Lecture 1. Old Russian state

Introduction

The formation of the Old Russian state dates back to the early Middle Ages. Among the many different civilizations existing on the territory of modern Russia, from the 6th century AD, the Old Russian civilization began to emerge. She is associated with the tribes of the Eastern Slavs.

Who are the Eastern Slavs, where and how did they appear on the East European Plain, how was the Old Russian state created, what periods of its development did it go through and why did it finally collapse? We will talk about all these and many other questions related to the origin and formation of Russian civilization today at the lecture.

The purpose of the lecture: to characterize the Old Russian state, to show its socio-economic, political, military and cultural life.

Knowledge of ancient Russian history is especially important for you. It is from there that many economic traditions of our people began.

Civilization of Ancient Rus'. Eastern Slavs in ancient times.

Old Russian civilization began to develop with the resettlement of the Slavs to the East European Plain. Slavic tribes began mass settlement throughout Eastern Europe in the 6th century. This process lasted for three centuries. Tribe clearing came from the Carpathians to the banks of the Dnieper and settled the cities of Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Galich. Tribe Krivichi founded Smolensk, Polotsk, Turov, Minsk and settled the future Belarus. The northern lands were populated Slovenia and Krivichi - the cities of Russa, Ladoga, Pskov arose there. Novgorod was formed later, apparently in the 10th century, when three tribal settlements of Slovenes, Krivichi and Mary. Later, these settlements began to be considered different “ends” of Novgorod: Slavensky, Lydin (or Goncharny) and Nyorevsky ends. From that time on, Eastern Europe became a “country of cities,” like Ancient Hellas. Each city became the center of a small or large principality with a mixed population. The cities stood along the banks of significant rivers - there were no other roads in the center and north, and in the south the routes through the steppe were dangerous due to raids by nomads.

The Slavs quickly mixed with the local population - Iranian-speaking tribes in the south, Finno-Ugric in the north, Baltic-speaking in the northwest. Until the 9th century, different cities did not unite into large states - there were no good reasons for this. The word "Rus" in the 8th-9th centuries meant only the region around Kyiv; Only at the end of the 10th century, after the subjugation of almost all Slavic cities to the Kyiv princes, all the lands of the Eastern Slavs began to be called Rus.

Initially, the Slavic city was the center where the tribal nobility lived ( elders- heads of clans and prince- head of the military squad), as well as artisans (blacksmiths, potters) serving the tribe. At this time, there was almost no international trade in Eastern Europe - wars and tribal migrations interfered. But from the second half of the 8th century, relative peace came and caravans of merchants from Byzantium and the Arab Caliphate went along the rivers to the north. Southern merchants exchanged northern raw materials (furs, leather, grain, amber, wax, honey, walrus ivory), as well as slaves for handicrafts from the countries of the Middle East. This trade contributed to the flourishing of crafts in Slavic cities and intercity trade along major rivers: the Dnieper, Desna, Western Dvina, Volga, Oka. From this time on, maintaining peace and unified authority in all cities along the trade route became an important matter for many local residents - artisans, merchants, tribal elders and princes. This opened up the possibility of state unification of the future Rus'.

In the administration of the Russian city-state in the 7th-10th centuries, three forces played the main role: veche, boyars and prince. At first, the veche was a general meeting of soldiers, that is, all adult men, and later – a meeting of all full-fledged residents of the city (apparently, house owners, that is, heads of families, were considered such). The word boyar initially meant a clan elder - the head of a large group of citizen relatives. Then boyars began to be called the most prominent (in terms of fame, power and wealth) citizens who had dependent people - servants, serfs. Military leaders, large landowners, the richest merchants or owners of craft workshops became boyars. The word “prince” meant “noble warrior”, “voivode”. At first, the prince was the elected head of the city militia, then he also became the head of a hired squad. The role of the prince grew as urban politics became more complex: he decided those matters that the veche and the boyars could not resolve among themselves. The triple system of power “veche - boyars - prince” was very stable. Any two of these forces could curb the third if they conspired, and if all three forces were at the same time, then all the townspeople acted as one and accomplished great things.

In the 9th century, the Vikings, or Varangians, appeared in Rus'. This Old Norse word means “warrior,” that is, a Varangian is not a nationality, but a profession. This is what the Slavs called the inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Baltics, who sailed to Rus' from the north and sailed along the rivers to the south to the source of fabulous wealth - Constantinople or Baghdad. The Varangians fought or traded, depending on what was more profitable. In Western Europe, the Vikings robbed more, because there was almost nothing to trade there in the 9th-10th centuries (crafts fell into decline with the death of the Western Roman Empire), and in the event of a military failure on the shore, it was easy to go to sea. In Rus', it was more profitable for the Varangians to maintain peace with the local residents. Many Varangians, having settled in cities, entered military service with local princes or became merchants. Sometimes the leaders of the Varangians themselves became princes (this happened in Ladoga, Novgorod, Kyiv).

The Varangians (like the Slavs) were accustomed to communicating with people who spoke different languages ​​and professed different religions. Therefore, they easily got along together; The Varangians who settled in Rus', after one or two generations, became completely like the Slavs. From the middle of the 11th century, the Varangians no longer sailed to Rus', and soon there were no more of them left in Rus'.

In the 7th-8th centuries, residents of Kyiv paid tribute to the Khazars, whose capital ( Itil) stood at the mouth of the Volga. But in 730-740 the Khazars fought a long, unsuccessful war with the Arabs. It is possible that at this time the people of Kiev managed to achieve independence. At the beginning of the 9th century, Kyiv was already a strong power and was at war with Khazaria. In 834, the Khazars built a fortress on the Don Sarkel to protect against attacks from the north and west. At this time, many Varangians sailed south through Rus'; Apparently, the Kyiv princes used them in the wars with Khazaria. It is possible that Kyiv was in alliance with other enemies of Khazaria - the nomadic Magyars (Hungarians), who at that time were moving from the Southern Urals to the future Hungary through the steppes of the Black Sea region.

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

* * *

The given introductory fragment of the book History of civilization in Ancient Rus' (A. N. Polyakov, 2011) provided by our book partner - the company liters.

Chapter 1 The formation of ancient Russian civilization

§ 1 Prerequisites for the formation of Kievan Rus

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

First the prerequisite that created the conditions for the formation of civilization among the Eastern Slavs is the participation of the Slavs in international trade. The role of international trade routes passing through the lands of the Eastern Slavs is expressed in the fact that they gave rise to military-trading communities, often consisting of people of different tribes - isolated from productive labor, united by a common cause, welded together by blood and military brotherhood. Their existence can be judged on the basis of a number of sources. Thus, Ibn Ruste talks about how the Rus often attack the Slavs, take them captive and take them for sale to Khazaria and Volga Bulgaria. Gardizi reports that the Rus attack the Slavs in groups of a hundred or two hundred people, and the Slavs come to the Rus and serve them. Based on these communities, a ruling stratum was formed in Rus', which became the social core of ancient Russian civilization.

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

According to archaeological excavations, changes in agriculture among the Eastern Slavs begin from the 9th century. First of all, this is due to the transition to using winter rye, which was a common phenomenon for both the Slavs and the Scandinavians. Rye ripens earlier than other breads and can stand on the vine for quite a long time. Knowing this, farmers left rye for the time being and began harvesting other crops. Rye is stable and almost always productive. Without requiring spring-summer preparation, rye produced an acceptable harvest on any soil. The Russian people called rye “mother”; it saved people more than once in difficult years. “Mother rye feeds all fools, but wheat feeds by choice,” says a Russian proverb. Or: “The field is red with rye...”, “when there is rye, then the measure...”, “he is good who has rye.” Winter rye has a debris-cleaning ability and is less demanding on the availability of nutrients than spring crops and is therefore more suitable for growing on cultivated soils. Sowing of winter crops is most often carried out according to a couple, and therefore the use of winter rye indirectly indicates the transition of the Eastern Slavs to an intensive farming system - three-field crop rotation. The use of the steam system increased the productivity of the land in 10 – 15 times.

The first finds of winter rye date back to the 9th century (Svila I settlement, Vitebsk region). In the 10th – 13th centuries it reaches first place among grain crops, and in the 13th – 15th centuries the amount of winter rye exceeded the total amount of spring rye. The dynamics of changes in the share of winter rye in crops exactly coincides with the dynamics of the development of ancient Russian civilization: the growth of cities, the development of crafts, architecture, culture and art. This indicates the interdependence of these processes. The use of winter rye, which produced stable yields, and the transition to a steam system (three-field) grew synchronously with the increase in the number of cities, and therefore the proportion of people freed from labor. Sufficiently high grain yields made it possible to use the labor of others in agriculture, which turned urban farmers into landowners. Winter rye made it possible to feed not only the plowmen themselves and the owners of the land, but also artisans, artists, builders, servants, buffoons, etc., who made the life of these owners brighter and richer. Essentially, ancient Russian civilization grew on rye, to paraphrase “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” - it was nurtured on rye, nourished on rye, swaddled with rye ears. She stuck to it. Mother Rye fed Mother Rus'.

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

Political background. First a political prerequisite should be considered accumulation of sufficient experience in uniting large social groups based on territorial characteristics. The basis of the political system that Rus' absorbed was the tradition of inter-tribal unification of the Slavs. A. A. Gorsky suggests calling such associations “tribal principalities” or “Slavinia.” Information about them is extremely scarce. Greek authors, in particular Procopius of Caesarea, called democracy (democracy) the main feature of the political system of the Slavs and Antes. He wrote that the Slavs and Antes are not governed by one person, but since ancient times they have lived in the rule of people (democracy), and therefore they consider happiness and unhappiness in life to be a common matter. This means that the Slavs are accustomed to deciding matters that concern everyone at general meetings.

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

The boundaries and chronological framework of the existence of associations of this kind are the subject of debate. According to V.V. Mavrodin, in the fight against the Avars in the 6th century in Volyn, in the Carpathian region, a powerful political union of the Eastern Slavs-Ants was created under the leadership of the Dulebov-Volynians. He considers this political unification to be the initial stage of Russian statehood. Even before the 1917 revolution, A. A. Shakhmatov expressed a similar idea. The association dates back to the 7th century, headed by someone Self. As follows from the Chronicle of Fredegar, in 623 (624) he was elected king by the Slavs and reigned for 35 years. He had 12 wives, who bore him 22 sons and 15 daughters. As a king, he received ambassadors, conducted all kinds of proceedings (court), led an army - he fought with the Avars and Franks. Inter-tribal associations, obviously, were the chronicled East Slavic peoples: the Drevlyans, Krivichi, Northerners, Vyatichi and others. The author of “The Tale of Bygone Years” points to the existence of independent principalities among them and calls them lands, like Rus'. In the 9th century, the so-called Russian Kaganate became known. According to O. Pritsak, it was located between the Volga, Trubezh and Kotorosl rivers. D. A. Machinsky, A. N. Kirpichnikov and K. Tsukerman believe that it was located in the Volga-Ilmen basin, and its capital was Ladoga. B. A. Rybakov, H. Lovmiansky and P. P. Tolochko attribute the Rus Khaganate to the middle Dnieper region and consider it the direct predecessor of Kievan Rus. E. S. Galkina places the Russian Kaganate in the upper reaches of the Donets, Oskol and on the middle and upper Don, connecting it with the Salto-Mayak archaeological culture. V.V. Sedov considers the carriers of the Volyntsevo culture to be the creators of the Russian Kaganate. In his opinion, it was located between the Dnieper and Don. Be that as it may, the existence of such political unions allows us to assume that the Eastern Slavs had a certain experience, and we know approximately what it was, and it could form the basis of the emerging political system of Kievan Rus.

