Download PDF | Walter K. Hanak - The Nature and the Image of Princely Power in Kievan Rus', 980-1054_ A Study of Sources-Brill , 2013.
223 Pages
PREFACE
The lands, which beginning with the ninth century constituted the principality of Kievan Rus, comprise a vast area of Eastern Europe, the boundaries of which were both indeterminate and continually changing. As a consequence, the lands were exposed to a variety of political, religious, economic, and cultural influences, for they were the crossroads of a number of nations and tribes, each leaving identifying features upon its Slavic population, some enduring and some short-lived.
Scandinavians, Khazars, Germans, Poles, Greeks, Pechenegs, Bulgars, among others, transited this vast area, and their visitations and even conquests did not go unnoticed by authors of Eastern Slavic and foreign written sources. However, the legacy of these numerous civilizations is not readily apparent, and too often the Slavic elements predominated to emerge as enduring features, whereas many of the foreign influences petered out, together with the polities from which they had emerged. Then too, their own societies were subject to the constraints of the times and their politics, religion, cultures, and other aspects were undergoing alteration.
The maturation of Kievan Rus’ was a complex development, and the issues that emerged between 980 and 1054 require an advanced approach in order to address the high degree of complexity in the absence of sufficient sources. Given the nature of the sources and the interpretative evidence at hand, it was, therefore, difficult to draw firm conclusions from this study. The role of the Byzantines, the Varangians, the Khazars, and the native Eastern Slavs is discussed in the following chapters in relation to the nature and the image of princely power in Kievan Rus’.
However, a greater emphasis is placed on the conversion to Eastern Christianity under Prince Vladimir I Svjatoslavich, which opened a seminal period for his disjointed state. The process of adopting and fostering a new religious movement with its political, theological, social, and cultural implications was not without its drawbacks or resistance. The historiography for this period as reflected in the annalistic and literary sources acknowledges the difficulties of making a transition from a predominantly pagan conglomerate of tribal and regional entities, often subdued during periods of tribute collection, warfare, and other general conflicts, to a more formalized and centralized princely realm.
Kievan Rus’, a nascent state requiring substantive princely efforts to maintain, was, however, subject to internal political dynamics, varied religious creeds, and diversified cultural, economic, and tribal forces that could not be dismissed or controlled without difficulty. No princely pronouncements or actions could secure the rapid transition to a new advanced mode of governance and society, based upon Christian tenets. Thus in particular Vladimir and Jaroslav were confronted with disparate elements within their homeland whose influences helped to define the nature and the image of their princely powers. External pressures as well affected the evolution of a nascent Christianized state.
Over several decades, an interest in the annalistic and historical problems of Byzantine and Kievan Rus’ history led me to the study of primary sources pertaining to Kievan Rus’, from the inception of Vladimir's reign ca. 980 to the death of Jaroslav the Wise in 1054. I noticed a significant gap in historical scholarship of any real discussion of the differing elements contained in the descriptions of princely power in the early annalistic, literary, and other works.
While these sources offer rich, even if conflicting and contradictory, materials on the nature of princely authority, the image or literary representations of these leading figures are occasionally obscured by a modified reflection of the prince’s political, religious, and other powers. These incongruities cannot be explained as purely national, regional, or native Rus’ processes and historical developments. Rather, the primary sources appear to record an interaction between the reality and the notions concerning princely power, and how this power generates an image of itself and thus seeks to justify and preserve itself.
Moreover, the textual incongruities appear to be a reflection of a number of currents—Byzantine, Varangian (that is, Scandinavian in a broad context), Khazar, and Eastern Slavic— which influenced in various ways the outlook of Kievan Rus’, and played an important role in the historical evolution of princely authority during the formative state process. The following chapters are designed to address each of these currents as key factors enhancing or diminishing Kievan rulership.
The purpose of this work, then, is to interpret what the sources tell or do not tell us about the nature and image of princely power. I will make no attempt to stress the unsaid and will avoid any interpretations based on “the silence of the sources.” The main sources are what they are. And furthermore, they are not free of biases, whether regional, provincial or tribal, or of misinterpretations of events and developments.
The personages and events that the annals and literary works record are historical and literary in content, although we should admit that historical embellishments are evident, leading to alternate and often difficult interpretations. In addition, local usage determined how scribes and annalists related the achievements and failures of leading figures, and how they viewed events and outcomes.
Thus the annals, literary, and other contemporaneous works describe and portray an image of princely power that occasionally stands at odds with modern historical conclusions. It is the recognition of this incongruity that motivated the writing of this complex study.
Further, this work concentrates in the main upon The Tale of Bygone Years, Howkets Rpemennaiy2 d&Th, also commonly rendered as The Russian Primary Chronicle. This annal appears in two principal renditions, the Laurentian and the Hypatian. To these renditions for comparative and interpretative purposes, I have contrasted them with other annals that compilers in later centuries emended and preserved in various redactions, at times modifying the original texts either to lengthen or to shorten the narrative, adding information or reinterpreting specific passages and casting them in a different light.
