The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Relationship of the Russian princes in the second half of the 12th century according to "Tale of Igor's Campaign"



UDK 947.027

RELATIONSHIP of the RUSSIAN PRINCES IN the SECOND HALF of the 12th century according to "TALE OF IGOR'S CAMPAIGN"

© 2010 urban districts of A. Litvinenko

Southern Federal University, Southern Federal University,

B. Sadovaya St., 105/42, Rostov-on-Don, 344006, B. SadovayaSt., 105/42, Rostov-on-Don, 344006,

decanat@hist. sfedu. ru decanat@hist. sfedu. ru

The problem of studying relationship of the Russian princes in the second half of the 12th century according to "Tale of Igor's Campaign" is investigated. The main versions of researchers are considered, and the attempt to characterize them becomes.

The article is devoted the problem of researching of relationships of russian nobles according to "The Lay of warfare waged by Igor" in the second half XII centure. The article researches the main versions by historians and gives the attempt to characterize them.

"Tale of Igor's Campaign" can be carried to that few group of historical sources of Ancient Russia which affects practically all aspects of life of the second half of XII - the beginning of the 13th century

It was time of princely civil strifes, fight of various groups for lands, for the power. According to many researchers, relationship of the Russian princes in "Word" found the brightest reflection in the second half of the 12th century. Their study happens on several the direction. Let's try to allocate the main.

First of all difficult relationship between princely houses, division of princely groups by the related principles is noted. Such "patrimonial" approach is characteristic, according to D.S. Likhachev, for the 12th century [1, page 94]. In chronicles the tradition was put to consider activity of the representative of any given princely sort within the political line some kind of. Likhachev sees in it "medieval ideas of patrimonial continuity of policy of the Russian princes or maybe real aspirations of the Russian princes to conduct the policy within the patrimonial line, to inherit & #34; путь" fathers and grandfathers" [1, page 113].

In "Word" the researchers see first of all fight between two patrimonial clans which took the conducting positions in political arena of Russia 12th century, - Olgovichey and Monomakhovichey.

In the poem this opposition is considered since the time of the ancestors of these groups - Oleg Svyatoslavich Chernigovsky and Vladimir Monomakh who conducted fierce race for power with the second half of the 11th century. Not one work in domestic historical science was devoted to their relationship. Practically in every second work considering the problems of history XII of Russia century attention is paid to the relations between Olgovichami and Monomakhovichami. There were even quite steady trends in studying fight of this two childbirth.

Traditionally in the Soviet historiography was considered that Vladimir Monomakh personified policy of centralization of the Russian principalities around Kiev, played for the uniform political line of all Russian principalities in maintaining integrity of the Russian land in fight against nomads - Cumans. Oleg Svyatoslavich (or Guo-rislavich as the author of "Word" calls him) expressed the return, "negative" line on dissociation, fragmentation of the Russian principalities, aspired to specific type of reigning and used in fight against the rivals of enemies of "Russian land" of Cumans. Oleg, Likhachev considers, "laid the foundation for difficult knot of the intestine wars connected with the patrimonial right of Ancient Russia" [1, page 107].

Reflection of this patrimonial opposition contains in many historical sources, the most important of which is, in our opinion, "Tale of Igor's Campaign". In this work it is possible to track the main stages of fight of clans.

In the poem the history of fight for Chernigovsky a throne between the ancestors of Mono-makhovichami and Olgovichami, the unions of both parties with Cumans and their drive on Russian lands, tragic fight on the Nezhatiny field completely reveals.

By 1185 the relations between Olgovichami and Monoma-hovichami entered a new round of opposition. Quite interesting treatment was presented by B.I. Yatsenko. He sees the reason of this next heat of fight in strengthening of positions of the head Monomakhovichey of that time of the vladimiro-Suzdal prince Vsevolod Yuryevich who "inspired" capture by Vladimir Glebovich (native nephew) of some Seversk cities at Novgorod - the Seversk prince Igor Svyatoslavich in 1184 [2, page 106]. According to Yatsenko, Vsevolod was disturbed by "the prospect of the outlined rapprochement of Severshchina with Chernihiv and Kiev", namely consolidation of all Olgovichey that would make them one of the strongest political parties in Russian lands,

what, of course, was not for the benefit of the Suzdal prince. The researcher notes that by the beginning of 1185 the position of the Seversk earth worsened: "Concentration of Polovtsian troops on borders of Russia was very suspicious". It were just "those Cumans, - Yatsenko considers, - which actively supported in internal wars of Yury Dolgorukiy, and later and his son Vsevolod" [2, page 107].