Second a political prerequisite that played a great importance for the formation of civilization among the Eastern Slavs is military activity, which made it possible to quickly accumulate the material resources necessary to maintain the state and social strata freed from productive labor. According to Menander Protiktor, a Byzantine historian of the second half of the 6th century, before the invasion of the Avars, the Slavic lands abounded in money, because the Slavs had long robbed the Romans... their land was not ravaged by any other people. The Slavic raids on the Eastern Empire are known under the years 547, 549, 550, 578, 581, 583, 589 and other years. Under 844, Al-Jacobi reports a Russian attack on Seville in Spain. The Life of George of Amastrid talks about the attack of the Rus on the southern coast of the Black Sea in the early 40s of the 9th century. On June 18, 860, the Russians attacked Constantinople. The Tale of Bygone Years connects this campaign with the Kyiv princes Askold and Dir. Under 912 - 913, Masudi talks about the Rus' campaign against the Caspian Sea. The campaigns of Oleg and Igor against Constantinople are well known.

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

§ 2 Time and signs of the emergence of civilization in Rus'

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

Figure 2 – Estate of a simple citizen

First the most important feature of an ancient Russian city, distinguishing it from a family village, is the presence courtyard-street development. The yard is the embodiment of the new position of the family and, as a consequence, the new territorial system of connections in the community. According to archaeological excavations, at least until the end of the 9th century, there are no clear traces of the presence of courtyards, and even in the 10th century they are not always traceable and not everywhere. In Kyiv, estates appeared in the second half of the 9th – early 10th centuries. From the beginning of the 10th century, the first streets appeared in Ladoga, although traces of courtyard flooring, according to archaeologists, can be traced here back to the 9th century.

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

Figure 3 – Estate of a wealthy citizen

Second The main feature of the urban character of a settlement in Ancient Rus' is engineering street improvement- perhaps even more important than the yard, an indicator of the “cultivation” of the territory. In all cities, at least in the forest zone, archaeologists, opening ancient streets, discover wooden pavements, and on the territory of estates and along the streets all kinds of systems drainage And drainage systems. They were found in Novgorod, Pskov, Moscow, Beloozero, Minsk, Smolensk, Mstislavl, Polotsk, Vitebsk, and many other cities. In Novgorod, wooden street flooring appeared in the first half of the 10th century.

Figure 4 – Part of the pavement of Kholopya Street in Novgorod. Photo from the 1951 excavation

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

Additional evidence of the urban character of the fortified settlement can be considered the finds of door castles and appearance inscriptions on things. The use of castles reflects new social conditions - the emergence of separate and then private property and, as a consequence, theft (tatba). The fact is that the developed clan system did not know theft, at least within the community. It was impossible for two reasons. Firstly, clan communities lived separately from each other. Units larger than the clan - phratry and tribe - acted as a single whole extremely rarely, and their social functions were minimal. Secondly, within the clan, theft lost its basis due to the nature of the property. Since everything was common, there was no point in stealing. Theft could arise only after the clan system was disrupted, i.e. precisely as a result of the spread of cities.

Figure 5 – Old Russian locks, keys to them and lock cylinders

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

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

The earliest inscription dates back to the mid-10th century. This is the famous “gorukhshcha”, scratched on a pot, the fragments of which were found by D. A. Avdusin in Gnezdovo, near Smolensk. Its meaning is still controversial. D. A. Avdusin and M. N. Tikhomirov believed that it means “mustard seed” or “bitter spice” in general. G.F. Korzukhina believed that this was something “flammable” - something like oil. A curious explanation for this word was once proposed by the Czech researcher F. Maresh. In his version, “gorukhsha” is read as “Gorukh dog”. Translated, this means “Gorukh wrote.” In other words, we have before us the signature of the owner. If we use the previous reading of the inscription, we can assume that “gorukhsha” is a possessive adjective from the name “Gorukh” or “Gorusha”. In this case, the oldest Russian inscription will also turn out to be proprietary. In addition to Gnezdovo, three more inscriptions are known on pots of the 11th – 12th centuries: “Yaropolche wine” from Pinsk, “Dobrilo sent new wine to Prince Bogunka,” found in Old Ryazan, and “Blagodatnesha is full of this pot” from Kyiv. Almost all of them talk about tavern owners in one way or another. In the 11th – 12th centuries, inscriptions on things were no longer uncommon. They signed harp, spindle whorl, hryvnia, brothers, etc.

Rusinok 6 – Fragment of a pot with the inscription “gorukhsha”

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

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

Figure 7 – Tithe Church. Reconstruction by N. A. Kholostenko

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

The materials of the treasures of coins, women's jewelry, silver and gold ingots are also eloquent. The earliest of them date back to the turn of the 9th – 10th centuries. They are extremely few in number (there are only eleven of them). The bulk of the treasures are in the second half of the X – mid. XIII centuries. The famous tury horns-rhytons from the “Black Grave”, bound in silver, date back to the second half of the 10th century. Nothing similar in terms of grace and beauty, skill and wealth of an earlier time has been found in the lands of the Eastern Slavs.

Figure 8 – Silver frame of a tury horn from the “Black Grave”

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

Figure 9 – Old Russian writings and ceras

According to data for 1996, 21 letters date back to the 11th century, and already 230 to the 12th century. An increase in the number of finds indicating the development of writing (from the first to write and a complete absence of texts in the 10th century to dozens of letters in the 11th and already hundreds in the 12th century) -m) indicates similar dynamics as in the case of the spread of courtyards, door locks, temples and treasure hoards.

Figure 10 – Number of birch bark letters found in Novgorod

We have sufficiently reliable grounds to draw a final conclusion: civilization in Ancient Rus' took shape from the end of the 9th century during the 10th century, and was fully formed at the beginning of the 11th.

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

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

The degree of reliability, accuracy and completeness of the news is presented to historians in different ways. M. N. Pokrovsky wrote that the entire story is undoubtedly stylized, and so much so that it is almost impossible to discern its historical basis. S.V. Yushkov believed that the chronicler’s story was completely legendary and it was difficult to separate truth from fiction. D.S. Likhachev thought about the same thing. B.D. Grekov accepted as correct the fact that the Novgorodians hired Varangian auxiliary detachments. V.V. Mavrodin and I.Ya. Froyanov are close to his opinion. Judging by the level of material culture, the Slovenes, Krivichi and other participants in the proposed recruitment were unlikely to be able to do this. At that time they lived in a primitive system and did not have the means to hire. The Slovenians of this time were dominated by rural-type settlements with chaotic buildings and poor inventory. Meanwhile, judging by later data, the Varangians demanded a lot for their services. For example, after the capture of Kyiv, they asked Vladimir Svyatoslavich for 2 hryvnia per person, which he promised to collect in a month, but was never able to do so.

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

Archaeological sources from the 9th – 10th centuries confirm the presence of Scandinavians in the lands of the Eastern Slavs. According to excavations in Ladoga, they lived here since the establishment of the village around 750. In the northeast of Rus', Scandinavian materials first appear starting in the 9th century, but most of them date back to the 10th century. Rus' of the 10th – 11th centuries, mainly in relation to the Novgorod north, is characterized by the so-called “hybrid things”, which can be considered as the result of the interaction of Scandinavian and Slavic traditions. Scandinavian burials in the area of ​​Gnezdov and the Upper Volga are hybrid. As excavations have shown, many burials here were made “according to a mixed ritual with complex equipment,” in which archaeologists see various ethnic features. The funeral ritual became standard, but united different ethnic features by the middle of the 10th century. In Timerevo, the percentage of complexes with Scandinavian objects dropped sharply in the second half of the 10th century. In Kyiv and Chernigov, in the mounds of the 9th - 10th centuries, a complex hierarchy of burials develops (monumental mounds, log tombs, burials of warriors with horses and weapons), but there are no specifically Scandinavian features in them. The materials from the Shestovitsky burial ground near Chernigov contain a number of things of Scandinavian origin, which can be considered as evidence of the complex ethnic composition of the Chernigov community. However, most of the burials here are purely Slavic. In the 12th century, the “Scandinavian trace” could no longer be traced anywhere.

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

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

Feofan's successor points to Frankish, i.e. Germanic origin of the Russians. Describing the campaign of Prince Igor in 941, he notes that the Ros are also called Dromites and they come from the Frankish tribe. Considering the message of Ibn Fadlan, who personally observed the Rus in the Bulgar in 921, many researchers note that the description of the appearance of Russian merchants most of all makes them similar to the Normans.

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

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

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

The political terminology they used also testifies to the fact that the Rus belonged to the Slavs. All of it, without exception, is Slavic: prince, veche, squad, thousand, mayor, sotsky, ten. The word “prince” is believed to be of Germanic origin. However, the alleged borrowing occurred during the times of Slavic unity, since the word is common Slavic.

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

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

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

The emergence of the social core of civilization. The emergence of cities and other phenomena noted above indicate changes in social relations, the main meaning of which is the identification of a social group that allows the individual within it to obtain a high degree of freedom. This was a new nobility, representing the social core of ancient Russian civilization.

Data from written sources about Ancient Rus' of the 10th – 13th centuries include mentions of the best people, deliberate men, boyars, firemen and others. The great boyars and simply boyars (Bolyars) are known from the earliest sources - the treaties of Rus' with the Greeks in 911, 944 and 971. Along with them, the Bright and Great Princes and “every prince” are mentioned here. Almost all of these categories of the population do not leave the pages of written sources until the Mongol invasion, and in some cases much later.

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

§ 4 The emergence of cities

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

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

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

The chronicle also includes information that does not fit into the concept of the Kyiv scribe. Based on Greek chronicles, he talks about how the Russian land became known during the reign of the Roman Emperor Michael. According to the chronicle, in 866 (according to Greek sources in 860), the Rus attacked Constantinople. The chronicler associates these Rus with the Kyiv princes Askold and Dir. If this was indeed the case, it turns out that the Russian land arose at least a quarter of a century earlier than the arrival of Oleg.