Elsewhere, they simply present us with /acunae that are not easily explained, whether due to lost or misplaced folia that were unavailable to the annalists or the desire of the copyists not to replicate particular sections. As a historiographic study of an important phase in the formation of a Christianized Kievan Rus’, this work is intended then to refocus upon what the original sources do or do not tell us about the nature and the image of princely power, but as well address the secondary literature (recognizing that there exists a vast secondary literature and discretion had to be exercised in its use and interpretation) that provides further insights into this complex period and into the nature and the image of rulership.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Over the course of a number of years, I became indebted to a number of individuals who had in one fashion or another advised me on content or on an approach to addressing this study. First, my late wife Dorothy demonstrated patience during my compilation of materials and the actual writing of this work. Given her intellectual skills, she proved to be a valuable asset in seeing this study to fruition. I must also recognize that my children demonstrated patience with their father who was not always available to satisfy their needs. Second, a number of colleagues provided advice and encouragement in various ways.
Most recently, I must mention Marios Philippides of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, with whom I have co-authored other monographs, several in print and several forthcoming, who encouraged me to publish this work, and in the meantime made valuable suggestions regarding methodology. As well, I am grateful to Florin Curta of the University of Florida who provided valuable editorial skills and made useful recommendations for textual improvement.
And over the years, at scholarly gatherings, I had the good fortune to discuss various aspects in this study with a number of experts in the field. Among them I should especially cite the late Gennady G. Litavrin of the Russian (formerly the Soviet) Academy of Sciences, Moscow; George Majeska of the University of Maryland, College Park, who provided valuable guidance on organization of chapters; Barisa Kreki¢é of the University of California, Los Angeles, who supervised my doctoral dissertation; Jonathan Shepard of Cambridge University; and Christian Raffensperger of Wittenberg University. Lastly, though he was not in my field of study, the late Leo Solt, then chairman of the History Department at Indiana University, Bloomington, undertook numerous measures in countless ways to make sure that I completed my graduate studies with the untimely passing of my mentor, George Soulis. I am most beholden to Professor Solt. If I have overlooked anyone, I apologize for my shortsightedness.
I am especially grateful to Ian Mladjov who prepared the maps for this study. In doing so, he brought to my attention a number of questions, and in response to them I improved a number of passages in this study.
Materials for this study were obtained from a number of university libraries; among them I should especially note Indiana University at Bloomington, the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, Shepherd University, and Dumbarton Oaks. Iam most grateful to their staffs for their assistance in obtaining a variety of research tools.
CHAPTER ONE
THE NATURE AND THE EARLY RUS’ IMAGE OF KIEVAN PRINCELY POWER
The annalists and compilers of early Rus’ history and writers of hagiographical and literary works acknowledge the achievements of Vladimir I (ca. g80— 1015) and his son Jaroslav the Wise (1019-1054), although these same sources recall laconically the actual accomplishments of these princes (sg. KHAgA, KH 3h, pl. KHAgH, KHAZH).' Whether we can explain these terse statements in historic or literary terms remains to be addressed. Or whether these elaborations on princely achievements and failures reflect the formative nature of the newly Christianized state and behooves us to recognize the early stage of annalistic and literary accomplishments that were emended in subsequent redactions of the succeeding centuries.
On the other hand, the princely sovereignties of Svjatopolk (1015-1019) and thereafter of Mstislav (1019-1036), the latter sharing a divided realm with his brother Jaroslav, are described without the annalists and writers’ willingness to admit fully the unfolding historical processes or significance. The rise to power of these four princes coincides with the ushering in of a new era in Kievan history—the introduction of Christianity and the implementation of its teachings—but this period also brings to scholarly attention the difficult questions of defining rulership in its political and other contexts within this new framework. For the compilers and writers of the age the basic problem was how to express the actual distinguishing qualities of princely power,” but preserving for posterity a praiseworthy image of princely rulership.
Their task was formidable. They were confronted with the issue of age-old regional and tribal influences, as well as foreign influences that could challenge, modify, or even nullify their understanding of Kievan princely power. Thus their works frequently reflect local biases, but at the same time also admit the presence of foreign currents. The annals and literary works as we shall observe portray incomplete and varying images of these princes. Nor do these sources presuppose the orderly establishment of a political hierarchy. Rather, we are confronted with a chaotic period of princely succession and outlooks that required the writers of that age to record, as best as they could, events and accomplishments of their leading princes.
The MoséeTh spiMennblyz A&Th (The Tale of Bygone Years) or more commonly designated the Russian Primary Chronicle’ was one of the first major Rus’ works to undertake a syncretism of a Kievan historiographic tradition, but favoring the reigns of Vladimir and Jaroslav. Its audience was not intended to be the common populace, few of whom were literate, but rather the learned Kievan nobility and clergy. The annal from the outset preserves knowledge of the pagan past, the ancient tribal structures, and the glories of a newly Christianized state and the benefits not introduced.
Although not exclusively an original source but rather a compilation of earlier materials, the /1£d is probably of all extant annalistic sources one of the most contemporaneous in age with the events of 980-1054. Two major redactions of this work, the Laurentian Annal (dagpentacecxan déTonuts), and the Hypatian Annal (Hnatsesceam déTonuch),* a mid-fifteenth-century monasterial compilation, furnish descriptive accounts of the nature and the image of Kievan princely power.
