What happened in 1019 in Russia. Chronology of events. Russia in the last years of the reign of saint vladimir
Between Svyatopolk Vladimirovich (or Yaropolchich) and Yaroslav Vladimirovich, which ended in favor of the latter.
Collegiate YouTube
1 / 3
✪ History of Russia "From A to Z" | Issue 8 | Civil strife (1015-1019)
✪ History of Russia "From A to Z" | Issue 6 | First civil strife
✪ History of Russia "From A to Z" | Issue 7 | Vladimir Svyatoslavovich
Subtitles
Background
In 1013, Svyatopolk Vladimirovich Turovsky, taking advantage of the proximity of his possessions to Poland, conspired with his father-in-law, the Polish prince Boleslav I, against Vladimir Svyatoslavich, but the conspiracy was discovered, Svyatopolk was imprisoned in Kiev.
In 1014, Yaroslav abandoned the annual transportation of 2,000 hryvnias to Kiev (2/3 of Novgorod tribute) and hired two detachments of the Varangians led by Eymund and Ragnar, in response to which Vladimir the Saint began preparations for a large punitive campaign against Novgorod.
After the death of Vladimir in 1015, Boris Vladimirovich, returning with an army from a campaign against the Pechenegs, abandoned the fight against Svyatopolk, recognized him as a Kiev prince and soon died (according to various versions, he was killed by Svyatopolk's people or Yaroslav's Varangian mercenaries). Gleb Vladimirovich was also killed, and Svyatoslav Vladimirovich fled to the Czech Republic, to his mother's homeland, but was also overtaken by the killers.
Major episodes
Battle of Lyubech
In 1016, Yaroslav, at the head of the 3-thousandth Novgorod army and mercenary Varangian detachments, moved against Svyatopolk, who called for the help of the Pechenegs. The two troops met on the Dnieper near Lyubech and for three months, until late autumn, neither side risked crossing the river. Finally, it was done by the Novgorodians, who won the victory. The Pechenegs were cut off from the troops of Svyatopolk by the lake and could not come to his aid. Yaroslav became the Grand Duke of Kiev, awarded the Novgorodians (in hryvnia to the smerds, 10 hryvnia to the elders and townspeople). However, Svyatopolk did not give up the fight.
Siege of Kiev by the Pechenegs
Already in 1017 Kiev experienced the Pechenezh siege. It is mentioned by academician B.A. Rybakov. and is detailed in The Eimund Saga. Svyatopolk with the Pechenegs approached Kiev, on the walls of which the crowns of trees were reinforced to protect against arrows, and a moat with water was dug around the city, covered from above with logs and earth. Part of the besiegers fell into a trap. Two gates of Kiev were left open, and the warriors of Yaroslav and the Varangians of Eimund were located in them, respectively. During the battle, the Pechenegs even managed to get inside the city, but then they were knocked out. The besieged undertook a sortie and, in the course of the pursuit, captured the banner of Svyatopolk.
Battle of the Bug
In 1018, his father-in-law, the Polish king Boleslav I the Brave, moved to the aid of Svyatopolk. Yaroslav led his troops towards the Bug River, where a new battle took place. The two troops met on the Western Bug and for some time did not dare to cross the river. Boleslav unexpectedly did this, dragging his soldiers along with him. Yaroslav suffered a crushing defeat.
Svyatopolk entered Kiev and stationed Polish troops in cities where discontent began to mature, and then, on the orders of Svyatopolk himself, the murders of Poles began to be organized. As a reward for his help in the conquest of the Kiev throne, Svyatopolk gave Boleslav the Cherven castles conquered by Vladimir Svyaty on the left bank of the Western Bug, and the Polish troops left Russia.
After the defeat, Yaroslav fled to Novgorod and wanted to flee to Sweden, but was restrained by the Novgorodians, fearing Svyatopolk's revenge. In 1019, a new army was assembled, and for its equipment, a fundraiser was made in the amount of 4 kunas from husbands, 10 hryvnias from the elders and 18 hryvnias from the boyars. Svyatopolk was not ready for confrontation and immediately fled to the Pechenegs, having ceded the Kiev throne to Yaroslav.
Consequences and estimatesCivil strife is an internal strife, a war between people living in the same territory.
Kievan Rus from the 9th to the 11th century quite often faced internecine wars; the cause of the princely strife was the struggle for power.
The largest princely civil strife in Russia
- The first civil strife between the princes (late 10th - early 11th centuries). The enmity of the sons of Prince Svyatoslav, caused by their desire to achieve independence from the authorities of Kiev.
- Second civil strife (early 11th century). The enmity of the sons of Prince Vladimir for power.
- Third civil strife (second half of the 11th century). Enmity between the sons of Prince Yaroslav the Wise for power.
The first civil strife in Russia
Old Russian princes had a tradition of having a large number of children, which was the reason for subsequent disputes over the right of inheritance, since the rule of inheritance from father to eldest son did not exist then. After the death of Prince Svyatoslav in 972, he left three sons who had the right to inherit.
- Yaropolk Svyatoslavich - he received power in Kiev.
- Oleg Svyatoslavich - received power on the territory of the Drevlyans
- Vladimir Svyatoslavich - gained power in Novgorod, and later in Kiev.
After the death of Svyatoslav, his sons received sole power in their lands and now could rule them according to their own understanding. Vladimir and Oleg wanted to gain complete independence for their principalities from the will of Kiev, so they undertook the first campaigns against each other.
The first to speak was Oleg, by his order in the lands of the Drevlyans, where Vladimir ruled, the son of the governor of Yaropolk, Seneveld, was killed. Upon learning of this, Seneveld decided to take revenge and forced Yaropolk, whom he had great influence, to go with his army against his brother Oleg.
977 - the beginning of the feud between the sons of Svyatoslav. Yaropolk attacked Oleg, who was not prepared, and the Drevlyans, together with their prince, were forced to retreat from the borders to the capital - the city of Ovruch. As a result, during the retreat, Prince Oleg died - he was crushed by the hooves of one of the horses. The Drevlyans began to submit to Kiev. Prince Vladimir, learning about the death of his brother and the outbreak of family strife, runs to the Varangians.
980 - Vladimir returns to Russia together with the Varangian army. As a result of battles with the troops of Yaropolk, Vladimir managed to recapture Novgorod, Polotsk and move towards Kiev.
Yaropolk, having learned about his brother's victories, summons advisers. One of them persuades the prince to leave Kiev and hide in the city of Rodna, but later it becomes clear that the adviser is a traitor - he entered into an agreement with Vladimir and sent Yaropolk to the city dying of hunger. As a result, Yaropolk is forced to enter into negotiations with Vladimir. He goes to the meeting, however, upon arrival, he is killed by two Varangian warriors.
Vladimir becomes a prince in Kiev and rules there until his death.
The second civil strife in Russia
In 1015, Prince Vladimir, who had 12 sons, dies. A new war for power began between the sons of Vladimir.
1015 - Svyatopolk becomes prince in Kiev, who killed his own brothers Boris and Gleb.
1016 - the struggle between Svyatopolk and Yaroslav the Wise begins.
Yaroslav, reigning in Novgorod, gathered a detachment of the Varangians and Novgorodians and moved to Kiev. After a bloody battle near the city of Lyubech, Kiev was captured and Yaroslav was forced to retreat. However, the feud did not end there. In the same year, Yaroslav gathered an army, with the support of the Polish prince, and conquered Kiev, driving Yaroslav back to Novgorod. A few months later, Svyatopolk was again expelled from Kiev by Yaroslav, who gathered a new army. This time, Yaroslav became a prince in Kiev forever.
The third civil strife in Russia
Another civil strife began after the death of Yaroslav the Wise. The Grand Duke died in 1054, which provoked civil strife between the Yaroslavichs.
Yaroslav the Wise, fearing another enmity, himself distributed the land between his sons:
- Izyaslav - Kiev;
- Svyatoslav - Chernigov;
- Vsevolod - Pereyaslavl;
- Igor - Vladimir;
- Vyacheslav - Smolensk.
1068 - Despite the fact that each of the sons had their own inheritance, they all disobeyed the will of their father and wanted to claim power in Kiev. Having replaced each other several times at the post of the Kiev prince, power finally went to Izyaslav, as Yaroslav the Wise bequeathed.
After the death of Izyaslav and up to the 15th century, princely feuds took place in Russia, but the struggle for power was never so large-scaled.
SOME PRELIMINARY REMARKS
There are usually two kinds of history. Let's conditionally call them abstract and concrete history. A concrete story is built entirely on facts and deals only with facts. This is a non-analytical history, its task is the accumulation of all kinds of historical material, and in a fairly broad sense, starting with the description of royal battles, peace treaties and knightly exploits, ending with the elements of everyday life of a feudal castle or noble estate of the Pushkin era, Romanesque architecture and classical English literature. This is any description of any historical facts, elements of culture that, in one way or another, existed in history and left their mark. This is both a retrospective description and parallel to ongoing events or existing elements of culture. These are chronicles, chronicles, descriptions of campaigns, reigns, wars and peace treaties, memoirs, biographies, historical monuments in a broad sense, works of art of past eras, archaeological finds and much, much more - everything that is either a historical fact of past eras in itself (historical monument, work of art), or is a collection of descriptions of these various historical facts (and events, and their everyday and cultural background). So, in general terms, a concrete history is an unsystematized heap of countless historical facts in all their concreteness.
Abstract history is purely theoretical, exclusively analytical history. This is history in the radically scientific sense of the word. She uses the facts accumulated by concrete history only as empirical material for her generalizations, for the derivation of her laws. Actually, historical laws are the main product of abstract history, its goal, if you like, is the highest point in the development of historical science.
No matter how difficult the development of the relationship between the concrete and abstract components of historical science, now their state is such that abstract history, the identification of the laws of the historical development of the world is the main form of the activity of historians, while concrete history is considered something outdated, having fulfilled its task. the last stage in the development of science. It is believed that sufficient empirical material for generalizations has long been accumulated, that the descriptive stage in the development of history has long been completed. The main thing now is to draw the correct conclusions from the collected material.
This is an oversimplified view. And it is not enough to assert that the necessary historical material has not yet been collected, that history is replete with white spots, like a Persian carpet in an oriental bazaar. Of course, it is clear that with a lack of data, false generalizations and equally false conclusions from these generalizations are almost inevitably provided. But the point is to a much greater extent in another, in the very methodological approach to history.
Naturally, the value and role of abstract science is in no way questioned. Abstract laws are an integral result of the development of any science and, almost empirically, an objective reality. To deny them is, to say the least, silly. However, we are not talking about the role of abstract science, but about a completely inappropriate diminution of the role of concrete history. The emphasis on abstract history threatens the complete oblivion of concrete history, complete oblivion of what, in fact, is history.
With the absolutization of abstract history, the whole history turns into a metaphization divorced from life, operating in no way attached to reality concepts and categories. But history cannot be built solely on abstractions. Even arguing that the Battle of Listvenskaya in 1024 between Yaroslav the Wise and his brother Mstislav Tymutorokansky is just one of the many clashes of the internecine struggle of 1015-1025 in Russia after the death of St. Vladimir, which marked the complex process of folding Ancient Russia into a single centralized state with a single ruler, which found its completion during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise; even asserting this, a priori, subconsciously, we must not forget that, in fact, proceeding from naked historical reality, from empirical reality, the Battle of Listven in 1024 is first of all a fierce battle of one army with another, and only then - one of many events folding in Russia of a centralized state. First of all, the Battle of Listven is a rainy autumn night, pouring rain with thunder and lightning, mud, people in heavy armor squelching on it - Russians, Varangians, Kasogs, Khazars - not just impersonal "warriors", but completely specific people with their strength , courage, cowardice, fear; people who fight for life and death for their commanders and their goals that they understand or do not understand; people blowing off each other's heads with swords; people are alive and people are dead. History is, first of all, people, not an abstraction. History should never forget about people.
So history should be a science anthropocentric... That is why the role of a concrete story, a story centered on people, should never be belittled.
The subject of this study is the subject of a concrete story. It affects only specific historical facts, their interpretation, but does not concern broader historical laws. Therefore, it is focused exclusively on factual and source analysis of the events that took place and their reflection in various written sources of that (that is, the XI century) and later eras.
So, what happened in 1015 and why are these events so interesting?
On July 15, 1015, Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, the baptist of Russia, died at his country residence Berestovoye near Kiev. After his death, a long internecine struggle began among his numerous offspring for the princely throne, which ended only in 1025 with the Peace of Gorodets between Yaroslav and Mstislav Vladimirovich, which followed the already mentioned Battle of Listven. Traditionally, it is believed that his stepson Svyatopolk, who seized power in Kiev after Vladimir's death, subsequently began to eliminate other pretenders to the throne - his half-brothers. The first victims of civil strife back in 1015, immediately after the death of Vladimir, were three of his younger sons - Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav, who were killed under various circumstances by the envoys of Svyatopolk. This point of view on what happened is reflected in the annals, in which Svyatopolk was nicknamed the Damned for his atrocities. Boris and Gleb were subsequently canonized for their Christian meekness and non-resistance, becoming the first Russian saints.
However, not all so simple. Even at the beginning of discussions about the events of 1015, on the basis of the testimony of some foreign sources, the involvement of Svyatopolk in the murder of the brothers was questioned. In this regard, other versions of the events of 1015, which do not coincide with the chronicle story, were repeatedly expressed, in particular, it was said about the involvement in the murders of Yaroslav Vladimirovich. All these events (the last days of Vladimir's life, the first months after his death, the very murders of Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav and the possible participation in them of other sons of Vladimir, primarily Svyatopolk and Yaroslav) were analyzed factually and , as they were reflected in Russian and foreign written sources) back in the 18th century, during the formation of Russian historical science. They were repeatedly addressed throughout the subsequent period, especially in recent years. But the question of whether Svyatopolk is really their killer, whether Yaroslav Vladimirovich has anything to do with them, has not been unequivocally resolved until now. As before, the last years of Vladimir's life, about which almost nothing is said in the chronicle, and the first months after his death; the question remains, who is actually involved in the murder of Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav Vladimirovich remain a blank spot on the Persian carpet of Russian history in the eastern bazaar of world history.
Our task is to offer your view on the events of a thousand years ago, more precisely and specifically - on who killed Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav Vladimirovich... Now, as already mentioned, the debate on this issue does not stop, and there are many interpretations and points of view. They are extremely diverse: from a purely literary interpretation (within the framework of a "popular" historical novel); from completely unconfirmed by any sources of hoaxes and complete distortion of facts; from a more than free treatment of historical data to serious historical research based on a detailed analysis of all available sources (both Russian and foreign), receiving, however, both close to traditional and generally accepted, and rather original results that do not fit into the historical tradition. Our analysis will be based solely on the analysis of all currently available historical sources, one way or another shedding light on the events of 1015; and only on the basis of a detailed analysis of sources with a greater or lesser degree of reliability or with a significant degree of certainty will the final conclusions be drawn.
In general, how is objective historical research possible that does not descend to the level of "popular" historical novels?
It seems that, in order to be objective, historical, and any other research should be freed as much as possible from various kinds of "interpretations", that is, the manifestation of the author's position on the issue under study, his point of view, his view, which is based, as a rule, on personal preferences, certain values, one or another engagement. “To the maximum extent” - because no matter what efforts are made, it is impossible to completely free oneself from the personal influence of the researcher on the research. However, it can be minimized to a certain extent. Perhaps this is when the researcher is ready to refuse to speak out in the process of researching his own points of view, but he will base his research only on the analysis of any objective premises, only on the basis of indisputable and logically absolutely clear and unambiguous points.
The same applies to historical research in particular. Objective facts and preconditions on which historical research can be based are empirically indisputable objects and things that, in one way or another, carry various historical information. These are archaeological finds and a variety of written sources. Objective historical research should be only an analysis of them, without any incidental interpretations that do not directly follow from the analysis of these historical sources.
However, as you know, most of the historical sources are incomplete, contain information that is insufficient for a correct interpretation of this source, in the end, they are often unreliable. It turns out that in this case an interpretation is possible, built only on the personal view of the researcher, on which of the possible interpretations he himself is inclined to. So? No not like this.