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

According to archaeological excavations, Kyiv arose on the site of a nest of Slavic settlements located in the 7th – 9th centuries on Starokievskaya Mountain and its slopes, the Kiselevka, Detinka, Shchekovitsa and Podol mountains. The settlements were interspersed with empty spaces, arable lands and burial grounds. The oldest settlement was located in the north-west of Starokievskaya Mountain. According to B.A. Rybakov, it dates back to the end of the 5th - beginning of the century. VI centuries At the end of the 9th century, Kiev Podil developed rapidly, courtyard buildings and street layout appeared here.

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

Figure 12 – The central part of Kyiv in the 12th century

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

A real leap in the development of Kyiv occurred in the era of Yaroslav the Wise after a period of temporary decline caused by the shock of the introduction of Christianity and the struggle of Vladimir’s sons for the Kiev inheritance. Then the city limits expand noticeably. The layout becomes stable. The center is finally taking shape - the “city of Vladimir” and the “city of Yaroslav” with the Golden Gate and the grandiose St. Sophia Cathedral. The fortifications of Kyiv are increasing in area by 7 times.

Ladoga. Judging by archaeological data, Ladoga arose at the same time as Kyiv. This is the only possible place where the legendary Rurik could have come, and from where the Prophetic Oleg could have marched on Kyiv. The calling of Rurik to Ladoga, and not Novgorod, is spoken of in the Ipatiev and Radzivilov Chronicles.

Archaeological excavations have shown that Ladoga as a settlement dates back to the middle of the 8th century, but at that time, along with the Slavs, Balts, Finns and Scandinavians lived here. Archaeologists have discovered Slavic square log houses with a stove in the corner, and large Scandinavian-looking houses. The Slavs began to dominate here in the 10th century. The first fortress in Ladoga was built at the turn of the 9th – 10th centuries. Gradually Ladoga becomes a Slavic city. The first streets appear, stretching along the banks of the Volkhov, and courtyard development, typical of ancient Russian cities.

When Rurik came to Ladoga, it was an international trading post, with a more or less permanent agricultural and trade population. Oleg left it along with his gang back when Ladoga did not constitute a single organism. And only with his direct participation does it acquire urban features. Most likely, it was Oleg who built a stone fortress here, which archaeologists date back to the late 9th - early 10th centuries, which became the first step towards Slavic dominance. Oleg and his people took the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” under their control - this is the goal of strengthening the northernmost point of this trading system. In the 10th century, the Kiev community persistently sought to develop the East Slavic lands, rebuilding fortresses in the most important places, from the point of view of Kyiv. The most ancient Russian cities (Kyiv fortresses) ensured the dominance of Kyiv among the Slavic tribes.

Novgorod. Information about the construction of Novgorod is contradictory. Initially, according to chronicles, the Novgorod fortress was built by the Slovenes who came to these places, then Rurik erected his fortifications here. Finally, in 1044, Novgorod was once again founded by Vladimir, the son of Yaroslav the Wise. Slovenian Novgorod is a ancestral village or tribal center, the location of which is unknown. Many people associate Rurik's Novgorod with the "Rurik settlement", located 2 km from ancient Russian Novgorod. Excavations have shown that a settlement existed here already in the middle of the 9th century. Along with the Slavs, who built wooden log houses here (the length of the walls are 4 - 6 meters) and left behind molded dishes and socketed arrowheads, characteristic of the Western Slavs, a number of Scandinavians lived here. The Scandinavian trace is represented by hryvnias with pendants in the form of Thor's hammers, equal-armed and shell-shaped brooches, playing checkers, pendants with runic spells, etc. Only the last message applies to the now famous Novgorod child. It has been confirmed by archaeological excavations. Novgorod of Vladimir Yaroslavich is the oldest Detinets, which occupied the north-western part of the modern Detinets and included the St. Sophia Cathedral and the bishop's courtyard. V. L. Yanin and M. Kh. Aleshkovsky believe that on the site of St. Sophia Cathedral there used to be a pagan temple, i.e. This part of Detinets was also the center of the boyar farmsteads that surrounded it in pre-Christian times. A more ancient detynets also stood here. The first fortress, Detinets, could have been erected on this site under Oleg or Igor.

Figure 13 – Old Russian Novgorod

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

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

Figure 14 – Old Russian Polotsk

Systematic archaeological study of the city began in Soviet times. Excavations were carried out here by A. N. Lyavdansky, M. K. Karger, P. A. Rappoport, L. V. Alekseev and others. According to archaeological data, the original settlement in Polotsk arose in the 9th century on the right bank of the river. Cloths. The oldest Slavic strata date back to the 10th century. Detinets at the mouth of the Polota River was built in the second half of the 10th century. It became the center of the future city. Polotsk acquired urban features at the end of the 10th – beginning of the 11th centuries, when courtyard and estate development spread and pavements were built. Polotsk was founded to control the trade route “from the Varangians to the Arabs” (as I.V. Dubov puts it), passing from the Baltic Sea along the Western Dvina, through the Volga portage to the Caspian Sea.

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

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

The city has long attracted the attention of researchers. Mass excavations of Chernigov mounds were carried out in the 70s of the 19th century by D. Ya. Samokvasov. Detinets was studied by B. A. Rybakov. Architectural monuments were studied by N.V. Kholostenko and P.D. Baranovsky. In our time, excavations in Chernigov are led by V.P. Kovalenko. The history of Chernigov was addressed by P.V. Golubovsky, D.I. Bagalei, M.N. Tikhomirov, A.N. Nasonov, V.V. Mavrodin, A.K. Zaitsev, M.Yu. Braichevsky, A.V. Kuza and others.

Archaeological excavations have shown that on the territory of Chernigov in the 8th – 9th centuries there were several settlements of the Romny culture, traditionally associated with the tribes of the northerners. At the end of the 9th century they ceased to exist as a result of military defeat. Their place is taken by monuments of the Old Russian type. The first fortifications in the Chernigov Detinets area were apparently built at the beginning of the 10th century (there is no exact data on this matter). It is believed that in the 80s and 90s of the 10th century, Detinets was rebuilt by Prince Vladimir. Chernigov acquired an urban character at the beginning of the 11th century, as did Polotsk. The city probably monitored the movement along the Desna and had access to the trade route “from the Varangians to the Greeks,” connecting it through the Ugra and Oka with the Volga route.

Forced synoicism. The first Kyiv fortresses included Vyshgorod and Pskov. IN Vyshgorod there are no undisturbed deposits of the 10th century, there are only isolated finds. IN Pskov The first fortifications date back to the beginning or middle of the 10th century, but the settlement became a city only in the 11th century.

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

Figure 16 – Founding of Belgorod by Prince Vladimir. Miniature of the Radzivilov Chronicle

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

Information from chronicles about other ancient Russian cities has not been confirmed as a result of archaeological excavations. First fortifications Smolensk dated by archaeologists at the turn of the 11th – 12th centuries. The settlement of Podol dates back to the middle of the 11th century. As is known, ancient Russian Smolensk was preceded by Gnezdovo of the 10th – 11th centuries – an open trade and craft settlement with a multinational population. However, Gnezdovo cannot be recognized as the original Smolensk. In fact, it was a settlement closely connected with the interests of international trade and distant predatory campaigns. It was primarily trading place, a trading post and had no direct relation to the future Smolensk. Beloozero(united under 862) in the 10th century - the village of Vesi. It became an Old Russian city only in the 12th century. Fortifications Izborsk were built at the turn of the 10th – 11th centuries, although the settlement here has been known since the 8th century. Rostov According to archaeological data, it appears no earlier than the 11th century. It is preceded by the Sarskoye settlement of the 9th – 10th centuries, but it, like Gnezdovo in relation to Smolensk, cannot be recognized as the original Rostov. The oldest strata Turov date back to the turn of the 10th – 11th centuries, and the city’s fortifications were built no earlier than the 11th century. Fortifications Lyubecha were also built in the 11th century3.

§ 5 Formation of the territory of Kievan Rus

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

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

Identifying the boundaries of the tribal territory of the glades causes great difficulties for researchers. The main problem is the lack of reliable Polyan traits. The elusiveness of the ethnic features of the glades, along with attempts to find such features, gave rise to versions that the glades arose as a result of the mixing of different Slavic tribes, or that the glades did not exist at all. The lack of reliable signs by which one could delineate the territory of the “most important” East Slavic tribal union is truly suspicious. However, this seemingly hopeless argument has one positive outcome. The “territory without a face” with its center in Kyiv is distinguished by the fact that it combines the features of various Slavic and non-Slavic tribes. This reflects the initial stage of the formation of a new social organism on a common Slavic basis. Before us is the territory of an intertribal cauldron, in which during the 9th century the future culture of Ancient Rus' was boiled. Old Russian civilization is the result of the joint creativity of all Eastern Slavs. And this result first appeared precisely in this territory. In the 9th century, it most likely did not go beyond the boundaries outlined by Yu. V. Gautier. The Chernigov Podesye region of this time is characterized by a few Romny, i.e. Severyansky monuments – Elovshchina tracts in Chernigov, Shestovitsa, Sednev. At the turn of the 9th – 10th centuries they ceased to exist as a result of military defeat. Then they were replaced by monuments of the Old Russian type. The destruction of Severyan villages in the Chernigov region occurred as a result of the campaigns of the Kyiv prince Oleg, which are noted in the chronicles around this time - 883 - 884. At the end of the 9th – beginning of the 10th centuries in the Middle Dnieper region, Rus' owned only a small area in the area of ​​​​Kyiv - along the watershed of Teterev and Irpen in the north-west, the Dnieper - in the East and in the Porosye region - in the south. On the left bank of the Dnieper, the Russian land covered the Chernigov Podesnie region to the Snov or Mena River.

Even fewer were subject to Rus' in the north of the East Slavic lands in the Volkhov region - where the second Russian city of Ladoga was located and the third - Novgorod - was founded. It was a narrow strip along the Volkhov from Ladoga to Lake Ilmen or to the source of the Lovat. The adjacent regions became part of Rus' later. The development of Slavic and Finno-Ugric lands began from Luga, where water lived, the shores of Lake Pskov and the Velikaya River - the possessions of the Krivichi, as well as Pomostya, where everyone lived. According to the chronicle, this happened during Olga’s reign. Under the year 947, the chronicler talks about how she built graveyards and banners here, determined the amount of tribute and quitrents, set up traps and visited Pskov. Archaeological data confirm the information from the chronicle - the ancient Russian detinets of Pskov were built around this time.