The age of the two redactions should raise suspicions whether or not a Muscovite ideology with its focus upon a centralized state concept crept into the texts, but we should accept that the scribal monks attempted to preserve the original written materials, although we notice orthographical and grammatical digressions, some deletions and additions, and even some substituted word choices that do not substantially alter the essential historical information, yet some alterations are to be noted that do alter the sense of particular passages. The [fd, however, became the archetype for later annals® and each of these works, regardless of their thematic and chronological contents as well as geographical origins, whether of northern or southern, or eastern or western, provenance and hence replete with regional biases, presents a generally homogeneous account of Vladimir’s and Jaroslav's reigns. Concerning Svjatopolk and Mstislav, caution should be exercised in making a similar characterization.
About 1075, the Kievan monk, Jakob, recorded in his Tamms 4 noygadd PAR OANOLTOABHOMY KHAgI RAAAHMHpy (A Eulogy and Praise of the Apostlelike Prince Vladimir),° that on 11 June 978 (6486), this prince assumed the rule of the Kievan state, although most Rus’ annals fix the start of his reign about 980.’ Before we examine his rise to power, two issues should be addressed that are invoked by this title. First, Vladimir, who is given recognition for the formal establishment of Christianity in his state, is awarded the qualifier of apostle-like® for his notable achievement. It is clear that at an early stage in annalistic compilation and literary works the religious scribes sought to revere his image and awarded him this esteemed eminence. Whether fully deserving or less so, Vladimir in a matter of six decades after his death was honored with a great compliment. Second, it is noteworthy that he was not recognized as a grand prince, and this may be indicative that in this the eleventh century the title was sparingly used and not in the context that later annalists would accept or utilize.
From the onset of Rus’ annalistic writing, it was essential for the scribes, having been schooled in the Byzantine historiographic tradition, although there is internal evidence in the Rus’ sources that they were aware of some traditions found in especially Germanic and Scandinavian annals, to recall the early decades of Kievan Rus’ much as the Old Testament books developed their pre-David/Solomon accounts.
The Hebrew tribal structure, not fully elaborated because the Old Testament histories are essentially a history of one tenth of one tribe, the tribe ofJoseph and very little is commented upon of the other eleven, provided for the Rus’ scribes few suitable parallels that could be employed as a model for their own structure. The Rus’ annalists may have been aware of the Old Testament tribal tradition, but could only apply its historical books with difficulty, being aware that their own semi-legendary tradition differed substantively from that of the Old Testament accounts.° And especially, no one Rus’ tribe could be credited with the foundation of the Kievan state.
The Rus’ annalists were also learned in the Byzantine textual construction and could have emulated the latter, composing their accounts similar to the Greek. To what degree this was possible is problematic, because the Byzantine scribes also modeled their works after the Old Testament tribal tradition, but as well drew substantially upon their rich classical heritage, something we find lacking in the Rus’ traditional legacy. If anything, the Rus’ scribes chose as their primary model, but with significant emendation, the ninth-century universal chronicle of the Byzantine George the Monk (Georgios Hamartolos),” a work that was often copied in part for their early chapters by Slavic scribes.
The question must then be addressed whether Rus’ historical evidence supports the earlier date for Vladimir’s accession to the Kievan seat and to sole power, which would render valid the assertion of Jakob. Vladimir’s victory over his half-brother Jaropolk (969?-978?), albeit a victory that employed considerable guile and subterfuge over a young prince who may have been reared a Christian by his grandmother Olga," although this does not imply that he was baptized a Christian, or was at least influenced by his rudimentary knowledge of its teachings, represents the culmination of the pagan prince’s attempts to bring about the reunification of Kievan Rus’ under one head in the late 970s. Vladimir’s father, Svjatoslav (959?-972?), who saw no need to maintain a unified state ruled from Kiev, and the Rus’ annalists devote much discussion of him and his Varangian influences, precipitated the fratricidal conflicts of that decade. Svjatoslav envisioned the formation ofa heterogeneous empire, comprising some territories of Kievan Rus’, and of conquered lands of the Khazars, Balkan Bulgars, and perhaps even Byzantine lands and especially the prize of Constantinople, as well as other regions.
These lands would mold the nucleus for a larger political entity, dominated by the pagan Varangian-Slavic Rus” and ruled from Perejaslavets® on the Danube. In order to retain his hold on Kiev as a source of revenue derived from its commercial activities and collection of tributes, he established his eldest son Jaropolk as its prince. To maintain control over the divisive Slavic tribal structure, he placed his second son Oleg as prince of the Drevljane, one of the more independent-minded and troublesome East Slavic tribes. Svjatoslav granted to his sons the requisite authority to rule their respective territories." The Novgorodians, upon learning of Svjatoslav’s designs and his abandonment of rule in Kiev, were eager to profit from his political reorganization and to gain greater independence for themselves in the conduct of their affairs.
They prevailed upon Svjatoslav to appoint a prince for them, or they threatened to select one for themselves." Desiring to retain at the least a modicum of control over the Novgorodian lands and the northern regions, Svjatoslav heeded their demand and designated the youthful Vladimir to be their prince. The division of the Kievan Rus’ state into three separate and distinct units, although there may well have been others that cannot be discerned from the extant sources and that were subservient to the prince at Perejaslavets, momentarily disrupted the political hegemony of the Kievan Rus’ state and introduced for the next decade divisiveness among Svjatoslav’s progeny and the subject peoples of the three sons.