There are two possible solutions to this problem. The first is as follows. If an absolutely indisputable interpretation, which is the only probable one in a given scenario of historical facts and does not imply other interpretations and ambiguities, is impossible, then one should refuse to give an absolutely indisputable interpretation. Only interpretation is possible probabilistic, that is, it is assumed that there is a certain probability, less than 100%, that events developed (more precisely, could develop) in exactly this way. Actually, such a case implies many interpretations, more or less consistent with the available facts, with varying degrees of probability. Finally, we can only talk about most likely development events, but not that events developed that way.
The second option is possible in the presence of other sources, besides this one or data, one way or another related to the problem under study, but not with the available sources. In this case, interpretation is possible with a much greater degree of accuracy and reliability. It follows from a comparison of completely unrelated sources, the authors of which, when writing them, did not even suspect of the existence of each other. And if, in this case, these completely different sources in the description of a certain event do not contradict each other, then it can be argued with a considerable degree of certainty that the events developed exactly as they are described. This is what you might call "independent confirmation."
Of course, even when comparing unrelated sources, absolute reliability is not always possible, with a probability of 100%. However, it is still much higher than with a historical interpretation based on only one source.
With regard to national history, the above-described division into two layers of unrelated sources can be transferred to the relationship between Russian and foreign written sources. The idea of analyzing Russian history with the identification of its indisputable moments by comparing Russian written sources with foreign ones was expressed in the middle of the 19th century by the remarkable Russian historian Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin. He wrote that, presenting in the spirit of universal methodological doubt all domestic sources as unreliable and biased in advance, we can only find confirmation of the events described in Russian sources by analyzing foreign sources, thus confirming the truth of these events. He called this procedure "the mathematical method".
Strictly speaking, our research is based on this Pogodin methodological attitude. It is based on an analysis of Russian and foreign written sources and their comparison in order to identify more or less indisputable moments of the events of 1015, the murders of princes Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav. We have tried to free our research as much as possible from unfounded value interpretations. All interpretations were made only on the basis of indisputable conclusions, one way or another following from a comparison of various sources. Of course, in view of the difficulties described above, most of our conclusions are probabilistic in nature; thus, we can only probabilistically solve our problem, name only the more or less probable murderers of Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav; however, under these conditions, with a lack of data on the investigated events, this is the only possible result of the study.
RUSSIA IN THE LAST YEARS OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF VLADIMIR SAINT
It has already been said that the last years of the life of Vladimir Svyatoslavich and the events that took place in Russia at that time are extremely poorly reflected in the chronicle, if not more strongly - they are almost not reflected in any way. It is difficult to say what this is connected with. Various versions were expressed, up to the fact that the existing records about this time were later, during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, corrected ("cleaned up") in order to destroy evidence of the events that took place in these years and in an unfavorable light illuminated the image of Vladimir. In particular, an assumption was made about a possible deviation from Christianity in the last years of Vladimir's reign, which, naturally, could damage the popular image of the Baptist of Russia, which began to be established in Russia during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise (from the 50s of the XI century). This is a problem worthy of a separate historical study, and our tasks do not include its consideration.
However, in order to understand all subsequent events, it is necessary to turn to the last years of Vladimir's reign. Information directly telling about these years in the annals is limited to information about the “death” (death) of some members of the prince's family, taken, as it seems at first glance, from the prince's memorial kept in the Kiev Tithe Church, the main temple of Kiev Rus of that period. But even this information is incomplete. For example, there is no mention of the time of death of the eldest son Vladimir Vysheslav in the annals. It will be shown below why this date is so important to historians.
But, attracting indirect or a few direct evidence of various, including foreign, written sources, we can still form some general picture of the state of affairs in Russia at the beginning of the 11th century.
Vladimir Svyatoslavich had twelve sons from different wives. The first wife, a certain Chekhin, gave birth to him Vysheslav, the eldest son. His second wife was a former Greek nun, brought by Vladimir's father Svyatoslav to Kiev "for the sake of her face" as a wife to Vladimir's elder brother Yaropolk. When, in the course of civil strife after the death of Svyatoslav, Yaropolk was killed by Vladimir, his wife, already pregnant, was taken by Vladimir as war booty. The son of Yaropolk, born by her, Svyatopolk, was adopted by Vladimir, and Svyatopolk had equal rights (including regarding the succession to the throne) with all other sons of Vladimir.
The third wife of Vladimir, the former bride of Yaropolk, the daughter of the Polotsk prince Rogvolod Rogned, taken by Vladimir as his wife forcibly after the capture of Polotsk and the murder of Rogvolod, bore him four sons: Izyaslav, Mstislav, Yaroslav (the same one, later called the Wise) and Vsevolod; there were also daughters, from different sources at least two are known - Predslava and Mstislav. In addition to her, Vladimir also had wives - "another Chekhina" who gave birth to him Svyatoslav and another Mstislav, a Bulgarian woman (it seems, from the Volga Bulgarians), who gave birth to Boris and Gleb, the Byzantine princess Anna, who gave birth to Vladimir, as they believe, several daughters (as as a rule, they call two - Maria-Dobronega and Feofan) and the mother of Vladimir's two youngest sons - Sudislav and Pozvizd.
However, this list cannot be called unambiguously reliable. For example, among the sons of Vladimir, the ratio of the two Mstislavs is unclear. Later known Mstislav Tymutorokansky, rival of Yaroslav the Wise in the struggle for the throne of Vladimir in 1024-1025, was definitely Yaroslav's younger brother, and not a uterine brother. Thus, Mstislav Sr., if he really existed, and did not get into the chronicle by mistake, most likely died in infancy.
However, in other places in the Tale of Bygone Years, instead of the second Mstislav, a certain Stanislav is called the son of Vladimir, who was the son of the Chekhini together with Svyatoslav. At the same time, it is mentioned that when Vladimir distributed the inheritance between his sons, the elder Mstislav got exactly Tmutorokan. It is difficult to say what caused this confusion. It is even more difficult to determine the complete list of Vladimir's sons (proceeding only from those named in the chronicle; there could well have been other children whose names the chronicle did not reflect). Whether Stanislav was Yaroslav's brother (instead of the elder Mstislav), or was among the sons of Vladimir by mistake, is unknown.
The time of birth can also be determined very approximately. More or less accurate only that Yaroslav Vladimirovich was born about 980, Svyatopolk - about 979, Izyaslav - in 978-980.
It is only known with sufficient certainty that when the eldest sons grew up, Vladimir decided to allocate an inheritance to each in his own state, so that they, like the sons of the ruling prince, represented the Kiev power in the localities. It happened about 989, right after the baptism. At first, the senior Vladimirovichs received the inheritance: Vysheslav, as the eldest son, got Novgorod, Svyatopolk - Turov on the Pripyat River, the tribal center of the Dregovichi, Yaroslav - distant Rostov in the Meryan land, in northeastern Russia.
The fate of another of the older Vladimirovichs, Izyaslav, was rather unhappy. Around 982-983, Vladimir expelled him from his kind, giving him a separate inheritance - the fatherland of his maternal grandfather Rogvolod, Polotsk. At the same time, it was specially stipulated that the heirs of Izyaslav have no rights to Vladimir's inheritance, just as the heirs of Vladimir have no rights to Polotsk. Thus, the Polotsk principality, in fact, became a state independent from Kievan Rus.
However, a few years later, in connection with the death of the elder Vladimirovich - Vysheslav, a redistribution of appanages took place. At the same time, the younger sons of the Kiev prince received their inheritance. It is in this sense that the date of Vysheslav's death is important. However, it is not indicated in any written sources and therefore it is calculated only very approximately. There are different points of view, but it is generally accepted that V.N. Tatishchev, expressed by him in the "History of Russia", according to which the death of Vysheslav followed in 1010. Consequently, at about the same time, a redistribution of inheritances took place. Svyatopolk remained to reign in Turov, and Yaroslav went to Novgorod. The younger sons received their inheritance as follows: Vsevolod got Vladimir-Volynsky, Svyatoslav got the Drevlyansky land, Mstislav - Tmutorokan, Boris - Rostov, the former inheritance of Yaroslav, Gleb - Murom, Sudislav - Pskov, Pozvizd - Lutsk in Volyn. The mythical Stanislav, just the same mentioned in this place, received, according to the chronicle, Smolensk for reign. However, there are no other reports about Stanislav or indirect indications of him anymore, therefore, in our further analysis, we will not consider him as a real historical person and will accept the hypothesis of “two Mstislavs”.
By the beginning of the second decade of the 11th century, the political situation in Russia was, therefore, the following.
The supreme power was still in the hands of the aging Vladimir, while in the localities it was represented by his sons. In the south, in the Azov and Black seas and the steppe of Tmutorokan, separated from the rest of Russia, Mstislav Vladimirovich reigned. Until 1024, he pursued an independent policy and did not interfere in Kiev affairs. He had no influence on the events of 1015.
Vsevolod and Pozvizd Vladimirovichi presumably reigned on the western borders of Russia, in Volhynia, bordering the Polish state. However, we can’t speak for sure about this, as well as about their fate in general. In particular, the Scandinavian sagas tell how about 994–995 “King Vissavald from Gardariki” arrived in Sweden (this is how the Scandinavian sagas call Russia; “Vissavald” is usually the Scandinavian analogue of the name Vsevolod) - to woo the Swedish princess Sigrid Proudh. According to the saga, Sigrid gave him drink and the whole squad, and at night ordered to set fire to the house in which they were resting. On the one hand, Vsevolod Vladimirovich, who could receive his Volyn inheritance together with the eldest sons of Vladimir (as a result of which this was reflected in the chronicle - albeit by mistake, in the place where it is said about granting inheritance to the younger Vladimirovichs), could subsequently go to Sweden and accept such a terrible end there. However, on the other hand, such a development of events is not at all necessary. By the time of his father's death, Vsevolod could still remain in Volyn. The king "Wissavald" can not necessarily be identified with Vsevolod Vladimirovich.
As for Pozvizd, he seems in general to be a semi-legendary person. In any case, there is no other information about him in the annals. However, precisely in the absence of any definite information, we will now consider the situation when Pozvizd Vladimirovich continued to remain the Lutsk prince at the time of Vladimir's death.
Sudislav Vladimirovich, according to the direct instructions of the chronicles, remained the prince of Pskov until 1036, when he was deposed and imprisoned by his brother Yaroslav in prison. However, all this time he had absolutely no influence on the political life of Ancient Russia. In fact, the power of the Novgorod prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich extended to Pskov. Sudislav did not take part in the events of 1015.
Izyaslav Vladimirovich died quietly in the Polotsk land in 1001 (according to that same princely commemoration of the Tithe Church). In 1003, his eldest son Vseslav died, and Izyaslav's second son Bryachislav became the prince of Polotsk. Considering the time of birth of Izyaslav Vladimirovich, by 1015 Bryachislav Izyaslavich was hardly more than eighteen years old; in any case, he did not exert any political influence on the events at that time.
We have at our disposal historical information that five of his sons, Svyatopolk, Yaroslav, Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav, took part in the events immediately after the death of Vladimir Svyatoslavich.
Svyatopolk since 989 was the prince of Turov (Turov is a city on the Pripyat River, in the land of the Dregovichi, in the west of the Russian state and relatively not very far from Kiev) and after 1010 was actually considered the eldest son of Vladimir. Thus, his position as the future heir to the throne of Vladimir was quite strong. However, Russian sources tell of the enmity that Vladimir allegedly harbored towards his stepson: "from a sinful root of evil, the fetus happens ... that's why his father did not love him, because he was from two fathers - from Yaropolk and from Vladimir." However, if this hostility was, it is hardly for the reason indicated in the chronicle, and it did not arise immediately after the birth of Svyatopolk, but much later, otherwise Vladimir would not have given Svyatopolk a large and rich principality as his inheritance. Other events confirm the absence of any hostility.
Around 1013, Vladimir married his stepson Svyatopolk to the daughter of his longtime enemy, the Polish prince Boleslav I (or Boleslav the Brave, Boleslav the Great). This marriage ended the Russian-Polish war of 1013 and was intended to seal peace between the two states. Russian sources do not mention him, but he is well known from the Chronicle of the German bishop Titmar from the city of Merseburg (in Saxony, on the Saale River, west of Leipzig), written in the second decade of the 11th century, in the last years of the bishop's life (he died 1 December 1018) and containing a lot of valuable information about the events that took place in Russia at the beginning of the XI century. This source is extremely important for us from the point of view of reflecting in it the events of the first months after Vladimir's death. A detailed analysis of it is ahead, but now we are only interested in the moment associated with the marriage of Svyatopolk.
According to Titmar, along with Boleslavna, her confessor, the former Kolobrzeg bishop of Rainburn, also arrived in Russia. It is not known what role he played in the entourage of Svyatopolk, but soon after his marriage, as Titmar reports, Svyatopolk "at the instigation of Boleslav" decided to "secretly ... oppose" his father. It is quite possible that it was Rainburn who was the conductor of Boleslav's influence on the actions of Svyatopolk. One way or another, Vladimir, having learned about the impending conspiracy, seized all three (his stepson, his wife and her confessor) and imprisoned them “each in a separate dungeon,” where the bishop soon died. According to the testimony of Titmar, which we have no reason not to trust, at the time of Vladimir's death, Svyatopolk continued to remain in prison.
Yaroslav Vladimirovich, we will remind, from 1010 was the prince of Novgorod. It is not known for certain how the events that happened to his half-brother (the conspiracy and his imprisonment) could have influenced his policy, but at about the same time (according to the chronicle, 1014) Yaroslav abruptly changes his policy and also decides to oppose his father. “Yaroslav was in Novgorod, and according to his lesson, he gave two thousand hryvnias to Kiev from year to year, and handed out a thousand in Novgorod to grids (vigilantes - S.E.). And so all the Novgorod mayor gave it, but Yaroslav did not give it to his father in Kiev. "
Refusal to pay tribute meant, in addition to a purely economic loss and filial disobedience to the father's will, the overthrow of the power of the Kiev prince and separatism. Novgorod, in fact, declared its independence. Our task does not include a detailed examination of the reasons for such a step on the part of Yaroslav. In this case, the only important thing is that, naturally, the reaction to such separatism was extremely harsh. “And Vladimir said:“ Demand the ways and bridge the bridges, ”because he wanted to go to Yaroslav, to his son.”
Apparently, the refusal to pay tribute occurred in the late autumn or winter of 1014, since Yaroslav's main activities in preparation for war with his father (as well as Vladimir's preparation for war) are already mentioned in the next chronicle article, under 1015 year. The war in that era began in the summer, or at least in the late spring. Thus, both sides had time to prepare for it. The year in Russia began in March; therefore, the main events described in the chronicle refer to the spring of 1015. Yaroslav, preparing his squad, in addition, also hastened to hire the overseas Varangian squad, hoping with its help (the Vikings, as you know, were considered first-class professional warriors) to seize an advantage in a future war.
We will talk about the "Varangian" component in this whole story. Now it is important for us that Vladimir, preparing for the campaign, suddenly fell ill and did not begin the campaign. Yaroslav waited in vain for the outbreak of hostilities at the end of spring, languishing and receiving scant news about the political situation in the south of Russia, in Kiev.
Meanwhile, in the south, events developed as follows. Svyatopolk continued to remain in the dungeon. Vladimir was already old and, moreover, also sick. It is not known whether then, or perhaps a little earlier, he summoned his youngest son Boris, Prince of Rostov. It is tempting to think that this was due precisely to the preparations for the war against Yaroslav, but this is not at all necessary, Boris could have come to Kiev on some other order of Vladimir before the turn of 1014-1015. One way or another, the opinion is expressed that, due to his illness, it was Boris Vladimir who intended to send against Yaroslav. In principle, this seems like a pretty plausible assumption. In any case, there is no information to refute this assumption.