In the circumstances the prince Igor "needed to make the decision: to refuse intention to revenge pereyaslavets and to agree with a role of the vassal of the Suzdal prince or to oppose Vladimir Glebovich and to declare itself the enemy of the Suzdal prince and his Polovtsian allies" [2, page 107].

Yatsenko considers that even the solar eclipse described in "Word" pushed the prince Igor to a performance against the pereyaslavsky prince and consequently, and the Suzdal prince as this sign symbolized direct threat to all Seversk earth, having staked the fate of the home ground. Having engaged in combat with pereyaslavsky and Suzdal princes, Igor could count on support of the Kiev and Chernihiv princes, the natural allies, Yatsen-co believes. To it the researcher finds confirmation in annalistic data which report about presence at structure of regiments of Igor Olstin Oleksich, the close boyar of the Chernihiv prince, with army. Of course, independently Chernihiv boyar could not join the Seversk prince. Olstin Oleksich's appearance indicates Igor Seversky's support by Yaroslav Chernigovsky. The main value of participation of the Chernihiv troops was that on the eve of a campaign Olstin Oleksich came back from the Polovtsian steppe where well studied the location of Polovtsian settlements [2, page 107-108]. Thereby the Chernihiv prince gave very substantial support to the Seversk prince in a performance against the vladimiro-Suzdal prince.

As for support of the Seversk prince by Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Yatsenko considers that annalistic data on collecting and training of troops by the Kiev prince for a summer campaign against Cumans can be interpreted doubly. The researcher believes that these forces could be used by Svyatoslav and differently in case Vsevolod Suzdalsky decides on countermeasures when the prince Igor entered on the Pereyaslavsky earth and Glebov took. Thereby the Kiev prince secured troops Novgorod - the Seversk prince from attack of the Suzdal prince.

Yatsenko points to complexity of relationship between Olgovichami and Monomakhovichami who was that any of the parties did not seek to use openly the main forces in opposition, being limited to fight of the vassals and allies. So was and in this case, Yatsenko considers: neither chernigovets, nor Kiev residents planned the military operations against Pereyaslavl or Suzdal. The fact of a performance of Igor, a resolute rupture of its vassal dependence on Vsevolod Yuryevich was the main thing in this situation. And even defeat of troops of the Seversk prince suited the Kiev and Chernihiv princes,

as it put Igor into dependence on Svyatoslav and Yaroslav Vsevolodovichey. Association of all Ol-govichey considerably strengthened positions of the Kiev prince in opposition with the Suzdal prince [2, page 108].

This political situation, according to Yatsenko, also defines the relation of the Kiev prince to Novgorod - Seversk in "Tale of Igor's Campaign" in its address to brothers Svyatoslavicham.

D.S. Likhachev also noted reflection of the existing contradictions between Olgovichami and Monomakhovi-chami who saw in policy first of all Vsevolod Yuryevich. Suzdalsky the prince "unlike the father Yury Dolgorukiy sought to be approved in the northeast, to replace hegemony of Kiev with Vladimir Zalessky's hegemony, refused claims to Kiev, trying to direct from the Vladimir affairs of Russia" [1, page 129].

But the leading place in the Old Russian poem is given, according to Likhachev, to relationship Yaroslavichey and Vseslavichey. The researcher considers that the main idea of the work is "the appeal to stop century & #34; которы" yaroslavichy and Polotsk vseslavichy" [1, page 91]. According to Likhachev, "the patrimonial nest of the Polotsk princes resists in consciousness of people of the 12th century to Yaroslav the Wise's posterity". The researcher notes that "the Polotsk princes represented the special line of the Russian princes, nearly the first begun process of feudal crushing of Russia" [1, page 92]. Yaroslavichey and Vseslavichey "fill internal wars with the noise and XI, and 12th century", leaving, Likhachev considers, "defeated both parties", and winners as a result turn out "nasty" - Cumans and Lithuanians. Likhachev points to reflection of this thought in "Word": "Ardent slavli vs vnuyets and Vseslavli! You will already lower the styaz (as a defeat symbol, - recognize yourself defeated. - D.L.), stick the swords of a verezhena (in internal wars. - D.L.). Already bo a vyskochist ikh djdny glorify (civil strifes defamed you. - D.L.). You bo the seditions to a nachyasta direct poganyya at the Russian land, at life Vseslavlya. Which bo to a bjsha violence from the earth Polovetskyi!" [1, page 93].

In Oleg "Gorislavich" and in Vseslav Polotsky the author of "Word" generalized two largest historical phenomena: intestine wars Olgovichey and Monomakhovi-chey and intestine war Vseslavichey and Yaroslavichey. That is why characteristics of these princes figure prominently it in "Word", Likhachev notes [1, page 9596]. On the example of these princes the main directions in the relations of the Russian princes of the second half of the 12th century are shown in the poem

But besides patrimonial relationship in "Word" attention and to other aspects of political life of Russia is paid.

According to a part of researchers (B.A. Rybakov, D.S. Likhachev, A.N. Robinson), by "Word" it is possible to track a role and the place of the grand Kiev duke in political arena of Russia in the second half of the 12th century. By this time the value of great Kiev reigning decreases in comparison with the 11th century and the first half of the 12th century. Reasons for that a little. First, office of those ze-

a bank which were not connected with other Russian lands the general danger - Polovtsian attacks (Novgorod and Polotsk). These territories had own trade ways which provided them economic independence. Secondly, isolation of a number of significant principalities and lands, their aspiration to conduct own political line (galitsko-Volynsk, vladimiro-Suzdal, Veliky Novgorod). The huge role in it was played by the vladimiro-Suzdal princes who the first made an attempt to move the political center of Russia (subsequently they managed that). Thirdly, strengthening of foreign policy priorities: suburban principalities are forced more and more attention and forces to give to protection of the external borders.

Rybakov considers that in "Word" the direct instruction on the changed status of the grand Kiev duchy is given: "The grand duke Kiev does not order to other princes, and asks them to enter & #34; in zlat stre-men... for the earth Russkuyu" and sometimes kind of asks: & #34; whether you think to arrive here from far away to protect an otchy gold throne? & #34;" [3, page 167].

The historian believes that in the poem the real place and the status of the Kiev principality - "the capital of one of principalities" is reflected. The only thing that else remained at Kiev - it is its spiritual status of the church center.

Likhachev agrees with Rybakov in assessment of a role of the Kiev principality. He considers that in "Word" "Kiev is still thought. as the center of the Russian land - if not real, then ideal" [1, page 128].

Rybakov and Likhachev meet in one - for "Tale of Igor's Campaign" the center of Russia still is the Kiev principality even if only as the spiritual, uniting center. Serious divergences in them are caused by one of the main characters of the poem and one of the main figures of policy of Russia of the second half of the 12th century - the grand duke Kiev Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich.

Likhachev calls him "one of the weakest princes ever reigning in Kiev" in spite of the fact that in "Word" the Kiev prince is allocated with epithets "terrible" and "great". The researcher sees not "usual court flattery", and need for such intitulation of Svyatoslav somehow to call the Russian princes for strict and unconditional implementation of "feudal obligations in relation to the weakening gold Kiev table". Investment of the Kiev prince with ideal properties of the head of the Russian princes, according to Likhachev, bears huge semantic loading - it is attempt "antidotes against feudal intestine wars", "one of means of maintaining unity of Russia" [1, page 128].

From this Likhachev draws a conclusion that in "Word" the ideal idea of what has to be the Kiev prince - "great" and "terrible" is shown. And such prince (in real representation), according to Likhachev, in "Word" wrote out the prince vladimiro-Suzdal Vsevolod Yuryevich. Just during its reigning in Vladimir, the researcher notes, "passed into a title of princes Vladimir the name & #34; great князя"". Thereby Vsevolod declared the Big Nest the claims "on a stareyshinstvo among all Russian princes" [1, page 128-129].

Likhachev's position in relation to Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich is completely supported by Robinson. He also notes that in reality Svyatoslav as the grand Kiev duke was very weak in spite of the fact that in "Word" he "acted as the main character". As proof Robinson writes about a campaign of 1184: "Contemporaries (and they treated Svyatoslav differently) knew well that Svyatoslav did not go to such campaign and did not capture Kobyak". The researcher considers that in this case in the poem "The Author's position (author of "Tale of Igor's Campaign") conflicted to reality" [4, page 70].