However, Svjatoslav’s dream of constructing a new pagan empire with its capital situated on the Danube was shattered by a series of humiliating military defeats administered by the Byzantines.'® On his return march to Kiev in 972 (6480) after signing a treaty of no great consequence for the Rus, he was ambushed by the Pechenegs, a nomadic people of Turkic stock, above the cataracts of the Dnieper River where, after a difficult winter stay, he ultimately met his death.” His passing ushered in a period of fratricidal strife. Sveinald, the leading commander in charge of Svjatoslav’s forces on the Balkan campaign and a major promoter of the pagan ascendancy during Svjatoslav’s rule, was instrumental in prevailing upon Jaropolk to abolish the tripartite division of the Kievan state and to reunite the Kievan lands.
The question must then be raised whether Sveinald would have supported a Christian state under Jaropolk’s rule, for, as we have previously noted, the young prince had been under the influence of his grandmother Olga, who had accepted a personal Christianization?" Or, was Sveinald at the moment urging Jaropolk to reunify the lands of Kiev," but was involved in subterfuge and had other designs for the state, preserving a pagan-Varangian bastion? These suspicions regarding Sveinald’s ultimate plans for Kiev are topics that cannot be easily resolved because of an absence of attention to his motives in the annalistic sources.
Sveinald appears to have instigated the struggle between Jaropolk and Oleg when he dispatched his son, Ljut, on the pretext of participating in a hunting expedition, onto the private game preserve of Oleg. Oleg, also hunting on his lands at that particular moment, came upon Ljut and slew him for the trespassing violation. Sveinald may not have wished the death of his son, but Ljut’s death now became a cause célébre in Jaropolk’s court and Sveinald reminded the prince that Oleg was responsible for Ljut’s killing.”° But at the root of Sveinald’s prodding may have even been his personal aspiration to become the real power behind the Kievan seat and perhaps to reunite the Kievan lands under his own disguised leadership.
The struggle between Jaropolk and Oleg that had begun in 975 (6483) came to a tragic conclusion two years later when Oleg, in haste to cross a bridge leading to safety behind the walls of the town of Vrychiy, fell to his death into the moat surrounding the fortified town (rga44).2 Consequently, Jaropolk’s first hurdle in bringing about the reunification of the Kievan lands had been removed and there remained only Vladimir who could impede his ambitions.
Sensing that Jaropolk would soon attack him, Vladimir fled to Scandinavia where he gathered a Varangian mercenary army. He returned to Novgorod, amassed an additional force of Varangians, Slovenes, Chud’, and Krivichi, and set out upon his march to assault Kiev. But Vladimir was not simply content to conquer his half-brother’s town. He sought the assistance of Blud, Jaropolk’s leading commander who appears to have displaced Sveinald,” to betray the Kievan prince and to bring about his downfall. Blud was responsive to Vladimir’s overture and only the details regarding the manner of Jaropolk’s death required attention.
The method of his assassination, however, proved troublesome. Eager to have the bloody affair done with, Blud urged Vladimir to storm the town that he entered on 11 June 978 (6486),” while Blud at the same time encouraged Jaropolk to abandon Kiev and to take flight to Rodnja at the mouth of the Ros’ River. Once Vladimir had accomplished the siege and occupation of Kiev, he was again free to redirect his attention to Jaropolk and to dispose of his fraternal rival. Vladimir set out to storm Rodnja’s fortifications. Meanwhile, the deception continued and Blud induced Jaropolk to seek peace in face of overwhelming opposition and to enter into direct negotiations with his half-brother. A meeting was arranged and when Jaropolk entered the chamber of the designated meeting place, Vladimir’s Varangian guard set upon Jaropolk with their swords and slew him.”
The compilers of the 7&d furnish a wealth of detail and exceptional clarity in recounting Vladimir’s rise to power and his superiority to rule over all of the Kievan lands. His conquest of Kiev had made a deep impression upon them, although his conversion to Christianity nearly a decade later created an obvious tendency by contemporaneous writers to idealize him and to some degree even to recognize approvingly his years of pagan rule, deemed to be sinful, but preparatory for his Christianization. The scribes are intent initially to portray Vladimir like his father to be indeed a true pagan. But, while Svjatopolk met an inglorious end for his misdeeds and miscalculations, Vladimir through baptism, though his early rule emulated that of his father, was Christianized and redeemed for his past transgressions. As a result, they note in substantial detail the prince's sinful stage, but stress that he had repented with his religious conversion.
The /7&d also at first reading conveys the impression that Vladimir’s reign began without any major checks upon his authority and that unitary rule existed in Kievan Rus’, although after 980 the annalists record his martial actions, his need to put down recalcitrant Slavic and other tribes who had challenged his claim to sole authority. The //&d—d and /IH recall: H Wawa KHAMRHTH BOAO AOMHPA BA Kesh ean ..., “and Vladimir began to reign alone in Kiev ....’> Unlike the Laurentian redaction, the Hypatian further elaborates and reads: 4 cemo He MYIAH HH €EAHHO H HAMA KHAKHTH floaojomupa BA Kueh wanna, “but here he did not allow to anyone and Vladimir began to rule alone in Kiev.” At first sight the Laurentian statement appears accurate, for the annalists saw no need to explain or to enlarge further upon what they had stated.