Arriving in Kiev, Boris, apparently, began to prepare for the campaign. Summer was approaching. And then another event diverted Vladimir's attention from Novgorod and Yaroslav and delayed the start of the campaign - the Pechenegs loomed again near the southern borders of Russia, as often happened during the reign of Vladimir and earlier. “Vladimir was in great sadness because he could not come out against them himself. And ... having summoned Boris ... he delivered many soldiers into his hands. " This happened most likely in the middle or end of June. Boris and his retinue crossed the Dnieper to the left bank and moved towards the nomads.
A separate issue is the reasons for this next Pechenezh raid. Was he really "next", coincidentally coinciding in time with the beginning of the turmoil in Russia, or did he have any specific goals? Both options are possible. And the second one does not look like a stretch. Turning again to the "Chronicle" of Bishop Titmar, we find that, completing the story of the imprisonment of Svyatopolk and his wife, he adds: “Boleslav, having learned about all this (that is, about imprisonment, etc. - S.E.), never stopped taking revenge as much as he could. " At the same time, it is known that Boleslav I had long allied relations with the Pechenegs; therefore, it is concluded that the invasion of the Pechenegs in 1015 could have been the very revenge that Titmar does not expand on in detail. Most likely, it could have been a way to destabilize the situation in Russia, and so it was on the verge of a civil war between the supreme prince and his son, which could well have been known to Boleslav.
July 1015 arrives. It is unlikely that the metaphor: "Russia was in anticipation" - will seem an excessive exaggeration. In Novgorod, Yaroslav Vladimirovich was impatiently awaiting news from the south about the further development of events, already almost wishing to start a war and with difficulty trying to restrain the warlike impulse of the hired Varangians, languishing in idleness and rushing into battle; in the south, in Kiev, an elderly patient Vladimir Svyatoslavich was waiting for the return of his son Boris from a campaign against the Pechenegs, eager to send Boris on a campaign against Novgorod as soon as possible; Boris Vladimirovich himself - it is not known whether with apprehension or impatience - was expecting a meeting with the Pechenegs, who were going further and further into the depths of the steppe as he went deeper into the steppe with his retinue; Svyatopolk, languishing in prison, perhaps, was also looking forward to the development of events, the course of which could affect his fate. Bryachislav Izyaslavich, Sudislav, Mstislav, Vsevolod, Pozvizd stayed in their lands (the presence of the latter two on their princely tables in Volyn, as already mentioned, is not documented, but conditionally assumed), Svyatoslav and Gleb Vladimirovich. As for Gleb and Svyatoslav, although there is no direct evidence, it is indirectly confirmed that for the period of July - August 1015 they were in their domains - in Murom and Drevlyanskaya land, respectively. Nothing is known about any of their actions during this period.
And one more person, not named so far, apparently was looking forward to the development of events. This person is the half-sister of Yaroslav Vladimirovich Predslav, as it turns out later - a person extremely personally devoted to his brother. It was she who, according to the chronicle, after the murder of Boris by Svyatopolk, warned Yaroslav in writing about what had happened: “Your father has died, and Svyatopolk is sitting in Kiev; He killed Boris and sent him to Gleb. Beware of him strongly. " However, as can be assumed, based on some facts, her role in the events of the summer of 1015 in the south of Russia could have been greater ...
DEATH OF VLADIMIR Svyatoslavich
So, Vladimir Svyatoslavich died on July 15, 1015 in Berestovo, his country residence near Kiev. Traditionally, it is believed that Svyatopolk was the first to know about this, who was imprisoned near Kiev, in Vyshgorod, one of the "princely cities" around Kiev. Naturally, the death of Vladimir immediately freed him from captivity, as a result of which he was able to seize the moment and, having appeared in Kiev, take the vacated throne as the eldest of all the sons of Vladimir.
Before considering the reasons for such an easy establishment of the power of Svyatopolk in Kiev, it is necessary to resolve several issues that have arisen that, it seems, have not yet been raised by researchers. As already mentioned, it is believed that Vyshgorod was the place of imprisonment of Svyatopolk. A.Yu. adheres to the same point of view. Karpov, the author of the very remarkable book "Yaroslav the Wise", published in the series "The Life of Remarkable People" in 2005 - an outstanding historical work that covers almost all historiographic problems related to that period of Russian history. So, A.Yu. Karpov argues his choice of Vyshgorod as the place of Svyatopolk's imprisonment by the fact that “even after becoming a Kiev prince, he will treat the Vyshgorod“ boyars ”with exceptional confidence (short for“ boyars ”; murderers of Boris Vladimirovich. S.E.), and those, in turn, will remain his loyal supporters. Apparently, Svyatopolk managed to find a common language with them during his imprisonment. "
This state of affairs is quite plausible, but not at all necessary. Titmar of Merseburg, as you know, does not name the place of imprisonment of Svyatopolk. However, the choice of Vyshgorod only on the basis of Svyatopolk's special affection for the Vyshgorod “Bolyarians” seems a little unjustified. Moreover, as it turns out, the testimony of the Russian chronicles directly contradicts this.
The chronicle of Vladimir's death reports as follows: “But (Vladimir) died on Berestovoye, and they hid (death) him, because Svyatopolk was in Kiev: at night, having dismantled the platform between two cages, they wrapped him in a carpet and lowered him to the ground on ropes; they put it on a sleigh, took it and put it in the Church of the Holy Mother of God, which he himself created. " Then, already in Kiev (apparently, the next day), the Christian rite of farewell to the deceased was performed. With a crowd of many people, Vladimir was buried and placed in a marble sarcophagus, taken out by the prince himself from the conquered Korsun.
Thus, according to the chronicle, which, by the way, does not know about Svyatopolk's imprisonment at all, Svyatopolk ends up in Kiev at the time of Vladimir's death. A.Yu. Karpov resolves this contradiction, assuming that immediately after Vladimir's death, one of Vladimir's servants, frightened by the death of the prince, hurried to Vyshgorod to Svyatopolk, who, automatically freed from prison, became the main heir of his stepfather. Svyatopolk, having learned about the death of Vladimir, hurried to Kiev, where, apparently, no one knew anything yet. Then the scene with the dismantling of the platform and the sleigh, described in the chronicle, took place. However, it seems much more logical to explain this indication of the chronicle by the fact that Svyatopolk was originally imprisoned in Kiev, and not in Vyshgorod or somewhere else.
However, in the same chronicle phrase there is one more ambiguous moment, as it seems, has not yet been touched upon by the researchers. It is said that “they concealed (death) him (that is, Vladimir. - S.E.), because Svyatopolk was in Kiev. " Traditionally, this phrase is interpreted in such a way that the death of Vladimir was "hidden" by order Svyatopolk, while the link "because" quite admits of another interpretation - the death of Vladimir "secretly" from Svyatopolk, precisely "because Svyatopolk was in Kiev."
In favor of such an interpretation, in addition to textual ones, purely historical arguments can also speak. Indeed, one may ask the question: how did Svyatopolk get power in Kiev and what were his reasons for concealing Vladimir's death for the time being? Judging by the fact that in the chronicle there are no indications of any resistance to the establishment of the power of Svyatopolk on the part of the Kievites (which, of course, does not deny that he did not exist at all; this is quite possible, however, since nothing has been confirmed, it is an idle speculation ; building the same historical research solely on speculation and speculation of existing sources is unscientific); judging by this, it is quite possible to assert that Svyatopolk established himself in Kiev extremely easily.
Having occupied his father's throne, Svyatopolk, apparently, decided to strengthen his position: “Svyatopolk sat down in Kiev after his father; and summoned the people of Kiev, and began to distribute to them the estate (property. - S.E.) ". This procedure is mentioned twice in the annals.
Meanwhile, time passed. Boris Vladimirovich, who, as we remember, with his father's squad went to the Pechenegs, having lost his way across the steppe and found no enemy, returned to Kiev. Not so far from the capital, news came to Boris about what had happened: about the death of his father and the changes that had taken place. Considering that Boris's death occurred on the morning of July 24, 1015, nine days after his father's death, despite the fact that the news of his father's death came to him a few days before that (we are not yet considering the question of what Boris was doing. these days - whether by negotiations with Svyatopolk, which are described in the chronicle, or something else), it turns out that Svyatopolk did not hide the death of Vladimir for long. Actually, the murder of Boris Vladimirovich and the events immediately preceding this, we will deal with later. Now it is important to emphasize that if we accept the existing dating of events (July 15 and 24; by the way, we have no reason to doubt it; however, this issue will be discussed in more detail below), then these nine days should also accommodate several days from the moment Boris learned about the death of his father, and before he himself was killed; the meeting of Svyatopolk and the Kievites, which ended with the distribution of rich gifts (the second such meeting took place after the murder of Boris; at least, this is how the events of The Tale of Bygone Years are arranged); in the end, a magnificent funeral service for Vladimir. True, the latter could have taken place later. However, one thing is clear - if Svyatopolk concealed the death of Vladimir, then at most - for several days. What could he have done during this time?
Obviously, his possible actions depended on who he wanted to hide Vladimir's death from. At the same time, these actions of his, as it is logical to assume, were aimed at strengthening his position as the new ruling prince. Svyatopolk could hide the death of Vladimir: 1) from the people of Kiev; 2) from the entourage of Vladimir and his governor, possibly hostile against him, Svyatopolk; 3) from any external actor who had his own capabilities to oppose him.
It has already been said that the people of Kiev accepted Svyatopolk as a prince without question. Thus, Svyatopolk did not have any sense to hide the death of Vladimir from the people of Kiev. To conceal the death of Vladimir from the closest entourage of the late prince to a person who has just been freed from imprisonment, without the assistance of this very entourage, seems completely impossible. In addition, assuming the liking of Vladimir's former entourage to Svyatopolk, we get additional arguments in favor of the fact that Svyatopolk had no reason to hide the death of the prince from the Kievites. Having received from the governor Vladimir all the levers of power, Svyatopolk, thus, had every opportunity to influence the Kievites in the event of their hostile reaction to his reign, he did not need additional time.
At that moment only Boris, who was close enough, could be considered as an external character; Yaroslav, who also had a large military force, was too far away; his Svyatopolk could not be afraid at that moment. However, even here the meaning of such actions seems insufficiently justified. Boris still had a large squad, which Svyatopolk did not have. To act independently (for example, to eliminate the possibility of going over to the side of Boris of Kiev, which was done by distributing the "estate") Svyatopolk had to act already as the ruling prince; that is, the death of Vladimir inevitably became known. In the end, Boris found out about her, and very soon after his death.
So, Svyatopolk, with the support of the governor Vladimir and the Kievites, had no reason to hide the death of his stepfather. Therefore, the situation seems to be much more logical when they tried to hide the death of Vladimir from Svyatopolk, whom, as already mentioned, she automatically freed from prison and, thus, made it possible to seize power. They could "sweat" her in the hope of an early return to Kiev of Boris, who could become the heir to Vladimir on the throne instead of Svyatopolk. They tried to “conceal” the death of Vladimir precisely “because Svyatopolk was in Kiev,” that is, he was imprisoned there so that he could not take the vacated throne.
If we proceed from the basically correct thesis that it was impossible to hide Vladimir's death from anyone without the assistance of his inner circle (or at least part of him), then for the role of the person who tried to hide the death Prince from Svyatopolk, only one of famous us candidates: Predslava Vladimirovna. Let us repeat: we do not know anything about possible hostile groups or "parties" surrounded by Vladimir Svyatoslavich, one of which apparently supported Svyatopolk as a future prince, the other opposed the first and put forward its candidacy - Boris or Yaroslav. The existence of such groups can only be assumed with varying degrees of probability. However, this assumption becomes quite possible if we proceed from the previous reasoning.
If the assumption that Vladimir's death was concealed from Svyatopolk (which could well have taken place), it is true, then of all the participants in the events known to us, only Predslava was a person unequivocally hostile to Svyatopolk (judging by her letter to Yaroslav; of course, there may be other figures, another thing is that we have nothing about them not known) and who were then in Kiev in order to be able to oppose the prince of Turov, hiding the death of Vladimir. She had this opportunity, belonging to the prince's inner circle as his daughter; most likely, she had her supporters among this circle. However, precisely due to the fact that Svyatopolk also had his supporters among this entourage (which, as it seems, has already been proven), Predslava Vladimirovna's plan failed, and Svyatopolk learned about the death of his stepfather - with all the ensuing consequences.
THE MURDER OF PRINCE BORIS VLADIMIROVICH OF ROSTOVSKY IN RUSSIAN WRITTEN SOURCES, AS WELL AS SOME GENERAL REMARKS ABOUT WHETHER THESE SOURCES CAN BE TRUSTED
Before moving on to the main part of the study, namely: to the analysis of how the murder of Boris Vladimirovich is reflected in Russian written sources, we should consider the question with what degree of trust we can generally use these sources from the point of view of adequate, which is most important, truthful reflections of events.
Above, a version has already been expressed that during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, and even later, many of the available written sources (which later became the basis for writing those that we have now - chronicles, lives, legends, and so on) were "cleaned up" in order to destroy information, one way or another objectionable to the authorities. At the same time, it is possible that information about the true events that occurred after the death of Vladimir, about the true killer of Boris and Gleb, who, apparently, still turns out to be Yaroslav Vladimirovich, was destroyed. Instead of the destroyed information, the story of Svyatopolk the Accused and everything else was invented, which was reflected in the "Tale of Bygone Years", "Lives of the Saints" and "The Legend of Boris and Gleb."
Based on such assumptions, any historical study of these events or in any way connected with them turns out to be impossible and useless if it implies an analysis of Russian written sources. Indeed, what can be his objectivity if these sources are, in fact, fiction? Proceeding from them, no truth can be learned - neither about the murder of Boris and Gleb, nor about other events reflected in them (this primarily concerns the "Tale of Bygone Years"). Thus, their role as historical sources, even more broadly as sources of objective information, is destroyed. If we take into account that there are very few other sources of information about these events that are not considered biased and are not historical fiction (as a rule, foreign sources are considered such), then any historical research, in particular, and the historical research of this period of the Russian stories, in general, become impossible. Historians should come to terms with the lack of objective information and stop all attempts to clarify Russian history - at least at this stage.
It seems that such a view of the prospects for historical research, arising from the premise of the untruth of the written sources of that period, is completely unacceptable. First, the position that the existing written sources were "cleaned up" during the reign of Yaroslav and his successors has not been proven. In any case, apart from personal conviction, there is no factual, documentary, if you will, evidence that the chronicles were "cleaned up", with the aim of destroying the information discrediting the existing government. Thus, it is impossible to accuse Russian written sources of untruth with full confidence.
Secondly, even if we admit that the chronicles were really "cleaned up", we, again, do not have any evidence of how large this process was: whether the history was completely rewritten, or only some amendments were made. Therefore, the indiscriminate rejection of all sources is also completely unacceptable, and a search for true moments is possible. Here we return to the already described methodology of the historical research of M.P. Pogodin - analysis of Russian sources with the help of foreign sources. Thus, by means of "independent confirmation" we can separate information that is absolutely correct, reflected in other sources that have nothing to do with the data, from information that is doubtful, possibly resulting from a later insertion. So in the "cleaned up" chronicles, attracting other sources, including foreign ones, we look for indisputable moments. So, even if the events in the annals were changed, historical research is not made completely impossible, it only becomes more difficult.
In the end, for a true historian, even the recognition that all existing Russian sources on this issue are fiction and mystification is not an obstacle. As already mentioned, there is a corpus of foreign sources that may, in one way or another, relate to this problem. Even an analysis of the fiction itself can often yield interesting results, which sometimes allow one to see in a certain way what actually happened.
Actually, accepting the possibility of "cleaning up" the sources, we will be guided by the comparative methodology, looking for the most indisputable points. At the same time, the initial attitude is not widespread doubt, but, on the contrary, the attitude towards truth. of all described in the source of events. Only then, in view of the emergence of certain contradictions, the possibility of the occurrence of certain events will be questioned.
