ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF THE CONCEPTS “Rus'” AND “RUSSIAN LAND” IN THE CHRONICLES OF THE XII-XIII CENTURIES.

Russian historians have more than once drawn attention to the ambiguous understanding by chroniclers of the 12th-13th centuries of the meaning of the concepts “Rus” and “Russian land”: in addition to the fact that the entire East Slavic state was then called Rus and the Russian land, there was also a narrower use of these horonyms - for defining a relatively small area around Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereslavl (1).

Of the post-war historians, A.N. paid great attention to the study of this issue. Nasonov and B.A. Rybakov (2). Both authors ultimately came to a similar conclusion that the historical situation of the 12th-13th centuries did not provide any reason for the unification of Chernigov, Pereslavl and Kiev into some kind of common whole with its own name, since Kiev, Chernigov, The Pereslavl and Seversky principalities are politically independent and often hostile state entities. Consequently, this unity must have existed in an earlier era. “Obviously,” writes B.A. Rybakov, - for the XI-XIII centuries. the unity of southern Rus' was only a historical memory that did not find a correspondence in the political and cultural situation of that time. Consequently, to determine the time and conditions for the formation of the unity of southern Rus', we need to step over the boundary of chronicle and archaeological data of the X-XII centuries. and go back several centuries” (3).

Hypothesis B.A. Rybakova is well known. Its essence is that in the V-VI centuries. in the Middle Dnieper region there was a powerful Slavic union called Rus', which united the chronicle glades and northerners. Later, by the 10th century, he extended his power to the entire eastern branch of the Slavs, but memories of the early borders of this union survived until the 12th-13th centuries. Thus, according to B.A. Rybakov, speaking about “Rus” and “Russian land” in the narrow sense, the chroniclers meant the territory occupied by this union seven hundred years ago. A.N. Nasonov was more cautious in his assumptions. Although he also did not doubt the existence of the Rus union, he attributed its emergence to the 9th century. and connected with those tribes that paid tribute to the Khazars.

These provisions have generally been accepted, although they cannot be said to have been accepted unconditionally. At one time D.S. Likhachev, polemicizing with Tikhomirov’s conclusions, drew attention to the fact that in the “Tale of Bygone Years” (a monument of the early 12th century) we do not find the use of the horonyms “Rus” and “Russian Land” in the narrow sense. Meanwhile, if we assume that these horonyms had a very long origin, appeared much earlier than the Old Russian state itself and were in use right up to the Mongol invasion, it is natural to expect their widest use in the work of the chronicler of the early 12th century. However, we do not see anything like this. Even describing contemporary events of the 90s. XI century the chronicler always speaks of Rus' only in a broad sense. There is also no mention of “Rus” and “Russian land” in the narrow sense in Vladimir Monomakh, although he included in his “Teaching” a listing of all his numerous trips. These geographical concepts entered the circulation of southern chroniclers already in the post-Nestorian era, from about the 30s. XII century If this circumstance in itself cannot yet serve as a compelling argument to refute the concept of the early origin of the horonyms “Rus” and “Russian Land”, it still needs some kind of explanation, which we do not find in B.A. Rybakov, nor A.N. Nasonova.

There are other controversial points in their theory. Thus, if we collect all the chroniclers’ evidence about “Rus” and the “Russian land” in the narrow sense, then they are not without difficulty superimposed on the area that, according to historical and archaeological data, was occupied in ancient times by the glades and northerners. Rybakov had, for example, to discard the absolutely clear evidence from the chronicle that the South Buzh cities of Buzhevsk and Mezhibozhye, as well as the cities of Pogorynya, belonged to the “Russian Land”. On the contrary, trying to include more northern cities in the concept of “Rus”, he was forced to operate with rather ambiguous messages. Starodub at B.A. Rybakov “Russian city” only because a trusted person “from Rus'” tells Svyatoslav about affairs in Chernigov and Strodub (4). The attribution of Novgorod Seversky to “Rus” is no less controversial. The family ended up in the “Russian Land” only because it was said about the owner of Kursk, Prince Vsevolod Olgovich, that he owned “the entire Russian land” (5). Not explained in the concept of B.A. What remains of Rybakov is the too-frequent contrasting of Kyiv by the chroniclers with Chernigov and Pereslavl, its isolation into some even more limited area - “Russian land in the narrowest sense.”

Finally, the theory being analyzed rests entirely on the tacit recognition that the concepts of “Rus” and “Russian land” are completely identical for the chronicler. We did not find any evidence in favor of this (note, a very serious statement) from anyone who previously touched on this issue and tried to somehow define the boundaries of “Rus” and “Russian land” in the narrow sense of the word. And this despite the fact that, according to the observations of linguists, these concepts did not coincide for quite a long time. Let us refer, for example, to the opinion of V.V. Kolesov, who presented in his book (6) many subtle observations on the meanings of ancient Russian words. He writes: “Back at the beginning of the 15th century. the concepts of “Rus” and “Russian land” were completely clearly separated” (7). V.V. Kolesov came to this conclusion based on studying the artistic works of Ancient Rus'. However, the same can be said about their use by chroniclers. Due to the arbitrary confusion of “Rus” and “Russian land”, it is obvious that all the ambiguities in determining their actual borders have arisen. Therefore, let us once again try to analyze the chronicle evidence about these toponyms, strictly separating them from each other (8).

So, what is “Russian land” in the minds of the chroniclers of the 12th-13th centuries? In the southwest it included the upper reaches of the Southern Bug. The cities of Rostislav Yuryevich Bozhevsk and Mezhibozhye were located here. In 1148, Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich gave the order to Rostislav: “go to Bozhsky, stay there... guard the Russian land from here...” (9) Further, the border went along the upper reaches of the Goryn, since Vladimir Galitsky in 1152 promised to return to Izyaslav “all the Russian land volosts": Shumsk, Tihoml, Vygashev, Gnoynitsa. Higher up, the border deviated east from Goryn, since Dorogobuzh was never called a Russian city by chroniclers. It did not even reach Pripyat in the north, since Turov is nowhere mentioned as part of the “Russian Land”.

Of great importance for determining the northern border of the territory we delineate is the question of Ovruch’s relationship to it. Usually the Drevlyansky land is unconditionally excluded from the “Russian Land”, primarily on the basis of the evidence of the Ipatiev Chronicle under 1193, which says so. that the movement from Ovruch to the south is a movement “to Rus'”. However, in relation to the “Russian Land” this place is far from so clear. Under the same year you can find another interesting message. Rurik Rostislavich, who owned Ovruch, negotiates with the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich on how to spend the winter. He offers him a campaign against the Polovtsians, but Svyatoslav refuses. Then Rurik sends to tell Svyatoslav that he is going to take care of his own affairs this winter, that is, the affairs of his main fatherland - Smolensk, and therefore will go on a campaign to Lithuania. Svyatoslav did not like this idea very much, and he replied: “brother and matchmaker, you are already going from your homeland to your own place (on your own affairs), but for the sake of the Dnieper you have done your work, and who will remain in the land of Rousse?” And with those speeches, the chronicler continues, “Izate Rurik’s spirit” (10). As follows from what follows, Rurik listened to Svyatoslav and remained in Ovruch, for it was there that his son Rostislav found him after the raid on the Polovtsians. So, we see that leaving Ovruch to the north was considered leaving the “Russian Land”. We can therefore assume that he was located somewhere on its northern border.

But it is even more important to determine the eastern border of the “Russian Land”, because it is precisely in relation to it that the most common misconceptions exist. Everyone who touched upon this issue clearly includes Chernigov and Pereslavl as part of the “Russian Land”. Meanwhile, there is no reason for this, and we have numerous evidence that the eastern border of this territory ran along the Dnieper. In the Ipatiev Chronicle there is a mention that the Kiev side of the Dnieper was called “Russian” (11). There is a story in the Laurentian Chronicle that confirms this news. Under 1169, it is reported that many Cumans came from the steppe with a proposal to conclude a peace treaty with them. Some of them stood near Pereslavl near Pesochny, the other approached Kyiv and stood near Korsun. The Kiev prince Gleb first went to the “Pereyaslavl Polovtsians”, and “sent an ambassador to the other Polovtsians to the Russians” (12). That is, both Chernigov and Pereslavl were not on the Russian side of the Dnieper, not in the “Russian Land”. In the chronicle passage from 1193 that we discussed above, Prince Svyatoslav says that after Rostislav left his homeland, and he himself left Kiev “beyond the Dnieper,” there would be no one left in the “Russian land” - clear evidence that the Dnieper was its eastern border.

Having excluded Chernigov and Pereslavl from the composition of the “Russian Land,” we can very well explain all those places in the chronicle that speak of “the entire Russian Land.” Usually, when analyzing the complex of evidence about “Rus” and the “Russian land”, this formula is ignored, although it is used by chroniclers more than once. And indeed, for those who include the Chernigov region and Pereslavl region in the “entire Russian land”, its use is meaningless. So in 1150, Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich occupied Kyiv. Vladimirko Galitsky says that he “has now entered the entire Russian land” (13). Meanwhile, Izyaslav does not own either Pereslavl (where the son of his opponent Yuri Dolgoruky Rostislav was imprisoned) or Chernigov. It is clear that Vladimirko did not consider them “Russian land”. In 1174, Andrei Bogolyubsky organized a grandiose campaign against Kyiv. It is known that almost all the princes of that time took part in it, including Chernigov and Pereslavl. However, the chronicler reports that “the Kiyans, having copulated with the Berendeichs and the pigs and the entire Russian land, the regiments marched from Kiev to Vyshegorod” (14), intending to fight with St. Andrew’s army for their beloved Mstislav Rostislavich. In 1180, Rurik Rostislavich ceded the eldership and Kyiv to Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich of Chernigov, “and took all the Russian land for himself” (15). Chernigov obviously cannot be classified as “Russian Land” in this context.

We must also pay great attention to those chronicle evidence where “the entire Russian land” rejoices at the accession of some prince to the Kiev throne or is saddened by his death. It is unlikely that we will find at least one such case in which the residents of the Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereslavl volosts had common joy and sadness. For example, when, after the death of Izyaslav of Kyiv, “the whole Russian land and all the rabble of the klobutsi cried for him” (16), it is very doubtful that the Seversk land, two years earlier brutally devastated by Izyaslav, joined this cry. In 1155, when Yuri Dolgoruky sat on the Kiev table, “the whole Russian land celebrated him with joy” (17). But this joy was hardly shared by the Chernigov Olgovichi, from whom the great reign had once again passed away. We have the same doubts about 1194, when Rurik Rostislavich sat on the Kiev table. However, the chronicler testifies: “the whole Russian land rejoiced at the reign of Rurik: the Kiyans and the peasants and the trash” (18).