The use of the term “alone” can, however, be understood in other contexts. To address several possibilities, it could imply that he undertook rule exclusive of others, denying to them a share of power, or it could be a claim for the establishment of autocracy from the inception of his rule. But other annals appear to question the claim to solitary rule. 4, HR, ©, T, and & relate only that Vladimir began his rule in Kiev without qualifying whether he shared power with others (or another) or ruled exclusive of them, sitting as the paramount head.” K, reflecting a strong Muscovite political ideology, ascribes to Vladimir, on the occasion of having slain his half-brother Jaropolk and the occupation of the seat at Kiev, the distinction of being eAHHh cAMOAEpmeENb BeEH, “the sole autocrat over all,”** and further of being seankoAepmasBubli, “all-powerful.” The omission of ¢4una, “alone,” from a number of nearly contemporaneous annalistic texts, among them the numerous redactions of H,°° coincides with the chronological issue concerning the inception of Vladimir's rule.
If Jakob is accurate in relating that Vladimir took the Kievan seat on June 978, the disparity between his date and 980 (6488) in the /T&d might be explained as an inference in the latter source that until 980 the prince had not consolidated his authority and only then had almost complete dominion over the Kievan lands. His conquest of Kiev did not automatically entitle him to claim full sovereignty over the territories held by his forerunners; nor could he claim by the right of conquest to be the sole ruler over all Kievan lands. Rather, after taking the town, Vladimir had to demonstrate his personal strength and suitability to rule, and to reunite diverse Slavic and other tribes through the various political and military measures available to him. [/&d—d admits that in 981 (6489) Vladimir commenced a series of conquests and continued to do so in the following years:*!
Hae [Roaojomupa] kK dayoma # gat rpaant A Tepemniwan Vepaene’ WH HHBI IPAABI EE CYTKH AO CEO AME NOAA Pychto’ A cem me AbTE H BATH MOREA. H BAQAOMH HA Hh AANA’ & HAOYFA KORE Wilk EFO HMALIE.
[Vladimir] went against the Ljakhs and seized their towns: Peremyshl’, Cherven, and other towns that are to this day under Rus’. In this year, he conquered the Vjatichi and imposed tribute upon them, as had his father according to [the number of] ploughs.
The Hypatian redaction reads quite similarly:
Hae fodojom'pa K MAXOMA. H Bald rpdabl HY*. Tepempiuab. Tepkena. H HHbI FOPOABI. HARE CYTh HAO cero AE NOAA PY¥thIo. coma me NGTE H RATHI NOBEAH. H BAQAOMKH HA HA AAH. © AYP, IR HE Wilh ETO HMAAB.
Vladimir went against the Ljakhs and seized their towns: Peremyshl!’,, Cherven, and other towns that are to this day under Rus’. In this year he conquered the Vjatichi, and placed a tribute upon them according to [the number of] ploughs, as had his father.
A textual scrutiny of /T&d and other sources for the first century of Kievan Rus’ history reveals that the dominion exercised by the Riurikid house, since its foundation ca. 860 (6368), was at best a tenuous political-economic arrangement with Eastern Slavic and other tribes. In his brief rule, Riurik (ca. 860-879), the semi-legendary founder of a political entity in northern Rus, had attempted Varangian political regulation, although his territorial expansion in that region was never extensive and was often tenuous in nature, for he was forced to compete with rival Varangian clans for political and economic interests.
He asserted sovereignty over Novgorod and its territories, as well as over the towns of Polotsk, Rostov, Beloozero, and Murom.** To each of these fortified centers he assigned loyal lieutenants, princes, and boyars (&ompH), men of aristocratic birth who initially were of Nordic stock, but also some who were of Slavic or of other national origins, that served him faithfully. S.G. Pushkarev notes that the sompu “did not constitute a definite order from the legal point of view but played an important role in the political and social life, along with the princes.’ Riurik’s territorial acquisitions were held to be an integral part of clan property possessed in common and the lesser nobility were assigned towns chiefly for the defense of the region and the exploitation of their economic resources for commercial benefits and the raising of tribute as well as the production of revenue. This model, based not only on the Varangian structure of governance and economics, coexisted with the traditional Slavic tribal structure whose territorial bounds were often imprecise and led to frequent disputes over rights to land and its resources. It is these Varangians, mainly in the outlying north, and Slavic structures that Vladimir inherited and required his attention in order to solidify his position as the ruler at Kiev.