Above, we have already mentioned possible doubts about the dating of the described events. It is hardly worth emphasizing once again the importance of this issue. So, we have no prerequisites to doubt it. One way or another, no reason for the substitution of dates can be named (at least for now). As for the date of Boris Vladimirovich's death (July 24), it is hardly accidental and does not reflect a real event. In any case, a fairly strong tradition is known even in Ancient Russia itself to call July 24 "Borisov day".
Thus, we can operate with the available dates with a sufficient degree of reliability, describing the last days of Boris Vladimirovich's life, which we, in fact, will do.
We can get information about them mainly from three sources: "The Tale of Bygone Years" (article 1015), the anonymous "Legends and Suffering and Praise to the Martyrs Saints Boris and Gleb" ("The Legends of Boris and Gleb") and "Readings about the Life and about the destruction of Boris and Gleb "by the Monk Deacon Nestor (" Readings about Boris and Gleb "). Moreover, the first two sources basically coincide with each other, while the latter differs in many details.
At the same time, when analyzing these sources, several very important assumptions should be made. Perhaps the main one is the recognition of the inevitable idealization of the images of the princes-martyrs, which makes it extremely difficult to understand the real characteristics of their personalities.
Naturally, one of the foundations of the work of a source historian (and of any source in general) is not only characterization and analysis of the information contained in a particular source, but also, first of all, before this analysis, before starting to work with a source - character analysis, the specifics of the source itself (its genre, time of writing, circumstances of writing, author, and so on). This is an absolutely necessary work because all of the above characteristics (genre, time of writing, and so on) have a significant, often decisive influence on the information contained in the source, changing it in a certain way as opposed to its accurate, objective, photographic reflection. We can evaluate it only on the basis of these preliminary characteristics. In particular, different sources can reflect the same event in completely different ways, even being guided by the same amount of information about it.
In our case, the situation is the same. As you know, Boris and Gleb Vladimirovich are the first Russian saints, princes-martyrs, defenders of the Russian land, a symbol of non-resistance, which in an incomprehensible way subsequently transformed in the Russian mentality into a symbol that inspires a merciless struggle with the enemy. Their canonization has automatically left an imprint on their portrayal in literature. And, in general, the literature itself, in which there is any information about their lives, is predominantly hagiographic (hagiographic) in nature: both the "Legend" and "Reading" are, in fact, early versions of the "Lives" of the saints (not to mention the classic Lives). The chronicle article almost completely repeats the text of the "Tale". Thus, we do not have sources in which, in one way or another, the hagiographic component of the description of the personalities of Boris and Gleb would not be present. And he, for certain purposes, of course, but still distorts the real appearance of the princes. Actually, we will not see it in sources built solely on the idealization of their image, on emphasizing their Christian virtues, their non-resistance, their unwillingness to participate in civil strife, in any political struggle, in modern language.
Thus, the initial halo of martyrs and ascetics forces the authors to consciously imagine Boris and Gleb as ideal saints who have nothing to do with real people, which they, in fact, were. This halo makes them represent their actions in a strictly defined light, which, of course, these actions did not originally have. It forces us to omit any events that do not fit into the ideal image, and, conversely, to introduce into the narrative facts that easily agree with this image, but are unlikely due to this that took place in reality.
The 11th century is the century of the formation of Christianity in Russia, and that is why it is much easier to assume that Boris and Gleb were not what they are presented in the sources. Only much later, when Christianity took root in Russia and entered the mentality, only then the image of holiness was embodied in reality, only then asceticism became a real lifestyle, and not a hagiographic exaggeration. But to say so in relation to the XI century, to the princes, apparently born in paganism, is hardly possible.
In addition, we also have indirect historical grounds to assert that in reality Boris and Gleb differed from their literary image; at least this concerns Boris Vladimirovich. We will talk about the evidence in favor of his independent policy, which does not fit into the framework of his ideal portrayal in the sources. Another indirect evidence consists in purely logical, everyday argumentation: Boris, as the sources portray him, is a worthless ruler. A saint on the throne, especially in that era, is impossible. However, as we know, his father, Vladimir Svyatoslavich, fully trusted him and, apparently, hoped to see him as a successor; in the end, he even entrusted him with his squad. This hardly speaks of Boris's complete incapacity for state activity, an incapacity arising from his ideal image of a holy prince. Also in favor of this is the fact that for a certain time Boris was the ruling prince in his inheritance (in Rostov), where he could well (and, it is logical to assume, had to) prove himself as an independent politician and ruler.
So, in view of the above features of these sources (Legends, Readings and Chronicles), it is rather difficult for us to single out any objective information in them, free from hagiographic layers. However, this is not impossible, especially if one makes allowance for the hagiographic character of these sources.
Taking all this into account, let us turn directly to the sources.
As already mentioned, Boris, not finding the Pechenegs, returned at the head of his father's squad to Kiev. It was during the campaign that he received the news of his father's death. Struck by this news, he stopped at a decent distance from the capital, on the Alta River (which is a tributary of Trubezh, on which the city of Pereyaslavl stands; Trubezh, in turn, flows into the Dnieper) - this is about 60 kilometers east of Kiev. Here, on the Altinsky field, he stood, apparently, for several days - until his death. In view of the fact that the events of these days, the last days of his life, are covered in more or less detail, we can describe them with a certain chronological accuracy.
July 24, the day of Boris' death, was, according to written sources, Sunday. Therefore, 23 July is Saturday. We have to start on Saturday morning.
Apparently, on Saturday morning, soldiers approached Boris’s tent, and the squad turned to the prince: “Behold, your squad is desperate and warriors; go sit down in Kiev, on the table with your father. " Boris answered them: “I will not raise my hand against my elder brother. If my father died, then this (Svyatopolk. - S.E.) will be for me instead of my father. " “And hearing this, the soldiers parted from him. Boris, on the other hand, remained with some of the youths (personal bodyguards. - S.E.) by their own. "
Just at that moment, when the squad decided to leave Boris and return to Kiev, to their relatives, Svyatopolk's envoys appeared on Alta. Apparently, hoping to somehow prevent a seemingly inevitable clash with Boris, Svyatopolk decided to come to an agreement with his brother. The message conveyed to Boris by the ambassadors of Svyatopolk was as follows: "Brother, I want to have love with you, but I will give you what my father gave you!" Boris, according to A.Yu. Karpov, accepted Svyatopolk's offer, sending one of his youths to him.
Meanwhile, the departure of the squad from Boris took place almost in front of the eyes of the ambassadors of Svyatopolk. Thus, Svyatopolk, having received from them the news that Boris's squad had gone home, no longer needed any negotiations and simply detained the youth of Borisov without giving him an answer. Boris no longer represented a danger to him, and Svyatopolk, apparently, decided to completely eliminate the political enemy. In the evening of the same day (Saturday) Svyatopolk set about implementing his plans: “Svyatopolk came to Vyshgorod at night, secretly, summoned Putsha and the Vyshgorod residents and asked them:“ Are they devoted to me with all my heart? ” Putsha and Vyshgorod residents answered: "We can lay our heads for you." And he said to them: "Without telling anyone, go and kill my brother Boris." They promised him to fulfill everything soon. " Below are the names of the killers - Putsha, Talets, Elovit (or Elovich) and Lyashko. According to A.Yu. Karpov, the latter ("Lyashko" means "Pole") may have appeared in the entourage of Svyatopolk after his marriage with Boleslav's daughter and remained with the prince all these years.
Meanwhile Boris was waiting for an answer. He never got it. “With a discouraged heart, he entered his tent and wept in contrition of his heart, but with an enlightened soul, exclaiming plaintively:“ Do not reject my tears, Master, for I trust in you! May I deserve the fate of your servants and share the lot with all your saints, you are merciful God, and we exalt glory to you forever! ”” Further, Boris in his thoughts turns to the fate of the holy martyrs Nikita, Vyacheslav, Saint Barbara, whose murderer was her own father. So, he no longer expects an answer from his brother; he knows this answer, he knows he will be killed by him ...
This is exactly how the words of the prayer of Boris A.Yu. Karpov, reporting that already “to him (to Boris. - S.E.) a messenger from Kiev arrived with a secret and frightening news ... ”Indeed, any other explanation for such words of Boris can hardly be found. However, we will deal with a detailed analysis of this moment later.
However, evening came. Boris ordered the priest, who remained with him, to sing Vespers, and he himself began to pray. After that he went to bed, but slept little and badly. He woke up early. The day was Sunday. Boris ordered the priest to sing Matins; he washed himself, shod his feet and began to pray himself. The words of his prayer are noteworthy: “Lord, what multiplies those who are cold? Many rise up against me, I say the word of my soul: there is no salvation for him in his Bose. You, Lord, Thou art my Protector ... "
The assassins sent by Svyatopolk came to Alta at night. In the morning they approached the tent itself, however, upon hearing the prayer, they froze in indecision. Boris, however, heard an ominous whisper around his tent and realized that they were going to kill him. And he wept. Both the priest and the youth who served the prince wept with him.
Then the murderers burst into the tent. Throwing themselves at Boris, they began to pierce him with short spears-sulitsa. One of Boris's youths, by the name of George, an ugrin (Hungarian), tried to close him with himself, but they killed him along with the prince. They also killed all the other youths of Boris. Only two survived: brothers George, Ephraim and Moisey Ugrin. The first of them, for some reason, was not on that fateful day with the prince on Alta; the second was saved by some miracle. We will talk in more detail about their subsequent fate and their role in the death of Boris Vladimirovich later.
George, as a sign of love and distinction, wore a special neck decoration - a golden hryvnia, entrusted to him by Boris. The murderers, having engaged in plundering Boris's tent, wanted to remove the hryvnia from George, but they could not. Then they cut off his head and thus removed the decoration. Subsequently, precisely because of this, the body of George was never identified at the scene of the murder, since the head was not found.
However, as it turned out, Boris was not yet dead - "for he was not wounded in the heart." When he woke up, he got up and jumped out of the tent. “Why are you standing and looking? Let's complete our command! " one of the killers cried when the first moments of amazement had passed. “My brothers, dear and beloved! - Boris turned to them then, - Wait a little, but I will pray to my God! " Having made a prayer under the amazed gazes of his murderers, he finally said: “Brethren, having come, finish what was entrusted to you. And peace be with my brother and you, brothers! " And then one of the murderers came up and hit him in the heart.
So Boris seemed to be dead. His body was wrapped in a tent and, laying on a cart, was taken to Kiev. However, if you believe the chronicle and the "Legend of the Saints", the earthly path of Boris Vladimirovich did not end there. On the way to Kiev, it turned out that Boris was still alive. “And when they were in the forest (in some sources it is said about“ grief. ”- S.E.), he began to lift up his holy head. The accursed Svyatopolk saw that Boris was still breathing, and sent two Varangians to finish him off. The same ones came and saw that he was still alive; one of them drew a sword and pierced it in the heart. " At this point, some later sources give a slightly different interpretation of what happened, but we will deal with it later, where other written sources will be involved in the analysis of the information contained in the "Tale" and in the annals.
As for the further fate of Boris Vladimirovich, or rather, his remains, it is as follows: “And they brought him to the Dnieper, put him in a boat and sailed with him to Kiev. The Kievans did not accept him, but pushed him away. " After that, his body was brought to Vyshgorod and buried in a simple wooden coffin near the Church of St. Basil, built at one time by Vladimir in honor of his heavenly patron Saint Basil the Great. Here Boris found his last refuge, but, as it turned out, not oblivion ...
BORIS VLADIMIROVICH AS AN INDEPENDENT POLICY AND THE BASIS FOR HIS CHARACTERISTICS
So, we have before us a description of the last days of the life of Prince Boris. Bearing in mind the general hagiographic orientation of all Russian written sources known to us that touch on these events, we first of all need to ask the question: how correctly are these events reflected? To what extent is what we see on the pages of the chronicle free from conscious or unconscious distortion of facts?
It can hardly be argued that everything reflected in the sources is unconditionally reliable - and primarily because the sources tried to present us with an ideal image of a martyr-prince, a saint and non-resistance, who undoubtedly did not exist in reality. It has already been said that Boris, as he is in hagiography, is a worthless ruler. Considerations have already been expressed in favor of the fact that Boris was actually a more earthly, more real person and ruler. Certain conclusions in the same direction can be drawn from the analysis of the sources themselves.
Chronologically, the first logical and factual difficulty in a realistic interpretation of what was said in the chronicle arises when considering the reasons for the departure of the squad from Boris. Logically, proceeding from a simple everyday outlook on life, it is difficult to believe that Boris renounced his rights to the throne, which, as it seems, should have passed to him after his father's death. The likelihood that Boris's Christian humility and his unwillingness to raise a hand against his brother were only the later insertions of the chronicler is very high. This is more of a hagiographic cliche than a real state of affairs. it is false to a saint to act. But we have everything. ” So, he could not calmly admit the departure of the squad from him. And he could hardly refuse the throne (even if there was a refusal), guided by purely Christian motives. Most likely, the motives were much more pragmatic, dictated by the current political situation.
So, Boris could not let go of the squad just like that. He could not just give up the rights to the throne (we repeat - if there was a refusal at all). So what were the real reasons for what happened?
It is unlikely that we can name them with absolute certainty. However, some of the common points may seem pretty straightforward. And the main one is that the real activity of Boris Vladimirovich as an independent politician did not quite fit into his Christian image of a martyr and passion-bearer.
As you know, the widespread church veneration of princes-martyrs was established in 1072 by the Russian Metropolitan George on the direct orders of Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod Yaroslavich. So Boris and Gleb became the first Russian saints (although for quite a long time there has been a discussion about, possibly, an earlier canonization, even during the reign of Yaroslav; however, the task of touching upon this issue was not posed in our study). Actually, the canonization of 1072 consisted in the transfer (after a solemn examination) of the relics of the saints from a dilapidated wooden church, built by Yaroslav, to a new one-domed one, erected by his son, Prince of Kiev, Izyaslav and consecrated at the same time, on May 20, 1072. The chronicle colorfully describes the ceremony. The first from the church was a wooden coffin with the relics of St. Boris: it was carried by the Yaroslavich princes themselves. When it was brought to the new church, it was opened, and the church was filled with a fragrance, so that even those who did not believe in the holiness of the brothers believed (and among them was Metropolitan George himself, who fell prostrate before the grave of St. Boris). Then they transferred his relics to a stone coffin. Then we returned to the old church and, having laid the stone coffin of Gleb on the sled, took him by the ropes. However, he got stuck in the doorway and did not go further. "And they commanded the people to cry out," Lord, have mercy. " And miraculously, the coffin went through the door, and they took him on. Thus, everyone finally believed in the holy brothers.
One thing is noteworthy in this description. As we can see, by the time of the canonization, the relics of Gleb Vladimirovich are already in the stone sarcophagus, while the transfer of the relics of Boris to the stone sarcophagus took place only in 1072 itself. In addition, the fact that Gleb's coffin was stuck in the doorway during the transfer is suggestive.
As we remember, Boris Vladimirovich was buried near the Church of St. Basil in Vyshgorod. Subsequently, the remains of his brother Gleb were transferred there by Yaroslav. In an unknown year, this church, with the connivance of the local clergy, burned down. In its place, on the advice of a certain Metropolitan John, as Nestor reports in his "Reading" (by the way, Metropolitan John is not mentioned in other sources), Yaroslav built a small chapel, where the tombs of the brothers were transferred. Soon miracles began to happen around them, and the same Metropolitan John advised Yaroslav to build a new church, richer in decoration. And soon a large five-domed church appeared in Vyshgorod, where in one of the years of July 24, on the day of Boris's death, the shrines of the saints were transferred. It was from this church that the bodies of the saints were transferred during the canonization of 1072.
Actually, the fact that the stone tomb of Gleb could not pass through the doors of the wooden five-domed church of Yaroslav indicates that the sarcophagus was already in the place where the church was built, before it was built. Most likely, the church was built around a tomb, which was not moved from its place during construction. It is logical to assume that the wooden church of Yaroslav was built around the small chapel where the bodies of the saints were transferred after the fire. This means that the stone tomb was originally located in the chapel (or, at least, was installed on the site of future construction immediately before construction).