By the middle of the 10th century the territory of Rus' in the Middle Dnieper region is expanding at the expense of Derevskaya land. The Drevlyans lost their independence after the murder of Igor the Old and the war caused by this murder. The border of the ancient Russian state in the west moved back at least to the Sluch River, and in the north-west it almost came close to Pripyat. The dividing line between Russia and the Dregovichi became the former Drevlyan border, which ran through marshy areas south of Pripyat.

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

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

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

Immediately after the destruction of the Romen settlement, new fortifications appeared on the site of Novgorod-Seversky on Castle Hill - a little away from the center of the Severyansky settlement. Archaeologists do not note an intermediate layer that would indicate the temporary abandonment of this place. Novgorod-Seversky is placed directly on the fire layer.

Figure 17 – Detinets of Novgorod-Seversky in the 12th century. Layout. Reconstruction by A. V. Kuza, author of the layout A. A. Logvinenko

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

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

Figure 18 – The territory of Kievan Rus at the end of IX – per. even XIII centuries

Third stage. Among the princes who “proliferated the Russian land,” a place of honor belongs to Yaroslav the Wise. The chronicle draws attention only to the western direction of his foreign policy activities. Shortly before the clash with his brother Mstislav, Yaroslav conquered Berestye and its parish. In 1030, he went on a campaign against the Estonian Chud and built the city of Yuryev here. In 1031, together with Mstislav, he returned the Cherven cities lost during the strife. The chronicle news fully corresponds to the data of archaeological research. As excavations of Suteysk, one of the Cherven cities, have shown, the fortifications of the ancient Russian detinets and the surrounding city were erected here simultaneously in the first half of the 11th century on the site of an older settlement of the 9th – 10th centuries.

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

Figure 19 – Yaroslav the Wise. Sculptural portrait. Reconstruction based on the skull of M. M. Gerasimov

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

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

Fourth stage. Under the Yaroslavichs in the second half of the 11th century, the lands of the northern Dregovichs and Yatvingians became part of Rus'. At this time, the Dregovichi built Minsk on the Svisloch (most likely by the Polotsk prince), and the Yatvingians built Goroden, which became the center of Old Russian Ponemania. Thus, by the beginning of the 12th century, the main territory of Kievan Rus was formed.

Vyatichi - that part of their lands that was located in the region of the middle and upper Oka - were annexed no earlier than the middle - second half of the 12th century by the Chernigov princes. Vladimir Monomakh in his “Instructions” talks about the campaign against the Vyatichi in the late 70s - early 80s of the 11th century.

The Vyatichi were headed, according to him, by the local prince Khodota. Before this trip, my journey " through Vyatichi he mentioned as some sort of feat. At the beginning of the 12th century, in the area of ​​​​the future Serensk, the Vyatichi killed the Russian missionary Kuksha, who spread Christianity among them. In 1147, the Chernigov princes Vladimir and Izyaslav Davidovich negotiated with the Vyatichi for the extradition of the Novgorod-Seversk prince Svyatoslav Olgovich, who was hiding with them. This means that in the middle of the 12th century, the land of the Vyatichi still retained its own Vyatichi nobility. Old Russian cities appeared in this area no earlier than the middle of the 12th century. According to archaeological excavations, Serensk, one of the most famous cities in the land of the “Chernigov Vyatichi”, was founded in the middle of the 12th century in an uninhabited place. Kozelsk (“the city of evil” as the Tatars will call it for its long resistance) has practically not been studied archaeologically. The 1992 expedition was unable to unambiguously answer the question of the location of the ancient city. The most likely location is a hill near the Zhizdra River, at the confluence of the Drugusny River, which does not allow study due to dense buildings. But the appearance of the Russian reign here indicates a late entry into Rus'. The first Russian prince known in Kozelsk was Mstislav Svyatoslavich, a participant in the Battle of Kalka.

Figure 20 – Woman from the Vyatichi tribe. Sculptural portrait

In the 12th century, Rus' continued to expand its territory. Novgorod sought to subjugate the northeastern lands towards the White Sea and further to the east. As A.N. Nasonov established, already at the end of the 70s of the 11th century, Novgorod expanded its “camps” to Zavolochye. In the 30s of the 12th century, Novgorod churchyards appeared in the lower half of Vaga. The Novgorod tribute reaches Pechora. However, for now we are talking only about tributary dependence, and not about joining Rus'.

The onslaught of Rus' to the south in the 12th century was even more persistent. Attempts to seize the Black Sea region between the Prut and Dnieper rivers were made back in the 10th century. Prince Igor, according to the Novgorod chronicler, in the 20s or 30s sent governor Sveneld to the city of streets Peresechen. In 1111, the Kiev prince Svyatopolk and Vladimir Monomakh made a deep raid into the Polovtsian steppe all the way to the Don. In 1116, Vladimir Monomakh launched an offensive in two directions at once. Voivode Ivan Voitishich was sent to the Danube - we are talking about cities from Derstra (Dorostol) to Kilia. Yaropolk Vladimirovich was sent to the Don in the same year. In the second half of the 12th century, Berlad became dependent on the Galician princes. By the turn of the 12th – 13th centuries, Rus' had significantly advanced into the steppe. In the 12th century, as archaeological research has revealed, Russians actively populated the Dnieper Nadporozhye region. Old Russian settlements of this time were discovered at the mouth of the Sura River, the Yatseva Beam, on the island. Kamianuvat and many other places. At the same time, Rus' retains in its hands the city of Oleshye, located at the mouth of the Dnieper. The Russian princes actually take control of the territory from the mouth of the Danube to the Dnieper. They hold lands along the trade routes: Greek (along the Dnieper), Soleny (along the Dnieper to the Crimea) and Zalozny (along the Seversky Donets to the Don and Tmutarakan). The attempts of the Polovtsians to impede trade provoked a decisive rebuff from the Russian princes. The most likely reason for this “onslaught to the south” was the Black Sea possessions of Kievan Rus. We can talk about the existence of Black Sea Rus' starting from the 9th century; sources from the 10th, 11th and early 12th centuries clearly testify to this.

Thus, the main territory of Kievan Rus took shape during the 10th – 12th centuries. Several stages can be distinguished. First– from the end of the 9th – beginning of the 10th to the middle of the 10th century.Second– from the middle of the 10th century to the beginning of the 11th century.Third– from the beginning of the 11th century to its middle. Fourth– from the middle of the 11th century to the middle of the 12th century. Initially, there were three groups of Rus: the northern one, centered in Ladoga and then Novgorod; central with its center in Kyiv; and southern with the center in Tmutarakan and Korchevo. The Kyiv princes sought to unite them into a single space. By the middle of the 10th century, the lands of the Drevlyans and Pskov Krivichi, as well as the territories along Msta and Luga, became part of Rus'. By the beginning of the 11th century, the Russian land covered the lands of the Croats, Volynians, southern Dregovichi, Radimichi, northerners, Polotsk. By the middle of the 11th century, the territory of Rus' was basically formed. The northern enclave of the Rus and the central one merged, the lands of the Volga-Oka interfluve, the Cherven cities, and the lands to Lake Onega were annexed. By the middle of the 12th century, almost all East Slavic lands became part of Rus'. The fate of the third enclave was different. In ancient Russian times it was never possible to connect it with the main territory of Rus'. Only Catherine II will do this.

§ 6 Introduction of Christianity in Rus'

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

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

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

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

A. A. Shakhmatov (1864 - 1920), who was engaged in chronicles for more than twenty years, believed that the “Philosopher’s Speech,” which he considered a monument of Bulgarian literature, was placed in the “Ancient Code of 1039” he allocated, and the Korsun legend took shape no earlier than the last quarter of the 11th century. Here, he argued, the story about the fornication and idolatry of Prince Vladimir first appeared, in which he saw the hand of a Greek or Greekophile who sought to discredit the Kyiv prince.

M.D. Priselkov (1881 - 1941) believed that the issue of accepting Christianity was not a matter of the ruler’s personal conviction in the truth of the new faith, but was a state issue and was complicated by the problem of establishing the forms of the church hierarchy without losing political independence. Attempts to obtain an independent church structure began, in his opinion, with Prince Igor, continued under Olga and Svyatoslav and received legal registration under Vladimir by receiving the hierarchy from Bulgaria. Rus''s dissatisfaction with the state of church-political relations with Bulgaria led in 1037 to the establishment of a Greek metropolitanate in Kyiv.

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

A turn in the views of Soviet historians on the problem of the baptism of Rus' occurred in the second half of the 30s of the 20th century. The impetus for this was the resolution of the All-Union Committee for Arts under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR “On the play “Bogatyrs” by Demyan Bedny,” adopted on November 13, 1936. It was noted here that this play “gives an ahistorical and mocking image of the baptism of Rus', which was in fact a positive stage in the history of the Russian people, since it contributed to the rapprochement of the Slavic peoples with the peoples of a higher culture.”

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

From the point of view of the needs of feudalization, the baptism of Rus' was considered by academician B. D. Grekov, who called the adoption of Christianity a fact of “primary importance.” For M. N. Tikhomirov, the establishment of Christianity in Rus' was a major historical event, marking the victory of new feudal relations over the obsolete tribal system. In the cultural life of Ancient Rus', the establishment of Christianity meant joining the traditions of Byzantium and Hellenism. Another major Soviet historian, B. A. Rybakov, also expressed similar views.

A special surge in research activity was caused by the anniversary celebrated in the USSR in 1988 - the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus'. A number of monographs and collections are being published to mark the anniversary. Among the authors who dedicated their works to this event were A. G. Kuzmin, O. M. Rapov, Ya. N. Shchapov, I. Ya. Froyanov, A. D. Sukhov, A. P. Novoseltsev and others. In historical studies of this time, the idea is advanced about the strict relationship between the processes of feudalization and Christianization, on the basis of which a conclusion is drawn about the progressiveness of the baptism of Rus'. An exception is the position of I. Ya. Froyanov. He proceeded from the denial of the existence of feudalism in Rus'. The real reasons for the introduction of Christianity in Rus', he believed, cannot be understood by abstracting from the pagan transformations that preceded it. The choice of a new faith, which fell on Byzantine Christianity, was not a mere coincidence. For ancient Russian society with its pre-class structure, a certain democracy of the Byzantine church and a certain tolerance of its ministers towards paganism were of great importance. Close trade and political ties between the two countries played an important role. The preference given by Vladimir to Christianity from Byzantium depended to a large extent on the external situation on the southern borders of Rus'. In the second half of the 10th century, Pecheneg raids on Russian lands became more frequent. Under these conditions, friendly and allied relations between Kyiv and Constantinople were highly desirable for Rus'. Taking all these circumstances into account, Vladimir accepted baptism from the Greeks. There is no reason, wrote I. Ya. Froyanov, to consider it progressive in the sense that it allegedly contributed to the victory of the feudal system and ideologically sanctified the dominance of the emerging class of feudal lords. Christianity was introduced not to establish new, “historically progressive institutions,” but to preserve the old tribal orders. “The Baptism of Rus'” meant the conversion to Christianity of the Kyiv prince with his household, the nobility close to him and some part (possibly significant) of the inhabitants of Kyiv, as well as the population of nearby cities and villages. The conversion of these people to the new faith was voluntary, which is not difficult to understand: after all, Christianity was established to maintain the dominance of the Kyiv elite and the entire Polyana community over the conquered East Slavic tribes. As for the tribes subject to Kyiv, Christianity entered them with fire and sword. From the point of view of the progressive development of Rus', the introduction of Christianity at the end of the 10th century was in some way ahead of events, Froyanov believes, looking ahead. Without a solid social foundation or immediate political perspective, it slid along the surface of ancient Russian society and much later (in the 14th – 15th centuries, when the formation of classes was completed) it became an instrument of class domination, as well as a lever for the unification of Russian lands around Moscow. I. Ya. Froyanov came to the conclusion that, despite the conservative socio-political role, Christianity also had a positive impact on some aspects of Old Russian life, facilitating the establishment of ties between Rus' and Byzantium, the Christian countries of Central and Western Europe, promoting the growth of culture, the formation of Old Russian nationalities.

