitation and the strengthening of the power of the feudal lords is historically incorrect. Christian morality, which does not recognize the inequality between people, condemned slavery (in Russia - servility). The Church condemned the rude attitude towards serfs, the murder of a serf. Serfs, becoming church people, received freedom. The circle of church people was quite wide. It included everyone who was under the patronage of the church, including the peasants who cultivated church lands. Compared to the prince's serfs, they were relatively free.
6. With the baptism of Russia, the moral and ethical norms of the Christian religion were affirmed in people's lives. The Church proclaimed charity and mercy among the faithful, caring for the poor and defenseless. At the monasteries, shelters for the homeless and the elderly (almshouses) were arranged, and assistance was provided to the sick. The Church took widows and orphans under its protection if they found themselves without outside help. Christian morality and the intervention of the church seriously influenced family relations - marriage, disapproval of divorce, the prohibition of polygamy, the relationship of spouses and all family members. Under the influence of Christianity, blood feud was gradually abolished, and the cruel customs inherent in paganism were softened.
There is a well-known story about how, having become a Christian, Vladimir refused to execute robbers, considering it a sin to shed blood, even hardened criminals.
It would be wrong to exaggerate the moral and ethical impact of the Christian religion. The cruelty of the princes in civil strife among the heirs and descendants of Vladimir did not decrease. The monasteries turned into large landowners and exploited the peasants in the same way as the secular feudal lords. The ministers of the church were not always an example of purity of behavior and high morality. But, despite this, the adoption of Christianity was a major turning point in the life of the entire ancient Russian society and every person.
Yaroslav the Wise. The heyday of the Kievan state
The reign of Yaroslav the Wise - 1019-1054. Vladimir Svyatoslavovich died in 1015. Intermediate four years were marked by a fierce, bloody struggle for the Kiev table between the sons of Vladimir.
After the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, Kiev ended up in the hands of his eldest and unloved son Svyatopolk. Having sent killers, he destroys the main rival, his younger brother Boris, and after him - Gleb and the third brother - Svyatoslav. Yaroslav at that time reigned in Novgorod. His relationship with his father was strained and almost hostile. Upon learning of the death of his father, he gathers a squad of Novgorodians and Varangians and goes to Kiev against Svyatopolk. A four-year bloody war begins with the participation of foreign mercenaries. On the side of Svyatopolk, the detachments of his father-in-law, the Polish king Boleslav, are fighting. The struggle goes on with varying success and extreme bitterness. About the last battle, the chronicler says that the slaughter was so evil, which had not yet been in Russia, the soldiers converged three times and blood flowed in streams. The defeated Holy Regiment fled and died under unknown circumstances.
Yaroslav established himself in Kiev. But there was still a struggle with his younger brother Mstislav, who was sitting in Tmutarakan, the most remote principality on the Taman Peninsula. The militant rival of Yaroslav moved to Kiev to get his own volosts. The new strife ended with the division of the Kiev principality. Only after the death of the childless Mstislav in 1035 did Yaroslav become the sole ruler of a vast state from the Baltic Sea to Asia. This was the period of the highest prosperity of the ancient Russian state. Having defeated his rivals, Yaroslav tried with all his might, in various ways, to strengthen the unity of the state. Great importance had the completion of the Christianization of the population. Under Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, the Christian religion spread in the main cities along the Dnieper and its tributaries. In remote places, in the country of the Vyatichi, in Zalesye and in the north, paganism still dominated. By persuasion and force, Yaroslav achieved the approval of Christianity. The creation of the church hierarchical organization was completed. In 1037, the Patriarch of Constantinople formed the Metropolis of Kiev, appointing a Greek metropolitan, but soon a local clergyman began to be appointed to this post. Thus, Kiev became an ecclesiastical center. In Kiev, the majestic Sophia Cathedral was built for the metropolitan, which, in terms of architecture and decoration, was not much inferior to the church of the same name in Constantinople. The first monasteries were founded, including the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. Thus, the church under Yaroslav became the largest pillar of princely power.
Yaroslav was also called a khoromets (builder). He built a princely tower, surrounded Kiev with a wall with the famous Golden Gate. Stolny Kiev-grad became one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, the largest center of trade and crafts. Its population grew, the wealth and glory of Kiev spread far beyond the borders of Russia.
