UDC 321 (091) (4/9), 34 (091) (4/9 )
Russian lands in relation to the ulus of Jochi (Horde):
is it a vassal state or part of the Horde state?
I.I. Nazipov
Senior Lecturer of the Department of Legal Disciplines
Perm Institute of Economics and Finance
614068, Perm, st. Bolshevik, 141
E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You must have JavaScript enabled to view.
The article explores one of the most controversial in historical science the question of the state ownership of Russian lands of the epoch of the XIII-XV centuries. ulus of Jochi. So far, scientists have not applied scientific and legal methods to solve it. The legal approach (within the framework of the theory of the state) makes it possible to single out a number of the main features of the state, which can be classified as universally recognized. The study of the connections between the Russian lands and the ulus of Jochi, within the framework of these features, adjusted for the realities of the 13th-15th centuries, gives the following answer to the research question: the Russian lands were not always part of the Horde state. Identified periods of belonging of the Russian lands to the statehood of the Horde and periods of the sovereign status of the Russian lands in the XIII-XV centuries. indicated in the article.
Keywords: signs of the state; ulus of Jochi; state affiliation of Russian lands
Domestic historical and historical-legal science gives three answers to the question of whether the Russian lands belong to the Horde statehood. However, each of the options is not supported by a special in-depth study of the features of the state that appear in the Russian lands as evidence of the functioning of the state of the Horde or states - Russian principalities. These answers are only a short incidental statement in the presentation and study of other aspects of Russian-Horde relations - a retelling of the events of Russian-Horde relations, identifying the consequences of the Horde's influence on historical development Russia.
The first position in historiography: complete disregard for the issue. The phrase "under Mongol rule" replaces the answer to the question what this power was, replaces the identification of this power. Scientists within the framework of this approach qualitatively describe the events of Russian-Horde relations, characterize their forms, the severity of the influence of the Horde for Russia, use the term “yoke”, but do not touch on the issue of the state ownership of Russian lands. Probably, at the same time, they understand that the problem exists, but are not ready to solve it and therefore “do not notice”. To solve this problem, it is not enough to be a historian (even an outstanding one), one must simultaneously be a specialist in political science and legal sciences. Perhaps it is precisely the lack of development of the theory of the state, before the twentieth century, that explains this position in historiography, because it is precisely the scientists who lived and worked before the twentieth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century that it is represented.
I will quote the most famous representatives of this group of scientists, choosing quotes so that they reflect their way of bypassing this issue while getting as close to the problem as possible.
N.M Karamzin:“The princes, humbly groveling in the Horde, returned from there as formidable rulers: for they commanded in the name of the supreme king.” “If the Mongols did the same with us as they did in China, in India, or what the Turks did in Greece; if, leaving the steppe and nomadism, they returned to our cities, they could still exist in the form of a state. Fortunately, the harsh climate of Russia removed this thought from them. The khans only wanted to be our masters "from afar", not interfering in civil affairs, they demanded only silver and obedience from the princes.
CM. Solovyov:"The Mongols remained to live far away, they only cared about collecting tribute, not interfering in any way with internal relations, leaving everything as it was."
IN. Klyuchevsky: "The Horde khans did not impose any orders on Russia, being content with tribute, they even poorly understood the order that operated there."
S.F Platonov:“The Tatars called Russia their “ulus”, that is, their parish or possession; but they left his old device in this ulus.
The second position in historiography: the Russian lands (North-Eastern, Southern Russia) belonged to the Horde state, being part of it. Basically, representatives of this position - scientists began XX century. These are the so-called "Eurasians". This point of view was shared by N.I. Kostomarov. Below are quotes characterizing the position of these scientists.
G.V. Vernadsky:“... the Golden Horde Khan was the supreme ruler of Russia - its “king”, as the Russian chronicles call him”; “While Western and Eastern Russia were under the control of the khan, both were parts of one political entity, the Golden Horde.”
N.S. Trubetskoy:“Russia was at that time a province of a large state. It is authentically known that Russia was also drawn into the general financial system of the Mongolian state.
N.I. Kostomarov:"A number of princes and states are in unconditional dependence on the supreme sovereign, the Tatar Khan, the true owner of the Russian land"; "The supreme lord, conqueror and owner of Russia, the khan, correctly called by the Russians, the tsar, distributed the land to the princes into estates."
The third position in historiography: the preservation of the Russian lands of their own statehood during the period of the "yoke". It is represented by "Soviet historiography" (the idea that Russia in relation to the Horde is a "vassal state") and L. Gumilyov (the idea of free Russian states and their union with the Horde).
Here is how the most famous representatives of "Soviet historiography" write about it.
B.D. Grekov, A.Yu. Yakubovsky:“The Russian lands conquered by the Tatar army were not directly included in the Golden Horde. The Golden Horde khans considered the Russian lands as politically autonomous, having their own power, but being dependent on the khans and obliged to pay tribute to them - "exit". Russian feudal principalities became vassal to the khan.
V.V. Kargalov:“Unlike other countries conquered by the Mongol-Tatars, Russia has retained its political and social system. There has never been a Mongol administration on Russian soil. Even the Mongol-Tatars themselves did not call the Russian land "ulus", that is, part of the Golden Horde, completely subject to the khan.
V.V. Mavrodin:"Vasselage was expressed in the payment of tribute and in the fact that the Russian princes, in order to rule in their own principality, were obliged to receive special letters-labels from the khan."
I.B. Grekov, F.F. Shahmagonov: “The occupation of North-Eastern Russia, as well as the Middle Dnieper, was beyond the Horde's strength and did not promise her, in essence, any benefits. These lands were needed by the Horde as a permanent and reliable source of income in the form of tribute.
It is not clear to the author of the article how the state, i.e. an organization that has sovereignty can be a vassal, i.e. a subject of social relations that does not have a sign of sovereignty. Even if we accept the application of the term characterizing feudal relations within the class of feudal lords to interstate relations, we observe a contradiction.
L.N. Gumilyov: “There was no question of any Mongol conquest of Russia. The Mongols did not leave the garrisons, they did not think of establishing their permanent power. With the end of the campaign, Batu went to the Volga. "Alexander Yaroslavich...< >... went to Berka and agreed on a tribute to the Mongols in exchange for military assistance against the Lithuanians and Germans ”(i.e., tribute is just a payment for military assistance under a business deal); "The Russian principalities that accepted an alliance with the Horde have fully retained their ideological independence and political independence"; "The label is a pact of friendship and non-aggression".
Below is a brief version of the study of the problem by the author of the article, using the methods of legal sciences.
The concept of "state" is ambiguous. Here the state is defined as a political-territorial sovereign organization of public power, having a special apparatus of control and coercion, capable of making its regulations binding on the population of the entire country. The state is revealed and characterized through a number of features: 1) the presence of public authority, which has a special apparatus of management and state coercion, violence; 2) organization of power and population on a territorial basis; 3) state sovereignty, understood as the dual unity of the supremacy and uniqueness of the power of the state in a certain territory in relation to individuals and communities within the country and independence in relations with other states; 4) comprehensive, obligatory nature of acts issued by the state; the prerogative (exclusive right) of the state to issue laws and other normative acts containing generally binding rules of conduct for the population of the country; 5) taxation and collection of taxes, duties and other fees. Quite often, as the main features of the state in the literature are called: 6) common language communication; 7) the presence of an army; 8) a unified system of defense and foreign policy.
Let us characterize the features of the state listed above, including those adjusted for the realities of the Russian lands and the Horde in the era of the 13th–15th centuries.
1. public authority. It "stands" above society, separated from it. Regardless of whether the exercise of power is entrusted to an individual or to any body, they act on behalf of the state (in the Middle Ages, on behalf of the monarch - the owner of the land, and, importantly, on behalf of the prince, in Russian lands sometimes on behalf of the khan) and as state bodies (whose bodies are important here: khan, Horde or independent Russian, princely). This power is independent and independent in relation to other sources of power. Power in the state must be legal and legitimate. Legal power is a power that acquires powers in accordance with the law and rules with the help of laws. In the realities of the Middle Ages, in addition to laws, also in accordance with customs, orders of the monarch, and religious principles. In the study, we need to determine whether the power over the Russian lands was based on the Horde customs of the organization of management, on the orders of the khan. The legitimacy of power characterizes the special relationship between the government and the population of a given state, legitimacy characterizes the degree of recognition of power by the population, the subordination of the population to power orders. (It is important whether the population of the Russian lands obeyed the khan in the person of his officials and (or) through his orders, whether the Russians, from peasants to princes, recognized the power of the khan).