B.A. Rybakov cites two testimonies from southern chroniclers, when, in his opinion, “the entire Russian land” means, in addition to Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereslavl lands. This refers, first of all, to the events of 1139. Then Vsevolod Olgovich Chernigovsky, who had just taken the Kiev throne, tried to expel Andrei Vladimirovich Pereslavsky to Kursk. To confirm his assumption, B.A. Rybakov cites Andrei’s answer to this demand: “Ozheti, brother, the whole Russian land is not full…” (19) and on the basis of these words refers Pereslavl to the “Russian land”. However, we note that there is an obvious misunderstanding here and the example rather speaks against the point of view of B.A. Rybakova, than in her favor. For Andrei’s full answer sounds like this: “Ozhet, brother, you don’t have enough of the whole Russian land, but you want this volost (i.e. Pereslavl - approx. K.R.), but kill me, the same volost is for you, but I’m alive I’m not going to my own parish” (20). It is quite obvious that Andrei reproaches Vsevolod for excessive greed, since he already has “the whole Russian land”, and wants (besides it) Pereslavl. Likewise, B.A.’s reference is not convincing. Rybakov on the events of 1180, when Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich of Kiev, planning to expel the Rostislavichs from Belgorod and Vyshgorod, dreams: “and I will accept one Russian power” (21). We are talking here only about the Kyiv region, since the question is not even about Vladimir Glebovich Pereslavsky.

In addition to the southern chronicles of B.A. Rybakov also refers to one piece of evidence from the northern chronicle. Under 1145, the Novgorod chronicler reports: “the entire Russian land marched to Galicia...” (22). From other sources we know that the Kiev, Chernigov and Pereslavl princes took part in the campaign, which, according to B.A. Rybakov, should indicate that their cities belong to the “Russian land”. But, firstly, it is hardly possible to draw such comprehensive conclusions from this short note, and, secondly, it is impossible not to notice that the authors of the First Novgorod Chronicle generally operate with the concept of “Russian land” not at all in the sense that it had in the south. In addition to the above B.A. Rybakov’s example, the Novgorod chronicler uses this concept only once when describing the events of 1169. Talking about the campaign against Novgorod by the large army of Andrei Bogolyubsky, he says: “that summer for the winter, the people who came to Novgorod came to judge with Andreevets, Roman and Mstislav with Smolny and from Toropoltsy, Muromtsi and Ryazan from two princes, from Polotsk and the prince from Polotsk, and the whole land is simply Russian” (23). Meanwhile, the southern princes did not take part in the campaign at all. “The whole Russian land” here, as in the example of B.A. Rybakov, most likely just a figurative phrase, indicating the large number of enemies.

Our point of view is also confirmed by the fact that we have numerous evidence of the belonging of the cities on the right bank to the “Russian land”, but we do not have a single such indication of the cities on the left bank. So in 1174, Andrei Bogolyubsky, angry at the Rostislavichs, punishes his ambassador: “and Davydov’s people: go to Berlad, but I don’t order you to be in the Russian land; and Mstislav said: “Everything is worth everything in you, but I don’t order you to be in the Russian land” (24). Davyd’s fatherland was then Vyshgorod, and Mstislav’s fatherland was Belgorod, which, thus, we attribute to the “Russian land”. About Vasilyev and Kiev Novgorod, we have evidence from the late Novgorod Third Chronicle, which retrospectively illuminated the past: “Under this bishop, the Monk Theodosius of Kiev was a priest, originally from the city of Vasilyev, near the small Novagrad in the land of Rustei” (25).

Kyiv itself repeatedly refers to the “Russian land”. In addition to the examples given above, we point out two more. In 1146, Svyatoslav from Novgorod Seversky “sent to Yurgevi at Suzhdal: “...and go to the Russian land of Kyiv” (26). In 1189, during a campaign against Galich, Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and Rurik argued about the volosts. Svyatoslav gave Galich to Rurik, but for himself he wanted “all the Russian land near Kyiv” (27).

The involvement of the main right-bank cities up to the mouth of the Ros and Porosye itself in the “Russian Land” has also been repeatedly confirmed. For example, in 1195 Vsevolod demanded his share in the “Russian land” - Torchesk, Tripolya, Korsun, Boguslav and Kanev (28). Obviously, the border of the “Russian Land” reached Kanev and then went from Ros to the west along the Polovtsian steppes to the Southern Bug.

Summarize. It is easy to see that the territory we have outlined literally coincides with the borders of the Principality of Kyiv, as it appears in the book by A.N. Nasonova (29). That is, we have every reason to identify the “Russian Land” in the narrow sense with the Kyiv volost within the borders of the 12th-13th centuries. This is the territory that came under the rule of the Grand Duke after his approval on the Kiev table, his domain. Our conclusion completely eliminates all the contradictions and inconsistencies that took place in the constructions of our opponents. Why is there no mention of the “Russian Land” in The Tale of Bygone Years? Because this very concept entered into political and literary use only in the second quarter of the 12th century, in the era of fragmentation. Why does the “Russian Land” only partially coincide with the territories of the Polyan and Severyansky union? Because it is a product not of a tribe, but of another, much later, state era and has nothing in common with the early Slavic unions. Why are Kyiv and the “Russian Land” repeatedly contrasted with Chernigov and Pereslavl? Because neither Chernigov nor Pereslavl were ever part of the “Russian Land”, but were special political units, often hostile to it. Why was the idea of ​​contemporaries about the “Russian land” so vivid and concrete? (Which, we note in parentheses, could hardly be expected from an area whose unity is based solely on historical legends). Because this territory was the object of endless princely disputes and strife in XII-XIII. It is clear that contemporaries had to very clearly understand the boundaries of the area around which the entire history of that time revolved.

Now let’s move on to analyzing the evidence about the burial name “Rus”. The boundaries of this area are determined relatively easily. First of all, it is indisputable that Kyiv belonged to “Rus”. In 1152, Vladimirko Galitsky, having heard about the speech of his ally Yuri Dolgoruky, set out on a campaign and “on the way to Rus', go to Kiev” (30). In addition to this direct indication, we have several indirect ones, already cited many times by other authors (31). Likewise, there is a lot of evidence that Pereslavl and Chernigov were “in Rus'”. There is also direct news about Pereslavl. So under 1132 we read: “This same summer Vsevolod went to Rus', Pereyaslavl...” (32) Under 1213 it is reported that Yuri Vsevolodovich reconciled with Vladimir and gave him Pereslavl-Russian, and he went from Moscow “to Rus'” (33). There is no such direct news about Chernigov, but its attribution to “Rus” in the context of many chronicle articles is undeniable. Gorodets-on-Vostre was also located in “Rus”, since in 1195 Prince Vsevolod sent his tiun “to Rus” with the order to renew it (34). Ovruch, as already noted, did not belong to “Rus”. In 1193, Prince Svyatoslav wrote to Rurik of Ovruch: “now go to Ruos and guard your land.” Rurik “is going to Ruos” (35). Since his birthplaces near Kyiv were Belgorod and Vyshgorod, and he stayed with Vasiliev all winter, we can conclude that all these cities belonged to “Rus” (as, probably, Vyatichev). This list exhausts the specific messages from our chronicles about the cities lying in “Rus”. The cities of Pogorynya have never been attributed to “Rus”. Therefore, it would be logical to exclude them from its limits. The same can be said about the cities of Porosye, which (oddly enough, if we recall the hypothesis that it was the name of the Ros River that served as the reason for the formation of the toponym and ethnonym Rus) are never classified by chroniclers as “Rus”. B.A. Rybakov, on the basis of two not entirely clear evidence, also attributes Glukhov and Trubchevsk to “Rus”. (In 1152, Yuri Dolgoruky “on his way to Rus' came a hundred ou Glukhov” (36). In 1232, Svyatoslav Trubchevsky from the Novgorod land went back “to Rus'” (37)). It is difficult to say how sound this judgment is.

It is important to note that the concept of “Rus” in the chronicle context, in contrast to the “Russian Land,” was almost never used to designate a territory with certain boundaries (that is, as a bury in the strict sense of the word). Chroniclers of the XII-XIII centuries. usually used it as a synonym for “center”, “south”, “southern direction”. For example: “Svyatoslav is fleeing from Novgorod, going to Rus' to see her brother” (38). Or “Archbishop Nifont of Novgorod went to Rus' and was called Metropolitan Izyaslav and Klim” (39). Or “That same winter, Bishop Nester went to Rus' and lost his eppa” (40) Or “that same summer, Gyurgi went from Rostov and the judges and with all the children to Rus'” (41). These examples can be multiplied, and everywhere the concept “Rus” is used as a designation of the southern direction or the final point of movement. This forces us to look for the origins of this toponym in the tributary relations of the early history of the Kyiv state.

After Oleg captured Polian Kyiv in 882 and proclaimed it “the mother city of Russia,” all the Polian and newcomer populations in the vicinity of the new capital began to be called Russia. “And he had the Varangians and Slovenes, and others who were called Rus” (42), writes the chronicler. Then he reports on how Oleg distributes and imposes tribute on neighboring tribes. Tributes, therefore, were collected “for Rus'” and transported “to Rus',” so that this concept should have entered the everyday life of neighboring tribes. “Rus” was supposed to mean the region in favor of which tribute was paid - first of all Kyiv, and then, perhaps, its suburbs - Chernigov and Pereslavl. Already in the first agreements of Oleg and Igor with the Greeks, these cities are mentioned as the main recipients of tribute, (43) merchants from them enjoyed special benefits over other merchants (44). Perhaps, at first, this small “Rus” included only the area of ​​​​settlement of the glades, but already at a very early time its boundaries extended to the northerners. For, if in 884 it is reported that the northerners paid tribute to the Grand Duke on an equal basis with other tribes, then a century later Vladimir, when seating his sons, did not allocate the northern land as a special reign, that is, he left it for himself. The sons continued to pay tribute to the Grand Duke and the Seversk land also began to be included in the concept of “Rus”. This concept is already known to the author of The Tale of Bygone Years, who, reporting on the conquest of the Radimichi in 984, says that they “pay tribute to Rus', they carry the cart to this day” (45). “Rus” as a burying name was a living place until the end of the 11th century. But after the death of Yaroslav the Wise, who imprisoned his sons in Pereslavl and Chernigov, “Rus” disintegrated, first for a while, and then forever. From the beginning of the 12th century. (and at this time, we recall, the formation of the first Russian chronicle was completed) “Rus” had already ceased to be a specific territorial concept, but continued to exist in living everyday speech as a synonym for the center and south. At the same time, the concept “Russian Land,” which was close in meaning but essentially new, was born. This is how the right bank “Rus” with Kiev and the Drevlyan land with Ovruch, which before that had always been allocated as a special reign, began to be called.