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

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

The first Russian historians usually followed the sources in their explanations. N.M. Karamzin, for example, reduced the Christianization of Rus' to the personal whim of Prince Vladimir. Church historians Filaret and E.E. Golubinsky also held similar views. In the 19th century Another version of Christianization arose. Its adherents were the church historian Macarius, S. M. Solovyov, T. Barsov, S. F. Platonov, S. I. Grechushkin, and in the 20th century.

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

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

Many Soviet historians also touched upon the problem of Christianization of Rus'. Most of them drew attention to the class character of Christian doctrine. Thus, B.D. Grekov wrote that pagan religion is not like the religion of a class society. The religion of the tribal system does not know classes and does not require the subordination of one person to another, does not illuminate the dominance of one person over another, class religion has a different character. The liquidation of the old basis and the generation of a new one required the liquidation of the old superstructure. The old religion has lost its meaning. The new feudal basis created a corresponding superstructure. Rus' adopted a new religion.

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

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

All these statements lose meaning as soon as we abandon the idea that Rus' was formed as a feudal society and pay attention to the facts. It is not clear why paganism, which did not sanctify the dominance of one class over another, corresponded to the slave system and allegedly did not correspond to the feudal system. Paganism existed in slave states for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years and did not at all undermine the unlimited power of the Egyptian pharaohs, Babylonian kings and Roman emperors, who owned vast territories inhabited by multilingual peoples. Why in Rus' does it suddenly cease to satisfy the ruling strata of society? Especially considering that the presence of feudalism in Russian lands has not been proven. It is also impossible to assert that Christianity was most consistent with the feudal system. As you know, in the Roman Empire Christianity became the state religion during the times of slavery, and not feudalism. Views of the Slavic pagan religion as “shtetl” do not correspond to reality. It is enough to note that the main Slavic gods - Perun, Dazhbog, Veles and others - were revered by all Slavs. The ideas about the afterlife, funeral rites, holidays, etc. were common. Taking steps to impose an alien worldview on the population (both one’s own and the conquered) is a more difficult task than imposing tribute, introducing a tax system, etc. Christianity was familiar to Russians for a long time, but this did not lead to its significant spread in Rus'. The same should be said about the position of Christianity after the baptism of Rus'. I. Ya. Froyanov quite rightly noted that it slid along the surface of ancient Russian society and much later (in the 14th – 15th centuries) “turned into an instrument of class domination,” i.e. it was then that it began to decisively influence people’s behavior, forming the basis of their worldview . This means It is clear that ancient Russian society did not feel the need to change religion and the baptism of Rus' did not have any internal reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

After these events, a pagan group led by Prince Svyatoslav comes to power in Rus'. During his reign, the situation of Christians in Rus' worsened. Svyatoslav showed his hatred of Christians in earlier times. Some of his nobles, who were inclined towards Christianity, “accepted death,” while others were “abused by the pagans.” Svyatoslav subjected Christians to severe persecution after the death of his mother during the war with Byzantium. Many Christians who were part of the Russian army were executed; Svyatoslav sent trusted people to Kyiv, who were tasked with eradicating Christianity in Rus'. During the reign of Svyatoslav, the church of St. was destroyed by pagans. Nicholas in Ugorskoe. Svyatoslav himself intended to “destroy all Christians” upon his return from the Balkan campaign. But his death in 972 prevented further repressions against Russian Christians. With the coming to supreme power of Svyatoslav's eldest son Yaropolk, the position of Christians in the Kiev state began to improve again. Both the Byzantine and Roman Catholic churches are trying to find ways to penetrate Rus'. Christians receive “great freedom” in the Kiev state. This circumstance caused discontent in pagan circles. And when his half-brother Vladimir, who at that time was firmly in pagan positions, came out against Yaropolk, part of the Grand Duke’s army went over to the side of his enemy. As a result, Yaropolk failed to retain power in Kyiv. He fled to the city of Roden on the Rosi River and after some time was killed. Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich came to power on the crest of a pagan wave. He immediately began to carry out activities to strengthen the position of paganism in the largest urban centers of the country - Kyiv and Novgorod. In the first years of his reign, the pagans completely dominated the Christians.

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

“Rus' has joy to drink, we cannot live without it,” Vladimir said to the Muslims at parting.

Then missionaries from Rome arrived, sent by the pope. “Your land,” the pope told Vladimir through his envoys, “is the same as ours, but our faith is not like yours, since our faith is light; We bow to God, who created heaven and earth, the stars, the month and everything that breathes, and your gods are just trees.” The prince was curious: “What is your commandment?” The papal ambassadors replied: “Fast according to strength; if anyone drinks or eats, then all this is for the glory of God, as our teacher Paul said.” Then Vladimir said: “Go where you came from, for our fathers did not accept this.”

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

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

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

Figure 22 – Monument to Prince Vladimir in Kyiv (fragment). Sculptor Demuth-Malinovsky and P. Klodt, architect. A. Ton Malinovsky and P. Klodt, architect. A. Ton

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

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

Thus, the chronicler talks about Prince Vladimir’s conversations with representatives of various religions and return embassies. The authenticity of the preachers’ speeches and what Vladimir told them raises great doubts. The chronicler, who created his work more than a hundred years after the prince’s conversations with the missionaries, could not have known what the ambassadors who came to him told Vladimir and what he answered them. The story about Vladimir's test of faith is constructed according to the scheme of teaching works, which were intended to persuade the reader to accept Christianity through the example of their leader (in this case, Prince Vladimir). This, of course, does not mean that the chronicle narrative is based on no historical facts. As often happened in the Middle Ages, the stencil form of church literature could contain stories about events that actually took place. In particular, in the Arabic “Collection of Anecdotes” of the 13th century, written by Muhammad al-Aufi, there is a story about the embassy of Bulamir (Vladimir) to Khorezm (Khvalissa of the Russian chronicle) for the purpose of “testing” Islam and about the embassy of a Muslim imam to Rus' to convert Russians in the Mohammedan faith. Perhaps the story about the test of faith reflects the missionary activity of representatives of various religions, which took place constantly and was not directly related to baptism.

According to the chronicle story, having returned from a campaign against Korsun (Chersonese) with the princess and priests, Prince Vladimir ordered the idols to be overturned - some to be chopped up and others to be burned. Peruna ordered a horse to be tied to the tail and dragged from the mountain along the Borichev road to the Stream, ordering twelve men to beat him with rods. Dragged to the shore, Perun was thrown into the Dnieper. Vladimir assigned people to him, saying: “If he lands somewhere on the shore, push him away. And when the rapids pass, then just leave him.” And so it was done. When Perun passed the rapids, he was thrown onto the sandbank by the wind, and that is why, the chronicler writes, that place was known as the “Perunya Shoal”. Judging by this text, a kind of pagan trial was held over Perun, accompanied by punishment - dragging and beating with “rods”.

After the reprisal against Perun and the rest of the idols, Vladimir sent his servants “all over the city with the words: “If anyone does not come to the river tomorrow - be it rich, or poor, or beggar, or slave - let him be my enemy.” Hearing this, the people went with joy, rejoicing and saying: “If it were not for this good, our prince and boyars would not have accepted it.” The next day, Vladimir and the priests went to the Dnieper and countless people gathered there. Some went into the water up to their necks, others up to their chests, the young ones near the shore up to their chests, some were holding babies, and the adults were wandering around, while the priests performed prayers, standing still. Having baptized the people of Kiev, Vladimir “built a church in the name of St. Basil on the hill where the idol of Perun stood. They also began to build churches in other cities, appoint priests in them, and baptize people.

Under the pen of the chronicler, the appeal to the new faith turned into a triumphal march of Christianity through the towns and villages of Rus'. A careful analysis of the sources indicates that the “baptism of Rus'” meant the transition to Christianity of the Kyiv prince, the nobility close to him and some part of the Kievites, as well as the population of nearby cities and villages. It is likely that during baptism in Kyiv there were also some instances of coercion.

Figure 23 – V. M. Vasnetsov. Baptism of Rus' by Prince Vladimir. Painting of the Vladimir Cathedral. Kyiv.

The Joachim Chronicle provides details of the baptism of the Novgorodians. Prince Vladimir instructed Bishop Joachim and Dobrynya to baptize the residents of the city on Volkhov. When the Novgorodians learned about the approach of uninvited guests, they called a meeting and swore not to let them into the city “and not to let the idols be refuted.” “Having swept away the great bridge” connecting the two sides of Novgorod, they fortified themselves on the side where the Detinets stood, turning it into a stronghold of resistance. The leaders of the uprising were the pagan priest Bogomil Nightingale and the thousand-year-old Ugonai. Meanwhile, the missionaries appeared on the Trade Side and began their work, going around the “marketplaces” and “streets” and calling on people to be baptized. The “baptists” worked for two days, but they managed to convert only a few hundred people to the new faith. And on the other side passions were boiling. The people, enraged, destroyed Dobrynya's house, plundered the property, beat up his wife and other relatives. And then the thousand Putyata crossed at night in boats with a detachment of 500 warriors to the opposite bank and landed at the Lyudino end. 5 thousand Novgorodians rushed to him. They surrounded Putyata and a fierce battle began. When some Novgorodians fought with Putyata, others destroyed the Church of the Transfiguration and plundered the houses of Christians. At dawn, Dobrynya arrived to help Putyata. To distract the Novgorodians from the battle, he ordered to set fire to “certain houses near the shore.” People rushed to put out the fire, ending the battle. The frightened Novgorodians asked for peace. After this, Dobrynya destroyed the pagan sanctuaries, burned the wooden idols, and broke the stone ones and threw them into the river. Then he sent heralds everywhere, announcing that they should go and be baptized. Those who did not want to go were dragged by the soldiers by force and baptized, men above the bridge, and women below. Many unbaptized people began to cheat, declaring themselves baptized. However, the trick was unsuccessful: an order followed for all baptized people to hang crosses on their necks. If anyone does not have a cross, baptize him, at least anew. For a long time, the news of the Joachim Chronicle about the baptism of Novgorodians aroused distrust among researchers. But special source study and especially archaeological excavations in Novgorod, carried out by the famous Soviet archaeologist V.L. Yanin, proved their historical authenticity. The story of the Joachim Chronicle about the baptism of Novgorodians leaves no doubt that Christianity in Novgorod was introduced by force by Vladimir, accompanied by bloody clashes.

