by Riazanovsky
In the tenth century Bishop Liutprand of Cremona referred to the Rusios in his description of the neighbors of the Byzantine Empire. A controversy
* I am using the standard English translation of the Primary Chronicle by Professor S. Cross (The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text. Cambridge, Mass., 1930), although I am not entirely satisfied with it either in general or in this particular instance.
still continues as to whether Liutprand described his Rusios as Normans or merely as a northern people. Also in the tenth century the Byzantine emperor and scholar Constantine Porphyrogenitus gave the names of seven Dnieper rapids "in Slavic" and "in Russian." The "Russian" names, or at least most of them, can best be explained from Scandinavian languages. This evidence of "the language of the Rus" is rather baffling: there is no other mention of any Scandinavian tongue of the Rus; on the contrary, the Chronicle itself states that the Slavic and the Russian languages are one. The supporters of the Norman theory were quick to point to the Scandinavian names of the first Russian princes and of many of their followers listed in the treaties between Kievan Russia and Byzantium. Their opponents challenged their derivation of some of the names and stressed the fact that the treaties were written in Greek and in Slavic and that the Rus swore by Slavic gods.
Certain Arabic authors also mention and sometimes discuss and describe the Rus, but their statements have also been variously interpreted by different scholars. In general the Rus of the Arabic writers are a numerous people rather than a viking detachment, "a tribe of the Slavs" according to Ibn-Khurdadhbih. The Rus had many towns, and its ruler bore the title of khakan. True, the Rus are often contrasted with the Slavs. The contrast, however, may refer simply to the difference between the Kievan Slavs and other Slavs to the north. Some of the customs of the Rus, described in Arabic sources, seem to be definitely Slavic rather than Norman: such are the posthumous marriage of bachelors and the suicide of wives following the death of their husbands. The Rus known to the Arabs lived most probably somewhere in southern Russia. Although Arabic writers refer primarily to the ninth century, the widespread and well-established relations of the Rus with the East at that time suggest an acquaintance of long standing.
Other evidence, it has been argued, also points to an early existence of the Rus in southern Russia. To mention only some of the disputed issues, the Rus, reportedly, attacked Surozh in the Crimea earlyin the ninth century and Amastris on the southern shore of the Black Sea between A.D. 820 and 842. Vernadsky derives the name of Rus from the Alanic tribe of the Roxo-lans. Other scholars have turned to topographic terms, ranging from the ancient word for Volga, Rha, to Slavic names for different rivers. An ingenious compromise hypothesis postulates both a Scandinavian and a southern derivation of Rus-Ros and the merger of the two.
The proponents of the Norman view have reacted in a number of ways to assertions of the antiquity of the Rus and their intrinsic connection with southern Russia. Sometimes they denied or challenged the evidence. Vasiliev, for instance, refused to recognize the early attacks of the Rus on Surozh and Amastris. The first he classified as apocryphal, the second as referring in fact to the well-known campaign of Igor in a.d. 941. Other
specialists, in order to account for all the events at the dawn of Russian history and to connect them with the Scandinavian north, have postulated more than one separate Scandinavian Rus, bringing, rather arbitrarily, some of them from Denmark and others from Sweden. Their extremely complex and unverified schemes serve little purpose, unless one is to assume that the Rus could be nothing but Scandinavians. For example, Vernadsky in his reconstruction of early Russian history conveyed one group of Normans to the shores of the Black Sea as early as A.D. 740. Vernadsky's reasoning unfortunately is highly speculative and generally not at all convincing. By contrast, recently many scholars have considered the Normans as merely one element in the composition of the Rus linked fundamentally to southern Russia and its inhabitants.