In the Mongol era, when the center of the state finally moved from the banks of the Dnieper to the Klyazma, the concept of “Rus” was undergoing a rapid transformation. This is clearly visible in the Novgorod chronicles. If before the Novgorodians clearly separated the Vladimir-Suzdal principality from “Rus” in the narrow sense, then later this idea became dulled. Thus, in 1252, it is said that Khan Nevryu expelled Andrei Yaroslavich, who reigned “in Rus'” for three years, from Suzdal (46). Under 1257, it is said that news comes to Novgorod “from Rus',” that is, from the Vladimir land, that the Tatars “want tithes on Novgorod” (47). “To Rus'”, to Grand Duke Andrei (that is, again to Vladimir), the Pskovites sent captured Germans in 1299 (48). “To Rus'”, to the Grand Duke of Moscow in 1398, the Novgorodians released the captive Dvina governor (49). In our opinion, there is a clear tendency to expand the concept of “Rus” in the narrow sense.

NOTES

1. Fedotov A.O. On the meaning of the word “Rus” in our chronicles. – Russian historical collection /Ed. M.P. Pogodina., M. 1837, vol. 1, book. 2.
Gedeonov S. Varangians and Rus'. St. Petersburg 1876, part I-II.
Brim V.A. The origin of the term “Rus” - In the book. Russia and the West. / Ed. A.I. Zoozersky. Pg. 1923.
Tikhomirov A.N. The origin of the names “Rus” and “Russian Land” - In the book. Soviet ethnography, 1947, VI-VII.
2. Nasonov A.N. “Russian land” and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state. – Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR, M., 1951.
Rybakov B.A. Ancient Rus. – SA, 1953, XVII.
Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the 12th – 13th centuries. – Science, M., 1982.
3. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. M. 1982., p. 67.
4. Ibid., p. 63
5. Ibid., p. 64.
6. Kolesov V.V. The world of man in the word of Ancient Rus'. L. 1986.
7. Ibid., p. 258.
8. All subsequent references are given to the first edition of the Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, published by the Imperial Archaeological Commission in 1841-1918. First of all this:
Laurentian and Trinity Chronicles. – PSRL, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1846.
Ipatiev Chronicle. – PSRL, vol.2. St. Petersburg, 1863.
Novgorod first and third chronicles. – PSRL, vol. 3. St. Petersburg, 1841.
Novgorod fourth chronicle. – PSRL, vol. 4. Sp.., 1848.
Sofia's first chronicle. – PSRL, vol. 5. St. Petersburg, 1851.
9. Ip., p. 39.
10. Ip., p. 142.
11. Ip., p. 142.
12. Lavr., p. 56.
13. Ip., p. 153.
14. Ip., p. 109.
15. Ip., p. 125.
16. Ip., p. 74.
17. Ip., p. 77.
18. Ip., p. 144.
19. Rybakov B.A. Old Russians. – SA, 1953, issue. XVII, p. 36.
20. Lavr., p. 134.
21. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. M., 1982, p. 65.
22. Ibid., p. 64.
23. Nov. First, p. 15.
24. Ip., p. 108-109.
25. Nov. Tr., p. 210.
26. Ip., p. 25.
27. Ip., p. 138.
28. Ip., p. 144-145.
29. Nasonov A.N. “Russian land” and the formation of the territory of the Old Russian state. M. 1951, map.
30. Lavr., p. 145.
31. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the XII-XIII centuries. M., 1982, p. 63.
32. Nov. First, p. 6.
33. Resurrection, p. 119.
34. Lavr., p. 173.
35. Ip., p. 143.
36. Lavr., p. 145.
37. Nov. First, p. 48.
38. Ip., p. 17.
39. Nov. First, p. 10.
40. Lavr., p. 148.
41. Lavr., p. 146.
42. Lavr., p. 10.
43. Lavr., p. 13.
44. “And the monthly guest, the first from the city of Kyiv, the packs from Chernigov and Pereyaslavl...” (Laurel, p. 21).
45. Lavr., p. 36.
46. ​​Novg. Thursday, p. 38.
47. Novg. First, p. 56.
48. Soph. First, p. 203.
49. Novg. Thursday, p. 103.

Igor Rurikovich
St. Princess Olga
Svyatoslav I Igorevich
St. Vladimir Svyatoslavich
Yaroslav I the Wise
Izyaslav I, Svyatoslav and Vsevolod I Yaroslavich
Svyatopolk Izyaslavich and Vladimir Monomakh
Yuri I Vladimirovich Dolgoruky
They are quite brief, but they create some idea of ​​the main figures of the Old Russian state.
“Rus and the Russian Land” was written in the form of a polemical article (At one time it was published in “Questions of History”) and, perhaps, therefore is not very interesting. But I recommended that you read it, since it addresses a very important issue in early Russian history. In fact, I tried to refute here one of the strongest arguments of the anti-Normanists. But I agree with you - analyzing chronicle passages is not a very interesting activity, unless you immerse yourself in it.
I am sorting out my notes (they are still located in the archive in strictly chronological order). I don’t remember whether I already wrote to you or not that I wanted to compile from my notes a complete overview of world history, culture and religion. But so far, I have only been able to cross-reference notes on the history of the Ancient World. Everything seems to be clear here. If you are interested, come in. All the best!

The acquisition of Kiev in the first half of the 10th century. international recognition was immediately reflected in the content of the term Russian land. Now, along with the narrow significance of the tribal region of Middle Dnieper Rus', it received the broader significance of state territory. In the latter meaning, the term Russian land covered the entire state of Russian princes, inhabited by Slavic-Finno-Baltic tribes.

In the middle of the 10th century. this broad interpretation was used mainly at the level of interstate relations, denoting the sovereign territory over which the power of the Grand Duke of Kyiv extended. For Byzantine diplomats, the Russian land in this sense was “Russia”, “the country of Russia”, “Russian land” or, in the terminology of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, “external Russia”, in contrast to “inner Russia”, Tauride Rus'. (Just as the Azov Black Bulgaria is called Inner Bulgaria in Arabic sources, in contrast to the External - Volga Bulgaria.) Rus' has a similar meaning in the message of Ibrahim ibn Yakub (about 966): “It neighbors Mieszko [the country of Prince Mieszko - Poland] in the east is Rus',” in the Latin document Dagome iudex (circa 991): “The region of the Prussians is said to extend as far as the place called Russia, and the region of the Russes extends as far as Krakow,” in the Quedlinburg Annals news of the death of St. Bruno in 1009 at the hands of pagans “on the borderlands of Russia and Lithuania” and in many other sources of that time.

But within the country, the Russian land was still understood as the Middle Dnieper region itself, with a narrow strip along the right bank of the Dnieper to the south of Kiev, stretching almost to the Black Sea coast (the right bank of the Dnieper became “Russian”, apparently due to the fact that it is higher left and, therefore, it was him, for the sake of convenience and safety, that the Rus chose for movement and parking). These ancient geographical boundaries of the Russian land in its narrow meaning are attested to by several chronicle articles. In 1170, two Polovtsian hordes invaded the Kyiv and Pereyaslav principalities. The chronicler calls the horde that marched to Kyiv along the right bank of the Dnieper, along the Russian land, the Russian Polovtsians, while the other horde, moving towards Pereyaslavl along the Dnieper left bank, is called the Pereyaslav Polovtsians. In 1193, the son of the Kyiv prince Rurik, Rostislav, went on a campaign against the Polovtsians. He crossed the southern border of the Kyiv principality - the Ros River - and went deep into the steppe along the right bank of the Dnieper. The entire steppe space he traversed was called the Russian Land in the chronicle.
At the same time, stepping out of the Kyiv land a little further north, into the territory of the Pripyat Basin, already meant leaving the borders of Rus'. In the same 1193, one prince, alarmed that the Kiev prince Rurik Rostislavich stayed too long in the city of Ovruch (on the Uzhe River, a tributary of the Pripyat), reproached him: “Why did you leave your land? Go to Rus' and guard it." “I’m going to Rus',” says the Novgorod I Chronicle about the Novgorod archbishop, when he happened to go to Kyiv.

In such a narrow sense, the Russian land corresponded to the tribal territory of “Polyansky Rus'”, which from the second third of the 9th century. made military campaigns along the Dnieper and trade trips to the Black Sea.

Old Russian people often put into the concept of Russian land, along with geographical and political, also an ethnographic meaning, meaning by it Rus' itself, an armed crowd of Russian warriors under the command of a Russian prince. This is precisely the meaning that Prince Svyatoslav attached to the Russian land when, before the battle with the Greeks, he addressed his soldiers with the words: “Let us not disgrace the Russian land, but let us lie down with that bone, for we are dead because we have no rubbish; If we run away, then shame on us.” Here, the Russian land turns out to be equivalent to “us,” that is, the entire Russian army, and not at all the territory of the Middle Dnieper region, which, by the way, could not be put to shame when fighting the Greeks in the Balkans.

In the same way, according to the subtle observation of V. O. Klyuchevsky, “the singer of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign,” a monument of the late 12th or the very beginning of the 13th century, remarks: “O Russian land! You are already behind the shelomyan”; this expression means that the Russian land had already gone beyond the rows of steppe trenches that stretched along the southern borders of the principalities of Chernigov and Pereyaslavl. By Russian land, the singer of “The Lay” means the squad that went on a campaign against the Polovtsians with his hero, Prince Igor, therefore, he understood the term geographical in the ethnographic sense” [Klyuchevsky V.O. Works in 9 volumes. M., 1987. T. VI. P. 98].

The orientation system of the Middle Ages was built on the principle “from near to distant”, “from one’s own to someone else’s”. The author of “The Lay” looked at the movement of Igor’s squad towards the Don from the side of Rus', and not through the eyes of the Russians themselves, who had gone deeper into the steppe. Therefore, his sorrowful exclamation “O Russian land! you’re already over the hill” refers to the retreating Russian army, and not to the Russian territory itself, which remained behind Igor’s army.

P.S.
We see the replacement of “army” with “land” in a chronicle article from 1152, but already in relation to the Polovtsians: “And Yurya went with his sons... likewise the Polovtsians Orplyuev and Toksobichi and the entire Polovtsian land, whatever they are, between the Volga and the Dnieper "

Source:
Tsvetkov S.E. Russian land. Between paganism and Christianity. From Prince Igor to his son Svyatoslav. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2012. P.265-267.

In science, both domestic and foreign, debates about the origin of names still continue Rus, Russian: Varangian, South Russian, Greek, etc. The concepts denoted by these words are not fully defined. There is no consensus on the formation and meaning of the concept Russian land. And I do not set myself the goal of analyzing in this article different points of view on the questions posed above and identify (based on my subjective opinion) more preferable answers, supporting one or another scientific hypothesis.

I would like to look at the problem, so to speak, “from the inside,” through the eyes of ancient Russian writers, that is, to make an attempt to consider the genesis of concepts rus/Rus And Russian land in the worldview of ancient Russian scribes of the 11th-15th centuries. and try to find out what they themselves put into these concepts.

“...FROM THE VARYAG WAS CALLED RUSSIA...”

The most frequently and conceptually conscious concepts Rus And Russian land used in early Russian chronicles. And they are connected with the general historiosophical concept of initial Russian history, comprehended through the prism of Holy Scripture and set forth by ancient Russian scribes in the “Tale of Bygone Years.” Let's consider when the concept is first used Rus and what concept the chronicler puts into it.

The oldest Russian chronicle, in the undated part, begins its narrative with the cosmographic theory of the settlement of peoples - the descendants of the biblical Noah the righteous - after the flood: “After the flood, the three sons of Noah divided the earth, Shem, Ham, Afet.” Sim got the eastern countries, Ham got the “midday country”, “Afetu got the midnight and western countries”, including “the Desna, Pripet, Dvina, Volkhov, Volga rivers”. And here, for the first time, the chronicler lists the peoples who find themselves in the Japheth part of the earth: “In the Apheth part, Rus' is gray (hereinafter it is emphasized by me. - A.U.), Chud and all the languages: Merya, Muroma, Ves, Mordva, Zavolochskaya Chud, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Ugra, Lithuania... Lyakhov, and Prusi, Chud go to the sea Varyazhsky. The Varangians travel along this same sea...” .

Noteworthy is the fact that the chronicler singles out Rus' among other peoples, and people are mentioned twice in this short passage: first in the vicinity of Russia, then in the vicinity of the Varangians (separately named Zavolochskaya chud). But, what is important, the chronicler does not identify Rus' and the Varangians . Moreover, in the further enumeration of the peoples of the “tribe of Japheth” Rus And Varangians are mentioned separately, as independent peoples living in different places: “Apheto’s tribe is also: Varyazi, svei, urmane, gote, Rus, Agnyans, Galicians, Volkhva, Romans, Germans, Korlyazis, Venditsi, Fryagoves and others..." (P.24).

Thus, the chronicler explained the appearance on the historical arena new people - Rus', geographically placing it among European peoples. The following is the language identification Rus' After the destruction of the Pillar of Babylon, the division of peoples and languages, the descendants of Japheth “conquered the West and the midnight countries. From these 70 and 2 languages ​​the language became Slovenian, from the tribe of Afetov, the Narci, who are Slovenian. After many times, the essence of Slovenia settled along the Dunaevi, where there are now Ugorsk and Bolgarsk lands. From those words they spread across the earth and were called by their names, where they sat in which place. (...) Likewise, these Slovenians came and sat down along the Dnieper and called the clearing, and the Druzians, the Drevlyans, sat down in the forests (...) The Slovenes sat down near Lake Ilmer, and were called by their name, and made a city and called Novgorod. And the friends rode along the Desna, and along the Semi, along the Sula, and turned to the north. And so the Slovenian language disappeared, and so the letter was called Slovenian” (pp. 24-26).

So, according to the cosmographic theory of the chronicler, Slovenian the people settled to the east, giving rise to the East Slavic tribes - the Polans, Drevlyans, Dregovichs, Polochans, Novgorod Slavs, etc. And although the tribes were different, they retained linguistic (tribal) unity, since the common literacy was Slavic: “It’s only the Slovenian language in Rus': glades, derevlyans, nougorodtsy, polotsk, dregovichi, sever, buzhans, zane sadosha along the Bug, and then the velynians. And these are the other languages ​​that give tribute Rus': chjud, merya, all, muroma, cheremis, mordva, perm, pechera, yam, lithuania, zimigola, kors, neroma, lib: these are their tongues, having their own language from the tribe of Afet, who live in the lands of midnight” (P.28).

It is obvious that by “Slovenian language” the chronicler does not mean Slavic speech (i.e., the language itself in our understanding), but the unity of the Slavic clans (tribes) that make up Rus. To her, Rus', are contrasted with the “Indian Gentiles”, which also descend from the tribe of Japheth , but have a different, non-Slavic speech. “There is only one Slovenian language: the Slovenes, like those who lived along the Dunaevi, they received the eels, and the Moravas, and the Chesi, and the Lyakhovs, and the glades, even now called Rus . Now, first of all, books have been offered to the Moravians, which are called the Slovenian letter, which is also the letter in Rus' and in the Danube Bulgarians” (P.40).

Community of Slavs and Rus' emphasized by one of their Christian teachers, the Apostle Paul. Since “the teacher of the Slovenian language is Pavel, from him we also learn the language.” Rus, the same for us Rus' the teacher is Paul, who taught the Slovenian language and appointed Andronicus as a bishop and viceroy to speak the Slovenian language. And the Slovenian language and Russian there is one thing, from the Varangians it was called Russia, and the first one is Slovenian; I even call it a clearing, but I don’t speak Slovenian. You were nicknamed in the fields, you were gray in the fields, but the Slovenian language is one” (P.42).

From the above passages it turns out that the East Slavic tribes, united by Slavic speech, and then by the Christian faith, represent Rus.

I write the word deliberately Rus with a lowercase letter, as it was usually written in manuscripts. The publishers of the chronicles raised the first letter at their own discretion where they assumed that the ancient Russian authors meant a certain state entity Rus, and left lowercase where they meant people Rus. This creates confusion in understanding the concept Rus, because it distorts its perception by the ancient Russian scribe. Concept Rus carries in itself the concept of the linguistic (later - religious) community of the biblical people, which, in the course of their historical development, was divided into East Slavic tribes and reunited after baptism into a single Russian people, shepherded by the Orthodox Church. This perhaps explains the title of Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus', i.e. of the entire Orthodox Slavic-speaking people, even during the period when the Kiev Metropolitan cared for the Orthodox Christians of the neighboring states - Lithuania and Poland.

Therefore, the concept Rus for the ancient Russian chronicler it had an older and broader meaning than Slovenia. Chronologically, their mention can be arranged in the following sequence: Rus' => Slovenia=> East Slavic tribes. Rus perceived as biblical people(rather than the state formation which is implied when the word is capitalized), descended from Japheth. Slovenia and tribes - as subsequent derivative formations in historical time, descendants of the biblical Rus', and, therefore, still - Rus. This perception Rus' how the biblical people survived in ancient Russian perception until the 15th century (see below).

It is characteristic that the Byzantines in the 9th century perceived Rus as a certain mysterious people, identifying them with the biblical people of Ros, mentioned in prophecies and the “Apocalypse”.

M.Ya., who studied this issue. Syuzyumov writes: “In the Greek translation of the prophet Ezekiel, the name Ros appears once: “And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, son of man, set your face on Gog and on the land of Magog, the prince of Ros.” The “Apocalypse” indicates that Gog and Magog, before the end of the world, at the head of countless armies of Satan, will approach the “holy city.” Given the interest with which the Byzantines treated the prophecies about the destruction of the world, it is quite natural that scholastic commentators of the Bible began to look for where this terrible people Ros lived. Most church commentators placed the country of Gog and Magog on the other side of the Caucasus Mountains, generally somewhere further to the north, calling them Hyperborean peoples (i.e., the peoples of the North) and Scythians. So, the name Ros was well known to Byzantine society long before the Russians appeared. Devastating Russian raids at the beginning of the 9th century. terrified the Byzantines. In addition, the consonance of the name “Rus” with the biblical “ros”, of course, could not go unnoticed. The idea could involuntarily arise that the Russian people who appeared on the historical stage are the biblical people Ros, terrible for their name, associated with eschatological prophecies.” .

Let's see where geographically the ancient Russian chronicler places Rus: “The glade of the people who lived in these mountains, there was a way from the Varangians to the Greeks and from the Greeks along the Dnieper, and the top of the Dnieper was dragged to Lovot, and along Lovot the great lake was brought into Yylmen, from the same lake the Volkhov flowed and flowed into the great lake Nevo , and of that lake to enter the mouth into the Varangian Sea... The Dnieper flows from the Okovsky forest, and flows at noon, and the Dvina flows from the same forest, and goes at midnight and flows into the Varangian Sea. From the same forest the Volga flowed east, and seventy zherels flowed into the Khvaliskoe Sea. Also from Rus' (Rus'? - A.U.) can go along the Volza to Bolgars and Khvalis, and on the east go to the lot of Simov, and along the Dvina to Varangians ( Varangians. – A.U.), from Varyag ( Varangian. – A.U.) to Rome, and from Rome to the tribe of Ham. And the Dnieper will flow into the Poneta Sea like a zherel, the hedgehog of the sea Russian, Saint Ondrei, brother Petrov, taught according to him...” (P.26).

Three circumstances should be noted. Firstly, the chronicler places Rus on the way from Varangian V Greeks, that is, from one people to another. Secondly, one people - Varangians- gave the name to the Varangian Sea in the north, another people - Rus– gave the name to the Russian Sea in the south, i.e. in the opposite direction. Thirdly, through the Apostle Andrew, who was engaged in educational activities along the shores of the Russian Sea, Old Testament (pagan) history Rus' connects with the New Testament - Christian history of God's new chosen people Russian.

The logic of the chronicler’s narrative here is obvious. Kohl Rus is a biblical people, then there must be a prophecy about her concerning her New Testament future. That is why, having set out on the path from the Greeks to the Varangians, the Apostle Andrew providentially stopped at the Dnieper Mountains. “And the next morning he got up and spoke to those with him as a disciple: “Do you see these mountains? - how the grace of God will shine on these mountains; The city will be great and the churches God will raise are many.” And having entered these mountains, I blessed, and put up a cross, and prayed to God, and came down from this mountain, where Kiev was afterwards” (p. 26).

Affects history Russians and another prophecy. The chronicler contrasts the East Slavic tribes living in destruction according to pagan customs with life according to the Christian laws of the already baptized people. The Lord did not let me die Slavic-speaking, chose his new people and brought him out of the slavery of sin and Khazar dominion, as once the people of Moses were given the Ten Commandments (the Law) and brought him out from under the dominion of Pharaoh.