Soon after Riurik’s death, Oleg, perhaps a relative although this is not clearly established in the sources, only that he was an elder,* was designated guardian for the former ruler’s minor son, Igor. A puzzling question must be raised: Did Riurik have other sons by various women or none, or perhaps only daughters by them? It is plausible that if there were other sons, they might have expired by this time or had sought their fortunes elsewhere. However, the sources remain silent on the question of other sons and no inference can be made on this point. Further, no references in the annals or any other sources are made to daughters and their potentially significant marriages. Oleg, upon assuming the guardianship of Igor, gathered an army and set out to enlarge the Varangian Rus’ domain. His conquests of Smolensk and to its south Ljubech were preparatory to his take over of Kiev. Oleg accordingly shifted the center of Varangian power from the north to the south, with the center the town on the Dnieper, and established for his ward and himself the princedom of Kiev. His actions may be, as Shepard suggests, “an attempt at secession from the other Rus’ strongpoints ...” in the north. But this move in 879 (6387) laid the formal foundation for the creation of a unified Kievan Rus’ state centered at Kiev.
A twofold task confronted Oleg upon the assumption of rule in Kiev. As we have previously observed, he had participated in the consolidation of Riurikid authority over the peoples of northern Rus’ or we must assume so, although archaeological evidence now points to the existence of numerous Varangian enclaves in northern Rus’ that were neither politically nor economically linked to one another but functioned as competitive independent entities. The socio-political development of the Slavs, those settled in the provinces about Kiev, however, may not have been on par with those Slavs of the north and in particular the Varangians. Various princes, chieftains, and common local councils (444) ruled the southwestern Slavs. Their southeastern counterparts, having similar institutions, were under the nominal authority of Khazar khagans and were required to render annual tribute to them.”’ But the southeastern Slavic tribal groups appear to have exercised some degree of independence and therefore were not subject to the complete authority of the khagans. Oleg appears to have sought from the outset to deny to the Khazars their financial and material advantages gained from the Slavic tribes. He sought to secure for himself and his ward this annual income. Beginning in 883 and in successive years, he conquered neighboring Slavic tribes—the Drevljane, Sever, and Radimichi—and directed that they no longer render tribute to the Khazar khagans, but to him.** And in these Slavic lands Oleg directed the construction of fortified centers (rpa4a/) and in this manner he resolved his second problem—that of establishing a protective ring of fortifications in outlying areas to shield Varangian and Slavic commerce on the lower Dnieper from the depredations caused by nomadic incursions.*°
The political status of the Drevljane, Sever, and Radimichi after Oleg’s subjugation of them was unlike that of the northern Slavs. These southern tribes were allowed to retain their socio-political institutions and Oleg was content to collect annual tribute from them and to acquire the services of their men in times of military conflict. With the construction of fortifications in their territories and the seating of lesser Varangian princes and boyars in these territorial centers,*° Oleg situated the fortified centers in places where they most advantageously provided not only for local defense, but also contributed to the overall protection of the Kievan state. He accordingly hastened the process of the political and commercial subordination of the surrounding countryside to the military outposts. A consequence of Oleg’s military designs was the fragmentation of the subject Slavic tribes, and in the absence of stable territorial polities he was able to initiate the process of subverting any future claims that these Slavic tribal groups might make for an independent political life. In his own lifetime Oleg failed to bring about the creation of a stable unitary state. He sat as the surrogate for the young Igor and was the elder for the immediate Varangian family. The noble members of this kin continued to exercise their right to a common territorial heritage. The structure that emerges and remains the dominant form for the next century, of which the Rus’ annalists were quite cognizant, is the creation of a heterogeneous political entity whose only tie to Kiev is the personal ability and military strength of the Kievan prince to wield his authority over and to hold together in a fashion the tributary peoples. Paradoxically, there is evidence that other Varangian kin operated independent of Riurik and Oleg about the perimeter of the Black Sea, seeking their own fortunes and material gains.”
Vladimir inherited a political legacy that necessitated that he, as his predecessors, reasserts his claim to tribute from the subject Slavs and other tribes. His grandfather, Igor (879?-945), was confronted with an immediate rebellion of the Drevljane, who exhibited strong separatist tendencies and refused to acknowledge his authority or to render tribute to him. Through a force of arms, Igor reestablished their tributary status and imposed a heavier, more exorbitant, charge upon them, perhaps because of his need to replenish his treasury and to compensate his men for the costs of the expedition.” Nora K. Chadwick suggests and perhaps quite correctly that Igor increased the amount of tribute as a price for purchasing immunity for them from Pecheneg attacks.* In 945 (6453) the Drevljane again demonstrated their resistance to the centralizing efforts of the prince at Kiev and identified Varangian territorial and political ambitions with those of their ancient and mortal enemies, the Slavic Poljane, in whose territory the town of Kiev was situated.
The Drevljane were thus responsible for the tragic death of Igor, and the Slavic princess Olga, his widow, became regent for their minor son Svjatoslav. She too found herself confronted with the need to reestablish orderly rule over the subject and tributary Slavs. She put down the Drevljane through a series of ruses and stratagems.“* When later Svjatoslav came of age and assumed power in his own right, he had the good fortune of not having to expend great resources to subdue rebellious Slavic tribes in the south. He profited from the administrative and organizational skills of his mother.” She had completed the process of disjointing the Slavic lands and of incorporating them into an integral part of a centralized Kievan state and its administration. Olga denied to the Slavic tribes their own princes and designated one for each of them. She, in essence, concentrated princely power under the aegis of the Riurikid house. The provincial princes and boyars enjoyed only those powers that had been conferred upon them by her. Her son, Svjatoslav, by partitioning the Kievan state among his three sons, disrupted her centralizing efforts and the occasion again arose for the stronger Slavic tribes to rebel against Riurikid domination. Vladimir, upon coming to power, had to suppress not only the rebellion of the Vjatichi, but in 984 he had to establish the tributary status of the Radimichi.* Later, Vladimir’s sons were free of many of the problems of internal insurrections, although they had to address several, and primarily concentrated their energies, focusing on external threats to their outlying interests.