The beginning of chronicle writing dates back to the reign of Yaroslav the Wise. According to the well-known researcher A.A. Shakhmatova, the first chronicle was created in 1037. On its basis, the monk of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery Nestor at the end of the 11th century. created "The Tale of Bygone Years". The chronicle was intended to historically substantiate the unity of Russia and the unifying role of princely power. Of the same importance was the beginning of the creation of the first written code of laws of Russkaya Pravda with the addition of later princely legislative decrees. Common law, ancient traditions, which could be different for different tribes, were replaced by a single written law. The princely power acted as the supreme judicial arbiter, the guarantor of law and order. Fines and court revenues replenished the princely treasury.
Yaroslav the Wise did a lot to spread enlightenment. According to legend, he was a scribe, loved to read himself and sought to introduce others to reading. Translators of ancient manuscripts, mainly church ones, were invited from Byzantium to Kiev. A kind of library (the first library in Russia) was created from the books copied by the monks in St. Sophia Cathedral, where everyone could get manuscripts for reading. Schools began to be created at the monasteries. The prince himself selected 300 young men in Novgorod for training. The same was done in Kiev.
Yaroslav's foreign policy can be considered successful. In 1030, he made a campaign against the Finnish tribe of Chud and built the city of Yuryev (now the Estonian city of Derpt) there. In 1036, near Kiev, he inflicted such a crushing defeat on the Pechenegs that they no longer appeared within the Kiev state. A system of fortifications and cities was created on the border with the steppe. Yaroslav waged a three-year exhausting war with Byzantium. But although there were no decisive victories on the battlefields, and the princely army even suffered defeats, the peace concluded in 1043 was beneficial for Kiev. Byzantium confirmed the previously established privileges in trade and released the prisoners.
Under Yaroslav, Kievan Rus established contacts with many European states, secured by marriage unions. Yaroslav himself was married to the daughter of the Swedish king, his three daughters married the French, Norwegian and Hungarian kings, and his granddaughter married the German emperor.
Even so short review events in the first half of the eleventh century. testifies that under Yaroslav the Old Russian state reached the highest point of its heyday. Truly wise, an outstanding statesman in all respects, Yaroslav did not accidentally go down in history as Yaroslav the Wise.
Until the middle of the XI century. the development of Ancient Russia took place along an ascending line: from the unification of disparate Slavic tribes around Kiev to the Christianization of Russia and the formation of a powerful state in the east of Europe. After the death of Yaroslav the Wise, the weakening and disintegration of the Kievan state began. The centripetal trend of development that has prevailed so far is being replaced by a centrifugal trend, the separation of individual lands from Kiev is intensifying, the central government is weakening, new political formations appear that compete with Kiev.
What are the reasons for this turn in the history of Ancient Russia? Undoubtedly, objective factors were at work. Agriculture, crafts and trade developed, the economic importance of certain regions of the Kievan state grew. Kiev ceased to be the center from where trade caravans were sent to Byzantium. The path from the “Varangians to the Greeks” was losing its meaning. With the growing importance of agriculture, warrior warriors turned into boyars, landowners, engaged in their own economy. Local patrimonial interests prevailed over national interests. The economic strengthening of the outskirts made them independent from Kiev.
Nomad raids had a devastating effect on Kievan Rus. In the 60s of the XI century. a new dangerous enemy appeared - the Polovtsians. No less difficult for the population were princely strife, constant internal military clashes that ruined the population. Most of the peasants and urban dwellers left their habitable places and went further away, to safer places. One way was to the south, to the Dniester, the Western and Southern Bug, to the foothills of the Carpathians, the other - to the east, across the Oka River, to the upper and middle reaches of the Volga, to the so-called Zalesye. This region was rarely inhabited by Finnish tribes. It was safe behind the forests. Vast expanses and relatively fertile soil favored the development of agriculture.
The order of succession to the throne established by Yaroslav the Wise greatly contributed to the disintegration of Kievan Rus. The main idea was that the Kiev land is the patrimony of the whole family, the common possession of all his sons and grandchildren. But the eldest in age dominates, who sits in Kiev and to whom the rest of the princes must obey as the eldest, obey "as their father." According to Yaroslav's will, each of his sons received an inheritance. The eldest son Izyaslav became the Grand Duke of Kiev and received Novgorod. The remaining sons received cities depending on seniority. According to Yaroslav's plan, in the event of the death of the Kiev prince, the next brother in seniority takes the place. There is a corresponding movement of inheritances: the Chernigov prince moves to Kiev, the Pereyaslav prince - to Chernigov, etc.