Distribution, consequences and significance of the baptism of Rus'. Christianity spread in Rus' rather slowly. After the baptism of Kyiv and Novgorod, and then other ancient Russian urban centers, many pagans remained. Some of them fled from cities to remote places, others (for example, Rostovites or Muromites) continued to profess paganism openly, at times showing serious resistance to the church and Christianization. The local princely authorities were not always able to resist the pagans, apparently due to a lack of military strength. Residents of Rus' were converted to Christianity according to the following scheme: the prince of Kiev appeared with his army in one region or another and demanded that the population perform the rite of baptism. Residents, as a rule, could not withstand such energetic pressure and carried out the will of the Kyiv ruler. But as soon as they left, everything returned “to normal”: people renounced the Christian faith.

Figure 24 – M. V. Nesterov. St. Boris. St. Vladimir's Cathedral in Kyiv

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

Christianity had a significant influence on the development of Kievan Rus, and in the future it became a decisive factor in domestic and foreign policy, the basis of the culture and life of the Russian people. Referring to the well-known evangelical thesis that every power is from God, the church demanded that the population be resigned submission to their masters. In contrast to the pagan priests, Christian clergy, finding themselves subordinate to the “powers of this world,” as a rule, became obedient conductors of their will. The great Russian princes received the right to interfere in church affairs. They appointed people faithful to them to church posts, deprived disobedient bishops of their dioceses, and sometimes even held their own trials over them.

On the other hand, the highest representatives of the church began participate in political life Rus'. They sat in princely councils and veche assemblies, and collaborated with the princes in creating all-Russian legislation. Church hierarchs also received the right to carry out their own trials over the inhabitants of the country.

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

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

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

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

The influence of the church on family relationship. On the one hand, it strengthened the monogamous family. On the other hand, she strove for strict regulation of family life, asserted patriarchalism, and demanded the unquestioning submission of the wife to her husband, and the children to the father5.

§ 7 Development of ancient Russian civilization in XI – trans. third of the 13th century

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

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

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

M. N. Pokrovsky believed that the Kyiv princes never eliminated the independence of the lands they owned, either under Oleg or under Monomakh. In his opinion, the “federal” and “republican” character of the ancient Russian state at the earliest stages of its development known to us is quite definitely established.

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

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

1) Stage of formation (late 9th – early 11th centuries);

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

It did not disintegrate as it developed, and the “Yaroslav series”, the Lyubech Congress or the death of Mstislav the Great do not divide its history into two different stages. Until the invasion of Batu, Rus' was experiencing a time of unprecedented urban flourishing. During this era, their rapid territorial and numerical growth occurs. If in the 11th century 20–25 urban-type settlements are known, then in the middle of the 12th there were already about 70 of them, and by the middle of the 13th there were at least 150 cities.

Figure 25 – Development of ancient Russian cities

Archaeological excavations provide convincing evidence of the rapid growth of the “mother of Russian cities” – Kyiv. In the 12th century, the territory of the city continued to expand, new defensive fortifications were built (at Podol and at the Kopyrevo end), and the products of Kyiv artisans were widely distributed throughout Rus'.

Figure 26 – Kyiv in the X – XIII centuries.

At the end of the first third of the 12th century, that is, just in the years when the period of fragmentation usually begins, the range of handicraft products sharply expands, and wide specialization begins within individual branches of production. Nail makers, boiler makers, shield makers and other specialties are distinguished. The number of craft professions in large cities exceeds a hundred. In textile production, at the end of the 12th century, a horizontal loom began to be used, which significantly increased labor productivity. Small-scale production is developing rapidly. In the middle of the 12th century, Russian artisans switched from production to order to work for the market.

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

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

Figure 27 – Church of Paraskeva Pyatnitsa in Chernigov (beginning of the 13th century)

The essence of princely civil strife. The most noticeable political phenomenon in Rus' is civil strife. S. M. Solovyov calculated that from 1055 to 1228 strife occurred almost every other year, and some of them lasted for 12 and 17 years.

Old Russian sources name princes as the culprits and main participants in numerous feuds. Clarifying relations among themselves, the princes involved the lands in the confrontation and brought the Polovtsians, Ugrians, and Poles to Rus', and did not disdain the ruin of the volosts.

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

Much about the nature of the clashes can clarify the composition and number of participants. Unfortunately, chroniclers usually do not mention the number of troops who took part in the feuds, limiting themselves to the expressions “ with a lot of howls», « with the squad», « with mallets"etc. The figures they sometimes give are relatively small. Yaroslav the Wise, going to war with his brother Svyatopolk, collected only 4 thousand. Izyaslav Davidovich, going in pursuit of Svyatoslav Olgovich - 3 thousand. For comparison, Prince Mstislav Rostislavich, preparing for a campaign against Chud, recruited 20 thousand people in Novgorod. But in the chronicles you can also find cases when the prince led 300 or even 100 people with him. This is exactly how much David collected during the strife that occurred immediately after the Lyubech Congress.

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

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

There were two main reasons for the civil strife. They quite definitely characterize internal wars in Rus' as a way of resolving political disputes between princes. These reasons were, firstly, the desire to occupy the Kiev table. Secondly, the desire to have more volosts at your disposal, bigger, better and more profitable. Every prince in Rus' was looking for a richer parish, just like the priest - a more profitable parish.

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

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

Figure 28 – “Golden Gate” in Kyiv. Reconstruction. Contemporary photography

The long reign of Yaroslav the Wise ended with the so-called “Yaroslav’s Row.” Opinions about him vary widely. Some researchers believe that he did not introduce anything new into the order of inheritance of princely power (A. E. Presnyakov, S. V. Yushkov, P. P. Tolochko). Other historians attach fundamental importance to it (V. O. Klyuchevsky, L. V. Cherepnin, N. F. Kotlyar). For example, V. O. Klyuchevsky believed that the scheme of alternate inheritance originated from him. From this moment on, the princes had to move from volost to volost according to the order, which was determined by seniority in the princely family. According to N.F. Kotlyar, the principle of hierarchical relations between princes directly follows from the series of Yaroslav. Most likely, this was the usual distribution of tables, which we saw back under Svyatoslav Igorevich in 970, and which would be repeated more than once after that. The order of inheritance of the Kyiv table on the basis of “tribal seniority”, as well as the generic principle of relations between princes in general (father - children, older brother - younger brother), has its origins in clan society, and is not established by the authorities. The struggle for a place in the sun could have flared up even after the death of Yaroslav, and only due to a number of specific reasons, and not at all thanks to Yaroslav, this did not happen. Since then, there has been no fierce struggle for the Kiev table until the middle of the 12th century. For more than a hundred and a quarter years, Kyiv lived relatively calmly. The fate of the unfortunate Izyaslav Yaroslavich does not count. He was expelled from Kyiv twice - first by the people of Kiev, then by his brother Svyatoslav - but this did not lead to an armed struggle for the reign of Kiev. In the first case, Vseslav Bryachislavich failed, who fled to his place in Polotsk and left Kyiv to the mercy of fate. In the second case, Izyaslav did not have time to find allies for himself - Svyatoslav died unexpectedly and he calmly returned back, without encountering resistance from his last brother Vsevolod.

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

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

Kyiv was lucky for a very long time - until the death of Vsevolod Olgovich, it was not the subject of controversy. After Svyatopolk, as already noted, the Kiev table was occupied by Vladimir Monomakh. None of the princes then risked challenging the decision of the Kyiv community. Vladimir was the most powerful and authoritative prince. In 1125, seniority in the family and the reign of Kiev peacefully passed to his son Mstislav the Great, and when Mstislav died, to his brother Yaropolk. In 1139, after the death of Yaropolk, Vsevolod Olgovich established himself in Kyiv by force. Only after his death in 1146, an incredibly intense struggle for the reign of Kiev began. One way or another, Galician, Volyn, Pereyaslavl, Suzdal, Chernigov, Seversky, Smolensk, Novgorod and other volosts were involved in it. Rus''s neighbors took part in it: Polovtsians, Hungarians and Poles. The intensity of passions was associated primarily with the difficulties of determining seniority in the princely family. It was at this time that the question arose with all its urgency: who is higher on the ladder of seniority, the younger uncle in years or the younger generation, but older nephew? Another problem was coordinating the opinion of the princes on this matter and the opinion of the townspeople.

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

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

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

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

The struggle for Kyiv for a quarter of a century, with short interruptions, fevered the Russian land. It was accompanied by wars for certain volosts, which practically did not stop. After Yuri's death, Izyaslav Davidovich again entered Kyiv, but did not last long here. Then Rostislav Mstislavich, who reigned from 1159 to 1167, established himself in the city. In 1167 - 1169, Mstislav Izyaslavich sat in Kyiv, who brought the first great defeat to the city, striking the chronicler, and after him, historians. For about two years, the prince of Kyiv, under the seniority of Andrei Bogolyubsky, was his brother Gleb (1169 - 1171). Then, successively, Vladimir Mstislavich, Roman Rostislavich, Rurik Rostislavich with his brothers David and Mstislav, Yaroslav Izyaslavich, and, finally, again Roman Rostislavich, who had previously reigned in Smolensk, visited here. Kyiv barely had time to recognize or summon one prince before another appeared here, and all this was accompanied not by peaceful conversations, but by the endless “court of God,” otherwise the princes could not tell which of them was older and who was younger.

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

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

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

The reign of the “formidable” Svyatoslav and Rurik Rostislavich lasted until the death of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich in 1194. But even after this, Kyiv was not the object of fierce disputes and large-scale attacks until the beginning of 1203. Ironically, a terrible defeat in Kyiv was then carried out by Rurik, expelled from the city by his son-in-law Roman Mstislavich. In 1240 it was finally defeated by the Mongols. With this event, a new chapter in the history of Russian civilization began.