The written sources provide no evidence that Vladimir's powers were defined by a written code, whether Varangian or Slavic, or a combination thereof, and in theory at least he enjoyed broad powers and exclusive sovereignty by the right of conquest. He was free to make new innovations, though these were hampered by kin tradition and tribal conventions that dictated how things were to be done. Thus, if there were any limitations upon his authority, and there appears to have been, these were dictated more so by customary laws practiced by the diverse Varangian and Slavic groupings, some of tribal origin and others probably inherited by the kin. There were occasions, as we shall note, for conflicts to emerge between the adherents of Slavic and Varangian customary laws that in a number of respects were antithetical to one another and did not share common interests. The compilers of Td elaborate upon two such events during the period of his pagan rule to demonstrate his authority.
Until Vladimir’s accession, the pagan Varangian and Slavic elements dominated not only the political, but as well the religious life of Kievan Rus.” According to [1&d, the Laurentian redaction,* in the same year (here the date is determined to be 980 rather than the earlier year of 978 according to Jakob) that he began his rule in Kiev, Vladimir
... MOCTABH KYMHPbI HA XOAHY’ BH'E AKopa TepeMHaro: Tlepyta ApeBAHA’ ATAABY ETO CPEBPEHY’ A OYCA QAATA’ H Xagca amped’ HW Orpned H Cumaperaa’ H MoKowb [H] APAYY HMA HAPHMOIe BLOF ]br [H] MpHBOAAYY CHbI LEO H AAUIEPH' H ARPAYY Bicoma’ [H] We'KEPHAY ZEMAN TEPERAMH CROHMH’ H WEKBEPHHEA KPOBBMH QEMAA Pycka: H YOAMO—TH M0 NPBATHH BA He YOTA CMP TH PpGWHHKOMA’ HA TOMA YOAME HbIWE Upk[B]H CTOHTE’ CTO BACHABIA ec™
... erected idols on a hill beyond the castle chamber: a wooden Perun with his head of silver and a mustache of gold, and Khors, Dazh’bog, Stribog, Simar’gl, and Mokosh. They sacrificed to them, calling them gods, and they brought their sons and daughters and sacrificed [them] to the demons. They defiled the land with their offerings and profaned the Rus’ land and the hill with blood. But the most blessed God did not wish the death of sinners and on this hill now stands a church. It is [that] of Saint Basil.
This passage merits further comment. It is noteworthy because we see the scribes admitting that Vladimir, recognizing the increasing role of the Slavs in political and military matters, found it advantageous to grant to the Slavs a greater participatory role in the affairs of the state. Through his religious leadership, albeit at first pagan, he strengthened the political unity of the Kievan people. B.D. Grekov interprets the event as evidence of the introduction of princely autocratic powers.” But in the minds of the Christian annalists, the occurrence was a sign that Vladimir in the future could also be expected to protect the interests of the neophyte Christian church and give this institution direction and resources at crucial moments in the daily lives of the Rus’.
While we have observed in the Laurentian redaction of [fd and other annals the admission that both young boys and girls were sacrificed to the pagan deities, the Hypatian redaction emends the passage and deletes any reference to the sacrifice of girls. This is, perhaps, one of the earliest examples of textual emendation to reflect customary laws then still practiced in southwestern Rus’, unlike some of the customary practices found among the southeastern Rus’.
Soon after Vladimir centralized religious worship, this being the first evidence in Rus’ sources to establish an official state religion and to create a common Varangian-Slavic pagan pantheon at an esteemed site of worship, it appears that an awareness came upon him of the inadequacies of the pagan cults. Paganism as a state institution throughout Europe was endangered because it was deemed to be inferior and had quite primitive practices, whereas Christianity, whether of the Byzantine or Roman rites, demonstrated its superiority in that its theology and ritualistic practices enjoyed higher esteem and official recognition. According to the traditional account related in [/&d for 986, following his defeat at the hands of the Volga Bulgars who then sent an Islamic mission to Kiev to convert him and his people to their religion, Vladimir countered by consulting with religious emissaries from Christian countries—Latin representatives from the Holy Roman Empire and Eastern Christian churchmen from Byzantium, the Muslim Volga Bulgars (on his terms), and Jewish Khazars. He then sent leading men to each of their countries to observe their religious customs and practices, and to learn more about their creed.” The following year the account notes that Vladimir was unable to arrive at a decision on which creed to adopt. He summoned his nobles and town-elders (¢TapyH rpaAbEKIH) with whom he consulted and discussed the teachings and practices of each religious faith. With the concurrence of his nobles and elders, he arrived at a decision to dispatch ten Rus’ legates to study the teachings and rituals of three religious groupings.