The date of the construction of the wooden church of Yaroslav is dated approximately, but quite definitely. According to the "Legend of the Miracles of the Saints" (which is a logical continuation of the "Legend of the Saints"), everything happened shortly before the death of Yaroslav the Wise (which followed, as is known on February 19, 1054): it is reported that soon after the celebrations associated with the illumination of the new church, Yaroslav died, having lived thus, according to the source, 38 years after the death of his father. The church built by him, having stood, as indicated, for 20 years, was replaced by a new one, the one that was built by the Yaroslavichs and in which the ceremony of 1072 took place. Indeed, between the death of Yaroslav and the death of his father - exactly 38 years. However, adding twenty years to the year of his death does not give us the date "1072". There is a gap of one to two years. But the complete simultaneity of events is not at all necessary - the building of the church and the death of Yaroslav. Thus, if we count 20 years from 1072 years ago, then we come to 1052, when, most likely, the five-domed Vyshgorod church was built; shortly after its construction, in 1054, Yaroslav died.
So, Yaroslav's church was built in 1052. By this time, therefore, the body of Gleb Vladimirovich was already in a stone tomb... This testifies, on the one hand, to one or another degree of church veneration for Gleb before the canonization of 1072; on the other, oh predominant veneration Gleb compared to his brother Boris, whose body, as you can see, is still at least twenty years old was in a wooden tomb.
There are other eloquent testimonies of the predominant veneration of Gleb in comparison with his brother until the end of the 11th century. In particular, as M.Kh. Aleshkovsky, one of the researchers of the "Borisoglebsk" problematics (more precisely, that side of it that is associated with ancient Russian art and chronicle creativity), until the end of the 11th century on the front side of the "Borisoglebsk" folding crosses (the so-called encolpions or reliquaries intended for storage particles of holy relics) were placed exactly the image of St. Gleb, so these crosses would be more correctly called "Gleboboris". He also notes some other predominant veneration of Saint Gleb. Another example: when in 1095 the particles of the relics of the holy brothers were sent to the Czech Sazava monastery (in central Bohemia, southeast of Prague), the local chronicle noted the fact of the transfer of the relics of “Saint Gleb and his comrade”, without even naming Boris by name.
Thus, the predominant veneration of Gleb can be considered an undoubted fact. True, in this regard, among other proofs, the arguments presented by V. Bilenkin can hardly be considered a confirmation of this point of view, who refers to Nestor's “Reading”, where Gleb is consistently called “saint” and Boris “blessed”. As A.Yu. Karpov, these links are untenable. In Ancient Rus, these definitions were equivalent (A.Yu. Karpov refers to the famous Polish historian and researcher of Old Russian historical problems Andrzej Poppé and one of the versions of the legend about Saint Gleb of the 16th century, published by D.I. saint passionate ... you against the assassin ambassador Boris blessed Gleb ", and then Gleb is consistently called" blessed ").
In view of all of the above, a logical question arises: on what basis was preference given to Gleb in the church veneration of the holy brothers? What did Gleb do so that he could be considered a model of greater holiness? Or: what did Boris do so that he could be considered an example of lesser holiness in comparison with his brother?
We will not find any indication of this difference in the written sources themselves. However, upon closer examination, it is the second version that receives confirmation - the version of the independent policy of Boris Vladimirovich, which is not at all as Christian as it might seem if we proceed from his hagiographic image.
Above, attention was already paid to Boris's prayer, which he performed on the morning before the murder: “Lord, what does the cold one multiply? Many rise up against me, I say the word of my soul: there is no salvation for him in his Bose. You, Lord, Thou art my Protector ... ”. It seems that so far it has not yet received due attention, but its meaning is quite remarkable. As you know, by the morning of Sunday, July 24, Boris already knew about his brother's intention to kill him. But even in this context, his words about “multiplying the cold one” remain incomprehensible. It is much more logical that he should have meant only Svyatopolk. Why, then, “many people rise up against” him, “many say his soul”: “there is no salvation for him in his Bose”? Who are these many?
Naturally, the probability that Boris's actual prayer is given in the Tale is practically zero. Apparently, there is no doubt that this is the later insertion of the chronicler. However, it can convey the actual state of affairs in those days, a position that the chronicler did not consider it necessary for some reason to insert into his narration (apparently, just out of the desire to create the ideal image of a passion-bearer prince, into which some events did not fit), but nevertheless decided to reflect in one way or another - in the prayer of Boris. Another explanation of such words, which have nothing to do with the entire previous and subsequent context of the chronicle and the "Tale", is hardly possible.
But what is this situation in which Boris turned out to be so hated by many? And who are these many? His squad? But why could his warriors hate him? It is unlikely that only due to the fact that he renounced his rights to the throne. In any case, this point of view looks like a frank stretch.
When answering the question, what is it non-christian could have done Boris, we involuntarily turn to the possibility of his independent political activity. That such a thing could well have taken place seems to be a fact beyond doubt. It has already been shown that Boris Vladimirovich could well have been a much more independent and capable politician, in contrast to what we see in the sources. Taking into account the indirect allusions to his political independence, which were found above, when analyzing the sources and real historical facts, we are even more strengthened in the validity of such a question.
When answering it, in front of us, first of all, there are the silhouettes of the Kingdom of Hungary and the half-brother of Boris Vladimirovich, the prince of the Drevlyansky Svyatoslav. Svyatoslav's connection with Hungary is clearly recorded in written sources. Boris's connection, however, is rather mediated and relative (the only hint of it is the presence in Boris's retinue of three brothers - "ugryns"; however, this fact itself is quite remarkable not to pay attention to it). There is also other evidence of the invisible influence, or at least the implicit intervention and interest of the Hungarian kingdom in Russian affairs at the beginning of the 11th century. Let's make a reservation right away - we have no real facts of independent political activity of Boris in this direction; moreover, even indirect evidence of the presence of such is very few, vague and cannot be interpreted more or less unambiguously. There is no direct evidence, only hints. Since there are much more references to the connection with Hungary of Boris's brother Svyatoslav, and not Boris himself, the entire "Hungarian question" will be considered in more detail below, when analyzing the circumstances associated with the death of Svyatoslav Vladimirovich. For now, let's just say that, at least so far, there is no indisputable evidence of any influence of Hungary on the circumstances of Boris Vladimirovich's death.
However, there are other assumptions (however, it should be emphasized right away that they are nothing more than assumptions). To clarify them, it is necessary to make a small historical digression.
We have already mentioned the name of the Merseburg chronicler, Bishop Titmar, a well-known writer and church leader in East Germany at the end of the 10th - beginning of the 11th century. His relative and peer was another well-known church figure of that period, who, incidentally, was not alien to literary activity - the missionary archbishop Bruno (in the monasticism of Boniface) of Querfurt. They knew each other quite well, since they went to school together at the cathedral in Magdeburg. Subsequently, some information about Bruno Titmar included in his "Chronicle" (a story about the early virtues of the future martyr, manifested already in his school years, a message about death). Bruno came from Thuringia, from the family of the Counts of Querfurt, and was an outstanding person. In 997, he became chaplain to the young Holy Roman Emperor Otto III (983-1002) and energetically set about implementing the emperor's new ecclesiastical policy. The emperor dreamed of creating a "universal" Christian empire centered in Rome. It was supposed to consist of four parts - Italy, Germany, Gaul (primarily West Germany) and Slavia, the core of which would be Christian Poland.
In 999, a special Archbishopric of Gniezno (Gniezno - the ancient capital of Poland) was already formed in Poland under the jurisdiction of Rome. It was in the Gniezno Cathedral that the relics of Saint Adalbert-Vojtech, Bishop of Prague, a famous missionary of the late 11th century, found their peace. Coming from a family of Czech princes, he was once invited by the already known Polish prince Boleslav I from Bohemia to Poland. Then leaving Poland to preach Christianity to the pagan Prussians, he was martyred by them in 997. In 1000, Otto III arrived in Gniezno to worship the relics of St. Adalbert. Having met Boleslav, Otto saw in him a like-minded person in the idea of creating a Christian empire. However, the early death of the emperor in 1002 prevented the implementation of these plans. The new German king Henry II (and since 1014 - also the emperor) considered Boleslav his main foreign policy enemy and fought with him almost continuously.
During Otto's lifetime, Bruno of Querfurt planned, within the framework of the church policy of his patron, to create and lead a missionary center in Poland. Naturally, the policies of Henry II ruined these plans. Then he embarked on a spontaneous missionary work - among the "black Hungarians" (in Transylvania), Pechenegs, Prussians. During a mission to the Prussians, he died in 1009 - on the border of Russia and Lithuania. Meanwhile, all this time, in view of his previous adherence to the ideas of the Christian empire of Otto, he remained a friend of Boleslav (perhaps also partly because the latter was at one time connected by friendship with Saint Adalbert, the idol of Bruno; Bruno even wrote “The Life of Saint Adalbert- Voytech, Bishop of Prague "). For this friendship, he was forced to make excuses to Henry. An example of such a justification is Bruno's letter to Henry II.
In general, the message is a report on the missionary activities of Bruno. Therefore, there, in addition to the excuse that, while missionary, Bruno often found himself on the territory of Poland, contains the very story of his missions. We are interested in his story about his stay with the Pechenegs, on the way to which he visited Kiev. The epistle was written from Poland, probably in the fall of 1008.
Bruno quite colorfully describes his stay at the court of St. Vladimir, who for a long time did not allow him to visit the pagan Pechenegs, then the mission itself, during which he repeatedly avoided death; however, he was still allowed to preach. Finally, “having converted about thirty souls to Christianity, we, at the behest of God, made peace (with Russia. - S.E.), which, according to them (Pechenegs. - S.E.) words, no one except us could arrange ... With that I came to the sovereign of Russia, who, for the sake of (the success) of God (the cause) approved it, having given his son hostage. We consecrated (one) of ours as bishops, who was then placed by the sovereign together with his son in the middle of the earth (the Pechenegs). "
Just the same fragment concerning the world arranged by Bruno between Russia and the Pechenegs is interesting to us. The very fact of peace does not raise any questions (we are aware of the numerous wars between Vladimir and the Pechenegs, in which, quite possibly, there could be an armistice). The question arises as follows: who was the son whom Vladimir "placed" in the land of the Pechenegs?
Traditionally, it is believed that this son was Svyatopolk. This explains his subsequent relationship with the Pechenegs, whom he repeatedly attracted in his war with Yaroslav for the throne. However, this is not necessary at all. It is also quite possible that this connection went to Svyatopolk through the mediation of his patron Boleslav, who, as we remember, also had a long-standing friendship with the Pechenegs. With all this, Svyatopolk could hardly have been that son, due to the fact that young younger sons were usually given hostage, while Svyatopolk, one of the eldest sons, in 1008 was already thirty years old and had his own table. Who could this son be? If we pay attention to the younger sons of Vladimir, then such could well be Boris Vladimirovich who by that time did not have his own destiny ...
For all the unexpectedness of such an assumption, it, nevertheless, does not contradict the historical facts known to us. Boris could well have spent several years with the Pechenegs until his father summoned him to him (apparently, when the peace with the Pechenegs was once again broken). At the same time (most likely, about 1010) Boris received, along with the rest of the younger Vladimirovichs, his inheritance. The age of Boris (like that of his brother) is calculated by the researchers rather approximately; however, most likely by 1008 Boris was about 20 years old.
Thus, it is logical to assume that after several years spent with the Pechenegs, Boris could have remained certain connections that he could use later. However, such conclusions have nothing to do with many modern interpretations of what happened in 1015 and after the events, in which the "Pechenezh trace" is also played up. Most of these interpretations are completely arbitrary historical constructions, not based on anything, contradicting all known facts and more reminiscent of historical hoaxes than serious research. Some of them clearly emphasize Boris's connection with the Pechenegs: “The Kiev throne (after the death of Vladimir - S.E.) took Boris ... Yaroslav opposed the new Kiev prince and won a victory in the battle on the Dnieper (probably in the fall of 1015). As a result, the Kiev throne passed to him. Meanwhile, Svyatopolk managed to escape from the dungeon, who went without delay to his father-in-law (that is, to Boleslav; Svyatopolk really fled to Poland, but only in 1016, after the defeat from Yaroslav in the Battle of Lyubech, when Yaroslav seized the Kiev throne, but not from Boris, but from Svyatopolk. - S.E.). While he was gathering his strength, Boris, relying on support Pechenegs(emphasis mine - S.E.), tried to regain the lost power. But the people of Kiev, led by Yaroslav ... fought him back. The next year Boris's new attempt to return Kiev ended ... tragically - on July 24, 1017, he was killed by the Vikings sent by Yaroslav ... "
If we do not talk about the complete distortion of the facts and the arbitrariness of the main dates (characteristic, by the way, not only for this work), then the emphasis on the fact of the connection between Boris and the Pechenegs is in itself quite interesting. However, the author does not know on the basis of what data this connection was deduced by the researcher whose work was protected (just as the sources are unknown that allow to interpret the entire situation of that time in general in this way). At least, the author believes that the above interpretation of events does not follow from the probable connection between Boris Vladimirovich and one of the Pechenezh fems (as the Byzantines called separate, politically independent Pechenezh hordes).
One way or another, but Boris Vladimirovich, during the time spent with the Pechenegs, could make any connections. As we remember, during his life he crossed paths with the Pechenegs at least once again - in 1015, when his sick father sent him with a squad against the nomads looming near the southern borders of Russia. Then, in the summer of 1015, the usual attack did not happen - the Pechenegs went further into the steppe, and Boris returned home with nothing, near Kiev - to his father's coffin and towards his own death. We will continue the conversation about his murder later, in our place. Now, having compared some of the facts already known to us, we will answer a question that has not arisen before us until now: why did the Pechenegs not attack Russia, but avoided a collision with Boris's squad and went into the steppe?
The answer is not indisputably true, like most of our assumptions, but it is quite plausible: such a situation when the Pechenegs, not daring to a military clash, returned home, became possible thanks to Boris's agreement with them, which is all the more likely if we take into account his previous connections. It was thanks to these former connections that peace became possible between the Pechenegs and Russia. True, we do not have any, even indirect evidence of the conditions under which the truce was concluded, that Boris promised his Pechenezh counterparties, but the result is obvious - the usual raid did not happen, and Boris calmly returned to Russia. Let us repeat - such a development of events was possible almost exclusively due to the fact that at one time Boris was held hostage by the Pechenegs for a long time.
Actually, this is precisely the reason for the departure of the squad from Boris, the reason for the hatred about which Boris's prayer speaks, in the end - the reason for the predominant veneration of Gleb in comparison with Boris. This is the one unchristian an act that is hinted at in the "Legend of the Saints" ...
What is it about Boris's agreement with the Pechenegs?
Let's try to look at it from several different angles; for a start - from the side of Vladimir's squad, which was headed by Boris in the Pechenezh campaign.
As we know from school, St. Vladimir baptized Russia in 989 (although, however, this date can hardly be recognized with indisputable accuracy - disputes continue to this day). Thus, by the time the events described by us took place, about 25 years had passed since Baptism. Given the long pagan past, this is an extremely short period. It is hardly possible to speak about the deep rootedness of Christian ideals in the consciousness of society in general and of a particular person in particular. If it is difficult for us to assert this in relation to members of the grand ducal family (Boris and Gleb - see above), then the less reason we have to say this about an ordinary person, even if it’s a warrior of the Grand Duke of Kiev. He is even more a pagan than a Christian, and is guided in his views of the world for the most part by the still old pagan ideas. That is why we cannot say that Boris's agreement with the Pechenegs could somehow offend the Christian feelings of his soldiers. It is unlikely that they considered his agreement with the ignorant pagans as a deviation from the faith, pandering to Satan and belittling Christian ideals. It is unlikely that this could damage the image of Boris in their eyes as Christian prince. The image of a prince - a defender of the faith, defending Russia from infidels, pagans and servants of the Devil - will take shape in Russia much later. It is difficult to assume the existence of such in the early years of Christianity in Russia.