The given review of princely feuds of the 11th – early 13th centuries associated with the struggle for the great Kiev table allows us to reveal statistics of a different kind, different from the data of S. M. Solovyov. Between the first major strife of the 11th century (1015 - 1025) and the period of prolonged sedition in the second half of the 12th century (1146 - 1180), there is an era of 121 years of relatively peacetime, when the struggle for Kyiv did not lead to its ruin. Then the era of civil strife, which lasted with interruptions (sometimes up to 7 years) for 34 years, was replaced by another period of peaceful development of Kyiv, which lasted 22 years. At the same time, during all the years of civil strife, from the founding of the city to the Mongol invasion, the capital of Rus' was subjected to major defeat only twice (in 1169 and 1203). Similar statistical data are also revealed in relation to other large centers of Kievan Rus. Some cities were never ruined like Kyiv until the beginning of the Mongol yoke. This kind of information reflects the development of ancient Russian civilization more objectively and fully explains the lack of influence of princely feuds on the general state of Rus'.

The most important indicator of the health of a social system is culture. It reflects thoughts, feelings, tastes, preferences, ideas about beauty, emotional uplift or depression inherent in the era. It completely and completely reproduces the character of the social system in a certain historical period. This makes it possible to use achievements in culture as a reliable measure of the level of development of society and its condition as a whole. If you look from this point of view at Kievan Rus of the 11th - first third of the 13th centuries, it is easy to notice that until the Mongol invasion, ancient Russian society did not experience long periods of decline. Moreover, the peak in its development, the period of true prosperity, in which the largest number of masterpieces fall, was the third quarter of the 12th - the first third of the 13th centuries - the very height of fragmentation. It was at this time that the Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir, the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, and the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” were created.

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

Figure 29 – Development of ancient Russian civilization

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

The culture of the Slavs was formed on the basis of three natural factors, which included the forest, river and steppe. Many peoples laid claim to the role of masters of the Great Russian Steppe, but only the ancient Rus managed not only to gain a foothold, but over time to create one of the most powerful ancient states that had ever existed. On its basis, a special type of Slavic culture arose - Eurasian, the essence, characteristics and purpose of which experts continue to debate to this day. According to most historians, the ancestral home of the Slavs at the height of the Bronze Age (mid-2nd millennium BC) was Central and Eastern Europe. The history of the Eastern Slavs and the Russian ethnic group as an independent branch of the Slavs begins in the 1st millennium BC. e., when the Slavic tribes of the Middle Dnieper region are fighting for their independence, building the first fortresses, for the first time encountering the hostile steppe cavalry of the Cimmerians and emerging from the battles with honor. To this time, scientists attribute the creation of one of the primary forms of Slavic culture - the heroic epic. By the time the Scythians arrived in the southern Russian steppes (7th century BC), the Slavs had traveled a long historical path, which was reflected both in archaeological materials and in the detailed mythology of the Slavs. The social system of the Middle Dnieper Slavs, even one and a half thousand years before the formation of Kievan Rus, was on the threshold of statehood. This is evidenced by Herodotus’s mention of Slavic “kings”, the equestrian features of buried warriors, the huge “royal” mounds in the Kiev region and the imported luxury of the Slavic nobility. At the end of the 5th - mid-6th centuries, the great migration of the Slavs began to the south, beyond the Danube, to the Balkan Peninsula, when the Slavic squads conquered and settled almost half of the Byzantine Empire. The Slavic movement, grandiose in its scale, redrew the entire ethnic and political map of early medieval Europe. The territory developed by the Slavs was the so-called “gate of nations” - an open space between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea - through which waves of nomadic peoples poured into the southern Russian steppes in a continuous stream. The period from the 8th to the end of the 17th century. - the most restless in the history of our country. At this time, Russian lands were subjected to devastating raids. The “Gateway of Nations,” the southern Russian steppe, attracted many. In the 1st millennium BC. e. The ancient Bosporan and Scythian states arose here. In the VII-VI centuries. BC e. The shores of the Mediterranean, Black and Azov Seas were colonized by the ancient Greeks. In the 2nd century BC. e. The southern Russian steppes were occupied by the Iranian tribes of the Sarmatians, then the Alans. In the III-II centuries BC. e. These territories were invaded by the Germanic tribes of the Goths, who formed a large kingdom from the Danube to the Don. In 375 AD e. The Goths pushed back the Mongol hordes of the Huns, occupying the space between the Volga and Danube with their nomads. The Huns were replaced in the 6th century by a new Mongol tribe of Avars, whose dominance was also short-lived. It was replaced in the 7th-8th centuries by new Asian hordes - Ugrians (Hungarians), Bulgarians and Khazars. The Ugrians, after not staying long, went to the Danube Valley, where they founded their national state. The Khazars formed in the 8th-9th centuries. extensive state (khaganate). Thus, many peoples laid claim to the role of masters of the Great Russian Steppe, but only the ancient Rus, who repelled numerous raids by superior enemies, managed not only to gain a foothold, but over time create one of the most powerful ancient states that has ever existed. On its basis, a new, special civilizational type began to actively form - the Eurasian one, the essence, cultural characteristics and purpose of which experts continue to debate to this day. We know very little about the culture of the Slavs of that period. The surviving monuments characterize the way of life of our ancestors as follows. Before the formation of the state, the life of the Slavs was organized according to the laws of patriarchal-tribal life. All matters in the community were governed by a council of elders. The typical form of Slavic settlements were small villages - one, two, three courtyards. Several villages united into unions (“vervi”). The religious beliefs of the ancient Slavs represented, on the one hand, the worship of natural phenomena, and on the other, the cult of ancestors. They had neither temples nor a special class of priests, although there were magi and magicians who were revered as servants of the gods and interpreters of their will. The main Slavic gods were the following: Dazhd-god (among other tribes - Hore) was the god of the sun; Perun - god of thunder and lightning; Stribog was the god of the wind; Veles was the patron of cattle breeding; the sky was sometimes called Svarog (and therefore Dazhd-God was “Svarozhich”, i.e. the son of heaven); Mother Earth was also revered as a kind of deity. Nature seemed to be animated or inhabited by many small spirits: goblin lived in the forests, and water creatures lived in the rivers. The souls of the dead were represented as mermaids, dangerous for an unwary person. The places of pagan cult in Rus' were sanctuaries (temples), where prayers and sacrifices took place. The sanctuaries were round or complex in outline, earthen and wooden structures on elevated places or embankments, surrounded by ramparts or ditches. In the center of the temple there were stone or wooden Slavic idols, around which sacrificial fires were burned. Fruits, animals and birds were sacrificed to the gods; human sacrifices were also known. Belief in the afterlife, at the time when the Slavic funeral rite was performed, forced everything that could be useful to him to be placed in the grave with the deceased, including sacrificial food. At the funerals of people belonging to the social elite, their concubines were burned. The Slavs had an original writing system - the so-called knotted writing. Its signs were not written down, but were transmitted using knots tied on threads that were wrapped in books - balls. In ancient times, knotted writing was common among many peoples. Knotted writing was used by the ancient Incas and Iroquois, and the ancient Chinese. It existed among the Finns, Ugrians and Karelians. On many objects recovered from burials of pagan times, asymmetrical images of knots of a complex configuration are visible, reminiscent of the hieroglyphic writing of the eastern peoples. Three factors played a decisive role in the life of the Slavs - forest, river and steppe. The forest was used for construction and served as fuel, providing the Slavs with material for farming, creating home furnishings, dishes, and weaving bast shoes. The main branches of the national economy were concentrated in the forest - ancient crafts: our ancestors smoked resin, drove tar, were engaged in hunting and forest beekeeping. The forest served as the most reliable refuge from enemies; it replaced mountains and castles for Russian people. The state of the Slavs itself strengthened not in the steppes, where it was constantly crushed by the steppe inhabitants, but in the far North, under the cover of dense forests. Forest motifs permeate the folklore, religion and morality of the Russian people. Les, water creatures, Baba Yagas, just like saints and hermits, lived in the forests: “In the difficult times of the Tatar yoke, in the era of political oppression from without and moral decline within society, pious people, who sought to escape from worldly temptations, vanity and sins, left into the forest “desert”, built cells and hermitages there and lived for many years in solitude and silence; Subsequently, other adherents of “desert living” joined them and established monasteries, which later became centers and strongholds of Russian colonization. The historical significance of Russian rivers was not limited to their role as transport routes, although Russian colonization and trade with other countries took place along the rivers. Cities, villages, small hamlets, fishing and hunting huts were built along the banks of most large rivers; the rivers fed the Slavs with their reserves, and the Russian people sang them in songs. The third element of Russian nature - the steppe, wide, expansive and majestic - for many centuries was for the Russian people not only a symbol of freedom (runaway peasants took refuge in it), but also an eternal threat, a source of invasions and ruin.
Source -

Kabardino – Balkar State University

Abstract

On the topic : "Civilization of Ancient Rus'"

Completed by a 1st year student

"Information systems in Economics"

Scientific supervisor

Ashkhotov R. M.

Nalchik 1999
Content :

Chapter 1 Origin of the ancient Slavs

1.1 First mentions of the Slavs.

1.2 Movements of Slavic tribes.

1.3 Lifestyle of the Slavs.

1.4 The collapse of tribal communities and the beginning of statehood.

Conclusion.

Chapter 2 Kievan Rus

1.1 Formations of the Old Russian state

1.2 Social order

1.3 Economic life

Chapter 3 Baptism of Rus'

1.1 First Christians

1.2 Baptism of Rus': baptism of Vladimir. Baptism of cities and villages.

1.3 Historical significance of the baptism of Rus'.

Chapter 4 Culture of Rus'

1.1 Introduction. How the culture of Rus' was born;

1.2 Writing, literacy, schools;

1.3 Conclusion.

Literature:

Chapter 1 Origin of the ancient Slavs

Already about two thousand years ago, Greek and Roman scientists knew that in eastern Europe, between the Carpathian Mountains and the Baltic Sea, numerous tribes of Wends lived. These were the ancestors of modern Slavic peoples. After their name, the Baltic Sea was then called the Venedian Gulf of the Northern Ocean. According to archaeologists, the Wends were the original inhabitants of Europe, descendants of tribes that lived here back in the Stone and Bronze Ages.

The ancient name of the Slavs - Wends - was preserved in the language of the Germanic peoples until the late Middle Ages, and in the Finnish language Russia is still called Venea. The name “Slavs” began to spread only one and a half thousand years ago - in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. At first, only Western Slavs were called this way. Their eastern counterparts were called antes. Then all tribes speaking Slavic languages ​​began to be called Slavs.

At the beginning of our era, large movements of tribes and peoples took place throughout Europe, entering into the struggle against the slave-owning Roman Empire. At this time, the Slavic tribes already occupied a large territory. Some of them penetrated to the west, to the banks of the Odra and Laba (Elbe) rivers. Together with the population living along the banks of the Vistula River, they became

ancestors of modern West Slavic peoples - Polish, Czech and Slovak.