2. Territory. Includes the land and the people who lived on it, who are subject to the power of the state. The state determines its borders (it is important whether the borders of the Russian principalities were changed by the decision of the khan or the khan's administration) and protects its borders from invasions (it is important whether the Horde protects the Russian lands as their own or not).
3. state sovereignty. It includes the supremacy of state power within the country, i.e. independence in determining the content of their activities, policies. It includes full rights in determining the life of society within its territory (internal sovereignty) and independence in relations with other states in determining its foreign policy (external sovereignty). (It is important for our study: did the Russian lands and their public authorities have internal independence and external independence from the Horde). A number of important features of sovereignty duplicate other features of the state, which have been or will be discussed separately. For example, territorial supremacy (only the laws of this state apply on the territory of a given state) or territorial integrity (the territory of a state cannot be changed, either downward or upward, without the consent of a higher authority of this state).
An important sign of sovereignty, both within the state and outside it, is formal independence from other states or monarchs. (It is important for our study: there were non-Russian lands and their rulers were formally independent of the Horde and (or) Khan or recognized their supremacy and suzerainty).
External sovereignty presupposes, first of all, that another state and its ruler cannot exercise their power over this state and its ruler (par in paren non habet jmperium - an equal has no power over an equal). This is expressed, in particular, in disobedience to external and domestic policy state to another state. It is important for us whether there was such disobedience to the Horde of the Russian lands. For example, did the Russian rati, at the behest of the khan, fight with other, neighboring and non-neighboring, states. For example, whether new taxes were established in the Russian lands by order of the khan. This is expressed in disobedience at the level of foreign policy relations to the legislation (any normative acts; here - labels) of another state. The immunity of a sovereign state also covers the lack of jurisdiction of its judicial authorities of another state. (To determine the sovereignty of the Russian lands, it is important: whether they and their rulers were subjected to trial in the Horde).
4. The Comprehensive Binding Nature of State Acts. This sign is determined by the exclusive powers of the state to carry out lawmaking, i.e. to issue, change or cancel generally binding acts for the entire population of the state and to force their execution. (The presence of acts issued in the Horde and obligatory for the population in the Russian lands means the restriction or absence of this feature of the state in these lands. What is important for our study). Acts are not only rules of conduct that are binding on everyone to whom they are addressed in constant life, but also acts of “state law”, i.e. on the succession to the throne, on the appointment of a specific person to the post of head of state.
5. Taxation. This sign includes a rule according to which only the state has the right to establish taxes and extend the obligation to pay them to absolutely everyone who is on its territory, or to exempt certain categories of people and organizations from them. (If the khans established taxes in Russia and collected them, if they exempted certain categories of people and organizations from taxes, then this sign of the state will be absent in Russia or will be severely limited. Which we should note in our study.)
6. Single language of communication. Multinational states also existed in antiquity, but a single language of communication (for communication at the highest state level, for the state of laws, leadership in the army, for legal proceedings) was usually the language of the people who, having subjugated others, created this state and is the main people in it. In the Hellenistic states and in Byzantium, for example, Greek was such, in Ancient Rome - Latin. (If the acts in the Russian lands were written in Kypchak or Mongolian, then this indicates the limitation or absence of this feature of the state in the Russian lands).
7. Having an army. A medieval state, unlike a number of modern ones, could not exist without an army. The absence of such (regular troops or squads plus militias) indicates that this territorial unit was not a state. But the presence does not at all mean that this territory was a sovereign state. In those days, the armed forces performed the following functions: police against internal enemies of the ruling force in the territory; protection against attacks by external land and water (sea, river) gangs of bandits; protection from the aggression of other states in conditions when the main armed forces of the state have not yet come to the rescue or for some reason cannot come. Local feudal lords without fail had armed forces, regardless of whether the given territory was a separate state (de jure or de facto, as was often the case during the period of medieval fragmentation) or was part of another state.
8. Unified system of defense and foreign policy. In the Middle Ages, the foreign and military policy of states often did not express the interests of these states for the reason that it expressed the interests of their rulers, which often did not coincide with the interests of states. Then dynastic politics, politics related to religion, the need for glory of rulers, even the desire of rulers to change their throne to a more prestigious and rich throne of another state, mattered. But when neither the interests of the state, nor the interests of the ruler, nor the aggression of another state induce the state to take hostile actions against this other state (its ruler), and these actions are actively carried out, it can be concluded that this policy is part of the policy of another state, imposed given. For example, if Russian soldiers participated in military operations far beyond the borders of Russia and not in the interests of their lands or rulers, then this means that they participated in the implementation of the foreign policy of the Horde. It is important for us to investigate and take this into account when assessing Russian-Horde relations in terms of the entry or non-inclusion of Russian lands into the Horde as part of it.
If the above signs of the state in the study prove to be evidence of Russian statehood, then we can conclude that the Russian lands were independent states. If, however, these signs in relation to the Russian lands appear precisely as signs of the Horde state, then, consequently, the Russian lands in this period of history were part of the Horde. If a number of signs indicate that the Russian lands were independent, and a number of signs indicate that they were part of the Horde, then, drawing conclusions, it is necessary to focus on the most important ones in the context of belonging to the Horde.
Power in the Russian lands was exercised on behalf of the "tsar", not the prince. And this indicates that the lands belong to the Horde state. This is also evidenced by the Russian chronicles, which call the Khan of the Horde “king”, reporting on the position of the Russian princes subordinate to the khan, on the “secondary” nature of their power over the Russian lands, a derivative of the power and will of the khan. For example: “Batu is almost Yaroslav with great honor and his men, and let him go, and tell him: Yaroslav, be old and all the prince in the Russian language.” “Oleksandr and Andrey arrived in Kanovich. And order Oleksandrov Kiev and the whole Russian land and Andrey to your table in Volodimer. “Prince Dmitry Mikhailovich of Tver, grandson of Yaroslavl, came from the Horde with a grant from Tsar Azbyak for the great reign of Volodimersk”.
The princes were the "officials" of the khan, who performed the duties assigned by the khan to them in their lands. This speaks for the belonging of the Russian lands to the Horde state. Here is a quote about the assigned duty to collect tribute for the khan, which Mikhail of Tverskoy did not cope with enough, in the opinion of Uzbek Khan who judged him: "... you did not give tribute to the kings." To refuse to serve the khan meant not to be a prince in one’s own land, moreover, to flee from it: “Prince Andrey, Prince Yaroslavich, with his boyars, ran away with his boyars, rather than serve as a tsar and run away to an unknown land.”
In the Russian lands, the khan administration from among the foreigners (foreigners for the population of these lands) operates. This testifies to the belonging of the Russian lands to the Horde state. In the story about the torment of Mikhail Chernigov, it is said that Batu appointed governors and authorities in all Russian cities. The story about the Kursk Baskak Akhmat says that the Tatars kept the Basques in Russian cities throughout the Russian land. Under 1262, the chronicler speaks of the Russian council against the Tatars, whom Batu and Sartak planted in all cities by Russian rulers. The chronicles describe both the administrative activities of these officials in the Russian lands, and the structure of the staff of these officials: “The same winters arrived in numbers, and counted the entire land of Suzhlsk and Ryazan and Murom and put foremen and centurions and thousandths and temniks” .
The territory of the principalities was changed by the decision of the khan. This testifies to their belonging to the Horde state. This happened more than once, when the khan wished it: the divisions of the Great Vladimir reign in 1328, 1341, in the 50s of the XIV century.
The princes and people of Russia recognized the power of the khan ("tsar") over the Russian lands as legitimate. It also speaks of the lack of formal sovereignty of the Russian lands they rule. Below are quotes about the recognition by the princes of the supreme power of the "king" and the impossibility of fighting with him for this reason. Oleg Ryazansky says: "... it is not appropriate for a Russian prince to stand against an eastern king." Opinion of Ivan III before standing on the Ugra: “Under the oath of the spring from the forefathers, if you don’t raise your hand against the king, then how can I break the oath and take it against the king of the article.”
The formal recognition of the power of the khan was accompanied by humiliating procedures for the Russian princes! For example, according to Herberstein, there was a ritual according to which the prince went outside the city on foot, towards the Horde ambassadors who brought basma, bowed to them, brought a cup of koumiss and listened to the khan's letter while kneeling. Here is how, during a visit to the Horde in order to recognize the power of the Khan, one of the most proud and famous Russian princes was humiliated at the same time: “Daniel Romanovich, the great prince, owned the Russian land, Vladimir and Galich, together with his brother; and now he sits on his knees and is called a serf, they want tribute, he does not care for his stomach, and thunderstorms come. Oh, the evil honor of the Tatar!
Russian people, especially princes and boyars, were subjected to trial in the Horde, and, moreover, they themselves (!) went to court on the khan’s call (not as prisoners of war, for example, were subjected to trial, but precisely as subjects, subordinates!). Also, individual Russian lands were subjected to khan's condemnation and punitive military action. This indicates the degree of subordination of the Russian lands to the Horde, their corresponding belonging to the Horde statehood. For example, Mikhail of Tverskoy and his governor Fedor, Roman Ryazansky, were tried and executed in the Horde. As a vivid example of punishment to the principality, one can recall the ruin of Tver, which showed rebelliousness, in 1328.
The khans received regular taxes and fees from Russia and even instructed their officials to collect them. We see here the operation in the Russian lands of the system of taxation of the Horde state. Systems developed, with population censuses. Moreover, the khans (which suggests that tribute is taxes, and not reparations from a defeated enemy) exempted certain categories of the population and organizations from taxes - the church and its ministers.
Russian detachments were forced to fight at the behest of the khans; thus, in their foreign policy, the Russian lands were not sovereign, but were subordinate to the Horde. In these cases, the Russian lands often had to fight against their will: “Because then the need is great from foreigners, and Christians are driven to order to fight with them.” in the Caucasus, in Central Asia.
All the signs of the state, in part from the total duration of the Russian-Horde political ties, appear in the Russian lands as signs of the Horde state and, therefore, as evidence of the state ties of the Horde and Russian lands. Accordingly, for such periods it is necessary to conclude that the lands of North-Eastern Russia were not sovereign states, but part of the Horde state.
The above set of manifestations of signs of state ties in political relations between the Horde and the lands of North-Eastern Russia did not always take place, in the duration of 261 calendar year of Russian-Horde relations. Or not always completely. In a number of periods, the nature of Russian-Horde relations, according to the analysis of the totality of the features of the state, manifests itself as evidence of the functioning of the statehood of the Russian lands and, accordingly, the interstate type of Russian-Horde relations. The signs of the state must be studied separately, according to the totality of events, periods of Russian-Horde ties.
Period 1242-1362 is characterized by pronounced Russian-Horde ties, subordinate to the state character. In 1243–1244 Russian princes come to the Horde, receive a label from the Khan for reigning, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich is appointed "Grand Duke", and Vladimir is approved as the main city in Russia. The payment of tribute to the Horde began. In 1252, a punitive campaign was organized by the Khan against a number of princes who did not want to obey in North-Eastern Russia. During this period, Khan officials conducted two censuses of the population of North-Eastern Russia (1257, 1275), a permanent institution of officials of non-Russian origin began to function in the Russian lands, and permanent Horde military garrisons were placed. There is chronicle evidence of a "tribute in blood" - forced, judging by the nature of chronicle reports, the participation of Russian squads (1263, 1278) in military campaigns organized by the khan against other countries. The collection of tribute to the Horde during this period is regular; controls direct and indirect taxation. In a short period of time, in the late 50's - early 60's. In the 13th century, Muslim merchants-farmers collected tribute with particular cruelty in the Russian lands. After 1280, there were no permanent Horde administration and garrisons in the Russian lands of non-Russian origin. There is no information about the "tribute in blood". There were no population censuses after 1275. Tribute was collected and taken to the Horde from Russian lands only by Russian princes. Otherwise, the content of Russian-Horde ties is the same. For this time period, there are two groups of especially cruel Horde military campaigns on Russian lands, organized by the ruler of the Horde, to punish the lands and princes who did not submit to him and to approve their decisions (the first: 1281–1293; the second: 1315–1327) . In order to punish attacks on Russian lands and to protect them from expansion during this period, the Horde actively carries out campaigns against Lithuania and Poland, both independently and together with Russian detachments. In order to protect Russian lands from the expansion of Lithuania and Poland in the 80s.
Period 1362-1427 characterized by the absence of a subordinate position of the Russian lands to the Horde. In the context of the internecine war in the Horde, called in the annals "The Great Zamyatnya", the power of the Horde and its rulers over the Russian lands was formal until 1372, and in 1372-1382. it has not become formal either. Since 1362, in North-Eastern Russia, all issues have been resolved by the balance of power of the local Russian principalities. The label for the reign of Vladimir, being given to a non-Moscow prince (1365 and 1371), did not give its owner the actual opportunity to receive the Vladimir lands to rule, due to opposition to the will of the khan from Moscow. The princes do not take tribute to the Horde, there is no “tribute in blood” to the Horde. In the 1370s, an anti-Lithuanian and anti-Horde coalition of princes was formed in North-Eastern Russia, headed by the Moscow prince. This coalition wages war with the Horde and detachments of the Horde, isolated in the conditions of civil strife in the Horde, until 1382. In 1382, for 12 years, the complete dependence of the Russian lands on the Horde is restored: tribute paid to the Horde, princes travel to the Horde to the khan, receiving labels for reigning , the participation of Russian soldiers in the distant Horde campaigns. In 1395, the dependence of the Russian lands on the Horde, defeated by Timur, led by a non-khan from the Jochi dynasty and engulfed in a special war, ceased again. (The exception is 1412-1414, when the power in the Horde belonged to the children of Tokhtamysh). During this period, the Russian lands do not pay tribute to the Horde, the princes do not receive labels. In December 1408, a campaign of the Horde against Russia was undertaken in order to punish disobedience and restore dependence, but it did not achieve its goal. The participation of the Horde in repelling the Lithuanian aggression against Russia took place in 1406 and 1408.
In the period 1428–1480, with actual independence from the Horde, the Russian lands recognize the formal sovereignty of the Horde "tsar". In 1428–1437 in Russia, there is a confrontation between Vasily the Dark and Yuri Galitsky, they turn to the Khan of the Horde with a request to judge in the dispute and issue a label to one of the applicants. Princes aspire to princes to use the Horde as an instrument in the internal struggle, and this was associated with obtaining a label, with tribute payments to the Horde. In 1437–1445 in the Horde, the confrontation continues, with the complete advantage of Vasily the Dark and the children of Yuri Galitsky. Tribute under these conditions is not paid, the khans of the Horde do not have actual power over Russia. In 1445-1461, except for the period 02/12/1446 - 02/17/1447, there is a political dependence of the Russian lands on the Kazan Khanate. Russia pays a ransom to Kazan in long-term payments for the captive Vasily the Dark, a system of Kazan officials functions in the Russian lands, Kazan military detachments on the side of Vasily the Dark participate in the suppression of the opposition of Dmitry Shemyaka, and also protect the borders of Russia from attacks by the Horde troops. In short time intervals: April - May 1434 and 02/12/1446 - 02/17/1447. power in Russia was seized by Yuri Galitsky and Dmitry Shemyaka. During these years, Russia openly showed itself to be independent of the Horde and hostile to it. In 1461-1472, in the first decade of the reign of Ivan III, no tribute was paid to the Horde, the Khan's power over Russia was only formal. For the Horde, this is a time of constant wars with the Crimean Khanate. The Horde does not undertake military campaigns on Russian lands. In 1472-1480. there is a dependence of Russian lands on the Horde. The khan had formal power over Russia, and the Moscow prince calls himself his “ulusnik”. Until 1476, tribute was paid to the Horde, but in smaller amounts than in past periods of dependence. There were two powerful campaigns of the Horde troops against Russia - 1472, 1480.
In the period 1481-1502. there were no manifestations of submission to the Horde and its Khan on the part of the Russian lands, Russia was independent from the Horde in fact and formally.
On the whole, from 1242 to 1502, we observe in Russian-Horde political relations periods of pronounced power-subordinate ties, periods with formal power-subordinate ties with virtually equal relations, periods of actually and formally equal relations. The nature of the connections reflected the ratio of the military potential of the Russian lands and the Horde, as well as the legitimacy of the ruler of the Horde, by origin from the Jochid khan family, which was recognized by Russia as the ruling dynasty of the supreme rulers in the feudal hierarchy of rulers.
The state-political status of the lands of North-Eastern Russia as a territorial and political element of the statehood of the Horde was revealed in the periods: 1242–1361. (120 years), "September 1382 - April 1395" (aged 12.5), 1412–1414 (aged 3), summer 1445–1461 (16.5). As an element of the statehood of the Kazan Khanate - in the period 1445-1461. The status of the lands of North-Eastern Russia as sovereign states was revealed for the periods: 1362 - September 1382. (aged 21), April 1395–1411 (aged 16.5), 1415–1427 (aged 13), 1481–1502 (22). In the periods 1428 - summer 1445. (17.5 years) and 1461 - 1480. (19 years old) - North-Eastern Russia recognized the power of the Khan of the Horde over itself and was part of the Horde, only formally, in fact, being sovereign.
Of the 261 years of Russian-Horde relations, the principalities of North-Eastern Russia in relation to the Horde were independent for 89 years. But of these, 16.5 years was the subordination of the Kazan Khanate, positioned as the successor of the Horde. The state nature of the political relations of North-Eastern Russia and the Horde amounted to a total of 172 years. Of these, approximately 36-37 years, this involvement is only formal - in the form of a formal recognition of the Khan's suzerainty over Russian lands and sending him gifts. The belonging of the Russian lands to the Horde statehood, not only formal, but also actual, lasted 135-136 years. In this period, there are 24 years when the forms of involvement in the Horde state of the Russian lands were especially strong: the functioning of permanent Horde officials and garrisons in the Russian lands, the implementation of censuses to streamline taxation.
Bibliographic list
Big Russian Encyclopedia: in 30 volumes. T. 7. M .: Bolshaya Ros. Encycl., 2007. Vol. 7. 767 p.
Vernadsky G.V. Mongols and Russia / trans. from English. E. P. Berenstein. Tver: AGRAF; M.: LEAN, 1999. 480 p.
Resurrection chronicle. T. VII. M.: Languages of Russian. culture, 2000. 345 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).
Herberstein C. Notes on Muscovy / per. with him. A.I. Maleina, A.V. Nazarchenko. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1988. 430 p.
Grekov B.D.,Yakubovsky A.Yu.Golden Horde and its fall. M.; L.: AN SSSR, 1950. 478 p.
Grekov I.B.,Shakhmagonov F.F.World of history: Russian lands in X III –XV centuries. M.: Young Guard, 1986. 334 p.
Gumilyov L.N. Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe. M.: Thought, 1989.764 p.
Gumilyov L.N. From Russia to Russia. M.: Drofa, 1996. 352 p.
Zadonshchina// Monuments of literature Ancient Russia: XIV - mid-XV century. M.: Artist. lit., 1981. 602 p.
Ipatievskaya chronicle. T. II. M.: Publishing house Vost. Literature, 1962. 604 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).
Karamzin N.M.History of Russian Goverment. T. V –VIII . Kaluga: Golden Alley, 1993. 576 p.
Kargalov V.V. Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia. XIII century. Moscow: Education, 1966. 135 p.
Klyuchevsky V.O.Works: in 9 volumes. II In: Course of Russian history. Part 1. / under. ed. V.L. Yanina. M. : Thought, 1987. 447 p.
Kostomarov N.I. Historical monographs and researches. T. 12. The beginning of autocracy in ancient Russia. SPb.: Type. D. E. Kozhanchikova, 1863. 463 p.
Lavrentievskaya chronicle. T. I. M .: Publishing house Vost. Literature, 1926. 648 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).
Mavrodin V.V. People's Movement against foreign invaders in ancient Russia. L.: Polit. lit., 1945. 52 p.
Nikonovskaya chronicle. T. X. M .: Languages of Russian. culture, 2000. 248 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).
Nikonovskaya chronicle. T. XII. M.: Languages of Russian. culture, 2000. 272 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).
Novgorod I chronicle. T. III. M.: Languages of Russian. culture, 2000. 693 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).
Platonov S.F.Lectures on Russian history. St. Petersburg: Crystal, 1992. 838 p.
Tale on the Life and Courage of the Blessed and Grand Duke Alexander // Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia: XIII century. M.: Artist. lit., 1981. S. 426 - 439.
Collection documents on the history of the USSR. M. : Vyssh. school, 1971. 238 p.
Soloviev S.M. Works. T. 16. A look at the history of the establishment of state order in Russia before Peter the Great / ed. I. Kovalchenko. Moscow: Thought, 1995, pp. 5–42.
Sofia the first chronicle of the older edition. Vol. VI, no. 1. M.: Languages of Russian. culture, 2000. 581 p. (Complete collection of Russian chronicles).
Tizengauzen V.G. Collection of materials related to the history of the Golden Horde: in 2 volumes. T 2. M .; L.: AN SSSR, 1941. 275 p.
Trubetskoy N.S. Legacy of Genghis Khan. M.: AGRAF, 2000. 560 p.
Acquisition by Kyiv in the first half of the tenth century. international recognition was immediately reflected in the content of the term Russian land. Now, along with the narrow meaning of the tribal region of the Middle Dnieper Rus, it received a broader meaning of the state territory. In the latter sense, the term Russian land covered the entire realm of the Russian princes, inhabited by the Slavic-Finno-Baltic tribes.
In the middle of the X century. this broad interpretation was used mainly at the level of interstate relations, denoting the sovereign territory over which the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv extended. For Byzantine diplomats, Russian land in this sense was "Russia", "country of Russia", "Russian land" or, in the terminology of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, "outer Russia", in contrast to "inner Russia", Tauric Russia. (Just as the Azov Black Bulgaria is called Inner Bulgaria in Arabic sources, in contrast to the Outer - Volga Bulgaria.) Russia has a similar meaning in the message of Ibrahim ibn Yakub (circa 966): in the east of Russia", in the Latin document Dagome iudex (circa 991): "The region of the Prussians, as they say, extends as far as the place called Russia, and the region of the Russ extends as far as Krakow", in the announcement of the Quedlinburg annals about the death of St. Bruno in 1009 from the hands of the pagans "on the border of Russia and Lithuania" and in many other sources of that time.
But inside the country, under the Russian land, they still actually understood the Middle Dnieper region with a narrow strip along the right bank of the Dnieper south of Kyiv, stretching almost to the very Black Sea coast (the right bank of the Dnieper became “Russian”, apparently due to the fact that it is higher left and, therefore, it was him, for the sake of convenience and safety, that the Russians chose for movement and parking). These ancient geographical boundaries of the Russian land in its narrow sense are attested by several chronicle articles. In 1170, two Polovtsian hordes invaded the Kyiv and Pereyaslav principalities. The horde that went to Kyiv along the right bank of the Dnieper, across the Russian land, the chronicler calls the Russian Polovtsy, while the other horde, moving towards Pereyaslavl along the Dnieper left bank, is called Pereyaslav Polovtsy by him. In 1193, Rostislav, the son of the Kyiv prince Rurik, went on a campaign against the Polovtsy. He crossed the southern border Kyiv principality- the river Ros - and went deep into the steppe along the right bank of the Dnieper. All the steppe space he passed in the annals is called the Russian land.
At the same time, stepping out of the Kyiv land a little further north, into the territory of the Pripyat basin, already meant leaving the borders of Russia. In the same 1193, a prince, alarmed that the Kievan prince Rurik Rostislavich stayed too long in the city of Ovruch (on the Uzhe River, a tributary of the Pripyat), reproached him: “Why did you leave your land? Go to Russia and guard her." “I go to Russia,” says the Novgorod I chronicle about the Novgorod archbishop, when he happened to go to Kyiv.
In such a narrow sense, the Russian land corresponded to the tribal territory of "Polyanskaya Rus", which, from the second third of the 9th century. made military campaigns along the Dnieper and trade trips to the Black Sea.
Ancient Russian people often invested in the concept of the Russian land, along with geographical and political, also an ethnographic meaning, meaning by it Russia itself, an armed crowd of Russian warriors under the command of a Russian prince. It was precisely this meaning that Prince Svyatoslav attached to the Russian land, when, before the battle with the Greeks, he addressed his soldiers with the words: “Let us not shame the Russian land, but we will lie down with that bone, we will not have a litter; if we run away, shame on us.” Here, the Russian land turns out to be equivalent to “we”, that is, to the entire Russian army, and by no means the territory of the Middle Dnieper, which, by the way, could not be put to shame when fighting the Greeks in the Balkans.
In the same way, according to the subtle observation of V. O. Klyuchevsky, “the singer of “The Tale of Igor's Campaign”, a monument of the end of the 12th or the very beginning of the 13th century, remarks: “O Russian land! you are already behind the shelomyan”; this expression means that the Russian land has already gone beyond the rows of steppe trenches that stretched along the southern borders of the principalities of Chernigov and Pereyaslavl. Under the Russian land, the singer of the “Words” means a squad that went on a campaign against the Polovtsy with his hero, Prince Igor, therefore, he understood the term geographical in the ethnographic sense ”[Klyuchevsky V.O. Works in 9 vols. M., 1987. T. VI. S. 98].
The orientation system of the Middle Ages was built on the principle of "from near to far", "from one's own to another". The author of the Lay looked at the movement of Igor's squad towards the Don from the side of Russia, and not through the eyes of the Russians themselves, who went deep into the steppe. Therefore, his woeful exclamation “O Russian land! you're already behind the hill" refers to the retreating Russian army, and not to the proper Russian territory, which remained behind Igor's army.
P.S.
We observe the replacement of the “troops” with “land” in an annalistic article under 1152, but already in relation to the Polovtsy: “And Yury went with his sons ... so are the Polovtsians of Orplyuev and Toksobich and the whole Polovtsian land, whatever they are between the Volga and the Dnieper ".
Source:
Tsvetkov S. E. Russian land. Between paganism and Christianity. From Prince Igor to his son Svyatoslav. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2012. S.265-267.
ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONCEPTS "RUS" AND "RUSSIAN LAND" IN THE CHRONICLES OF THE XII-XIII CENTURIES.
Russian historians have more than once paid attention to the ambiguous understanding by the chroniclers of the XII-XIII centuries of the meaning of the concepts "Rus" and "Russian land": in addition to the fact that Rus and the Russian land were then called the entire East Slavic state, there was also a narrower use of these horonyms - for definitions of a relatively small area around Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereslavl (1).
Of the post-war historians, A.N. Nasonov and B.A. Rybakov (2). Both authors eventually came to a similar conclusion that the historical situation of the XII-XIII centuries did not give any reason for the unification of Chernigov, Pereslavl and Kyiv into some kind of common entity with its own name, since Kyiv, Chernigovskoe, Pereslavl and Seversk principalities are politically independent and often hostile to each other state formations. Therefore, this unity must have existed in an earlier era. “Obviously,” writes B.A. Rybakov, - for the XI-XIII centuries. the unity of southern Russia was only a historical memory that did not find any correspondence in the political and cultural situation of that time. Consequently, in order to determine the time and conditions for the formation of the unity of southern Russia, we need to step over the boundary of chronicle and archaeological data of the 10th-12th centuries. and go a few centuries deeper” (3).
Hypothesis B.A. Rybakova is well known. Its essence lies in the fact that in the V-VI centuries. in the Middle Dnieper there was a powerful Slavic union called Rus, which united the annalistic glades and northerners. Later, by the 10th century, he extended his power to the entire eastern branch of the Slavs, but memories of the early borders of this union survived until the 12th-13th centuries. Thus, according to B.A. Rybakov, speaking of "Rus" and "Russian Land" in the narrow sense, the chroniclers had in mind the territory occupied by this union seven hundred years ago. A.N. Nasonov was more cautious in his assumptions. Although he also did not doubt the existence of the Rus union, he attributed its emergence to the 9th century. and connected with those tribes that paid tribute to the Khazars.
These provisions were generally accepted, although it cannot be said that they were accepted unconditionally. At one time, D.S. Likhachev, arguing with the conclusions of Tikhomirov, drew attention to the fact that in The Tale of Bygone Years (a monument from the beginning of the 12th century) we do not find the use of the horonyms "Rus" and "Russian Land" in the narrow sense. Meanwhile, if we assume that these horonyms had a very ancient origin, they appeared much earlier than the Old Russian state and were in use right up to the Mongol invasion, it is natural to expect their widest use in the work of the chronicler of the beginning of the 12th century. However, we see nothing of the kind. Even describing contemporary events of the 90s. 11th century the chronicler always speaks of Russia only in a broad sense. There is no mention of "Rus" and "Russian land" in the narrow sense either by Vladimir Monomakh, although he included in his "Instruction" a listing of all his many trips. These geographical concepts are included in the circulation of the southern chroniclers already in the post-Nestorian era, from about the 30s. 12th century If in itself this circumstance cannot yet serve as a strong argument for refuting the concept of the early origin of the horonyms "Rus" and "Russian Land", it still needs some kind of explanation, which we do not find in B.A. Rybakov, nor A.N. Nasonov.
There are other controversial points in their theory. So, if we collect all the testimonies of the chroniclers about "Rus" and "Russian land" in the narrow sense, then they are not without difficulty superimposed on the area that, according to historical and archaeological data, was occupied in ancient times by the glades and northerners. Rybakov had to, for example, discard the absolutely clear evidence of the annals that the South Buzh cities of Buzhevsk and Mezhibozhye, as well as the cities of Pogorynya, belonged to the “Russian Land”. On the contrary, trying to include in the concept of "Rus" more Seversk cities, he was forced to operate with rather ambiguous messages. Starodub at B.A. Rybakov "Russian city" only because a trusted person "from Russia" tells Svyatoslav about the affairs in Chernigov and Strodub (4). No less controversial is the assignment to "Rus" of Novgorod Seversky. The family generally ended up in the “Russian land” only because it was said about the owner of Kursk, Prince Vsevolod Olgovich, that he owned “all Russian land” (5). Not explained in the concept of B.A. Rybakov also left the too frequent opposition of the chroniclers of Kyiv to Chernigov and Pereslavl, separating it into some even more limited area - "Russian land in the narrowest sense."
Finally, the theory under consideration rests entirely on the tacit recognition that the concepts of "Rus" and "Russian land" are completely identical for the chronicler. We did not find any evidence in favor of this (we note, a very serious assertion) from anyone who had previously touched on this issue and tried in one way or another to determine the boundaries of “Rus” and “Russian land” in the narrow sense of the word. And this is despite the fact that, according to the observation of linguists, these concepts did not coincide for quite a long time. Let us refer, for example, to the opinion of V.V. Kolesov, who presented in his book (6) many subtle observations on the meanings of Old Russian words. He writes: “Even at the beginning of the 15th century. the concepts of “Rus” and “Russian land” were clearly separated” (7). V.V. Kolesov came to this conclusion on the basis of studying the works of art of Ancient Russia. However, the same can be said about their use by chroniclers. Because of the arbitrary confusion of "Rus" and "Russian land" it is obvious that all the ambiguities went into the definition of their actual borders. Therefore, we will try once again to analyze the annalistic evidence of these toponyms, strictly dividing them among themselves (8).
So, what is the "Russian land" in the view of the chroniclers of the XII-XIII centuries? In the south-west, it included the upper reaches of the Southern Bug. The cities of Rostislav Yurievich Bozhevsk and Mezhibozhye were located here. In 1148, Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich gave an order to Rostislav: “go to God’s, stay there ... guard the Russian land from there ...” (9) Further, the border went along the upper reaches of the Goryn, since Vladimirko Galitsky in 1152 promises to return to Izyaslav “all Russian land volosts": Shumsk, Tikhoml, Vygashev, Pust. Higher up, the border deviated east from Goryn, since Dorogobuzh was never called a Russian city by the chroniclers. It did not even reach Pripyat in the north, since Turov is not mentioned anywhere in the composition of the "Russian Land".
Of great importance for determining the northern border of the territory outlined by us is the question of the attitude of Ovruch to it. Usually, the Drevlyansk land is unconditionally excluded from the "Russian land", primarily on the basis of the evidence of the Ipatiev Chronicle under 1193, which says that. that the movement from Ovruch to the south is a movement "to Rus". However, in relation to the "Russian Land" this place is far from being so unambiguous. Under the same year, you can find another curious message. Rurik Rostislavich, who owned Ovruch, agrees with the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich on how to spend the winter. He offers him a campaign against the Polovtsy, but Svyatoslav refuses. Then Rurik sends to tell Svyatoslav that he is going to take care of his own affairs this winter, that is, the affairs of his main fatherland - Smolensk, and therefore will go on a campaign to Lithuania. Svyatoslav did not like this idea very much, and he replies: “brother and matchmaker, you are already going from your fatherland to your tool (on your own business), but what tools are you going beyond the Dnieper, and who can you stay in the Row land?” And with those speeches, - the chronicler continues, - "Izmat out the Ruriks" (10). As follows from what follows, Rurik heeded Svyatoslav and stayed in Ovruch, for it was there that his son Rostislav found him after the raid on the Polovtsians. So, we see that the departure from Ovruch to the north was considered a departure from the “Russian Land”. We can therefore assume that he was somewhere on its northern border.
But it is even more important to determine the eastern border of the "Russian Land", because it is precisely in relation to it that the most common misconceptions exist. Everyone concerned with this issue unequivocally includes Chernigov and Pereslavl in the "Russian Land". Meanwhile, there are no grounds for this, and we have numerous evidence that the eastern border of this territory passed along the Dnieper. In the Ipatiev Chronicle there is a mention that the Kyiv side of the Dnieper was called "Russian" (11). In the Laurentian Chronicle there is a story confirming this news. In 1169, it is reported that many Polovtsy arrived from the steppe with a proposal to conclude a peace treaty with them. Some of them stood near Pereslavl at Pesochno, the other approached Kyiv and stood at Korsun. The Kyiv prince Gleb went first to the "Pereyaslav Polovtsy", and "sent an ambassador to other Polovtsy to the Russians" (12). That is, both Chernigov and Pereslavl were not on the Russian side of the Dnieper, not in the “Russian Land”. In the chronicle fragment of 1193 analyzed by us above, Prince Svyatoslav says that after the departure of Rostislav from his fatherland, and himself from Kyiv “beyond the Dnieper”, no one will remain in the “Russian Land” - a clear evidence that the Dnieper was its eastern border.
Excluding Chernigov and Pereslavl from the “Russian Land”, we can very well explain all those places in the annals that speak of “the entire Russian land”. Usually, when analyzing the complex of testimonies about "Rus" and "Russian Land", this formula is ignored, although it is used by chroniclers more than once. Indeed, for those who include the Chernihiv and Pereslav regions in the composition of the "whole Russian land", its use is meaningless. So in 1150 Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich occupied Kyiv. Vladimirko Galitsky says that he "now has entered the whole Russian land" (13). Meanwhile, Izyaslav does not own either Pereslavl (where Rostislav, the son of his opponent Yuri Dolgoruky, was sitting), or Chernigov. It is clear that Vladimirko did not consider them "Russian land". In 1174, Andrei Bogolyubsky staged a grandiose campaign against Kyiv. It is known that almost all the then princes took part in it, including Chernigov and Pereslavl. However, the chronicler reports that “the Kyyans copulated and berendeich and pigs and the whole Russian land regiments went from Kiev to Vyshegorod” (14), intending to fight with the Andreev army for their beloved Mstislav Rostislavich. In 1180, Rurik Rostislavich ceded to Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich Chernigov the eldership and Kyiv, "and took all the Russian land for himself" (15). Chernihiv obviously cannot be attributed in this context to the “Russian Land”.
We should also pay great attention to those chronicle evidence where "the whole Russian land" rejoices at the accession to the Kyiv table of some prince or is saddened by his death. We can hardly find at least one such case where the inhabitants of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereslavl volosts had common joy and sadness. For example, when, after the death of Izyaslav of Kyiv, “the whole Russian land and all the mob of klobutsi wept for him” (16), it is very doubtful that the Seversk land, severely devastated by Izyaslav two years before, joined this cry. In 1155, when Yuri Dolgoruky sat on the Kyiv table, “the whole Russian land joyfully overwhelmed him” (17). But it is unlikely that this joy was shared by the Chernigov Olgovichi, from whom the great reign once again left. We have the same doubts about 1194, when Rurik Rostislavich sat on the Kyiv table. However, the chronicler testifies: “The whole Russian land was depicted about the reign of Rurik: Kiyans and peasants and trash” (18).
B.A. Rybakov cites two testimonies from the southern chroniclers, when, in his opinion, "the entire Russian land" means, apart from Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereslavl lands. This refers, first of all, to the events of 1139. Then Vsevolod Olgovich Chernigovskiy, who had just taken the Kyiv throne, tried to expel Andrei Vladimirovich Pereslavsky to Kursk. To confirm his assumption, B.A. Rybakov cites Andrey's answer to this demand: “You may not be satisfied, brother, the whole Russian land is more powerful ...” (19) and, on the basis of these words, refers Pereslavl to the “Russian Land”. However, we note that there is an obvious misunderstanding here and the example rather speaks against the point of view of B.A. Rybakov than in her favor. For Andrei’s full answer sounds like this: “Ozhet, brother, the whole Russian land is not full, but you want this volost (that is, Pereslavl - approx. K.R.), but kill me, you have the same volost, but you’re alive I don’t go to my volost” (20). It is quite obvious that Andrei reproaches Vsevolod with exorbitant greed, since he already has “the whole Russian land”, and wants more (besides it) and Pereslavl. Similarly, B.A.'s reference is not convincing. Rybakov on the events of 1180, when Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich of Kyiv, having decided to expel the Rostislavichs from Belgorod and Vyshgorod, dreams: "and I will accept the Russian power" (21). We are talking here only about the Kyiv region, since the question is not even about Vladimir Glebovich Pereslavsky.
In addition to the southern chronicles B.A. Rybakov also refers to one piece of evidence from the northern chronicle. Under 1145, the Novgorod chronicler reports: “the Russian land went to Galicia ...” (22). From other sources we know that Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereslavl princes took part in the campaign, which, according to B.A. Rybakov, should testify to the belonging of their cities to the "Russian land". But, firstly, it is hardly possible to draw such exhaustive conclusions from this brief note, and, secondly, it is impossible not to notice that the authors of the Novgorod First Chronicle generally operate with the concept of "Russian land" in absolutely no sense that it had on south. In addition to the above B.A. Rybakov’s example, the Novgorod chronicler uses this concept only once when describing the events of 1169. Talking about the campaign against Novgorod of the large army of Andrei Bogolyubsky, he says: from Toropole, Murom and Ryazan, two princes, Polotsk prince from Polotsk, and the whole land is simply Russian ”(23). Meanwhile, the southern princes did not take part in the campaign at all. “The whole Russian land” here, as in the example of B.A. Rybakov, most likely just a figurative turnover, indicating a large number of enemies.
Confirms our point of view and the fact that we have numerous evidence of the belonging of the right-bank cities to the "Russian land", but we do not have a single such indication of the cities of the left bank. So in 1174 Andrei Bogolyubsky, angry at the Rostislavichs, punishes his ambassador: but to Mstislav they say: everything is worth in you, but I do not command you to be in the Russian land ”(24). The fatherland of Davyd was then Vyshgorod, and the fatherland of Mstislav was Belgorod, which, therefore, we refer to the "Russian land". About Vasiliev and Kiev Novgorod, we have evidence of the late Novgorod Third Chronicle, which retrospectively covered the past: “Under this bishop, the Monk Theodosius of Kyiv was a baker, originally from the city of Vasilev, near the small Novagrad in the land of Rustei” (25).
Repeatedly refers to the "Russian land" Kyiv itself. In addition to the above examples, we point out two more. In 1146, Svyatoslav from Novgorod Seversky “sent to Yurgevi near Suzhdal: “... and go to the Russian land of Kyiv” (26). In 1189, on a campaign against Galich, Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and Rurik argue about volosts. Svyatoslav gave Galich to Rurik, and for himself he wanted "the whole Ruo land near Kyiv" (27).
Also, the participation in the “Russian Land” of the main right-bank cities up to the mouth of the Ros and Porosye itself has been repeatedly confirmed. For example, in 1195 Vsevolod demands his share in the "Russian land" - Torchesk, Tripoli, Korsun, Boguslav and Kanev (28). Obviously, the border of the "Russian Land" reached Kanev and went further from Ros to the west along the Polovtsian steppes to the Southern Bug.
Summarize. It is easy to see that the territory outlined by us literally coincides with the borders of the Kyiv principality, as it appears in the book by A.N. Nasonova (29). That is, we have every reason to identify the "Russian land" in the narrow sense with the Kyiv parish within the boundaries of the XII-XIII centuries. This is the territory that passed under the authority of the Grand Duke after his approval on the Kiev table, his domain. Our conclusion completely eliminates all the contradictions and discrepancies that took place in the constructions of our opponents. Why is there no mention of the "Russian Land" in the "Tale of Bygone Years"? Because this concept itself came into political and literary use only in the second quarter of the 12th century, in an era of fragmentation. Why does the “Russian land” only partly coincide with the territories of the Polyansky and Severyansky union? Because it is not a tribal product, but a different, much later state era and has nothing in common with the early Slavic unions. Why are Kyiv and "Russian Land" repeatedly opposed to Chernigov and Pereslavl? Because neither Chernigov nor Pereslavl were ever part of the "Russian Land", but were special political units, often hostile to it. Why was the idea of contemporaries about the "Russian Land" so vivid and concrete? (Which - we note in brackets - could hardly be expected from a locality whose unity is based solely on historical traditions). Because this territory was in XII-XIII the object of endless princely disputes and strife. It is clear that contemporaries had to very clearly imagine the boundaries of the area around which the entire history of that time revolved.
Now let's move on to the analysis of evidence about the funeral "Rus". The boundaries of this region are relatively easy to define. First of all, it is indisputable that Kyiv belonged to "Rus". In 1152, Vladimirko Galitsky, having heard about the speech of his ally Yuri Dolgoruky, set off on a campaign and “going to Russia, go to Kiev” (30). In addition to this direct indication, we have several indirect ones, which have already been cited many times by other authors (31). In the same way, there is a lot of evidence that Pereslavl and Chernigov were “in Russia”. There is also direct news about Pereslavl. So under 1132 we read: “In this summer, Vsevolod went to Russia to Pereyaslavl ...” (32) Under 1213, it is reported that Yuri Vsevolodovich reconciled with Vladimir and gave him Pereslavl-Russian, and he went from Moscow “to Russia” (33). There is no such direct news about Chernigov, but its assignment to "Rus" in the context of many annalistic articles is undoubted. Gorodets-on-Vostre was also in “Rus”, since in 1195 Prince Vsevolod sent his tiun “to Rus” with an order to renew it (34). Ovruch, as already noted, did not belong to "Rus". In 1193, Prince Svyatoslav wrote to Rurik Ovruchsky: “Now go to Ruos, guard your own land.” Rurik is “going to Ruos” (35). Since his fatherlands near Kyiv were Belgorod and Vyshgorod, and he stood all winter at Vasiliev, we can conclude that all these cities belonged to "Rus" (as, probably, Vyatichov). This list exhausts the concrete messages of our chronicles about the cities lying in "Rus". Never referred to the "Rus" of the city of Pogorynya. Therefore, it would be logical to exclude them from its limits. The same can be said about the cities of Porosie, which (strange as it may seem, if we recall the hypothesis that it was the name of the Ros river that was the reason for the formation of the toponym and ethnonym Rus) are never ranked by the chroniclers as “Rus”. B.A. Rybakov, on the basis of two not entirely clear evidence, also refers Glukhov and Trubchevsk to "Rus". (In 1152, Yuri Dolgoruky “going to Russia came a hundred ou Glukhov” (36). In 1232, Svyatoslav Trubchevsky from Novgorod land goes back "to Russia" (37)). It is difficult to say how sound this judgment is.
It is important to note that the concept of "Rus" in the annalistic context, in contrast to the "Russian Land", was almost never used to designate a territory with certain boundaries (that is, as we bury in the strict sense of the word). Chroniclers of the XII-XIII centuries. usually used it as a synonym for "center", "south", "southern direction". For example: “I am running Svyatoslav from Novgorod, going to Russia to my brother” (38). Or “Ide the archbishop of Novgorod Nifont to Russia, called by Izyaslav and Klim the metropolitan” (39). Or “In the same winter, go Bishop Nester to Russia and lose your coat” (40) Or “in the same summer, go Gyurgi with Rostov and Sudal and with all the children to Russia” (41). These examples can be multiplied, and everywhere the concept of "Rus" is used as a designation of the southern direction or the final point of movement. This forces us to look for the origins of the origin of this toponym in the tributary relations of the early history of the Kievan state.
After Oleg captured Polyansky Kyiv in 882 and proclaimed it “mother city of Russia”, all the Polyansky and newcomer population in the vicinity of the new capital began to be called Rus. “And besha he has Varangians and Slovenes, and others who are nicknamed Rus” (42), writes the chronicler. Following then, he reports on how Oleg distributes and imposes tribute on neighboring tribes. Dani, thus, were collected "for Russia" and carried "to Russia", so that the concept was then to come into use of the neighboring tribes. Under "Rus" was to be understood the area in favor of which there was a tribute - first of all Kyiv, and then, perhaps, its suburbs - Chernigov and Pereslavl. Already in the first treaties of Oleg and Igor with the Greeks, these cities are mentioned as the main recipients of tribute, (43) merchants from them enjoyed special benefits over other merchants (44). Perhaps, at first, this small "Rus" included only the area of \u200b\u200bsettlement of the glades, but already at a very early time its limits extended to the northerners. For, if in 884 it is reported that the northerners paid tribute to the Grand Duke on an equal basis with other tribes, then a century later, Vladimir, seating his sons, did not single out the northern land as a special reign, that is, he left it behind him. The sons continued to pay tribute to the Grand Duke and the Seversk land also began to be included in the concept of "Rus". This concept is already known to the author of The Tale of Bygone Years, who, reporting on the conquest of the Radimichi in 984, says that they “pay tribute to Russia, they still carry the wagon to this day” (45). "Rus" as a burying was a living relay until the end of the 11th century. But after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, who imprisoned his sons in Pereslavl and Chernigov, "Rus" disintegrated first for a while, and then forever. From the beginning of the XII century. (and at that time, we recall, the formation of the first Russian annalistic code was just completed) “Rus” had already ceased to be a specific territorial concept, but continued to exist in living everyday speech as a synonym for the center and south. At the same time, the concept of “Russian Land”, close in meaning, but essentially new, was born. So the right-bank "Rus" with Kyiv and the Drevlyansk land with Ovruch, which had always been distinguished as a special reign, began to be called.
AT Mongolian era When the center of the state finally moves from the banks of the Dnieper to the Klyazma, the concept of "Rus" is undergoing a rapid transformation. This is clearly seen in the Novgorod annals. If before the Novgorodians clearly separated the Vladimir-Suzdal principality from "Rus" in the narrow sense, then later this idea is dulled. Thus, under 1252, it is said that Khan Nevruy expelled Andrei Yaroslavich from Suzdal, who reigned "in Russia" for three years (46). In 1257, it is said that news came to Novgorod "from Russia", that is, from the Vladimir land, that the Tatars "want tithes in Novgorod" (47). “To Russia”, to the Grand Duke Andrei (that is, again to Vladimir) in 1299 the Pskovites sent captured Germans (48). “To Russia”, to the Grand Duke of Moscow, in 1398, the Novgorodians released the captive Dvina governor (49). In our opinion, there is a clear tendency to expand the concept of "Rus" in the narrow sense.
NOTES
1. Fedotov A.O. On the meaning of the word "Rus" in our chronicles. - Russian historical collection / Ed. M.P. Pogodin., M. 1837, v. 1, book. 2.
Gideonov S. Varangians and Russia. SPb. 1876, part I-II.
Brim V.A. The origin of the term "Rus" - In the book. Russia and the West. / Ed. A.I. Zoozersky. Pg. 1923.
Tikhomirov A.N. The origin of the names "Rus" and "Russian land" - In the book. Soviet ethnography, 1947, VI-VII.
2. Nasonov A.N. "Russian land" and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state. – Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, M., 1951.
Rybakov B.A. Ancient Russians. - SA, 1953, XVII.
Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the 12th-13th centuries. - Nauka, M., 1982.
3. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russians principalities XII-XIII centuries M. 1982., p. 67.
4. Ibid., p. 63
5. Ibid., p. 64.
6. Kolesov V.V. The world of man in the word of Ancient Russia. L. 1986.
7. Ibid., p. 258.
8. All subsequent references are given to the first edition of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, published by the Imperial Archaeological Commission in 1841-1918. First of all it is:
Laurentian and Trinity chronicles. - PSRL, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1846.
Ipatiev Chronicle. - PSRL, v.2. SPb., 1863.
Novgorod First and Third Chronicles. - PSRL, vol. 3. St. Petersburg, 1841.
Novgorod fourth chronicle. - PSRL, vol. 4. Sp .., 1848.
Sofia First Chronicle. - PSRL, vol. 5. St. Petersburg, 1851.
9. Ip., p. 39.
10. Ip., p. 142.
11. Ip., p. 142.
12. Lavr., p. 56.
13. Ip., p. 153.
14. Ip., p. 109.
15. Ip., p. 125.
16. Ip., p. 74.
17. Ip., p. 77.
18. Ip., p. 144.
19. Rybakov B.A. Old Russ. - SA, 1953, no. XVII, p. 36.
20. Lavr., p. 134.
21. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. M., 1982, p. 65.
22. Ibid., p. 64.
23 Nov. Perv., p. fifteen.
24. Ip., p. 108-109.
25 Nov. Tr., p. 210.
26. Ip., p. 25.
27. Ip., p. 138.
28. Ip., p. 144-145.
29. Nasonov A.N. "Russian land" and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state. M. 1951, map.
30. Lavr., p. 145.
31. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. M., 1982, p. 63.
32 Nov. Perv., p. 6.
33. Sunday, p. 119.
34. Lavr., p. 173.
35. Ip., p. 143.
36. Lavr., p. 145.
37 Nov. Perv., p. 48.
38. Ip., p. 17.
39 Nov. Perv., p. ten.
40. Lavr., p. 148.
41. Lavr., p. 146.
42. Lavr., p. ten.
43. Lavr., p. 13.
44. “And the monthly guest, the first from the city of Kyiv, packs from Chernigov and Pereyaslavl ...” (Lavr., p. 21).
45. Lavr., p. 36.
46 Nov. Thursday, p. 38.
47 Nov. Perv., p. 56.
48. Soph. Perv., p. 203.
49 Nov. Thursday, p. 103.
Igor Rurikovich
St. Princess Olga
Svyatoslav I Igorevich
St. Vladimir Svyatoslavich
Yaroslav I the Wise
Izyaslav I, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod I Yaroslavichi
Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and Vladimir Monomakh
Yuri I Vladimirovich Dolgoruky
They are quite short, but they create some idea of the main figures of the Old Russian state.
"Rus and the Russian Land" was written in the form of a polemical article (it was published in its time in Questions of History) and, perhaps, therefore, is not very interesting. But I recommended that you read it, because it deals with a very important issue of early Russian history. In fact, I have tried to refute here one of the strongest arguments of the anti-Normanists. But I agree with you - the analysis of chronicle passages is not very interesting activity unless you're head over heels in it.
I am engaged in dismantling my notes (they are now located in the archive in strictly chronological order). I do not remember whether I have already written to you or not, that I want to compile from my notes a complete overview of world history, culture and religion. But so far, I've only been able to cross-reference the history notes. ancient world. Everything seems to be clear here. If you're interested, come by. All the best!
Rus (Russian Land) - the name of the state-political formation of the Eastern Slavs of the 9th - 13th centuries. created the ancient Russian state. Then, the concept of "Rus" referred not so much to the name of the people, but to the designation of territories - lands and principalities. The term "Rus" was firmly entrenched in the northeastern territories of the former Old Russian state and became the basis for the concept of "Russians". Already at the beginning of the 12th century. the term "Russian land" meant all the Slavic tribes that inhabited Eastern Europe.
According to the 11th-12th centuries, the Russian land, in addition to the large cities of Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl, included Vyshgorod, Belgorod, Torchesk, Trepol, Boguslavl, Korsun, Kanev, Shumsk, Tikhoml, Vygoshev, Gnojnitsa, Buzhsk. These were the original tribal territories of the Polyans, parts of the territories of the northerners and Radimichi, perhaps this included some lands of the streets and Vyatichi.
At the beginning of the 13th c. the name Rus, Russian land began to be applied to the northeastern lands of the Old Russian state: Rostov-Suzdal and Novgorod. After the Mongol-Tatar conquest of 1237-41, the term "Rus" was assigned to this territory, although in the monuments of the 13-14th centuries. it meets with a wider meaning, meaning all the lands inhabited by the Eastern Slavs.
In the 13th century and later, when the connection between the various territories of the Old Russian state was greatly weakened, new names appeared: White Russia, Little Russia, Black Russia, Red Russia.
The origin of the word Rus, which gave the name to one of ancient states, is still being discussed and has a number of scientifically based versions. One of the versions says that Russia is the name of the Varangian tribe, from which the oldest Russian princes came (Rurik and Prophetic Oleg). Another version indicates that the word "Rus" is of Slavic origin and means a hollow, a riverbed, depth, vir.
The oldest settlements of the Eastern Slavs, from which the first Russian cities later formed, all, without a single exception, settled on the rivers. The river largely provided for the livelihoods of our ancestors: it provided water for cooking and housekeeping, supplied fish and water birds, provided an easy, ideally smooth path through the water in summer, over ice in winter; the river also formed a natural defense on steep banks cut by tributaries ...
Our distant ancestors deified the river, and the first evidence of the veneration of rivers and water deities by the Slavs was recorded by the Byzantine Procopius in the 6th century AD. Nestor also wrote that in the pagan era we worshiped rivers, lakes, springs instead of gods. The Slovak linguist and ethnographer Pavel Szafranek (1795-1860) noted in his writings that in the Proto-Slavic language the river was called Rusa (rusa). He wrote: "This is the root Slavic word, as a common noun, has already remained in use only among Russians in the word channel, denoting a hollow, riverbed, depth, vir; but as a proper name for rivers, cities and villages, more or less lying near them, is used by almost all Slavs.
The famous Russian historian of the last century D.I. Ilovaisky wrote: The popular name Ros or Rus, like many other names, is in direct connection with the names of rivers. Eastern Europe abounds in rivers that bear or once bore this name. So the Neman in the old days was called Ros; one of its sleeves retained the name Rus; and the bay into which it flows was called Rusna. Then follow: Ros or Rusa, a river in the Novgorod province, Rus, a tributary of the Nareva; Ros, the famous tributary of the Dnieper in Ukraine; Rusa, a tributary of the Seven; Ros-Embach; Ros-Oskol; Porusie, Polist tributary and others. But most importantly, the name Ros or Ras belonged to our Volga. From the same Proto-Slavic root "rus" the word mermaid is formed, many pagan beliefs are associated with her ancient cult.
V. I. Dal recorded in his dictionary many dialectal Russian words derived from the same original root “rus”: Ruslen is a shed overboard, for which shrouds are attached; ruslina - rapid, rod; rust - "water is rustling", which means it goes in a stream, a stream; own name Rus - "a fabulous monster of the Dnieper rapids"; male name Ruslan, memorable from Pushkin's poem.
But the main guiding word for us remains “channel”, inherent only in the Russian language and formed from the root “rus” with final Russian inflection, very common in our language: weight-lo, wind-lo, draft-lo, sus-lo, we -lo, mas-lo, rocker-lo, tochi-lo and so on.
A great many tribes and peoples on earth were named after the place of their predominant habitat. The self-name of the Primorsky Chukchi is an kalyn (“sea inhabitants”), the Bedouins are “desert dwellers”, the Selkups are shesh kul (“taiga people”), the Seneca Indians are nunda-ve-o-no (“great people of the hills”).
Let's proceed to the main conclusion: If "Rus" is a "river" - the eternal place of settlements of our ancestors, with which their way of life and beliefs have always been so closely connected, "Rus" is a Proto-Slavic root that formed a large nest of words only in Russian, "Rus" - already a half-forgotten mythical Dnieper deity, then the generalized ethnonym "Rus" or "Russ" - from ancient times meant "living on the rivers", "river dwellers", "river people".
The Avesta, the sacred book of the ancient Persians, speaks of the river Ranha, where people live without leaders, where winter reigns and the earth is covered with snow; later among the Persians it is the river Raha, separating Europe from Asia. With a rigorous philological analysis, F. Knauer proves the etymological identity of these names with the ancient name of the Volga - Ra, which later acquired such forms as Ros among the Greeks and Arabs, Ros, Rus, Rosa, Rusa among the Slavs. Thus, F. Knauer believes that "... the name of the people Rus is of purely Slavic-Russian origin" and in the exact rendering of the word means nothing more than the Volga people.
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