Boris's treaty with the Pechenegs was in the eyes of the soldiers of Vladimir's squad not a deviation from the faith, but a betrayal of the interests of the state and the policy pursued by Vladimir Svyatoslavich, and a betrayal all the more powerful because this betrayal was committed by his son, a prince and voivode, at whose disposal Vladimir gave the squad ... Let us repeat - we do not know for sure the conditions of peace for Boris and the Pechenegs, but, apparently, it was these conditions that caused the detachment to leave Boris. Instead of fighting the enemy, Boris Vladimirovich entered into negotiations with him, which in itself can be considered a defeat - given that his father, in contrast to him, always fought a merciless struggle with the nomads (short truces, the existence of which is confirmed by the letter of Bruno Querfurtsky to Henry II - the exception rather than the rule). Moreover, the conditions of peace were apparently quite humiliating for Russia and were perceived as conniving at the enemy. Love for the prince was not added by the fact that, as it turned out, he already had quite old ties with the Pechenegs, and the ties, apparently, were quite friendly, which allowed him to avoid a military clash and start negotiations.
If we take all the above reasoning as reliably reflecting the course of events (which is possible with a fairly high degree of probability), then the picture of what happened appears before us in a completely different light. It is unlikely that the squad itself asked Boris to take the father's throne; on the contrary, having learned about the death of Vladimir and the reign of Svyatopolk, the squad, in view of all of the above, refused to support Boris in his claims to the throne and left him, not considering it worthy to occupy his father's table. Boris, who most likely still wanted to occupy it, was left alone and was killed. It was the squad that he had in mind, saying how many people hate him.
True, an objection to such a "patriotic" squad of Vladimir can be the fact that the same people later, fighting with Svyatopolk against Yaroslav, quite easily allowed the presence of the same Pechenegs in their army, whom Svyatopolk attracted to his aid (in the Battle of Lyubech, 1016 ). However, it should be borne in mind that in 1016 the situation could be very different; in the end, do not forget about the gold generously distributed to the people of Kiev by Svyatopolk. Then they could no longer consider the agreement with the wicked pagans a betrayal.
However, what seemed in 1015 to the warriors of Vladimir as a betrayal, from a completely different perspective, was assessed by the later scribes and church hierarchs, who established veneration for the holy brothers. For them, Boris betrayed, first of all, not the state, but the faith, entering into negotiations with the pagans. That is why we see the predominant veneration for his brother, and not for him; that is why, in his prayer, Boris, under the pen of an ancient Russian scribe, emphasizes mainly the religious aspect of self-hatred: "I say the word of my soul: there is no salvation for him in his Bose ..."
CHRONOLOGY OF RUSSIAN SOURCES. "HUNGARIAN TRACE" IN THE KILLING OF BORIS
Let's return, however, to the sources. In addition to the question regarding the reasons for the departure of the squad from Boris (due to the fact that the reasons described in the sources do not seem plausible), a superficial analysis of the texts raises several more questions.
Above, we tried to build all the events of the last days of Boris Vladimirovich's life, as reflected in the sources, chronologically. On the whole, the picture is harmonious and plausible, with the exception of one fact that falls out of the chronological series. As we remember, Svyatopolk, having learned that the squad had left Boris, “came at night to Vyshgorod "and ordered his supporters to secretly kill Boris. The killers, apparently, immediately hit the road and more at night came to Alta. In the morning they approached Boris's tent and burst into it. Then the actual scene of the murder took place.
Meanwhile, Boris all Saturday evening waited for news from Svyatopolk, who offered him peace, to which Boris agreed. There was no news. Finally, he went to bed. After a short sleep, he woke up on Sunday morning and began to pray. His prayer is addressed to the Lord with a request to give him strength to accept the martyr's crown with dignity: “Lord Jesus Christ! How you, in this image appeared on earth and by your own will gave to nail yourself to the cross and accept suffering for our sins, so grant me to accept suffering! " It turns out that Boris already knows about the impending murder. Indeed, both the chronicle and the "Legend of the Saints" precede his prayer on Sunday morning with phrases that "they had already told him that they were going to destroy him" or "he had already received news of the impending murder of him." However, judging by Boris's prayers on Saturday evening, it turns out that he knew about the murder even then. Even then, he prays to the Lord for the granting of him strength and humility to accept his fate, even then he recalls the sufferings of the holy martyrs Nikita and Vyacheslav, “who were killed same way", Recalls that" the murderer of Saint Barbara was her own father. " "Meanwhile," while Boris was busy with prayer, "evening came, and Boris ordered Vespers to be sung." According to A.Yu. Karpov, by Saturday evening, so a messenger from Kiev arrived to Boris with the news of the impending assassination attempt. Perhaps this is how the text of the chronicle and the Tale can be explained - that the news of the murder came to Boris, it says directly, the time of receipt of this news can be calculated based on the nature of Boris's prayers. However, this time does not at all coincide with the course of the unfolding of other events!
Boris could not already in the evening Saturday to know about the assassination attempt, given that, according to the text of the sources, Svyatopolk only at night saturday conceived it and hired assassins. Even if we consider the indication of the chronicler precisely on night time is a stretch (he could call late evening "night"), then Svyatopolk's trip to Vyshgorod and the arrival of a messenger to Boris at least take place simultaneously... Who, then, was this mysterious messenger? Why did he tell Boris that it hadn’t been decided yet, or maybe it hadn’t crossed anyone’s mind yet?
On the one hand, the explanation can be quite simple. First, from the sources at our disposal, taking into account their antiquity and hagiographic nature of the interpretation of the events described, it is difficult to expect chronological accuracy and factual consistency, especially when reflecting the details (which, of course, is the time when Boris was informed of the impending murder) ... It should be borne in mind that this detail is not at all important for the general design of the work; the ancient hagiographer who wrote the Legend, the chronicler who retells this story in almost the same way in the Tale of Bygone Years, the deacon Nestor, the author of The Reading of the Saints, could well distort it without attaching importance to it. The purpose of these works is to build an ideal image of a passion-bearer prince, and not a scrupulous transfer of all the facts. Little attention was paid to ensuring chronological accuracy in their writing. Actually, this is typical for all sources of the hagiographic genre, which are not historical sources in the proper sense of the word.
Thus, there is no contradiction. In reality, Boris, of course, received the frightening news after Svyatopolk gave the appropriate order to the murderers. In the narrative, this fact was mistakenly attributed to an earlier time.
Secondly, its antiquity also leaves a certain imprint on the nature of the source. The sources we know are mostly lists of older originals. It is highly likely that certain small details of the original narrative could be lost in subsequent lists, distorted, rearranged. In particular, it is likely that in the original text the fact that Boris had been notified of the impending assassination attempt, as it should have been in reality, was on the night from Saturday to Sunday, or, most likely, to Sunday morning. In subsequent lists, he "shifted" to Saturday evening. Apparently, this could be due to the nature of Boris's prayers. They were "distributed" by the author of the narrative in the text so that one part of them described Saturday evening, the other - Sunday morning. Initially, the former was more general in nature (since Boris did not yet know about the murder), the latter was more specific. In the subsequent lists, this difference was leveled, which gave us a reason to say that Boris knew about the murder on Saturday evening.
However, another situation is possible, when everything described in the sources actually happened. Despite all the seeming improbability of such a development of events, we cannot exclude such a possibility. In this case, the only explanation suggests itself: someone in Kiev, suggesting a possible outcome (that is, the murder of Boris by the people of Svyatopolk), tried to warn the prince. We can hardly say with certainty why Boris did not heed this warning - did he think that Svyatopolk would not dare to commit a crime, and was still waiting for Svyatopolk's answer to his agreement with his peace proposals? Or is Boris's behavior really due to his Christian humility? We do not know. The only indisputable thing is that the man who sent a messenger to Boris and thus assumed the tragic result of this confrontation was right, having anticipated Svyatopolk's actions by several hours.
Above, it was hypothesized that there were two hostile parties in Vladimir's entourage in the last months of his life, who saw Boris and Svyatopolk as successors, respectively. If we accept this hypothesis, then the appearance of this mysterious messenger from Kiev to Boris will be explained. It is hardly possible to name the person who sent him for certain, but with a high degree of probability it can be assumed that this person was Predslava Vladimirovna - perhaps the only person known to us who opposed Svyatopolk in the first weeks of his reign in Kiev.
Another question that arises when reading the sources is purely detective properties (if such categories are generally applicable to historical research). We are talking about a possible role in the murder of Boris of his immediate entourage, more specifically, of the three brothers-"ugryns", the youths of Boris. With a certain amount of fantasy, some of the points associated with them may seem strange.
In the battle on Alta, except for Boris, everyone who was with him perished - his priest and all his youths, including the most beloved Boris, George, a Hungarian by birth. In the first minutes of the attack, he tried to close Boris with his body, but he was also killed. Then, when the murderers engaged in robbery, they wanted to remove from the dead George the precious (gold) hryvnia (neck decoration in Ancient Rus), which Boris had placed on him as a sign of special affection. However, they were unable to do this. Then they cut off George's head and thus removed the hryvnia. Precisely because the head was cut off from the body, George was subsequently unable to be identified among those killed on Alta, since the head was also not found. The head, according to church tradition, was then found by George's brother Ephraim. For some reason, he was not with Boris on that day on Alta (perhaps he was the boy whom Boris sent to Svyatopolk in order to convey his agreement with his peace proposals?). So Ephraim remained alive. He withdrew to the Tvertsa River, a tributary of the Volga, where he founded a hospice near the city of Torzhok, and then accepted monasticism and set up a church and monastery in the name of the holy brothers Boris and Gleb (in 1038). Ephraim Novotorzhsky died, according to the Life, a deep elder on January 28, 1053. In the church he built, along with his relics, the severed head of St. George rested.
Of those servants of Boris who were with him at the time of the murder, only one more brother of George, Moses Ugrin, managed to escape. He, apparently, was the only witness of the incident (see below). Escaping from Alta, he took refuge in the village of Predslavino near Kiev - the residence of Predslava Vladimirovna. He was surrounded by her until, in 1018, he was forced to follow her as part of a huge Russian polon to Poland. This happened after the capture of Kiev by the troops of Boleslav I, the prince of Poland, who entered the war with Yaroslav Vladimirovich in support of his son-in-law Svyatopolk. Leaving Kiev in the late autumn of 1018, Boleslav, besides the human population, took out of Kiev the entire princely treasury, as well as many other treasures, leaving Svyatopolk, whom he elevated to the Kiev throne, with practically nothing. Moses returned to Russia around 1040, when as a ransom for the bride, Yaroslav's half-sister Maria-Dobronega, the Polish prince Casimir I, the grandson of Boleslav, who married her, gave Yaroslav the remains of the Russian half of 1018. Moses later became a monk of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery.
Certain doubts can be reasonably expressed regarding the reliability of some of these data. First of all, this concerns Ephraim Novotorzhsky. Above, the question of the age of Boris Vladimirovich has already been touched upon. By 1015, he should have been approximately 27 years old. His youths had to be at most the same age as him; as a rule, they are younger. Thus, by 1053 Ephraim was hardly more than 65 years old; to say that he died a "deep old man" would be a stretch.
In addition, it is generally believed that the widespread church veneration of the holy brothers Boris and Gleb was established in 1072. True, there are certain doubts about this date. In particular, it has been repeatedly suggested that canonization took place much earlier, even under Yaroslav. Certain hints of it are found in the monuments of the "Borisoglebsk" cycle (in the "Legend" and "Reading" of St. Nestor, in particular): the celebrations of 1052 for the transfer of the relics of the brothers to the new five-domed church built by Yaroslav (see above), which are described in sources, just the same are considered the so-called "first" canonization of Boris and Gleb. However, according to A.V. Poppé, and after him A.Yu. Karpov, this "first" canonization was of an exclusively local character, and the holy brothers were canonized only within the boundaries of the Kiev diocese. This conclusion seems quite convincing, otherwise the celebrations of 1072 will turn out to be meaningless. But even in this case, it seems impossible that in the period before 1053 (the year of the death of Saint Ephraim; therefore, before the establishment of widespread veneration of saints in 1072), the Monk Ephraim of Novotorzhsky could found a church and monastery on Tvertsa dedicated to Saints Boris and Gleb. - Torzhok did not belong to the boundaries of the Kiev diocese. There is no satisfactory explanation for this fact, if we do not take into account the very nature of the source from which we know these data. The relics of the Monk Ephraim of Novotorzhsky were found in 1572, and during the reign of Metropolitan Dionysius (1584-1587) local veneration was established for him in Torzhok and a service was compiled. The time of the compilation of the Life itself is unknown. According to the hagiographer, the list of the Life existed by the beginning of the XIV century and was taken away from Torzhok by Prince Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tverskoy after the devastation of the city in 1315. Thus, as you can see, the source is rather late, and in view of all the circumstances of its compilation, the reliability of the data contained in it may well be questioned.
This means that the existence of the head of St. George in general may well be questioned. We can no longer give an answer to some questions (in particular: why was it not discovered immediately, but only after a while?). Others give a wider field for reasoning: could not the story with the head be just a trick that allows George to be considered dead, but does not require his body, since it cannot be identified due to the absence of the head, who knows where from the Altinsky field? It is highly indicative in this sense that it was his brother who subsequently acquired the head of George, then retiring to distant Torzhok. Thus, Ephraim is beyond the reach of those who, in one way or another, could be interested in clarifying the circumstances of Boris' murder, and it becomes almost impossible to find out if George is really dead, and is his death, in the absence of an identified body, a hoax?
Even if Georgy survived, we can hardly indicate where he went from the Altinsky field. Quite possibly, together with his brother, he subsequently ended up on Tvertsa. Another thing is important: if such a development of events is possible, then the main question is why George had to be considered dead? Is it because he has something to do with killing his master?
It is precisely the involvement of George (and the other two Ugrin brothers, apparently) in the murder of Boris that can explain the "miraculous" salvation of Moses, as well as the fact that Ephraim for some reason was not with Boris on the Alta. In this case, these stories are nothing more than an excuse for the murderers. George, apparently, the easier it was to commit the murder, the more Boris trusted him.
However, we got carried away. Such reasoning leads us more into the realm of literature and semi-detective fabrications than serious historical assumptions. Despite all the seeming attractiveness of these constructions, they are not based on anything other than arbitrary conjectures of existing data (which, however, to a certain limit, allow such conjectures). There are, in addition, several indisputable historical moments that allow them to be subjected to well-founded criticism. First, we are not clear about the reasons that the brothers could have been guided by in killing the prince. On the one hand, this may be due to the notorious shadow of the Hungarian state, which was implicitly present in the Russian turmoil at the beginning of the 11th century. However, we repeat again, we do not know anything about the specific ties of Boris Vladimirovich with Hungary, and therefore about the reasons that could have prompted Hungary to eliminate him by the hands of the three brothers who were in his service. On the other hand, the brothers could fulfill the order of someone else who wanted to eliminate Boris, first of all - Svyatopolk. But then it becomes meaningless why, after the murder, the supposedly "miraculously saved" Moses (which, most likely, took place) hiding from Svyatopolk with Predslava Vladimirovna. In view of all the above considerations regarding the role of Predslava in the events that took place, it seems impossible to assume that she was involved in the murder of Boris (which is the conclusion based on the fact that it was Moses who came to her after the murder). The probable connections of the Ugrian brothers with any other of the characters in the events of the summer of 1015 (for example, with Yaroslav), although they are not denied by any known facts, nevertheless, are nothing more than unfounded speculations.
Secondly, it will be interesting in this case to ask the question: was it really so impossible to remove the very same hryvnia that had to be cut off? Here it is enough to turn to even the most general sources on archeology or the history of ancient Russian culture. It is known that torcs as neck ornaments were wide and narrow - the wide ones fell on the chest, the narrow ones fit the neck; their ends were either tied or had a clasp, sometimes in the form of an intricate lock. The last circumstance is very interesting: in the case of a narrow hryvnia that fits around the neck, a lock or clasp could well become an obstacle to the unhindered removal of the hryvnia. Thus, a similar situation, described in the sources in relation to the murder of Boris Vladimirovich, is quite plausible. Thus, we have no factual (or even purely practical, everyday) grounds to accuse either Georgiy Ugrin or his brothers of involvement in the murder.