The movement of the Slavs to the south was especially grandiose - to the banks of the Danube and to the Balkan Peninsula. These territories were occupied by the Slavs in the VI-VII centuries. after long wars with the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire, which lasted over a century.

The ancestors of the modern South Slavic peoples - the Bulgarians and the peoples of Yugoslavia - were Slavic tribes that settled on the Balkan Peninsula. They mixed with the local Thracian and Illyrian population, which had previously been oppressed by Byzantine slave owners and feudal lords.

At the time when the Slavs settled the Balkan Peninsula, Byzantine geographers and historians became closely acquainted with them. They pointed out the large number of Slavs and the vastness of their territory, and reported that the Slavs were well acquainted with agriculture and cattle breeding. Particularly interesting is the information from Byzantine authors that the Slavs in the 6th and 7th centuries did not yet have a state. They lived as independent tribes. Led by

These numerous tribes had military leaders. We know the names of the leaders who lived more than a thousand years ago: Mezhimir, Dobrita, Pirogost,

Khvilibud and others.

The Byzantines wrote that the Slavs were very brave, skilled in military affairs and well armed; They are freedom-loving, do not recognize slavery and subordination.

The ancestors of the Slavic peoples of Russia in ancient times lived in forest-steppe and forest areas between the Dniester and Dnieper rivers. Then they began to move north, up the Dnieper. It was a slow movement of agricultural communities and individual families that took place over centuries, looking for new convenient places to settle and areas rich in animals and fish. Settlers cut down virgin forests for their fields.

At the beginning of our era, the Slavs penetrated into the upper Dnieper region, where tribes related to modern Lithuanians and Latvians lived. Further in the north, the Slavs settled areas in which ancient Finno-Ugric tribes lived here and there, related to the modern Mari, Mordovians, as well as Finns, Karelians and Estonians. The local population was significantly inferior to the Slavs in terms of their level of culture. After several centuries it mixed

with the aliens, adopted their language and culture. In different regions, the East Slavic tribes were called differently, which is known to us from the most ancient Russian chronicles: Vyatichi, Krivichi, Drevlyans, Polyans, Radimichi and others.

To this day, on the high banks of rivers and lakes, the remains of ancient Slavic settlements have been preserved, which are now being studied by archaeologists. At that turbulent time, when wars not only between different tribes, but also between neighboring communities were a constant occurrence, people often settled in inaccessible places, surrounded by high slopes, deep ravines or water. They erected earthen ramparts around their settlements, dug deep ditches and surrounded their homes with wooden fences.

The remains of such small fortresses are called fortifications. Dwellings were built in the form of dugouts, with adobe or stone ovens inside. In each village there were usually relatives who often ran their households as a community.

The agricultural economy of that time bore very little resemblance to that of today. People worked hard to earn their own food. To prepare the land for sowing, it was necessary to first cut down an area in the forest.

The winter month, during which the forest was cut down, was called sechen (from the word “cut” - to cut). This was followed by dry and birch months, during which the forest was dried and burned. They sown directly into the ashes, slightly loosened with a wooden plow or rahl. This type of farming is called fire or slash farming. Sowed more often

millet, but other grains were also known: wheat, barley and rye. Turnips were common among the people.

The month of harvest was called serpen, and the month of threshing was called spring (from the word “vreshchi” - to thresh). The fact that the names of the months among the ancient Slavs are associated with agricultural work indicates the paramount importance of agriculture in their economy. But they also raised livestock, killed animals and caught fish, and were engaged in beekeeping - collecting wild honey bees.

Each family or group of relatives made everything they needed for themselves. Iron was smelted from local ores in small clay ovens - domnitsa - or pits. The blacksmith forged knives, axes, ploughshares, arrow and spear tips, and swords from it. Women sculpted pottery, wove linens and sewed clothes. Wooden dishes and utensils, as well as products made from birch bark and bast, were in great use. They bought only what could not be obtained or made locally. The most common commodity has long been salt - after all, its deposits were not found everywhere.

They also traded copper and precious metals from which they made jewelry. All this was paid for with marketable and valuable goods that played the role of money: furs, honey, wax, grain, livestock.

Near ancient Slavic settlements you can often find round or elongated earthen mounds - mounds. During excavations, they find the remains of burnt human bones and fire-burnt utensils.

The ancient Slavs burned their dead on a funeral pyre and buried the remains in mounds.

The Slavs waged a constant struggle with the nomads who lived in the Black Sea steppes and often plundered the Slavic lands. The most dangerous enemy were the nomadic Khazars, who created in the 7th-8th centuries. a large, strong state in the lower reaches of the Volga and Don rivers.

During this period, the Eastern Slavs began to be called Rus or Dews, believed to be from the name of one of the tribes - the Rus, who lived on the border with Khazaria, between the Dnieper and Don. This is how the names “Russia” and “Russians” came about.

Soon great changes took place in the life of the Slavs. With the development of metallurgy and other crafts, tools were significantly improved. The farmer now had a plow or plow with an iron share. His work became more productive. Rich and poor appeared among the community members.

The ancient community was disintegrating and was replaced by small peasant farming. The leaders and rich community members oppressed the poor, took away their land, enslaved them and forced them to work for themselves. Trade developed. The country was cut through by trade routes running mainly along rivers. At the end of the 1st millennium, trade and craft cities began to appear: Kyiv, Chernigov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Novgorod, Ladoga and many others. Foreigners called Rus' a country of cities.

To preserve and strengthen their power, the ruling elite created their own organization and army. Thus, the tribal order was replaced by a class society and a state that protected the interests of the rich.

At first, in Ancient Rus' there were several separate tribal principalities, in their place in the 9th century. a powerful Russian power arose with its center in Kyiv. The era of feudalism, or the era of the Middle Ages, began.

Chapter 2 Kievan Rus

Formation of the Old Russian state

One became one of the largest states of the European Middle Ages in the 9th-12th centuries. Kievan Rus. Unlike other countries, both eastern and western, the process of formation of Russian statehood had its own specific features. One of them is the spatial and geopolitical situation - the Russian state occupied a middle position between Europe and Asia and did not have clearly defined, natural geographical boundaries within the vast flat space. During its formation, Rus' acquired the characteristics of both eastern and western state formations. In addition, the need for constant protection of a large territory from external enemies forced peoples with different types of development, religion, culture, language, etc., to unite, create a strong state power and have a significant people's militia.

1. Types of civilizations in ancient times. The problem of interaction between man and the natural environment.

2. Eastern Slavs. Ancient Slavic tribes. The problem of ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs.

3. Formation of the Old Russian state.

4. Adoption of Christianity. Spread of Islam.

The concept of civilization, types. Russian civilization between West and East.

Eastern Slavs. Proto-Slavs. The problem of origin. Isolation of the Eastern Slavs. Settlement, life, beliefs, economic activities, tribal relations. Features of the political and social Russian state of the 9th-18th centuries.

Ethnocultural and socio-political processes of the formation of Russian statehood. Socio-economic and political changes in the depths of Slavic society at the turn of the 8th-9th centuries. Eastern Slavs in ancient times, VIII-XIII centuries. The reasons for the emergence of state, princely power and its functions. Two centers of Slavic statehood - Kyiv and Novgorod. The latest archaeological discoveries in Novgorod and their influence on ideas about the origin of the ancient Russian state. Features of the socio-political development of Kievan Rus. Friendship connections. Organization of civil administration and its role in regulating relations with the princely power of the Kyiv dynasty. Cities in the system of socio-political relations. Discussion about the beginning of the formation of the state-feudal system. Norman theory, its opponents. Domestic and foreign policy of the Kyiv princes. Fight against nomads. Russian-Byzantine relations. The Baptism of Rus': meaning and consequences. Feudal economy, dependent and free population. Yaroslav the Wise. Codification of Russian laws. Vladimir Monomakh. The Old Russian state in the assessments of modern historians.

The evolution of East Slavic statehood in the XI - XIII centuries.

1. The collapse of the Old Russian state. Feudal fragmentation: causes, essence, consequences.

2. Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'.

3. The struggle of the Russian principalities against the aggression of the crusaders.

The evolution of East Slavic statehood in the 11th - 12th centuries. The socio-political structure of Russian lands during the period of political fragmentation. Formation of various sociocultural models of development of ancient Russian society and state. Consequences and features of the political fragmentation of Rus'.

Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'. Dependence of Rus' on Horde rule, its forms and consequences. Socio-political changes in Russian lands during the period of Mongol-Tatar rule. The problem of the Golden Horde in modern domestic and foreign historiography.

Expansion of the Crusaders into Western and North-Western Rus'. Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Russian state.

Russia in the XV - XVI centuries.

1. The unification of Russian lands around Moscow.

2. Russia in the era of Ivan the Terrible. Domestic policy.

3. Foreign policy of Ivan the Terrible.

The situation of Russian lands at the turn of the XIII - XIV centuries. The struggle for political hegemony of North-Eastern Rus'. Rivalry between Tver and Moscow. Promotion of Moscow as a center for the unification of Russian lands. Moscow princes and their policies to strengthen the Moscow principality.

Russia in the XV - XVI centuries. Specifics of the formation of a unified Russian state. The emergence of a class system of social organization. Localism. The beginning of the legal registration of serfdom. Code of Law of 1497. Formation of the Russian people. Prerequisites for the formation of autocratic features of state power. Peoples of the Volga region, the Urals and Western Siberia.

Ivan the Terrible: search for alternative ways of socio-political development of Rus'. Features of the estate-representative monarchy in Western Europe and Russia. Zemsky Sobors. Formation of an order management system. Oprichnina: causes, essence, methods, consequences, assessment. Foreign policy: objectives and main directions. Expansion of the territory of the state. Assessment of the personality and activities of Ivan the Terrible.

Russia in the 17th century

1. Social and political crisis of the late 16th – early 17th centuries. "Time of Troubles."

2. Socio-economic and political development of Russia in the 17th century. "Rebellious Age"

“Time of Troubles”: weakening of state principles, attempts to revive traditional (“pre-Mongol”) norms of relations between government and society. Boris Godunov, False Dmitry I, Vasily Shuisky as a personified reflection of the struggle between different paths of development of the country. The phenomenon of impostor. Strengthening the gentry-Catholic expansion to the East. The role of the militia in the liberation of Moscow and the expulsion of foreigners. K. Minin and D. Pozharsky. Zemsky Sobor 1613 The reign of the Romanov dynasty. Cathedral Code of 1649: legal consolidation of serfdom and class functions. Boyar Duma. Zemsky Sobors. Church and State. Features of the estate-representative monarchy in Russia.