According to V.Ya. Petrukhin, “the introductory cosmographic part of the “Tale of Bygone Years” ends with a story about the deliverance of the Slavs (the Polyan tribe) from the Khazar tribute and the power of the Russian princes over the Khazars, just as “the Iupians perished from Moses, and the first one was working for him.” Thus, the acquisition by the glades of their land in the Middle Dnieper and the establishment of the power of the Russian princes there was compared with the deliverance of the chosen people from Egyptian captivity and the acquisition of the promised land - the future Christian Rus'... This identification of the Russian land with the “new Israel” becomes characteristic of Russian self-awareness long before the formation ideas of “Holy Rus'” .

Thus ends the undated cosmographic history Rus - Slavic-speaking people, a descendant of the tribe of Japheth, that is, essentially the biblical people. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in this pre-chronological part of The Tale of Bygone Years only one concept is used - Rus, and the concept was never used Russian land, widely used by scribes in the chronological part of the Old Russian chronicle. From this it can be assumed that in concept rus/Rus reflected a special medieval idea of ​​synergistic fusion in the word Rus two concepts: the people and the country (like the Greeks and Varangians) in which this people lives. However, as we know, such a country with a unified institution of princely power has not yet existed, so the significance people in concept Rus prevails.

Story Russian land- a new state formation under the unifying princely authority begins with the exact date - 852, when, during the reign of the Byzantine Tsar Michael, “the nickname began Ruska Earth. O seven, we knew that at seven the kings were coming Rus(people Rus, not the whole state! - A.U.) to Tsargorod, as it is written in the chronicles as Greek. From here on, let’s count the numbers (...) And from the first summer of Mikhailov to the first summer of Olgov, Russian prince, 29 years old...” (P.34). That is, the previously described reign in Kyiv of three brothers - Kiy, Shchek and Khorev - dates back to the pre-chronological period - cosmographic history Rus'. Oleg becomes Russians a prince because he became a prince people Rus. This act embodied the will and free choice of this people themselves, but in it one can already feel the prototype of the choice of Christianity under Vladimir Svyatoslavich.

Ten years after the first mention Russian land in the Greek chronicle, having first driven the Varangians overseas, the Novgorodians again call upon them to reign in their land: ““Our land is great and abundant, but there is no outfit in it. May you come and rule over us.” And the 3 brothers were chosen from their generations, girding themselves around Rus(...) And from those Varyag nicknamed Russian Earth..." (P.36).

The above quotation from “The Tale of Bygone Years” seems to erase everything that was said before about two different peoples - Rus' And Varangians. Traditionally, the expression “gird yourself all over” Rus” is translated as “ and took with them all Rus"(P.37). In other words, going to the Novgorod land, the Varangians took with them “all Rus" That is, a whole people! However, historians still cannot find traces of the existence of any people in Scandinavia Rus, no people grew up , since such people, apparently, never existed there. And the phrase from the chronicle would be more correctly translated as “they conquered the whole Rus” (in the Old Russian language there is an expression “poima (from sing) land or cities”, i.e. conquered the earth or cities, but did not take them with him! ).

The textual analysis of “The Tale of Bygone Years” carried out by A.A. Shakhmatov showed that readings about identification Rus' And Varangians are a later insertion, since they are not in the Novgorod first chronicle of the younger edition, which reflected an earlier chronicle collection than the edition of the “Tale of Bygone Years” that has come down to us . True, in the Novgorod First Chronicle of the younger edition there is evidence that “from those Varangians, the finder of those, was nicknamed Rus, and from them the word Russian Land” (N1L.S.106). How then should we perceive these words of the chronicler? They can be understood as evidence that the visiting Varangians nicknamed the people they subjugated Russia, and the territory they occupy, Russian earth. That is, the above expression “from those Varangians...” can be translated as “those Varangians, those who came, were nicknamed Russia, glorified by them Russian land» .

In this regard, another prophecy about the Russian land is interesting, put by the chronicler into the mouth of the Varangian Oleg who came to Kiev: “And Oleg the prince sat in Kiev, and Oleg said: “Behold (that is, it will happen in the future, but not now! – A.U.) mother hail Russian" And he had Varangians and Slovenes and others, nicknamed Russia"(P.38). An interesting detail noted by the chronicler: the Varangians, Slavs and other nationalities were nicknamed Russia, i.e. began to be called Russia due to current circumstances - coming to Kyiv!

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the definition (new concept) Russian is a possessive adjective indicating ownership of someone or something. The Russian prince, and the Russian cities, and the mother capital belong to Rus'– the people (not the territory!). That is, the prehistoric biblical people Rus in a new historical period, correlated with the New Testament Christian history of the Greeks (they recorded his stay on the historical stage), transformed into a new Russian people.

Prophetic words of Oleg about Kyiv as the future Russian capital correspond to the Greek term metropolis - mother of cities, metropolis, capital . If we remember the earlier gospel of the Apostle Andrew that “on these mountains the grace of God will shine; to have a great city and to have many churches that God will raise up,” then we will receive a prophecy about the new Christian capital of the new Christian people - Russian.

The theme of God's new chosen one - Russian– of the people becomes dominant in the “Sermon on Law and Grace” by Presbyter Hilarion, read in the Church of the Annunciation on the Golden Gate in Kyiv on Saturday, March 25, on the patronal feast day on the eve of Easter 1038 .

Providential Appearance Russian people on the historical stage is determined, according to Hilarion, by the Holy Scripture itself: “For the Savior came, and was not received from Israel. And according to the Gospel word: “He came to his own, and did not receive his own.” From the language (i.e. other peoples. - A.U.) came quickly. As Jacob said: “And your hope is with your tongue.” For even at his birth, the tongue first bowed down to him, and the Jews killed him in search of him, and for his sake beat up the baby. And the word of Savior came true: “For many from East and West will come and lie down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, and the sons of the kingdom will be expelled into outer darkness.” And again: “For the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to the countries that produce its fruits.” His disciples sent their ambassadors to them, saying: “Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to all creatures. Yes, those who believe and are baptized will be saved! And you will teach all tongues to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all the things given to you” (p.88).

Actually, this history of the Christianization of peoples was described by the chronicler partly in the prehistoric (undated) part of the “Tale of Bygone Years”, in which the baptism of the Slavs by the Apostle Paul is mentioned, partly in the “Speech of the Philosopher”, partly in the story of the baptism of the pagan Rus' Prince Vladimir. It is quite obvious that the chronicler was looking for the place of the baptized Rus' – Russians– already among the “historical” Christian peoples.

Hilarion was also puzzled by the same search: “It is necessary for Grace and Truth to reach new people. For, according to the word of the Lord, do not pour the wine of the new teaching of the blessings into the old wineskins that were promised in Judaism, lest the mixtures go flat and the wine spill. Having been unable to hold on to the Law, but having worshiped idols many times, how can one hold on to the teaching of true Grace? New teaching - new wineskins - new languages, and both will be observed. That's exactly what it is. Faith, for grace has spread throughout all the earth, and to ours Russian language doide” (P.88-90).

So, saving grace-filled faith has reached Russian people. This is the providential-historical path of the spread of Christianity - it comes to Russian land: “Then the darkness of besoslugania (disservice) perished, and the word of the Eugangels hosea our land” (P. 104).

Special merit in this goes to the “Great Kagan of our land” Vladimir Svyatoslavich, who “didn’t rule the land in the worst way, but in Ruska, which is known and heard by all four ends of the earth.” And his deeds are equated with the apostolic feat of Emperor Constantine, who “in the Elenkh and Romans (i.e., in the pagan peoples - A.U.) conquered the kingdom to God,” and the Russian prince - “in Rus'"(P.114).

A similar assessment of the merits of Prince Vladimir is contained in the “Reading about Boris and Gleb”, written by the Monk Nestor before 1088. : “It happened, said, the prince in the thousand years, the leader of all the land of Russia, name Vladimer (...) Yesterday you did not know who Jesus Christ is, today His preacher has appeared; yesterday Elin Vladimir was swearing, today the peasant Vasily is swearing. This is the second Kostyantin Rus' appear" .

It can be assumed that with the establishment of the institution of dynastic princely power among the Eastern Slavs, the name of the dominant monolingual ethnic group Rus determined in the 10th century the name of the state with its center in Kyiv - Rus. To such a dual understanding of the concept Rus Oleg’s initiative in 911 “to put a line between Russia and the Greeks” seems to indicate (P.46), i.e. to conclude an interstate agreement with Byzantium (and not just the Greeks!), for which Prince Oleg sent an embassy to the Byzantine co-rulers Leo, Alexander and Constantine. In this case, the peoples of Rus' and the Greeks personify the states themselves. However, as follows from the treaty itself, it was concluded between two peoples - the Greeks and Russia. And here another semantic contrast between them is noteworthy – on a confessional basis. The men who arrived in Byzantium testify that they were “from the birth Russian" and "send from Olga, Grand Duke Russian(...) to withhold and notify for many years the boundaries of Christians and Russia ex-love." And once again it will be emphasized that the arriving ambassadors seek to strengthen with an agreement “the love that was between the peasants and Russia"(P.46).

In the treaty itself, the Greeks appear as Christians, they are opposed Rusyns: “Whoever kills a Christian Rusyn, or peasant Rusyn, let him die, even if he commits murder. (...) Or steal anything Rusyn at Khrestanin, or like Khrestanin at Rusyn…" etc.

For us, this opposition between Greek Christians and pagan Russians is very significant. Rus, therefore, is perceived by the ancient Russian chronicler as an “Old Testament” pagan people, but already included in the world historical process through contacts with the Byzantines.

It is important to note that in the 11th-12th centuries the concept Rus was perceived as a people, not a state. For example, describing the struggle between Yaroslav the Wise and Svyatopolk, the author of “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” notes: “In the summer of 6526, Boleslav and Svyatopolk came against Yaroslav from Lyakhy. Yaroslav, having bought Rus, Varangians, Slovenes, go against ... " . In this context it is quite obvious that the word Rus used to denote an ethnic group, and therefore should be written with a lowercase letter, like the Varangians and Slovenes.