The Primary Chronicle itself, a central source for the Norman theory, has been thoroughly analyzed and criticized by Shakhmatov and other specialists. This criticism threw new light on the obvious inadequacies of its narrative and revealed further failings in it. The suspiciously peaceful establishment of Riurik and his brothers in northern Russia was related to similar Anglo-Saxon and other stories, in particular to a passage in Widukind's Res gestae saxonicae, to indicate, in the opinion of some scholars, the mythical character of the entire "invitation of the Varangians." Oleg's capture of Kiev in the name of Riurik's son Igor in A.D. 882, the starting point of Kievan history according to the Chronicle, also raised many issues. In particular it was noted that, due to considerations of age, Igor could hardly have been Riurik's son, and that no Kievan sources anterior to the Primary Chronicle, that is, until the early twelfth century, knew of Riurik, tracing instead the ancestry of Kievan princes only to Igor. Moreover, the Chronicle as a whole is no longer regarded as a naive factual narrative, but rather as a work written from a distinct point of view and possibly for definite dynastic purposes, such as providing desirable personal or territorial connections for the Kievan ruling family. On the other hand, the proponents of the Norman theory argue plausibly that the Chronicle remains our best source concerning the origin of the Russian state, and that its story, although incorrect in many details, does on the whole faithfully reflect real events.
To sum up, the Norman theory can no longer be held in anything like its original scope. Most significantly, there is no reason to assert a fundamental Scandinavian influence on Kievan culture. But the supporters of the theory stand on a much firmer ground when they rely on archaeological, philological, and other evidence to substantiate the presence of the Normans in Russia in the ninth century. In particular the names of the first princes, to and excluding Sviatoslav, as well as the names of many of their followers in the treaties with Byzantium, make the majority of scholars today consider the first Russian dynasty and its immediate retinue as Scandinavian. Yet, even if we accept this
view, it remains dangerous to postulate grand Norman designs for eastern Europe, or to interpret the role of the vikings on the Russian plain by analogy with their much better known activities in Normandy or in Sicily. A historian can go beyond his evidence only at his own peril.
In any case, whether through internal evolution, outside intervention, or some peculiar combination of the two, the Kievan state did arise in the Dnieper area toward the end of the ninth century.
I V
KIEVAN RUSSIA: A POLITICAL OUTLINE
In that city, in the city of Kiev…
THE FIRST LINE OF AN EPIC POEM
KIEVAN political history can be conveniently divided into three periods. The first starts with Oleg's semi-legendary occupation of the city on the Dnieper in 882 and continues until 972 or 980. During that initial century of Kievan history, Kievan princes brought the different East Slavic tribes under their sway, exploiting successfully the position of Kiev on the famous road "from the Varangians to the Greeks" - that is, from the Scandinavian, Baltic, and Russian north of Europe to Constantinople - as well as other connections with the inhabitants both of the forest and the steppe, and building up their domain into a major European state. At the end of the century Prince Sviatoslav even engaged in a series of far-reaching campaigns and conquests, defeated a variety of enemies, and threatened the status quo in the Balkans and the Byzantine Empire itself.
The failure of Sviatoslav's more ambitious plans as well as a gradual consolidation of the Kievan state in European Russia marks the transition to the next period of Kievan history, when Kievan Russia attained in most respects its greatest development, prosperity, stability, and success. This second period was occupied almost entirely by the reigns of two remarkable princes, Saint Vladimir and Iaroslav the Wise, and it ended with the death of the latter in 1054. While the Kievan rulers from Oleg through Sviatoslav established Kievan Russia as an important state, it was early in the time of Vladimir that a new element of enormous significan
ce entered the life and culture of Kiev: Christianity. The new Christian civilization of Kievan Russia produced impressive results as early as the first half of the eleventh century, adding literary and artistic attainment to the political power and high economic development characteristic of the age.
The third and last period of Kievan history, that of the decline and fall, is the most difficult one to define chronologically. It may be said to begin with the passing of Iaroslav the Wise in 1054, but there is no consensus about the point at which foreign invasions, civil wars, and the general diminution in the significance of Kiev brought the Kievan era of Russian history to a close. Vladimir Monomakh, who reigned from 1113 to 1125, has often been considered the last effective Kievan ruler, and the same has been said of his son, Mstislav, who reigned from 1125 to 1132. Other
historians indicate as the terminal point, for example, the capture and the sacking of Kiev in 1169 by Prince Andrew Bogoliubskii of Suzdal and his decision to remain in the northeast rather than move to the city on the Dnieper. As the ultimate date of Kievan history, 1240 also has a certain claim: in that year Kiev, already a shadow of its former self in importance, was thoroughly destroyed by the Mongols, who established their dominion over conquered Russia.
The Rise of the Kievan State
Oleg, the first historical ruler of Kiev, remains in most respects an obscure figure. According to the Primary Chronicle he was a Varangian, a relative of Igor, who occupied Kiev in 882 and died in 913. Assisted by his retainers, the druzhina, Oleg spread his rule from the territory of the Poliane to the areas of several neighboring East Slavic tribes. Some record of a subsequent bitter opposition of the Drevliane to this expansion has come down to our time; certain other tribes, it would seem, submitted with less struggle. Tribute became the main mark and form of their allegiance to Kiev. Still other tribes might have acted simply as associates of Oleg and his successor Igor in their various enterprises, without recognizing the supreme authority of Kiev. Toward the end of his life Oleg had gathered a sufficient force to undertake in 907 a successful campaign against Byzantium. Russian chronicles exaggerate Oleg's success and tell, among other things, the story of how he nailed his shield to the gates of Constantinople. Byzantine sources are strangely silent on the subject of Oleg's campaign. Yet some Russian victories seem probable, for in 911 Oleg obtained from Byzantium an extremely advantageous trade treaty.
Oleg's successor, Prince Igor, ruled Kievan Russia from 913 until his death in 945. Our knowledge of him comes from Greek and Latin, in addition to Russian, sources, and he stands out, by contrast with the semi-legendary Oleg, as a fully historical person. Igor had to fight the Drevliane as well as to maintain and spread Kievan authority in other East Slavic lands. That authority remained rather precarious, so that each new prince was forced to repeat in large part the work of his predecessor. In 941 Igor engaged in a major campaign against Constantinople and devastated its suburbs, but his fleet suffered defeat by the Byzantine navy which used the celebrated "Greek fire." * The war was finally terminated by the treaty of 944, the provisions of which were rather less favorable to the Russians than those of the preceding agreement of 911. In 943 the Russians campaigned successfully in the distant transcaspian provinces of
* The Greek fire was an incendiary compound projected through copper pipes by Byzantine sailors to set on fire the ships of their opponents. Its exact composition remains unknown.
Persia. Igor was killed by the Drevliane in 945 while collecting tribute in their land.
Oleg's and Igor's treaties with Byzantium deserve special attention. Their carefully worded and remarkably detailed provisions dealt with the sojourn of the Russians in Constantinople, Russian trade with its inhabitants, and the relations between the two states in general. It may be noted that the Russians in Constantinople were subject to their own courts, but that, on the other hand, they were free to enter Byzantine service.
While their relations with Byzantium increased the prestige and the profits of the Russians, the inhabitants of the steppe continued to threaten the young Kievan state. In addition to the relatively stabilized and civilized Khazars, more primitive peoples pressed westward. At the dawn of Kievan history, the Magyars, a nomadic horde speaking a Finno-Ugrian language and associated for a long time with the Khazar state, moved from the southern Russian steppe to enter, at the end of the ninth century, the Pannonian plain and lay the foundations for Hungary. But they were replaced and indeed in part pushed out of southern Russia by the next wave from the east, rather primitive and ferocious Turkic nomads, the Pechenegs or Patzinaks. The approach of the Pechenegs is mentioned in the Chronicle under the year 915; and they began to carry out constant assaults on the Kievan state in the second half of the tenth century, after the decline of the Khazars.
Igor's sudden death left his widow Olga in charge of the Kievan state, for their son Sviatoslav was still a boy. Olga rose to the occasion, ruling the land from 945 to about 962 and becoming the first famous woman in Russian history as well as a saint of the Orthodox church. The information concerning Olga describes her harsh punishment of the Drevliane and her persistent efforts to strengthen Kievan authority among other East Slavic tribes. It tells also of her conversion to Christianity, possibly in 954 or 955, and her journey to Constantinople in 957. There she was received by the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who left us an account of her visit. But the conversion of Olga did not mean a conversion of her people, nor indeed of her son Sviatoslav.
The ten years of Sviatoslav's rule of Kievan Russia, 962 to 972, which marked the culmination of the first period of Kievan history in the course of which the new state obtained a definite form and role on the east European plain, have been trenchantly called "the great adventure." If successful, the adventure might have given Russian history a new center and a different course. Even with their ultimate failure, Sviatoslav's daring campaigns and designs left their imprint all the way from Constantinople to the Volga and the Caspian Sea. Sviatoslav stands out in history as a classic warrior-prince, simple, severe, indefatigable, brave, sharing with his men uncounted hardships as well as continuous battles. He has been
likened to the cossack hetmans and to the viking captains as well as to leaders in other military traditions, and the cossack, if not the viking, comparison has a point: Sviatoslav's appearance, dress, and manner of life all remind us of the steppe. In the words of the Primary Chronicle: "Upon his expeditions he carried with him neither wagons nor kettles, and boiled no meat, but cut off small strips of horseflesh, game, or beef, and ate it after roasting it on the coals. Nor did he have a tent, but he spread out a piece of saddle cloth under him, and set his saddle under his head."
In 964 Sviatoslav started out on a great eastern campaign. First he subjugated the East Slavic tribe of the Viatichi, who had continued to pay tribute to the Khazars rather than to Kiev. Next he descended to the mouth of the river Oka bringing the surrounding Finnic-speaking tribes under his authority. From the mouth of the Oka he proceeded down the Volga, attacked the Volga Bulgars, and sacked their capital, the Great Bulgar. But instead of developing his campaign against the Bulgars, he resumed in 965 his advance down the Volga toward the Khazar state, subduing Finnic and Turkic tribes on the way. Sviatoslav's war against the Khazars had a sweeping scope and impressive results: the Russians smashed the Khazar army, captured and sacked the Khazar capital, Itil, reached the Caspian and advancing along its western shore seized the key fortress of Samandar. Next, turning west, they defeated the Alans and some other peoples of the northern Caucasus, came to the mouth of the Don and stormed the Khazar fortress of Sarkil, which dominated that area. The Khazars, although their state lasted for another half century, never recovered from these staggering blows. Sviatoslav returned to Kiev in 967. His remarkable eastern campaign, which led to the defeat of the Volga Bulgars and the Khazars, completed the unification of the East Slavs around Kiev, attaching to it both the Viatichi and other groups to the southeast, notably in the Don area. Also, i
t brought under Russian control the entire flow of the Volga, and thus the great Volga-Caspian Sea trade route - a more ancient and perhaps more important north-south communication artery than the Dnieper way itself - whereas formerly the Russians had held only the upper reaches of the Volga. Yet the magnificent victory over the Khazars had its reverse side; it weakened decisively their effectiveness as a buffer against other Asiatic peoples, in particular the Pechenegs.
In 968 Sviatoslav became involved in another major undertaking. On the invitation of the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus Phocas, he led a large army into the Balkans to attack the Bulgarian state in the Danubian valley. Once more the Russians achieved notable military successes, capturing the capital of the Bulgarians and taking prisoner their ruler Boris, although they had to interrupt the campaign to defeat the Pechenegs, who in 969 in the
absence of Sviatoslav and his troops had besieged Kiev. Sviatoslav, who thus came to control the territory from the Volga to the Danubian plain, apparently liked the Balkan lands especially well. According to the Chronicle, he declared: "I do not care to remain in Kiev, but should prefer to live in Pereiaslavets on the Danube, since that is the center of my realm, where all riches are concentrated: gold, silks, wine, and various fruits from Greece, silver and horses from Hungary and Bohemia, and from Russia furs, wax, honey, and slaves." One can only speculate on the possible implications of such a change of capital for Russian history.