The opposite point of view for a role and the place on the political scene of Russia of the second half of the 12th century Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich is taken by Rybakov. According to him, the statement that Svyatoslav was "one of the weakest princes ever reigning in Kiev" does not find confirmation in sources. On the contrary, Rybakov brings given to the Ipatyevsky chronicle which have something in common with "Word", about a brilliant victory of Svyatoslav over Kobyak. The researcher emphasizes, Kiev prince "managed to overcome centrifugal forces of Russian lands, to rally them and, despite sabotage of left-bank princes, to achieve unprecedented success" [3, page 103].

Rybakov puts this victory of Svyatoslav over Kobyak in one row with a successful campaign of Vladimir Monomakh on Sharukan in 1111. The proof of the importance of a campaign of Svyatoslav Rybakov finds in "Word" where the countries of Europe singing glory to the Kiev prince are listed: "Germans" - the Sacred Roman Empire, Morava - the Czech kingdom, "Greeks" - the Byzantine empire, "Veneditsi" - the Venetian republic. The international importance of a campaign is explained by the fact that the Polovtsian tribes united under the name "White Kumaniya" and whose master there was a khan Kobyak, took the major ways across Dnieper (in thresholds) and across Danube (branches), creating great difficulties for commercial relations of Europe with the East.

Also according to "Tale of Igor's Campaign" we can track the use vassal syuzerennoy terminology in the second half of the 12th century, in particular the word "mister" in relation to the prince in the poem is applied twice in relation to three princes: To Rurik and Davydu Rostislavicham and Yaroslav Osmomysl Galitsky.

Likhachev sees the use of this term in tradition of the vladimiro-Suzdal principality where from the middle of the 70th of the 12th century there was a strong princely power. He considers that the word "mister" passed through several social groups before was included in the value in the poem, and "begins to be used at first only among citizens and country people". Then so residents of the vladimiro-Suzdal cities begin to address the Vladimir prince, and "in 1180, apparently for the first time, - Likhachev draws a conclusion, - this term passes into lips of princes-vassals, in their address to the head, and again in the Vladimiro-Suzdalsky principality" [1, page 144]. Having tracked a way of distribution of this term, Likhachev saw its final zakre-

a pleniye in the northeast between vladimiro-Suzdal and improvised to it the Ryazan princes. The word "mister" in which everyone is already cancelled the "related mitigation" of political concepts so characteristic of old traditional feudal terminology - "father", "son", "brother" reflects, according to the researcher, "the new relations of unconditional submission". Likhachev notes that "a word & #34; господин" also it began to be used instead of a word & #34; отец" or near it during a time of strengthening of the princely power". Besides northeast lands this term was used also in the galitsko-Volynsk earth (explains in "Word" the address to Yaroslav Ga-litsky) [1, to page 145].

Likhachev drew a conclusion that this new "term" reflects the new relation to the princely power in "Tale of Igor's Campaign" [1, page 146].

Rybakov does not agree with Likhachev also here. According to Rybakov, "needless to say that tsesar Russia, the grand duke Kiev, could not address so other princes, the lowest by origin and to genealogical calculations". The historian considers that "the prince did not address the prince in such form. Such form of the address could be applicable the boyar or on behalf of a seigniorial thought" [5, page 121].

Summing up the results, it would be desirable to note that "Tale of Igor's Campaign" is one of the most important sources on the history of Russia of the second half of the 12th century. In

this case we tried to track relationship of the Russian princes of the second half of the 12th century. We managed to recreate quite full picture as in "Word" several aspects of the interprincely relations of this period are shown. First, quite brightly in the poem the clan, patrimonial party of princely opposition is given. Secondly, in "Word" the weakening of the grand Kiev duchy, its real status and a role at that time is shown. Thirdly, gradual transition to new vassal syuzerennym to the relations brightly is reflected.

Literature

1. D.S. Likhachev "Tale of Igor's Campaign" and culture of its time. L., 1978.
2. B.I. Yatsenko. The Seversk princes in "Tale of Igor's Campaign"//the Russian literature. 1981. No. 3.
3. B.A. Rybakov. The Russian principalities of XII - the beginning of the 13th century//Gold a word. M, 1986.
4. A.N. Robinson "Tale of Igor's Campaign" and its era//Tale of Igor's Campaign. 800 years. M, 1985.
5. Rybakov B.A. Pyotr Borislavich. Search of the author of "Tale of Igor's Campaign". M, 1991.

Came to edition On December 31, 2008

Marvin Gonzales
Other scientific works: