Man in the literature of ancient Rus'. Prince and people in Kievan Rus

Today, the word "people" is nothing more than a simple designation for the concept of "man" in the plural. However, once "people" in the singular had the form "people". And not every person was considered a “human”.

rope

Until the XIV century, the word "peasant" in the sense in which it is familiar to us now, was not in the Russian language. The first mention of a peasant as a farmer appears in chronicles dating back to the 1390s.

Most of the population of ancient Rus' were "people" (or "people"). So until the XIII century they called free citizens, mainly farmers, who were not in the service of the prince, but were obliged to pay taxes to him.

People formed communities - ropes. Philologist E.F. Karsky identified the word “verv” with “rope”, that is, a verv is a certain territory marked (limited) by a rope. The fact is that at that time ropes of a certain length were actually used to measure the distance. Yes, and the community really had its own site with clear boundaries of the area.

At first, the Vervi people were blood relatives, that is, members of the same family. But gradually, people began to be united not by kinship, but only by close proximity. This is also mentioned in an ancient collection of legal norms called "Russian Truth".

This fact was also noted by the professor of history O.F. Miller. He wrote that the rope was divided into houses, plows, taxes, and so on, which, according to the scientist, does not indicate family relations between members of the community, but the role, the feasible participation of one or another person in the life of the rope.

Mutual responsibility

According to Russkaya Pravda, all members of the vervi were bound by collective responsibility. So if a dead person was found within the borders of the vervi, then the community was obliged to incur a monetary punishment - viru. In other words, the people of this vervi paid a certain amount to the family of the victim. Or if the traces of the escaping thief led to the community, then the people had to independently find the criminal in their ranks or pay the prince a fine.

Position in society

Above the people on the social ladder were other free citizens - "princely men". Their superiority is especially noticeable in the same Russkaya Pravda. For example, for the murder of a lyudin, the usual vira was relied upon, and for the murder of the prince's husband, it was already double.

The princely power and the masses in Kievan Rus is a problem that remains insufficiently studied in historical science. This situation in historiography is explained by the fact that historians (both pre-revolutionary and Soviet) more often turned to social ties within the ruling class, focusing on inter-princely relations, as well as on the relations of princes with the retinue, boyars and clergy. And if this problem was nevertheless considered, it was mainly in terms of the activities of the veche. Meanwhile, the written monuments of Kievan Rus reveal to the researcher a richer spectrum of relations between the princes and the people, denoted in the sources by the term “people”, “people”. However, it should be noted that in the Old Russian language this term was complex, polysemic. That is why it is necessary to say special about it. Let's start with some historical background.

The term "people" has been in the field of view of scientists for a long time. There are various interpretations in the literature. According to N. M. Karamzin, people in ancient Rus' "were called, except for the boyars, in fact, all free citizens" 1 . According to M.P. Pogodin, people are the second (after the boyars) estate, brought to Russian soil by the Normans and soon disappeared once and for all 2. For V. Dyachan, the word “people” had a more capacious meaning, meaning “the entire population, the entire volost, just like the expression “kiyans”, “polochan”, etc.” 3 .

1 Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State. SPb., 1892, v. 2, approx. 67.

2 Pogodin M.P. Research, comments and lectures on Russian history in 7 vols. M., 1846. T. 3, p. 404.

3 D'yachan V. The participation of the people in the supreme power in the Slavic states. Warsaw, 1882, p. 92.

In the concepts of K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, people are the entire zemstvo population, except for the squad and, of course, the princes 4 . A similar view was taken by V. O. Klyuchevsky, who believed that under the name “people” non-serving free elements were hidden - guests, merchants, smerds, purchases, hired workers 5 . In their totality, people represented the “taxable common people”, distinguished by “their attitude towards the prince: as payers of taxes, they treated the prince not as single persons, like service people, but as whole worlds, urban or rural communities, bound by mutual responsibility in paying taxes and worldly responsibility for police order (the wild vira of Russian Pravda)" 6 .

A similar picture was painted by S. F. Platonov. During the "ancient Kievan Rus" people were the bulk of the free population, occupying an intermediate position between the privileged elite and slaves 7 . Gradually, the social structure becomes more complex, and people are divided “into townspeople (merchants and artisans) and villagers, of which free people are called smerds, and dependent people are called purchases” 8 .

According to A. E. Presnyakov, "the word" people "in Ancient Rus' always meant the lower population, the mass subject, as opposed to" husbands "" 9 .

In the works of V. I. Sergeevich and M. A. Dyakonov, people are the name of all free people, regardless of their social status 10 .

The term "people" also attracted the attention of Soviet historians. According to G. E. Kochin, people are the masses, mainly the urban population 11 .

For M.N. Tikhomirov, the word “people” served as the key to understanding the most important socio-political processes that took place in the ancient Russian city. According to M.N. Tikhomirov, “people” are citizens who played a significant role in urban uprisings and veche meetings of the 12th-13th centuries. 12 .

V.V. Mavrodin referred people to the inhabitants of villages and villages of Ancient Rus', who emphasized that the name “people” as an equivalent of the rural population, leaving primitive antiquity, over time it is replaced by the term "smerd" 13.

4 Bestuzhev - Ryumin KN Russian history. SPb., 1872, vol. 1, p. 115, 212.

5 Key to c p and V. O. Soch. M., 1959, v. 6, p. 150.

6 Tam yage, p. 315.

7 Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. SPb., 1907, p. 82-83.

8 Ibid., p. 84.

9 Presnyakov A.E. Lectures on Russian history. M., 1938, v. 1, p. 124.

10 S erg e v p h V. I. Russian legal antiquities. SPb., 1902, vol. 1, p. 174; Dyakonov M.A. Essays on the social and state system of Ancient Rus'. SPb.. 1912, p. 72-74.

11 Kochin G.E. Materials for the terminological dictionary of ancient Russia. M.; L., 1937, p. 177.

12 T them about the world ov M. N. Old Russian cities. M., 1956, p. 219.

S. A. Pokrovsky looked at the “people” more widely. He wrote: "The term" people ", denoting the entire mass of the free population as a whole, corresponds in its meaning to the chronicle expressions" all Kiyans "," Polochans "," Novgorodians ", etc." 14 .

In accordance with the observations of V. T. Pashuto, “the word“ people ”(“ people ”) has two main meanings in the annals: firstly, people in general, outside classes, and secondly, in the class sense of the word with the addition of adjectives“ simple " or “kind”, the latter, as a rule, meant “merchants” 15. V. T. Pashuto believes that in order to establish the specific meaning of the term “people”, it is necessary to carry out a special source study at each mention 16 .

L. V. Cherepnin subjected the word “people” to a special terminological study. He drew for this a variety of sources: annals, Russian Truth, act material. In the earliest news, L. V. Cherepnin believed, the concept of "people" embraced broad sections of the rural and urban population 17 . The author noted that “the preservation of this term for a long time in the meaning of the free population indicates that the process of feudalization that took place in Kievan Rus unequally affected individual rural peasant communities; the inhabitants of many of them, losing their class rights, retained personal freedom” 18 . With the establishment of feudalism in the IX-XI centuries. and the transformation of landownership of the feudal lords into a means of "exploiting the direct producers of material goods, the term" people "acquired the meaning of the feudally dependent peasantry, exploited by the state by collecting tribute or by private feudal lords by attracting corvée or collecting dues" 19. In another work, L. V. Cherepnin introduces some additions and clarifications. He says: “The term“ people ”along with a general, broad meaning, had a narrower meaning: townspeople and even the ordinary mass of townspeople, ordinary people, the trade and craft population of the city,“ black people. Therefore, when encountering this term in the annals, the researcher must each time be very attentive to the question of who is being discussed.

13 M a v r o d i n V. V. Essays on the history of the USSR. ancient Russian state. M., 1956, p. 73, 74.

14 Pokrovsky S. A. The social system of the ancient Russian state. - Proceedings of the All-Union. in absentia legal in-ta. M., 1970, v. 14, p. 61.

15 Pashuto V. T. Features of the political system of ancient Rus', - In the book: Novoseltsev A. P. and others. The Old Russian state and its international significance. M., 1965, p. 12.

16 Ibid.

17 Cherepnin L. V. 1) From the history of the formation of a class of feudally dependent peasantry in Russia. - Historical Notes, 1956, vol. 56, p. 236; 2) Rus'. Controversial issues in the history of feudal land ownership in the IX-XV centuries. - In the book: Novoseltsev A.P. and others. Ways of development of feudalism. M., 1972, p. 168-169.

18 C e r e i n i n L. V. Rus. Controversial issues... p. 169.

19 Cherepnin L. V. 1) From the history of formation ... p. 236; 2) Rus'. Controversial issues... p. 169.

So, scientists, as we see, interpret the term “people” in ancient sources in different ways. It seems to us that its discussion can be continued.

T"The word "people", being common Slavic in origin, is represented in all Slavic languages: Bulgarian (people), Serbo-Croatian (lo^udi), Slovenian (ljudje), Czech (lide), Slovak (ludia), Polish (ludzie), etc. 21 . The original meaning of this word is people 22 . It is in this broad sense that it appears in the chronicle reports on the early history of Rus', contained in the dated and undated parts of the Tale of Bygone Years 28 . .At the same time, in the news that depicted the events of the 10th century, there are examples, though isolated ones, when the boyars and elders of the city do not mix with the rest of the people, forming separate social groups 24 . In these examples, the “people” mentioned along with the boyars and elders are probably simple people, that is, the same bulk of the rural and urban population that L. V. Cherepnin wrote about 25 . It also happened that the chronicler called "people" the closest circle of the prince, which, presumably, included the boyars 26 .

Consequently, in the annalistic texts that tell about the past of the Eastern Slavs and about Rus' from the time of the first Rurikovich, the word “people” covers different concepts: the people in general (minus some princes), the democratic strata of the population and, finally, the “husbands” who surrounded the prince. At the same time, the term “people” in the meaning of “people” was the most common and common, from which we conclude that in Kievan Rus in the 10th century. social differentiation was still weakly expressed 27 .

More than a hundred years have passed and the situation has changed somewhat.

20 Cherepnin L. V. On the question of the nature and form of the Old Russian state of the X - early XIII centuries. - Historical Notes, 1972, v. 80, p. 379.

21 Preobrazhensky A.G. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1959, v. 1, p. 493; Fasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1967, v. 2, p. 545; Sh a n s k p i N. M. et al. Brief etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1971, p. 250.

22 Sh a n s k and N. M. and others. Brief etymological dictionary p. 250

23 PVL, part I, p. 12. 18, 25, 30, 35, 40, 41, 47, 56, 81, etc. - The Novgorod First Chronicle contains similar data. - See: NPL p. 128, 157.

24 PVL, h.I, p. 35, 38-39, 74; NPL, p. 148, 156.

25 Cherepnin L.V. From the history of formation ... p. 236.

26 PVL, part I, p. 39, 41, 54.

27 Characteristic in this regard is the chronicle record of the death of Prince Vladimir, in which the boyars and the "wretched" are equally called "people": n feeder. ”- PVL, part I, s, 89; see also: NPL, p. 169.

In the second half of the XI-XII centuries. chroniclers, as before, often understand by "people" the people as a whole, regardless of social gradation 28 . Sometimes the term "people" refers to the top of society (boyars, merchants) and the princely household 29 . In the rarest cases, op is used to designate dependent 30, but very often - as the name of simple free townspeople and villagers. It can be stated with full confidence that the last meaning of the term in the XII century. was dominant. It is necessary, however, to emphasize one detail: in the annals, "people" from the villages are much less common than "people" - townspeople 31 . The specifics of the chronicle sources, which are concentrated mainly on urban life, are at work here 32 . Fortunately, Russian Truth fills in the gaps in the chronicles. In Art. 19 of the Brief Pravda, which defines the fine for killing a fireman “for offense”, mentions “people” - farmers united in a community-verv 33. The Extensive Truth speaks even more clearly, according to which the rope and "people" are synonyms 34 . We have an eloquent text in Art. 77 of the monument: "... where there is no village, no people, then pay neither sales nor taxes" 35 . It is curious that the Long Truth contrasts the "man" with the "prince's husband" 36 .

28 PVL, h.I, p. 153, 167; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 289, 405, 407; vol. II, stb. 263, 264, 268, 274, 289, 339, 372.

29 PVL, part I, p. 141; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 501; vol. I, stb. 877.

30 We know the only fact relating to the XII century (the second similar dated back to the last quarter of the XIII century and appears in the spiritual of Prince Vladimir Vasilkovich), when "people" act as dependents. According to the charter granted by Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich, the Yuryev Monastery received the “Terpuzhsky churchyard of Lyakhovichi with land, and with people, and with horses ...” (GVNP, No. 80, p. 139). Here “people” are serfs-slaves (see: Agrarian history of the North-West of Russia. The second half of the 15th - the beginning of the 16th century, L., 1971, p. 67; Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-economic history. L., 1974, pp. 10-11). Since the serfs of Ancient Rus' came from among local residents, that is, “people” (Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus ... p. 110, 113), they could easily learn their name. But in Kievan Rus such terminological extrapolation was not typical. And only later, in the era of Muscovite Rus', did it become the norm.

31 Chronicles are filled with reports about "people" - townspeople. - PVL, part I, p. 116, 120, 133, 145, 147, 150, 171, 172, 177, 180; PSRL, vol. I, st. 298, 301, 303 305-306, 313, 317, 320, 338, 387, 402, 417, 429, 432, 434, 499-500; vol. II, stb. 276, 287, 292, 307, 317, 352, 410, 414, 433, 456, 487, 493, 510, 561, 605, 648; NPL, p. 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 43, etc.

32 Nevertheless, “people” also act in chronicle stories - villagers (PSRL, vol. I, st. 349, 358, 361, 363, 388; vol. II, st. 506, 556, G60, 562). Let us add to this that chronicle texts do not always allow us to divide “people” into urban and rural ones. This especially applies to news of the military destruction of cities, the beating and captivity of "people." After all, with the impending danger, the inhabitants of the surrounding villages fled to the city to hide behind its walls. So, the Ipatiev Chronicle, telling about the military operations of 1150 near Pereyaslavl, testified: “... people who fled to the city, who dare not let cattle out of the city” (PSRL, vol. II, stb. 404; see also vol. I, page 328; vol. II, page 358).

33 PR, vol. I, p. 71.

34 Ibid., p. 104-105.

The semantic connection of the word "people" with the predominantly democratic circles of the population of Ancient Rus' at the end of the 11th-12th centuries. indicates a deepening, in comparison with the previous period, of the social delimitation of the nobility and the lower classes of a free society. However, a complete break between the ruling elite and the people has not yet occurred, because the formation of classes in Rus' in the XI-XII centuries. not finished yet. This was precisely the root cause of the polysemy of the term "people". But since property stratification took place, and society was already ranked, i.e. divided into social groups that differ in position in the socio-political structure with the ensuing difference in rights and obligations, then in the sources to designate the democratic stratum of the population and the nobility along with a single, as we know, expression "people", phrases are used: "ordinary people" 37, "black people" 38, "highest people" 39, "kind people" 40, "first people" 41 etc. X / Thus, the word "people" in Kievan Rus in the second half of the XI-XII centuries. retains its ambiguity: people (ethnos or population in the broad sense of the word), common people (demos), social elite (boyars, merchants, princely entourage) 42 . The main meaning of the term “people”, “people” still breaks through this semantic diversity - the mass of the ordinary free population, both urban and rural. What role did it play in the socio-political life of Rus' in the 10th-12th centuries? How was her relationship with the nobility, primarily with the princes, built? Here are the questions to be answered.

In 944, the Russian ambassadors who arrived in Constantinople concluded an agreement on behalf of “Igor, the Grand Duke of Russia, and from every prince and from all the people of the Russian land” 43 . Having sealed the agreement with an oath, the Greeks sent their ambassadors to Kyiv "to the Grand Duke of Russia Igor and to his people" 44 . There they "led to the company" Igor and his people, "the most filthy Rus', and they led the Christian Rus' to the company in the church of St. Elijah" 45 . ID Belyaev, referring to the treaties of Rus' with the Greeks, including the treaty of 944, noted that in their conclusion "zemshchina took an active part" 46 .

35 Ibid., p. FROM.

36 Ibid., p. 104.

37 PVL, part I. s. 142; PSRL, vol. II, stb. 867, 870 897

38 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 641; NPL, p. 81.

39 NPL, s, 44, 81.

40 Ibid., p. 71.

41 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 495.

42 "People" in the 12th century, in addition, occasionally called slaves and princely servants.

43 PVL, part I, p. 35.

44 Ibid., p. 38.

45 Ibid., p. 39.

V. I. Sergeevich saw in the above excerpts evidence of official documents of the 10th century. on the participation of the people "in the public affairs of that time" 47 . He wrote: “The chronicler says that all the baptized and all the unbaptized took the oath; this means that “Igor’s people” should be understood as the entire actual population of Kiev, and not any close group of people dependent on Igor. 48 people of the Russian land "saw the transmission of the Greek jtavtcov tcov pa>g 49 . A. E. Presnyakov also doubted that the entire population of Kyiv swore allegiance to the Byzantine "slams", as V. I. Sergeevich believed 50 . V. I. Sergeevich's arguments were rejected by another prominent researcher of Kievan Rus, B. D. Grekov 51 . For the latest historian V. T. Pashuto, the involvement of “people” in the conclusion of the treaty of 944 seems completely improbable 52 .

In the judgments of V. I. Sergeevich, in our opinion, there is a rational grain. The critic of the author of "Legal antiquities" A. E. Presnyakov passed by the very expressive text he quoted. “The words and the guest” from Russia said to the Greeks: “And our great prince Igor, and the princes and his boyars, and the people of all Rustians sent us to Roman, and Kostyantin and Stephen, to the great king of Greece, make love with the kings themselves, with with all the nobles and with all the Greek people for the whole summer, don’t take the sun and the weight of the world cost ”53. One cannot ignore the statement of the Russian "diplomats" themselves that they were sent not only by Igor, princes and boyars, but also by "people" 54 . It is understandable, because the conclusion of an agreement with Byzantium was not indifferent to the people. The resumption of the "old world" is the result of previous events, in particular the grandiose campaign against Constantinople, in which numerous soldiers from the glades, Slovenes, Krivichi, and Tivertsy participated.

46 Belyaev I. D. Stories from Russian history. M., 1865, book. 1, p. 53.

47 Sergeevich V. I. Russian legal antiquities. SPb., 1900, vol. 2. p. 33. - A. V. Longpnov argued in a similar way. - See: Longinov A.V. Peace treaties between Russians and Greeks concluded in the 10th century. Odessa, 1904, p. 64-65, 71.

48 Sergeevich V.I. Russian legal antiquities, v.2, p.34.

49 Presnyakov A. E. 1) Princely law in Ancient Rus'. SPb., 1909, p. 159, note; 2) Lectures on Russian history, vol. 1, p. 74. 50 Presnyakov A.E. Prince's right ... p. 159, approx.

51 Greek B. D. Kievan Rus. M., 1953, p. 365.

52 Pat that about V. T. Features of the political system of Ancient Russia. - In the book: Novoseltsev A. P. and others. The Old Russian state and its international significance, p. 50-51.

53 PVL, part I, p. 35.

54 According to B. D. Grekov, “people of all Rustians” play “the same role as “all Greek people”, but here, as well as there, the veche is not meant. - See: Grekov B. D. Kievskaya Rus, p. Old Russian orders on Byzantine soil.

The fate of the campaign, its success, did not depend on the prince's squad, but on the people's militia - howls, according to the terminology of the Tale of Bygone Years. The people went to war, of course, not under pressure, but of their own free will and, of course, not in order to stand up for the interests of princes and boyars to the detriment of their own benefit. The opportunity to plunder and take tribute - that's what inspired the "people" when they were going to war with the Greeks. But this time Rus' did not reach the Byzantine capital. Halfway through, she was met by imperial ambassadors who offered peace and tribute. Igor "take gold and curtains from the Greek and for the whole howl(our italics.- I. F.), and turn back, and come to Kyiv in your own way” 55 . It was a one-time payment that stopped the campaign 56 . The establishment of a lasting peace involved the periodic payment of tribute, which also attracted "people", which is confirmed by chronicle data. "Don't go, but take tribute, Oleg had to go further, I'll give it to that tribute," the "radiant boyars" said on behalf of the emperor 57 . Oleg, as you know, ordered the Greeks "to give structures to Russian cities: the first to Kiev, the same to Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Pol-Tesk, Rostov, Lyubech and other cities" 58 . Consequently, the cities received a "lesson" from the tribute 59 . Somewhere in the 30s of the X century. Byzantium annulled the terms of the treaties of 907 and 911, which forced Rus' to take up arms again 60 . Ultimately, the empire began to "pay tribute" again. It is no coincidence that the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal says: “Ide to take revenge on Igor Grekom. But they are paying tribute and humble themselves and send us an ambassador to strengthen the world until the end” 61 . Part of the tribute, as before, probably went to the cities, that is, to the zemstvo. This is how we understand the text of the chronicle, which tells about the willingness of the emperor to pay tribute, . "southern imal Oleg" 62 . But since this tribute provided for deductions received by the cities for public expenses, not only the nobility, but also the “people” - the ancient Russian demos, were interested in it. That is why there is nothing incredible in the fact that the embassy to Constantinople was sent both from the princely-boyar elite, and from the democratic strata of Kyiv and, probably, other cities.

55 PVL, part I, p. 34.

56 Later, Svyatoslav took a similar tribute with his howls: “And the date for him (Svyatoslav.- I. F.) tribute; to imash also for the dead, saying like “Take his generation.” - PVL, part I, p. 51. all warriors, "according to the number of heads."

57 PVL, part I, p. 34. 68 Ibid., p. 24.

59 Pashuto V. T. Features of the political system ... p. 36-37.- The fact that the cities owned the right to a share of tributes is evidenced by the chronicle of the massacre of the Drevlyans by Princess Olga, who avenged the murder of her husband Igor. Having punished the Drevlyans, Olga “laid” on them “a heavy tribute; 2 parts of the tribute goes to Kyiv, and the third part to Vyshegorod to Olza; be bo Vyshegorod grad Volzin. - PVL, part I, p. 43.- Such a distribution becomes understandable if we take into account that in order to suppress the rebellious Drevlyans, the princess “gathered a lot and are brave” (Ibid., p. maybe warriors from Vyshgorod.

60 Grekov B. D. The struggle of Rus' for the creation of its state. M.; L., 1945, p. 62-63; Levchenko M. V. Essays on the history of Russian-Byzantine relations. M., 1956, p. 137-138; History of Byzantium. M., 1967, v. 2. p. 231.

61 LPS. M., 1851, p. 10.

In the annalistic legends about Princess Olga, the participation of the people in political affairs was reflected. When the Drevlyans offered Olga the hand and heart of their prince Mal, she said: “Yes, if you ask me for the right, then send your husband deliberately, but in great honor I will come for your prince, food will not let me go to the people of Kiev” 63. The source before us is, of course, complex. As A. A. Shakhmatov showed, the stories about Olga's revenge entered the annals much later than the incidents depicted there 64 . Nevertheless, in these stories one can hear an echo of a certain dependence of princely power on the people 65 .

A visibly popular initiative, enticing the prince, appears in the descriptions of the Drevlyansk camp hostile to Olga. None other than the people planned to kill the Kyiv prince Igor. Having finished with him, the Drevlyans (i.e., the people) decide to marry Mal to the widowed Olga and send matchmakers to Kyiv - “the best husbands”.

62 Other facts testify to the regularity of tributary payments coming from Byzantium to Rus', and the interest of "people" (ordinary people) in them. The chronicler, for example, recalls the following words of Prince Svyatoslav addressed to the retinue: “... let us open peace with the king, we are here in tribute, and then be pleased with us. Is it better not to administer the tribute, but again from Rus', having combined the howl of the multitude, let's go to Tsaryugorod. ”- PVL,h.I, p. 51.- It is natural to assume that the "multiple wars", these representatives of the Zemstvo, along with the prince and his retinue, were offended by the violation of the tributary obligations of the "tsar", and therefore they were full of determination with an armed hand to achieve their renewal. The constancy with which the Greeks had to pay tribute to Rus' is reported by the Nikon Chronicle, the information of which, if not dating back to ancient records, then, in any case, is consistent with them: “... having come from the Greek Tsar to Yaropolk, and having taken peace and love with him, and owe him tribute, as to his father and his grandfather. - PSRL, vol. IX-X. M., 1965, p. 39.

63 PVL, part I, p. 41.

64 Shakhmatov A. A. Research on the most ancient Russian annals. SPb., 1908, p. 109-110.

65 Noteworthy in this regard is the expression: "... do not let me in, the people of Kiev." Therefore, I. I. Lyapushkin is hardly right, who believed that in the fight against the Drevlyans, “the measures of the Kiev side are determined by princes Igor and Olga” (Lyapushkin I. I. Slavs of Eastern Europe on the eve of the formation of the Old Russian state. L., 1968, p. 169 ). Without a large army, consisting of numerous warriors (people's militia), the Kyiv rulers would not have been able to subdue the Drevlyans. It is a mistake, however, to think that these howls slavishly obeyed the Kievan princes. They are an independent military and political force that the local princes had to reckon with.

The latter, having reached the city and standing in front of Olga, begin their speech with a significant phrase: "The land of Derevsk was sent" 66 . It is impossible, of course, to identify the structure of relations with the princes among the Iolyans and the Drevlyans. Apparently, patriarchal mores were more clearly manifested in the Drevlyansk land 67 . But even in Kyiv, the prince had relative power, limited by the people.

Under 980, the Tale of Bygone Years tells how Vladimir, having gathered a huge army, went to his brother Yaropolk, who reigned in Kyiv. Yaropolk could not "stand against and shut Kyiv with his people and with Fornication" 68 . Vladimir managed to persuade Blud, the governor of Yaropolk, to treason. And Fornication began to tell the prince with “flattery”: “The Kiyans flock to Volodimer, saying:“ Proceed to the city, as if you would betray Yaropolk. Frightened Yaropolk "ran", and Vladimir victoriously "entered" Kiev. From this it is clear that the strength of the position of the Kiev prince depended to a large extent on the disposition of the city masses towards him. if he won the favor of the townspeople, as happened to Mstislav, who

66 PVL, part I, p. 40. - I. I. Lyaputksh correctly noted that in all these events the people set the tone (Lyapushkin I. I. Slavs of Eastern Europe ... p. 169). V. T. Pashuto objected to I. I. Lyapushkin. The course of his reasoning is as follows: “The Drevlyans have their own social structure: princely power (moreover, an old one:“ the princes “spread” the earth - this takes time), “the best men” ... and, finally, the people. The people do not act directly, but through the "best men": them, "20 in number". the Drevlyans send ambassadors to Olga, and they say to her: "We have been sent by the Derevsky land"; and it is not the people who utter words at all, from which it breathes patriarchy, namely "the best men". And the Drevlyans did not move in a crowd to the second embassy, ​​but “chosen the radiant men, like the motherland of the Derevsk land”, below the Drevlyans call these men the “druzhina”. When Olga goes to war against the Drevlyans, they meet her with a "regiment"; having lost the battle, the Drevlyans defend themselves in Iskorosten, where courtyards, kletp, vezhs, ordrins are mentioned. Here, too, it is not democracy that reigns, but there are "elders" ... "(Pash at VT about V. T. Chronicle tradition about “tribal reigns” and the Varangian question.-In the book: Chronicles and Chronicles, 1973. M.. 1974, p. 106). The arguments of V. T. Pashuto produce at least a strange impression. Following the logic of the author, one can talk about the rule of the people among the Drevlyans only if they went everywhere in crowds, lived without princes, best husbands, elders, otherwise they were in some kind of herd state. It is difficult to understand what arguments for refuting the idea of ​​a democratic structure of the Drevlyane society V. T. Pashuto drew from the yards, cages, vezhs and odrins mentioned in the annals. V. T. Pasha, it seems to us, does not distinguish between two essential points: the presence of a ruling group and the usurpation of power. There is no human society that would do without leaders. And the fact that they exist does not mean that the people have no rights. It is necessary to show whether the people are removed from power or endowed with it. And here the information of the chronicle is very important that the Drevlyans (the people) gather for a thought with their prince Mal and decide to deal with Igor, and then they elect the “best husbands” and send them to Olga in Kiev. Consequently, the people act with full consciousness of their own rights, without looking back at the nobility.

67 Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus, p. 365.

68 PVL, part I, p. 51

69 Ibid., p. 5o.

ryi, in the absence of Yaroslav, who was in Novgorod, wanted to settle in Kyiv, but "did not accept him as a kyyan" 70 . In order to raise their prestige in the eyes of the people and gain a foothold on the princely table, the Rurikovichs distributed gifts to "people" 71 . For example, Svyatopolk “was sitting in Kiev by his father, and called the kyans, and began to give them an estate. They are priimahu, and their hearts are not with him, as their brothers are besha with Boris ”72. Regarding these bounties of Svyatopolk, A.E. Presnyakov wrote: “The desire to find support in the local population, in view of the alleged rivalry of Boris, of course,

70 Ibid., p. 99.

71 See below for prestigious feasts and gifts.

72 PVL, part I, p. 90.-i By "kiyans" here, as in the other cases cited, the chronicler, in our opinion, means a mass of townspeople. There is another point of view, which is held by V. T. Pashuto. Revealing the meaning of the terms “Kyyans”, “Minyans”, “Chernigovtsy”, “Muromtsy”, “Smolnyans”, and others, he claims that “the actions of the ruling layer of the townspeople could be hidden under these terms”. To prove the idea put forward, he refers to the chronicle story about Oleg Svyatoslavich, who, fighting with Izyaslav, the son of Monomakh, “seized Rostov, and Belozerets, and Suzdal and pokov.” According to V. T. Pashuto, “from what follows it is clear that not all the inhabitants he (Oleg - I. F.) he forged, for when he approached Suzdal, he “judged” him, and he, “having pacified the city”, that is, one must think, having planted his supporters in it, but “a row” of his supporters, “they were seized, and others were wasted, and the estate take them away." Of course, we are not talking about smerds and smaller ones, deprived of such a “name”, but about some of the city’s husbands ”(Pashuto V.T. Features of the political system ... p. 26-27). In order to better understand how thorough the conclusions of V. T. Pashuto, let's give a more complete version of the annalistic text. In the Tale of Bygone Years we read that Oleg, "having come to Smolinsk and drink a howl, go to Murom, and then in Murom I was Izyaslav Volodpmerich. It was a message to Izyaslav, like Oleg to go to Murom, Ambassador Izyaslav in Suzdal, and Rostov, and in Belozerka, gathering many. And Oleg sent his message to Izyaslav, saying: "Go to the parish of your father Rostov, and that is the parish of my father ..." And Izyaslav did not listen to the words these, hoping for a lot of howling ... Oleg, however, went to him with a regiment, and let down the wallpaper, and quickly scolded fiercely. And kill Izyaslav, the son of Volodimer, the grandson of Vsevolozh, the month of September on the 6th day, the other howl ran away, hove through the forest, friends to the city. Oleg, however, entered the city ... after accepting the city, seizing Rostov, and Belozersk, and Suzdal and Pokov, and rush to Suzhdal. And having come to the Judge, p the judgment was given to him. Oleg pacified the city, ovs pzima, and other wasted, and their estates were taken away. Go to Rostov, and give him Rostov” (PVL part 1, p. 168). Imposing the logic of V. T. Pashuto on the chronicle story, we find its inconsistency. It is true that Oleg "pokova" not all Suzdal, Rostov and Belozersk residents, but only part of them. But this goes without saying, because Oleg took Murom, and not Suzdal, Rostov and Beloozero. It is not difficult to guess who the "removed" Rostov, Belozersk and Suzdal people were. This is the “howl of many”, called by Izyaslav (“ambassador Izyaslav in the howl of Suzdal, and Rostov, and in Belozerka, and the assembly of many”). Howls then, as we know, called the people's militia. Therefore, the interpretation of the terms "Suzdal", "Rostov", "Belozero" as the "ruling stratum of the townspeople" must be rejected. We note, by the way, that the chronicler, speaking of the liberation of the Rostov and Suzdal people chained by Oleg, calls them “people” (PVL part 1, p. 170). The ease with which Oleg captures Suzdal and Rostov draws attention. The Suzdal and Rostovites turned out to be powerless in front of Oleg (“give it to him”), since their militia was defeated near Murom. The attempt by V. T. Pashuto to deny the “estate” to the mass of townspeople further causes bewilderment.

a sign that the population was taken into account” 73 . But right there, contradicting himself, the researcher notes that in this story “the passivity of the people of Kiev is more likely to strike: they only hesitate, because their brothers are in the ranks of the Borisov wars, but any of their own tendencies that would cause their performance, imperceptibly before the explosion 1068" 74 . It must be admitted: the “kiyans” really waited. However, we will hasten if we take their caution as a manifestation of the general passivity of "people", devoid of any "proper tendencies". The indecision of the people of Kiev before Svyatopolk is understandable. It is the result of the absence of the combat-ready population, who, led by Boris, left to meet the Pechenegs 75 . As for the “own tendencies” of the people of Kiev, there is hardly any need to doubt them; the facts we have already drawn on speak quite eloquently about them. In addition to those mentioned, we will also refer to news related to the reign of Vladimir. In the "Tale of the Initial Spread of Christianity in Rus'", compiled under Yaroslav the Wise and forming the basis of Russian chronicle writing, 76 the people are endowed with a tangible charge of social energy. Prince Vladimir appears against the background of "people", surrounded not only by retinues, but also by the people. Together with "people" he performs pagan sacrifices 77 . In general, in the practice of the pagan cult, the Tale assigns the most active role to the people. The murder of Christian Varangians, doomed to be sacrificed to "idols", is the work of the enraged people of Kiev ("people")", who, by the way, are armed 78 . It is especially important to emphasize the involvement of "people" in the establishment of Christianity in Russia. They are present at a meeting on the choice of religion, cast their vote, elect "good and sensible men" for travel abroad with the aim of "testing" the faith 79 . Previously, the people, on the contrary, opposed (and not unsuccessfully) the introduction of Christianity. It is known, for example, that in 961, at the request of Princess Olga, the German Emperor Otto I sent a mission to Kyiv.

The author turns out that the vast majority of the townspeople were poor. But this is by no means provable. Returning to the "kiyans", we note that the chronicler finds a synonymous replacement for them: "people", "people of the Kievstip", "people" (Ibid., pp. 95, 114, 116). We see this as a clear evidence of the "kyyans" as the masses of the urban population.

73 Presnyakov A. E. Princely law ... p. 199-200.

74 Ibid., p. 200.

75 We emphasize that it was a people's militia - a howl (PVL, part 1, pp. 89, 90).

76 Likhachev D.S. 1) Russian chronicles and their cultural and historical significance. M.; L., 1947, p. 71, 76; 2) Great heritage. M., 1975, p. 67, 69.

77 PVL, part I, p. 58.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid, p. 74.- V. I. Sergeevich wrote on this occasion: “The Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir decides to adopt Christianity only after asking for the advice of his boyars and the elders of the city and having received the consent of all people.”- See: Sergeevich V. I. Lectures and research on the ancient history of Russian law. SPb., 1910, p. 148.

ditch-Catholics led by Adalbert. The angry people with great dishonor expelled the unlucky preachers 80 . V. N. Tatishchev's "History of Russia" tells about Yaropolk Svyatoslavich that he loved Christians, but he himself was not baptized "for the sake of the people" 81 .

So, written monuments, depicting the ancient Russian society of the 10th - early 11th centuries, characterize the ordinary population as an active socio-political force that limits princely power. Second half of the XI-XII centuries. did not make significant changes in the style of relations between the prince and "people". Moreover, we have reason to believe that at that time there was an increase in the socio-political mobility of the people and a certain weakening of the power of the princes.

The unrest in Kyiv in 1068 more than showed what the "people of Kiev" are capable of. The prince and the squad were helpless before them. The "Kyans" drove Izyaslav away, ruined and plundered his "yard", proclaimed the new Prince of Kyiv Vseslav of Polotsk 82 . There is nothing in the behavior of the people of Kiev that would give them away as a chaotic crowd, beating right and left in blind anger. They are an organized mass, discussing the current situation at the veche, and then implementing the veche decision. Events of 1068-1069 in Kyiv they discover a political mechanism set in motion by two main springs: the princely-boyar elite and the people.

The princes were not at all indifferent to popular opinion and appealed to the "people" even on issues of intra-princely life. In 1096, “Svyatopolk and Volodimer sent to Olgovi, saying: “Go to Kiev, let us put order about the Russ of the land before the bishops, and before the abbots, and before our fathers, and before the people of the city, so that they would defend the Russian land from the filthy" 83. Oleg, "having listened to the evil advisers," arrogantly answered: city ​​"hidden the democratic elements of Kiev - it was not for nothing that Oleg likened them to smerds. Secondly, it appears from it that Oleg was invited to the "oldest city" not only for the inter-princely "order" to fight the "nasty", but also to court, where "people of the city", like bishops, abbots and boyars, were intended to be arbitrators. Oleg did not like this prospect. He did not respond to the call of the brothers. However, let's not forget that, according to the chronicler, the behavior of the prince was a deviation from the norm, for he "perceive the meaning buoy and majestic words" 85 .

A year later, in Kyiv, we find "people" in the position of advising the prince. Then tragic events were brewing in the city. On Davyd's slander, Vasilka Terebovskiy was captured. Thus began the prologue to the bloody drama, the culmination of which was the blinding of the innocent prince of Terebovl. Svyatopolk, implicated in an unsightly story with Vasilko, feeling either remorse or fear for what he had done, “called the boyars and kyyans together, and told them, as Davyd told him, that“ He killed your brother (Vasilko - I. F.), but he was shining with Volodimer, and he wants to kill you and take your city. And the boyars and the people decided: “You, prince, deserve to watch your head. Yes, even if there is a right, Davyd said, yes, Vasilko should be executed; Is it wrong to say Davyd, but to receive revenge from God and answer before God?

How freely the "Kyyans" acted in dealing with the princes is evidenced by an episode placed in the Tale of Bygone Years under 1093, when Svyatopolk, Vladimir and Rostislav went to the Polovtsy, who were ruining the Russian lands. Having reached Stugna, the princes hesitated whether to cross the river or stand on the shore, threatening the nomads. And the people of Kiev insisted on what Vladimir Monomakh and the best men tried in vain to dissuade: to be transported through the Stugna. The chronicler reports: “Svyatopolk, and Volodimer and Rostislav, convened their squad for advice, if you want to go across the river, and began to think. And Volodimer said, as if “From here standing across the river, in this thunderstorm, we will make peace with them” (Polovtsy.- I. F.). And I will adhere to the advice of this understanding, men, Yan and others. Kiyan did not want this advice, but rekosha: “We want to beat you; Let's go to the other side of the river." And you will fall in love, and cross the Stugna River. Who are the “kiyans”, it turns out from the subsequent story about how the Polovtsy “first put on Svyatopolk, and broke his regiment. Svyatopolk, however, stood strong, and ran away from the people, not enduring military opposition, and Svyatopolk ran after him ”88. The "people" who fled from the battlefield are the people's militia from the Kyiv army, brought by Svyatopolk. They are the “kiyans” who rejected the advice of Monomakh and "wise men" 89 .

80 R a m m B. Ya. Papacy and Rus' in the X-XV centuries. M.; L., 1959, p. 34; Tikhomirov M.N. Ancient Rus'. M., 1975, p. 267.

81 Tatishchev V.N. Russian History. M.; L., 1962, vol. 1, p. 111.- Some very reputable scientists considered this news of V. N. Tatishchev, gleaned from the Joachim Chronicle, quite plausible.- See: Soloviev S. M. History of Russia since ancient times. M., 1959, book. 1, p. 175; Sergeevich V. I. Lectures and research... p. 149.

82 PVL, part I, p. 114-115.

83 Ibid., p. 150.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid. - N. I. Khlebnikov, on the basis of this chronicle message, came to the conclusion that at that time the princes had little "appreciated the people's will." We cannot agree with such a statement. See: Khlebnikov N. I. Society and the state in the pre-Mongolian period of Russian history. SPb., 1872. p. 266.

86 Ibid., p. 172.

87 All this shows how wrong N. I. Khlebnikov was when he said, referring to the end of the 11th century, that “at that time the princes valued the people’s will a little.” See: Khlebnikov N. I. Society and the state .. . With. 266.

88 Ibid., p. 144.

Sometimes the princes found themselves in a worse position, literally giving in to the demand of the people. In 1097, "people" with din and noise, in a clearly irreverent uniform, forced Davyd to hand over to death his trusted husbands - Turyak and Lazar 90 . According to the Laurentian chronicle, in 1138 the Kiev prince Yaropolk, having gathered a large army, rushed to Chernigov, where his opponent Vsevolod Olgovich “shut himself”. Then “people of Chernigovtsy, writing to Vsevolod, you hope to escape to Polovtsy, and if you destroy your volost, then what will you turn back to, better stay your arrogance and ask for peace” 91. Vsevolod "sent with subjugation to Yaropolk and ask for peace" 92 .

Noteworthy descriptions of the events of 1150 in Kyiv have been preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle. Prince Yuri Dolgoruky, in the face of the advancing Izyaslav Mstislavich, "could not bear to be in Kyiv", hastily abandoned the city. But Izyaslav was ahead of Vyacheslav, who "entered Kyiv" and settled "in Yaroslavl's yard." In the meantime, Izyaslav arrived, and the people of Kiev “izidosh” met the prince “many multitudes and rekosha Izyaslav:“ Gyurgi left Kiev, and Vyacheslav sits in Kiev, but we do not want him "" 93. Izyaslav, through his envoys, asked Vyacheslav to move to Vysh But he was stubborn: "Kill me, my son, in this place, but kill me, but I'm not going" 94. Izyaslav Mstislavich, "having bowed to St. many will come". The intractable Vyacheslav "sits on the sennitsa". And then "the multitude began to say to Prince Izyaslav:" The prince, they and (a) took away his squad "". Friends, they say, we’ll cut the canopy under him” 95 . Alarmed by the growing excitement of the "kiyan", Izyaslav "climbed" into the canopy to his "combatant" in order to reason with the old man. He said to Vyacheslav: “Don’t lie to me to line up with you, if you see the strength of the people and the regiment standing, but you’re planning a lot of quiet, but go to your Vyshegorod, because I want to line up with you.” Vyacheslav calmed down and timidly said: “There are already tacos now, son, otherwise Kyiv is for you, and I will go to my High City” 96 .

The same Ipatiev Chronicle tells about the military defeat of the Polotsk prince Rogvolod. Many Polotsk people fell in the battle, and Rog-Volod “ran in” to Sluchesk and then “go to Dryutesk, but don’t dare to Polotsk, before many deaths of Polotsk. Polotsk people planting Vasilkovich in Polotsky" 97 . This means that Prince Rogvolod is responsible to the Polotsk community for the defeat of its army and the death of the Polotsk people 98 . Only this can explain the fear of the prince to appear in Polotsk. Enraged at Rogovolod, the Polotsk people (a mass of townspeople and, it is possible, villagers), made a princely replacement, “planting” Vasilkovich in Polotsk.

The nature of the relationship between the prince and the “people” is vividly visible in the records of the Battle of Lipetsk in 1216. Yuri Vsevolodovich, defeated in battle by happy rivals, galloped to Vladimir, called the people together and prayed: “Brothers Volodimertsi, shut up in the city, we’ll fight them off.” In response, the “people” said: “Prince Yury, with whom shall we close? Our brothers were beaten, and inii izimani, and the porridge came running without a weapon, then we’ll be with whom. "" Yuri wilted completely. out of the city of his own free will," he asked humbly. Vladimirians ("people") promised him intercession before the victors 100. Despite the urgency of the incident, we have before us a vivid episode that reveals the prince's true view of the ordinary population, alien to political superiority and neglect. In this regard, we must appreciate the fact that the ancient Russian princes, addressing the people, often used the word "brethren", "brothers", thus emphasizing the equality of the parties 101 .

The people in Ancient Rus' took a personal part both in inviting the princes to the table, and in driving them off the table. This area of ​​folk activity has been studied by VI Sergeevich with sufficient completeness and persuasiveness 102 . In Soviet historical science there are diametrically opposed opinions on this matter. M. N. Pokrovsky and M. N. Tikhomirov recognized the ordinary people of Rus' in the XII century. the right to independently decide which of the Ruriks to reign in one or another volost 103 . On the rise in the XII century. “the political significance of the urban masses, which not only the tops of society, but also the multiplying princes are forced to reckon with,” wrote B. D. Grekov 104 . Another point of view is held by S. V. Yushkov and V. T. Pashuto, who believe that all important affairs in the cities were run by the local nobility, who skillfully incited the demos and deftly used its actions in their own narrow class interests 105 . In denying the rights of the ancient Russian people, some historians are so carried away that they ascribe to the people's representatives an insignificant role of extras in the political performances played out by the feudal nobility 106 . We cannot agree with this pejorative socio-political attestation of the democratic strata of the free population of Ancient Rus'. The position of M. N. Pokrovsky, B. D. Grekov, M. N. Tikhomirov, who attached serious importance to the will of the masses in politics, seems to us incomparably more preferable than the position of S. V. Yushkov, V. T. Pashuto and P. P. Tolochko, turning the masses of Kievan Rus into the infamous “Kaluga dough” in historiography, from which those in power twisted any pretzels.

89 Klyuchevsky V. O. Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'. Pg., 1919, p. 43.

90 PVL, part I, p. 177.

91 PSRL, vol. 1, stb. 306.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid., vol. II, stb. 396.

94 Same place, stb. 396-397.

95 Ibid., stb. 397.

96 Ibid., stb. 398.

97 Ibid., stb. 519.

98 Alekseev L. V. Polotsk land. M., 1966, p. 290.

99 PSRL, vol. 1, stb. 499.

100 Ibid., stb. 500.

101 See, for example, ibid., st. 316, 327, 499; vol. II, stb. 348, 351, 370, 724.

102 Sergeevich V. I. Russian legal antiquities, vol. 2, p. 1-50, 73-81.

103 Pokrovsky M.N. Fav. Proizv.M., 1966, book 1, p. 147-149; Tikhomirov M.N. Old Russian cities. M., 1956, p. 185-213, 215.

104 Greco vB. D. Kievan Rus, p. 359.

Chroniclers vied with each other to announce the countless movements of princes in Rus' in the 12th century. / A lot of them were called between the days hard ties intertwined into a ladder. Vassal relations The decisions also served as the reason for the princely movement. But to no lesser extent the transitions of the princes were the result of what in Rus' was called liberty in the princes, which was used in village of ancient Russian volosts, headed by the "eldest" cities. Princes then. with honor they call and receive, then with cast out with great shame. And we see this throughout Rus' 107 .

In reports about the shuffling of princes, the main characters often appear as “Kiyans”, “Pereyaslavtsy”, “Smolnyans”, “Polotskans”, “Novgorodtsy”, “Vladimirs”, “Rostovtsy”, “Suzdalians”, etc. They guess the masses of townspeople , absorbing and simple free 108 . The following circumstances give grounds for thinking this way: firstly, the great socio-political activity of the ordinary population that we have established above; secondly, the words “people”, “people” 109, which are often found in chronicles and are equivalent to these names; thirdly, the practice of concluding a "row" of newly elected princes precisely with "people", and not with a handful of nobility 110 .

The order of the election of princes in the XII century. was in basically the same everywhere. Novgorod in this respect did not stand out much from the rest of the cities of Rus', another confirmation of which we find in the Novgorod Chronicle, where in the records of the reign in Novgorod and, say, in Kyiv, a single phraseology is maintained 111 . The Novgorod chronicler cannot be suspected of mechanically transferring the traditions of his city to foreign soil, because similar expressions are used in other chronicles 112 .

105 Yushko in SV Essays on the history of feudalism in Kievan Rus. M.; L., 1939, p. 194-196; Pashuto V. T. Features of the political system ... p. 13, 33-34, 36-51.

106 Tol aboutch to about P. P. Veche and popular movements in Kiev. - In the book: Research on the history of the Slavic and Balkan peoples. M., 1972, p. 142.

107 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 299, 301, 302, 304, 305, 308, 313, 326, 328, 330, 341, 342, 343-344, 344-345, 348, 374, 400, 431, 469; t. N, stb. 316-317, 396, 403, 445, 468, 471, 478, 490, 491, 493-495, 496, 504, 518, 526, 528, 534, 598, 624,702; NPL, p. 21, 30, 33, 43, 53, 205, 207, 213, 217, 223, 250.

108 M.N. Tikhomirov is right, who, arguing with S.V. Yushkov, said that under the “Kyans”, “Chernigovtsy” and the like, one should understand the urban mass, and not the boyars par excellence.- See: T and x about m and-ditch M. N. Old Russian cities, p. 211, 219.

109 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 301, 306, 313.379; vol. II, stb. 493-495, 496.504.

110 See, for example, ibid., vol. I, st. 379; vol. II, stb. 474, 608.

It is necessary to pay attention to one more very significant sphere of competence of "people", which, however, concerns not princes, but church dignitaries, but which is very important for determining the socio-political weight of the masses in ancient Russian society.

When historians talk about the veche election of eniskops, they usually mean Novgorod with its allegedly special warehouse of socio-political life. However, the sources preserved the rarest and therefore precious information about similar customs outside the Novgorod land. According to the Laurentian Chronicle, Prince Vsevolod the Big Nest asked Metropolitan Nicephorus to appoint “the gentle and meek Luka, hegumen of the Holy Savior on Berestov” as a bishop in Rostov, Vladimir and Suzdal. The Metropolitan "not wanting to appoint him, for heaven's sake appointed Nikola Grchin." Vsevolod rejected "Grchin", and the chronicler explained why: "It is not worthy to jump on the hierarchical ranks on the bribe, but God will call him and the holy Mother of God, the prince will dream and the people" 113. Nicephorus was forced to yield and elevate the "meek" Luke to the rank of bishop. The Ipatiev Chronicle contains an even clearer text: “Vsevolod Gyurevich, Prince of Suzhdalsky, did not accept him (Nikola Grechin.- AND. F.), but sent an ambassador to Kyiv to Svyatoslav to Vsevolodich and to Metropolitan Nicephorus of the rivers: “Do not choose this people on our earth(our italics. - I. F.), but thou hast set, otherwise it is good for you, there are ideas...” 115 . If the "people" of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus were not at all involved in the election of a candidate for bishops, Prince Vsevolod would hardly have mentioned them. The fact that the "people" in the mouth of Vsevolod is not an accidental slip of the tongue is judged by some additional information. So, in the prologue life of Cyril of Turov we read that Cyril "by the begging of the prince and the people of that city was elevated to the table of the episcopate" I6. The establishment of the Smolensk diocese and the election of the bishop also did not go without "people." Prince Rostislav "brought" the bishop to Smolensk, "thinking with his people" 117 , or, according to the correct observation of A. A. Zimin, having judged at a veche 118 . "People" of the Rostislav charter - the people 119 . It is understandable why the Charter of Rostislav served MN Tikhomirov as a direct indication of the participation of the urban masses in the political life of Smolensk 120 .

111 NPL, p. 21, 30, 33, 53, 205, 217, 222, 252.

112 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 301, 306, 328, 341, 348, 374; vol. II, stb. 316, 445, 504.

113 Ibid., vol. I, st. 391; see also LPS, p. 94.

114 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 391; LPS, p. 94.

115 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 629.

116 Nikolsky N.K. Materials for the history of ancient Russian spiritual writing. SPb., 1907, p. 63.

117 PRP, no. 2, p. 39.

Thus, the people in Ancient Rus' had the right to vote when there was a need to replace episcopal tables. But the election of a "prelate" is one side of the coin, so to speak; its other side is the expulsion of the bishop, who aroused the discontent of the flock, that is, the deprivation of his episcopal see. In 1159, “kicked out Bishop Leon of Rostovtsi and Suzhdaltsi, and multiplied byashe by robbing the church and priests” 121 . In all likelihood, Leon's fault was not limited to greed. He frappled the local society with his teachings. The chronicler indignantly denounces them as heresy. What did Leon "teach"? It turns out that he "shall teach from Suzh-dali not to eat meat on the Lord's holidays, otherwise it will be on Wednesday or on Friday, neither on the Nativity of the Lord, nor on Epiphany" 122 . The intensity of passions reached its highest point at a public debate, where the Right Reverend Fedor "reproached" Leon "before the faithful Prince Andrei and before all the people" 123 . The presence of "people" on the "heavyweight" between Fedor and Leon is not an accidental fact, testifying to the people's keen interest in what is happening and their complicity in the deposition of the bishop 124 .

“Prelate” Fedor, who flashed “wit” in a dispute with Leon, soon also dropped his dignity: “Many people suffered a lot from him in holding him, and sat down, having lost both weapons and a horse, while his friends got work, and imprisonment and robbery is not only simple, but also mnih and hegumen and priest, this tormentor is merciless. Cutting the heads and beards of another person, burning out the eyes and cutting off the tongue of others, and crucifying others on the wall, and tormenting is unmerciful, although stealing from all the estate, the estate is not full, like hell "125. Fedorets, as the chronicler contemptuously calls him, was overthrown from the table and taken under escort to Metropolitan Konstantin in Kyiv. Then Fyodor was taken to "Pesy Island", and there, at the behest of the metropolitan, the disgraced bishop, "like a villain and a heretic", "cut" his tongue, cut off his right hand, "taken out his eyes." "And perish his memory with noise," the scribe summarizes edifyingly and with undisguised pleasure. If we believe the entirely chronicle version, then the main reason for the fall of the “sneaky” Fedorets must be recognized as the quarrel between the bishop and the “Christ-loving” Prince Andrei, who ordered him to “go to the metropolitan in Kiev,” and he “not willingly” 127. But the chronicler's story about Fedorets, taken in its entirety, allows us to go beyond the usual conflict between the secular authorities and the church and explain what happened with deeper motives, including, and above all, the discontent of the masses of the local population caused by the violence of the bishop.

118 Ibid., p. 45.

119 Golubovsky P. V. The history of the Smolensk land until the beginning of the XV century. Kyiv, 1895, p. 214-215, 257; Tikhomirov M.N. Old Russian cities, p. 202.

120 T and x about m and r about in M. N. Old Russian cities, p. 202.- The ending of Rostislav's letter is very indicative, where it is said: “Yes, no one judges this according to my days, neither the prince, nor the people.” (PRI, issue 2, p. 42). Here "people" as potential violators of the Charter are placed on a par with the prince.

121 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 349.

122

123 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 352; LPS, p. 75.

124 N. I. Kostomarov had reason to say that “the Rostovites expelled (hence, in the evening) their Bishop Leonty.” - See: N. I. Kostomarov, The Beginning of Autocracy in Ancient Russia. - Vesti. Europe, 1870, November, p. 42.

125 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 355-356; LPS, p. 77.

Finally, in the Laurentian Chronicle under 1214, we learn how “John Bishop of Suzhdalsky unsubscribed to the bishops of the whole land of Rostov and was tonsured in black to the monasteries in Bogolyubom” 128 . The news, it must be said, is vague, covering with a thick veil of details in which John "unsubscribed to the bishops." But the Chronicler of Pereyaslavl of Suzdal removes the annoying veil, notifying that “Volodimirtsi and his prince Gyuri expelled John from the episcopate, for not doing the right, but made Simon a bishop, hegumen of the Holy Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ in the city of Volodymyr” 129.

Thus, the will of the people in the election of the highest hierarchs and the deprivation of their chairs played a far from the last role in Rus' 130 . N. M. Karamzin was certainly right when he wrote that “the bishops elected by the prince and the people, in case of displeasure, could be expelled by them” 131 .

The position of the prince, who did not enlist popular support, was especially unstable. Without this support, he felt like an accidental guest, who is about to be "showed the clear path." In order to raise their authority among the “people” and gain popularity, the princes held prestigious feasts and distributed wealth.

It should be noted that the social role of private wealth in pre-class societies is increasingly attracting the attention of Soviet scientists: historians, ethnographers and archaeologists. Researchers discover the originality of value orientations at the early stages of class formation. Property wealth in the conditions of the apparent collapse of the primitive system often served as a means of advancement in society for both related associations and individual individuals 132 . On the historical experience of the barbarian kingdoms of Western Europe, A. Ya. Gurevich convincingly showed this purpose of material goods. Barbarian wealth, he emphasized, had not so much a utilitarian property as a prestigious one. With his help, the tribal nobility maintained and expanded personal power and authority among fellow tribesmen 134 .

125 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 356; vol. II, stb. 552; LPS, p. 77.

127 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 355; LPS, p. 77.- This chronicle version was taken up by B. A. Romanov.-See: Romanov B. A. People and customs of Ancient Rus'. M.; L., 1966, p. 152.

128 PSRL, vol. I, stb. 438.

129 LPS, p. 112.

130 M. S. Grushevsky was hardly right when he said that bishops in Kievan Rus were “usually elected by princes,” See: Grushevsky M. S. Essay on the history of the Ukrainian people. Kyiv, 1911, p. 108.

131 Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State. SPb., 1892, vol. 3, p. 129.

Observations on the life of the Indians of North America reveal a picture, although more ancient, but still endowed with a certain similarity. We are talking about potlatch - a social institution, which Yu. P. Averkieva studied in detail in Soviet historiography. The essence of this institution was the public demonstration and distribution of private treasures accumulated by the Indians 135 . The potlatch was at first a specific lever for leveling property and counteracting the communal principles of personal enrichment 136 . It seemed to combine two forms of ownership, the previous collective and the emerging private 137 , the latter having a character subordinate to communal ownership 138 . With the growth of property inequality, the potlatch more clearly manifested its inherent dialectical essence: the assertion of individual wealth through its distribution according to the principle of collectivism. However, in any case, the potlatch was the instrument by which people achieved high prestigious positions, strengthening their position in society 139 . The potlatch reflected the contradictions of the transitional epoch from the pre-class formation to the class formation.

In the light of the conclusions of Yu. P. Averkieva about the potlatch of the North American Indians, V. I. Goremykina tried to consider the so-called "poverty-love" of the ancient Russian princes. The author's idea that the distribution of property and feasts of princes with the participation of the people, seen in Ancient Rus', seems to be justified, genetically goes back to the tribal system 141 . In these feasts and distributions, V. I. Goremykina correctly guesses the instrument for consolidating political power and raising the social status of the ancient Russian nobility 142 . At the same time, by drawing too direct analogies between the potlatch of the Indians of North America and the "hospitality" in Kievan Rus, V. I. Goremykina smooths out the differences between the compared phenomena. She does not always successfully use comparative historical material.

The question arises to what extent the feasts and distribution of wealth in Ancient Rus' are consonant with the customs of ancient societies. The legitimacy of such a question is quite obvious, given the ubiquitous distribution of orders in primitive times associated with the redistribution of private treasures on the basis of collectivism. Similar orders are attested among the Eskimos and Indians of North America, among the tribes of Polynesia and Melanesia, the peoples of Europe, Asia and Africa 144 . Of course, these distributions have been modified over time. On the example of the potlatch, Yu. P. Averkieva shows their evolution. First, when dividing private wealth, "the principle of equalization of property operates" 145 . Somewhat later, “all private wealth is also subject to redistribution, but the largest and best part of the wealth was distributed among the rich tribal elite, while the poorest got the smaller and worst of the distributed things” 146 . At the next stage, not all of the wealth went into distribution, but only part of the wealth 147 .

Similar changes can be seen in the organization of feasts. Among the most ancient, it is probably necessary to include intercommunal festivities - feasts similar to those described among the Papuans of New Guinea 148 . Intercommunal feasts, typical of primitive societies, had their own dynamics, determined by the development of the community itself. So, with the maturation of the neighboring community in the organization of feasts, the pooling, which is superfluous within the framework of the tribal community, where all stocks were common property, becomes more clearly visible. One can further speak of feasting “by all members of the community in turn” as a new step on the path of their development, and then there is a feast in the leader's mansions 149 .

Thus, both distributions of wealth and feasts in archaic societies gradually changed in accordance with the social shifts taking place in the depths of these societies. That is why, by clarifying the specific features of feasts and gifts, we get the opportunity to judge to a certain extent about the level of society as a whole. Ancient Rus' presents no exceptions here.

Domestic monuments of antiquity, mainly chronicles, brought to us numerous information about feasts and gifts that flourished in Rus' in the 10th-12th centuries. The Tale of Bygone Years, reporting on the deeds of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, introduces the researcher into the atmosphere of feasting and generosity that reigned in the prince's palace. In 996, Vladimir, having established a tithe for the young Russian church, “create a great holiday on that day by the boyar and the elder of the city, and a lot of estates were distributed to the poor” 150 . In the same year, having “put up” the Church of the Transfiguration in Vasilevo, he arranged “a great feast, cooking 300 boils of honey. And he called his own boyars, and posadniks, elders from all over the city, and many people, and distributed 300 hryvnias to the poor. Having celebrated the prince for 8 days, and return to Kiev on the Dormition of the Holy Mother of God, and then the packs created a great holiday, calling a numberless crowd of people ”151. The chronicler announces that the prince "created" all this every year 152 . According to the scribe, Vladimir, inspired by the biblical calls for poverty, “ordered every poor and wretched person to come to the prince’s courtyard and collect all the needs, drink and food, and from the cowgirls with kunami” 153 . For those who could not get to the prince's court due to weakness, Vladimir ordered his servants to load carts with meat, fish, vegetables, honey and deliver food around the city 154 . Every Sunday, boyars, gridi, sotsky, tenth, deliberate men feasted in the princely griditsa 155 .

148 Bakht and VM Papuans of New Guinea: production and society. - In the book: Problems of the history of pre-capitalist societies. M., 1968, book. 1, p. 313_314.

149 Lipets R.S. Epos and Ancient Rus'. M., 1969, p. 146.

150 PVL, part I, p. 85.

151 Ibid.

152 Ibid., p. 85-86.

In the annalistic narrative about the gifts and feasts of the Vladimirovs, two lines are visible in the interpretation of the motives for the generosity of the Kievan prince. The chronicler interprets the kindness of Vladimir in different ways, depending on who it is addressed to: whether it is to the top of society, called the retinue, or to the people. In one case, everything looks quite vital and realistic. The prince is surrounded by retinues as the first among equals. Without a squad, he, in essence, is not a prince. Significant in this regard is the rather ordinary scene depicted by the chronicler. It used to be that the warriors “woke up, started murmuring at the prince:“ There is evil in our heads: let us eat with wooden spoons, not silver ones. the imam will pile on the squad, and the squad will fit silver and gold, as my grandfather and father have found gold and silver with the squad. Be bo Volodimer, loving the squad, and thinking with them about the earthly system, and about the ra-tech, and about the earthly charter 156. Giving the retinue such a tangible social weight, the chronicler did not distort reality, but reproduced it truthfully. It is clear why in his descriptions the generosity of the prince in relation to the combatants is alien to frivolous extravagance or soul-saving charity. This is a perfectly conscious means of rallying the squad elements and maintaining princely authority in the squad environment 157 . Such a policy did not follow from the special and unique personal qualities of Vladimir, it was dictated by the historical situation itself, in which the foundations of the tribal system were not yet shaken.

On a different plane, the chronicler draws princely gifts accepted by the people. Here he departs from the historical truth and deduces Vladimir as a kind of enlightened neophyte, seized with a feeling of poverty, warming the poor and wretched people. Before us is a clear stylization, executed in the spirit of the Christian dogma 158 . And this feature of the annals as a source should be kept in mind by a researcher studying Rus' during the epoch of baptism. Fortunately, an important service that makes up for this deficiency in the chronicle is rendered to him by the epic works of Ancient Rus', in which there is no touch of religiosity, which is noticeable in the chronicle records belonging to the monk-chronicler 159 . Epics allow the historian to look at the feasts and gifts of the times of Vladimir Svyatoslavich not from the cell of a monk-scribe, but from an ordinary city or rural hut, that is, through the eyes of an ordinary resident of Rus'. In the epic, we find vivid scenes of feasts, accompanied by various gifts. Relatively recently, epic feasts in their structural and functional aspects were carefully studied by R. S. Lipets 16 °. With great thoroughness she also studied gifts at banquets 161 . The materials of the epic processed by her, plus the news of the Tale of Bygone Years, cited above, give us the right to speak confidently about the widespread prevalence of feasts and gifts in Rus' at the end of the 10th century.

153 Ibid., p. 86.

154 Ibid.

155 Ibid.

156 Ibid.

157 M a v r o d i n VV Formation of the Old Russian state. L., 1945, p. 323-324, 335-336.

158 L and p e ts R. S. Epos and Ancient Rus', p. 125-250.- Some scholars share the chronicler's version. So, N. A. Rozhkov says that “Vladimir the Holy supported the poor and the poor, fed them ... This

The feasts of that time, as V.V. Mavrodin rightly believes, cannot be reduced to ordinary court amusements or communal drinking parties of Rus', inclined to debauchery 163 . This was clearly understood by scientists of the last century. As far back as A. A. Popov saw in them a social institution that was "once one of the most important phenomena in the public life of bygone times" 1b4. Soviet authors have no doubt that political institutions are hidden behind feasts and donations. According to D.S. Likhachev, Vladimirov’s feasts were “a form of constant communication between the prince and the squad, a form of meetings. They found an economic basis for themselves in the nature of "feeding" the squad from the prince" 165 . B. A. Rybakov, agreeing with D. S. Likhachev, nevertheless believes that Vladimir’s feasts are not only a kind of meeting between the prince and his retinue, but also a form of “real communication between the prince and his firemen and governor with a wide mass of heterogeneous people” flowing into the capital city 166 . Giving preference to the version of B. A. Rybakov, we note, however, that we should probably talk not so much about people arriving in Kyiv, but about people's representatives from the local population. The feasts of Vladimir are a form of communication between the princely power and the people (in addition to the squad, of course), a tool for strengthening its prestige among the people. Were feasts with the participation of ordinary people and gifts only echoes of ancient times? Were they the realities of only the reign of Vladimir, or of a later time?

there was a simple almsgiving in the form of distribution of food, clothes and money to the poor (N. A. Rozhkov. Review of Russian history from a sociological point of view. M., 1905, part 1, p. 81). Of course, one cannot agree with such a simplified interpretation.

159 L and p e ts E. S. Epos and Ancient Rus', p. 125.

160 Ibid., p. 120-125.

161 Ibid., p. 239-266.

162 We find confirmation of this from foreign informants. For example, Titmar of Merseburg reports on the generous alms of Vladimir, that the prince redeemed the prisoners and fed them. True, Titmar motivates Vladimir's behavior with the desire to cleanse himself of the filth of a past pagan life. See: Mavrodin VV Formation of the Old Russian state, p. 336.

163 M a v r o d and V. V. Formation of the Old Russian state, p. 336.

164 P about in A. Feasts and brothers. - In the book: Archive of historical and legal information relating to Russia. M., 1854, book. 2, pol. 2, p. 38; see also: Maykov L. On the epics of the Vladimir cycle. SPb., 1863, p. 67.- According to D. I. Belyaev, feasts were a means for princes to “attract people to themselves.” See: Belyaev D. I. Stories from Russian history. M., 1865, book. 1, p. 216.

165 Likhachev in D.S. “Epic Time” of Russian epics. - In the book: Academician B.D. Grekov on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. M., 1952, p. 58; see also: Anikin V.P. Russian heroic epic. M., 1964, p. 101; Lipets R. S. Epos and Ancient Rus', p. 127-131.

In modern literature, feasts and gifts are usually spoken of in relation to the era of Vladimir 167 . However, sources indicate otherwise. According to the Tale of Bygone Years, Prince Svyatopolk, who sat down on the Kiev table after the death of Vladimir, called people together and “beginning to give baskets to lambs, and kunami to others, and distributing a lot” 168 . Svyatopolk's action, albeit remotely, reminds of the potlatch of the Indians, timed to coincide with the replacement of the post of leader 169 . Of course, there is no direct resemblance here. Svyatopolk, apparently, wanted to appease the people of Kiev and win them over to his side in anticipation of the inevitable struggle with the brothers for Kyiv. And yet, in his actions, he certainly relied on ancient traditions that require the prince to show generosity when gaining power.

But the prince, who was at the helm of power, was famous for distributing wealth to people. Metropolitan Nikifor says about Vladimir Monomakh: “Your hand, by God’s grace, stretches out to everyone, and whether the treasure was laid, whether it was gold or silver, it was searched for, but all distributing, and exhausting both hands even to this day. But your cowherd, by God's grace, is inexhaustible and inexhaustible, distributed and inexhaustible. Old Russian princes sometimes had to fork out in order to stay on the table. Noteworthy in this case is an episode preserved in the Ipatiev Chronicle under 1159. It was in Polotsk, where Rostislav then reigned. Unrest arose in the city, for many Polotsk residents “hot Rogvolod”. The prince hardly managed to get along with the townspeople: “One set

166 Rybak o v B. A. Ancient Rus'. Tales, epics, annals. M., 1963, p. 61.

167 History of culture of Ancient Rus'. M.; L., 1948, v. 1, p. 275-276; Likhachev D.S. "Epic time" ... p. 58; Rybakov B. A. Ancient Rus' ... p. 59-62; Lipets R. S. Epos and Ancient Rus', p. 149.

168 PVL, part I, p. 95.

169 And in erk and e in Yu. P. Decomposition of the tribal community ... p. 128.

170 Russian landmarks. M., 1815, part 1, p. 69-70.

man Rostislav, having given many gifts, and water to the cross” 171 .

With the help of gifts, the princes sought to maintain good relations with the people. Departing "to Pleskov" in 1228, Yaroslav did not forget to take gifts for the people of Pskov: "widths and vegetables" 172 . True, the townspeople, frightened by rumors that “it’s like carrying the prince of shackles, although forging the highest men,” closed the gates and did not let Yaroslav in. But this incident is not important for us, but the fact that the prince considered it natural to come to the city under his jurisdiction not empty-handed.

Often the reason for the distribution of wealth was the death of a prince or her approach. In April 1113, “the faithful prince Mikhail, called Svyatopolk, reposed.” The widow of the deceased "had given away a lot of wealth to the monastery and the priest and the poor, as if marveling at the whole person, as if no one could do such mercy" 173 . After the death of Prince Vyacheslav in 1154, clothes, gold and silver were distributed to monasteries, churches and the poor 174 .

Sensing the approach of death, Yaroslav Osmomysl ordered "give your property to the monastery and the poor, and tacos davasha all over Galicia for three days and could not distribute" 175 . The terminally ill Vladimir Vasilkovich “gave out to the wretched his estate, all the gold and silver, and expensive stones, and his father’s golden belts and silver, and his own, who had acquired his father’s, all the distribution. And he beat the dishes of great silver and goblets of gold and silver in front of his eyes and fields and distributed alms throughout the earth, and the flocks were distributed to poor people, who don’t have a copy” 176.

All these near-death and post-mortem distributions of material values ​​the chroniclers are trying to pass off as alms to “God-loving” and “God-fearing” princes who keep the commandments of Christianity. But, as is known, social institutions arose "not from the nature of Christian, but from the nature of human society" 177 . We have good reasons to genetically link the distribution of wealth "for the sake of the soul" with the customs of pre-class society 178 .

The chroniclers speak more than once about the robberies of the property of the deceased princes. In 1157, the people of Kiev plundered the courtyards of the late Yuri Dolgoruky 179 . Wealth was plundered and the son of Yuri Prince

171 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 494.

172 NPL, p. 271.

173 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 275.

174 Ibid., st. 473.

175 Ibid., st. 657.

176 Ibid., st. 914.

177 Marx K., Engels F. Soch., v. 1, p. 110.

178 Averky in a Yu.P. Decomposition of the tribal community ... p.181-182.

179 “And a lot of evil happened on that day, plundering his yard (Yuri.- I. F.) the red and other courtyards of his plunder beyond the Dnieper, which he calls Paradise himself ... ”- PSRL, vol. II, stb. 489.

Andrei, who was killed by the conspirators 180 . Historians usually classify these robberies as acts of class struggle 181 . Without denying the presence of social protest in them, we note that the motives of primitive psychology also sound here. Thus, according to the ideas of the South African pastoralists - the Bantu, "the leader has nothing of his own, everything he owns belongs to the tribe" 182 . Hence, "the total surplus product, which is alienated in various forms in favor of leaders and leaders, is considered not only as compensation for the exercise of the socially useful function of management, but also as a kind of public fund, the expenditure of which should be made in the interests of the entire collective" 183. Among Indian horse breeders, “there were cases when community members, having learned about the death of a rich Indian, rushed to his herd and captured the best horses. They could neglect the will of the deceased and leave nothing to his widow and children 184 . It is curious that “the closest relatives of the deceased had no right to prevent this plunder of the inheritance. With particular zeal, it was carried out in relation to the herds of stingy rich people. In this behavior of relatives and community members, as well as in the customs of dividing the inheritance of the deceased, one can see the surviving existence of the former collectivism of ownership of livestock. In the light of the ethnographic data presented, the robberies of the property of the deceased princes turn into a new facet, refracting the residual phenomena that go back centuries. Their inner meaning becomes clear if we recall that the princes in Rus' in the XI-XII centuries. prospered largely due to feeding - a kind of payment of the free population for the administration of public services, the origin of which is lost in ancient times 186 . Such an inherently archaic system of remuneration for princely labor contributed to the development of a view of princely property as partly public property. Nothing else can, for example, explain the obligation of the princes in Kievan Rus to supply the people's militia with horses and weapons. It seems that any interpretation of the annalistic records of posthumous robberies of princely wealth, undertaken without taking into account the social psychology of pre-class society, runs the risk of being one-sided 188 .

180 “The townspeople of Bogolyubets, having robbed the prince’s house ... the robbers, and now they came to rob, so did Volodymyr, if Mikulitsa often walks with the Holy Mother of God in robes around the city, then don’t rob more often.” - Ibid., stb. 592.

181 Tikhomirov M.N. Peasant and urban uprisings in Rus' in the 11th-13th centuries. M., 1955, p. 161-162, 231-234; Mav rodin VV Popular uprisings in ancient Rus'. M., 1961, p. 83-86; Cherepnin L.V. Socio-political relations in ancient Rus' and Russian Pravda.- In the book: Novoseltsev A.P. et al. The Old Russian state and its international significance, p. 268-269; Tolochko P.P. Veche and Popular Movements in Kyiv, p. 142.

182 Khazanov A. M. Social history of the Scythians, p. 184.

183 Ibid.

184 A verk and e in and Yu. P. Indians of North America, p. 266.

185 Ibid.

186 Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus... p. 62-65.

dinar, familiar to contemporaries. They are not only an echo So, princely donations in Rus' in the 11th-12th centuries are events or remnants of past centuries, but also institutions generated by the socio-political system of Rus' 189 . Gifting the ancient Russian people, the princes rose in public opinion, gained popularity among the masses and (most importantly) sought the favor of the people. In the minds of the people of Ancient Rus', a good prince is, first of all, a good prince. It is not for nothing that the scribes tried to emphasize the generosity of the deceased princes in their chronicle obituaries 190 .

In the XI-XII centuries. the princes not only gave gifts to people, but also feasted with them. Chronicles are full of reports of princely feasts.

In the May days of 1115, celebrations were held in Vyshgorod to transfer the relics of Boris and Gleb to a temple specially built for this. Vladimir Monomakh, Davyd and Oleg Svyatoslavichs came to Vyshgorod. After the consecration of the church, Prince Oleg gave a dinner: “And there was a great institution and fed the poor and strange for 3 days” 191. The chronicler, listing those who celebrated in Vyshgorod, names princes, boyars and people, that is, the people 192 .

Vladimir Monomakh, apparently, was a great hospitable. In the famous "Instruction" he repeatedly calls on his children to be generous. “Do not forget everything more than the poor, but feed as much as you can, and give to the orphan,” he inspires. And again: “Where will you go, where will you stand, drink, feed the unei-na” 194 . By "unein" here we must understand, as it seems to us, a simple, "young" person, a representative of the social lower classes, that is, the ordinary free population. At Monomakh's, investigator-

187 Ibid., p. 57-58.

188 The same must be said about the numerous news of the chronicles about the plundering of the property of princes expelled by people from one city or another.

189 Cf .: History of the culture of Ancient Rus', vol. 1, p. 275-276.

190 PVL, part I, p. 101, 111, 132, 142; PSRL, vol. I, stb. 294, 368, 443,447, 466, 468; vol. II, stb. 289, 550, 563, 583, 610, 617, 681, 703.

191 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 280.

192 Ibid., stb. 282.

193 PVL, part I, p. 157.

194 Ibid., p. 158.

195 The text with "unein" is one of the "dark" places in Vladimir Monomakh's Teachings. Scholars offered different interpretations of this word: master, master of the house, young hungry poor man, beggar, wanderer, etc. See: AS Orlov, Vladimir Monomakh. M.; L., 1946, p. 182-184; Larin B.A. Lectures on the history of the Russian literary language (X - the middle of the XVIII century). M., 1975, p. 138-139.- Relatively recently, N. A. Meshchersky considered “unio we are talking about arranging dinners for the common people. Hospitality, according to Monomakh, is one of the highest virtues. “More honor the guest, from where to come to you, or simple, or kind, or sol, if you can with a gift, brush and drink ...” 196. The doors of the prince's house, as we see, were open not only for the "kind", but also for ordinary people. It is not surprising that Monomakh gained immense popularity among the people 197 . An excellent commentary on what has been said is the words of Metropolitan Nikifor addressed to Monomakh: and you yourself serve and guard your hands, and your giving even reaches mosquitoes, you do something else for the sake of reigning and power; and those who eat it and get drunk, while sitting down themselves and disgracing the eating of others and getting drunk, and with little food and little water, it seems that you and him eat and drink. Thou wilt taco those who are under thee, and eat while sitting down, and in vain having them slaves get drunk, and thereby truly tame and subdue a ... ”198. Consequently, Monomakh gave feasts and served everyone "for the sake of princely majesty", "for the sake of reigning and power." The Metropolitan succinctly and accurately defined the social significance of princely feasts.

Public feasts run through the entire 12th century. On them we meet both with the nobility and with the demos. A simple child feasted, for example, with Prince Izyaslav, who, while in Novgorod, “sent podvoiskey and biriche to click through the streets, calling to the prince for dinner from young to old, and taco having dinner, rejoicing with great joy, honored to go to their homes » 199 . The same Izyaslav, having driven Yuri Dolgoruky out of Kyiv, arranged a dinner in honor of the victory over his opponent. Among those invited to dine "in the great courtyard of Yaroslavl" were "kiyans", in other words - townspeople 200 . We also meet with "Kyans" at the feast of Prince Vyacheslav, who was the uncle of the hospitable Izyaslav 201 . We find them at the feast of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich 202 .

On August 25, 1218, the doors of the Church of the "Holy Martyrs" Boris and Gleb opened in Rostov. In commemoration of the opening of the temple, Prince Konstantin “make a feast and establish people, and make many alms for the poor” 203 . April 3, 1231, Metropolitan Kina" for a contextual synonym for the word "lad", which meant a combatant, warrior, servant.- See: Meshchersky N.A. On the interpretation of the vocabulary of one of the "dark" places in the "Instruction" of Vladimir Monomakh.- In: Russian historical lexicology and lexicography. L., 1977, 2, p. 41.

196 PVL, part I, p. 158.

197 See p. 42-43 of this book.

198 Russian monuments, part 1, p. 69.

199 PSRL, vol. II, stb. 369.

200 Ibid., stb. 416.

201 Same place, stb. 418-419.

202 Ibid., stb. 634.

203 Ibid., vol. I, st. 442.

Evsky appointed a certain Cyril, the confessor of Prince Vasily Konstantinovich, as a bishop in Rostov, after which a grand feast took place: “And eating and writing that day in the monastery of the Holy Mother of God of the Caves, there are many, many people ... but it’s not possible to search for them” 204.

Often the prince and the townspeople exchanged courtesies, inviting each other to dinner: “Kyyans often call Davyd to the feast and give him great honor and many gifts. Davyd called Kyyane to his place for dinner and then be with them in a lot of fun and great love and let them go 205 . In 1159, the Polotsk people called Prince Rostislav to the city feast - "brotherhood", according to the terminology of the chronicle 206 .

The stories of chroniclers about feasts that we have collected indicate the prevalence of public feasts in the everyday life of ancient Russian society. These stories convince us that at the princely feasts of the 11th-12th centuries, as before, representatives of the ordinary population of Rus' 207 were frequent guests. At feasts, simple and noble - in the same company. In Russkaya Pravda there is a very interesting touch, once again confirming our correctness. Article 6 of the Long Truth, which determines the punishment for a community member (a member of the rope) for the murder of the “prince of her husband,” reads: “But if he killed or in a wedding or at a feast, then he should be paid according to the rope now, even if applied with vira” 208. It is easy to imagine that a “man” commits the murder of a high-ranking “husband”, feasting with him, if not at the same table, then next to him.

So, prestigious feasts and gifts in Rus' of the X-XII centuries are phenomena familiar to the gaze of contemporaries. They corresponded to a more structurally complex society than the potlatch of the North American Indians and related institutions of other tribes. Private property in Kievan Rus was firmly established. Therefore, in ancient Russian feasts and donations, there is nothing that was a characteristic feature of the potlatch: the redistribution of wealth according to the principle of collectivism, the confrontation between the individual and the communal principles, although some traces of all this still appear. They were dominated by the prestige factor. However, both feasts and gifts and potlatch are typical of societies with an unfinished process of class formation. And this is their fundamental similarity.

Resorting to feasts and distribution of treasures, the princes of Ancient Rus' pursued a specific political goal - to enlist the favor and support of the masses of the population.

Thus, our study allows us to say that the people played a very active role in the socio-political life of Kievan Rus. In the relations of the ancient Russian princes with the masses of the people ("people"), we do not find anything resembling absolute domination, on the one hand, and complete subordination, on the other. "People" is a fairly independent political force, capable of forcing princes and nobility to reckon with themselves. In their political plans and combinations, the princes of Ancient Rus' could not ignore the people, and even more so - go against them.

This system of relations between princes and "people" is clearly visible in the sources of the 10th century. It can be traced well in the XI-XII centuries. Probably at the end of the XI-XII centuries. the socio-political mobility of "people" somewhat increases, which was facilitated by the fall of the tribal system and the formation of city volosts - state entities with a noticeable democratic bias. And yet the fundamental difference between the nature of the political activity of the people in the X and XII centuries. cannot be found, 209 because it was based throughout the entire ancient Russian period on traditions that were genetically linked to the democracy of pre-class societies.

The pinnacle of the political activity of the people in Kievan Rus was the veche, to which we now turn.

204 Ibid., stb. 457.

206 Ibid., vol. II, stb. 682.

206 Ibid., stb. 495.

207 We cannot agree with N. N. Voronin, who believes that only gentlemen sat at these feasts. See: History of Culture of Ancient Rus', vol. 1, p. 276.- The opinion of M. G. Rabinovich about the narrow-class nature of princely feasts in Ancient Russia also seems unfounded.- See: Rabinovich M. G. Essays on the ethnography of a Russian feudal city. M., 1978, p. 80.

208 PR, vol. I, p. 104.

209 Compare: Pokrovsky M. N. Selected. production, book. 1, p. 147; Greco B. D. Kievan Rus, p. 361-370.

The appearance of the ancient Slavs

Undoubtedly, the nature of the nature where the Slavs lived influenced their constitution, life, and character.

Severe weather conditions have also shaped the nature of the movements of people themselves. If a milder climate favors unhurried, measured movements, then “the inhabitant of midnight lands loves movement, warming his blood with it; loves activity; gets used to endure frequent changes in the air, and is strengthened by patience. According to the description of modern historians, the Slavs were cheerful, strong, tireless. It seems that it is possible, without any comments, to quote here an excerpt from Karamzin's “History of the Russian State”: “Despising the bad weather characteristic of the northern climate, they endured hunger and every need; they ate the coarsest, raw food; surprised the Greeks with their speed; with extreme ease they ascended steepnesses, descended into clefts; boldly rushed into dangerous swamps and into deep rivers. Thinking without a doubt that the main beauty of a husband is a strength in the body, strength in the hands and ease of movement, the Slavs cared little about their appearance: in the mud, in the dust, without any neatness in clothes, they appeared in a large gathering of people. The Greeks, condemning this impurity, praise their harmony, tall stature and manly pleasantness of the face. Sunbathing from the hot rays of the sun, they seemed swarthy, and all, without exception, were fair-haired, like other native Europeans. In his notes to the edition of the above-mentioned work, Karamzin notes: “Some write that the Slavs were washed three times in their entire lives: on their birthday, marriage and death.”

In a word, in the descriptions of contemporaries, we see the Slavs as healthy, strong, beautiful people.

As for clothing, we have almost no information on this subject. It is only known that it was quite simple and was designed to shelter from the weather, bypassing luxury and pretentiousness: “The Slavs in the 6th century fought without caftans, some even without shirts, in some ports. The skins of animals, forest and domestic, warmed them in cold weather. Women wore a long dress, adorned with beads and metals obtained in the war or bartered from foreign merchants. Some historians even say that clothes were changed only when they had already completely lost their suitability.

The nature of the Slavs

Herodotus describes the character of the ancient Scythian Slavs as follows: “in the hope of their courage and large numbers, they were not afraid of any enemy; they drank the blood of slain enemies, using their dressed skin instead of clothes, and skulls instead of vessels, and in the form of a sword they worshiped the god of war, as the head of other imaginary gods. The ambassadors described their people as quiet and peaceful. But in the 6th century, the Slavs proved to Greece that courage was their natural property. “For some time, the Slavs fled battles in open fields and were afraid of fortresses; but having learned how the ranks of the Roman Legions can be torn apart by a swift and bold attack, they did not refuse to fight anywhere, and soon learned to take fortified places. The Greek chronicles do not mention any main or general commander of the Slavs: they had only private leaders; they fought not with a wall, not in close ranks, but in scattered crowds, and always on foot, following not a general command, not a single thought of the chief, but the suggestion of their own special, personal courage and courage; not knowing the prudent caution that foresees danger and protects people, but rushing straight into the midst of enemies.

Byzantine historians write that the Slavs, "beyond their ordinary courage, had a special art of fighting in gorges, hiding in the grass, astonishing enemies with an instant attack and capturing them."

The art of the Slavs for a long time to be in the rivers and breathe freely through through canes, exposing their end to the surface of the water, which testifies to their ingenuity and patience, is also unusually surprising to contemporaries. "Ancient Slavic weapons consisted of swords, darts, arrows smeared with poison, and large, very heavy shields."

The courage of the Slavs also admired, since those who were captured “endured any torture with amazing firmness, without a cry or a groan; they died in agony and did not answer a word to the enemy's questions about the number and plan of their army.

But in peacetime, the Slavs were famous (do not take it for a tautology!) Good nature: “they knew neither guile nor anger; kept the ancient simplicity of morals, unknown to the then Greeks; treated the captives kindly and always appointed a period for their slavery, giving them free, either redeem themselves and return to the fatherland, or live with them in freedom and brotherhood.

Just as rare, apparently, in other nations was Slavic hospitality, which has been preserved in our customs and character to this day. “Every traveler was for them, as it were, sacred: they met him with kindness, treated him with joy, saw him off with a blessing and handed him over to each other. The owner was responsible to the people for the safety of the stranger, and whoever failed to save the guest from trouble or trouble, the neighbors took revenge for this insult as for their own. The Slav, leaving the house, left the door open and food ready for the wanderer. Merchants, artisans willingly visited the Slavs, among whom there were neither thieves nor robbers for them, but a poor man who did not have a way to treat a foreigner well was allowed to steal everything he needed from a rich neighbor: an important duty of hospitality justified the crime itself. In addition, “the Slav considered it permissible to steal for the treat of a wanderer, because with this treat he exalted the glory of the whole family, the whole village, which therefore condescendingly looked at the theft: it was a treat at the expense of the whole family.”

Solovyov explains hospitality by a number of reasons: the opportunity to have fun while listening to travel stories; the opportunity to learn a lot of new things: “there was nothing to be afraid of a lonely person, you could learn a lot from him”; religious fear: “every dwelling, the hearth of every house was the seat of a household deity; a wanderer who entered the house was given under the protection of this deity; to offend a wanderer meant to offend a deity”; and, finally, the glorification of a kind: "the wanderer, well received and treated, spread the good glory about the man and the hospitable family."

Marriage and family relations

Contemporaries of the ancient Slavs highly appreciate the chastity and marital fidelity of the latter: "Demanding from the brides proof of their virginal purity, they considered it their sacred duty to be faithful to their spouses." In the notes to the edition of The History of the Russian State, Karamzin writes that adultery was punished very severely and even cruelly: the guilty person was given the choice of becoming a eunuch or dying.

On the other hand, there is evidence that not all Slavic tribes honored the institution of marriage. In the Russian chronicle we read that “the glades were more educated than others, meek and quiet by custom; modesty adorned their wives; marriage has long been considered a sacred duty between them; peace and chastity dominated families. The Drevlyans had wild customs, like animals, with whom they lived among the dark forests, eating all sorts of uncleanness; in strife and quarrels they killed each other; did not know marriages based on the mutual consent of parents and spouses, but girls were taken away or abducted. The northerners, Radimichi and Vyatichi were likened to the manners of the Drevlyans; also knew neither chastity nor marriage unions; but young people of both sexes converged on games between villages: grooms chose brides, and without any rituals agreed to live with them; polygamy was their custom. Solovyov, based on the same chronicle, argues that polygamy among the Slavic tribes is an undoubted phenomenon.

Just as undoubted is the custom of widows to burn themselves at the stake, along with the corpse of their deceased husband, since the widow who remained to live brought dishonor to the family. This is evidenced by many contemporaries and chroniclers. Ibn Rusta writes: “When someone dies among them, his corpse is burned. Women, when a dead person happens to them, scratch their hands and faces with a knife. The next day after the burning of the deceased, they go to the place where it happened, collect the ashes from that place and put them on the hill. And after a year after the death of the deceased, they take casks of twenty or more of honey, go to that hill where the family of the deceased gathers, eat and drink there, and then disperse ... And if the deceased had three wives and one of them claims that she is especially loved him, then she brings two pillars to his corpse, they drive them upright into the ground, then they put a third pillar across, tie a rope in the middle of this crossbar, she stands on a bench and ties the end of the rope around her neck. After she has done this, the bench is removed from under her, and she remains hanging until she suffocates and dies, after which she is thrown into the fire, where she burns. Solovyov comments on this custom as follows: “If a woman married into a strange family, then with the strict and jealous supervision of new relatives, the husband was the only creature from whom she expected love and patronage; the husband was dying - the position of the wife, who had lost her only support, the only link that connected her with someone else's family, became bitter.

Noteworthy is also the habit of killing members of their families in cases stipulated by the unspoken laws of that time. “Every mother had the right to kill her newborn daughter when the family was already too numerous, but she was obliged to preserve the life of her son, who was born to serve the fatherland.” There was also the right of children to kill their parents, old and sick, burdensome for the family and useless to fellow citizens, but at the same time, our ancestors "... were famous for their respect for their parents, and always cared about their well-being."

As for intra-family relations, the husbands considered their wives to be their property, who did not dare to complain or contradict, having only one thing to do: to run the household and raise children.

“The mother, raising her children, prepared them to be warriors and irreconcilable enemies of those people who offended their neighbors: for the Slavs, like other pagan peoples, were ashamed to forget the offense. Fear of inexorable revenge sometimes averted atrocities: in the event of a murder, not only the criminal himself, but his whole family, constantly expected his death from the children of the murdered, who demanded blood for blood.

Economic activity

Despite the fact that Herodotus called the Slavs nomads, the Slavs still did not lead a nomadic, but a sedentary lifestyle. “The settlement of the Slavs must be understood in the sense that their main capital did not consist in herds and herds, but in the land, and the economy was based on the exploitation of the land. But this settled way of life was fragile, because, having exhausted arable land in one place, the Slavs easily left their home and looked for another. Thus, the settlements of the Slavs initially had a very mobile character ... The areas in which the Slavs had to live and plow were forested, therefore, forest exploitation arose next to agriculture, forestry, beekeeping and industrial hunting were developed. Wax, honey and skins were from time immemorial trade items for which Rus' was famous.

Ibn Rusta writes: “And they do not have vineyards and arable fields. And they have something like barrels made of wood, in which there are beehives and honey ... and up to 10 jugs of honey are extracted from one barrel. And they are a people who herd pigs, as we herd sheep ... most of their crops are millet ... They have few draft animals. The controversial statement of the Arab traveler about the absence of arable land, since the merchants arriving in the Slavic lands exchanged their goods, among other things, for cattle and bread.

In food, the Slavs were content with simple products: “In the 6th century, the Slavs ate millet, buckwheat and milk; and then they learned to cook various tasty dishes, sparing nothing for the cheerful treat of friends, and in this case proving their hospitality with a plentiful meal ... Honey was their favorite drink: it is likely that they first made it from the honey of forest, wild bees; and finally they themselves bred them. Ibn Rusta says the same thing: “Their intoxicating drink is made of honey.”

Thus, being engaged in agriculture and cattle breeding, the Slavs “had everything necessary for a person; they were not afraid of hunger or the cruelties of winter: the fields and animals gave them food and clothing.

Trade in the Slavic lands also took place. The custom of hospitality and the ban on killing foreigners guaranteed security, and merchants brought goods and exchanged them for "cattle, linen, skins, bread and various military booty." Karamzin notes that the Slavs did not know money circulation, and trade consisted only in exchange. Slavs took gold only as a commodity.

Given the unstable stay in one place and participation in military campaigns, our ancestors were somewhat careless about building dwellings. “The Slavic cities themselves were nothing more than a collection of huts surrounded by a fence or an earthen rampart. There were temples of idols…”

Solovyov writes: “Foreign writers say that the Slavs lived in crappy huts, located at a great distance from each other, and often changed their place of residence. Such fragility and frequent change of dwellings was a consequence of the continuous danger that threatened the Slavs both from their own tribal strife and from the invasions of alien peoples. That is why the Slavs led the way of life that Mauritius speaks of: “They have inaccessible dwellings in forests, near rivers, swamps and lakes; in their houses they arrange many exits in case of danger; they hide the necessary things under the ground, having nothing superfluous outside, but living like robbers.

culture

Like any people, the Slavs “had some idea of ​​the arts… They carved images of a man, birds, animals on wood and painted them with different colors that did not change from sunlight and were not washed off by rain. In the ancient graves ... there were many clay urns, very well made, with the image of lions, bears, eagles, and varnished; also spears, knives, swords, daggers, skillfully crafted, with a silver frame and notch. “A monument to the stone-cutting art of the ancient Slavs remained large, smoothly-worked slabs, on which images of hands, heels, hooves, etc. were hollowed out.”

Music occupied a strong place in the life of the Slavs. Ibn Rusta notes: “They have all sorts of lutes, harps and pipes. Their pipes are two cubits long, and the lute is seven-stringed. Music, obviously, accompanied the Slav in all matters throughout his life. There is evidence that they even took instruments on military campaigns, and in one of them they were so carried away by singing that they were seized by the enemy without any resistance. Special mention should be made of the dance: “... it consists in waving your arms, spinning in one place, squatting, stamping your feet, in a strong muscle tension, and corresponds to the character of strong, active, tireless people.”

Karamzin believes that folk games, “wrestling, fisticuffs, running, have also remained a monument to their ancient amusements, representing to us the image of war and strength.”

Speaking about the language of the ancient Slavs, he also writes: “The Greeks in the sixth century found it very rude. Expressing the first thoughts and needs of uneducated people, born in a harsh climate, it had to seem wild in comparison with the Greek language ... Having no monuments of this primitive Slavic language, we can judge it only by the latest, of which our Bible and others are considered the most ancient church books translated in the 9th century. Until 863, the Slavs did not have a written language. It is believed that the runes with which idols and temples were painted do not have any linguistic basis.

social organization

The Slavs did not have any ruler for a long time. Each family lived separately, and the power in it belonged to men. “The owner dominated the house: the father over the children, the husband over the wife, the brother over the sisters; everyone built a special hut for himself, at some distance from the others, in order to live calmer and safer. Forest, stream, field, made up his area, where the weak and unarmed were afraid to enter. Each family was a small, independent Republic; but common ancient customs served between them as a kind of civil connection. On important occasions, members of the same tribe came together to consult on the good of the people, respecting the sentence of the elders ... together, also, undertaking military campaigns, they elected Leaders, although ... and often disobeyed them in the battles themselves. Having done a common deed and returning home, everyone again considered himself great and the head in his hut.

Only a few centuries later, the so-called aristocratic government appeared, not elective, received for any merit, but inherited from father to son. Initially, having no courts and laws, in case of disagreement, the tribesmen turned to their famous fellow citizens, since their celebrity was based on the exploits and wealth obtained by the war. And a man who succeeded in military affairs was worth a lot in the eyes of his compatriots. “Finally, custom has become for some the right to rule, and for others the duty to obey. If the son of the Hero, glorious and rich, had the great properties of his father, then he even more asserted the power of his kind.

This power was signified by the Slavs by the names of Boyar, Voyevoda, Prince, Pan, Zhupan, King or King.

Boyar - "comes from the battle, and at the beginning it could signify a warrior of excellent courage, and then turned into national dignity"

Voevoda - so “before some military commanders were called; but as they were able to appropriate dominance over their fellow citizens in peacetime, this name already signified in general the ruler and ruler ... "

Prince - "was born almost from a horse ... In the Slavic lands, horses were the most precious property: among the Pomeranians in the Middle Ages, 30 horses were great wealth, and every owner of a horse was called the Prince."

Pan means "wealthy owner".

Zhupan - "... the ancient word Zhupa meant a village, and their rulers were Zhupans, or Elders."

Religious performances

The Slavs were pagans. They deified the forces of nature and worshiped them. The most ancient deities were Rod and Rozhanitsy. Rod is the god of the universe, living in heaven and giving life to all living things. Later - this is the nickname of Perun as a representative of the creative, fertile forces of nature. Rozhanitsy - the goddess of the Slavs, the female giving birth, giving life to all living things: man, flora and fauna. Later they were personified - they received proper names, in particular, Makosh. The Slavs also worshiped the White God, or Belobog, “Who, in their opinion, the high heavens, adorned with radiant luminaries, serve as a worthy temple, and Who cares only about the heavenly, having chosen other, lower gods, his children, to rule the earth. It seems that they called him mainly the White God, and did not build temples for him, imagining that mortals cannot have communication with him and must relate in their needs to secondary gods ... ".

As in any other religion, there should have been an antipode of good - evil. “The Slavs… attributed evil to a being to a special, eternal enemy of people; they called him Chernobog, tried to propitiate him with sacrifices, and in the assemblies of the people they drank from a cup dedicated to him and the good gods. “Having a face filled with rage, he held a spear in his hand, ready to defeat or more - to inflict all sorts of evils. Not only horses and prisoners were sacrificed to this terrible spirit, but also people specially provided for this purpose. And as all national disasters were attributed to him, in such cases they prayed to him to avert evil. Chernobog lives in hell. Chernobog and Belobog are always fighting, they cannot defeat each other, they replace each other day and night - the personification of these deities.

The Belobog takes care of the Universe, and the “younger gods” manage human affairs. We list the most revered Slavs.

Svarog is the supreme ruler of the universe, the ancestor of all other bright gods, or, as the Slavs called him, the great, old god, the great god, in relation to whom all other gods were represented as his children.

Perun - originally - the son of Svarog-heaven, fire-lightning. Lightning was his weapon, rainbow his bow, clouds his clothes or beard, thunder a far-sounding word, winds and storms his breath, rains his fertilizing seed. This is the most important of the younger gods of the Slavs. "His idol ... was wooden, with a silver head and a golden mustache." Later, in the popular mind, it disintegrated into gods - actually Perun, Svarozhich, the Sea King and Stribog.

Svarozhich - fire, the son of heaven-Svarog.

Stribog - the god of thunderstorms, appearing in storms and whirlwinds, the supreme king of the winds. They portrayed him blowing his horns.

Sea King (Water, Miracle Yudo) - the lord of all waters on earth; The raining Perun turns into the ruler of the seas, rivers, springs ... The Sea King rules over all the fish and animals that are found in the seas.

Khors is the deity of the sun and the solar disk. Khors is dedicated to two very large pagan holidays in the year - the days of the summer and winter solstices.

Evenbog (Dazhbog, Dazhbog, Dashuba) is the sun, the son of Svarog. “Like an ever-clean shone, dazzling in its radiance, awakening earthly life, the sun was revered as a good, merciful deity, its name became synonymous with happiness. The sun is the creator of crops, the giver of food, and therefore the patron of all the poor and orphans. At the same time, the sun is also the punisher of all evil.

Samargl (Semargl) - the god of fire, the god of fiery sacrifices, an intermediary between people and heavenly gods, a sacred winged dog that guarded seeds and crops. As if the personification of armed good. He has the ability to heal, for he brought the shoot of the tree of life from heaven to earth.

Mokosh (Mokosh, Makosha, Makesha) - one of the main goddesses of the Eastern Slavs, the wife of Perun. Her name is composed of two parts: "ma" - mother and "kosh" - purse, basket, koshara. Mokosh is the mother of filled cats, the mother of a good harvest. This is not the goddess of fertility, but the goddess of the results of the economic year, the goddess of the harvest, the giver of blessings. Harvest every year determines the fate, so she was also revered as the goddess of fate. A mandatory attribute in her image is a cornucopia. She patronized the household, sheared sheep, spun, punished the negligent. She was portrayed as a woman with a large head and long arms, spinning at night in a hut.

Lado - "the god of fun, love, harmony and all prosperity ... those who entered into a marriage union sacrificed to him, zealously singing his name"

Kupala - the god of earthly fruits, the fruitful deity of summer

Kolyada - "the god of celebrations and peace." The baby sun, in Slavic mythology, is the embodiment of the New Year cycle.

“Among the good gods, Svyatovid was famous more than others. He predicted the future and helped in the war. His idol was larger than the height of a man, adorned with short clothes made of different wood; had four heads, two breasts, skillfully combed beards and cropped hair; he stood with his feet in the ground, and in one hand he held a horn of wine, and in the other a bow; next to the idol hung a bridle, a saddle, his sword with a silver scabbard and handle.

Volos is “the god-cloaker who covers the sky with rain clouds, ... drives out cloudy herds to heavenly pastures ... For the sake of the dependence in which earthly crops are from heavenly milk spilled by flocks of rain clouds, Volos ... is given the meaning of a god helping the labors of the farmer."

All the gods were depicted as idols - wooden, as a rule, sculptures, while the idols were considered "not the image, but the body of the gods." There were no temples dedicated to these gods. At least, no information about them has been preserved. Perhaps, if we recall the absence of a permanent and strong dwelling among the Slavs, the idols moved along with the settlements of the Slavs, and there could be no temples as such at all. There were also no priests, “there were only sorcerers or sorcerers. The sorcerer is a sage who knows the future, a fortuneteller, a healer, closer than a mortal to the mysterious forces of nature - to a deity ...; the priest is the chosen one of God, the representative on earth of his interests; the knowledge and power of the priest come directly from God."

In addition to the gods, there were also household deities, or undead, or spirits; creatures without flesh and soul, everything that does not live by a person, but has his appearance.

Leshii - "as if they live in the darkness of forests, are equal to trees and grass, terrify wanderers, go around them and lead them astray."

Mermaids are water maidens; the souls of the dead: children who died unbaptized, or drowned or drowned girls. Mermaids are representatives of the realm of death, darkness and cold. Among the Western Slavs, mermaids are cheerful, playful and fascinating creatures, singing songs with delightful and alluring voices; in Great Russia they are evil and vengeful creatures, disheveled and unkempt: pale-faced, with green eyes and the same hair, always naked and always ready to lure you in only to tickle to death and drown without any special guilt.

1) Brownie-domozhil - a representative of the hearth, according to the original meaning, there is the god Agni, identical to Perun the Thunderer. As the embodiment of fire blazing on the hearth, the brownie was honored as the founder and lord of the clan. This is a small old man, all covered with warm, shaggy hair. He only cares about his home.

2) Domovoy-yard - got his name at the place of usual residence, and by the nature of relations with homeowners, he is ranked among the evil spirits, and all the stories about him come down to the torment of those domestic animals that he does not love. Outwardly, it looks like a homemaker. He is always friendly only with a goat and a dog, he dislikes other animals, and the birds do not obey him. Especially does not tolerate white cats, white dogs and gray horses - a knowledgeable owner tries not to keep such living creatures. Gifts are brought to him on iron forks in the manger.

Kikimori is a yard spirit that is considered evil and harmful to poultry. The usual place of settlement is chicken coops, those corners of barns where chickens perch. Stones, the so-called "chicken gods", are hung in chicken coops so that kikimors do not crush chickens. The occupation of kikimor is direct - to pluck feathers from chickens and point a “spinner” at them (when they circle like mad and fall dumbfounded). Kikimors shake and burn the tow left by the spinning wheels without the blessing of the cross. Kikimor is represented as ugly dwarfs or babies, whose head is the size of a thimble, and their body is as thin as a straw. They are endowed with the ability to be invisible, run fast and vigilantly see into distant spaces; roam without clothes and shoes, never grow old and love to knock, rattle, whistle and hiss.

In addition, the Slavs in Russia "also prayed to trees, especially hollow ones, tying their branches with balustrades or boards." Karamzin also notes that "the Slavs also adored banners, and thought that in wartime they were holier than all idols."

Religious ceremonies include feast and burning at the stake of the deceased and his widow. “The Russian Slavs performed a funeral feast over the dead: they showed their strength in various military games, burned the corpse on a large fire, and enclosing the ashes in an urn, placed it on a pillar in the vicinity of the roads. This rite ... expresses the warlike spirit of the people who celebrated death so as not to be afraid of it in battles, and surrounded the roads with sad urns in order to accustom their eyes and thoughts to these signs of human perishability. But the Slavs of Kyiv and Volyn from ancient times buried the dead, some used to, along with the corpse, bury ladders woven from belts into the ground; the relatives of the dead man wounded their faces, and slaughtered his beloved horse on the grave.” Ibn Rusta says: “When the deceased is burned, they indulge in noisy fun, expressing joy over the mercy shown to him by God”



Good people of ancient Rus'

Charity- here is a word with a very controversial meaning and with a very simple meaning. Many people interpret it differently, and everyone understands it the same way. Ask what it means to be kind to your neighbor, and you may get as many answers as you have. But put them right in front of an accident, in front of a suffering person with the question of what to do - and everyone will be ready to help in any way they can. The feeling of compassion is so simple and direct that one wants to help even when the sufferer does not ask for help, even when help is harmful and even dangerous to him, when he can abuse it. At leisure, one can reflect and argue about the conditions of government loans to the needy, the organization and comparative importance of state and public assistance, the attitude of both to private charity, the delivery of earnings to the needy, the demoralizing effect of gratuitous grants. At leisure, when the trouble is over, and we will think about all this and argue. But when you see that a person is drowning, the first movement is to rush to his aid, without asking how and why he fell into the water and what moral impression our help will make on him.

When discussing the participation that the government, zemstvo and society can take in helping the people, it is necessary to distinguish between various elements and motives: economic policy, which takes measures to bring the labor and economy of the people out of unfavorable conditions, and the consequences of assistance, which may turn out to be unfavorable from the point of view of police and public discipline, and the possibility of all sorts of abuses. All these are considerations which are within the competence of the respective departments, but which need not be mixed with charity in the proper sense. Only such charity is open to us, private individuals, and it can be guided only by a moral impulse, a feeling of compassion for the suffering. If only to help him stay alive and well, and if he makes bad use of our help, it is his fault, which, after the need has passed, the authorities and influences to be corrected will take care to correct. This is how we understood private charity in the old days; so, no doubt, we also understand it, having inherited through historical education the good concepts and skills of antiquity.

Poverty of Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky.

From the Royal Chronicler

Over the course of centuries, under the leadership of the Church, ancient Russian society diligently learned to understand and fulfill the second of the two main commandments, which contain all the law and the prophets - the commandment to love one's neighbor. With social disorder, lack of security for the weak and protection for the offended, the practice of this commandment was directed mainly in one direction: love for one's neighbor was believed, first of all, in the feat of compassion for the suffering, personal alms were recognized as its first requirement. The idea of ​​this almsgiving relied on the basis of practical moralizing; the need for this feat was brought up by all the then means of spiritual and moral pedagogy.

To love your neighbor is, first of all, to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to visit the prisoner in prison. Humanity really means poverty. Charity was not so much an auxiliary means of public improvement, but a necessary condition for personal moral health: it was more necessary for the poor man himself than for the beggar. The healing power of alms was relied not so much on wiping away the tears of the afflicted, giving him part of his property, but on looking at his tears and suffering, to suffer with him himself, to experience that feeling called philanthropy.

The ancient Russian philanthropist, "lover of Christ", thought less about raising the level of social welfare with a good deed than about raising the level of his own spiritual perfection. When two ancient Russian hands met, one with a request for Christ's sake, the other with alms in the name of Christ, it was difficult to say which of them gave more alms to the other: the need of one and the help of the other merged in the interaction of the brotherly love of both. That is why Ancient Rus' understood and valued only personal, direct, charity, alms given from hand to hand, moreover, “otay”, secretly, not only from a prying eye, but also from its own “shui” (left hand. - Note. ed.).

The beggar was for the philanthropist the best pilgrimage, prayer intercessor, spiritual benefactor. “The holy alms enter into paradise,” they said in the old days, “the poor are fed by the rich, and the rich of the poor are saved by prayer.” The philanthropist needed to see with his own eyes the human need that he alleviated in order to receive spiritual benefit; the needy had to see his benefactor in order to know whom to pray for. Old Russian tsars, on the eve of big holidays, early in the morning, made secret exits to prisons and almshouses, where they handed out alms to prisoners and detainees from their own hands, and also visited poor people who lived separately.

How difficult it is to study and treat diseases according to a drawing or a mannequin of a diseased organism, so seemed ineffective absentee alms. By virtue of the same view of the significance of charitable deeds, begging in Ancient Rus' was considered not an economic burden for the people, not an ulcer of public order, but one of the main means of moral education of the people, which is a practical institution of public goodness under the Church. Just as a patient is needed in a clinic in order to learn how to treat diseases, so in ancient Russian society an orphaned and wretched person was needed in order to cultivate the ability and skill to love a person. Almsgiving was an additional act of church worship, a practical requirement of the rule that faith without works is dead. As a living instrument of spiritual salvation, the old Russian man needed a beggar at all important moments of his personal and family life, especially in sad moments. From it, he created an ideal image, which he liked to wear in his thoughts, as the personification of his best feelings and thoughts. If by a miraculous act of legislation or economic progress and medical knowledge all the poor and miserable in Ancient Rus' suddenly disappeared, who knows, perhaps the ancient Russian merciful would feel some moral awkwardness, like a person left without a staff on which he used to rely; he would have a shortage in the supply of means for his spiritual dispensation.

It is difficult to say to what extent such a view of charity contributed to the improvement of the Old Russian community. No methods of sociological study can calculate how much good this daily, silent, thousand-armed charity poured into human relations, how much it taught people to love a person and weaned the poor from hating the rich. The significance of such personal almsgiving was revealed more clearly and more tangibly when the need for charitable assistance was caused not by the grief of individual unhappy lives, but by the people's physical disaster. The nature of our country has long been kind, but sometimes it has been the wayward mother of its people, who, perhaps, himself caused her waywardness by his inability to deal with her. Shortfalls and crop failures were not uncommon in Ancient Rus'. The lack of economic communication and administrative discipline turned local shortages of food into starvation disasters.

Such a disaster happened at the beginning of the 17th century, under Tsar Boris. In 1601, as soon as the spring sowing was over, terrible rains poured down and poured all summer. Field work has stopped. The bread did not ripen, until August it was impossible to start harvesting, and on Assumption Day a hard frost unexpectedly hit and beat the unripe bread, which almost all remained in the field. People fed themselves on the remnants of old bread, and the next year they sowed the crops of the new crop, somehow harvested, with cold; but nothing came up, everything remained in the ground, and a three-year famine set in. The tsar did not spare the treasury, generously distributed alms in Moscow, undertook extensive construction in order to deliver earnings to those in need.

Having heard about this, the people poured into Moscow in droves from the lean provinces, which increased the need for the capital. Severe mortality began: only in three state-owned metropolitan skudels, where the tsar ordered to pick up homeless victims, in two years and four months they counted 127 thousand. But the trouble was largely artificial. There was enough bread left over from previous harvests. Later, when the impostors flooded Rus' with gangs of Poles and Cossacks, who, with their devastation, stopped sowing in vast areas, for many years this spare grain was enough not only for their own, but also for enemies. At the first sign of crop failure, grain speculation began to play out. The big landowners locked up their warehouses.

The buyers put everything into circulation: money, utensils, expensive clothes, in order to pick up the sold bread. Both of them did not let any grain on the market, waiting for high prices, rejoicing, in the words of a contemporary, at the profits, “the end of things is not understanding, troubles are woven together and the people are embarrassing.” Grain prices were raised to a terrible height: a quarter of rye from the then 20 kopecks soon rose to 6 rubles, equal to our 60 rubles, that is, it rose in price by 30 times! The king took strict and decisive measures against evil, forbade distillation and brewing, ordered to look for buyers and beat them mercilessly with a whip in the markets, overwrite their stocks and sell them at retail a little, prescribed mandatory prices and punished with heavy fines those who concealed their stocks.

The surviving monument revealed to us one of the private charitable activities that at that time worked below, in the field, when the tsar was struggling with a national disaster above. At that time, a widow-landowner, the wife of a wealthy provincial nobleman, Ulyana Ustinovna Osorina, lived on her estate. She was a simple, ordinary, kind woman of Ancient Rus', modest, afraid of something to become higher than those around her. She differed from others only in that pity for the poor and wretched—the feeling with which a Russian woman is born into the world—was subtler and deeper in her, manifested itself more intensely than in many others, and, developing from continuous practice, gradually filled her whole being, became the main stimulus of her moral life, the every minute attraction of her eternally active heart.

Even before her marriage, living with her aunt after the death of her parents, she sheathed all the orphans and infirm widows in her village, and often the candle in her room did not go out until dawn. Upon her marriage, her mother-in-law entrusted her with housekeeping, and her daughter-in-law turned out to be a smart and efficient housewife. But the habitual thought of the poor and the wretched did not leave her amid domestic and family troubles. She deeply learned the Christian commandment of secret almsgiving. It used to be that her husband would be sent to the royal service somewhere in Astrakhan for two or three years.

She stayed at home and whiled away the lonely evenings, she sewed and spun. She sold her needlework and secretly distributed the proceeds to the beggars who came to her at night. Not considering herself entitled to take something from home stocks without asking her mother-in-law, she once even resorted to a little slyness for a charitable purpose, which it is permissible to tell about, because her respectful son did not hide it in his mother's biography. Ulyana was very moderate in her food, she only dined, did not have breakfast and did not have an afternoon snack, which greatly worried her mother-in-law, who was afraid for the health of her young daughter-in-law.

One of the frequent crop failures happened in Rus', and famine set in in the Murom region. Uliana intensified her usual secret almsgiving and, needing new funds, suddenly began to demand for herself full breakfasts and afternoon snacks, which, of course, were distributed to the starving. The mother-in-law remarked to her half-jokingly: “What has happened to you, my daughter? When there was plenty of bread, you used to not be called to either breakfast or afternoon tea, but now, when everyone has nothing to eat, what a desire for food fell on you. - “Until I had children,” the daughter-in-law answered, “food didn’t even come to my mind, but when the guys went to be born, I became emaciated and just can’t eat, not only during the day, but often at night I’m drawn to food ; only I am ashamed, mother, to ask you. The mother-in-law was satisfied with the explanation of her good liar and allowed her to take food as much as she liked, day and night.

This constantly aroused compassionate love for her neighbor, offended by life, helped Ulyana easily step over the most inveterate social prejudices of Ancient Rus'.

A deep legal and moral abyss lay between the ancient Russian master and his serf: the latter was for the former, according to the law, not a person, but a simple thing. Following the original native custom, and perhaps even Greco-Roman law, which did not criminalize the death of a slave from the beatings of the master, Russian legislation as early as the 14th century. proclaimed that if the master “sinned”, with an unsuccessful blow he killed his serf or serf, for this he would not be subjected to trial and responsibility. The Church long and in vain cried out against such an attitude towards serfs. Filling the yards of wealthy landowners by dozens, poorly dressed and always kept from hand to mouth, the servants made up a crowd of domestic beggars, more miserable compared to free public beggars. The ancient Russian church sermon pointed to them to the gentlemen as the closest object of their compassion, urging them to take care of their servants before holding out their hand with a charitable penny to a beggar standing on the church porch. There were many servants in Ulyana's estate. She fed and clothed her well, did not spoil her, but spared her, did not leave her idle, but gave everyone work according to her strength and did not demand personal services from her, she did everything for herself, did not even allow her to take off her shoes and give water to wash . At the same time, she did not allow herself to address the serfs with nicknames, with which soul-owning Rus', right up to February 19, 1861, shouted at her people: Vanka, Mashka, but she called each and every one by her real name. Who, what social theories taught her, a simple rural lady of the 16th century, to become in such a direct and deliberate relationship with the lower subservient brethren?

Righteous Juliana during the famine gives alms to the poor

She was already advanced in years when her last and most difficult charitable ordeal befell her. The crafty demon, a good hater, who had long fussed around this annoying woman and was always put to shame by her, once out of anger threatened her: “Wait a minute! Will you feed strangers with me when I make you starve to death in your old age. Such a good-natured and pious combination explains in the biography the origin of the misfortune that befell the good woman. Having buried her husband, raised her sons and placed them in the royal service, she was already thinking about the eternal dispensation of her own soul, but she still smoldered before God with love for her neighbor, like a burning wax candle smoldering before the image. Poverty did not allow her to be a thrifty mistress. She counted on household food only for a year, distributing the rest to those in need. The poor man was for her some kind of bottomless savings mug, where she, with insatiable hoarding, hid everything and hid all her savings and surpluses. Sometimes she didn’t have a penny left in her house from alms, and she borrowed money from her sons, with which she sewed winter clothes for the poor, and herself, already under 60 years old, went all winter without a fur coat.

The beginning of the terrible famine three years under Tsar Boris found her completely unprepared in the Nizhny Novgorod estate. She did not collect any grain from her fields, there were no stocks, almost all the cattle fell from lack of food. But she did not lose heart, but cheerfully set to work, sold the rest of the cattle, clothes, dishes, everything valuable in the house and bought bread with the proceeds, which she distributed to the hungry, did not let a single one who asked empty-handed and took special care of feeding her family. servants. Then many prudent gentlemen simply drove their serfs from the yards so as not to feed them, but did not give them vacation pay, so that later they could be returned to captivity. Abandoned to the mercy of fate in the midst of general panic, the serfs began to steal and rob.

Ulyana tried most of all to prevent her servants from doing this and kept them with her as much as she had strength. Finally, she reached the last stage of poverty, robbed herself clean, so that there was nothing to go to church. Having exhausted herself, having used up all the bread to the last grain, she announced to her serf household that she could no longer feed her, whoever wants, let her take her fortresses or vacation pay and go free with God. Some left her, and she saw them off with prayer and blessing; but others renounced their will, declared that they would not go, would rather die with their mistress than leave her. She sent her faithful servants through the forests and fields to collect tree bark and quinoa and began to bake bread from these surrogates, which she fed with children and serfs, even managed to share with the beggars, "because at that time there were no number of beggars", succinctly remarks her biographer.