The ten Rus’ comprised only of Slavs, excluding Varangians from among his retinue who remained in the large strong proponents of paganism. And paradoxically, although no explanation is furnished in Tf, Vladimir directed his men to visit the Volga Bulgars, Germans, and Byzantines, but he excluded the Jewish Khazars. Perhaps even at this late date, although their state was in ruins following the assaults of Svjatoslav, the Khazars may have continued to claim territorial sovereignty and maintained an influence over portions of southern Rus’, including Kiev; as well, they may have attempted to exercise the right to collect tribute from the Slavic tribes occupying these lands. Understandably, Vladimir had no intention to humble himself to the overlordship of a Khazar khagan.™
Upon the return of his servants, Vladimir again summoned and assembled his nobles and elders. He listened to their reports and then addressed those assembled: HAEMA KPUIHLE NPIHMEMA’ WHH RE PEKOWA TAK TH AIOEO, “from where shall we accept baptism; they replied wherever you wish.” The nobles and elders had relinquished this decision to him not because they were unable to come to a resolution of the matter, but rather within their own territories strong pagan elements were highly influential and it would have been folly for them to select a religion of choice, thus bringing censure upon themselves and the prospect of relinquishing their own authority.
These detailed passages explaining the Christianization of Kievan Rus’ should be treated with circumspection. Much of the information is traditional in character and replete with exaggerations. But legends often have some basis in fact and the consultation with and the visits to the Volga Bulgars, Germans, and Byzantines should be understood in another context. Vladimir was sufficiently perceptive to notice that his official pagan cults stood in opposition to advanced religious trends and as an inharmonious island among the Christians on the west and south, and to the east were to be found the Muslims and Jewish Khazars. Kievan Rus’ was an important commercial link between Europe and Asia and at the crossroads of assorted cultures, religious ideas, and practices.
That he could even consider the adoption of another religion for his principality is evidence that he enjoyed far greater personal authority than his predecessors upon the Kievan seat. His grandmother Olga, who could only undertake a personal conversion to Byzantine Christianity ca. 955 (6463), had neither sufficient political strength and support, nor sufficient authority as a regent to bring about a major religious transformation. She also never had a favorable political climate within her court to garner the support of pagan Varangian and Slavic elements for religious conversion. The populace was generally swayed by the upper classes and pagan priests to oppose her efforts for religious change. Yet, in spite of these and other hindrances, Olga persisted in her belief that she was pursuing the correct course to associate herself with Byzantium both politically and religiously, for the evolving political, economic, and religious scene was moving in her favor, however slowly, and thus dictated this need to her. And the presence of Christian elements among the upper and some lower class Varangians and Slavs must have further motivated her to pursue this course of action.
Thus the consideration of another creed by the Kievan prince, aware of all the positive and negative intangibles that had confronted his grandmother, was in itself a revolutionary step in the advancement of Kievan Rus’. But also Vladimir must have been aware of the political and religious confrontations that his grandmother had experienced. He recognized that without the encouragement and acquiescence of Slavic and Varangian nobles and elders, he could not introduce conversion. Yet, at the same time /7&d stresses that the nobles and elders conceded this decision to him. An explanation of why the regional nobles and elders conceded the decision to the prince, although they may have favored the change, may be found in the fact that they were aware of the strength of local pagan influences and did not with to surrender their personal authority at the local level.
Even though the adoption of Byzantine Christianity was an event of paramount significance for early Kievan Rus’ history, the accounts of Vladimir’s conversion are incomplete and the little information that has been preserved is imprecise. His baptism appears to have occurred either in 987 or 988 (6495 or 6496) and took place either in Kiev, on one of his estates, or even elsewhere. Among the Scandinavian sagas, a tradition has been preserved that Olaf Tryggvason, en route to Norway from Byzantium, passed through Kievan Rus’ in 987 or 988, and was accompanied by a Byzantine bishop named Paul who performed the baptismal ceremony.” How credible this claim is remains a subject of disputation among scholars, although we should tender some credence to this account in view of the frequent contacts between the Varangians and Slavs. Too, anumber of high Scandinavian nobles make their appearance in Kievan Rus’ throughout the course of this early period. The Scandinavian account does not state the place where the baptism took place and appears to leave the impression that it occurred in Kiev, although this is by no means conclusive and the event could have taken place elsewhere.
Byzantine sources are equally reticent on Vladimir's conversion, or dismiss it with little comment. If anything, they treat the matter as a minor event and of no great consequence for Byzantine interests in Kievan Rus’. That they relegated the conversion of Vladimir to an almost insignificant occurrence is, therefore, not surprising. For the Constantinopolitan ruler, Basil II, more important was the acquisition of military forces to quell the internal problems of the empire and especially his struggle with the rival Bardas Phokas.**
The Christianization of Vladimir and his subjects and the establishment of this creed as the state religion are important in another context. T&d copyists and other early Rus’ writers draw extensively, but selectively, upon the now introduced translated Old Testament texts into Old Church Slavonic and formulated a historiographic tradition and a modified concept of rulership based upon their reading and understanding of the texts. There appears in /T#d a striking parallel between the achievements of Vladimir and Solomon,” the king of Israel (ca. 974—ca. 937BC) and the son of David.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق