Libmonster ID: BY-3044
Author(s) of the publication: V. A. KUCHKIN

For almost two centuries, the literary and historical reminiscences of "Words about Igor's Regiment" attract research. Now many difficult passages of the text have been deciphered and explained, the journalistic orientation of the work has been revealed, the literary borrowings contained in it have been revealed, and the historical basis of most of its evidence has been established. Other parts of the poem are still not fully understood. Meanwhile, they contain important information on the history of the Old Russian state, shedding light on the time of the origin of the "Word" itself.

Publicists and commentators have long paid attention to the lines of the monument describing one of the brightest and most restless figures in ancient Russian history - Prince Vseslav Bryachislavich of Polotsk. His fate was extraordinary. He suffered severe defeats, was imprisoned, and was expelled from Russia. But, having been born literally in a "shirt" 1, the prince of Polotsk, after being imprisoned, ascended to the Kiev table, suddenly attacking enemies, won victories and returned to his native Polotsk again. The author of Slovo mentions Vseslav three times. The most important and interesting mention is the last one: "Vseslav Prince ludem sudyashe, knyaz grady rydyashe, and he entered the night vlkom ryskashe; from Kyeva doriskashe to Kur Tmutorokanya, the great Hrsovi vlkom way preryskashe" 2 .

This testimony is placed in the" Word " between the reports of the battle of Nemiga and the description of Vseslav's stay in Kiev. The battle took place on March 3, 1067. In July 1067. Vseslav was thrown into prison in Kiev, and on September 15, 1068, he was released by the Kievan rebels and elevated to the Kievan table, which he occupied for seven months .3 Therefore, the actions described by Vseslav relate to the period between March 3, 1067 and April 15, 1069, most likely to the time of his stay at the Kievan table (mid-September 1068-mid-April 1069).

The quoted passage, especially its closing words, caused difficulties for the interpreters of the "Word". Its first publishers (A. I. Musin-Pushkin, N. N. Bantysh-Kamensky, A. F. Malinovsky)

1 According to the chronicle, Vseslav was born "from the beginning of his life." "For when his mother bore him, he had a sore on his head. Rekosha bo volsvi to his mother: "Tie this ulcer on him" (PSRL. Vol. I. L. 1926-1928, stb. 155). According to the explanation of D. S. Leonardov, "ulcer" is the amniotic membrane - "shirt" (see Leonardov D. S. Polotsk Prince Vseslav and his time. In: Polotsk-Vitebsk Antiquity. Issue II. Vitebsk. 1912, p. 163, 166).

2 Iroic song about the campaign against the Polovtsians of the appanage Prince of Novagorod-Seversky Igor Svyatoslavich. Moscow, 1800, p. 36.

3 PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 166, 167, 171, 173.

page 19

regarding the phrase "the great Hrsovi vlkom path of pryskasha", a note was made: "Not intelligible" and completely excluded it from their translation 4 . They took the word "Hrs" for a common name, but did not know its meaning. In 1805, the well-known zealot of Russian literature, A. S. Shishkov, guessed that "Hrs" was a proper name, 5 and a decade and a half later, Ya.O. Pozharsky gave an even more accurate interpretation of this word. Pointing out that the Horse "is known among the blockheads of Kiev", i.e. was one of the old Russian deities, he offered a correct translation: Vseslav "the great Horse wolf ran across the path" 6 .

Pozharsky and his contemporaries did not know what exactly Horse represented. Therefore, the formally correct translation still needed to be understood: what did it mean to cross the path of some deity? It was argued that a mistake was made in the "Word", and instead of" Hrsovi "it is necessary to read"Dnprovi". P. G. Butkov especially insisted on this. He offered a very complex explanation of why "Dnprovi"should be read at this point in the poem .7 The artificiality of its construction is indubitable, 8 but the following idea expressed by Butkov deserves attention: "If Vseslav crossed the path of Hrsov at a fast run, it is necessary that something moving on the ground should be hidden under this name." 9 If you exclude the words "on the ground", then his interpretation of the phrase about the Horse will be basically correct.

Butkov's reasoning forced subsequent commentators of Slovo to reject the correctness of Pozharsky's translation ("the blockhead of Kiev", in their opinion, could not move). But when in 1840 P. I. Preis proved that Horse is the sun, 10 the accuracy of Pozharsky's translation became obvious.

The phrase "from Kyeva doriskashe to kur Tmutorokan" was also difficult to understand. In the 1800 edition. it was translated: "from Kiev to Kursk and to Tmutorokani" 11 . Already Shishkov doubted this reading, but could not offer anything in return. Pozharsky also brought clarity here. Based on the Old Russian translation of the gospel, given in Czech and Polish, he concluded that "do kur" means "before the roosters", i.e. "before the roosters sing", "late at night"12 . Although attempts made in the 19th century to produce "do kur" from Arabic, Greek, and Tatar (Turkic) languages are still repeated, Pozharsky's translation must be recognized as the only correct one .13 Later it was

4 Iroic song, p. 36, note "s".

5 Shishkov A. S. Notes on an ancient composition called the Iroic Song about the campaign against the Polovtsians, or the Word about Igor's regiment. In: Works and translations published by the Russian Academy of Sciences, Part I. St. Petersburg, 1805, p. 168. The former admiral decided that this word meant the seaside city of Kherson, and gave this translation of the passage: "Vseslav not only judged people in his kingdom and distributed cities to princes, but also many other countries, such as then Kherson and Tym-Morokan, hurriedly flew around."

6 A word about the regiment of Igor Svyatoslavich, appanage Prince of Novagorod-Seversky, again arranged by Yakov Pozharsky, with the addition of notes. SPb 1819, p. 78, 21.

7 Ostensibly because in April 1069, when fleeing from Kiev Belgorod to Polotsk, Vseslav had to visit Tmutorokan-Ostersky Gorodets, and this could only be done by crossing the Dnieper (Butkov P. G. Something to the Word about Igor's regiment. - Bulletin of Europe, 1821, part 121, N 21, p. 44-45).

8 From near Kiev to Polotsk, there is no need to go along the Dnieper left bank, where, by the way, there was no Tmutorokani.

9 Ibid., p. 45.

10 Preis P. I. Report of G. to the Minister of Public Education from Prague of December 26, 1840-ZHMNP, 1841, part 29, ed. IV, p. 36.

11 Iroic song, p. 36.

12 Pozharsky Ya. O. Uk. soch., p. 78. His translation of the corresponding place of the "Word": "from Kiev to Tmutarakan to roosters ripened" (ibid., p. 21).

13 Dylevsky N. M. Unjustified return to the former - "from Kyeva doriskashe to kur Tmutorokan" in "The Lay of Igor's regiment". In: Problems of studying Cultural heritage, Moscow, 1985.

page 20

It is confirmed by the discovery of a completely coincident expression in the text of the "Studiisk charter" of the XV century: "Fix the evening and get absolution before the chickens" 14 .

Keen on interpreting the final words of the passage, researchers paid less attention to its beginning. The explanation of the text that the prince of Polotsk was "ludi sudyashe, Knyaz grady ryadyashe" did not seem to cause difficulties. In the 1800 edition, it was translated as: Vseslav " judged the people, distributed to the princes of the city." In 1844, a linguistic analysis of this passage was given by D. N. Dubensky, who pointed out that "knyaz" is the dative plural of the word "prince", and "ryadyashe" is the third person singular imperfect of the verb " row "in the meaning of "order", and the translation should have turned out like this: "Vseslav the prince judged the people, ordered the princes of the city." But Dubensky himself preferred a different option: "the princes of the city were lined up" 15 . To this day, this place is translated as: "Vseslav the prince ruled over the people, ruled the princes of the city [ruling, therefore, over the fate of both ordinary people and princes]" 16 . However, this translation does not fully reveal the meaning of the phrase. Sources allow us to more accurately understand the terms "dress up", "dress up", "dress up", "make up a row", meaning relations not in general between different people,but between princes.

In the annals, these terms defined treaties or negotiations between princes concerning the succession of power, the transfer of principalities by inheritance, and military alliances .17 But more often the "rows" concerned the redistribution of volosts 18 . Indicative in this respect is the text of the Ipatiev chronicle under 1169: "And so you began to row about the parish, shlyuche mezhi themselves, Rurik and David and Volodimir with Mstislav, and settled about the parish, Tslovasha hrest" 19 . Data on the "ranks" of the 12th century show that the author of the "Lay of Igor's Regiment", speaking of Vseslav, who was" Prince of Grady ryadyashe", reflected the diplomatic and political practice that existed in ancient Russia. The interest of the given evidence of the "Word" about the inter - princely series, which provided for the redistribution of cities, is that it is the oldest 20 . The translation of this passage "Words" should be, taking into account what has been said, as follows:"Vseslav the prince judged people, distributed (or gave) to the princes of the city by agreement." This is the philological interpretation of this fragment.

As for historical criticism, much less has been done here .21 We can only single out M. N. Tikhomirov's research on the restoration of-

14 Перетц В. Н. Слово о полку Ігоревім. В кн.: Українська Академія наук. Збірник історично-філологічного відділу. U Kiiv. 1926, p. 298; Vinogradova V. L. Dictionary-reference "Words about Igor's regiment". Issue 3. L. 1969, pp. 37-38.

15 Dubenskiy D. N. Slovo o plku Igorev Svyatoslavlyastvorets starogo vremeni [The word about plku Igorev Svyatoslavlyastvorets of the Old Time]. In: Russian Memorials, Part III, Moscow, 1844, pp. 198, 197.

16 A word about Igor's regiment. Seriya "Literaturnye pamyatniki" (Series "Literary Monuments"), Moscow, l. 1950, pp. 70, 97 (translated by D. S. Likhachev). This translation (without an explanation enclosed in square brackets) is preserved in the publications: Slovo o polku Igorev. l. 1967, p. 64; Slovo o polku Igorev. m. 1983, p. 73. Cf.: Slovo o plku Igorev. M. 1938, p. 47; Slovo o polku Igorev. m. 1981, p. 191 (V. I. Stelletsky lane).

17 PSRL. Vol. II. SPb. 1908, stb. 470 - 471, 521, 548, 613, 616, 618, 689.

18 Ibid., stb. 523, 524, 571, 577, 578, 682, 683, 685, 696, 697, 699, 700.

19 Ibid., stb. 534.

20 Turning to Oleg Svyatoslavich, Vladimir Monomakh urged him: "and about this row", referring to the row between Oleg and his son Mstislav regarding the volosts where they were sitting (PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 254). Monomakh's letter to Oleg, containing the above words, dates back to 1096. The Tale of Bygone Years (PVL) under 1102 reports a row between Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and Vladimir Monomakh concerning the distribution of volosts between them (ibid., stb. 275).

21 According to D. S. Leonardov (Uk. soch., pp. 206 - 207), the author of the "Word" pointed to the Vseslav court of the population of the Polotsk Principality and to the distribution of cities by Vseslav among the members of the Polotsk princely family, for which he had to negotiate ("dress up") with the population of the cities given to the appanages. But "The Word about Igor's Regiment" quite definitely refers Vseslav's actions to the time of his stay at the Kiev table (cf. also Alekseev L. V. Polotsk land, Moscow 1966, p. 247).

page 21

of the XI-XIII centuries. In his opinion, the words " Vseslav... ludem sudyashe " refers to the judicial reform carried out by Vseslav in 1068, after the occupation of the Kiev table. It consisted in abolishing the court of princely tiuns and passing it directly to the prince 22 . There is no well-founded historical interpretation of the expression "knyaz grady ryadyashe" in the literature. It is noted that the chroniclers kept silent about which princes and which cities Vseslav "lined up", becoming the Kievan prince 23 . Finding out these questions is a very time-consuming research task.

First of all, it is necessary to establish which of the Old Russian princes lived and acted in 1068. By the beginning of the 60s of the XI century. in Kievan Rus, princely tables were occupied by representatives of two lines of Vladimir Svyatoslavich: the grandson of his eldest son Izyaslav Vseslav and his children, who owned the principality of Polotsk, and numerous descendants of another son, Yaroslav the Wise. By the specified time, Yaroslav Vladimirovich's sons Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod were alive, who had 24 sons . All of Yaroslav's grandchildren, due to their youth, did not play a serious role in the political life of Russia in those 25 years . This role belonged to the three senior Yaroslavichs-Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, Vsevolod, and not only by age, but also by the significance of their possessions.

According to the will of Yaroslav 26 , the eldest of his sons who lived by that time, Izyaslav, received Kiev and the eldership among the brothers, Svyatoslav-Chernihiv, Vsevolod-Pereyaslavl, Igor-Vladimir (Volyn), Vyacheslav-Smolensk 27 . Scant information from the chronicle article

22 Tikhomirov M. N. Peasant and urban uprisings in Russia. XI-XIII centuries. Moscow, 1955, p. 100. To this we can add that Vseslav probably canceled the" created " (new in comparison with the old norms) virs and sales established by his predecessor Izyaslav. It is reliably known that Izyaslav introduced an 80-hryvnia fine for the murder of the prince's senior groom (Article 23 of the Short edition of Russkaya Pravda. For more information about this article, see below).

23 Rapov O. M. Princely possessions in Russia in the X-first half of the XIII century. Moscow, 1977, p. 53.

24 For Izyaslav, Svyatoslav, and Vsevolod, see Novgorodskaya pervaya letopis srshego i mladshego izvodov (NPL) [Novgorod First Chronicle of the senior and junior Platoons (NPL)]. Moscow, l. 1950, pp. 186, 190. For Izyaslav's sons Mstislav, Svyatopolk, and Yaropolk, see ibid., pp. 161, 191. For Svyatoslav's sons Gleb, Oleg, Roman, Davyd and Yaroslav, see ibid., pp. 161, 184; PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 199, 229, 238 (Oleg and Roman are mentioned from the 70s, and Davyd and Yaroslav - from the 90s of the XI century). On Vsevolod's son Vladimir Monomakh, see PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 247. Vsevolod's second son Rostislav was born in 1070 (NPL, p. 17, 191; PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 174).

25 The Yaroslavichs ' nephew, the son of their elder brother Vladimir Rostislav, who died at the beginning of 1067, was still alive. He left three sons-Volodar, Rurik and Vasilko, who are first mentioned in the chronicle under 1081. (Volodar) and 1084 (Rurik and Vasilko). In the 60s of the XI century. The Rostislavichs were obviously still children. The two youngest sons of Yaroslav the Wise, Igor and Vyacheslav, did not survive until the 60s: Vyacheslav died in 1057, and Igor-in 1060. They still had children: Vyacheslav-Boris, mentioned in the chronicle for the first time in 1077, and Igor-Vsevolod and Davyd. The latter appears in the chronicles from 1081 (NPL, p. 183, 186; PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 199, 204, 205). Vsevolod is not mentioned in them at all, but his son Mstislav was first named in 1099 (ibid., stb. 272-273. The events described here date back to 1099. Prince Andrey-Mstislav Vsevolodovich, who lived during the reign of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, is identified with Mstislav, Igor's grandson, mentioned in the chronicle. See Abbot Daniel's journey through the Holy Land at the beginning of the 12th century. St. Petersburg, 1864, pp. 155, 160, note 24). These data indicate that Boris, Vsevolod and Davyd were still boys in the 60s of the XI century, just like the Rostislavichi.

26 According to Shakhmatov, it was compiled on the basis of recollections and writing during the creation of the code of 1073 (Shakhmatov A. A. Research on the oldest Russian chronicle codes. In: Chronicle of classes of the Archeographic Commission. Issue XX, St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 403 - 404, 451 - 452, 458 - 459). 1073 The date suggested by Shakhmatov as the time of the appearance of the chronicle text with Yaroslav's will is the earliest possible one. The article emphasizes the role of Vsevolod, whom the father loved more than other sons, and warns against quarrels between the brothers, suggesting that the time when Vsevolod already owned the Kiev table (1078-1093). It is possible that the will appeared in the Initial Code of 1095.

27 NPL, p. 182.

page 22

1054 on the possessions of the Yaroslavichs can be supplemented from other sources 28 .

Izyaslav, in addition to Kiev, also owned Novgorod. Compiled in the XV century, the article "A se [princes] in Novgorod "reports that"after the repose of Volodimerov in Novgorod Izyaslav plant your son Mstislav; and Pob'disha on Cheryokhi; BZHA to Kyeva" 29 . The Vladimir mentioned here is Izyaslav's older brother, who died in Novgorod on October 4, 1052. This happened before the death of Yaroslav the Wise (20 February 1054) .30 This article indicates that Izyaslav received Novgorod during his father's lifetime. This is consistent with the practice established in the X-XI centuries of placing the eldest son of the Kievan prince on the Novgorod table and is supported by the text of the Sofia I Chronicle, dating back to the Novgorod Vault of the second half of the XI century .31 According to the same NPL article, Izyaslav planted his eldest son Mstislav in Novgorod shortly after Vladimir's death. Mstislav is also referred to by the phrase "I pobDisha na Cheryokhi; bZha k Kyevu"; it was natural for him to seek salvation in Kiev from his father in case of defeat.

Karamzin believed that the mention of the battle of Cherekha refers to the capture of Novgorod by Vseslav of Polotsk in 1067 .32 But the Cherekha River (a right tributary of the Velikaya River) flows near Pskov, not Novgorod .33 This makes it possible to link Vseslav's victory on Cheryokha not with his capture of Novgorod in February 106734, but with the attack of the Prince of Polotsk on Novgorod land in 1065, when he "was the army of Pskov and persevered in vice" 35 . From what has been said, it follows that in the year 1065 Izyaslav still retained Novgorod and its territory. This conclusion, based on a later source, is confirmed by Deacon Gregory's entry in the Ostromir Gospel. She reports that "Izyaslav Knyaz himself rules the table of his father Yaroslav Kyev, and instructs his brother Stoli to rule the close-knit World of Novgorod" 36 . Gregory finished rewriting the gospel on May 12, 1057. Consequently, at that time Novgorod belonged to the possessions of Izyaslav.

The second of the Yaroslavichs, Svyatoslav, in addition to Chernigov, owned Tmutorokany. In 1064, his first-born Gleb sat there, and when Gleb lost it, Svyatoslav came with an army in 1065 and restored his son to the Tmutorokan table. 37 Gleb's brother, Oleg Svyatoslavich, named in " Slo-

28 To characterize the possessions of Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod, the data contained in the article "A se, after Holy Baptism, on the principality of Kiev", included in the NPL of the younger izvoda, are often used (ibid., pp. 160, 469). These news, as a rule, are considered quite reliable (Karamzin N. M. Istoriya gosudarstva Rossiiskogo [History of the Russian State]. Book I, vol. II. SPb. 1842, stb. 39-40, cf. stb. 21; Grekov B. D. Kievan Rus', Moscow, 1953, pp. 489-490). But due to its relatively late (not earlier than the second half of the XII century) origin, this article contains inaccuracies in the enumeration of the possessions of the three senior Yaroslavichs, so its data should not be used.

29 NPL, p. 161.

30 Ibid., p. 16; Rybakov B. A. Iz istorii kul'tury Drevnoi Rus ' [From the Cultural History of Ancient Russia], Moscow, 1984, p. 63.

31 PSRL. T. V, issue 1. L. 1925, p. 131; Shakhmatov A. A. Uk. soch., p. 626.

32 Karamzin N. M. Uk. soch. Vol. II, note 118; see also: Shakhmatov A. A. Uk. soch., p. 254; PVL. ch. 2. Moscow-L. 1950, p. 396-397 (commentary by D. S. Likhachev); Yanin V. L. Novgorodskie posadniki. Moscow 1962, p. 49 - 50.

33 NPL, p. 100, 623.

34 Ibid., p. 17; PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 166. PVL speaks about this event under 6575, but after the report of the death of Rostislav Vladimirovich on February 3, 6574 and before the story of the battle of Nemiga on March 3, 6575. Obviously, the note about the capture of Novgorod, which took place in February 1067, is transferred to article 6575 of the March year as the last event of the past, March, 6574, which happened before March 1. In the NPL of the senior platoon, the event is described under 6574, obviously also March, as referring to the very end of this year.

35 PSRL. Vol. IV, part 1", issue 1. Pg. 1915, p. 122; cf. NPL, p. 17, 184, under 6573.

36 Sreznevsky I. I. Ancient monuments of Russian writing and language (X-XIV centuries). St. Petersburg, 1882, stb. 22-23.

87 PSRL. Vol. II, stb. 152.

page 23

In 1096, he declared that Murom, like Chernigov, "is the parish of my father." Obviously, Svyatoslav also owned Murom, and at the same time as Chernigov, i.e. before he became a Kievan prince in 1073 .33
The third of the Yaroslavichs, Vsevolod, in addition to Pereyaslavl, owned Rostov and Kursk. These cities are named by Vladimir Monomakh in his "Homily" when he mentions his first "way": "The first one to Rostov is the Ida Vyatichi, the ambassador of my father, and the ida Kursku itself" 39. S. M. Solovyov showed that the first independent trip of Monomakh to Rostov dates back to 1068 40 . Consequently, Vsevolod owned Kursk and Rostov until 1068. It is possible that he received them under the will of his father 41 .

As for the possessions of Igor and Vyacheslav, their fate turned out to be changeable. When Vyacheslav died, "put (posadisha) Igor in Smolensk, and then Volodimir out", - reports the chronicle 42 . The plural number of predicates in the above phrase is a sign that Igor moved from Volhynia to Smolensk at the behest of the three older Yaroslavichs43 . Igor's change of table, most likely forced, turned out to be in the hands of Izyaslav.

In 1099, the son of Izyaslav of Kiev, Prince Svyatopolk, according to the chronicle, " began to think about Volodar and Vasilka, Glagol: for this is the parish of my father and brother. " 44 Volodar Rostislavich owned Przemysl, and his brother Vasilko-Terebovlem45 . In the XI century. both cities belonged to Volhynia, the main administrative center of which was Vladimir. It was Vladimir that was owned from 1078 until his death in 1086 by Svyatopolk's brother Yaropolk 46 . The words that Przemysl and Terebowl are "my father's parish" indicate the possession of Volhynia by Izyaslav Yaroslavich. After the death of Yaroslav the Wise, Izyaslav occupied only the Kiev table, although with interruptions: from the end of February 1054 to September 15, 1068, from May 2, 1069 to March 22, 1073, and from July 15 to October 3, 107847 . It is obvious that he took possession of Volhynia during one of the periods of his reign in Kiev.

A brief version of Russkaya Pravda helps clarify an unclear date. 23 Pravdy Yaroslavichy defines a fine for the murder of an older princely groom: "And the old groom of the herd has 80 grivens, because he set Izyaslav in his horse, and killed him Dorogobudtsi" 48 . From this

38 Ibid., vol. I, stb. 237, 182.

39 Ibid., stb. 247.

40 S. M. Soloviev, History of Russia since ancient times. Book I. M. 1959, p. 695, approx. 50. Later Solovyov's conclusion was supported by other arguments (see Ivakin I. M. Knyaz Vladimir Monomakh and his Teaching, Moscow, 1901, p. 146; Kuchkin V. A. "Teaching" of Vladimir Monomakh and Russian-Polish-German relations of the 60s-70s of the XI century. - Soviet Slavic Studies, 1971, N 2, p. 27).

41 The ownership of Rostov to Vsevolod is indirectly confirmed by a letter of 1096 from Vladimir Monomakh to Oleg Svyatoslavich: "Yes, then you should meet your son with your little brother, you should have a good day" (PSRL. Vol. I stb. 254). We are talking about the stay in the Rostov land of Oleg's godson-the eldest son of Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav, and the latter's brother. Monomakh's reference to " HLB... Day " indicates that at one time the Rostov land was owned by the grandfather of Mstislav and his brother Vsevolod Yaroslavich.

42 NPL, p. 183 and var. 5; PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 162 and var. 49.

43 Karamzin N. M. Uk. soch. Vol. II, stb. 41 and approx. 50; Соловьев С. М. Ук. соч. Кн. I, с. 351, 352; Грушевський М. С. Історія України-Руси. Т. II. Львов. 1905, p. 52; Presnyakov A. E. Knyazhoe pravo v drevnoi Rus'. SPb. 1909, p. 44; Grekov B. D. Uk. soch., p. 490.

44 PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 269; cf. ibid., stb. 273, under the year 6607.

45 Ibid., stb. 257.

46 Ibid., stb. 204, 206.

47 Ibid., stb. 162, 171, 174, 182, 199, 202.

48 Pravda Russkaya, T. I. M.-L. 1940, pp. 71, 80.

page 24

it is clear that the power of Izyaslav extended to Dorogobuzh . Thus, the reference of Pravda Yaroslavichy to the decree of Prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich regarding Dorogobuzhtsy indirectly indicates that Volhynia belongs to this prince, confirming the chronicle text of 1099 about the patrimony of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich's father. The compilation of Pravda Yaroslavichy dates back to 107250 . Since the murder of the prince's head groom by Dorogobuzhtsy dates back to 1068.51, it is clear that Izyaslav Yaroslavich took possession of Volhynia during the first period of his reign in Kiev, more precisely, between 1057, when his younger brother Igor was transferred from Vladimir Volynsky to Smolensk, and 1068. Thus, in the 60s of the XI century, Izyaslav concentrated power over two of the most important ancient Russian lands - Kiev and Novgorod, as well as Volhynia.

Igor Yaroslavich died in Smolensk in 1060. Under this year's title, the Tver Sbornik reports that "Yaroslavichi Smolenesk is divided into three parts" 52 . On this basis, the literature concludes that Smolensk in 1060 was divided between the three eldest sons of Yaroslav the Wise .53 However, the text of the Tver collection is late, it was compiled after 1534, possibly in the 20s of the XVII century. Through a series of intermediate vaults, his news of 1060 goes back to the text of the Sofia I Chronicle. The latter reports the division of Smolensk into three parts in the article not in 1060, but in 105454 . The same news under 1054 is also found in the Novgorod IV Chronicle 55 , which leads to the code of the 30s of the XV century., and ultimately-to the Novgorod vault of the XI century. The assignment of the division of Smolensk to 1054 in this code is erroneous. But if you determine the time when this happened, then it is most logical to stop at 1060, as the chroniclers did. In fact, until the death in 1060 of Igor, who reigned in Smolensk, Smolensk could not be divided. Taking only on this basis, but not on the basis of the testimony of the Tver collection, 1060 for the date of division of Smolensk, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the oldest record does not indicate who made the division or between whom it occurred. The established idea of the division of Smolensk by the three senior Yaroslavichs is nothing more than a guess. It is not confirmed by the subsequent history of Smolensk, which later fell into the hands of Vsevolod Yaroslavich, 56 and it is not clear that Izyaslavichi or Svyatoslavichi competed with him for Smolensk. But the fierce struggle with Vsevolod of his nephew Boris, the only son of the CFR, is quite visible-

49 In the XI century. Dorogobuzh was Volyn. There, in 1099, the Vladimir-Volyn prince David Igorevich tried to sit out the Kievan Prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavich who attacked him (PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 269; cf. stb. 273, under 6607).

50 Tikhomirov M. N. Issledovanie o Russkoi Pravde [Research on the Russian Truth]. Moscow-L. 1940, p. 66. Posobie dlya izucheniya Russkoy Pravdy [Manual for studying Russian Truth], Moscow, 1953, pp. 21, 80. It is difficult to agree with the dating of the Yaroslavl Pravda to 1072, especially the time before 1054. Article 23 of this Truth reflected the situation in 1068, so the entire code was drawn up later (cf. Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. Legislation of Ancient Russia, Vol. I. M. 1984, pp. 37-38).

51 Tikhomirov M. N. Issledovanie o Russkoy Pravde [Research on Russian Truth], p. 65.

52 PSRL. Vol. XV. SPb. 1863, stb. 153.

53 Karamzin N. M. Uk. soch. Vol. II, ed. 114; Solov'ev S. M. Uk. soch. Kn. I, p. 693, ed. 27 ("hard to explain news"); Grushevskiy M. S. UK. soch. Vol. II, p. 52 and note. 3; Presnyakov A. E. Uk. soch., p. 44 and approx. 3; Shakhmatov A. A. Uk soch., p. 525; Grekov B. D. ukh. soch., p. 490; Alekseev L. V. Smolenskaya zemlya v IX-XIII vv. M. 1980, p. 196.

54 PSRL. Vol. V, issue 1, p. 131: "I divided Smolensk into three parts by family".

55 PSRL. Vol. IV, part 1, issue 1, p. 118.

56 In the late 70s of the XI century, his son Vladimir Monomakh firmly established himself there (PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 247: "And Svyatoslav die, and yaz paky Smolinsku, and Smolinsku the same winter ta to Novugorod", - says the Teaching of Monomakh). Vladimir Monomakh's stay in Smolensk falls on the end of 1076-the beginning of 1077, since Svyatoslav died on December 27, 1076 (ibid., stb. 199).

page 25

Lensky Prince Vyacheslav Yaroslavich 57 . Therefore, the division of Smolensk in 1060 into three parts should be associated with the grandsons of Yaroslav the Wise: Boris Vyacheslavich, David and Vsevolod Igorevich. The division, apparently, was not the territory, but the income from the principality 58 .

About the possession of the eldest grandson of Yaroslav the Wise - Rostislav Vladimirovich-it is known that from 1065 he reigned in Tmutorokani, and at the beginning of 1067 he was poisoned by the Byzantine governor of Kherson and Klimatov 59 . There is no information as to whether his young sons Volodar, Rurik and Vasilko received any possessions after Rostislav's death, or whether they were kept by the older Yaroslavichs. It is possible that they left Russia altogether for some time.

The general picture of the princely domain by the mid-60s of the XI century is more or less clear: the main centers of the Old Russian state were under the rule of Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod Yaroslavich and their sons, the young nephews owned Smolensk, the Polotsk principality remained in the hands of Vseslav.

Information about the princes-descendants of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, who lived in the 60s of the XI century, and their possessions allow us to draw two preliminary conclusions regarding the message of the " Word "about Vseslav of Polotsk, who was"Prince of Grady ryadyasha". First, it becomes clear that if Vseslav distributed cities to other princes, then he could only do this by occupying the Kievan table and thereby gaining new, additional territories at his disposal compared to his native Polotsk lands. In this respect, these "Words" are confirmed, which relate the distribution of cities by Vseslav to the time of his reign in Kiev. Secondly, it turns out that the princes with whom Vseslav entered into agreements and to whom he ceded some cities must have belonged to the descendants of Yaroslav the Wise. Were there any possible compromises with them from the Prince of Polotsk? The answer to this question is provided by an analysis of the inter-princely relations of the 60s of the XI century and somewhat later.

The fragmentation of the territory of the Old Russian state between the three older Yaroslavichs at first did not lead to political separatism of the brothers. Acting in some cases independently, at their own peril and risk, 60 in difficult circumstances, they acted together. We have already mentioned the transfer of Igor Yaroslavich from Vladimir of Volhynia to Smolensk in 1057. In 1059. Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod released their uncle Sudislav, who had been languishing there for 24 years, from the Pskov prison ("log cabin"). In 1060, together with Vseslav of Polotsk, they made a victorious campaign against Torkov 61 . But in 1067, when their former ally captured Novgorod, three Yaroslavichs turned against him. On March 3, 1067, they defeated Vseslav on Nemiga, and on July 10, they called him to Orsha for negotiations and "Tslovavshe krest honest to All-

57 Ibid., stb. 199-201; NPL, p. 18.

58 Presnyakov A. E. Uk. soch., p. 44, ed. 3. Vladimir Monomakh recalled how in 1078, upon his arrival from Smolensk, he gave his father 300 gold hryvnias, which was obviously a Smolensk tribute (PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 247). A multiple of three may have been made up of tributes previously paid to each of the three fathers of the Smolensk land.

59 PSRL. Vol. II, stb. 152, 155.

60 So, Izyaslav in 1058 went alone to the Prussian tribe of galindov (goliad), and in 1060 - to the Estonian tribe of sakkala (sosol) (PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 162; NPL, p. 183); perhaps the same campaign is described in the Sofia I and Novgorod IV chronicles under 1054 d, as the campaign to Chud and Izyaslav's capture of the Osek (fortification) of Kedipiv-Sunny Hand (PSRL. Vol. V, issue 1, p. 131; vol. IV, part 1, issue 1, p. 118). Svyatoslav in 1065 had to defend his possession of Tmutorokan from Rostislav Vladimirovich, who seized it (NPL, p. 184; PSRL. Vol. II, stb. 152). Vsevolod in 1054 alone undertook a campaign against the Torks, and in 1062 he had to fight off the Polovtsians on his own (PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 162; NPL, p. 183; PSRL. Vol. I, stb, 163).

61 NPL, p. 183.

page 26

Slava", treacherously arrested along with his two sons, was taken to Kiev and put in a log cabin there. The initiative in all the actions of 1067, obviously, belonged to Izyaslav Yaroslavich. Vseslav's raids primarily affected Izyaslav's Novgorod possessions, and he was more interested in pacifying the Polotsk prince than his brothers. Although Izyaslav derived the greatest benefit from the common actions of the Yaroslavichs, this did not yet lead to the collapse of the fraternal union.

In September 1068. Izyaslav, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod opposed the Polovtsians. In the night battle on the Alta, the princes suffered a severe defeat. It served as a prologue to the uprising of September 15, 1068 in Kiev, the proclamation of Vseslav of Polotsk as Prince of Kiev, and the flight of Izyaslav Yaroslavich to Poland .62 These are the circumstances of the elevation of Vseslav to the Kiev table. It becomes possible to somewhat refine the second preliminary conclusion made above. If Vseslav, having begun to reign in Kiev, really "prince of grady ryadyashe", then he should have concluded" ranks " only with Svyatoslav and Vsevolod Yaroslavich, who remained in Russia after Izyaslav left, since their sons and nephews depended on them. Such a conclusion seems unlikely at first glance, because Svyatoslav and Vsevolod fought against Vseslav in 1067. Perhaps the author of the "Word", writing in the XII century, incorrectly assessed the situation that developed 117 years before Igor's campaign against the Polovtsians, which he sang about? To answer this question, it is necessary to focus on some facts of a later time.

In the Kievan chronicle of the XI century, the description of the events of 1073 began as follows: "The devil entered into this Yaroslavich brothers: the former feuds between them. Bysta sobe Svyatoslav with Vsevolod on Izyaslav, izide Izyaslav Isaev. Svyatoslav and Vsevolod entered the Kyev of the month of March 22 " 63 . Thus, 4 1/2 years after the joint action against the Polovtsians on the Alta, the Yaroslavich union collapsed. On March 22, 1073, Svyatoslav became the Kievan prince. The eldest of the brothers, Izyaslav, again, as in 1068, had to seek help from his brother-in-law, the Polish King Boleslav II. The chronicler put Svyatoslav as the initiator of the struggle against Izyaslav, who," wanting bolshie power", deceived Vsevolod, telling him that "Izyaslav will woo Vseslav", plotting something against them. The nature of the explanation of the reasons for the enmity (a shadow is cast on Svyatoslav and an attempt is made to whitewash Vsevolod) is such that it suggests the appearance of this explanation already during the reign of Vsevolod in Kiev (1078-1093).64
To determine the true cause of the gap, it is important to establish when the cooling between Yaroslavichs began. Karamzin, relying on the chronicle story, attributed the beginning of the feud to 1072/1073. Solovyov looked for the roots of the quarrel in Izyaslav's personal hostility to Svyatoslav, which could have manifested itself after Izyaslav's return from Poland in May 1069. Grushevsky deduced the struggle of Svyatoslav and Vsevolod with Izyaslav from the assessment of the general situation in Russia after 1068: in his opinion, the older Yaroslavichi took everything that was in the hands of other princes, and now each of the brothers wanted to strengthen at the expense of the other. Against this background, Izyaslav's negotiations with Vseslav of Polotsk, as Grushevsky suggested, regarding the return of Novgorod to the Kievan Prince, which he had ceded to Svyatoslav, were the spark that ignited hostility .65 An attempt to find out the material reasons for the collapse of the union of three

62 Ibid., pp. 186, 188; PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 167, 170, 171.

63 PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 182.

64 Therefore, Shakhmatov is hardly right (uk. soch., pp. 609-610), who ascribed the entire text of article 6581 to the Kiev Code of 1073 Nikon.

65 Karamzin N. M. Uk. soch. Vol. II, stb. 46; Solov'ev S. M. Uk. soch. Kn. I, p. 356; Grushevskii M. S. Uk. soch. Vol. II, p. 54, 61.

page 27

Yaroslav's sons deserves attention, but the speculative nature of Grushevsky's ideas about the general trend in the development of princely possessions in Russia and the fact that Izyaslav gave Svyatoslav Novgorod instead of Polotsk, as well as the lack of any explanations for Vsevolod's position, make his interpretation unfounded.

Presnyakov approached the issue more cautiously. "The gap between the triumvir brothers," he wrote, " was prepared by the events of 1068-1072." They shook the position of Izyaslav. In this situation, Svyatoslav begins to fight with his older brother, setting Vsevolod against him, accusing Izyaslav of agreeing with the prince of Polotsk. Grekov attributed the collapse of the Yaroslavich union to the fragility of the situation that returned from Poland in May 1069. Izyaslav, who had no popular support and probably showed polonophilism and a tendency to Catholicism. His alliance with Vseslav of Polotsk accelerated the movement of the 66 brothers .

Regarding this union, interesting considerations are given by L. V. Alekseev. Parsing the evidence of the Chronicle: "Izyaslav will woo Vseslav", he suggested that it should be about the engagement of Izyaslav's newly born granddaughter, the daughter of his son Yaropolk, with Vseslav's son Gleb 67 . It seems, however, that the matchmaking negotiations could hardly have been the cause of the conflict. The wife of Gleb Vseslavich (granddaughter of Izyaslav), according to the Ipatiev chronicle, died on January 3, 1158, 84 years old . Therefore, she was born no earlier than January 4, 1073. Between this extremely possible date of Yaropolkovna's birth and the time of Izyaslav's exile from Kiev (until March 22 of the same year), there is such a short period of time that it is not necessary to talk about the origin of the reasons that led to the complete collapse of the Yaroslavich union. Obviously, the matchmaking of Izyaslav and Vseslav gave only a reason for an open struggle between Svyatoslav and Vsevolod with their older brother. The reasons for this struggle arose before 1073.

Indeed, the symptoms of cooling between brothers are detected earlier. When Izyaslav, who returned to the Kievan table on May 2, 1069, resumed the struggle with Vseslav and drove him out of Polotsk, he acted alone, without the help of his brothers. When in 1071 Vseslav managed to expel the son of Izyaslav Svyatopolk from Polotsk and regain the principality, then again one Izyaslav fought with the prince of Polotsk (his son Yaropolk managed to defeat Vseslav at Holoticovo)69 . Presnyakov's opinion is correct that "in these events Izyaslav acts alone, like a prince leading his own policy." 70 But the rift between the brothers did not occur in 1069-1071, but even earlier.

Historians have long paid attention to one important piece of evidence that goes back to the records of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery: "At the same time, Priti Izyaslav of Lyakhov happened, (and) Izyaslav began to attack Antonyan Vseslav. And sent (Svyatoslav) into the night, singing Antonya Chernihiv " 71 . In the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, Izyaslav was condemned for violating the cross-kissing, he was arrested in 1067. Vseslav 72 . Obviously, such a condemnation increased the hostility of Kiev residents to Izyaslav, which at the same time increased the number of people living in the city.-

66 Presnyakov A. E. Uk. soch., p. 45-46; Grekov B. D. Uk. soch., p. 494-495.

67 Alekseev L. V. Polotsk land, p. 249.

68 PSRL. Vol. II, stb. 492; Berezhkov N. G. Khronologiya russkogo letopisaniya [Chronology of the Russian Chronicle], Moscow, 1963, p. 168.

69 NPL, p. 191; PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 174.

70 Presnyakov A. E. Uk. soch., p. 45.

71 PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 193. Cf. Paterik of the Kiev Pechersk Monastery (hereinafter - Paterik). St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 129.

72 In the code of 1073 compiled in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, the uprising in Kiev on September 15, 1068, directed against Izyaslav, was directly connected with the church holiday of the Exaltation of the Cross celebrated on September 14 and interpreted as a punishment for Izyaslav's perjury (Shakhmatov A. A. Uk. soch., pp. 421, 607).

page 28

along with other, more compelling reasons, it led to the uprising of 1068 and the proclamation of Vseslav as Prince of Kiev. It is possible that Anthony and his monastic brethren supported Vseslav during the months when he reigned in Kiev, which brought upon them the wrath of Izyaslav, who returned to the Kiev table. Anthony managed to avoid reprisals, and he was taken under the protection of Svyatoslav, himself an accomplice in the defeat of Vseslav on Nemiga in 1067 and perjury in Orsha.

It is obvious that in the summer and autumn of 1069 Svyatoslav's attitude towards Izyaslav and Vseslav, who were at war with each other, changed significantly. This is also evident in the earlier joint appeal of Svyatoslav and Vsevolod to Izyaslav who was marching towards Kiev with Polish help in late April 1069: "do not lead the Lyakhs to the Kyevu, it is repugnant to you; if you want to destroy the city, then you will see that we are sorry to take it away from the table." The appeal already sounded a hidden threat. More frankly, the brothers said to the people of Kiev a little earlier: "Send to your brother; but if he comes to you with Lyakhy to destroy you, then you will oppose him with a host" 73 . It turns out that already in April 1069, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod were ready to start an armed struggle together against Izyaslav if he did not fulfill their demands. That these were not empty words, that at least Svyatoslav had military forces that both Izyaslav and the Polish king had to reckon with, is evidenced by the chronicle news that on November 1, 1068, Svyatoslav" in 3 thousand men " defeated 12 thousand Polovtsians near Snovsk and even captured their khan. 74
Why, if the remaining Yaroslavichs in Russia had a sufficient squad, they did not turn their weapons against the Polotsk prince who captured Kiev, why then were they, in their own words, not "sorry to be taken away"? The neutrality of Svyatoslav and Vsevolod in relation to Vseslav, who reigned in Kiev for seven months, has its own explanation. Becoming a Kievan prince, Vseslav had to get his hands on everything that Izyaslav owned before him, i.e. in addition to Kiev, Novgorod and Volhynia.

The fate of Volhynia in late 1068-early 1069 is determined on the basis of the Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh. Scholars of the Teaching now agree that Monomakh made his first "journey" in 1068, when Izyaslav and his brother Vsevolod fled Kiev in fear of the Kievan rebels. But opinions differ as to the dating of the second and subsequent "paths" of Monomakh. About the events preceding his September campaign in 1075, 75 to the Czech Forest, Monomakh recalled as follows: "And the 2nd packs to Smolinsk with the Skordyatich Headquarters, that pack and went to Berestiy with Izyaslav, and if the ambassador to Smolinsk, then Smolinsk and Volodimeru. Toe same winters toi poslasta Berestiyu brother on Golovn, ide byakhu pozhglii, toi that dish city tih. That idoh Pereyaslavlyu ottsyu, and on VelitS days is Pereyaslavlyu that Volodimeryu on Suteisku world creates with Lyakhy, from there paky on LTO Volodimeryu again " 76 .

The chronology of Vladimir Monomakh's trips and campaigns can be clarified to some extent. He moved from Smolensk to Vladimir Volynsky in the winter, because the next news about sending Monomakh to Berestye begins in the Homily with the words "the same winter". For the second time, Monomakh went to Vladimir "on great days", i.e. after Easter, in the spring, since the so-called "Easter limit" is limited to March 22-25

73 NPL, p. 191; cf. PSRL. Vol. I, stb. 173, where instead of "you are against" it is correctly written "V is against".

74 NPL, p. 190.

75 For the fact that this campaign began in September 1075, see: V. A. Kuchkin, Uk. soch., p. 25.

76 PSRL. Vol. 1, stb. 247.

page 29

April 77 . Having made peace with the Poles at Sutejski, Monomakh returned to Vladimir Volynsky "on the LTO". Thus, the list of paths in the above passage is given in strict sequence by season: events of winter, then spring, then summer or summer eve. This sequence leads us to believe that the prince here recalls the events of the end of one and the first half of the following year, and this chronological segment should be sought in the interval between September 1068 and September 1075.

Judging by the mention of Izyaslav in the message about the second and third "ways", the transition of Monomakh" to the Lord Volodimerya " could not have taken place later than the summer of 1073 (Izyaslav was expelled by his brothers at the end of March 1073). In the period from the end of 1069 to the summer of 1072, Izyaslav Yaroslavich's second reign in Kiev falls. It is impossible to attribute Monomakh's trip from Pereyaslavl to Suteisk "peace creates with Lyakhy" to this period, because the conclusion of such a peace was the prerogative of the Kievan prince. It is also impossible to date Monomakh's dispatch to Berestva from this period. He went there on the orders of two brothers. No matter which of the three Yaroslavichs is substituted in their place, it turns out that under the rule of Izyaslav in Kiev, the competence of at least one of his brothers expanded immeasurably, who began to give instructions for the protection of the western borders, although this was part of the functions of the Kievan prince.

All of this makes us refuse to date the second and subsequent "paths" and campaigns of Vladimir Monomakh from the end of 1069 to the summer of 1072. Two possible dates remain: either late 1068-summer 1069, or late 1072-summer 1073. With respect to the last date, the second of the above arguments remains negative. Monomakh went to Berestoy in winter. If this is the winter of 1072-1073, then Izyaslav was still a Kievan prince and had to guard Berestye himself. There is another circumstance that does not allow us to dwell on the years 1072-1073.

With such a date, it would turn out that Vladimir Monomakh concluded peace with the Poles at Sutejski shortly after Easter in 1073, which fell on March 31. Izyaslav left Kiev shortly before March 22. From this it follows that in a very short time, approximately by the middle of April 1073, if not earlier, Izyaslav, who arrived in Poland, had to persuade Boleslav II to intercede for him, and he managed to gather regiments and approach Suteisk 78 . Meanwhile, the chronicle reports that all the valuables brought by Izyaslav were "taken by Lyakhov from him, showing him the way from himself." 79 Indeed, Boleslav II at that time was not able to provide assistance to Izyaslav. On May 18, 1073, the German King Henry IV announced the preparation of a campaign against Poland. Knowing about such a danger from the west, Boleslav II could not support Izyaslav and quarrel with Russia 80 . Therefore, the assumption that peace with the Poles at Sutejski could have been concluded in 1073 disappears. There remains only one date of the second and subsequent "paths" and campaigns of Vladimir Monomakh: the end of 1068-summer of 1069. Several other considerations can be made in its favor.

Thus, the dating of the second "way" of Monomakh from the end of 1068 to the beginning of 1069 fully explains why Stavko Skordyatich, who served Izyaslav, acted with the young prince (the patronymic na-ich shows that he was a boyar). Monomakh's father Vsevolod fled after September 15, 1068.

77 Cherepnin L. V. Russkaya khronologiya [Russian Chronology], Moscow, 1944, p. 52.

78 Ibid., p. 59; PSRL. Vol. 1, stb. 182. For the location of the ancient Russian city of Suteyski, see: Rappoport P. A. Military architecture of the Western Russian lands of the X-XIV centuries. In: Materials and research on the archeology of the USSR. N 140. L. 1967, pp. 62-63.

79 PSRL. Vol. 1, stb. 183.

80 For more information, see: Kuchkin V. A. Uk. soch., pp. 33-34.

page 30

from Kiev together with Izyaslav. Judging by the fact that Vsevolod went to Kursk and sent his son to Rostov, the princes expected not to sit out the Polovtsians in remote centers, but to gather new troops there. In such circumstances, help to the teenager Monomakh (he was then 14 years old) on the part of an experienced boyar who represented the interests of Vsevolod Izyaslav, who acted in concert with Vsevolod, it was quite appropriate. Vladimir and Stavko managed to gather some kind of squad. Stavko joined Izyaslav with part of it, and went with him, as Solovyov had long guessed, through Berestye to Poland. 81 Part of the squad remained with Monomakh, and, apparently, with it he later guarded Berestye. Sending him there by two brothers is also fully explained by the situation in Russia at the end of 1068-beginning of 1069, when, after the flight of Izyaslav, only two sons of Yaroslav the Wise remained in the Russian lands: Svyatoslav and Vsevolod.

Finally, Monomakh's trip from Pereyaslavl to Suteisk coincides in time with the negotiations of an unknown representative of the two Yaroslavichs with Izyaslav somewhere near the Russian-Polish border. Vseslav Polotsky was imprisoned in Kiev for seven months. Consequently, he left the Kievan table, fleeing from Belgorod to Polotsk, on April 15, 1069. In the morning, the Kievans who were in Belgorod with the Prince of Polotsk returned home and gathered a veche, which decided to send ambassadors to Svyatoslav and Vsevolod 82 . Calculations based on the chronicle account of the events of 1069 allow for the possibility that the brothers ' embassy went to Izyaslav and Boleslav II about a week after Easter, which then fell on April 12 .83 Izyaslav, moving to Kiev without haste, sat down at the Kiev table on May 2, that is, exactly at the time indicated by Monomakh in his Sermon: "on Belitsky days."

The circumstances described suggest that it is impossible to date the first "paths" of Vladimir Monomakh to the 70s of the XI century. and lead to the conclusion that the first nine campaigns of this prince belong to 1068-1069. With such a date, only one thing needs to be explained: the time of Izyaslav's first departure for Poland.

The historiographic view of Izyaslav's immediate flight to Boleslav II after the Kiev uprising of September 15, 1068 is based on a composite and multi-time description of the events of 1068-1069 in the Initial Codex of the end of the XI century. 84 But from this description, it is still impossible to conclude with certainty that the phrase "Izyaslav bZha v Lyakhy" reflected the fact that followed immediately after the speech of the Kievans. These circumstances are more clearly revealed by the NPL of the senior platoon. The events of 1068 are described in it in the following sequence: "The Wrath of God was: the arrival of Polovtsy and the destruction of the Russian land. In the same LTO vysKosha kyyaN Vslav is poruba Tom zH LLT Pobdi Svyatoslav Polovtse u Snvsk, and Izyaslav BIZHA v Lyakhy". About the departure of Izyaslav to Poland, it is said here after the news of Svyatoslav's victory over the Polovtsians.

81 Solov'ev S. M. Uk. soch. Kn. 1, pp. 695-696, ed. 50. In the second half of the XI century, the usual route from Poland to Russia was across the border near the town of Sutejski, then to Vladimir Volynsky, Dorogobuzh and Kiev. The route through Berestye was rarely used (PSRL. Vol. 1, stb. 199, 205, 271; cf. ibid., stb. 271). Izyaslav left for Poland by this route in 1068, probably because the usual route through Vladimir Volynsky was closed to him.

82 NPL, pp. 190-191. Both princes were, apparently, in their own Chernigov and Pereyaslavl, that is, at a distance of a day's journey from Kiev (PSRL. Vol. 1, stb. 250). If the Kievan veche was assembled on April 16, 1069, then on April 18 the brothers could send an embassy to Izyaslav.

83 Cherepnin L. V. Uk. soch., p. 59.

84 NPL, p. 186-190; cf. Shakhmatov A. A. The Tale of bygone Years. Volume 1. Introductory part. Text. Notes. In: Chronicle of classes of the Archeographic Commission. Issue 29. Pg. 1917, p. 212-219; his. Investigations, pp. 168-169, 606-608.

page 31

85. Consequently, Izyaslav left the Russian borders after November 1, 1068, which is quite consistent with the Teaching of Monomakh, according to which Stavko Skordyatich went to Berestva together with Izyaslav in the winter (or winter) of 1068-1069.

The description of these "paths" shows that from the end of 1068 or the beginning of 1069 until the summer of 1069, Monomakh most often stayed in Vladimir of Volhynia. This was his residence, Monomakh was the Prince of Vladimir. And this means that Volhynia has left the control of Vseslav Polotsky, who took the Kiev table. Since sources are silent about any hostile relations between Vseslav Bryachislavich and Vsevolod Yaroslavich, it can be assumed that Volhynia was ceded by Vseslav to the Prince of Pereyaslav voluntarily. Vsevolod sent his son Vladimir to reign there.

The owner's fate of Volhynia in 1068-1069 is similar to that of Novgorod. The Novgorod chronicle shows that on October 23, 1069, Vseslav of Polotsk attacked Novgorod. However, the Novgorodians, led by Prince Gleb, managed to repel an unexpected attack of 86 . The only one of the princes who bore the name Gleb was the eldest son of Svyatoslav of Chernigov. In October 1069, Novgorod belonged to this prince. Until 1065 Gleb Svyatoslavich reigned in Tmutorokani, but in 1065 he was expelled from there (for the second time) Rostislav Vladimirovich. In 1067, Rostislav, as noted above, was poisoned; the Chronicle does not indicate who reigned in Tmutorokani after him. Nor does she say anything about Prince Gleb Svyatoslavich. But in the article "And see [the princes] in Novgorod" immediately after the news of the defeat of Mstislav Izyaslavich on Cheryokha and his flight to Kiev, it is said:"And plant Svyatoslav your son Glba" 88. On this basis, it was assumed that in 1067 (after the battle of March 3 on Nemiga or after the arrest of Vseslav Polotsky on July 10 in Orsha) Gleb Svyatoslavich reigned in Novgorod .89 This conclusion contradicts the historical situation, since it implies that Izyaslav Yaroslavich voluntarily ceded Novgorod to his brother Svyatoslav. However, Izyaslav's entire activity shows that he did not make any voluntary concessions. The meaning of Izyaslav's struggle against Vseslav of Polotsk in 1065-1067 was to consolidate the power of the Kievan prince over the Novgorod land, and not to transfer it to one of the brothers who helped him.

The assumption that Gleb Svyatoslavich was imprisoned in Novgorod in 1067 is also refuted in the sources. The Kiev-Pechersk paterik reports that Nikon, who left the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery "in the island of Darkness", " died to Rostislav, Prince of the island of Togo, begged to be... from the people of tYkh to come to Svyatoslav the prince and pray, so let them have their son, so sit on such a tom." Svyatoslav heeded the request. Further in the Patericon it is said: "Having reached bo with the prince with the GLB of the island of that, and it sat on so in the city of that, Nikon also returned in five"90 . Since Prince Rostislav died on February 3, 1067, Gleb could have been put on the Tmutorokansky table only after the specified date.

There is a source that allows us to determine even more precisely the time of the reign of Gleb Svyatoslavich in Tmutorokaia - the famous Tmutorokansky stone. An inscription about how Prince Gleb measured the sea from Tmutorokan to Kor-

85 NPL, p. 17, 190.

86 Ibid., p. 17. It is curious that Gleb and Novgorodians "let Vseslav go".

87 Ibid., p. 186.

88 Ibid., p. 161.

89 Solov'ev S. M. Uk. soch. Kn. 1, p. 696, ed. 55; Grushevskiy M. S. Uk. soch. Vol. II, p. 54.

90 Patericon, pp. 151, 156.

page 32

cheva, made "in LTO 6576, in[d] and [kta] 6" 91 . Analyzing the inscription, B. A. Rybakov noted that the Kerch Strait freezes for a short time in December - January 92 . Based on these data and taking into account the year when the inscription was made, and the serial number of the indication, it is necessary to conclude that Gleb measured the Kerch Strait in December 1067 - January 1068 .93 Consequently, in late 1067 - early 1068 Gleb Svyatoslavich continued to reign in Tmutorokani. It is clear that his transfer to Novgorod took place later (but before October 23, 1069).

Who owned Novgorod after the imprisonment of Vseslav Polotsky? I think this question can be answered definitely: Izyaslav. As shown above, until 1065, Novgorod was under his control. After Vseslav's imprisonment in the Kiev "log cabin" in the summer of 1067, logically, Izyaslav had to restore his eldest son Mstislav, who had fled Novgorod in 1065, to the Novgorod table. The chronicle, however, does not speak about this fact, but it is silent about the restoration after the death of Rostislav on Gleb's tmutorokan table. The general considerations given above and some evidence from sources suggest that Izyaslav retained Novgorod until he left for Poland.

In this regard, it is noteworthy that his son Mstislav ended up in Poland with Izyaslav. The chronicle does not mention Mstislav's departure there. But it is reported that after reaching an agreement with the brothers in the spring of 1069. Izyaslav sent Mstislav before him to Kiev, who executed active participants in the uprising of 1068 .94 Consequently, Mstislav had a squad, possibly his own. If we recall that Izyaslav left for Poland around November 1068, joining the Skordyatich Headquarters somewhere near the Smolensk borders, then it becomes clear that he moved north from the rebellious Kiev. The only center to the north of Kiev that Izyaslav was supposed to own was Novgorod, which also bordered the Smolensk land. It seems that on September 15, 1068, Izyaslav went first to Novgorod, where his son Mstislav was sitting, hoping to gather some forces against Vseslav, and then with Mstislav and Stavk Skordyatich left for Poland.

However, after returning to Kiev on May 2, 1069. Izyaslav no longer owned Novgorod. He puts his eldest sons in Polotsk, having driven Vseslav out of there, and not in Novgorod, as one might expect if Novgorod still belonged to him .95 Such actions of Izyaslav indicate that Gleb Svyatoslavich, who was in Novgorod in October 1069, occupied Novgorod even earlier, at least before Izyaslav returned from Poland. Presnyakov came to this conclusion at the time. Without going into a detailed argument, he cautiously noted:: "You can think that he (Gleb - VK ) is settled in Novgorodok-

91 Rybakov B. A. Russian dated inscriptions of the XI-XIV centuries. In: Archeology of the USSR. Set of archaeological sources. Issue EI-44. M, 1964, p. 16; Medyntseva A. A. Tmutarakan stone, Moscow, 1979, p. 9.

92 Rybakov B. A. Russian dated inscriptions, p. 17. According to the story of Paterik, Nikon, going to Svyatoslav, found himself in the Kiev-Pechersk monastery near Theodosius. It turns out that Nikon met Svyatoslav not in Chernihiv, as one might expect, but in Kiev. Patericus ' story, which is not very clear at first glance, is nevertheless historically absolutely accurate. Nikon saw Svyatoslav in February 1067. That was the time when the three Yaroslavichs were preparing to march on Minsk, and the combination of their forces, which the chronicle says, was to take place in Kiev. There Nikon found Svyatoslav and his son.

93 6576 year of the inscription on the Tmutorokan stone can be September, as, for example, B. A. Rybakov believes, or Ultramartian. It cannot be March, since in December 1068 - January 1069 the indict would have been the seventh rather than the sixth.

94 NPL, p. 191.

95 Ibid.

page 33

de after the first expulsion of Izyaslav, which casts some light on Svyatoslav's policies." A similar assumption was made by V. L. Yanin: "Apparently, he (Gleb. - V. K. ) really received the Novgorod table from Svyatoslav, although Svyatoslav was not a Kievan prince in 1068. This could have happened during Vseslav's seven-month reign in Kiev, when Grand Duke Izyaslav Yaroslavich was forced to flee to Poland. " 96 The transfer of Gleb, the elder Svyatoslavich, to Novgorod was not without the participation of his father, the Chernigov prince.

But how did Novgorod - one of the main possessions of the Kievan prince-end up in the hands of the Chernigov princes? There can be only two explanations: either Svyatoslav took Novgorod from Vseslav, who ruled in Kiev, or he (and possibly Gleb) received it under an agreement with the prince of Polotsk. The absence of any hints of hostile actions between Svyatoslav and Vseslav in the autumn of 1068 - summer of 1069 speaks in favor of the second explanation. It also finds positive confirmation, which is contained precisely in the "Lay of Igor's Regiment". We are talking about the phrase given at the beginning of the article, which is sometimes perceived as just a poetic and figurative description of Vseslav rushing around in Kiev, turning into a wolf and rapidly leaving the city for some distant goals, and the Tmutorokan mentioned in this phrase symbolizes a remote place that the prince of Polotsk was allegedly able to "find" in one night- werewolf 97 .

If Tmutorokan in this place of the "Word" is only "poetic far away", then why does it appear in the monument, and, say, not even more remote from Kiev Beloozero or Zavolochye? B. A. Rybakov, for example, suggested that Vseslav of Polotsk made a lightning campaign from Kiev to Tmutorokan, fearing the strengthening of Svyatoslav, who defeated the Polovtsians at Snovsk on November 1, 1068, and his eldest son Gleb 98 . This raised the objection of L. V. Alekseev, who believes that Vseslav's speech from Kiev to Tmutorokan would inevitably lead to the loss of the Kiev table, which, in his opinion, was already being sought by Svyatoslav 99 . Denying the possibility of Vseslav's trip to Tmutorakan during his seven-month reign in Kiev, Alekseyev is inclined to Mavrodin's idea that Vseslav not only went to Tmutorakan, but even reigned there, but not at the end of 1068 - beginning of 1069, but later-at the end of 1069-1071 .100
But the "Word" quite definitely indicates that Vseslav made a trip to Tmutorakan from Kiev, and he could only do this until mid-April 1069, when he had to flee to his Polotsk. Therefore, the assumption about Vseslav's reign in Tmutorokani in 1069-1071 is unacceptable. Vseslav visited Tmutorokani until April 15, 1069, and this trip was not connected with military operations against Gleb Svyatoslavich, who reigned there. In the "Word" specifically noted the speed of movement Vseslav. A large, complex, long-distance campaign would hardly be written like this. Especially it is said in the "Word" about the direction of the path of Vseslav. Moving from Kiev to Tmutorokan, i.e. to the south-

96 Presnyakov A. E. Uk. soch., p. 46, ed. 2; Yanin V. L. Uk. soch., p. 50.

97 Mavrodin V. V. Ocherki istorii Levoberezhnoy Ukrainy [Essays on the history of Left-bank Ukraine]. L. 1940, p. 167; The Word about Igor's Regiment. L. 1952, p. 282; Vinogradova V., L. The word "wolf" in the Old Russian language and "The Word about Igor's Regiment". Russkaya rech, 1984, No. 6, pp. 91-93.

98 Rybakov B. A. Russkie datirovannye nadpisi [Russian dated inscriptions], p. 18. Ancient Russia. Tales. Epics. Letopisi, Moscow, 1963, p. 95.

99 Alekseev L. V. Polotsk land, pp. 247-248.

100 Ibid., p. 248; cf. Mavrodin V. V. Uk. soch., p. 166-168. Without reference to their predecessors, their conclusion was repeated by V. A. Zakharov (Zakharov V. A. What does "...to Kur Tmutorokanya "mean in" The Lay of Igor's Regiment"? - TODRL. T. XXXI. L. 1976, p. 294).

page 34

east, and then from the lower reaches of the Don to the Taman Peninsula - from north to south, it should have crossed the path of the sun, moving from east to west 101 .

It is obvious that the news preserved in Slovo about Vseslav's trip to Tmutorakan, despite all its metaphorical and hyperbolic nature, is much more real in its basis than it was previously imagined. In the "Word" is named the only city where Vseslav went as a Kievan prince. This is the same city in which, according to other sources, before visiting Vseslav, the prince ruled, who became - after meeting with Vseslav-the ruler in Novgorod, which belonged to Kiev. Such facts cannot be explained by mere coincidences. They are of a natural nature and indicate the diplomatic goals of Vseslav's rapid trip. In Tmutorokani, he "dressed up" with Gleb: he gave him a more significant Novgorod table, and in exchange received the consent of the Chernigov and Tmutorokan - and now Novgorod - princes, Gleb and his father Svyatoslav, to recognize Vseslav as a Kiev prince.

The analysis leads to the conclusion that Vseslav of Polotsk, who was elevated to the Kievan throne by the Kievan rebels on September 15, 1068, managed to hold on to it for seven months thanks to political compromises. He ceded at least two large possessions of his predecessor Izyaslav - Novgorod and Volhynia-to the two remaining Yaroslavichs in Russia and was recognized by them as the Kievan prince. This is consistent with the testimony of the "Lay of Igor's Regiment "that" Vseslav... knyaz 'grady ryadyashe". The author of the" Word " accurately described the situation that developed in Kievan Rus at the end of 1068-beginning of 1069. Naturally, not being a contemporary of those events, he could only get information about Vseslav of Polotsk and his deeds from some source. And the Word itself reveals the origin of this source. A few lines below the fragment about Vseslav's dressing of cities to princes, the author refers to Boyan: "To that (i.e. Vseslav. - V. K. ) Vyshchei Boyan and prvoe Prip'ku smyslenyi reche " 102 . It turns out that the "old time songmaker" Boyan sang about Vseslav. From the song about Vseslav Boyan, as recognized in the literature103, and passed into the" Word " characteristic of the activities of Vseslav when he was a Kievan prince.

The accuracy of this characterization, which is revealed by other sources, once again testifies to the early, XII century, origin of the "Word about Igor's Regiment". At the same time, the direct evidence of the "Word" about Vseslav's cession of cities to other princes explains both the restraint shown by Svyatoslav and Vsevolod Yaroslavich in relation to the prince of Polotsk who captured them, and the refusal to help, and then the direct hostility of the Chernigov and Pereyaslav princes to the Kievan table who returned from Poland in May 1069. to my older brother Izyaslav. He, of course, wanted to restore his power over the lands that he ruled until September 15, 1068, but ran into opposition from the brothers who took possession of part of these lands. The picture of inter-princely relations in the 60s of the XI century, which is becoming clearer thanks to the "Lay of Igor's Regiment", shows how serious was the influence of the uprising of 1068 on the political life of Russia, and what complex processes were taking place then in the development of ancient Russian statehood.

101 There is no reason to look for any mystical meaning in this passage (the transformation of Vseslav into a wolf, his eclipsing of the sun, etc.).

102 Iroic song, p. 37.

103 See, for example: Peretz V. N. Uk. soch., pp. 290-303; Tikhomirov M. N. Boyan i Troyanova zemlya. In: A Word about Igor's Regiment. Collection of Studies and Articles, Moscow, 1950, pp. 177, 180-181; Slovo o polku Igorev ("Literary Monuments"), p. 459 (comment by D. S. Likhachev).

page 35


© biblioteka.by

Permanent link to this publication:

https://biblioteka.by/m/articles/view/-THE-WORD-ABOUT-IGOR-S-REGIMENT-AND-INTER-PRINCELY-RELATIONS-OF-THE-60S-OF-THE-XI-CENTURY

Similar publications: LBelarus LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Aleksandr StepanovContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://biblioteka.by/Stepanov

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

V. A. KUCHKIN, "THE WORD ABOUT IGOR'S REGIMENT" AND INTER-PRINCELY RELATIONS OF THE 60S OF THE XI CENTURY // Minsk: Belarusian Electronic Library (BIBLIOTEKA.BY). Updated: 24.01.2025. URL: https://biblioteka.by/m/articles/view/-THE-WORD-ABOUT-IGOR-S-REGIMENT-AND-INTER-PRINCELY-RELATIONS-OF-THE-60S-OF-THE-XI-CENTURY (date of access: 10.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - V. A. KUCHKIN:

V. A. KUCHKIN → other publications, search: Libmonster BelarusLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Aleksandr Stepanov
Минск, Belarus
56 views rating
24.01.2025 (17 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
Тысяча ответов на 37 вопросов
Yesterday · From Беларусь Анлайн
ПАРАД ЛАУРЕАТОВ
2 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
Библиографические листки
3 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
Человек больше войны
6 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
55 ЛЕТ ПОБЕДЫ. БРЕСТСКАЯ КРЕПОСТЬ ДЕРЖИТ ОБОРОНУ
Catalog: История 
6 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
CREATORS OF THE KUSKOVSKY ENSEMBLE
8 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
ВСЕ-ТАКИ ОНА ВЕРТИТСЯ. ВЗОЙТИ НА КОСТЕР ИЛИ ОТРЕЧЬСЯ У КОСТРА?
Catalog: Разное 
10 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
FEUDAL REBELLION OF 1480
Catalog: История 
10 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
ON THE METHOD OF COMPILING CHRONICLES AND STATISTICS OF THE WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA DURING THE PERIOD OF CAPITALISM (1861-February 1917)
11 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
THE FATE OF THE FIRST PRINTER'S PUBLICATIONS
11 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

BIBLIOTEKA.BY - Belarusian digital library, repository, and archive

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

"THE WORD ABOUT IGOR'S REGIMENT" AND INTER-PRINCELY RELATIONS OF THE 60S OF THE XI CENTURY
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: BY LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Biblioteka.by - Belarusian digital library, repository, and archive ® All rights reserved.
2006-2025, BIBLIOTEKA.BY is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Belarus


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android