A history of Russia

by Riazanovsky

  This masterpiece is imbued with a suave and mystical spirituality. The composition is simple and harmonious; following its own rhythm, free from any emphasis or heaviness, it obeys a movement clearly discernible and yet hardly noticeable. The impression of harmony, peace, light and integrity which this icon produces, is a revelation of the spirit of St. Sergius.

  Dionysus, who was active in the first decade of the sixteenth century, stood out as the greatest continuer of the traditions of Rublev and the Muscovite school. Contemporaries mentioned his name immediately after Rublev's, and his few remaining creations support this high esteem. The icons of Dionysus are distinguished by a marvelous grace, especially in the delineation of figures, and by a certain perfection and polish. For subjects he often chose the Virgin Mary, the protectress of the city of Moscow, and the Holy Family. It should be noted that the works of Rublev and Dionysus set the high standard of icon paintings not only in Russia, but also generally in the Orthodox East.

  In addition to the icons, some very valuable frescoes have come down to us from the appanage period. Located in old churches, they include works possibly of Rublev and certainly of Dionysus and his followers. The art of the miniature also continued to develop, achieving a high degree of excellence in the fifteenth century. The so-called Khitrovo Gospels of the beginning of the fifteenth century and some other manuscripts contained excellent illustrations and illumination. By contrast with all these forms of painting, sculpture was stifled because the Orthodox Church continued its ban on statuary, although, contrary to a popular misconception,

  even large-scale sculpture was not unknown in ancient Russia. Miniature sculpture, which was permitted, developed in a remarkable manner. Cutting figures one inch and less in height, Russian artists managed to represent saints, scenes from the Gospels, and even trees, hills, and buildings as background. The most famous practitioner of this difficult art was the monk Ambrosius, whose work is linked to the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery. In spite of general poverty, certain artistic crafts, especially embroidery, also developed brilliantly in the appanage period.

  Education

  In the appanage period, education was in eclipse. As already indicated, the Mongol devastation and the relative isolation and poverty characteristic of the age led to a diminution in culture and learning. The decline of Russian towns played an especially significant role in this process, because Kievan culture had been essentially urban. Studying documents of the appanage period, we find mention of illiterate princes, and we note repeated complaints on the part of the higher clergy of the ignorance of priests. The masses of people, of course, received no education at all, although a certain slight qualification of that statement might be in order on the basis of the already-mentioned Novgorodian birchbark documents. Yet some learning and skills did remain to support the cultural development outlined in this chapter. They were preserved and promoted largely by the monasteries - as happened earlier and under comparable conditions in the West - not only by the great Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery north of Moscow, but also by such distant ones as that of St. Cyril on the White Lake or the Solovetskii on the White Sea. The first century after the Mongol invasion seems to have been the nadir. With the rise of Moscow, education and learning in Russia likewise began a painful ascent.

  XIV

  THE LITHUANIAN-RUSSIAN STATE

  And one more trait distinguishing the grand princedom of Lithuania from its origin revealed itself. This state from the very beginning was not simply Lithuanian, but Lithuanian-Russian.

  LIUBAVSKY

  Lithuania's expansion, almost unique in its rapid success, thus proved beyond the real forces of the Lithuanians alone and of a dynasty which in spite of the unusual qualities of many of its members was too divided by the petty rivalries of its various branches to guarantee a joint action under one chief… The comparatively small group of ethnic Lithuanians would have been the main victim, but the whole of East Central Europe would have suffered from a chaotic situation amidst German, Muscovite, and possibly Tartar interference… A union of Poland with Lithuania and her Ruthenian lands, added to those already connected with Poland, could indeed create a new great power, comprising a large and crucial section of East Central Europe and strong enough to check both German and Muscovite advance. The amazing success of a plan which would seem almost fantastic was a turning point in the history not only of that region but also of Europe.

  HALECKI

  Whereas by the reign of Basil III the Muscovite rulers had managed to bring a large part of the former territory of the Kievan state under their authority, another large part of the Kievan inheritance remained in the possession of the grand princes of Lithuania. In effect, the history of the western Russian lands was linked for centuries to the social systems and fortunes of Lithuania and Poland.