"CHRONICLE" OF TITMAR, BISHOP OF MERSEBURG
Having considered some incidental moments that arise when reading Russian sources telling about the death of Boris, we can, taking into account the amendments and versions of some events already expressed, move on to solving the main question: who is most likely the murderer of the Rostov prince? Most likely, because, despite the seemingly unambiguous answer to this question, with a deeper consideration of it, this unambiguity may well be questioned. Moreover, neither the generally accepted nor any other points of view can be considered completely indisputable. Thus, the answer to this question can be expressed only with one degree or another of truth.
It would seem that Russian sources fully expose Svyatopolk. In addition, none of the considerations already expressed above, one way or another correcting the information of Russian sources, calls this fact into question. Also, the fact that, naturally, the real Svyatopolk differed from the chronicle Svyatopolk cannot be considered a consideration against this. In reality, Svyatopolk could hardly have been that noteworthy villain and the embodiment of Satan on earth, as he is presented in the sources. This amendment is reasonable, but it cannot refute the facts recorded by the sources.
However, not all so simple. And it's not just the attempts of many modern “researchers” to practically rewrite history (“... Svyatopolk, after his escape from prison, clearly had no time for attempts on his brothers. And why did he have to do this?” - asks, for example, IN Danilevsky ; however, as can be seen from his further reasoning, he, apparently, still relied on some sources). The fact is that the reliability of the version of Russian sources that it was Svyatopolk's envoys who killed Boris is denied on the basis of the testimony of several foreign sources, which, it would seem, undoubtedly justify Svyatopolk - on the one hand, on the other, they very transparently hint at the "real" the murderer of Boris, who is considered the prince of Novgorod Yaroslav Vladimirovich, later nicknamed the Wise ...
The first of these sources is the already mentioned Chronicle of Titmar of Merseburg. The Chronicle itself is an extremely interesting and very valuable source for Old Russian history, or rather its part, covering the beginning of the 11th century - the last years of Vladimir's life and the turmoil after his death. Above, we have already had the opportunity to refer to its text several times. Here we are interested in another fragment of it (of course, this does not exhaust its value). It concerns the first years after the death of Vladimir (1015-1016) - just the same period of interest to us.
Russian and foreign historians who studied the corresponding historical period have repeatedly turned to both the Chronicle itself and its given fragments, and for quite a long time. It seems that the main analysis of all the data contained in it, concerning Russia in general and the events of interest to us in particular, has already been carried out, and all the main conclusions have been drawn. Moreover, it seems that the scientific community has already established the only possible and most correct interpretation of these data, to which the author of these lines has nothing to add. Our task is not to give a new interpretation to sources, but to recreate the most true and consistent picture of events. That is why the integrity of the narrative forces us to retell the existing interpretations of the Chronicle data.
One of the main features that should be emphasized is that information about Russia and the Russian turmoil falls into the Chronicle of Titmar in connection with the interference in Russian affairs of the Polish prince Boleslav I, who in 1017 opposed Yaroslav, who took the Kiev throne, in support of his son-in-law of Svyatopolk. It was from 1017 in the Chronicle that we see a more or less detailed description of the war between Yaroslav and Boleslav, and with the author's clear sympathy for the Russian prince (Titmar, unlike his friend Bruno of Querfurt, considered Boleslav one of the main foreign policy enemies of the Empire ). At the same time, his information about the events preceding the war (ie, 1015-1016 and even earlier) is inaccurate and fragmentary. Actually, Russia in Titmar's narration generally appears only in chapters for 1017 - in connection with the war between Boleslav and Yaroslav.
The Chronicle consists of eight books, each of which is divided into chapters. The events of 1017 are covered by the VII book of the Chronicle. Following the fragmentary references to the “king of Russia” (Yaroslav) in the first half of the book, in Chapter 65 of Book VII we see a description of the first military clash between Yaroslav and the Polish prince, which ended in victory for the latter. And then, in order, apparently, to explain the reasons for the war between Poland and Russia, the situation in Russia that made such a collision possible, Titmar refers to an earlier period - the death of Vladimir in 1015 and the first stage of the Troubles (1015-1016). Thus, as we can see, information about this period was recorded by Titmar, so to speak, retroactively - a year or two (in some cases - and more) after the events had already taken place. Perhaps this is precisely what explains their inaccuracy and fragmentary character. Actually, this fact makes us treat Titmar's data about the beginning of civil strife with a certain caution.
Three chapters of Titmar's Chronicle - 72–74 chapters of Book VII - are dedicated to the events that preceded the Russian Troubles. In chapter VII, 72, Titmar tells about Vladimir's marriage to a Byzantine princess and his acceptance of Christianity, which he "did not adorn with good deeds, for he was a great and cruel libertine." Vladimir, according to Titmar, had three sons. The elder (later, when describing the war of Yaroslav and Boleslav, Titmar calls him by name - Svyatopolk) Vladimir married the daughter of Boleslav I (then follows the already known story about the conspiracy of Svyatopolk, his imprisonment, the death of Bishop Rainburn, etc.). Vladimir's second son is Yaroslav, also called Titmar by name. There is no third name in the Chronicle.
Chapter VII, 73 is devoted to Titmar in the main exposure of the sins of the "King of Russia Vladimir". Also, it is in it that there is already known to us an indication of some kind of revenge on Boleslav Vladimir. It ends like this: “After that (meaning, apparently, the imprisonment of Svyatopolk. - S.E.) the named king died in old age, leaving his inheritance to two sons, while the third was until then in prison; later, having escaped himself, but leaving his wife there, he fled to his father-in-law. "
Chapter VII, 74 differs from the rest in its attitude. The former libertine, "the named king," however, as Titmar reports, "washed away the stain of the sin he had committed by diligently doing generous alms." After his death, "his sons share his power among themselves," which is sad and destructive for the state. “Let the whole Christian world pray so that the Lord will turn away (his) sentence from that country,” concludes Titmar.
It is quite easy to explain this change in Titmar's views on Vladimir. In 1018, in addition to the Polish troops proper, 300 Saxon knights also participated in Boleslav's campaign against Russia - assistance to Boleslav from his recent enemy Henry II, with whom Boleslav concluded the Budishin peace on January 30, 1018. Most likely, it was under the terms of this peace that Henry pledged to provide Boleslav with military assistance against Yaroslav, with whom he had previously acted in his war with Poland at the same time. On July 22, 1018, a decisive battle took place on the Bug between the Russian troops of Yaroslav and the combined forces of the Polish prince (except for the Poles and Saxons, there were Hungarians and Pechenegs in his army). Yaroslav suffered a crushing defeat and fled. Boleslav freely occupied Vladimir-Volynsky, Lutsk, Dorogobuzh and Belgorod, and on August 14 entered Kiev. After Svyatopolk was restored to the Kiev throne and “with joy (began to receive) local residents who came to him with expressions of obedience,” all auxiliary units, including the Saxons, were sent home. It was these Saxon knights who could inform Titmar about the details of the campaign in 1018, having managed to get home to Saxony, before the death of the bishop (which, we recall, followed on December 1, 1018). From them Titmar could also receive some other information about Ancient Rus - in particular, information about the last years of Vladimir's life, breaking Titmar's previous ideas about Vladimir as a "great and cruel libertine." From the Saxons Titmar could learn that Vladimir was “buried in the big city of Kiev in the church of the Martyr of Christ Pope Clement (the Kiev Tithe Church of the Assumption of the Mother of God, so named by Titmar after the relics of St. Clement stored there. - S.E.) next to the aforementioned wife - their sarcophagi are in the middle of the temple. "
As convincingly shown by A.V. Nazarenko, the information received from the Saxon knights who were with Boleslav in Russia, Titmar arranged not only as a single block at the end of the VIII book (what concerns the campaign itself), but included some of them in the VII book (what concerns the last years of his life Vladimir and his burial place). Actually, this information made up Chapter VII, 74, which was written simultaneously with the last chapters of Book VIII, in the fall of 1018, while the remaining chapters of Book VII were written in 1017. Chapter VII, 74 shows all the signs of a later postscript. First, it was written in the hand of Titmar himself, while the text of the previous and subsequent chapters is written in a different handwriting. Secondly, the end of Chapter VII, 74 did not fit on the page and turned out to be out of the parted field - at first in the form of a margin, and then it was rewritten under the line. This means that the next page was already occupied by the text of chapter VII, 75.
Thus, keeping in mind that Chapter VII, 74 reflects the realities of 1018, we can say with certainty that the “sons” who “share power” after Vladimir's death are Svyatopolk and Yaroslav. Much less clarity with the information of Chapter VII, 73. It is on their basis that Svyatopolk's justification is possible due to his non-participation in the first stage of the internecine struggle.
Indeed, Titmar's indication that Svyatopolk fled to Poland after Vladimir's death would seem to completely negate the testimony of Russian sources. It turns out that Svyatopolk was no longer in Russia when Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav were killed. Consequently, Yaroslav Vladimirovich acts as the killer of the brothers.
However, this interpretation raises many questions. Some of them are asked by A.V. Nazarenko: “If the veneration of the holy brothers-princes began already under Yaroslav, then how did the latter manage to mislead his contemporaries, many of whom still perfectly remembered the events of 1015 (by the way, not such an indisputable argument against the candidacy of Yaroslav as a possible killer of the ; however, see below for more on this. S.E.)? But even limiting himself only to the text of Titmar: why and from whom was Svyatopolk to flee Kiev, if neither Boris nor Yaroslav was in him? "
True, as an answer to the last question, we can name Predslava Vladimirovna, whose active participation in the events of the summer of 1015, as it seems, has already been proven, but this assumption will remain an assumption, nothing has yet been confirmed. On the basis of exclusively the text of the Chronicle, one can only repeat after A.Yu. Karpov that Titmar says nothing about immediate escape Svyatopolk from Kiev S.E.); therefore, his message does not contradict the testimony of Russian sources, which also testify to the flight of Svyatopolk to Poland. But, unlike the German chronicler, exactly date this flight after the defeat of Svyatopolk from Yaroslav at Lyubech in 1016/17 ”. It was then that Boleslavna, who remained in Kiev, fell into the hands of Yaroslav. “Moreover,” continues A.Yu. Karpov, - the political situation of 1015-1017, the course of the Polish-German war and Boleslav's actions testify against the assumption that Prince Svyatopolk was already in Poland at that time. "
Thus, the testimony of the Chronicle does not contradict Russian sources, but, on the contrary, confirms them.
One more question related to the "Chronicle" of Titmar - who does he mean when he speaks of the "two sons" to whom Vladimir "left his inheritance"? Here, the opinions of researchers differ. The same A.V. Nazarenko considers this the third Boris - "in full accordance with the circle of real participants in the strife of 1015-1019." A.Yu. also admits such a possibility. Karpov (not to mention I.N. Danilevsky), more preferable, however, considering the candidacy of Yaroslav Bryachislav Polotsky's nephew on the grounds that Titmar is still talking about the second stage of the internecine struggle, when Svyatopolk Kievsky became the most noticeable figures in Russian history , Yaroslav Novgorodsky and Bryachislav Polotsky. One can hardly agree with the historian on this point. As we remember, chapter VII, 73 was written in 1017. Bryachislav Izyaslavich, according to the most daring estimates, in 1017 could have been no more than 20 years old. It is unlikely that at this age he could have been a "noticeable" figure in Russian history. In any case, we do not know about any of his foreign policy actions, which make it possible to assert that he had an influence on the events that were taking place in Russia at that time. The first foreign policy act of the Polotsk prince known to us from written sources is his attack on Novgorod in 1021 (that is, only four years later). Actually, it was under 1021 that his name was first mentioned in the chronicle. To regard him as an influential politician before this time looks like a stretch. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the text of Titmar, written in 1017, is oriented, nevertheless, towards the retelling of earlier events; in particular, the fragment of interest to us directly points to the moment after the death of Vladimir, that is, to 1015. Taking this into account, the likelihood for Bryachislav Izyaslavich to be a "noticeable" figure in Russian history is even less. In 1015, such (that is, "notable") figures were, besides Svyatopolk, just Yaroslav and Boris. Moreover, the amendment by A.Yu. Karpov, that “although Yaroslav owned part of Vladimir’s state, he could not be considered his heir”, which he is apparently designated by Titmar, does not seem appropriate in this case. Yaroslav, of course, legally, from the point of view of the reality that had developed by the time of Vladimir's death, could not be called his heir; this could have been clear to the ancient Russian people of that era, but not to Titmar. Therefore, he rightfully called all the Russian princes known to him - the sons of Vladimir, who, in one way or another, claimed part of his father's power (or all) after his death - the heirs of Vladimir.
Thus, the most likely "third son of Vladimir" in the "Chronicle" of Titmar of Merseburg is Boris Vladimirovich. However, substantiating the role of Bryachislav of Polotsk in the events of those years, A.Yu. Karpov comes not only from the "Chronicle" of Titmar. It attracts Scandinavian sources, who, as it turns out, know Polotsk well and consider it one of the largest Russian cities of that period, along with Kiev and Novgorod (which, however, still does not say anything about the significance specific Polotsk princes in the system of political ties of Ancient Rus - in particular, the same Bryachislav). As for Bryachislav himself, he is mentioned in Scandinavian sources along with Yaroslav and Svyatopolk, being, according to the saga, their brother and one of the three rulers of Russia. True, given that the Scandinavians were poorly versed in kinship among neighboring peoples (for more details about this, as well as why Yaroslav's nephew became his brother in the sagas, see below), we can challenge this equality. Making, of course, a discount for the automatic equality of all three princes (as brothers, which the saga considers them to be), the author still believes that the decisive factor was the fact that the heroes of the sagas, the Varangian mercenaries, served Bryachislav for some time. The later compiler of the sagas, based on the oral accounts of eyewitnesses or other storytellers, made of all Russian princes known to them(for whom they either served or were associated in some other way) equal in status, not caring about the actual political hierarchy, which, most likely, was unknown to the Scandinavians.
At the same time, correlating the events described in Scandinavian sources with real ones, A.Yu. Karpov comes to the conclusion that in the sagas attention is drawn to Bryachislav before he showed himself by attacking Novgorod. From this, he draws a conclusion about the significant role of the Polotsk prince in the political situation of 1015-1017, that is, earlier than 1021. However, as it seems to the author, this conclusion of A.Yu. Karpov is premature, since the Scandinavian sources do not contradict the Russian; the beginning of the active policy of Bryachislav, described in the sagas, coincides with his attack on Novgorod, which is reflected in the annals. However, a more detailed analysis of these sources will be given below.
In conclusion, it should be noted that, nevertheless, when considering possible candidates for the role of "Vladimir's third son", one should not confine oneself only to Boris (who, after all, apparently, was meant by Titmar) and Bryachislav of Polotsk. Hypothetically, they could have been other sons of Vladimir. Of course, the likelihood that Titmaru could have known about the existence of Mstislav (due to his remoteness from the place of events) and Sudislav (due to his, it seems, indisputable inertia as a politician) is negligible. However, he could well have known about the existence of Vsevolod and Pozvizd (since their destinies were the most western in the Russian state and, thus, the closest to other European states), Svyatoslav (for the same reason, and also taking into account his possible connections with Hungary). The question with Gleb is also unclear: he, like Boris, is traditionally considered to be a completely incapable politician; however, there is some circumstantial evidence that this is not true - as in the case of Boris. More on this will be said in its place.
NOTES:
Complete collection of Russian chronicles. Vol. 1: Laurentian Chronicle. M., 1997. Stb. 148-149.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. M., 2005.S. 81.
Umbrashko K.B. M.P. Pogodin. Human. Historian. Publicist. M., 1999.S. 125-126.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. C.30.
For more details see: A.Yu. Karpov. Yaroslav the Wise. C.30-31.
In the same place. P.15.
Mstislav is mentioned in the "Polish history" of the 15th century Polish chronicler Jan Dlugosh (see: NI Schaveleva Ancient Russia in the "Polish history" by Jan Dlugosh. M., 2004).