The surrounding landowners reproachfully said to these beggars: “Why do you go to her? What to take from her? She herself is starving." “And we’ll say this,” the beggars said, “we went around a lot of villages where we were served real bread, and we didn’t eat it as much as we liked, like the bread of this widow - what do you call her?” Many beggars did not even know how to call her by name. Then the neighbors-landlords began to send to Ulyana for her outlandish bread: after tasting it, they found that the beggars were right, and with surprise they said among themselves: the masters of her serfs bake bread! With what love it is necessary to give a beggar a piece of bread that is not chemically irreproachable, so that this piece becomes the subject of a poetic legend as soon as it is eaten! For two years she endured such poverty and did not grieve, did not grumble, did not give madness to God, did not become exhausted from poverty, on the contrary, she was cheerful as never before. Thus ends the biographer's account of his mother's last exploit. She died shortly after the end of the famine, at the beginning of 1604. The traditions of our past have not preserved for us a sublime and more touching example of charitable love for one's neighbor.

No one counted, not a single historical monument recorded how many Ulyans were then in the Russian land, and how many hungry tears they wiped with their kind hands. It must be assumed that there were enough of both, because the Russian land survived those terrible years, deceiving the expectations of its enemies. Here, private philanthropy went hand in hand with the efforts of the state authorities. But this is not always the case. Private philanthropy suffers from some disadvantages. Usually she provides occasional and fleeting help, and often not a real need. It is easily abused: evoked by one of the deepest and most uncalculative feelings that there is in the moral reserve of the human heart, it cannot follow its own effects. It is pure in its source, but easily corrupted in its course. Here it is against the will of benefactors and may deviate from the requirements of the public good and order.

Peter the Great, striving to set in motion the entire available labor force of his people, armed himself against idle begging fed by private alms. In 1705, he ordered clerks to be sent around Moscow with soldiers and bailiffs to catch wandering beggars and punish them, take their money away, not give them alms, but seize those who file and subject them to a fine; philanthropists had to deliver their alms to the almshouses that existed at the churches. Peter armed himself against private alms in the name of public charity, as an institution, as a system of charitable institutions. Public charity has its advantages: yielding to private alms in energy and quality of motives, in moral and educational action on both sides, it is more selective and more effective in its practical results, it provides more reliable assistance to the needy, gives him permanent shelter.

The idea of ​​public charity, of course, was aroused with particular force in times of national disasters, when the quantity of good is required before being asked about the quality of motives for good deeds. So it was in the Time of Troubles. In 1609 the second impostor besieged Moscow. The phenomena of Borisov's time were repeated. There was a terrible famine in the capital. The grain merchants staged a strike, began to buy supplies everywhere and did not let anything on the market, waiting for the greatest rise in prices. For a quarter of rye, they began to ask for 9 rubles of that time, that is, over 100 rubles. with our money. Tsar Vasily Shuisky ordered to sell bread at a specified price - the merchants did not obey. He put into effect the strictness of the laws - merchants stopped the risky delivery of the bread they bought from the provinces to the besieged capital. Moreover, opposition journalism poured out of Moscow streets and markets from thousands of mouths, they began to say that all troubles, and the enemy's sword, and hunger fall on the people because the tsar is unhappy. Then an unprecedented people's assembly was convened at the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. Patriarch Hermogenes delivered a powerful sermon on love and mercy; behind him the tsar himself delivered a speech, imploring the kulaks not to buy up grain, not to raise prices. But the struggle of both higher authorities, church and state, with popular psychology and political economy was unsuccessful. Then a bright thought, one of those that often come to the mind of good people, dawned on the tsar and the patriarch. The Old Russian monastery has always been a spare granary for the needy, for the wealth of the Church, as the pastors of our Church used to say, is the wealth of the poor.

Then lived at the Trinity Compound in Moscow, the cellar of the Trinity Sergius Monastery, Father Avraamy, who had significant stocks of bread. The tsar and the patriarch persuaded him to send several hundred quarters to the Moscow market for 2 rubles. for a quarter. It was more a psychological than a political-economic operation: the cellar threw only 200 measures of rye into the market of the crowded capital; but the goal was reached. The merchants were frightened when a rumor spread that all the grain reserves of this rich monastery, which were considered inexhaustible, had gone to the market, and the price of bread had fallen to 2 rubles for a long time. After some time, Abraham repeated this operation with the same amount of bread and with the same success.

The 17th century had the sad advantage of hard experience to understand and appreciate the importance of the issue of public charity raised at the Stoglavy Council as a matter of legislation and administration, and to transfer it from the circle of action of personal moral feeling to the area of ​​public improvement. Severe trials have led to the idea that state power, by timely measures, can weaken or prevent the calamities of the needy masses and even direct private charity.

In 1654, the war with Poland for Little Russia began and continued under very unfavorable conditions. The epidemic devastated villages and villages and reduced grain production. The depreciation of credit copper money issued in 1656 with a nominal value of silver increased the high cost: the price of bread, which had doubled since the beginning of the war, rose to 30-40 rubles in other places by the beginning of the 1660s. for a quarter of rye with our money. In 1660, knowledgeable people from the Moscow merchants, who were called for a conference with the boyars on the reasons for the high cost and the means to eliminate it, among other things pointed out the extraordinary development of distillation and brewing, and proposed to stop the sale of wine in drinking establishments, close wineries, and also take measures against the buying up of grain and to prevent buyers and kulaks from entering grain markets before noon. Finally, to rewrite the stocks of grain prepared by the buyers, transport them to Moscow to the state account and sell them to poor people, and the buyers will be paid from the treasury at their price in money. As soon as the gravity of the situation forced us to think about the mechanism of national economic turnover, we immediately felt vividly what the state power could do to eliminate the confusion that arose in it.

In these difficult years, there was a man close to the tsar who, by a good example, showed how it is possible to combine private and public charity and build a stable system of charitable institutions on the basis of a sense of personal compassion.

It was F. M. Rtishchev, a close bed-keeper, how to say, chief chamberlain at the court of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, and then his butler, that is, the minister of the court. This man is one of the best memories bequeathed to us by ancient Russian antiquity. One of the first planters of scientific education in Moscow in the 17th century, he belonged to the great state minds of Alekseev's time, which was so abundant in great minds. He was also credited with the idea of ​​the aforementioned credit operation with copper money, which represented unprecedented news in the then financial policy, and it was not his fault if the experiment ended unsuccessfully. Much employed in the service, enjoying the full confidence of the king and queen and the great respect of the court society, the educator of Tsarevich Alexei, Rtishchev set the task of his private life to serve suffering and needy humanity. Helping one's neighbor was a constant need of his heart, and his view of himself and his neighbor imparted to this need the character of a responsible but unassuming moral duty.

Rtishchev belonged to those rare and somewhat strange people who have no pride at all, at least in the simple current sense of the word. Contrary to natural instincts and primordial human habits, in Christ's commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, he considered himself capable of fulfilling only the first part. He loved himself only for his neighbor, considering himself the least of his neighbors, about whom it is not a sin to think about only when there is no one else to think about. A completely evangelical man, whose right cheek of its own accord, without boasting or calculation, was substituted for the one who struck on the left, as if it were a requirement of physical law or secular decency, and not a feat of humility.

Andreevsky Monastery near Moscow, where a school was founded in 1647.

19th century lithograph from an old engraving

Rtishchev did not understand resentment, just as some do not know the taste in wine, not considering this as abstinence, but simply not understanding how it is possible to drink such an unpleasant and useless thing. He was the first to meet his offender with a request for forgiveness and reconciliation. From the height of his social position, he did not know how to slide an arrogant gaze over people's heads, stopping at them only to count them. A person was not only a counting unit for him, especially a poor and suffering person. The high position only expanded, how to say, the scope of his philanthropy, giving him the opportunity to see how many people live in the world who need help, and his compassionate feeling was not content with helping the first suffering he met. From the height of ancient Russian compassion for personal, specific grief, for this or that unfortunate person, Rtishchev knew how to rise to the ability to sympathize with human misfortune, as a common evil, and deal with it, as with his own personal disaster. Therefore, he wanted to turn the random and intermittent calls of personal charity into a permanent public organization that would pick up the masses of the toiling and burdened, making it easier for them to bear the heavy duty of life.

Procession in Moscow in the 17th century

The impressions of the Polish war could only reinforce this idea. The tsar himself went on a campaign, and Rtishchev accompanied him as the head of his camp apartment. Being in his position in the rear of the army, Rtishchev saw the horrors that the war leaves behind, and which the belligerents themselves usually do not notice - those who become their first victims. The rear of the army is a difficult test and the best school of philanthropy: he will relentlessly love a person who does not carry away hatred for people from the dressing line.

Rtishchev looked at the disgusting work of the war as at the harvest of his heart, as at a sadly plentiful charitable harvest. He suffered from his legs, and it was difficult for him to ride. On the way, he gathered in heaps of sick, wounded, beaten and devastated into his carriage, so that sometimes there was no place left for him, and, having mounted a horse, he trailed behind his impromptu field infirmary to the nearest town, where he immediately rented a house, where, himself groaning in pain, he dumped his groaning and groaning brethren, arranged for her maintenance and care for her, and even in some unknown way recruited medical staff, “naziratai and physicians to them and caregivers arranged, for their repose and healing from their estate, exhausting them,” how pretentious notes his biographer. So the chief chamberlain of his majesty's court turned by itself into a mourner of the Red Cross, which he also arranged at his own expense.

However, in this case he had a secret financial and cordial accomplice, which the same chatty biographer betrayed to history. In his silent pocket, Rtishchev carried a significant amount for the war, quietly slipped to him by Tsarina Marya Ilyinichnaya, and the biographer makes it clear with an indiscreet hint that before the campaign they agreed to accept even captured enemies in need of hospital care in the temporary military hospitals they had conceived. We must bow to the ground to the memory of these people who, by the silent exegesis of their deeds, teach us to understand the words of Christ: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you." Similar cases were repeated in the Livonian campaign of the king, when in 1656 the war with Sweden began.

It can be assumed that the field observations and impressions did not remain without influence on the plan of public charity, drawn up in the mind of Rtishchev. This plan was designed for the most painful ulcers of the then Russian life. First of all, the Crimean Tatars in the XVI and XVII centuries. made a profitable trade for themselves from robber attacks on the Russian land, where they took thousands and tens of thousands of prisoners, who were sold to Turkey and other countries. In order to save and return these prisoners home, the Moscow government arranged for their redemption at public expense, for which they introduced a special general tax, Polonian money. This ransom was called "general alms", in which everyone had to participate: both the king and all "Orthodox Christians", his subjects. By agreement with the robbers, the procedure for bringing in captive goods and the tariff at which it was redeemed were established, depending on the social status of the captives. Redemption rates in the time of Rtishchev were quite high: for the people who stood at the very bottom of the then society, peasants and serfs, about 250 rubles were assigned from the state. on our money per person; for people of the upper classes paid thousands. But state support for ransom was not enough.

Having seen enough of the suffering of prisoners during campaigns, Rtishchev entered into an agreement with a Greek merchant living in Russia, who, doing business with the Mohammedan East, redeemed many captive Christians at his own expense. To this good man, Rtishchev transferred a capital of 17 thousand rubles with our money, to which the Greek, who had taken over the ransom operation, added his contribution, and thus a kind of charitable company was formed to redeem Russian prisoners from the Tatars. But, true to his agreement with the tsarina, Rtishchev did not forget the foreigners whom he brought captive to Russia, and eased their plight with his intercession and alms.

Moscow unpaved street of the 17th century. she was very untidy: in the midst of the dirt, misfortune, idleness and vice sat, crawled and lay nearby; beggars and cripples screamed for alms to passers-by, drunks lay on the ground. Rtishchev made up a team of messengers who picked up these people from the streets to a special house arranged by him at his own expense, where the sick were treated, and the drunks were sobered up and then, having been provided with the necessary, they were released, replacing them with new patients. For the elderly, the blind and other cripples who suffered from incurable ailments, Rtishchev bought another house, spending his last income on their maintenance. This house, under the name of the Hospital of Fyodor Rtishchev, existed even after his death, supported by voluntary donations.

So Rtishchev formed two types of charitable institutions: an outpatient shelter for those in need of temporary assistance and a permanent shelter - an almshouse for people whom philanthropy was supposed to take into its own hands until their death. But he listened to people's needs outside of Moscow, and here he continued the work of his predecessor, Ulyana Osoryina: by the way, his mother's name was Ulyana. There was a famine in the Vologda region. The local archbishop helped the starving as much as he could. Rtishchev, having spent money on his Moscow establishments, sold all his extra clothes, all extra household utensils, which he, a rich gentleman, had a lot of, and sent the proceeds to the Vologda lord, who, adding to the donation and his small share, fed a lot of the poor people.

With careful and deeply compassionate attention, Rtishchev stopped before a new kind of people in need of compassionate attention, which in the time of Juliana was only in its infancy: in the 17th century. the serfdom of the peasants developed. The personal freedom of the peasants was one of those sacrifices which our state in the 17th century was forced to bring in the struggle for its integrity and external security. Biographer Rtishchev outlined his attitude to this new field of charity with only two or three features, but with features that touched to the depths of the soul.

Being a large landowner, he once had, in need of money, to sell his village of Ilyinskoye. Having bargained with the buyer, he himself voluntarily reduced the agreed price, but at the same time led the new owner to the image and made him swear that he would not increase the philanthropic duties that the peasants of the village were serving in favor of the former master - an unusual and slightly strange form of a verbal bill, taken on the conscience of the drawer. Supporting the inventory of his peasants with generous loans, he was most afraid of upsetting this economy with unbearable dues and corvée work, and frowned with displeasure every time he noticed an increase in the lord's income in the reports of the managers.

It is known how the ancient Russian man cared about the afterlife dispensation of his soul with the help of contributions, posthumous prayer and commemoration. Rtishchev bequeathed his estates to his daughter and son-in-law, Prince Odoevsky. He ordered the heirs to release all his servants to freedom. Then the legislation had not yet developed a procedure for the dismissal of serfs with land by entire societies. “This is how you arrange my soul,” Rtishchev said before his death to his son-in-law and daughter, “in memory of me, be kind to my peasants, whom I strengthened for you, own them preferentially, do not demand from them work and dues beyond their strength-possibility, because they are our brothers; this is my last and greatest request to you.”

Rtishchev knew how to sympathize with the situation of entire societies or institutions, as one sympathizes with the grief of individuals. We all remember the wonderful story we read at school in the textbook. Near Arzamas, Rtishchev had land, for which private buyers gave him up to 17 thousand rubles for our money. But he knew that the Arzamas people desperately needed the land, and offered the city to buy it at least for a reduced price. But the urban society was so poor that they could not pay any decent price, and did not know what to do. Rtishchev gave him land.

Contemporaries who observed the court of Tsar Alexei, their own and others, left very little news about the minister of this court, Rtishchev. One foreign ambassador, who was then visiting Moscow, said of him that, barely 40 years old, he surpassed the prudence of many old people. Rtishchev did not move forward. He was one of those modest people who do not like to walk in the front ranks, but by staying behind and raising the lights high above their heads, they light the way for advanced people.

It was especially difficult to keep track of his charitable activities. But he was understood and remembered among the lower brethren, for whom he laid down his soul. His biographer, describing his death, conveys a very naive story, Rtishchev died in 1673, only 47 years old. Two days before his death, a 12-year-old girl who lived in his house, whom he cherished for her meek disposition, after praying, as was customary in this house, went to bed and, drowsing, sees: her sick owner is sitting, so cheerful and smart and he has a crown on his head. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a fine fellow, also smartly dressed, comes up to him and says: “Tsarevich Alexei is calling you.” And this prince, a pupil of Rtishchev, was then already dead. “Wait a little, you can’t do it yet,” the owner answered. The good guy left. Soon two others of the same kind came and again said: "Tsarevich Alexei is calling you." The owner got up and went, and two babies, his daughter and niece, clung to his legs, and did not want to leave him. He pushed them aside, saying, "Go away, or I'll take you with me." The owner came out of the ward, and then a ladder appeared in front of him from the earth to the very sky, and he climbed this ladder, and there a young man with golden wings appeared on the heights of heaven, extended his hand to the owner and grabbed him. In this dream of the girl, told in Rtishchev's girl's room, all the noble tears of poor people, wiped away by the owner, poured out. Much was said about his death itself. In the last moments, already fully prepared, he called the beggars into his bedroom to give them the last alms from his own hands, then lay down and forgot himself. Suddenly his fading eyes lit up, as if illuminated by some kind of vision, his face revived, and he smiled merrily: with such a look he froze. Suffer all your life, do good and die with a cheerful smile - a well-deserved end to such a life.

B. Kustodiev.Moscow school of the 17th century.1907

There is no news left about whether Rtishchev's attitude towards serfs found an echo in the landowning society; but his philanthropic activity, apparently, did not remain without influence on legislation. Good ideas, supported by good guides and examples, are easily clothed in the flesh and blood of a kind, in customs, laws, and institutions. The imprudent private charity of Ancient Rus' nourished the craft of begging, became a means of nourishing idleness, and itself often turned into a cold fulfillment of church decency, into distributing kopecks to those who ask instead of helping those in need. Merciful people like Juliania and Rtishchev restored the true Christian meaning of almsgiving, the source of which is a warm compassionate feeling, and the goal is the destruction of need, poverty, and suffering. In the same direction, after Rtishchev, legislation begins to operate.

Since the time of Alekseev's successor, there has been a long series of decrees against idle artisan begging and private manual alms. On the other hand, the state power lends a hand to the church for friendly work on the organization of charitable institutions. Under Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, the Moscow beggars were sorted out: the truly helpless were ordered to be kept at public expense in a special shelter, and healthy lazy people were given work, perhaps in workers' houses conceived at the same time.

It was supposed to build two charitable institutions in Moscow, a hospital and an almshouse for the sick, the beggars, who were wandering and lying on the streets, so that they would not wander and wallow there: apparently, institutions similar to those built by Rtishchev were supposed. At the church council of 1681, the tsar proposed to the patriarch and bishops that they arrange similar shelters for the poor in provincial towns, and the council accepted the proposal. So the private initiative of a kind and influential person gave a direct or indirect impetus to the idea of ​​organizing a whole system of church-state charitable institutions. He not only revived, no doubt, the zeal of well-meaning givers for a good deed, but also suggested its very organization, the desirable and possible forms in which it was to be clothed.

After all, the memory of these kind people is dear to them, because their example in difficult times not only encourages them to act, but also teaches them how to act. Juliana and Rtishchev are examples of Russian charity. The same feeling suggested to them different methods of action, in accordance with the situation of each. One did more charitable work at home, in her close rural circle; the other operated mainly on the wide metropolitan square and street. For one, beneficence was an expression of personal pity; the other wanted to transform it into an organized public philanthropy. But, going in different ways, both went to the same goal: without losing sight of the moral and educational significance of charity, they looked at it as a continuous struggle with human need, the grief of a helpless neighbor. It was they and similar educators who carried this view through a number of centuries, and it still lives in our society, actively revealing itself whenever it is needed. How much Ulyan, imperceptibly and without noise, is now waging this struggle through the backwaters of areas stricken with want! There are, without a doubt, the Rtishchevs, and they will not be transferred. According to the covenant of their lives, they will act even when they themselves are forgotten. From their historical distance, they will not cease to shine, like beacons in the midst of the darkness of the night, illuminating our path and not needing their own light. And the covenant of their life is this: to live means to love your neighbor, that is, to help him live; nothing more means to live and nothing more to live for.

From the book The Truth About "Jewish Racism" author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

In Ancient Rus', the chronicle tale about the “test of faiths” tells that the Jews also praised their faith to Prince Vladimir. The prince did not have the slightest need to go to communicate with Jews in other lands: if the prince wanted, he could communicate with Jews without leaving

From the book Aphorisms and Thoughts on History author

Good People of Ancient Rus' Charity is a word with a very controversial meaning and a very simple meaning. Many people interpret it differently and everyone understands it the same way. Ask what it means to be kind to others and you may get as many answers as you do.

From the book History of the Ancient East author Lyapustin Boris Sergeevich

Gods, Destiny, and People in Ancient Mesopotamia The Mesopotamian world view was a typical product of Middle Eastern pagan antiquity. There were no absolute beginnings for the Mesopotamians, as well as opposition of different levels of being: natural -

From the book Ancient Rus' through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (IX-XII centuries); Lecture course author Danilevsky Igor Nikolaevich

Topic 3 ORIGINS OF ANCIENT Rus' CULTURE Lecture 7 Pagan traditions and Christianity in Ancient Rus' Lecture 8 Ordinary representations of Old Russian

From the book Good People of Ancient Rus' author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

From the book Myths about Belarus author Deruzhinsky Vadim Vladimirovich

PRINCES OF ANCIENT Rus' One well-known Russian writer recently made fun of the Ukrainians, speaking on the NTV channel: “Can you imagine what they came up with in Ukraine? There, the Rurik princes of Kievan Rus began to be called Ukrainian princes! Although every student knows that

From the book History of Russia the author Ivanushkina V V

3. Ancient Rus' in the period X - early XII centuries. The adoption of Christianity in Rus'. The role of the Church in the life of Ancient Rus' Olga's grandson Vladimir Svyatoslavovich was originally a zealous pagan. He even placed near the princely court idols of pagan gods, to whom the people of Kiev brought

From the book Daughter author Tolstaya Alexandra Lvovna

Good people I had just learned to drive when my little black Ford, which we called the "beetle", crashed. We bought a new car, a used "station wagon", which was much more convenient to carry eggs. At about this time, our good friend came to visit us,

From the book Domestic History (until 1917) author Dvornichenko Andrey Yurievich

§ 7. Culture of Ancient Rus' The culture of Ancient Rus', not bound by feudal fetters, has reached a high level of development. There is no reason to see in it "two cultures" - the culture of the ruling class and the class of the exploited, for the simple reason that the classes in

From the book History of the Inquisition author Maycock A. L.

From the book Domestic History: Cheat Sheet author author unknown

8. ACCEPTANCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE BAPTISM OF Rus'. CULTURE OF ANCIENT Rus' One of the biggest events that had long-term significance for Rus' was the adoption of Christianity as the state religion. The main reason for the introduction of Christianity in its Byzantine version is

From the book Russia in historical portraits author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich

Good People of Ancient Rus' Charity is a word with a very controversial meaning and a very simple meaning. Many people interpret it differently, and everyone understands it the same way. Ask what it means to be kind to others and you may get as many answers as you do.

From the book Fun around the stove. Russian folk traditions in games author Morozov Igor Alekseevich

How good people honored the last sheaf of Ivanushka In the village, the most ardent defeat. So that the ripe bread does not crumble, they need to be squeezed as soon as possible. Therefore, a little dawn will break, while the children on the floors are watching their last sweet dreams, all the adults are already at work

From the book Life and customs of tsarist Russia author Anishkin V. G.

People and customs of ancient Rus'

The oldest Slavic settlements excavated by archaeologists date back to the 5th-4th centuries BC. The finds obtained during the excavations allow us to reconstruct the picture of people's life: their occupations, way of life, religious beliefs and customs.

The Slavs did not strengthen their settlements in any way and lived in buildings slightly deepened into the soil, or in ground houses, the walls and roof of which were supported on pillars dug into the ground. Pins, brooches, clasps, rings were found on the settlements and in the graves. The discovered ceramics are very diverse - pots, bowls, jugs, goblets, amphoras...

The most characteristic feature of the culture of the Slavs of that time was a kind of funeral ritual: the dead relatives of the Slavs were burned, and heaps of burnt bones were covered with large bell-shaped vessels.

Later, the Slavs, as before, did not fortify their settlements, but sought to build them in hard-to-reach places - in swamps or on high banks of rivers and lakes. They settled mainly in places with fertile soils. We already know much more about their way of life and culture than about their predecessors. They lived in ground pillar houses or semi-dugouts, where stone or adobe hearths and stoves were arranged. They lived in semi-dugouts in the cold season, and in ground buildings - in the summer. In addition to dwellings, household structures and cellar pits were also found.

These tribes were actively engaged in agriculture. Archaeologists during excavations more than once found iron coulters. Often there were grains of wheat, rye, barley, millet, oats, buckwheat, peas, hemp - such crops were cultivated by the Slavs at that time. They also raised livestock - cows, horses, sheep, goats. Among the Wends there were many artisans who worked in iron and pottery workshops. The set of things found in the settlements is rich: various ceramics, brooches-fasteners, knives, spears, arrows, swords, scissors, pins, beads.

The funeral ritual was also simple: the burnt bones of the dead were usually poured into a pit, which was then buried, and a simple stone was placed over the grave to mark it.

Thus, the history of the Slavs can be traced far into the depths of time. The formation of the Slavic tribes took a long time, and this process was very complex and confusing.

Archaeological sources, starting from the middle of the first millennium AD, are successfully supplemented by written ones. This allows us to more fully imagine the life of our distant ancestors. Written sources report about the Slavs from the first centuries of our era. They are known at first under the name of the Wends; later, the authors of the 6th century, Procopius of Caesarea, Mauritius the Strategist and Jordanes, give a detailed description of the way of life, occupations and customs of the Slavs, calling them Wends, Antes and Slavs. “These tribes, slavins and antes, are not ruled by one person, but since ancient times they have been living in the rule of the people, and therefore they consider happiness and unhappiness in life to be a common thing,” wrote the Byzantine writer and historian Procopius of Caesarea. Procopius lived in the first half of the 6th century. He was the closest adviser to the commander Belisarius, who led the army of Emperor Justinian I. Together with the troops, Procopius visited many countries, endured the hardships of campaigns, experienced victories and defeats. However, his main business was not to participate in battles, not to recruit mercenaries and not to supply the army. He studied the manners, customs, social order and military methods of the peoples surrounding Byzantium.

Procopius also carefully collected stories about the Slavs, and he especially carefully analyzed and described the military tactics of the Slavs, devoting many pages of his famous work “The History of the Wars of Justinian” to it. The slave-owning Byzantine Empire sought to conquer neighboring lands and peoples. The Byzantine rulers also wanted to enslave the Slavic tribes. In their dreams, they saw obedient peoples, regularly paying taxes, supplying slaves, bread, furs, timber, precious metals and stones to Constantinople. At the same time, the Byzantines did not want to fight the enemies themselves, but sought to quarrel them among themselves and, with the help of some, suppress others. In response to attempts to enslave them, the Slavs repeatedly invaded the empire and devastated entire regions. The Byzantine commanders understood that it was difficult to fight the Slavs, and therefore they carefully studied their military affairs, strategy and tactics, and looked for vulnerabilities.

At the end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th century, another ancient author lived, who wrote the essay “Strategikon”. For a long time it was thought that this treatise was created by Emperor Mauritius. However, later scientists came to the conclusion that the "Strategikon" was written not by the emperor, but by one of his generals or advisers. This work is like a textbook for the military. During this period, the Slavs increasingly disturbed Byzantium, so the author paid a lot of attention to them, teaching his readers how to deal with strong northern neighbors.

“They are numerous, hardy,” wrote the author of the “Strategikon”, “they easily endure heat, cold, rain, nakedness, lack of food. They have a large variety of livestock and fruits of the earth. They settle in forests, near impassable rivers, swamps and lakes, arrange many exits in their dwellings due to the dangers that happen to them. They love to fight with their enemies in places overgrown with dense forests, in gorges, on cliffs, they profitably use ambushes, surprise attacks, tricks, day and night, inventing many different ways. They are also experienced in crossing rivers, surpassing all people in this respect. They bravely endure being in the water, while they hold in their mouths specially made large reeds hollowed out inside, reaching the surface of the water, and they themselves, lying on their backs at the bottom of the river, breathe with the help of them ... Each is armed with two small spears, some also have shields . They use wooden bows and small arrows dipped in poison."

The Byzantine was especially struck by the love of freedom of the Slavs. “The tribes of the Antes are similar in their way of life,” he noted, “in their customs, in their love of freedom; they can in no way be persuaded into slavery or submission in their own country.” The Slavs, according to him, are friendly to foreigners arriving in their country, if they come with friendly intentions. They do not take revenge on their enemies either, keeping them in captivity for a short time, and usually offer them either to go to their homeland for a ransom, or to remain to live among the Slavs in the position of free people.

From the Byzantine chronicles the names of some Antes and Slavic leaders are known - Dobrita, Ardagast, Musokia, Progost. Under their leadership, numerous Slavic troops threatened the power of Byzantium. Apparently, it was to such leaders that the famous Ant treasures from the treasures found in the Middle Dnieper belonged. The treasures included expensive Byzantine items made of gold and silver - goblets, jugs, dishes, bracelets, swords, buckles. All this was decorated with the richest ornaments, images of animals. In some treasures, the weight of gold things exceeded 20 kilograms. Such treasures became the prey of the Antes leaders in distant campaigns against Byzantium.

Written sources and archaeological materials testify that the Slavs were engaged in slash-and-burn agriculture, cattle breeding, fishing, hunting animals, picking berries, mushrooms, and roots. Bread has always been difficult for a working person, but slash-and-burn agriculture was perhaps the most difficult. The main tool of the farmer who took up the undercut was not a plow, not a plow, not a harrow, but an ax. Having chosen a site of a high forest, the trees were thoroughly cut down, and for a year they dried up on the vine. Then, having dumped the dry trunks, they burned the plot - they arranged a raging fiery "fall". They uprooted the unburned remains of thick stumps, leveled the ground, loosened it with a plow. They sowed directly into the ashes, scattering the seeds with their hands. In the first 2-3 years, the harvest was very high, the land fertilized with ash gave birth generously. But then it was depleted and it was necessary to look for a new site, where the whole difficult process of cutting was repeated again. There was no other way to grow bread in the forest zone at that time - the whole land was covered with large and small forests, from which for a long time - for centuries - the peasant conquered the arable land piece by piece.

The Ants had their own metalworking craft. This is evidenced by the casting molds found near the city of Vladimir-Volynsky, clay spoons, with the help of which molten metal was poured. The Ants were actively engaged in trade, exchanging furs, honey, wax for various decorations, expensive dishes, and weapons. They swam not only along the rivers, they also went out to sea. In the 7th-8th centuries, Slavic squads on boats plowed the waters of the Black and other seas.

The oldest Russian chronicle - "The Tale of Bygone Years" tells us about the gradual settlement of Slavic tribes over vast areas of Europe.

“In the same way, those Slavs came and settled along the Dnieper and called themselves a glade, and other Drevlyans, since they live in forests; while others sat down between Pripyat and the Dvina and were called Dregovichi ... ”Further, the chronicle speaks of the Polochans, Slovenes, northerners, Krivichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi. "And so the Slavic language spread and the letter was called Slavic."

The Polyans settled on the Middle Dnieper and later became one of the most powerful East Slavic tribes. A city arose in their land, which later became the first capital of the Old Russian state - Kyiv.

So, by the 9th century, the Slavs settled in the vast expanses of Eastern Europe. Within their society, based on patriarchal-tribal foundations, the prerequisites for the creation of a feudal state gradually matured.

As for the life of the Slavic eastern tribes, the initial chronicler left us the following news about him: "... each lived with his own family, separately, in his own places, each owned his own family." Now we have almost lost the meaning of the clan, we still have derivative words - relatives, kinship, relative, we have a limited concept of the family, but our ancestors did not know the family, they knew only the clan, which meant the entire set of degrees of kinship, both the closest, and and the most remote clan also meant the totality of relatives and each of them; Initially, our ancestors did not understand any social connection outside the clan, and therefore used the word "clan" also in the sense of a compatriot, in the sense of a people; the word tribe was used to denote ancestral lines. The unity of the clan, the connection of the tribes was supported by a single ancestor, these ancestors had different names - elders, zhupans, lords, princes, etc.; the last name, apparently, was especially in use among the Russian Slavs and, according to word production, has a generic meaning, meaning the eldest in the family, the ancestor, the father of the family.

The vastness and virginity of the country inhabited by the Eastern Slavs gave relatives the opportunity to move out at the first new displeasure, which, of course, should have weakened the strife; there was plenty of room, at least there was no need to quarrel over it. But it could happen that the special conveniences of the area tied relatives to it and did not allow them to move out so easily - this could especially happen in cities, places chosen by the family for special convenience and fenced, fortified by the common efforts of relatives and entire generations; consequently, in the cities, the strife must have been stronger. About the urban life of the Eastern Slavs, from the words of the chronicler, one can only conclude that these enclosed places were the abode of one or several separate clans. Kyiv, according to the chronicler, was the dwelling of the family; when describing the internecine strife that preceded the calling of the princes, the chronicler says that the clan stood up against the clan; from this it is clearly seen how developed the social structure was, it is clear that before the calling of the princes it had not yet crossed the tribal line; the first sign of communication between separate clans living together should have been common gatherings, councils, veche, but at these gatherings we also see after some elders who have all the meaning; that these vechas, gatherings of foremen, ancestors could not satisfy the social need that arose, the need of the outfit, could not create ties between the contiguous clans, give them unity, weaken the tribal identity, tribal egoism - the proof is tribal strife, ending in the calling of princes. Despite the fact that the original Slavic city is of great historical importance: city life, like life together, was much higher than the scattered life of childbirth in special places, in cities more frequent clashes, more frequent strife should have rather led to the realization of the need for an outfit, a government start . The question remains: what was the relationship between these cities and the population living outside them, was this population independent of the city or subordinated to it?

It is natural to assume that the city was the first stay of settlers, from where the population spread throughout the country: the clan appeared in a new country, settled in a convenient place, fenced off for greater security, and then, as a result of the reproduction of its members, filled the entire surrounding country; if we assume the eviction from the cities of the younger members of the clan or clans living there, then it is necessary to assume a connection and subordination, subordination, of course, tribal - younger to elders; we shall see clear traces of this subordination later in the relations of the new towns or suburbs to the old towns from which they received their population. But besides these tribal relations, the connection and subordination of the rural population to the urban one could also be strengthened for other reasons: the rural population was scattered, the urban population was copulated, and therefore the latter always had the opportunity to reveal its influence over the former; in case of danger, the rural population could find protection in the city, necessarily adjoined the latter, and for this reason alone could not maintain an equal position with it. We find an indication of such an attitude of cities to the district population in the annals: for example, it is said that the family of the founders of Kyiv held a reign among the glades. But on the other hand, we cannot assume great accuracy, certainty in these relations, because even after, in historical time, as we will see, the relationship of the suburbs to the older city did not differ in certainty, and therefore, speaking about the subordination of villages to cities, about the connection of clans between themselves, their dependence on one center, we must strictly distinguish this subordination, connection, dependence in pre-Rurik times from subordination, connection and dependence, which began to assert themselves little by little after the calling of the Varangian princes; if the villagers considered themselves junior relative to the townspeople, then it is easy to understand to what extent they recognized themselves as dependent on the latter, what significance the foreman of the city had for them.

There were, apparently, few cities: we know that the Slavs liked to live absent-mindedly, according to clans, to which forests and swamps served instead of cities; all the way from Novgorod to Kyiv, along the course of a large river, Oleg found only two cities - Smolensk and Lyubech; the Drevlyans mention cities other than Korosten; in the south there should have been more cities, there was more need for protection from the invasion of wild hordes, and because the place was open; the Tivertsy and Uglichs had cities that were preserved even in the time of the chronicler; in the middle lane - among the Dregovichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi - there is no mention of cities.

In addition to the advantages that a city (i.e., a fenced place within whose walls one numerous or several separate clans live) could have over the district scattered population, it could, of course, happen that one clan, the strongest in material resources, received an advantage over other clans. that the prince, the head of one clan, in his personal qualities, got the upper hand over the princes of other clans. Thus, among the southern Slavs, of whom the Byzantines say that they have many princelings and no single sovereign, sometimes there are princes who, by their personal merits, stand out ahead, such as, for example, the famous Lavritas. So in our well-known story about Olga's revenge among the Drevlyans, Prince Mal is first in the foreground, but we note that here it is still impossible to accept Mal as the prince of the entire Drevlyan land, we can accept that he was only the prince of Korosten; that only Korostenians under the predominant influence of Mal took part in the murder of Igor, while the rest of the Drevlyans took their side after a clear unity of benefits, this is directly indicated by the legend: “Olga will rush with her son to Iskorosten city, as if they had killed her husband byahu.” Mal, as the main instigator, was also sentenced to marry Olga; the existence of other princes, other rulers of the land, is indicated by the legend in the words of the Drevlyansk ambassadors: “Our princes are kind, even they have destroyed the essence of the Derevsky land,” this is also evidenced by the silence that the chronicle keeps about Mala throughout the entire struggle with Olga. slavic culture feudal belief

Tribal life stipulated common, inseparable property, and, conversely, community, inseparability of property served as the strongest bond for members of the clan, the separation also required the termination of the clan connection.

Foreign writers say that the Slavs lived in crappy huts, located at a great distance from each other, and often changed their place of residence. Such fragility and frequent change of dwellings were the result of the constant danger that threatened the Slavs both from their own tribal strife and from the invasions of alien peoples. That is why the Slavs led the way of life that Mauritius speaks of: “They have inaccessible dwellings in forests, near rivers, swamps and lakes; in their houses they arrange many exits just in case; they hide the necessary things under the ground, having nothing superfluous outside, but living like robbers. The same cause, acting for a long time, produced the same effects; life in constant expectation of enemy attacks continued for the Eastern Slavs even when they were already under the power of the princes of Rurik's house, the Pechenegs and Polovtsy replaced the Avars, Kozars and other barbarians, the princely strife replaced the strife of the clans that rebelled against each other, therefore, could not disappear and the habit of changing places, running from the enemy; that is why the people of Kiev tell the Yaroslavichs that if the princes do not protect them from the wrath of their elder brother, they will leave Kyiv and go to Greece. The Polovtsy were replaced by the Tatars, princely feuds continued in the north, as soon as princely feuds begin, the people leave their homes, and with the cessation of strife, they return back; in the south, incessant raids strengthen the Cossacks, and after that, in the north, dispersing scattered from any kind of violence and severity was nothing for the inhabitants; at the same time, it must be added that the nature of the country greatly favored such migrations. The habit of being content with little and always being ready to leave the dwelling supported in the Slav an aversion to an alien yoke, as Mauritius noted.

Tribal life, which stipulated disunity, enmity and, consequently, weakness between the Slavs, also necessarily determined the manner of waging war: not having one common leader and being at enmity with each other, the Slavs avoided any correct battles, where they would have to fight with united forces on flat and open areas. They loved to fight enemies in narrow, impassable places, if they attacked, they attacked in a raid, suddenly, by cunning, they loved to fight in the forests, where they lured the enemy to flight, and then, returning, inflicted a defeat on him. That is why the emperor Mauritius advises attacking the Slavs in winter, when it is inconvenient for them to hide behind bare trees, snow prevents the movement of the fugitives, and then they have little food supplies. The Slavs were especially distinguished by the art of swimming and hiding in rivers, where they could stay much longer than people of another tribe, they kept under water, lying on their backs and holding a hollowed out reed in their mouths, the top of which went out along the surface of the river and thus conducted air to the hidden swimmer. The armament of the Slavs consisted of two small spears, some had shields, hard and very heavy, they also used wooden bows and small arrows smeared with poison, very effective if a skilled doctor did not give an ambulance to the wounded. We read in Procopius that the Slavs, entering the battle, did not put on armor, some did not even have a cloak or shirt, only ports; In general, Procopius does not praise the Slavs for their neatness, he says that, like the Massagetae, they are covered with dirt and all kinds of uncleanness. Like all nations living in the simplicity of life, the Slavs were healthy, strong, easily endured cold and heat, lack of clothing and food. Contemporaries say about the appearance of the ancient Slavs that they all look alike: they are tall, stately, their skin is not completely white, their hair is long, dark blond, their face is reddish