  The Evolution of the Lithuanian State

  The Lithuanians, whose language belongs to the Baltic subfamily of the Indo-European family, appeared late on the historical scene, although for a very long time they had inhabited the forests of the Baltic region. It was apparently the pressure of the Teutonic Knights - the same who attacked Novgorod - that finally forced a number of Lithuanian tribes into a semblance of unity under the leadership of Mindovg, or Mindaugas, whose rule is dated approximately 1240-63. Mindovg accepted Christianity and received a crown from Pope Innocent IV only to sever his Western connections and relapse into paganism. A period of internal strife and

  rapidly changing rulers followed his assassination. However, toward the end of the thirteenth century Viten, or Vytenis, managed to unite the Lithuanians again. He ruled as grand prince from 1295 to 1316, acted energetically at home and in foreign relations, and perished fighting the Teutonic Knights.

  Viten's brother Gedymin (Gediminas), who reigned from 1316 to 1341, has been called the true founder of the Lithuanian state. He completed the unification of the Lithuanian tribes and strove hard to organize his possessions into a viable political unit. What is more, he extended his dominion

  to the southeast. Some Russian territories, notably in the Polotsk area, had already become parts of the Lithuanian principality under Mindovg; with Gedymin, that principality began a massive expansion into Russia. Vilna-Vilnius in Lithuanian - became the capital of the growing state.

  Gedymin's famous son Olgerd, or Algirdas, who died in 1377, carried the work of his father much further. Assisted by his valiant brother Keistut, or Kestutis, who undertook the heavy task of blocking the formidable Teutonic Order in the west, Olgerd expanded eastward with a stunning rapidity. The Russian lands which he brought under his authority included, among others, those of Volynia, Kiev, and Chernigov, and a large part of Smolensk. In the process, he defeated the Polish effort to win Volynia and fought successfully against the Mongols. Lithuanian sway spread from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Indeed, Olgerd wanted to rule all of Russia. Three times he campaigned against the Muscovite state, and twice he besieged Moscow itself, although he failed to capture it or to force the issue otherwise.

  The sweeping Lithuanian expansion into Russia has more explanations than one. Obviously, internal division and foreign invasions had made the Russian power of resistance extremely low. But it should also be noted that the attacks of the Lithuanians could not be compared in destruction and brutality to the invasions of the Mongols or the Teutonic Knights, and that their domination, in a sense, did not represent foreign rule for the Russians. Indeed, many historians speak, on good evidence, of a Lithuanian-Russian state. Population statistics help to illustrate the situation: it has been estimated that, after the expansion of the Lithuanian state virtually to the Black Sea, two-thirds or even three-fourths and more of its people were Russians. Also, very little social displacement took place: the towns retained their Russian character; the Russian boyars and the Orthodox Church kept their high positions and extensive privileges; Russian princes continued to rule in different appanages next to Lithuanian princes, all subject to the Lithuanian grand prince; and inte
rmarriage between the two aristocracies was quite common. Perhaps as important as the superior numbers of the Russian element was the fact that the Lithuanians, on their part, had little to offer and much to learn. Coming from a still pagan and relatively isolated and culturally backward area, the ruling circles of Lithuania eagerly accepted the culture of Kievan Russia. The Lithuanian army, administration, legal system, and finance were organized on the Russian pattern, and Russian became the official language of the new state. As Platonov insisted in the case of Grand Prince Olgerd of Lithuania: "In relation to different nationalities, it can be said that Olgerd's entire sympathy and attention concentrated on the Russian nationality. By his opinions, habits, and family connections, Olgerd belonged to the Russian nationality and served as its representative in Lithuania." Not surprisingly, then, the

  Lithuanian state could well be considered as another variation on the Kievan theme and an heir to Kiev, rather than a foreign body imposed upon Russia. And this made its rivalry with Moscow, the other successful heir, all the more fundamental and significant.

  However, shortly after Olgerd's death a new major element entered the situation: a link between Lithuania and Poland. In 1386, following the dynastic agreement of Krewo of 1385, Olgerd's son and successor Jagiello, or Jogaila - who reigned from 1377 to 1434 - married Queen Jadwiga of Poland. Because the Polish Piast ruling family had no male members left, Jagiello became the legitimate sovereign of both states, with the Polish name of Wladyslaw II. The states remained distinct, and the union personal. In fact, in 1392 Jagiello had to recognize his cousin, Keistut's son Vitovt, or Vytautas, as a separate, although vassal, grand prince of Lithuania, an arrangement extended in 1413 to subsequent rulers of the two states. Yet both positions came to be occupied by the same man again when, in 1447, Casimir IV ascended the Polish throne without relinquishing his position as grand prince of Lithuania. Whether with the same or different rulers, Poland exercised a major and increasing influence on Lithuania after 1385.

  The late fourteenth and early fifteenth century was a remarkable period in the history of the Lithuanian state. Within the decade from 1387 to 1396, Moldavia, Wallachia, and Bessarabia accepted Lithuanian suzerainty. Vitovt's rule, which lasted from 1392 to 1430, witnessed the greatest extension of the Lithuanian domain, with still more alluring possibilities in sight, as Lithuania continued to challenge Moscow for supremacy on the great Russian plain. In addition, in 1410 Vitovt personally led his army in the crucial battle of Tannenberg, or Grunwald, where the joint forces of Poland and Lithuania crushed the Teutonic Knights, thus finally eliminating this deadly threat to both Slav and Lithuanian. The Lithuanian prince's great defeat came in 1399, when his major campaign against the Mongols met disaster at their hands. Some historians believe that had Vitovt won rather than lost on the banks of the Vorskla, he could then have asserted his will successfully against both Moscow and Poland and given a different direction to eastern European history.

  Jagiello's marriage, in the last analysis, proved more important for Lithuania than Vitovt's wars. It marked the beginning of a Polonization of the country. Significantly, in order to marry Jadwiga, Jagiello forsook Orthodoxy for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, he had his pagan Lithuanians converted to Catholicism. The clergy, naturally, came to Lithuania from Poland, and the Church became a great stronghold of Polish influence. It has been noted, for instance, that three of the first four bishops of Vilnius were definitely Poles, and that the Poles constituted the majority in the Vilnius chapter even at the end of the fifteenth century. Education followed

  religion: the first schools were either cathedral or monastic schools, and their teachers were mainly members of the clergy. To obtain higher education, unavailable at home, the Lithuanians went to the great Polish university at Cracow, which provided the much- needed training for the Lithuanian elite. Russian historians, who stress the cultural impact of the Russians on the Lithuanians, often fail to appreciate the powerful attraction of the glorious Polish culture of the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Naturally the Lithuanians were dazzled by what Poland had to offer. Naturally too Polish specialists, ranging from architects and artists to diplomats, appeared in Lithuania. Even Polish colonists came. But, to return to the Church, its influence extended, of course, beyond religion proper, education, and culture, to society, economics, and politics. Church estates grew, and they remained exempt from general taxation. The bishops sat in the council of the grand prince, while many clerics, highly esteemed for their education, engaged in the conduct of state business.

  Polonization was the most extensive at the court and among the upper classes. Poland, with its sweeping privileges and freedom for the gentry, proved to be extremely attractive to Lithuanian landlords. Indeed, many western Russian landlords as well were Polonized, to complicate further the involved ethnic and cultural pattern of the area and contribute another element for future conflicts. Polish language and Polish customs and attitudes, stressing the independence and honor of the gentry, came gradually to dominate Lithuanian life. For example, in 1413 forty-seven Polish noble families established special relations with the same number of Lithuanian aristocratic families, each Polish family offering its coat of arms to its Lithuanian counterpart. It should also be emphasized that between 1386, that is, the marriage of Jagiello and Jadwiga and the beginning of a close relationship between Lithuania and Poland, and 1569, the year of the Union of Lublin, the Lithuanian upper classes underwent a considerable change: in general their evolution favored the development of a numerous gentry, similar to the Polish szlachta, while the relative importance of the great landed magnates declined.