The fact that Maria-Dobronega was Anna's daughter is reported by Jan Dlugosh.
Pope A. Feofana Novgorodskaya / Novgorod historical collection. Issue 6 (16). SPb., 1997.S. 102-120.
For more details see: A.Yu. Karpov. Yaroslav the Wise. C.15-16; A.A. Shakhmatov Investigations about the most ancient Russian annalistic vaults. SPb., 1908. S. 136; The Tale of Bygone Years / Preparation of the text, translation, articles and comments by D.S. Likhachev. Ed. V.P. Adrianova-Peretz. Ed. 2nd. Prep. M.B. Sverdlov. SPb., 1996.S. 451 (commentary by D.S. Likhachev).
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.16.
In the same place. P. 15, 30; Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1. Stb.80, 121. The second Mstislav is omitted by the Academic and Ipatiev lists of the Tale of Bygone Years (ibid. Stb.80, note 21; ibid. T. 2. Stb. 67, note 22). At the same time, Stanislav is named instead of the second Mstislav in the 980 article of the Sophia First, Novgorod Fourth and other chronicles, as well as in a postscript to the corresponding text of the Ipatiev list of the Tale of Bygone Years.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.14.
In the same place. P.13.
In the same place. P.29.
For more details on the reasons for the "isolation" of Izyaslav, see: Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1.Stb. 300-301.
Tatishchev V.N. Russian history / Tatishchev V.N. Collected Works. M., 1994.T. 2.P.70. T. 4.S. 142.
Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1. Stb. 121.
Rydzevskaya E.A. Ancient Russia and Scandinavia in the 9-14 centuries / The most ancient states on the territory of the USSR. Materials and research 1978. M., 1978. P.63. T.N. Jackson (see: Jackson T.N. Icelandic royal sagas about Eastern Europe (from ancient times to 1000). M., 1993. P.210-211).
Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1.Stb. 151.
In the same place. Stb. 78.
For more details on the dating of this marriage, see: A.B. Golovko. Ancient Russia and Poland in political relations in the 10th - first third of the 13th century. Kiev, 1988. S. 21; A.V. Nazarenko German Latin-language sources 9-11 centuries. M., 1993.S. 169.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. Ed. E.A. Melnikova. M., 2003.S. 325.
In the same place. S.318-319.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. C.75.
In the same place. P.76.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. C.319.
In the same place. P.322; Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.70.
In the same place. P.81.
In the same place. P.68.
Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1. Stb. 130.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.89.
In the same place. P.88.
Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1. Stb. 132.
In the same place. Stb. 140.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.97.
In the same place. S.91-94.
Of the researchers known to us, perhaps only N.I. Kostomarov and N.M. Karamzin somehow relate to the question of "concealing" the death of Vladimir. N.I. Kostomarov writes that after the death of Vladimir, the boyars, who favored Boris, hid the death of the prince for three days in the hope of an early return of Boris, however, without waiting for him, they were forced to bury Vladimir (Russian history in the biography of its main figures. M., 1990 . In 3 volumes. Reprint edition of the edition of 1873-1888. T. 1. "Grand Duke Yaroslav Vladimirovich." P.11). However, on what sources such conclusions of the historian were based (in particular, the indication is for a three-day period), the author does not know. N.M. Karamzin also writes about the fact that the boyars concealed the death of Vladimir for some time while waiting for Boris (History of the Russian State. Vol. I-IV. Kaluga, 1993. P.112-113).
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. S.537-538, approx. 9. See also: Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1. Stb. 249. By the way, the sources contain another date of Boris's death - August 12. On this see: Sergius (Spassky), Archbishop. Full months of words of the East. T. 2. Holy East. Part 1. M., 1997. S. 244 (with reference to the calendar of the Cyril-Belozersky monastery, No. 493, XVII century).
See the following sources: "The Tale of Bygone Years" (with regard to the murders of Boris and Gleb) - Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1. Stb. 132-140; Library of Literature of Ancient Rus. T. 1: XI-XII centuries. SPb., 1997. S. 173-185; "The Legend of Boris and Gleb" - Library of Literature of Ancient Russia. T. 1.P. 328-351 (translation by L.A. Dmitriev); "Reading about Boris and Gleb" - Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. S.71-73, 90-112, 204, 396-400. See also: Abramovich D.I. Lives of the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb and services to them. Petrograd, 1916.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.90.
In the same place. P.73.
In the same place. S.93-94.
In the same place. P.94.
In the same place. P.95.
In the same place. P.97.
This is already the data of the late Tver Chronicle (Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 15. Iss. 2. P.128).
For more details see: A.A. Shakhmatov. Investigations about the most ancient Russian annalistic vaults; Priselkov M.D. Essays on the church-political history of Kievan Rus X-XII centuries. SPb., 1913; Mueller L. On the time of the canonization of Saints Boris and Gleb / Russia Mediaevalis. T. VIII. 1. 1995; Poppé A. About the time of the birth of the cult of Boris and Gleb / Russia Mediaevalis. T. I. 1973; he is. About the origin of the cult of Saints Boris and Gleb and about the works dedicated to them / Ibid. T. VIII. 1. 1995; Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Russian Glebo-Borisov encolpions 1072-1150 / Old Russian art. Artistic culture of pre-Mongol Russia. M., 1972; P.V. Golubovsky Service to the holy martyrs Boris and Gleb in the Ivanicheskaya Minea 1547-1579 / Readings in the Historical Society of Nestor the Chronicler. Book. 14. Issue. 3. Department 2. Kiev, 1900; Seryogina N.S. Chants to Russian saints. Based on materials from a handwritten singing book of the 11th-19th centuries. "Monthly sticherar". SPb., 1994; Bilenkin V. "Reading" of the Monk Nestor as a monument to the "Gleboboris" cult / Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature. T. 47. SPb., 1993; Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise.
Library of Literature of Ancient Rus. T. 1.S. 221; Complete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 1. Stb. 181-182; Abramovich D.I. Lives of the Holy Martyrs ... P.56.
In the same place. S.396-397.
In the same place. S.538, approx. fourteen.
Pope A. About the time of the birth of the cult of Boris and Gleb. P.20; he is. About the origin of the cult of Saints Boris and Gleb ... P.51.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. S.538, approx. fourteen.
Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Russian Glebo-Borisov Encolpions ... p.104-125.
Rogov A.I. Legends about the beginning of the Czech state in ancient Russian writing. M., 1970.S. 14.
Bilenkin V. "Reading" of the Monk Nestor ... P.54-64.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. S.537, approx. nine.
Poppé A. About the origin of the cult of Saints Boris and Gleb ... C.30-31, approx. eleven.
Abramovich D.I. Lives of the Holy Martyrs ... P.200.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. C.313, 317.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.135.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. C.308, 311.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. S. 135-136.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. C.313-314.
The full text of the "Russian fragment" of Bruno's message to Henry II, translated by A.V. Nazarenko see: ibid. S.314-315. (Actually, the entire chapter "Western European Sources" of this book was written by A.V. Nazarenko).
In the same place. P.316; Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. S. 121-122.
See p.8 of this study, as well as: A.Yu. Karpov. Yaroslav the Wise. P. 122; Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. C.316.
See note. 46.
Danilevsky I.N. Ancient Russia through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (IX-XII centuries). M., 1998.S. 347.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P. 122.
Library of Literature of Ancient Rus. T. 1.C.335.
"The Tale of Bygone Years" and "The Legend of the Saints" respectively (ibid. P. 177, 335).
In the same place. P. 335.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.96 and 538, approx. nine; Selected Lives of Russian Saints. X-XV centuries. M., 1992. S. 52-53.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. Pp. 96, 105, 161-162, 336. See also: The Lay of the Monk Moses Ugrin (Abramovich DI Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. Kiev, 1931).
See approx. 52.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.398.
Pope A. About the time of the birth of the cult of Boris and Gleb. C.6-29; he is. About the origin of the cult of Saints Boris and Gleb ... P.21-68.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.398.
In the same place. P.475, approx. ten; Droblenkova N.F. Life of Ephraim of Novotorzhsky / Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Russia. Issue 1: XI - first half of the XIV century. L., 1982. S. 148-150; Klyuchevsky V.O. Old Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source. M., 1988. S. 335-336.
See for example: N.V. Yeniosova, T.G. Mitoyan, T.G. Saracheva. Silver in the metalworking of South Russia in the 9th-11th centuries / Old-time I rate of i words "yanski grad VIII-X centuries. Kiev., 2004; Gushchin A.S. Monuments of the artistic craft of Ancient Russia X-XIII centuries. L., 1936.
Danilevsky I.N. Ancient Russia through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants. P.343.
See note 76. This refers to The Strand of Eimund Hringsson.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. S.102-103.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. C.317-318.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.476, note 20.
In the same place. Pp. 139, 141; Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. C.271.
In the same place. Pp. 323, 328.
In the same place. P.323.
For the full text of chapters VII, 72-74 of the Chronicle see: ibid. S. 318-319.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. Pp. 142, 145, 151, 152.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. P.328. In the same place, see the full description of the campaign of 1018 in the Chronicle (chapters VIII, 31-33; p. 327-329).
In the same place. P.273; Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.145.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. P.320; A.V. Nazarenko German Latin-language sources. P.141.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. P.319.
In the same place. P.273.
In particular, I.N. Danilevsky: “Svyatopolk managed to escape from the dungeon only some time after the death of Vladimir, when the possessions of the deceased prince had already been divided between two senior heirs (whom the researcher means by“ senior heirs ”is unknown. - S.E.) ". Thus, for Svyatopolk, “the possibility of an insidious seizure of the Kiev throne and the brutal murder of brothers” is excluded (Ancient Russia through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants. P.342-343). However, as rightly noted by A.Yu. Karpov (Yaroslav the Wise. P. 476, note 18), such a conclusion does not follow from the text of the source.
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. C.324.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.102.
A.V. Nazarenko On the dating of the Lyubech battle / Chronicle and chronicle. 1984 M., 1984. S. 13-19; he is. German Latin-language sources. S. 174-176. According to A.Yu. Karpov, A.V. Nazarenko specially investigated the question of the correlation between Titmar's data and Russian sources and came to a well-grounded conclusion that they do not contradict each other (Yaroslav the Wise. P.476, note 19).
Ancient Russia in the light of foreign sources. S.323-324.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.476, approx. twenty.
See page 6 of this study.
Karpov A.Yu. Yaroslav the Wise. P.190.
In the same place. P.476, note 20.
In the same place. P.190-191. Scandinavian source, investigated by A.Yu. Karpov - "Strand about Eimund Hringsson".
© All rights reserved
Under Vladimir, the state was united, united under the leadership of an Orthodox ruler. Vladimir had 12 sons in principalities in different cities. After his death in 1015, a bloody strife began. The son of Vladimir Svyatopolk (later nicknamed the Damned for his crimes), having married the daughter of the Polish king Boleslav the brave and counting on his support, declared himself the great Kiev prince (1015-1016; 1017-1019). The PVL says that he killed his brothers Boris (whom Vladimir and the top authorities wanted to see as successor) and Gleb. (And Svyatoslav).
However, his brother Yaroslav, who was in Novgorod the governor of the Grand Duke of Kiev, gathered a large army from the Novgorodians and the Varangians they had called to help, went to Kiev. The first battle (near the town of Lyubech) Svyatopolk, having enlisted the support of the Pechenegs, lost, and fled to the Polish king Boleslav (father-in-law). Yaroslav ruled for a year in Kiev. But in the next 1017 Svyatopolk with the Polish army (led by Boleslav) wins the second battle (on the banks of the Bug). And without resistance he sat down to reign in Kiev. Then Yaroslav fled to Novgorod, but the Novgorodians, together with the mayor Konstantin, the son of Dobrynya, persuaded the prince to go to Svyatopolk again. Novgorodians collected money for the war and in 1019 Yaroslav again goes to his brother, who by this time, due to a quarrel, had expelled Boleslav from Kiev. Svyatopolk, again enlisting the support of the Pechenegs, is defeated, flees to Poland, but dies of wounds somewhere in the Carpathian region. And Yaroslav takes the Kiev grand throne in 1019.
Although already at this time there was disunity among the brothers, Yaroslav tried to consolidate his power. He sent the boyars loyal to him to different cities and lands of the state, which demanded complete submission to Kiev. Those who disobeyed were severely punished (like, for example, brother Sudislav). Under Yaroslav the Wise, Kievan Rus reached its highest prosperity: cities were fortified, fortresses were built, Kiev was decorated, marriages of princely children with noble families of foreign countries were concluded.
18. The reign of Yaroslav the Wise.
Yaroslav the Wise (978-1054) is the son of the Kiev prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich and the Polotsk princess Rogneda. After the death of St. Vladimir (1015), the Russian land was fragmented according to the number of his sons. The brothers, fighting over inheritance, exterminated each other. His eldest son Svyatopolk (nicknamed the "Damned" for his crimes) killed his brothers Boris, Gleb and Svyatoslav and "the beginning of princes in Kiev." However, his brother Yaroslav, who was in Novgorod the governor of the Grand Duke of Kiev, gathered a large army from the Novgorodians and the Varangians they had called to help, defeated Svyatopolk (who was helped by the Poles) and took the Kiev Grand Duke throne in 1019.
Yaroslav undertook a number of military expeditions against neighboring lands and peoples. In 1030 he made a successful trip to the land of the Baltic "Chud" and built the city of Yuryev to the west of Lake Peipsi. He also made trips to the land of Lithuania and the land of Mazovia. In 1043, the last Russian campaign to Byzantium took place: Yaroslav sent his son Vladimir with a large army "to the Greeks", but the campaign ended in complete failure.
But the struggle of Yaroslav with the Pechenegs ended in complete success, whom he inflicted a decisive defeat in the battle near Kiev in 1036. Then Yaroslav creates a solid defense of Russia against the steppe nomads by building fortifications and colonizing the steppe outskirts. The reign of Yaroslav is the era of prosperity of Kievan Rus, its political unity and power. By his deeds, this prince earned the nickname Wise among his descendants.
In his internal politics, Yaroslav was a tireless builder of Russia. He contributed to the spread and consolidation of Christianity across the vast borders of his state. Grandiose work begins at that time. Calling the masters from Byzantium, Yaroslav built churches - one of the most famous is St. Sophia Cathedral - the residence of the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia. In 1054, the first metropolitan not from the Greeks, but from the Russians, Hilarion, stood at the head of the church, who created the church-political treatise "The Word of Law and Grace." The first Russian monasteries emerged, including the Kiev-Pechersk monasteries, which played an important role in the development of Russian book-writing and chronicle writing.
It was during the reign of Yaroslav that translation and book writing activities began to develop intensively. Yaroslav was very fond of books. He multiplied the number of books in Russia and gradually introduced them into use. Since that time, book wisdom has become firmly established among Russians. Children were gathered all over the land and taught to read and write.
The internal activities of Yaroslav were also aimed at strengthening and decorating the capital city of Kiev. In the first half of the 11th century, Kiev, a growing trade, craft, administrative and cultural center of Russia, expanded again. Yaroslav surrounded the significantly increased territory of Kiev with a new line of fortifications and built the Golden Gate. Kiev at this time was in lively trade and diplomatic relations not only with Byzantium, but also with other European countries.
Yaroslav's time was a time of internal stabilization, which contributed to the growth of the international authority of Russia, as evidenced by the fact that his daughters became queens: Anna - French, Elizabeth - Norwegian, and then Danish, Anastasia - Hungarian. Yaroslav himself was married to the daughter of the Swedish king Ingigerde.
Under Yaroslav the Wise, the recording of the norms of Russian law began, which later formed a legal collection known as "Russian Truth".
What else to read
THE LAST NOTES
- Volga Bulgaria: the rise and fall of the empire The territory of Bulgaria
- What did the officers of the tsarist secret police do?
- Gagauz: origin and music
- Coursework: History of the Development of Bibliography as a Science Foreign Historical Bibliography
- Principality of Kiev: geographical location and characteristics of government