“WHERE DOES THE RUSSIAN LAND COME FROM,

… AND WHERE DID THE RUSSIAN LAND COME TO EAT”

The very name of the oldest Russian chronicle, compiled at the beginning of the 12th century in the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery by the monk Nestor, twice uses the concept Russian land: “Behold the tales of the bygone years, from where it came Russian land, who started the reign in Kyiv, and where from Russian land started eating." There is no tautology here, as it might seem at first glance. The chronicler promised to tell where she came from Russian Earth, i.e. its history (or origin) before the first Kyiv prince. Actually this part has already been considered by us: Russian Earth comes from the biblical people Rus- from the tribe of Japheth. It remains to consider the formation Russian land and define the concept itself . It is also connected with the eschatological understanding of human history.

Characteristic in this regard are the names of ancient Russian chronicles, for example, the First Novgorod Chronicle: “Vremennik”, which is called the chronicle of princes and Russian land, and how God has chosen our country for the last time..." . Or the “Sofia Temporary” included in the Tver Chronicle: “The Sophia Chronicle, which is the chronicle of the Russian princes, and how God chose our country for the last time...” . Or the First Sofia Chronicle itself: “The Timekeeper, who is called the Chronicler of the Russians, the prince, and how God chose our country for the last time...” .

From the above examples it is clear that the concept Russian land how the new promised (Christian) land is formed in the process of understanding the “end times”.

Therefore, Russian history is interpreted by the Novgorod and Tver chroniclers in the same way as by the Kyiv ones - as the Providence of the Lord before the end of the world. It is characteristic that the ancient Russian chronicle writing itself was carried out until the “end of times” - the Last Judgment .

Noteworthy is the fact that the concepts of Russian land and Rus' are associated in ancient Russian works with the actions (deeds) of princes, metropolitans or saints. Princes rule in the Russian land, metropolitans bear the title of “Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus',” saints pray before God for the Russian land.

It is characteristic that in Rus' there were no saints, since it was a pagan people, however, “the generation of the righteous will be blessed, as the prophet said, and their seed will be blessed” and they beamed at Russian earth. The credit goes to Vladimir the Baptist, under whom (first a pagan, and then a Christian) the concept began to take shape Russian land How Christian Earth: “To Volodimir, the son of Svyatoslav, the tyrant of the entire Russian land, and the grandson of Igor (Russian family of princes. - A.U.), likewise the saints, enlightened this land of Russia with baptism.” . And his sons followed the path of Christ and became the first Russians saints who now “give care and prayer for not a single city, nor for a queen, nor for all, but for all the Russian lands.” But they not only became prayer books for the Russian land, but also connected it with the entire Christian world, creating its New Testament (Christian) history.

“Oh, saint of Christ! - continues the author of the lives of the saints. - Blessed in truth and lofty above all is the city of the Russians and the highest city, which has such a treasure within itself, it does not care about the whole world! In truth, Vyshegorod was called: the highest and superior city of all, the second Selun appeared in the Russian land, having in itself merciless medicine. It is not our only language that was given quickly to God, but to the whole earth, salvation, from all those countries the tuna comes to spit healing, just as in the holy gospels the Lord said by the holy apostle, “Tuna will eat, and you will give.” . Thanks to the fact that the Lord sent such holy healers to the Russian land, it is now visited by Orthodox pilgrims from all countries. That is, it has already turned out to be geographically connected with the entire Christian world. Saint George himself directs the blind man to the holy passion-bearers: “Go to the holy martyr Boris and Gleb, (...) the theme is given grace from God - in this country, the land of Russia, sling and heal every passion and illness.” . Thus, at the beginning of the 11th century, the Russian land, in which its Christian saints appeared, became a stronghold of Orthodoxy, and this was stated by ancient Russian scribes.

Observations by B.A. Rybakov on the chronicle definitions of the concept Russian land in the XI-XII centuries. led him to the conclusion “about the existence of three geographical centers, equally called Russia or Russian land: 1) Kyiv and Porosye; 2) Kyiv, Porosye, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Severnaya Zemlya, Kursk and, perhaps, the eastern part of Volyn, i.e. forest-steppe strip from Ros to the upper reaches of the Seim and Donets; 3) all East Slavic lands - from the Carpathians to the Don and from Ladoga to the steppes of the Black (Russian) Sea" .

This is, so to speak, a purely geographical concept. Russian land. However, the identification of three “geographical concentrations” of different sizes indicates that more than one purely territorial (geographical) concept was put into the expression by ancient Russian writers Russian land. Something more significant and significant was meant, uniting all the listed principalities into one state: the confession of a single Orthodox faith and the delineation of the territory in which it was distributed, possible with a clear definition of all non-Orthodox neighbors. Meanwhile, one must assume that such a religious understanding of the name Russian land did not appear immediately, but only in the 13th century.

Observations by A.V. Solovyov showed that a broad understanding of the term Rus' as a collection of all East Slavic principalities, it had constant significance in two cases: firstly, in relations with Western European countries; secondly, in the sphere of church life. He also noted that an expanded understanding Rus' or Russian land as the whole country was characteristic of the period between 911-1132. And even the Smolensk and Novgorod residents (it is noteworthy that Smolensk and Novgorod were never included territorially in that narrow geographical area, which was expressed in the 11th-12th centuries by the concept Russian land) in agreements with foreigners were called “Rusyns” .

During the period of feudal fragmentation, especially from the second half of the 12th century, it was assigned mainly to the Kyiv region . Broad understanding of the name Russian land during this period it narrowed, according to A.N. Robinson, to the ancient borders of the Middle Dnieper region, previously inhabited by the glades, i.e. included the former Principality of Kiev, the Principality of Pereyaslavl and most of the Principality of Chernigov .

In a situation of collapse Russian land to appanage principalities, according to the scientist, “the very definition of “Russians” was usually not applied, judging by the chronicles, either to the principalities located outside the specified boundaries of the “Russian Land”, or to the population of these principalities in which the “Suzdalians”, “Rostovites” lived ”, “Novgorodians”, “Smolensk”, “Ryazanians”, “Chernigovians”, etc. (by the names of capital cities)..." .

During the period of feudal fragmentation, in the second half of the 12th century, the concept of independent lands emerged - “Suzdal land”, “Smolensk land”, “Seversk land”, “Novgorod land”, etc., and a “new concept of “Rus”” appeared. - “Russian land”, which no longer united many East Slavic “lands”, but was opposed to these “lands”” .

According to A.N. Robinson, “in the second half of the 12th century. The “broad” concept of the “Russian land” existed primarily as a historical legend, and the “narrow” concept - as an ordinary political reality.” , and not only in chronicles, but also in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” (though in a somewhat broader sense, at the expense of the Seversky princes and those allied with Igor) .

It is interesting to note that the concept of “Russian land” in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” has its antipode - the concept of “Polovtsian land” , just like in two literary monuments of the 13th century. - “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land” and the “Galician Chronicle” - “Russian Land”, or simply “Rus”, had all its neighbors as antipodes - “Lyakhov”, “Ugrians”, “Yatvingians”, etc.

If we continue the comparison of concepts Russian land in historical works of the 12th century. and “The Word of Destruction”, then we will find a completely opposite 12th century. concept of the 13th century monument And this despite the fact that the socio-historical situation has not changed at all; moreover, the further isolation of the principalities has intensified, as has their fragmentation.

However, the concept Russian land in the “Word of Destruction” is interpreted in the broadest sense and includes all the East Slavic lands inhabited by Orthodox people, including Western and Northern Russian ones, which, again, makes this monument similar to the “Galician Chronicle”.

Already at the very beginning, its author, speaking about Roman Galitsky, notes: “After the death of Grand Duke Roman, the ever-memorable autocrat all Rus'... a great rebellion has arisen in Russian land who left his two sons..." . Or in the story about the history of the founding of the new capital of the principality - the city of Kholm: “...creating a city..., which the Tatars were not able to accept, when Batu Russian land catch" . It is quite obvious that the expression “the whole Russian land” is used here in the broadest sense, not limited to the area of ​​the Kiev-Chernigov, or - more broadly - southern Russian lands, but also implies the Vladimir, Suzdal, Ryazan and Galician-Volyn lands, that is, those lands , through which Batu’s hordes passed.

And it would be appropriate to dwell on one more example, since it characterizes the views of the first author of the “Galician Chronicle” (“Chronicle Daniil Galitsky”) .

In the final part of his work, in the description of the trip, the book. Daniel to Horde for the label, he uses the expression twice Russian land: “Oh, the Tatar honor is more evil than evil! Danilov Romanovich, the former great prince, who possessed Russian land, Kiev and Volodymer and Galich with his brother, and other countries... His father was the king in Russian land, who conquered the Polovtsian land and fought against other countries all" .

Of interest is this reference to the kingdom of Prince Roman in Russian land and to the possession of it by his son Daniel. The fact is that both Roman Mstislavich and his son Daniil Romanovich owned Kiev temporarily and for a short period of time, but the author, apparently, had enough of this fact to create a generalized description of them as “autocrats” Russian land" In this regard, I would like to draw attention to the following circumstances. Prince Daniil never ruled Russian land from Kyiv, but only from the Galician principality: initially from Galich, and from the late 30s - from Kholm.

With the author’s consistent use of the expression Russian land regarding the Galician lands, and Rus – Russian- regarding the inhabitants of the principality, the conclusion suggests itself that Kholm, as the new capital of the principality, becomes the administrative center Russian land during the reign of Prince Daniil Romanovich of Kiev (i.e. in the first half of the 40s), at least in the mind of the author himself.

Could this happen?

As is known, by the end of the 12th century, more precisely in the mid-80s, “Kyiv not only lost its significance as the capital (“mother”) of all cities, but even lost its sovereign rights in its own principality. The Principality of Kyiv as a state no longer existed, since the city of Kiev was owned in the time of interest to us (the mid-80s of the 12th century - A.U.) by one prince..., and the lands of the Kiev region by another.” . Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich reigned in Kyiv until his death in 1194, and the Kyiv lands were ruled at the same time by Rurik Rostislavich.

Almost the decline of the former glory of Kyiv as a center Russian land began with its destruction in 1169 by Andrei Bogolyubsky. Then Kyiv often began to pass from one prince to another.

Batya’s invasion completed this process, but not only because Kiev was virtually destroyed to the ground and its inhabitants were exterminated (Mikhail of Chernigov, upon returning to Kiev in 1245, could not even live in it), but also because from that moment Kiev ceased to be the center of the Russian Orthodox Church - a metropolitan city. Back in 1239 (1240), the Greek Metropolitan Joseph left Kyiv in the face of the threat of a Mongol-Tatar invasion, and in 1243, Prince Daniil Romanovich appointed the “printer” Kirill as the new metropolitan. all Rus'" It is to him, in my opinion, that the first edition of the Chronicler belongs. . But then the expression Russian land- in a broad sense - takes on a new meaning and meaning for the 13th century under his pen.

Kirill wrote his essay, having already been named Metropolitan “ all Rus'" And for him, naturally, Russian land was not limited only to the Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereslavl principalities. For him Russian land- this is the geographical area in which Orthodox Christians live. He called Catholics, Hungarians and Poles “Christians”, but always distinguished them from the Orthodox Rus', along with pagan Lithuania and the Yatvingians. Therefore his concept Russian land was much wider than what was established in the 12th century. and included, in addition to those traditionally called in the XI-XII centuries. the central territories also include Galician, Volyn, Smolensk and other principalities. In fact, he meant the entire territory of the Eastern Slavs when speaking about Russian land. Describing Western neighbors Russian land, it tells about the Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, Yatvingians, Lithuanians and Germans. I draw attention to this fact deliberately, since these same Western neighbors Russian land are also listed in the “Tale of Destruction.” And, I think, it is no coincidence, since the author used the expression Russian land in the broadest sense, meaning by it a territory inhabited by Orthodox people and surrounded by “non-orthodox Christians” - Catholics and pagans. This point is especially emphasized in the Lay. Having listed all the western, northern and eastern neighbors, the author notes that the territory located between them was conquered by “God to the Christian language,” that is, to the Christian people.

“Oh, bright and beautifully decorated, Russian land! And you are surprised by many beauties: you are surprised by many lakes, rivers and local deposits, steep mountains, high hills, clear oak groves, wondrous fields, various animals, numberless birds, great cities, wondrous villages, habitable vineyards, church houses, and formidable princes, honest boyars, many nobles. Everything you have is used up Russian land, O true Christian faith!

From here to the Ugor and to the Poles, to the Chakhs, from the Chakhs to the Yatvyaz and from the Yatvyaz to Lithuania, to the Germans, from the Germans to the Korela, from the Korela to Ustyug, where there is Byahu Toymitsi abomination, and beyond the Breathing Sea; from the sea to the Bulgarians, from the Bulgarians to the Burtas, from the Burtas to the Chermis, from the Chermis to the Mordvi - then everything was subjugated by God to the peasant language ... " .

Therefore, both in the understanding of Metropolitan Kirill, the author of the first edition of the “Chronicle”, and in the understanding of the author of “The Tale of Destruction” Russian land- is populated Orthodox by the people a land surrounded by non-Orthodox peoples. That is, the concept Russian land used in these two monuments in the broadest sense: and in relation to neighbors; and in a religious sense.

One gets the impression that if in the second half of the 12th - early 13th century, i.e. during the period of feudal fragmentation, concept Russian land was perceived in a narrow sense as the Kiev, Chernigov and Pereyaslavl principalities - the Middle Dnieper - (i.e. subordinate to two co-rulers Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich and Rurik Rostislavich as the heads of the Olgovich and Monomakhovich clans), then with the advent of the Mongol-Tatars, i.e. external enemies who conquered the Russian land, its borders expanded significantly, as evidenced by the “Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land.” And at the same time the concept of an Orthodox land is assigned to it .

Particularly noticeable is the combination of two concepts - Russian land and the Christian faith - occurs in the stories of the Kulikovo cycle, in particular, in “Zadonshchina”: “... Tsar Mamai came to Russian land...Princes and boyars and daring people, who left all their houses and wealth, wives and children and cattle, having received the honor and glory of this world, laid down their heads for Russian land and for the Christian faith." “And they naturally laid down their heads for the holy churches, for land behind Russian and for the peasant faith" etc.

Feeling themselves to be a biblical people, but a “new people” - Christian, ancient Russian scribes show the involvement of their Fatherland in the course of God-defined history.

In this regard, the entry of “Zadonshchina”, created at the end of the 14th century, is characteristic. or XV century : “Let’s go, brother, there to the midnight land - the lot of Afetov, the son of Noah, from whom he was born Rus Orthodox(a very significant addition, indicating a rethinking of the concept in a new, already Christian, time Rus. – A.U.). Let's climb the Kiev mountains and see the glorious Nepra and see throughout the Russian land. And from there to the eastern country is the lot of Simov, the son of Noah, from whom were born the Hinos - the filthy Tatars, the Busormans. You defeated the Afet family on the river on Kayal. And from then on the Russian land sat sadly..." .

The predetermination of such a development of events for the author of “Zadonshchina” is obvious: “And God executed the Russian land for his sins.” . It is also obvious for the author of “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamai”: “By God’s forgiveness for our sins, from the intoxication of the devil, a prince rose up from the eastern country, named Mamai, a Hellenic by faith (i.e. a pagan - A.U.), an idol priest and iconoclast, evil Christian reproacher" .

However, “thou hast become like the land of Russia to its mother’s sweet baby: the mother will comfort him, and the army will execute him with a vine, and good deeds will have mercy on him. Thus, the Lord God had mercy on the Russian princes... on the Kulikovo field, on the Nepryadva river. (...) And God had mercy on the Russian land, and countless numbers of Tatars fell.” . But many Russian soldiers also fell, and therefore Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich complains: “Brothers, boyars and princes and boyar children, then your place is narrowed between the Don and the Nepr, on the Kulikovo field on the Nepryadva river. And they naturally laid down their heads for the holy churches, for the Russian land and for the peasant faith. Forgive me, brothers, and bless me in this world and in the future." .

The author of “Zadonshchina” often uses the refrain “for the Russian land and for the peasant faith.” It should not be taken as a literary cliché. In the consciousness of ancient Russian man of the 15th century. concept Russian land was inextricably linked with the Christian (or rather, the Orthodox, i.e. Orthodox) faith. The “Brief Chronicle Tale” also testifies to this: “...Great Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, having gathered many people, marched against them (Mamai and his army - A.U.), although he defended his fatherland both for the holy churches and for the orthodox Christian faith and for the entire Russian land" . And in the “Long Chronicle Tale” Dmitry Ivanovich appeals to “his brother Vladimer and to all the Russian princes and governors: “Let us go against this okannago and godless, wicked and dark raw-eater Mamai for the right peasant faith, for the holy churches and for the whole child and the elders and for all the peasants that exist and do not exist; Let us take with us the scepter of the king of heaven, an invincible victory, and let us receive valor from Abram." . No less important is Prince Dmitry’s understanding of the feat of arms that takes place on the day of the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary: “Have come, brethren, the time of our battle; and the feast of Queen Mary, the Mother of God, the Mother of God, and all the ranks of the Lady and the entire universe and the honorable Nativity has come. If we live, we are the Lord’s; if we die for the world, we are the Lord’s.” . That is, whether we remain alive or die for the Orthodox, in both cases we belong to the Lord, we remain in His will.

The providence of the Lord is always felt by ancient Russian authors: “But our Lord God, the king and creator of all creatures, can create as much as he wants.” . But it is equally important for them to understand God’s predestination about the fate of the Russian land: “And God raise up the Christian race, and humiliate the filthy and disgrace their severity, as in former times Gideon over Midian and the glorious Moses over Pharaoh.” . A biblical retrospective analogy contributes to understanding the Providence of the Lord for the new Christian people. The Russian people are conceptualized as the bearer of the Divine will.

I wonder what liberation Rus' from the Khazar tribute occurs at the end of the “Old Testament period” - before the beginning of a new, chronological history. The liberation of the Russian land from the Mongol-Tatar tribute occurs at the “end of times” - before the end of the world expected at the end of 7000 years (in 1492).

It is in understanding the “last times” that the concept of the Russian people is formed as a new historical people - Orthodox, chosen by God for the “last times”.

With the fall of Constantinople, the capital of Orthodox Byzantium, in 1453, not a single independent Orthodox state remained. However, in 1480 Russian land freed from the Mongol-Tatar yoke and becomes an independent state. In ancient Russian works there is not a rethinking, but a consolidation of concepts: the concept Russian has become synonymous Orthodox: “That same summer (1453 - A.U.) Constantinople was taken from the Tsar of Turks from Saltan, and Russian faith did not repose, and did not bring down the patriarch, but one ringing in the city took away the Wisdom of God from Sophia, and in all the churches they serve the divine literature, and Rus they go to churches, and listen to singing, and Russian baptism There is"

Master Earth!

I bowed my forehead to you,

And through your fragrant cover

I felt the flame of my dear heart,

I heard the thrill of world life.

V. Soloviev

The cult of the earth is earlier than the cult of the sky: the idea of ​​celestial souls was formed later, and before that, people made requests to their buried parents, who were in the earth and, as it was believed, took care of the well-being of the living. The main birth force and a reliable shelter for the dead were united in the earth.

The Earth was presented as the universal source of life, the mother of all living things, including humans, Mother - Cheese-Earth. The expression “Mother - Cheese-Earth” emphasizes the connection of the earth with the element of water: only the earth blessed with heavenly rain is capable of producing a good harvest. In the mythical ideas of the Slavs, the Earth “closes itself”, falls asleep for the winter, and in the spring, awakening, it enters into a marriage union with Heaven, and after the first spring thunder, the Earth, fertilized by rain, again acquires the ability to give birth.

In some places, when starting to sow a field, the peasants said the following prayer: “Father Ilya, bless you to throw the seeds into the ground. You will water the mother, the damp earth, with chilly dew, so that she will bring grain, stir it up, and return it to me in a large ear.”

According to ancient beliefs, until the rye starts to sprout, the Earth is “heavy”, and at this time it was supposed to treat it with due respect and attention; it was forbidden to hit it with sticks.

In other parts of the world it was believed that on Spiritual Day (Monday after Trinity) the Earth is the birthday girl, and therefore she needs to be given rest. On this day there was no plowing, no harrowing, no digging. In some places, the “name day of the Earth” was celebrated on Simon the Zealot - the day after the spring St. Nicholas, the patron saint of agriculture (May 10/May 23). And they also said: “It’s a sin to plow the land on Simon the Zealot”; others, on the contrary, argued: “Sow wheat on the Zealot, like gold will be born.” On this day they collected herbs and roots for potions. And also on the day of the Apostle Simon the Zealot, they look for treasures, thinking that there is some connection between the Zealot and gold. But all this was already established in Christian times.

Popular ideas tried to humanize the Earth, comparing the wide expanses of land with a gigantic body, imagining grass, bushes, trees as the hair of the Earth; solid rocks, stones - her bones; water - the blood of the Earth; tree roots are its veins. And vice versa, legends about the origin of man say that the human body is taken from the earth and turns into it after death. These beliefs are described as follows in an ancient verse:

Our bodies are from the damp earth, Our strong bones are taken from stone, Our blood is ore from the black sea.