  The Union of Lublin

  Over a period of time, the principality of Lithuania came into the Polish cultural and political sphere and thus ceased to be a successor state to Kiev. The Union of Lublin, which bound Poland and Lithuania firmly together, represented, one can argue, a logical culmination of the historical evolution of the Lithuanian princedom. Still, its accomplishment required a major and persistent effort on the part of the Poles. In fact, in spite of

  Polish pressure and a sympathetic attitude toward Poland on the part of their own petty gentry, the Lithuanian magnates managed to block an effective union even as late as the Lublin meeting itself in 1569. Only when Sigismund II, or Sigismund Augustus, of Poland proceeded to seize large Russian territories from Lithuania and incorporate them into his own kingdom, did the Lithuanians accept Polish proposals. The Union of Lublin provided for a merger of the two states: they were to have a common sovereign and a common diet, although they retained separate laws, administrations, treasuries, and even armies. Notwithstanding an explicit recognition of equality between Lithuania and Poland and a grant of vast autonomy to the Lithuanians, the new arrangement meant a decisive Polish victory. To begin with, Poland kept the Russian lands that it had just annexed from Lithuania and that constituted the entire southern section of the principality and over a third of its total territory, including some of the richest areas. Because each county sent two representatives to the common diet and because there were many more counties in Poland than in Lithuania, the Poles outnumbered the Lithuanians in the diet by a ratio of three to one. Perhaps still more important, under conditions of union Polish influences of almost every sort were bound to spread further in Lithuania, assuring for Poland the position of the senior partner in the new commonwealth.

  Constituting as it does a crucial event in the histories of several peoples, the Union of Lublin has received sharply divergent evaluations and interpretations. Polish historians in general consider it very favorably, emphasizing the diffusion of high Polish culture as well as the political and other successes resulting from the Polish-Lithuanian association. Further, they stress that the large new political entity in eastern Europe resulted from agreement, not conquest, and occasionally they even suggest it as a model for the future. Lithuanian historians, by contrast, complain that their country did not receive a fair break from Poland, which used every means
to dominate its neighbor. The Russians show special concern with the fate of the Russian population: Poland's seizure of the Kiev, Volynia, and other southern areas of the Lithuanian principality in 1569 meant that their Orthodox Russian people found themselves no longer in a state which continued their traditions and to which they had become accustomed, but under foreign rule, Polish and Catholic. Besides, whatever the Polish system promised to the gentry, it had nothing but oppression for the peasants. This note of tragedy is prominent in nationalist Ukrainian historiography. For the Ukrainians, the transfer of the bulk of their land to Polish rule - the Poles had obtained Galicia earlier - marked the beginning of a new chapter in the trials and tribulations of the Ukrainian people and also set the stage for a heroic struggle for independence. In any case, for good

  or evil, the Union of Lublin terminated the independent history of the Lithuanian principality.

  The Lithuanian State and Russian History

  From the standpoint of Russian history, the Lithuanian, or Lithuanian-Russian, princedom presents particular interest as the great, unsuccessful rival of Moscow for the unification of the country. Liubavsky and other specialists have provided thoughtful explanations of why Vilna lost where Moscow won. A fundamental cause, in their opinion, was the contrast in the evolutions of central authority in the two states. Whereas princely absolutism developed in Moscow, the position of the Lithuanian rulers became progressively weaker rather than stronger. Limited by the interests of powerful boyars and largely self-governing towns, the grand princes of Lithuania turned into elected, constitutional monarchs who granted ever-increasing rights and privileges to their subjects: first they came to depend on the sanction of their aristocratic council; after the statutes of 1529 and 1566 they also needed the approval of the entire gentry gathered in a diet. Thus, as the Muscovite autocracy reached an unprecedented high in the reign of Ivan the Terrible, the authority of the Lithuanian grand princes sank to a new low. Whereas the Muscovite rulers strove, successfully on the whole, to build up a great central administration and to control the life of the country, those of Lithuania increasingly relied on, or resigned themselves to, the administration of local officials and the landlord class in general. In the showdown, the Muscovite system proved to be the stronger.