But such an order was fraught with destructive forces that manifested themselves shortly after the death of Yaroslav the Wise. The younger sons could not hope to receive the Kiev table in the usual way. And among the grandchildren of Yaroslav it was already difficult to determine seniority. Rogue princes appeared, dispossessed. The expanded Yaroslav tribe recognized only the principle of force. Strength, military confrontation became the main way of obtaining a lot and a great reign. The internecine struggle took on a universal character. For 170 years before the Tatar invasion, the chronicles note more than 90 strife. Sometimes the struggle lasted for several years. The victorious princes did not spare their opponent, dealt with his family and retinue, ravaged his villages, robbed peasants and townspeople. To fight each other, Polovtsian detachments were hired, which were especially cruel towards the local population.
Vladimir Monomakh
In this chaos of mutual struggle and facelessness, the figure of Vladimir Monomakh, an outstanding statesman of the early 12th century, rises. He was the grandson of Yaroslav the Wise and the Byzantine Emperor Constantine. Monomakh ruled in Kiev from 1113 to 1125. But long before that, he became famous for his courage, honesty, struggle against the enemies of Russia, and above all against the Polovtsians. He made 13 campaigns against the steppes and each time made peace with them.
After the death of his father Vsevolod, the third son of Yaroslav, Vladimir Monomakh refused to accept the Kiev table, giving it to Svyatoslav Izyaslavovich, who, according to the right established by Yaroslav the Wise, belonged to seniority. Vladimir Vsevolodovich constantly sought to end the strife and sought out all sorts of means for this. So, in order to establish peace, he gathered in 1097 a congress of princes in Lyubech. “Why are we destroying the Russian land, raising enmity against ourselves? the princes said. “And the Polovtsians bring discord to our land and are glad that strife is going on between us.” Reasoning sensibly, the princes decided to live peacefully, so that everyone owns his fiefdom. On this they kissed the cross. But before they left the Lyubech Congress, another bloody drama took place. On the way home, David Igorevich lured the Terebovl prince Vasilko to Kiev and blinded him. At the next congress, the princes tried to punish the apostate, to deprive him of his inheritance. But it was not possible to stop the strife. Vladimir Monomakh himself took part in the internecine struggle: for example, he organized a campaign against Minsk and brutally cracked down on the local population.
Vladimir Monomakh became prince of Kiev after the uprising of 1113. The inhabitants of Kiev invited him to restore order. The anger of the population was directed against usurers and merchants. Vladimir Monomakh established a more moderate usurious percentage, made a number of changes and additions to Russkaya Pravda. The "Instruction" of Vladimir Monomakh, preserved by the chronicler for his children, can be regarded as a code of morality of that time.
Possessing a strong will, energy and courage, remarkable abilities as a statesman and commander, Vladimir Monomakh restored the unity of the Old Russian state within the boundaries that had developed at the beginning of the 11th century. With a firm hand and diplomatic means, he temporarily stopped the strife. Law and order were established in all internal life. During the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, new roads were built from Kiev to North-Eastern Russia. Intensive settlement and economic development of this vast region began, on the territory of which the Vladimir-Suzdatel principality was formed, and later the Muscovite state. In a number of battles, Vladimir Monomakh defeated the Polovtsian khans and stopped the invasion of the Polovtsy within their possessions. The closest neighbors had to reckon with the increased power of the Kievan state. Equal relations were established with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Byzantium.
But Vladimir Monomakh only temporarily restored his power and stopped the collapse of the Old Russian state. He was unable to completely overcome the separatism of the local princes and centrifugal tendencies.
After the death of Vladimir Monomakh, the strife flared up with renewed vigor. A fierce struggle took place between the descendants of Vladimir (Monomakhovichi) and the descendants of the Chernigov prince Oleg Svyatoslavich (Olgovichi), as well as within these clans: between older and younger Monomakhovichi, senior and junior Olgovichi.
The collapse of the Kievan state, princely strife weakened the resistance of the Russian lands to external forces and eventually became the main reason for the defeat in the fight against the Tatar-Mongols. Along with this, it is necessary to note another, parallel trend - the development of culture, the self-consciousness of the people, the economic and political growth of new centers - the Novgorod land, North-Eastern and South-Western Russia.