It was believed that the Earth as an organized outer space rests on an iron oak, resting on golden whales that swim in a river of fire. Probably the earlier image was the Whale-fish (Kytra-fish), which was also common in the Ancient East. It is preserved in the epic of the Dove Book**:

And the whale-fish is the mother of all fish, Why is that whale-fish the mother of all fish? Therefore, that whale-fish is the mother of all fish - The Earth is founded on seven whales.

According to another belief, only initially the Earth rested on seven whales, but after it became heavy from human sins, four whales went into the Ethiopian desert, and during the Flood, all the whales went there. And they also talk about the four original whales, and

The flood happens because the Earth sank into water because one of the whales died. After the death of the remaining whales, the end of the world will come. Sometimes there is a story about a whale on which the Earth rests. He is motionless, but if he floats, earthquakes occur on Earth due to his movements.

Whale fish trembles underground

(or: rolls over to the other side).

(Proverb, V. Dahl)

The earth has always been supposed to be clean. A special attitude towards the land was manifested in the fact that when eating in the field, peasants wiped their hands on it, attributing to it the same cleansing properties as water. According to the beliefs of the Eastern Slavs, dating back to the era of Ancient Rus', the righteous bosom of the earth does not accept anything unclean, therefore they did not bury sorcerers, suicides and those who were cursed by their parents (they were called “mortgaged dead”). There are stories about how the earth throws out the bones or coffin with the body of a sorcerer - a person who dealt with evil spirits. In epics and spiritual poems there is an episode when the earth refuses to accept the blood of a serpent shed by a hero or saint, and does this only at their request. A harmful, evil force in myths and folklore usually falls “through the earth” rather than remaining in it. That’s why the harsh oath was born: “I will fall through the ground.”

One of the most reliable and terrible oaths in Rus' was considered to be one in which they kissed or ate the ground. During boundary disputes, a person would put a piece of earth or turf on his head and walk along the boundary with it. The border drawn in this way was considered inviolable; if someone decided to deceive, then, according to legend, the earth began to crush him with terrible weight and forced him to confess to the forgery. The oath, during which the turf was held on the head, is mentioned in the Slavic insert in the translation of the “Words” of Gregory the Theologian (11th century) and dates back to pre-Christian antiquity. Respect for the earth was also reflected in the fact that if a person fell, he turned to the earth in this place so that it would forgive the pain caused to it. There was a custom to ask forgiveness from the earth in case of illness or approaching death.

The funeral was considered a return to the mother's womb of the earth, and in order not to desecrate the earth, Russian people, in case of mortal danger, put on clean underwear. The land in which ancestors were buried was especially revered. It was called "parental". After all, the earth, in the worldview of the Slavs, embodied not only the image of a person’s mother, but also the entire race as a unity of the living and those who had already passed on to another world. Funeral rites with their visiting and caring for graves, memorial meals at graves and at home, accompanied by an invitation to ancestors, were designed to maintain the unity of the clan and the continuity of generations. The ancestors lying in the earth seemed to merge with it, becoming part of it. The fertility of the land and the abundance of rainfall depended on their favor towards the living; people turned to them for help in difficult cases. Saving and cleansing properties were also attributed to the earth collected from seven graves of virtuous people.

Understanding the Motherland is also deeply connected with the image of the land. When leaving for a foreign land, Russian people took a handful of their native soil with them, carried it on their chests in a bag, and after their death they put it in the grave with them. When dying in a foreign land, they often bequeathed to be buried in their native land. Returning from a difficult exile, they bowed low first of all to the earth, knelt down and kissed it, fell to it as to their own mother.

The Eastern Slavs revered the land as holy; for example, the curse says: “The holy land would not have accepted him” or in the benevolence: “Be healthy like a fish, good like water, cheerful like spring, working like a bee, and rich like the holy land.”

There were many beliefs, signs, rituals, it is impossible to list them all, but one thing remains unchanged in them: the earth is man’s closest and reliable assistant, he is connected with it by strong ties and must take care of his mother earth.

Goy, the earth is damp,

The earth is maturing,

Our dear mother ecu!

ecu gave birth to us all,

Nourished, nourished

And endowed with land;

For the sake of us, your children,

Ecu gave birth to potions,

And I gave every grain to drink

Use Polga to drive away the demon

And help in illnesses.

Get rid of yourself

Various resources, lands,

For the sake of a belly rub.

If I were asked to summarize the idea of ​​the book in one sentence, it would be this: “The history of the Russians is the history of a successful people who have done enormous civilizational work on one-sixth of the earth’s land and created their own world.”

We will talk about the Russian world, because Russians have the same sacred right to comprehend their history as Georgians, Mongols, etc. And the space for comprehension is as huge as the space that the Russian people were able to master. We have watched so many good and bad films about the American frontier. What was filmed about how the Russians conquered space and created a country? Silence in response. This topic has never been particularly favored by popularizers of historical information. Looking for information on the Internet about some ancient Russian city, we are more likely to learn about which “fighter against the autocracy” drove tea there in exile than about those who built it, plowed the land around it and defended it from enemies.

The history of the conquest and development of spaces that created the largest country in the world,- this, paradoxically, is a silent story. Well, let's try to break the silence.

Two worlds, two colonies

Large-scale colonization, carried out in the interests of the Russian people by the Russian state, began in the middle of the 16th century.

This century (often expanded to the “long 16th century” - from the mid-15th to the mid-17th centuries) was marked by a sharp global transition from the “golden autumn” of the late Middle Ages to the aggressive, caustic New Age.

Capital enters the world stage, invades societies that lead a subsistence economy, rapes and destroys them, erases, like an eraser, peoples who are late in their development. Tens of millions of Native Americans were doomed to extinction, even in the most developed regions of the New World, where complex intensive farming technologies were used, such as chinampas (artificial islands).

In Europe, this was the time of the offensive against the peasants, which occurred with the confiscation of communal and small peasant land property. Property becomes sacred only when it falls into the hands of the powerful. The lords take away land from the peasants, the city capitalists buy up land from the lords. Masses of people are deprived of their own means of production and subsistence. The elites decide in their own way the issue of surplus rural population. Courts burn witches, send landless peasants who have become vagabonds to the gallows or into slavery on overseas plantations. Cities are flooded with hungry proletariat, forced to give their labor to the first employer they come across at any (that is, minimum) price. The proletarian has a “big choice” between the scaffold, the prison-workhouse, and such “free labor.”

“Free labor” is in fact the slavery of the robbed worker to the collective capitalist. The dictatorship of capital operates through the anti-worker “Workmen’s Statute,” the super-repressive “Vagabond Laws,” and the ruthless workhouse acts. Researchers indicate a sharp decline since the second half of the 16th century. standard of living in Europe, which was recently still littered with hams and sausages.

Even where the power of the lords (lords, barons) has been preserved, the peasants begin to work under pressure for the needs of the world market - the “second edition of serfdom” according to Marx, or “secondary serfdom” according to Braudel’s terminology, comes. Peanish corvee in Poland, Livonia, Hungary reaches six, then seven days a week. The peasant no longer has time to work on his plot and receives a monthly ration as a camp inmate. The lord, who sells raw materials to Hanseatic and Dutch wholesalers, is increasingly interested in the lands and serfs in the east, and the Polish-Lithuanian lordly community is conducting its “Drang nach Osten”, the colonization of Russian lands. Swallows Galicia-Volyn Rus', Polotsk land, the Dnieper region, jumps over the Dnieper, sneaks along the Smolensk-Moscow upland to Mozhaisk. The Russian peasant must ensure that the master of raw materials supplies the rapidly growing European market.

European religious wars, the hunt for “heretics”, “witches” and “tramps” (essentially, the robbed common people) - all this masks the advance of capital and claims millions of lives...

The death of the mass of the indigenous population in the colonies was largely a consequence of the destruction of public agricultural systems there, which was typical of the “wild” phase of the formation of capital...

The Russians could share the fate of the American Indians. And only its own colonization of new lands, service and peasant, which began on a large scale in the era of Ivan the Terrible, saved Russia from the invasion of Western capital. Made it the largest in the world in size and third in population (until 1991), brought it relatively fertile lands and mineral deposits, which are practically absent in the historical center of the country.

As M. Lyubavsky, the largest researcher of Russian colonization, pointed out, only 12% of its area was the result of conquest.

“In the history of the territorial formation of Russia, the home-building people should be in the foreground... and not the conquering people, not loud victories and treatises, but the seizure of lands and their settlement, the emergence of villages and cities.”

From the end of the 15th to the end of the 16th century. The territory of Muscovite Rus' quadrupled. Equally rapid growth continued into the next century.

The explosive territorial growth of Russia in the 16th–17th centuries. is explained not by the conquest of other cultures and civilizations, but by the spread of civilization and culture to those regions where previously savagery and emptiness reigned. Sometimes it was the return of civilization to where it had once been swept away by nomadic barbarians.

The expansion of Russian land was, in essence, the realization of a popular need. After the Kipchaks captured the Black Sea region and lost most of the lands south of the Oka in the 12th–14th centuries. The Russians were left with podzolic loams and sandy loams of the cold northeast and north of the East European Plain.

The short growing season in this region was exacerbated by the low amount of accumulated temperatures. In the middle of the 16th century. Summer in the Moscow region began in mid-June, and at the end of September the first frosts already arrived. There were about 110 frost-free days here; temperatures above 15 °C lasted 59–67 days. In Vologda there were 60 warm days, in Ustyug - 48.

“The main feature of the territory of the historical core of the Russian state from the point of view of agricultural development is the extremely limited period for field work. The so-called “no-till period” is about seven months. For many centuries, the Russian peasant had approximately 130 days for agricultural work (taking into account the ban on work on Sundays). Of these, it took about 30 days to make hay,” writes academician L.V. Milov. In Western Europe, only December and January were outside the working season. Even in northern Germany, England, and the Netherlands, the growing season was 9-10 months - thanks to the Gulf Stream and Atlantic cyclones. The European peasant had approximately twice as much time for cultivating crops and making hay as the Russian one. The long duration of the agricultural period gave Europeans the opportunity for uniform constant work, better tillage of the soil and, consequently, to increase productivity.

The short season of agricultural work determined the yields in Rus' on average sam-2, sam-3 for the most common crop - unpretentious rye. For one grain sown - 2–3 harvested; approximately 3 times less than in England at that time. This meant a very small surplus product, which, rather, went not to the market, but to the maintenance of warrior-defenders. The low marketability of agriculture also determined the slow development of cities.